Anyone have a link to MacPhail's Q&A from today?

[hoosiers]

All you keep pointing out is why Texas was a bad organization....none of which has anything to do with AROD.

Much like MacPhail, you are 100% incorrect.

Well, I guess a few things are clear:

- you are missing the points involved. A good front office in Texas would not have competed in 2001, 2002 and 2003 with ARod based on the Texas talent in the majors and minors entering 2000. I am not sure why you keep thinking everyone is dumping on the Texas front office at that time - other than for signing ARod. Texas finshed 2001 40 games behind Seattle with a worse farm system and another super quality team in Oakland. How much of that difference do you believe a strong front office is going to make up in two years?

- in the face of a mountain of evidence (wide gulf in the standings that accurately summarizes a wide talent gulf, obvious financial distress in Texas), you will provide none of your own other than cavalier generalizations. Maybe you could make an effort to bring up, in hindsight, the free agents who might have bridged the gulf between Texas and Seattle/Oakland had the $ been spent more productively or if the drafts had been conducted better (though they hit the mother-lode with Tex in 2001). IMO, that would only serve to support the points I am making about the task facing the Rangers in competing in that division at that time.

- While you have made clear the lack of effort you will put in to support your opinion, you have shown an obvious talent for outposting me in this thread so I'll finish here.

[Sports Guy]

Well, I guess a few things are clear:

- you are missing the points involved. A good front office in Texas would not have competed in 2001, 2002 and 2003 with ARod based on the Texas talent in the majors and minors entering 2000. I am not sure why you keep thinking everyone is dumping on the Texas front office at that time - other than for signing ARod. Texas finshed 2001 40 games behind Seattle with a worse farm system and another super quality team in Oakland. How much of that difference do you believe a strong front office is going to make up in two years?

- in the face of a mountain of evidence (wide gulf in the standings that accurately summarizes a wide talent gulf, obvious financial distress in Texas), you will provide none of your own other than cavalier generalizations. Maybe you could make an effort to bring up, in hindsight, the free agents who might have bridged the gulf between Texas and Seattle/Oakland had the $ been spent more productively or if the drafts had been conducted better (though they hit the mother-lode with Tex in 2001). IMO, that would only serve to support the points I am making about the task facing the Rangers in competing in that division at that time.

- While you have made clear the lack of effort you will put in to support your opinion, you have shown an obvious talent for outposting me in this thread so I'll finish here.

LOL. I am not sure what has happened to you but its very sad. You should finish because you are really embarrassing yourself in this thread.

End of the day, the AROD contract itself was a good one. What Texas did around him was poor. Denying that shows a lack of knowledge, understanding and common sense.

My support is obvious...Look at what Texas did around him. What they did around him has nothing to do with the AROD contract.

AM's point was wrong...First of all, AROD did move the needle..he did move attendance. Problem is, Texas did an awful job of capitalizing on that and the attendance dropped because they put poor teams on the field.

Secondly, when you say the AROD contract was the worst ever, you insinuate that the reason for it is because of what they couldn't accomplish because of that contract...That's bs. They could have..they were just very poor at it.

[hoosiers]

Oh and btw, the year they signed AROD, their attendance increased 250K from the previous year.

I've posted this twice already in this thread. Thanks for your research efforts.

Now I'm done with this thread.

[CrimsonTribe]

All you keep pointing out is why Texas was a bad organization....none of which has anything to do with AROD.

Much like MacPhail, you are 100% incorrect.

In a vacuum MacPhail is incorrect, but taking into account context and where the team stood at the time the contract was handed out, he is correct that it was an awful contract (maybe not worst ever, but close). He never said anything about not being able to build a winning ballclub with an AROD-esque contract on the books. Instead, MacPhail is making a point that most of the rational posters on this site make when we argue against signing a top tier free agent to a 60 win team. You don't make an investment like AROD or Tex or Pujols or whoever until you have a foundation in place and that player will put you over the top. No matter how productive that player is in a vacuum, you're throwing money away when you sign a player like that to a crappy team. It's like a homeless guy buying a big screen.

[Sports Guy]

In a vacuum MacPhail is incorrect, but taking into account context and where the team stood at the time the contract was handed out, he is correct that it was an awful contract (maybe not worst ever, but close). He never said anything about not being able to build a winning ballclub with an AROD-esque contract on the books. Instead, MacPhail is making a point that most of the rational posters on this site make when we argue against signing a top tier free agent to a 60 win team. You don't make an investment like AROD or Tex or Pujols or whoever until you have a foundation in place and that player will put you over the top. No matter how productive that player is in a vacuum, you're throwing money away when you sign a player like that to a crappy team. It's like a homeless guy buying a big screen.

