Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Blue Jays - Signed Wells

Toronto Blue Jays - Signed CF Vernon Wells to a 7-year contract.

This contract comes in at a hefty $126 million.  Is Wells overpaid at this price?  Certainly - in his off-years, he’s a really good player, not a great one.  But this is the type of player you overpay, a player that you can’t easily develop on the farm.  As a GM, I should be able to produce players that are as good as Gary Matthews Jr. or Juan Pierre.  To develop players as good as Vernon Wells, on the other hand, I also need a little bit of fortune to go my way.  What the Jays need to do, however, since they’re never going to be an insane revenue-generating team, is show some belt-tightening at the margins.  That means doing things like not even giving a million to an utterly useless player like Royce Clayton.  It means not paying part of Koskie’s salary to make him go away because you’re impatient and hanging onto pitchers like Doug Davis and Dave Bush.  It means finding your own LOOGY instead of Scott Schoneweis If the Jays can cut merely $3 million a year in marginal players each year of Wells contract, suddenly it’s a 7 year, $105 million contract which looks much, much nicer.

The contract is heavily backloaded after an opt-out clause, so the Jays have a nice window where they better use the savings intelligently as Wells isn’t getting paid like a superstar until 2010 - with the signing bonus, he’ll still make a maximum of $10 million up until 2010 when the salary plus the last year of the bonus sends his compensation up to $20 million.

As noted in one of the threads, Wells isn’t a little guy, so the Jays should do their utmost to keep Wells’ weight from going up too much unless it results in him adding the serious power that would make him a viable $20 million player (in 2010 that is) in leftfield.  However, this isn’t one of those Bagwell/Helton signings in which the player’s looked up until 40 as Wells will only be 35 at the end of the contract and there’s obviously no chance of a Dominican Surprise here.

This is a good move for Ricciardi personally as well.  Very few GMs last more than 10 years with a team unless there are some playoff appearances.  So either Ricciardi gets the Jays to the playoffs over the Red Sox and Yankees and he gets a big reputation boost or he doesn’t, gets to enjoy some cheap years of Wells and leaves the big money contract for his successor to deal with.  GMs are rarely given credit for the team they leave behind, for good or for ill.

Seriously, even if Wells was getting $20 million right now, what else could the Blue Jays get for that money?  Gil Meche and Jeff Suppan?  I’ll take the gold glove centerfielder in his prime with good offensive numbers, thank you very much.

2007 ZiPS Projection - Vernon Wells
———————————————————————————————————
          AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Projection   601 86 171 34 3 30 103 54 89   9 .285 .344 .501
———————————————————————————————————
Opt. (15%)  623 101 188 39 5 36 129 62 85 12 .302 .366 .544
Pes. (15%)  511 63 137 25 2 21 71 40 82   5 .268 .319 .448
———————————————————————————————————

 

 

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 16, 2006 at 06:48 PM | 69 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. snakestl Posted: December 16, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2263228)
Any ZIPS for the rest of the contract?
   2. Daryn Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2263253)
It is the player opt out clause that I hate -- why take all the risk; this way it can never be a great contract for the Jays. If Wells plays well and salaries continue to skyrocket, he'll just leave.
   3. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2263261)
It is the player opt out clause that I hate -- why take all the risk; this way it can never be a great contract for the Jays. If Wells plays well and salaries continue to skyrocket, he'll just leave.

If Wells opts out, the Jays will have paid him about $13.5MM a year for five years, and gotten production out of him that would make Wells think that he's worth over $21MM a year on the open market. If Wells opts out, this is an AMAZING deal.
   4. Walt Davis Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#2263264)
If #3 is accurate, that's the sort of opt-out clause I can live with. Also there are probably worse things for a team than a player opting out of a $21 M contract -- even in 2011, you ought to be able to find a decent replacement for that kind of money.
   5. APNY Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#2263274)
If he opts out its a 4 yr 63M deal and they dont have to pay him 63M for his 33-35 yr old seasons
   6. a wider scope of derision Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2263280)
It is the player opt out clause that I hate -- why take all the risk; this way it can never be a great contract for the Jays. If Wells plays well and salaries continue to skyrocket, he'll just leave.


