O's sign Jeremy Accardo? (Rogers SportsNet)

[Crazysilver03]

I understand that the reason this man was signed was to not have to pay $$$$.

$ - Symbolizes currency that is used to get a player to put on your uniform. By paying little, you get little, by paying more, you get more. Next lesson

Next lesson.

Teams need middle relievers, those that will come in during the 4th inning when someone gets knocked out early or come in when the team is getting blown out. You don't pay $$ for those players.

[theobird]

Ok..but you aren't.

He wasn't worth the contract we gave him and his last year in Baltimore/Detroit, he was worth the same as what Izzy was worth last year...And that makes you right? Is that supposed to be taken seriously?

I think he would have been the best hitter on our team last year, if we had kept him. Would you have liked to have had Huffs production on our team last year at first base? Yes or No.

[Crazysilver03]

Yes I was, and I still regret that we shipped him to Detroit for nothing. And the last time I looked, Huff was the #4 hitter for the World Champs, so I still think I was right.

Why?

He was horrible that final season with us and was even worse for Detroit.

SF got him off the scrap heap and lucked out that he bounced back.

[Sports Guy]

I think he would have been the best hitter on our team last year, if we had kept him. Would you have liked to have had Huffs production on our team last year at first base? Yes or No.

Sure..But what he did last year has no bearing on whether the contract we gave him was worth it.

And no way, after having an awful 2009, do you re-sign Huff..of course, no way do you bring in Atkins either but that's a different discussion.

[Ven6]

I think he would have been the best hitter on our team last year, if we had kept him. Would you have liked to have had Huffs production on our team last year at first base? Yes or No.

He wouldn't have been under contract last year, so it wouldn't have been a matter of "keeping him". We would've had to go out and sign him. We, and every other club had that chance, and every one but the Giants passed.

[weams]

Why?

He was horrible that final season with us and was even worse for Detroit.

SF got him off the scrap heap and lucked out that he bounced back.

Like a dead cat.

[mweb]

Were you stoked when we signed Aubrey Huff?

You were pretty happy about it.:scratchchinhmm:

[Frobby]

Were you stoked when we signed Aubrey Huff?

You supported it at the time, as did I. He wanted 4/$36mm and we waited it out and signed him for 3/$20mm. It seemed like a solid deal at the time.

Like you, I see LaRoche as similar to Huff, but he's been a bit more consistent year to year. I'd be disappointed if we had to commit to 3 years. And I still prefer Lee. But I won't puke if we sign LaRoche.

[DrungoHazewood]

I understand that the reason this man was signed was to not have to pay $$$$.

$ - Symbolizes currency that is used to get a player to put on your uniform. By paying little, you get little, by paying more, you get more. Next lesson

Are you aware that money is finite and that human beings in possession of finite amounts of money will have to pick and choose how they spend it? And that spending small or moderate amounts of money on things that are of secondary or tertiary importance is often described as, well... reasonable.

[Moose Milligan]

You were pretty happy about it.:scratchchinhmm:

You supported it at the time, as did I. He wanted 4/$36mm and we waited it out and signed him for 3/$20mm. It seemed like a solid deal at the time.

Like you, I see LaRoche as similar to Huff, but he's been a bit more consistent year to year. I'd be disappointed if we had to commit to 3 years. And I still prefer Lee. But I won't puke if we sign LaRoche.

Good memories, fellas...SG was pretty amped about it. :laughlol:

[Sports Guy]

Good memories, fellas...SG was pretty amped about it. :laughlol:

But me being happy about it at the time is meaningless to this conversation.

My point in bringing up Huff is that LaRoche and him are similar offensive players...Huff isn't as good defensively but had more versatility.

By WAR, he wasn't worth his contract and in 2 of the 3 years, he severely underachieved.

LaRoche is similar to that IMO...So, if you could go back in time, knowing what you know now, would you still sign Huff to that same 3 year deal? I know i wouldn't...And I think there is a chance that we will have to give LaRoche a 3 year deal to come here..but for more money.

