Balta1701

Have you noticed yet how every deal on the FA market seems to look "Bad"? Maybe that says to sign players on the FA market you're going to have to spend more than you want, and that you need to adjust your expectations of contract amounts.

Not nearly, you're combining the DH position and RF and even with that I find -4.5 on fangraphs.

Yes. Absolutely. Easily. The Yankees and Dodgers would jump at that. The Nationals would go have a $30 million party for everyone in DC to celebrate the money they just saved.

This is one of the reasons that I've been saying that an 8 year deal for Cole is one of the best moves we could do.

No it wouldn't have.

I don't know what profit value means, but you're correct that they're #14 in total franchise value, but per the 2019 numbers they were #6 in profitability.

Yes it is wrong and you know why? Because Moncada, Giolito, Anderson, and others are only present in years 1-4 or 1-5. We already have guys that should be genuinely elite talent in this org and the clock is now ticking on them. If we don't make the playoffs in years 1-2, we are talking about trading those guys and punting on years 3-4 as additional rebuilding years in order to get anything out of years 5-8.

Adam Dunn. Literally even before Thanksgiving.

If they failed to win a title in years 1-4 you are correct.

How exactly did that contract dispel any narratives? I guess them not leaking it in advance dispels the narrative that they leak everything, but they've signed position players and even specifically DHs to contracts that are, inflation adjusted, comparable. And yes, after watching the last 3 teams to win the world series be the teams with Lester, Verlander, Price, and Scherzer, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that a team that wants to win the world series should be trying to attain the best pitcher on the market.

So as soon as someone else signs a more premium FA that narrative becomes correct again? Considering I still think Cole was the best signing they could make this offseason, I will fully agree to your standards.

Nope. They handled it professionally and internally. Identified a player they wanted, put a competitive offer on the table for him, didn't mess around. He was reviewing our pitching staff and no one on twitter or here was saying a peep until it was done.

Thank God we have short memories. If our memory stretched back to 2009, no one would be here.

Not in the least. 3 pitchers over a decade plus? Compare that to Cleveland who has something like 7 or 8?

"Almost every team winning the world series spends substantial money on pitching and winds up with bad contracts for guys who are too old" LARR: yeah but the Astros are kinda an exception, the exception proves you don't need to do that. "Zach Wheeler might not age the best but sometimes these pitchers continue producing." LARR: yeah there are exceptions but they are few and far between.

When we also are out on Cole and Strasburg I'd be much more annoyed. If this team isn't going to pay for pitching in the front half of the rotation they need to develop it, and they've developed 3 top half of the rotation pitchers over a full decade+.

Doesn't seem like that number is that far from what he'll actually get as of now.

How many teams this decade have won the world series without a pitching contract that is too long or too much money (or several)? I can give you the Royals.

You don't win the world series in the first few years if you aren't a bit irresponsible on the length.

If you want to push about it, signing position players and especially DHs to long-term deals is our wheelhouse, but no where in our history do we put market leading contracts on the table for pitching.

It definitely has the feel of that, if you want the player to help you win now you're going to have to do something you don't want to do on the contract.

The problem there is having "all your prospects reach the point of no value". That's, um, not supposed to happen.

Nope, that's how people do these fake ones, change one letter and make it look reasonable. No idea why people do this.

What's a little mind-blowing is that the Yankees were able to trade Miller a few days later for an equally valuable return...and it wound up being a question of Miller vs Chapman for dominance in the playoffs. Had the Yankees not gotten that return for Chapman maybe the Yankees don't open up and trade Miller either.