Yeah, I don't get it.

Why teams continue to give player opt-out clauses after what we've seen this off-season baffles me. Drew was slightly overpaid when he signed with deal with the Dodgers, but by the time he could opt out he was slightly underpaid, at which point the Dodgers no longer had a RF. Same thing with Aramis and the Cubs. Let me put it this way... if Wells is good (ie. worth the massive cash outlay), he'll opt out because the market will have caught and surpassed him. If he declines, he'll be a $20M albatross that the team can't even trade.
   7. APNY Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2263281)
I'd bet the backloading prevents Wells from opting out.

By winter 2011 defensive analysis will be way more advanced and accepted, and by then i'd bet Wells is either a bad CF or a LF. For that, even in 2012, 3 yr 63M will be hard to walk away from.
   8. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#2263285)
If Wells opts out, the Jays will have paid him about $13.5MM a year for five years, and gotten production out of him that would make Wells think that he's worth over $21MM a year on the open market. If Wells opts out, this is an AMAZING deal.

Yeah, the actual contract terms are explained in the Newsblog article. It's a very oddly-structured deal - in 2008 and 2009, he basically gets paid almost all in a lump-sum in March, and the deal's exceptionally backloaded, making the opt-out less likely and probably less painful to the Jays if he does take it. It seems like a very good deal for the Blue Jays to me - and from Wells' perspective, it's hard to argue that a deal that guarantees you $126 million isn't a great deal.
   9. APNY Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2263287)
As for being an untradable albatross, thats the price you pay for getting him so cheap in years 1-4, and backloading always makes good financial sense (as MHS showed in the other thread).
   10. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#2263288)
If he declines, he'll be a $20M albatross that the team can't even trade.

In theory, the Jays could invest the $5-$10 million per year in surplus value that Wells is bringing in for the next three years and use it to cover whatever negative value he's bringing by the end of this contract.
   11. Daryn Posted: December 16, 2006 at 08:55 PM (#2263289)
By winter 2011 defensive analysis will be way more advanced and accepted, and by then i'd bet Wells is either a bad CF or a LF. For that, even in 2012, 3 yr 63M will be hard to walk away from.


Whether or not the going rate is 30 million a year or 10 million a year, the player opt out guarantees that the Jays can't get a good deal for the last 3 years. They are either stuck with an albatross contract or he walks. Post #3 completely and utterly misses the point, while also falsely including 2007 in the equation.
   12. a wider scope of derision Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:02 PM (#2263291)
In theory, the Jays could invest the $5-$10 million per year in surplus value that Wells is bringing in for the next three years and use it to cover whatever negative value he's bringing by the end of this contract.


I guess. Ricciardi has to get into the post-season in the next year or two to justify the current payroll to his bosses. That's gonna be tough to do without a starting shortstop or three fifths of a credible rotation.

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if 2007 comes down to Dustin McGowan. Is he traded for help up the middle (Reed + McGowan for Bill Hall? Seriously)? Do they keep him and he finally harness his stuff and turns into a credible starter? Or does he continue to stagnate back and forth between Syracuse and Toronto?
   13. APNY Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#2263297)
They are either stuck with an albatross contract or he walks.

But eliminating the opt out doesent prevent the albatross potential.

The opt out just means that if Wells is really good, both offensivly and defensivly, this ends up as a 4/63 deal, then they have a decision to make on a 33 yr old Wells.
   14. tomseaver Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2263300)
The best way to think about an opt out contract is as an option, similar to an option on a stock. By back loading the contract, the Blue Jays have set the strike price of the option fairly far of the money. As such, it is much less valuable than an option that is set closer to the money. As they are getting the value of his prime years at a below market rate, this opt out clause doesn't really bother me too much. In general, I hate opt out clauses, but more teams should structure them like this if players keep insisting on them.
   15. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2263310)
I think this will be a very good deal from 2007-2010, and then an albatross afterwards, but hey, JP probably won't be around for that, so let someone else clean it up!
   16. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2263313)
I guess. Ricciardi has to get into the post-season in the next year or two to justify the current payroll to his bosses. That's gonna be tough to do without a starting shortstop or three fifths of a credible rotation.

