Making "No" Sound Like "Yes"

[mdbdotcom]

He answered the same question later with slightly different language. I am sure Dan will spend what he wants to. He never said that ownership said he could not spend. In fact. He indicated strongly the other way. He did indicate that all the money offered to Davis would not be spent in one place. Or in one year.

Doesn't that pretty much rule out Upton?

[El Gordo]

He answered the same question later with slightly different language. I am sure Dan will spend what he wants to. He never said that ownership said he could not spend. In fact. He indicated strongly the other way. He did indicate that all the money offered to Davis would not be spent in one place. Or in one year.

The question is was the "all the money" he was referring to, 21M or 150 M?

[weams]

Doesn't that pretty much rule out Upton?

How much does Upton want and for how long. They said they were interested. Both Buck and Dan. They also said we would have seven or six picks dependent on Davis. So.

[Dark Helmet]

So if they may not spend what Davis would cost in one year, that rules out Upton or Gordon. And probably any SP worth signing.

[El Gordo]

I trust both, but I strongly doubt that weams would make up the comment about the 8 years. It looks to me like weams' version is an exact quote, while Roch's looks more like a synopsis. No?

Not saying Weams would make it up. But he could hear or interpret differently.

[weams]

Not saying Weams would make it up. But he could hear or interpret differently.

Dan answers the same question multiple times throughout the day. I am sure Roch is on top of it.

[El Gordo]

Dan answers the same question multiple times throughout the day. I am sure Roch is on top of it.

Seems no one is on top of it because we don't seem to know whether we are talking about 21 M or 150 M. Which do you think it is?

[Number5]

He answered the same question later with slightly different language. I am sure Dan will spend what he wants to. He never said that ownership said he could not spend. In fact. He indicated strongly the other way. He did indicate that all the money offered to Davis would not be spent in one place. Or in one year.

Well, since Davis obviously was not going to be paid $150 million this year, when he is talking about spreading what Davis would have gotten over 8 years, it seems clear to me that he is talking about the $22 million annual salary increase. He is talking about increasing the salary budget by, like, $3 million a year. That would have undoubtedly happened anyway, don't you think? I'm sorry, but this has brought me down big-time, and I was really flying high. Looks like we are down to looking at guys like Venable as our big signings.

[El Gordo]

Well, since Davis obviously was not going to be paid $150 million this year, when he is talking about spreading what Davis would have gotten over 8 years, it seems clear to me that he is talking about the $22 million annual salary increase. He is talking about increasing the salary budget by, like, $3 million a year. That would have undoubtedly happened anyway, don't you think? I'm sorry, but this has brought me down big-time, and I was really flying high. Looks like we are down to looking at guys like Venable as our big signings.

Why couldn't it mean we aren't necessarily going to offer Upton 7/150? Or 21M per? Or 30 M this season and 10 next etc.? We'd be hard pressed to sign Venable for 3M.

[Number5]

Why couldn't it mean we aren't necessarily going to offer Upton 7/150? Or 21M per? Or 30 M this season and 10 next etc.? We'd be hard pressed to sign Venable for 3M.

We would be signing a few additional lower-cost players anyway. If we don't have the $22 million earmarked for Davis to spend, however, we will simply get yet another low-cost guy instead. No real replacement in the lineup for Davis. You aren't seeing this?

[El Gordo]

We would be signing a few additional lower-cost players anyway. If we don't have the $22 million earmarked for Davis to spend, however, we will simply get yet another low-cost guy instead. No real replacement in the lineup for Davis. You aren't seeing this?

No I am not. I am seeing we can spend the money designated for Davis, though not necessarily all of it. So maybe that means 18 M for Gordon or 16 M for Span and Alvarez.

[Pickles]

No I am not. I am seeing we can spend the money designated for Davis, though not necessarily all of it. So maybe that means 18 M for Gordon or 16 M for Span and Alvarez.

That's the optimistic way to look at.

[Number5]

No I am not. I am seeing we can spend the money designated for Davis, though not necessarily all of it. So maybe that means 18 M for Gordon or 16 M for Span and Alvarez.

If DD was talking about spending that kind of money on a player, which is pretty close to what we would have paid Davis, there would be no reason whatsoever to throw in caveats about spreading the money out over 8 years and not all to one player. The very fact that he said those things makes it pretty clear to me that there is no intention to spend the Davis money on a real replacement. Hey, I would love to be reading this wrong, but his words tell me otherwise.

[El Gordo]

That's the optimistic way to look at.

And yours is a pessimistic way. That's why it needs clarification. Right now it's ambiguous.

[Pickles]

And yours is a pessimistic way. That's why it needs clarification. Right now it's ambiguous.

History suggests it's not all that ambiguous.

Ol' number 5 explains it pretty well.