Roch talks about filling 1B

[Stotle]

Lee isn't a big bat. He's a declining 35 year old player who's value was in his health, speed and power, all which have declined.

He no longer steals bases, and he's no longer a threat to hit 30 HR and he now has nagging injuries to deal with.

Giving essentially a 3 year deal to a 35 year old hitter with diminishing skills and who is now injury prone is just stupid.

And you are exaggerating how much it would take to get Fielder. A 6/150 or 7/175 contract will likely land him.

Just "wow". You don't see how one is potentially a very solid calculated risk and the other is potentially a huge gamble that could cripple your financial flexibility for 3 -4 years (using your numbers). Not surprising, but it kind of smacks me in the face when I read you making that earnest argument.

[Moose Milligan]

Lee isn't a big bat. He's a declining 35 year old player who's value was in his health, speed and power, all which have declined.

He no longer steals bases, and he's no longer a threat to hit 30 HR and he now has nagging injuries to deal with.

Giving essentially a 3 year deal to a 35 year old hitter with diminishing skills and who is now injury prone is just stupid.

And you are exaggerating how much it would take to get Fielder. A 6/150 or 7/175 contract will likely land him.

I could live with a 3 year deal for Konerko or VMart, but 2 plus a vesting option is just bad news for Lee.

You're neglecting the fact that he put up an .850 OPS in his time in ATL.

[Stotle]

You're neglecting the fact that he put up an .850 OPS in his time in ATL.

I tried already. If the 35 year old is not someone Trea wants, he is automatically declining. No counter arguments allowed.

Now, I'm not saying Lee is a safe bet, necessarily. But that's how you make smart FA moves. Kind of like BOS with Beltre this past winter.

[JTrea81]

Just "wow". You don't see how one is potentially a very solid calculated risk and the other is potentially a huge gamble that could cripple your financial flexibility for 3 -4 years (using your numbers). Not surprising, but it kind of smacks me in the face when I read you making that earnest argument.

What good is financial flexibilty if you never use it?

The goal is to win games, not to win with the cheapest talent.

They don't give trophies in baseball for saving money.

[Moose Milligan]

What good is financial flexibilty if you never use it?

The goal is to win games, not to win with the cheapest talent.

They don't give trophies in baseball for saving money.

The point is that if you lock up a player to a large contract like the one's you'd be giving out left and right, you'd have no financial flexibility left.

No one's arguing for the cheapest talent, we're arguing for the best bargains...and bargains aren't a bad thing, witness Tejada's first go-round.

[waroriole]

I tried already. If the 35 year old is not someone Trea wants, he is automatically declining. No counter arguments allowed.

Now, I'm not saying Lee is a safe bet, necessarily. But that's how you make smart FA moves. Kind of like BOS with Beltre this past winter.

I agree with you on Lee. That is a smart move, that could pay off big or end up being a mistake. However, if it is a mistake then you're out alot less than you would be by trading for and attempting to sign Fielder to a contract that convinces Boras not to test FA.

The first paragraph is the absolute truth, and I don't know why anyone ever attempts to converse with him.

[JTrea81]

I tried already. If the 35 year old is not someone Trea wants, he is automatically declining. No counter arguments allowed.

Now, I'm not saying Lee is a safe bet, necessarily. But that's how you make smart FA moves. Kind of like BOS with Beltre this past winter.

Beltre wasn't 35 going into 2010. He was 31 and they signed him to a 1 year deal with an option.

Hardly much of a risk there.

[JTrea81]

The point is that if you lock up a player to a large contract like the one's you'd be giving out left and right, you'd have no financial flexibility left.

No one's arguing for the cheapest talent, we're arguing for the best bargains...and bargains aren't a bad thing, witness Tejada's first go-round.

Bargains are fine when you look for a smart signing.

Matt Holliday would have been a bargain for instance or at least would have likely lived up to his contract, even at 7/140.

Derrek Lee on a two year deal at age 35 is not a bargain. And you simply do not overpay for a 35 year old.