Tying to this, one thing that's under-appreciated around here, I think, is that revenue lags performance in a lot of cases. White Sox attendance jumped 26% in 2006, while the team won 9 fewer games than the year before, because, of course, they were coming off of a World Series win in 2005.

If the Jays make the playoffs and especially if they win a World Series in the next three years, then Wells' $20m+ salaries from 2010 onward probably become a lot more affordable, because the Jays' attendance will be stronger and they could well be making more in local TV/radio money depending on when contracts for those things are signed.

Now, that said, while retaining Vernon Wells increases the Jays' odds of making the playoffs (although arguably not for 2007, since they already had him), playing Royce Clayton at shortstop probably more than offsets that.

But, as others have said, backloading a contract is a good thing.
   17. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2263316)
Whether or not the going rate is 30 million a year or 10 million a year, the player opt out guarantees that the Jays can't get a good deal for the last 3 years. They are either stuck with an albatross contract or he walks. Post #3 completely and utterly misses the point, while also falsely including 2007 in the equation.

And your viewpoint excludes everything but the last three years of the contract. Either the Jays get him at a bargain price for four years, or they get him for $18 million for seven years. The $21 million at the end of the deal can't be considered without looking at the $500,000 base salary at the beginning of it.
   18. Danny Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#2263322)
The $21 million at the end of the deal can't be considered without looking at the $500,000 base salary at the beginning of it.

But you can consider the backloading of the contracts separately from the opt-out clause. One is good for the team, and one is bad.
   19. APNY Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2263325)
And since I spent 80 f'n bucks on the HP12C, i'll add that the backloading makes the present value of this contract $83.6M
   20. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2263326)
But you can consider the backloading of the contracts separately from the opt-out clause. One is good for the team, and one is bad.

Conversely, the backloading of the contract is bad for Wells, while the opt-out is good for him. If the cost to the Jays of backloading the deal was the opt-out clause, then you have to consider them together. At which point, I think this is a good deal for both sides.
   21. Shock Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2263327)
They are either stuck with an albatross contract or he walks.

These are not the only two possible scenarios. There is also:

-Wells performs like a 18-20M player in the later years of the contract (who knows what a 20M player will be then,) and the deal ends up being bretty decent value for both sides.

-Wells performs well enough that he could opt-out for more money, but chooses not to because he wants to stay in Toronto.
   22. bibigon Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2263328)
But, as others have said, backloading a contract is a good thing.


Is there ever a situation when backloading a contract isn't a good thing?
   23. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: December 16, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2263331)
Is there ever a situation when backloading a contract isn't a good thing?

I guess if some team in the 20s had signed a deal which backloaded into the 1930s, that would kinda suck.
   24. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 16, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#2263338)
I guess if some team in the 20s had signed a deal which backloaded into the 1930s, that would kinda suck.


How so? Did the value of a dollar increase from the 20's to the 30's? What if a german soccer player signed a long, backloaded contract in 1921?
   25. bibigon Posted: December 16, 2006 at 10:46 PM (#2263348)
I guess if some team in the 20s had signed a deal which backloaded into the 1930s, that would kinda suck.


You make a strong case for the reserve clause.
   26. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2263407)
Other points:

- it is possible, if Vernon has played well enough to opt out, that he still would stay in Toronto. It's good news that he wanted to stay here, it means he somewhat likes it here. And why wouldn't he? Nice city, great team (Halladay, etc.). And it proves Keith Law wrong!

- the deal is brilliantly structured so his optout phase is right when the new CBA must be done. If you haven't noticed a pattern, salaries tend to become hugely inflated during the formation of a new CBA, hopefully because of economic strength of the game. Salaries could dip then pop back up there by 2011.

