Comments on: Pay up

By: joser

joser — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:03:33 +0000

While it is annoying that we are overpaying for mediocre pitchers, at least now we know that those kinds of mistakes arent going to be made anymore in the future.

While I generally agree, let’s not assume things are now going to be perfect forever. The new regime seems far less likely to be fooled, but they can still make the occasional mistake; more to the point, they can make smart decisions that still don’t work out. Guys get hurt, things happen (just ask Tampa Bay about Josh Hamilton). And if they don’t bring the team back into contention fast enough and attendance plummets, the ownership group could panic and clean house yet again.

I’m heartened: even a losing team that’s making smart decisions leaves me more optimistic than a wining team that clearly doesn’t understand what’s going on (see 2007). I think the team may be in the best hands in its history, in fact, but “anymore” is a mighty long time. Though maybe I’m just allergic to rose-colored glasses.

By: terry

terry — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:37:51 +0000

Anyone can get lucky once…where is the position player?

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:11:25 +0000

Fair enough

By: DMZ

DMZ — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:10:30 +0000

It wasn’t part of the bet conditions. The bet was about setting a bunch of pretty high bars for standards and predicting there’d still be someone who got well under it.

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:05:38 +0000

“Sure he wouldn’t have signed here but that’s not at all the point.” – Why isn’t that revelant?

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:55:27 +0000

While it is annoying that we are overpaying for mediocre pitchers, at least now we know that those kinds of mistakes arent going to be made anymore in the future. Having those contracts just means it’ll take until 2010 or 2011 to get good instead of sooner. But whats important is that once the Mariners get good, they’ll stay good.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:53:05 +0000

You’re provably wrong. The Twins claimed him on waivers. There was no way for them to back out of the “deal” had the M’s decided to let the claim go through.

Also: it’s a follow-up on a bet with pretty specific parameters. If you want to argue with the bet term, or with us trying to follow up on predictions, that’s one thing. Accusations of bad faith are unwelcome.

By: pshmidget

pshmidget — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:38:38 +0000

Oh please, get a life! Washburn’s “deal” was never going to happen. The Twins were only going to pull the trigger on that deal to keep the Whitesox from snagging him – and when it looked like the deal wasn’t going to happen the Twins eased off the panic button.
And to compare stats with a pitcher who was NEVER EVER going to come here of his own free will is just a phony arguement for the sake of stirring things up. Let’s move on, shall we?

By: spliffbowl

spliffbowl — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:09:32 +0000

Johnson did not stay with the D’Backs because they were only offering him like 3-4 million. Hoffman left because he felt insulted that the owner would not meet him personally to discuss a contract for next year, plus they were not offering him as much money as he ended up getting from Milwaukee. Smoltz pretty much left for more guaranteed money, and probably a better chance at winning.

By: vj

vj — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0000

I keep wondering why Johnson did not stay with the Diamondbacks. In fact, there have been a few odd changes of players long tenured or otherwise tied to one franchise. Besides Johnson, I am thinking of John Smoltz and Trevor Hoffman.