Well let's put it this way...AM used horrible wording when saying this.

Calling the contract the worst ever is absurd.

First of all, he performed to the level of his contract..That in and of itself doesn't make it the worst ever. The deals like Zito, Neagle, Hampton, Carlos Lee, etc...Those are much worse contracts.

Secondly, he was wrong when he talked about the attendance. The attendance did go up. By Texas didn't capitalize on it. Again, not AROD's fault or the fault of the AROD contract.

The Rangers poor decision making and inability to build for the long term is why, IN HINDSIGHT, you can look back on the contract and say it wasn't worth it for Texas to sign him.

But, do you think Texas felt they were morons and had no idea how to build a team back then? Of course not. They felt they had a team that could contend with AROD.

The contract isn't even close to be the worst ever.

[El Gordo]

Well let's put it this way...AM used horrible wording when saying this.Calling the contract the worst ever is absurd.

First of all, he performed to the level of his contract..That in and of itself doesn't make it the worst ever. The deals like Zito, Neagle, Hampton, Carlos Lee, etc...Those are much worse contracts.

Secondly, he was wrong when he talked about the attendance. The attendance did go up. By Texas didn't capitalize on it. Again, not AROD's fault or the fault of the AROD contract.

The Rangers poor decision making and inability to build for the long term is why, IN HINDSIGHT, you can look back on the contract and say it wasn't worth it for Texas to sign him.

But, do you think Texas felt they were morons and had no idea how to build a team back then? Of course not. They felt they had a team that could contend with AROD.

The contract isn't even close to be the worst ever.

Given your tenous at best grasp of English, getting yourself exercised over the nuances of AM's "wording", is laughable.

[DannyO]

Well let's put it this way...AM used horrible wording when saying this.

Calling the contract the worst ever is absurd.

First of all, he performed to the level of his contract..That in and of itself doesn't make it the worst ever. The deals like Zito, Neagle, Hampton, Carlos Lee, etc...Those are much worse contracts.

Secondly, he was wrong when he talked about the attendance. The attendance did go up. By Texas didn't capitalize on it. Again, not AROD's fault or the fault of the AROD contract.

The Rangers poor decision making and inability to build for the long term is why, IN HINDSIGHT, you can look back on the contract and say it wasn't worth it for Texas to sign him.

But, do you think Texas felt they were morons and had no idea how to build a team back then? Of course not. They felt they had a team that could contend with AROD.

The contract isn't even close to be the worst ever.

Phil Wood commented on this post on MASN Wall to Wall just a few minutes ago. He said the Rangers did not surround AROD with support because they couldn't since they had no money left over.

[CrimsonTribe]

Well let's put it this way...AM used horrible wording when saying this.

Calling the contract the worst ever is absurd.

First of all, he performed to the level of his contract..That in and of itself doesn't make it the worst ever. The deals like Zito, Neagle, Hampton, Carlos Lee, etc...Those are much worse contracts.

Secondly, he was wrong when he talked about the attendance. The attendance did go up. By Texas didn't capitalize on it. Again, not AROD's fault or the fault of the AROD contract.

The Rangers poor decision making and inability to build for the long term is why, IN HINDSIGHT, you can look back on the contract and say it wasn't worth it for Texas to sign him.

But, do you think Texas felt they were morons and had no idea how to build a team back then? Of course not. They felt they had a team that could contend with AROD.

The contract isn't even close to be the worst ever.

You are correct, he could have worded it better, but I think it was a bit of hyperbole used for effect. And I believe that MacPhail did say that AROD performed under the contract so, reading into that, I think it is safe to assume that he wasn't talking worst ever in a performance received to dollars expended context.

I also don't think that Texas' front office thought of themselves as morons. Bad GMs never actually think or realize that they are bad. I'm sure they thought at the time that it was a good idea and that they had the proper foundation. Obviously they were mistaken. I also don't think it takes hindsight to figure out that the contract wasn't going to work out for Texas. As I remember (it was 10 years ago and I was in college and not following baseball nearly as closely as I am now so correct me if I'm wrong), there were a lot of people in the game who wondered what the heck Texas was doing signing him to a contract like that.

To be clear, I also don't think it was the worst contract ever, even with context included, but I just think that MacPhail was making a larger point.

[Sports Guy]

Phil Wood commented on this post on MASN Wall to Wall just a few minutes ago. He said the Rangers did not surround AROD with support because they couldn't since they had no money left over.

Well, Phil Wood is wrong.