- another factor is that he wanted to play with his best friend Michael Young at some point. Either he opts out for his hetero life mate, or Michael Young comes here after 2008 (which is just when some big salaries for the Jays start to end, like Glaus)...and the Jays still don't have a long-term SS solution. Also, I suspect the opt-out was just in case he didn't enjoy it here totally and wanted to go to Texas or wherever. He could still do that at the end of the contract anyway, and its unlikely this team would become the next KC Royals. Also, for Wells to walk away, he wouldn't necessarily have to trump the dollar value of the final 3 years (21/year), only the TOTAL sum...Let's say he's good enough to get elsewhere, at the age of 33, another 5 year deal worth $85 million.
   27. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 12:18 AM (#2263413)
that projection was too big. Another 5 year, 80 million, which is 16 per year, and 17 million more. Now that I think about it, thats not the greatest argument. Walking away from 21 AAV for 16...But meh, its a side point.
   28. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2263415)
Also, with the next Daisuke Matsuzaka signing, that is symbolic and literally a pointer to a healthy economic MLB by the next CBA, what with more international fanfare and media...
   29. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: December 17, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#2263448)
If you haven't noticed a pattern, salaries tend to become hugely inflated during the formation of a new CBA

The Rodriguez, Jeter, Ramirez, Helton and Hampton contracts were signed in the winter of 2000-01. The last CBA took effect two years later.
   30. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 17, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2263460)
Any ZIPS for the rest of the contract?

I'm really torn about doing this - the accuracy of projecting 2010 or 2014 is going to be pretty horrid based on so many factors and I don't know if I want to tarnish ZiPS, which I feel is a good projection system, with projection that I know are going to be horrid, if that makes any sense.
   31. Flynn Posted: December 17, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#2263537)
What the Jays need to do, however, since they're never going to be an insane revenue-generating team, is show some belt-tightening at the margins.

Why? It's not like they have a whole country to themselves or anything.
   32. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:11 AM (#2263562)
It was only 13 years ago that the Blue Jays were an insane revenue-generating team. Market demographics militate against them somewhat, but I don't see any serious reason they can't get back to drawing four million people a year. People around here had a lot of fun with the Blue Jays when the Jays were winners (and before the strike).
   33. akrasian Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:26 AM (#2263573)
There are limits, though, to how much of this they can practically access. They'd need some superstation-type thing, which MLB would be very unhappy with.

Would it have to be a superstation? Are teams allowed to sell tv rights outside of their immediate area, so long as it doesn't conflict with another team's territory? I could have sworn they did this for radio, at least.
   34. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:33 AM (#2263579)
Are teams allowed to sell tv rights outside of their immediate area, so long as it doesn't conflict with another team's territory?

Well, I'm sure parts of Canada are in other teams' territory, though - Detroit, Seattle, perhaps Minnesota come to mind as American teams that probably have geographic territories in Canada.
   35. J. Michael Neal Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:58 AM (#2263596)
How so? Did the value of a dollar increase from the 20's to the 30's?

Yes. Inflation rates from 1928-1940, in percentages:

1928 -1.38
1929 0.00
1930 -2.51
1931 -8.80
1932 -10.31
1933 -5.12
1934 3.32
1935 2.54
1936 0.95
1937 3.61
1938 -1.88
1939 -1.42
1940 1.01

Persistent inflation is a very recent (Post WWII) phenomenon. Prior to that, there were long deflationary periods. Good data is hard to come by, but the entire period from 1865 (end of the civil war) to 1900 almost certainly saw negative average inflation.

Some persistent inflation is, I think, a small price to pay for avoiding the ridiculous volatility in the economy that existed before folks started listening to Keynes.
   36. mr. man Posted: December 17, 2006 at 10:35 AM (#2263675)
the blue jays DO have a superstation-type thing; it's called rogers sportsnet. you may have heard of it, they own the jays.

