Josh Hamilton market update - 3 years $60-75 million

[clapdiddy]

Ok mets are an example of bad spending...How about the Giants as an example? Or the Cards? Tigers made it to the world series...Rangers made it back2back years...Ok so after we ask the mets how spending worked out for them can we ask these other teams to?

How have any of the teams listed had "bad spending"? Sure, maybe a contract for each one that may be questionable, but many of these teams have built more from within and added pieces later.

[TradeAngelos]

Ok mets are an example of bad spending...How about the Giants as an example? Or the Cards? Tigers made it to the world series...Rangers made it back2back years...Ok so after we ask the mets how spending worked out for them can we ask these other teams to?

I could destroy his little strawman argument but it isn't worth one second my time.

Teams that spend money have success, that is a fact.

[Winter]

How have any of the teams listed had "bad spending"? Sure, maybe a contract for each one that may be questionable, but many of these teams have built more from within and added pieces later.

Ok so you agree with me

[DrinkinWithFermi]

How have any of the teams listed had "bad spending"? Sure, maybe a contract for each one that may be questionable, but many of these teams have built more from within and added pieces later.

Dang. Beat me to the punch.

I have no problem with spending money on free agents as long as it's done in a careful, well-thought-out manner. Giving Josh Hamilton $20-25 million dollars a year for 4 or 5 years, however, is more like playing Russian Roulette.

[weams]

Do you work for the federal government?

The contracts absolutely do matter. If we waste all of our finite money on one incredibly risky player that doesn't perform/stay healthy, that's less money left over to improve other areas or re-sign important players heading for free agency. This isn't franchise mode on MLB The Show for PS3. Real teams don't get to go into the options menu and click the box for "Ignore Budgets." Ask the New York Mets how well that strategy works.

Ok mets are an example of bad spending...How about the Giants as an example? Or the Cards? Tigers made it to the world series...Rangers made it back2back years...Ok so after we ask the mets how spending worked out for them can we ask these other teams to?

How have any of the teams listed had "bad spending"? Sure, maybe a contract for each one that may be questionable, but many of these teams have built more from within and added pieces later.

Dang. Beat me to the punch.

I have no problem with spending money on free agents as long as it's done in a careful, well-thought-out manner. Giving Josh Hamilton $20-25 million dollars a year for 4 or 5 years, however, is more like playing Russian Roulette.

[sevastras]

Ok so you agree with me

They missed the fact that the teams you listed after the Mets were teams that created a nice nucleuos of players and then spent around them to end up winning.

[clapdiddy]

Ok so you agree with me

No...actually I don't. You implied that those teams were "bad spending", when in fact they weren't like the Mets at all. They didn't dish out ridiculous contracts to everyone under the sun. They built their teams with mostly their own talent and added on from there.

The only team that regularly "buys" pennants is the Yankees.

EDIT: And even the Yankees have core guys that they developed and hung onto.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

I could destroy his little strawman argument but it isn't worth one second my time.

Teams that spend money have success, that is a fact.

You seem to have your definitions mixed up- "strawman" doesn't mean "sound logic that completely eviscerated my argument."

Now, "this isn't a contest to see who can get the most value out of a contract," that's a fine example of a strawman argument.

[weams]

You seem to have your definitions mixed up- "strawman" doesn't mean "sound logic that completely eviscerated my argument."

Now, "this isn't a contest to see who can get the most value out of a contract," that's a fine example of a strawman argument.

Actually, it is a handicapped horse race. Some teams have a weight advantage. But if Secretariat comes along, it probable will not matter which jockey is aboard him. So in a sense, it is who can get the most bang for the resources that are allocated to them. Extrapolated to infinity, or at least the length of the average human life span, under current rules each team should have a chance to play meaningful October baseball a time or two. But a team that seriously overspends and has an unlimited ability to keep funding the ponzi game will be more successful. More often. A Russian Oligarch could buy a could championships, A South African Diamond mine owner. Mark Zuckerberg. Not Peter Angelos. He does not have those resources. Or the Time.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

They missed the fact that the teams you listed after the Mets were teams that created a nice nucleuos of players and then spent around them to end up winning.

Which the Orioles have done. I'd prefer that we didn't throw it all away by signing Josh Hamilton to a very expensive, VERY risky, potentially franchise-crippling contract.

[Dark Helmet]

Which the Orioles have done. I'd prefer that we didn't throw it all away by signing Josh Hamilton to a very expensive, VERY risky, potentially franchise-crippling contract.

Just curious, where have the O's spent money around the core? A lot of folks said signing Matt Holliday would cripple the O's. Yet it not only hasnt crippled the Cards, they managed to win a WS. The philosophy all along was to not spend until a solid core was built. Now they have built a solid core. But now the philosophy is not to spend, so they can afford to keep the team together. Its always a new excuse.

[weams]

Just curious, where have the O's spent money around the core? A lot of folks said signing Matt Holliday would cripple the O's. Yet it not only hasnt crippled the Cards, they managed to win a WS. The philosophy all along was to not spend until a solid core was built. Now they have built a solid core. But now the philosophy is not to spend, so they can afford to keep the team together. Its always a new excuse.

Actually, Matt Holliday would have been one out of 25 saviors who have been floated around here that would not have crippled the Orioles. He's been pretty good.

[weams]

Actually, Matt Holliday would have been one out of 25 saviors who have been floated around here that would not have crippled the Orioles. He's been pretty good.

At the time, do you think he would have preferred to come here instead of St. Louis. How many 50 million more than he got would it have take for him to enjoy the teams we were producing?

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Just curious, where have the O's spent money around the core? A lot of folks said signing Matt Holliday would cripple the O's. Yet it not only hasnt crippled the Cards, they managed to win a WS. The philosophy all along was to not spend until a solid core was built. Now they have built a solid core. But now the philosophy is not to spend, so they can afford to keep the team together. Its always a new excuse.

I was referring to building the young core, which we have done superbly. If there was someone available worth spending a fortune on to augment it, I would be all for it. But Josh Hamilton ain't that guy. Matt Holliday at age 30 with a clean bill of health might be but that type of player isn't available right now. The guy that is only played in 75.8% of the games during his age 26-31 seasons. And now he's going to be 32 and he's looking for 4 years or more at a salary that would represent 20% or more of our entire payroll.

[Winter]

No...actually I don't. You implied that those teams were "bad spending", when in fact they weren't like the Mets at all. They didn't dish out ridiculous contracts to everyone under the sun. They built their teams with mostly their own talent and added on from there.

The only team that regularly "buys" pennants is the Yankees.

EDIT: And even the Yankees have core guys that they developed and hung onto.

um no I was telling the person I quoted that after we ask the mets how their spending went can we ask the giants, tigers, cards, rangers...not sure y u think i'd imply that those teams spent badly when u can clearly see the question marks