Now, I say that with an assumption that the Nats will go at least 2 years and perhaps 3 years.

[TGO]

Well guys, that's about as close as we get to SG saying "I was wrong." May as well pack it up and go home. The Hangout is officially over. :laughlol:

[TakebackOPACY]

From a Mailbox Response from Mike Griffin; Toronto Star.

At the time he was sent down last July 31 to make room for the just acquired Roenicke in the Scott Rolen deal, Accardo stormed out of Cito Gaston's office and threw his Jays' hat in a clubhouse garbage can bolting before the clubhouse opened to media. It was sitting there when we came in. Call me Sherlock. But before Accardo could catch his flight from 'Frisco to Vegas, Scott Downs went down with one of his injuries and Accardo was called back. That was kind of uncomfortable and I don't think Cito has forgotten.

Accardo has always felt that his service time has been manipulated to always keep him a year further away from free agency allowing the Jays to control him. He's right. He ended the '09 season two days shy of four years in the majors. Go figure.

Griffin: Life tosses curve at Jeremy Accardo from Mike Griffin of the Toronto Star (Jan. 2010)

a wedding date in Arizona, with invited guests already on the ground that was mysteriously called off less than 24 hours before the Nov. 14 ceremony.

...Muddying the waters surrounding the last-minute wedding bailout have been Internet rumours of a possible pre-nuptial agreement that was presented to but not signed by Accardo designed to protect the significant assets of the bride's well-established west coast family. Carly is the niece of Rogers vice-chairman Phil Lind, the company that owns the Jays.

On throwing his Blue Jays cap in a clubhouse trash can:

"Yeah, I didn't think I'd be needing it any more," he admitted of his momentary frustration.

That night, Scott Downs re-injured himself and Accardo's demotion was quickly and quietly reversed. They gave him a new hat.

[isestrex]

Sounds like he's very happy to get out of Toronto and might have a little chip on his shoulder when playing the Jays.

[Frobby]

But me being happy about it at the time is meaningless to this conversation.

My point in bringing up Huff is that LaRoche and him are similar offensive players...Huff isn't as good defensively but had more versatility.

By WAR, he wasn't worth his contract and in 2 of the 3 years, he severely underachieved.

LaRoche is similar to that IMO...So, if you could go back in time, knowing what you know now, would you still sign Huff to that same 3 year deal? I know i wouldn't...And I think there is a chance that we will have to give LaRoche a 3 year deal to come here..but for more money.

Now, I say that with an assumption that the Nats will go at least 2 years and perhaps 3 years.

When we acquired Huff, he was a 30-year old player whose career line was .285/.342/.477, 115 OPS+. He was coming off a season of .267/.344/.469. I'd say we were hoping he could match his career numbers, even though he'd be 30-32 years old, because the flag court at OPACY would play well for him and he had always hit well in Baltimore.

Since that day, Huff has hit .280/.349/.474, 115 OPS+. Unfortunately for us, that includes his very good 2010 season in San Francisco. As an Oriole, he hit .282/.341/.473, 112 OPS+. Still, I can't say that he was a huge disappointment based on those numbers, just a mild one. It would have been nice if he'd performed a little more steadily, as opposed to having one mediocre year, one excellent one and one poor one.

Now on to LaRoche. He will be 31 next season, has a career line of .271/.339/.488, 114 OPS+. Last year he hit .261/.320/.468, 106 OPS+. The analogy to Huff is very apt. One point in LaRoche's favor is that he's a bit more consistent than Huff, having never had an OPS under 100 or over 130 (Huff had ranged from 74 in his first full season to 145 in 2003). One point against LaRoche is that he's never played any significant time in the AL, whereas Huff had experience and some success in the AL East.

Overall, if we get LaRoche, I'm expecting an OPS in the 105-115 range. Solid, but not spectacular.