Early signings laughable
Remember last year when our good friend Mr. Rhodes signed a 3/yr $13 million deal with Oakland to become their closer? And you couldn't help but laugh, right? I mean, that was a stupid deal for a guy who had shown zero ability to close in his career. Add to the fact he was old (indeed, he missed considerable time this year due to injury) and was coming off a terrible year, and the deal simply made no sense. A one year deal made sense- nothing more than that.
So far this year there have been a number of deals that strike me as being just as crazy.
Steve Finley. Does anyone think this guy will be injury free the next two years? If early reports are accurate at the type of money he is getting, then this deal will look awful next winter.
Jeff Kent. The deal maybe isn't laughable, but I thought the book was pretty well established on Kent. He does well when Bonds is on the team. He does well when he is in a hitters park surrounded by really good players. Dodger Stadium? At this age? I'd be more than a little surprised if Kent puts up numbers that match those dollars. Seems like more of a "name" signing.
Glaus. I like him more than Sexson, but it is hard to get excited at those numbers coming off the injury he just had. He is getting Eric Chavez money. Just goes to show how few decent 3rd basemen are available. He has hit more than .251 once? If he is indeed injury prone, this will kill Arizona and our good friend Bob Melvin.
So far the only deal signed that has a chance of the club getting more than what they paid might be Nomar. Otherwise, these deals are fine if the player hits to career highs- anything less and they look stupid.
The only positive is the money being spent is not on guys the M's need to be targeting.
Of course the other way to look at it is that clubs have way more money than what they are letting on. Didn't we hear Anaheim would be cutting salary this year? Isn't Arizona bankrupt? How could the Angels sign Vlad last year and actually be in the market for a $10 mil/year CF?
Could Scott Boras be right?
Remember last year when our good friend Mr. Rhodes signed a 3/yr $13 million deal with Oakland to become their closer? And you couldn't help but laugh, right? I mean, that was a stupid deal for a guy who had shown zero ability to close in his career. Add to the fact he was old (indeed, he missed considerable time this year due to injury) and was coming off a terrible year, and the deal simply made no sense. A one year deal made sense- nothing more than that.
So far this year there have been a number of deals that strike me as being just as crazy.
Steve Finley. Does anyone think this guy will be injury free the next two years? If early reports are accurate at the type of money he is getting, then this deal will look awful next winter.
Jeff Kent. The deal maybe isn't laughable, but I thought the book was pretty well established on Kent. He does well when Bonds is on the team. He does well when he is in a hitters park surrounded by really good players. Dodger Stadium? At this age? I'd be more than a little surprised if Kent puts up numbers that match those dollars. Seems like more of a "name" signing.
Glaus. I like him more than Sexson, but it is hard to get excited at those numbers coming off the injury he just had. He is getting Eric Chavez money. Just goes to show how few decent 3rd basemen are available. He has hit more than .251 once? If he is indeed injury prone, this will kill Arizona and our good friend Bob Melvin.
So far the only deal signed that has a chance of the club getting more than what they paid might be Nomar. Otherwise, these deals are fine if the player hits to career highs- anything less and they look stupid.
The only positive is the money being spent is not on guys the M's need to be targeting.
Of course the other way to look at it is that clubs have way more money than what they are letting on. Didn't we hear Anaheim would be cutting salary this year? Isn't Arizona bankrupt? How could the Angels sign Vlad last year and actually be in the market for a $10 mil/year CF?
Could Scott Boras be right?
posted by Tom at
3:26 PM