Like I said, give that money to Beltre and just have Luke Scott play 1B if you want to sign Lee or Pena. Scott is likely to give you better production there than either of them.

[Moose Milligan]

Bargains are fine when you look for a smart signing.

Matt Holliday would have been a bargain for instance.

Derrek Lee on a two year deal at age 35 is not a bargain. And you simply do not overpay for a 35 year old.

Like I said, give that money to Beltre and just have Luke Scott play 1B if you want to sign Lee or Pena. Scott is likely to give you better production there than either of them.

It's not about overpaying dude...it's about length of the contract.

Trea, answer me this. Please don't duck this post like you normally would.

What would you do if you locked up Fielder to a 10/180 million dollar contract and he promptly blew out a knee and went into a sharp decline? What's the plan then?

[Stotle]

Beltre wasn't 35 going into 2010. He was 31 and they signed him to a 1 year deal with an option.

Hardly much of a risk there.

This post is a result of you not being able to understand that "smart" baseball moves involve different types of risk. Beltre's risk was performance, not age. You have done absolutely no research on Lee (or at least you haven't presented any) to support your claim that he is a bad risk due to his age and likely performance. You speak in generalities and treat those generalities is infallible. Worse, you aren't consistent with your generalities and have no issue flip-flopping with them when it suits your purpose.

In essence, you are the equivalent of a blow-hard in business that knows enough to speak with confidence on all kinds of issues, but when push comes to shove your ideas will often result in failure. Your confidence in your absolute rightness prevents you from ever seeing counter arguments, and thus you never learn, your tune never changes, and your approaches are never creative or thoroughly thought out. Excellent on a bar stool -- a trainwreck in the boardroom.

[Moose Milligan]

Matt Holliday would have been a bargain for instance or at least would have likely lived up to his contract, even at 7/140.

So you'd be cool with Matt Holliday at age 36 and 37 making about 20 million a year but you don't want Derrek Lee at age 36 and 37 making about 8-10 million a year?

[Stotle]

It's not about overpaying dude...it's about length of the contract.

Trea, answer me this. Please don't duck this post like you normally would.

What would you do if you locked up Fielder to a 10/180 million dollar contract and he promptly blew out a knee and went into a sharp decline? What's the plan then?

Or something even more likely -- his weight catches up to him as he starts to transition into his 30s!! How many players push 300 lbs are effective in general, let alone past age 30?!?!

[Stotle]

So you'd be cool with Matt Holliday at age 36 and 37 making about 20 million a year but you don't want Derrek Lee at age 36 and 37 making about 8-10 million a year?

Moose, I found a picture of your argument as seen from Trea's perspective:

[Moose Milligan]

Or something even more likely -- his weight catches up to him as he starts to transition into his 30s!! How many players push 300 lbs are effective in general, let alone past age 30?!?!

True, that's what I was getting at. I mean, what if we locked him up to a giant contract and landed Holliday last year?

Where's the financial flexibility to do anything thereafter? How would we unscrew ourselves from those deals?

[JTrea81]

It's not about overpaying dude...it's about length of the contract.

Trea, answer me this. Please don't duck this post like you normally would.

What would you do if you locked up Fielder to a 10/180 million dollar contract and he promptly blew out a knee and went into a sharp decline? What's the plan then?

First that contract is unrealistic.

Let's say 7/175.

And that is a risk that you take. But Fielder has been pretty consistent even despite carrying that weight. His father didn't fall off until age 32 and Prince is only 26. He's likely got 5 good years left in him at least.

You can't let an Albert Belle situation scare you away from a player. Most people were all ready to sign Teixeira to an 8 year deal I think and right now Prince is more valuable than Tex when he was this age, and he'll reach FA at a younger age.

LT contracts are always a risk, but with Prince, his best years are still likely in front of him. And the 5 years you get of good production are worth carrrying the extra two for the declining production.

The goal is to win within those 5 years. And with the length of contract you have for Roberts and Markakis, now is the time to take a risk like that.