0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
no i know what ya meant.
Their ERA was pretty much identical.Perez 4.31 ERAWolf 4.30 ERASure Wolf went a little deeper into games but Perez would have had basically the same amount of wins and everything if he was pitching for Houston. Perez is also a few months younger than Wolf. Wolf costs a lot more than Perez too.
sportsfan's ragepost count is inversely proportional to the number of wins the team gets, so of course he doesn't want us to improve, it might threaten his lead in the forum stats
Randy Wolf....oh, freak it. Why not? I'm getting tired of all this. The team isn't going to pick up any long term pieces during this off season. As long as they don't sign them to ridiculously long contracts, freak it."Wolf" would look cool on the back of a jersey.
I thought we weren't looking at free agent pitchers? I guess none of the top tier ones then?Eh, i agree with eagleskins though, Ben Sheets would be money to go after. We like taking risks though don't we?
Especially with the name "Winston" in front of it."I solve problems."
And signing one of the most injured pitchers in baseball wouldn't be a risk?
We like relying on Nick Johnson enough why not just sign a greatly injured pitcher with lots of talent!
Whaddaya got amnesia? "I don't know why they insist on bringing another lefty into the mix. I don't know if Wolf is any better than Perez to be honest."
Teixeira on Nats: "With Ted Lerner and his family -- man, what an impressive guy. That guy is a very successful businessman and he's trying to make the Nationals a successful team. The Nationals and Orioles were definitely up there -- a chance to play close to home. But my goals as a ballplayer, to be a world champion, the Yankees were just so far above and beyond everyone else in that realm."
Tex on process: "In the back of my mind the Yankees were always at the top... I won't lie to you: at the same time, contract was important. I wasn't going to take half the money to play in New York... I wasn't stringing other teams along. But at the same time no one had stepped up (to make the decision easy). For a long time there all of the (offers) were basically the same."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/baseball-insider/2009/01/just_get_it_dunn.htmlJust Get It DunnDave's got the Burrell signing pegged perfectly. This deal, at a sensible price, means that the Nationals can afford Adam Dunn. And, if necessary, they can probaby still pay the "Loser's Premium" that a 102-loss team often has to shell out to grab a free agent.The Rays may have gotten a bit by a Winner's Discount in signing Burrell for $16-million for two years. But the market has, nonetheless, been set right where the Nats should want it.Several points are of interest when we try to figure out how much Dunn is worth in the current (suddenly deflated) market for proven sluggers in their prime who are durable, walk a lot, only hit near .250, strike out a ton, have a solid attitude and play poor defense at a corner outfield spot.First, Dunn, 29, and Burrell, 32, who just signed for $16-million for two years with the Rays, are as statistically identical as two players can be.Over the last nine years starting at age 23 (including a few games at AAA in '00 to give him full credit for durability), Burrell has averaged 150 games, 520 ab, 28 hrs, 95 RBI, 91 walks, 145 Ks, .257 average, .367 on-base % and .485 slugging average.Over the last seven year starting at age 22, Dunn has averaged 152 games, 518 at bats, 37 hrs, 90 rbi, 108 walks, 169 K's, .247 average, .367 on-base % and .518 slugging avg.Last season Burrell earned $14,250,000 in Philly, Dunn $13,000,000 in Cincy.Dunn has a few edges. He's hit 40 homers the last five years. That's worth some box office. He's three years young. But Burrell has proved he can hit for a contender and survive in a tough town where expectations have always been high as a No. 1 overall draft pick.Milton Bradley, who just signed with the Cubs for $30-million for three years, is a tricky comparable to Burrell and Dunn. Contemporary stats, like OPS, say Bradley has been a somewhat better offensive player over the last six years than either and he can play centerfield, also a big plus. But Bradley's got plenty of baggage and (a bigger worry), has missed lots of games in his career, averaging only 357 abs the last six seasons.At any rate, if Burrell is worth $16-million for two years and the 30-year-old Bradley gets $30-million for three years, then the Nats can afford Dunn. At "today's prices," and considering Dunn's good health and consistency, as well as the possibilty that he mght switch to first base if needed, it might be wise to accomodate Dunn on length of contract if that will close the deal.To those who may nags at Dunn's (very real) faws, just a reminder from previous posts and chats: the five players whose careers most resemble Dunn at the same age are Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Harmon Killebrew, Rocky Colavito and Reggie Jackson. This guy is Frank Howard __but better. You want him for lots of reasons __including credibility with fans and future potential free agents, as well as well-established baseball value.In light of the Burrell (andBradley) contracts, which establish a sane market for such players, as well as the Nats great need for a LH power bat, only one thing is left to be said.Yes...just get it Dunn.
That would sure make Ronnynat happy. I don't know why they insist on bringing another lefty into the mix. I don't know if Wolf is any better than Perez to be honest.
I'm going to quote his post back to him during the season when he is nagging about our lineup.
Yep, we'll see that post again. Probably around mid June when our first baseman, Kory Casto, hits another weak grounder back to the mound with bases loaded and two outs.
"You sendin' the Wolf? Well, sheeit negro, that is all you had to say!"
As hard as Scott Boras may be trying to portray the San Francisco Giants as serious bidders for Manny Ramirez, it's even harder to find executives in baseball who believe that. According to one source familiar with the Giants' thinking, just about every recent rumor connecting the Giants with Manny is "unfounded" or "baloney." "If a million things came together over the next few weeks, would it be possible? Maybe," the source told ESPN.com. "But for where [Boras] is right now and where the team is right now, it doesn't make sense economically and it doesn't make sense for how the team fits together." Sources tell ESPN.com that in a conversation with the Dodgers last Friday, Boras continued to talk about five-year and four-year deals worth upward of $25 million a year. That caused the Dodgers to turn their attention away from Ramirez and back to the bullpen market, where they're pursuing a group that includes Trevor Hoffman, Juan Cruz, Dennys Reyes and Guillermo Mota. And the Giants, according to multiple sources, have no interest in pursuing Ramirez or any other free agent looking for large dollars and multiple years. Even reports connecting them with free-agent third baseman Joe Crede, another Boras client, have been exaggerated, sources say. Industry sources estimate that the Giants' payroll, with no other additions or subtractions, is already likely to be north of $85 million -- and would be more than $90 million if you include deferred money owed to Barry Bonds. That's already significantly higher than last year's payroll (about $77 million) and close to the highest in team history. So signing Ramirez would push them well beyond $100 million. And multiple sources indicate there is virtually no scenario that would allow them to maintain a payroll in that range. "They fit because they need the bat," one NL executive said. "They're one hitter away from being a real good team. But how do they go to $100 million to add that bat? I don't think there's any way that happens."
and we'll see "at least he doesn't strike out a lot like that piece of crap adam dunn" while Dunn is busy hitting his 24th and 25th HRs of the season..for some other team.