They had no money left over because of the poor contracts they gave out around AROD. And because they didn't do what they should do in terms of building an actual organization, they struggled.

None of that had anything to do with the 25M being paid to AROD.

It had to do with their incompetence.

Again, if Texas had the plan back then that they do now, they could have easily won with AROD.

[El Gordo]

Well, Phil Wood is wrong.

They had no money left over because of the poor contracts they gave out around AROD. And because they didn't do what they should do in terms of building an actual organization, they struggled.

None of that had anything to do with the 25M being paid to AROD.

It had to do with their incompetence.

Again, if Texas had the plan back then that they do now, they could have easily won with AROD.

If they were to sign a position player for $250 MM today it would be just as stupid. They don't need an ARoid today, any more than they did then. They could use a couple of good SP.

[DrungoHazewood]

Phil Wood commented on this post on MASN Wall to Wall just a few minutes ago. He said the Rangers did not surround AROD with support because they couldn't since they had no money left over.

Sure. But it would be just as accurate to say that they had no money left over after spending $45M on essentially zero production, plus $22M on 9 wins of ARod. Yes, it's very hard to win when you've spent the league average in team salary and gotten nine WAR out of it, and you still have about 16 roster spots to fill.

[Stotle]

Sure. But it would be just as accurate to say that they had no money left over after spending $45M on essentially zero production, plus $22M on 9 wins of ARod. Yes, it's very hard to win when you've spent the league average in team salary and gotten nine WAR out of it, and you still have about 16 roster spots to fill.

Right. Clearly not the worst contract ever -- I don't even think it was close to a bad deal in and of itself. It was one of the best ways possible to spend $22million. Massive production out of one player and it looks like, based on past performance, it would have ended-up a solid deal all the way through. TEX's issue was poor decisions around ARod, including slapping on attempted quick fixes. No reason they couldn't have strung together a solid team if they gone about it the right way starting 2001.

That's cliche, but the point is that it wasn't the ARod deal that sunk the team. It was the god awful approach to team building.

[El Gordo]

Right. Clearly not the worst contract ever -- I don't even think it was close to a bad deal in and of itself. It was one of the best ways possible to spend $22million. Massive production out of one player and it looks like, based on past performance, it would have ended-up a solid deal all the way through. TEX's issue was poor decisions around ARod, including slapping on attempted quick fixes. No reason they couldn't have strung together a solid team if they gone about it the right way starting 2001.

That's cliche, but the point is that it wasn't the ARod deal that sunk the team. It was the god awful approach to team building.

In and of itself yes, but not for Texas in 2001, which I believe is AM's point. For them, spending $250 MM for a net gain of 0 W's, was a huge waste of money. He says nothing about the contract keeping Texas from spending elsewhere. He simply said in didn't work and because it was the biggest contact and a complete faiure in terms of what matters i.e. W's, it was the worst. I find it inetersting that someone who gets exercised over $3MM extra spent on Vlad, that might be better spent elsewhere, is defending $250 MM spent on ARoid, that should have been better spent elsewhere.

[Stotle]

In and of itself yes, but not for Texas in 2001, which I believe is AM's point. For them, spending $250 MM for a net gain of 0 W's, was a huge waste of money. He says nothing about the contract keeping Texas from spending elsewhere. He simply said in didn't work and because it was the biggest contact and a complete faiure in terms of what matters i.e. W's, it was the worst. I find it inetersting that someone who gets exercised over $3MM extra spent on Vlad, that might be better spent elsewhere, is defending $250 MM spent on ARoid, that should have been better spent elsewhere.

If you do, it's because you can't differentiate between:

1) Paying someone to come take over DH duties from someone that is younger, more productive, cheaper and already under control; and

2) Signing the best player in the game at the time to a deal that locks him up through the entirety of his most productive years for at least market value -- perhaps less than market depending on how you view $/WAR analysis

If you can't differentiate between those two situations, I cannot help you.

[El Gordo]

If you do, it's because you can't differentiate between:

1) Paying someone to come take over DH duties from someone that is younger, more productive, cheaper and already under control; and

2) Signing the best player in the game at the time to a deal that locks him up through the entirety of his most productive years for at least market value -- perhaps less than market depending on how you view $/WAR analysis

If you can't differentiate between those two situations, I cannot help you.

I would never have expected you to. Basically you think Vlad is a bad signing because he is not a player we need, and the money is better spent elswhere right? Do you believe that Texas could have found better ways to spend the $250 MM in 2001? Perhaps going with a younger cheaper SS, as we would have with Reimold/Pie and DH? Or was ARoid the best way for Texas to spend that money at that time?