Here in vancouver we got maybe 150 jays games on cable this year (including TSN) and perhaps only 40-50 mariners games. The mariners had a little support here when they were good in the late 90s but it's really petered out since. The jays could have the biggest potential fan base of any team in baseball.
   37. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 17, 2006 at 11:23 AM (#2263678)
Baseball hasn't done much changing of territory in recent decades, so I'd be surprised if the Tigers' territory has extended to include any of Ontario. It didn't in the early 90s, not even Windsor, which broadcast the Blue Jays on radio, though it didn't have a local TV carrier. The CTV station in Sarnia, well under 100 miles from Detroit, carried what at that time was a large slate of Jays games.
   38. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#2263764)
The people I know from Windsor or near there root for the Tigers, and usually have the Jays as second.
   39. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2263767)
Also, I work at the Rogers Centre and I see people all the time from Halifax, usually out East, that are big Jays fans and have come to see a long-awaited game.

I also see a lot of Europeans - its the first thing people do when they come from England, Australia or what not, maybe because its so iconic or there isn't much else to do in Toronto?
   40. The Mighty Quinn Posted: December 17, 2006 at 05:59 PM (#2263769)
There are limits, though, to how much of this they can practically access. They'd need some superstation-type thing, which MLB would be very unhappy with.

The Blue Jays have access to ALL of Canada as their exclusive broadcast territory. They do not share this region with any other MLB team. This is a potential market of 34 million individuals ( probably the largest single market in the league).The Jays are owned by a large media conglomerate that also owns the "Fox" regional sports network equivalent for Canada. The team generates 400,000-500,000 viewers per game, which I understand is in the top five in all of baseball( I'd love to know the exact numbers for all teams, are they indeed at the top? ). Further benefit is accrued as the Canadian government mandates that a certain percentage of programming must be "Canadian" in origin to keep the Yankee imperialists at bay, Blue Jay broadcasts are considered to be home grown and are an extremely lucrative Canadian content anchor for the various regional Rogers Sports Networks.
   41. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2263785)
Yeah it does seem that proportionally the Jays have a great TV audience, but a middle of the pack attendance record as of late. One reason that 4 million people came in the early 90's every year was the Rogers Centre. Probably with a new stadium, the team would be drawing a ton of more people. I'm not saying they should do this - in fact, I think the Rogers centre has been upgraded quite nicely so that it's top half in the league of ballparks still...even though it was the first modern one.
   42. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#2263787)
I wonder if there are any other ideas or methods people know of to turn TV viewers into tickets sold?
   43. MSI Posted: December 17, 2006 at 08:55 PM (#2263869)
That optimistic projection is exactly the neighboorhood of what I think he can prdouce next year.
   44. kwarren Posted: December 18, 2006 at 02:35 AM (#2264022)
Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if 2007 comes down to Dustin McGowan. Is he traded for help up the middle (Reed + McGowan for Bill Hall? Seriously)?

Why can't the Jays just sign Marcus Giles,since they are apparently made of money now, and move Hill to shortstop, thereby not having to give up any players.
   45. kwarren Posted: December 19, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2264563)
And it proves Keith Law wrong!

I don't see this at all. Until the Blue Jays came along with their $126 M Wells had given no indication at all that he liked Toronto, wanted to remain a Blue Jay, or had any inclinatin to re-sign with the Jays.
   46. danjulien Posted: December 19, 2006 at 02:17 AM (#2264632)
kwarren, he had stayed at the end of the season that he would once again sign an extension if the contract was fair market value.
   47. Johnny Tuttle Posted: December 20, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#2265380)
</I>

The talk, kwarren, is that Hill is a marginal SS but a potential GG at 2B.

Bill Hall would be a coup. Milwaukee would be smart to listen, that's for sure. They're so deep they could trade him....
   48. Johnny Tuttle Posted: December 20, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#2265381)
<I></I>
   49. A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2265454)
I don't see this at all. Until the Blue Jays came along with their $126 M Wells had given no indication at all that he liked Toronto, wanted to remain a Blue Jay, or had any inclinatin to re-sign with the Jays.

Law didn't say that Wells wasn't going to resign with the Blue Jays unless they came along with a fair market offer. He stated Wells was as good as gone and that there was no chance of him resigning. Of course Wells wouldn't resign for $50M/5. The team was going to have to pony up the money to keep him.

