Thing I will not understand about this offseason #2936
I'll have to recheck the math on that tally later, but Ken Rosenthal reports the following this morning (or afternoon given when I woke up and read it):
Besides the obvious gaffe of Randy Wolf not being anywhere near that value, and the shear idiocy of investing $24 million him when for four more million you could have Ben Sheets (seriously, what the HELL is our front office doing?), there is something hugely alarming to me.
Why/How could you be prepared to offer someone $22-24 million dollars and then suddenly go, "Oops, we forgot to look at our books, turns out we're going to have to pinch every penny this offseason, but we're really glad you didn't accept that offer...we would have been f***ed"?!?!?! How could we one day have had an offseason plan that included spending that much on such a bad pitcher and then because he priced himself out of our range and into the range of Ben Sheets (worth every penny at that range) only to then suddenly abandon that plan via a realization that we're broke?
There's no way we really needed to unload Wigginton if we were going to drop that much on Wolf. There's no way we can' truly afford Sheets if we were going to drop that much on Wolf. There's no way we need to chose this bastardized middle ground between contending and fire sale.
Our front office, is full of shit—that's my take at least.
0 recs |
8 comments
Comments
Wolf is for 3 years
I assume you’re thinking Sheets at around 28 for 2. I’m sure the response from the powers that be to your question would include the question of whether Sheets will pitch for those 2 years.
by ol Pete on Dec 19, 2008 11:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I should’ve added that for 22-24, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Brewers sign him. He’s been listed by DM the GM as a possible signing.
by ol Pete on Dec 19, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am thinking $28 million for 2 years
However, I’d reply to the powers that be with: Is Randy Wolf going to pitch all three years too?
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by DyingQuail on Dec 19, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i understand your frustration
howeva’ your last statement assumes competence…and that my friend is something they lack. Sheets at 2 @ 20mil should get it done, there’s no logical reason not to. Full fledged boycott time?
by Aron on Dec 19, 2008 11:52 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Too true
sigh
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by DyingQuail on Dec 19, 2008 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sheets can get around 15 for one year in Milwaukee
I’m guessing he’s fishing for 3 around 45 to 48 million. Maybe two will get it done. I think given the FA class next year, he should just go for one.
by ol Pete on Dec 19, 2008 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All indications are that McLane pulled the rug out from under Wade.
That is speculation, but it is the only explanation which fits the facts we see. I think Wade believed he had a larger budget…up until roughly the time that the Wolf negotations were ended. Why else would he have re-signed Brocail and Hawkins, moves which now seem like luxuries in comparison to the current approach? It appears that McLane withdrew his support for the plan that Wade was pursuing and told him to cut the budget.
by clack on Dec 19, 2008 8:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think you're right
And I think the fact that Wade responded by toe-ing the company line and trying to drum up excitement for Jason Michaels means that he will have a job in this town for a long time. Drayton loves him some loyalty.
by AstroAndy on Dec 19, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 























