Author Topic: General Offense Discussion  (Read 12921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11422
  • Troll So Hard University
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #500: May 16, 2012, 09:20:22 AM »
InsideBoast's source says Hamilton to the Nats. Should be announced within 24 hours.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15297
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #501: May 16, 2012, 09:26:10 AM »
I view hamilton the same way I viewed prince- he'd be great for a couple of years at almost any price, but the out years could end up crippling the team. If the rumors about short term with obscenely high AAV are true, great, but he's wrong side of 30 with a history of serious substance abuse- somehow, I don't see him aging well

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11422
  • Troll So Hard University
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #502: May 16, 2012, 09:31:30 AM »
Every offensive player is getting more years than they deserve because of the bidding wars. I don't see why Hamilton will be any different. If he continues at this rate some team will roll the dice and take on a contract that's obscenely long.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33886
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #503: May 16, 2012, 09:41:00 AM »
I view hamilton the same way I viewed prince- he'd be great for a couple of years at almost any price, but the out years could end up crippling the team. If the rumors about short term with obscenely high AAV are true, great, but he's wrong side of 30 with a history of serious substance abuse- somehow, I don't see him aging well

At what point does the present take precedent over a mythical future?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15297
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #504: May 16, 2012, 09:55:37 AM »
At what point does the present take precedent over a mythical future?


when the owners are willing to support a payroll high enough to absorb the out years without negatively effecting the team on the field

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #505: May 16, 2012, 10:03:58 AM »
At what point does the present take precedent over a mythical future?


lol agreed.

i find it funny that some of the same people who nag about the offense, nag about possible solutions.

i'd take anyone over ankiel/bernadina options right now.  and espinosa too.

hamilton would be awesome, but it's a pipedream.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33886
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #506: May 16, 2012, 10:07:22 AM »
I'm not even saying sign Hamilton... just pointing out that it always seems these discussions split one of two ways.

1. Pay the man his money.

2. Don't pay him, what about the payroll in 20xx.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #507: May 16, 2012, 10:09:48 AM »
I'm not even saying sign Hamilton... just pointing out that it always seems these discussions split one of two ways.

1. Pay the man his money.

2. Don't pay him, what about the payroll in 20xx.

yeah remember the payroll is so high right now.  the lerners should be applauded for turning a bottom of the barrel payroll to top of the bottom of the barrel payroll!

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #508: May 16, 2012, 10:11:15 AM »
Lindy - correction - "think of the 21XX payroll".

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24799
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #509: May 16, 2012, 10:11:17 AM »
when the owners are willing to support a payroll high enough to absorb the out years without negatively effecting the team on the field

What team does has that ability? Maybe the Yankees, but even now we are seeing the effects of it.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #510: May 16, 2012, 10:11:54 AM »
The Detroit Tigers are on the phone for you.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15297
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #511: May 16, 2012, 10:15:31 AM »
What team does has that ability? Maybe the Yankees, but even now we are seeing the effects of it.

the giants, red sox, and like mds said tigers all fit in that category, the angles and dodgers could be there if they choose to be along with the rangers and cubs

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #512: May 16, 2012, 10:16:25 AM »
If the Phillies sign Hamels add them to the list.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24799
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #513: May 16, 2012, 10:21:32 AM »
Hang on, high payroll sustained AND not negatively effecting the team on the field?


Tigers, sure, but we won't really see until the last years of Cabrera and Fielder deals. The Yankees, sure, but even now they're being affected by it.

The Giants have a very young team, similar to the Tigers. Red Sox are failing despite their high payroll.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #514: May 16, 2012, 10:23:10 AM »
Nobody gives a rat's ass. At some point you have to pull the trigger and take on some bad contracts to get the pieces you need to make at least ONE run.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11919
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #515: May 16, 2012, 10:24:29 AM »
Nobody gives a rat's ass. At some point you have to pull the trigger and take on some bad contracts to get the pieces you need to make at least ONE run.



Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #516: May 16, 2012, 10:25:52 AM »
That's one piece, this team needs a lot more than just Mr. Jennifer Utley to really make a run.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15297
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #517: May 16, 2012, 10:28:39 AM »
Hang on, high payroll sustained AND not negatively effecting the team on the field?


Tigers, sure, but we won't really see until the last years of Cabrera and Fielder deals. The Yankees, sure, but even now they're being affected by it.

The Giants have a very young team, similar to the Tigers. Red Sox are failing despite their high payroll.

the giants have Zito and won despite Rowland (high at the time, a joke now), the red sox and yankees may be floundering but do you doubt they will do something to recover? Then look at the twin- absolutely screwed with Mauer, the Astros still trotting out Lee eating 1/3 of their payroll. I want them to sign big names, but not until they're willing to go way north of $100 million per. As far as the tigers go, they've been over $100 million per since 2008 and they are a generally competitive team

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13628
  • They see me rollin', they hatin'.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #518: May 16, 2012, 10:30:55 AM »
They were also absolutely dreadful in 2003 and were in the WS three years later thanks to some pick ups, young studs, and trades.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24799
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #519: May 16, 2012, 10:49:06 AM »
the giants have Zito and won despite Rowland (high at the time, a joke now), the red sox and yankees may be floundering but do you doubt they will do something to recover? Then look at the twin- absolutely screwed with Mauer, the Astros still trotting out Lee eating 1/3 of their payroll. I want them to sign big names, but not until they're willing to go way north of $100 million per. As far as the tigers go, they've been over $100 million per since 2008 and they are a generally competitive team

I would argue that Zito and Rowand have cost the Giants at least one playoff run if not more. Quite simply, that money could have bought them an offense.

I don't doubt they will do something, however both clubs have stated they intend to rebuild thier farm systems and not pay the luxury tax. So the question is what are they going to do? So far, it seems that they are going to try and trade for parts they need. And so far, that has backfired on them. Now, obviously, at any time, they can afford to eat the contracts.

The Tigers are young. I'm more interested in what will happen when Miggy, Prince and Justin are mid 30s, not peforming, but still getting paid a ton of money. Will the Tigers be willing to trot them out AND try and sign big name free agents?

MDS - Tigers payroll was only 82 million that year :stir:

Offline Gleason2

  • Posts: 773
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #520: May 16, 2012, 11:06:40 AM »
That was less than 2 years ago but Werth looks 10 years younger in that photo.


Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11422
  • Troll So Hard University
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #521: May 16, 2012, 11:37:13 AM »
Because he's relatively clean shaven and had a fresh haircut.

I wonder if he went clean cut just because of free agency.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24799
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #522: May 16, 2012, 01:36:58 PM »
Because he's relatively clean shaven and had a fresh haircut.

I wonder if he went clean cut just because of free agency.

True. Danny Espinosa probably gets carded all the time when he's clean shaven

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24799
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #523: May 16, 2012, 09:16:38 PM »
Last few games, Nats have had some good offense. Zimmerman and LaRoche being back probably has something to do with it

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30122
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #524: May 16, 2012, 09:52:58 PM »
You may be able to "buy an offense" with money saved not spending on big FAs, but it won't necessarily be a good or even average offense.