WastinSomeTime
Well-Known Member
Stranger things have happened but on paper it does not look good for tonight. Verlander vs Shelby Miller looks like a serious mismatch.
Considering that team already has witnessed the downside of the mega contract via Pujols, the fans would likely have understood. BUT, you better be deep in the playoffs within 3 years.Yeah, but Beltre was not 12 years at $430 million or all of us would have said trade him. If Trout's skills diminish in 5-6 years they are going to still be paying a boatload of money. To me that franchise just does not learn from Vernon Wells, to Pujols and now this.
Agree. You have to think they would have gotten a decent package for Trout. And besides the money I just am not into those really long term contracts. I just think that back end of the contract could hamstring a team.My preference is always to trade to the mega super star if your system needs restocking. I realize most will say "bird in hand" and all that, but if we had Trout and our current system I'd trade him. Why would he want to stick around and spend his best years rebuilding, and we have YEARS until we are ready to go. I could go get a couple of big FA's with the money he would cost and you could start the price at "your top 5 prospects" or "top 3 prospects and 1-2 ML youngsters".
They have to be betting that in 8 years the cost of all contracts will be so high that his will look normal, if not a bargain. I know old farts like me have been saying this for a while, but the money has to top out at some point. There is a point where TV money stagnates, you can't raise parking or tickets any more, and concessions just aren't bringing in the bucks. The growth of contracts will have to stall out at some point.The question is will he ever take them to a WS while soaking up the money for the next decade? If not, what is the point? If he fails, flipping him will be impossible. Was a terribly bad move on LAA IMO.
See...Choo.Agree. You have to think they would have gotten a decent package for Trout. And besides the money I just am not into those really long term contracts. I just think that back end of the contract could hamstring a team.
The difference in them and us is that they can have bad contracts and it doesn't paralyze their finances. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted us to do the same kind of thing because it would have paralyzed us. Then again, I was pushing for us to get prospects for Beltre and his contract wasn't paralyzing our finances. I wish we would have started our rebuilding then or maybe even in the offseason before then.Yeah, but Beltre was not 12 years at $430 million or all of us would have said trade him. If Trout's skills diminish in 5-6 years they are going to still be paying a boatload of money. To me that franchise just does not learn from Vernon Wells, to Pujols and now this.
Probably the Choo factor or at least some of it.From what little I’ve seen so far this year, I think pence should get more at bats then he does.
Cabrera may be our most valuable trade chip by far.