And what sort of indications should Wells have given that he liked Toronto? Walked around with an I Heart T.O. t-shirt? Run for mayor? Become a Canadian citizen?
   50. Dr Love Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:02 AM (#2265468)
I wonder if there are any other ideas or methods people know of to turn TV viewers into tickets sold?

I guess they could do a series in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver or even Ottawa, but I'm not sure if there are the necessary facilities for that. One three game series isn't going to upset fans in Toronto or throw the players off like it did when the Expos had to play in Puerto Rico, and I'd imagine something like that would be a pretty good draw.
   51. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 13, 2009 at 01:57 PM (#3291396)
Vernon Wells! Not a lot of teeth gnashing about this at the time, it appears.

edit: Lots of italics, though
   52. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: August 13, 2009 at 02:11 PM (#3291416)
Seriously? nobody can fix this?
   53. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: August 13, 2009 at 02:11 PM (#3291417)
There.
   54. RollingWave Posted: August 13, 2009 at 02:20 PM (#3291433)
it turns out that even in his 13M years he's either hurt and/or playing horrifically. now he is entering his 20m years , unless he mercifully opt out to save face. the Jay's are really really screwed for the next 5 season.

Lesoon of the day: unless you think a guy is on a pretty obvious HOF (or at least borderline) trajectory, you don't make him one of the highets paid AND longest signed guys in baseball
   55. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:55 PM (#3388829)
Dewey, Local Boy, I don't like to use the word hero much, but you are the greatest hero in BTF history.
   56. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3388832)
I was much happier before I was reminded just how badly I missed the target at this point.

As a weak and feeble defense, he was pretty damn good in 2006 and while I did worry a little about him being a fairly big centerfielder, it's not like he was some 33-year-old TTO sloth.
   57. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:04 PM (#3388841)
I wouldn't go crying into your bowl of iced cream over this one. Everybody missed the target. At the time I remember thinking that Wells had a legitimate chance to be the best player in baseball over the life of the contract.
   58. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:28 PM (#3388866)
This isn't our fault. This is Vernon Wells' fault. What the hell, Vernon?
   59. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:39 PM (#3388876)
Well-put, T&B;.
   60. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:43 PM (#3388883)
I guess if some team in the 20s had signed a deal which backloaded into the 1930s, that would kinda suck.

Or a team in 2006, signing a deal which backloaded into Great Depression II.
   61. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: November 17, 2009 at 06:36 AM (#3389182)
Bill Hall would be a coup. Milwaukee would be smart to listen, that's for sure. They're so deep they could trade him...

Ah, 2006.
   62. PreservedFish Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:04 AM (#3389196)
Love that the italics problem went 2.5 years before being solved
   63. Shock Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:42 AM (#3389213)
I was much happier before I was reminded just how badly I missed the target at this point.

As a weak and feeble defense, he was pretty damn good in 2006 and while I did worry a little about him being a fairly big centerfielder, it's not like he was some 33-year-old TTO sloth.


Meh.

As I've posted before, there is basically no difference whatsoever between the Wells signing and the Torii Hunter one, except Wells is younger and got 2 years more because of it. I'm not in shock that one of them bombed, though you'd think it would be the older guy. Meh. Vie.
   64. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:46 AM (#3389217)
It seems like a bigger difference if you think of it as "36 million more dollars" than "2 more years".
   65. Shock Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:49 AM (#3389219)
Up til now it's the same.
   66. Tripon Posted: November 17, 2009 at 08:16 AM (#3389229)
I'd think you'd be a lot more happier if the Blue Jays were able to sign Torii Hunter over Vernon Wells.
   67. Shock Posted: November 18, 2009 at 03:15 AM (#3390068)

I'd think you'd be a lot more happier if the Blue Jays were able to sign Torii Hunter over Vernon Wells.
'

No ####. But that wasn't my point.

The point is that if you're going to say that the Wells signing looked bad *at the time*, then you have to say the same for Torii. To make a difference without using hindsight is impossible.
   68. Chicago Joe Posted: January 24, 2011 at 06:20 AM (#3735252)
Just thought I'd bring this up again.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7603 seconds
49 querie(s) executed