From: Tarkus on
On 7/30/2010 7:36 AM, Tomasz Radko wrote:
> W dniu 2010-07-30 13:57, Colin William pisze:
>> Tarkus wrote:
>>> BTW, what the hell is Houston thinking? Am I missing something, or did
>>> they get really fleeced on this deal? They're paying something like
>>> half of Oswalt's salary, and from all indications, didn't get a whole
>>> lot in return. I can see them doing a salary dump, but they didn't
>>> really do that.
>>
>> I don't get that at all. I cannot fathom why they're picking up any of
>> Oswalt's salary - I'd have figured he'd have been a pretty attractive
>> pickup, but I guess the no-trade clause dampened his value. Still, I
>> think they got completely hosed.
>
> http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2010/07/why-the-oswalt-deal-worked/

I remain unconvinced, but time will tell.
From: Tomasz Radko on
W dniu 2010-07-30 21:51, Tarkus pisze:
> On 7/30/2010 7:36 AM, Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> W dniu 2010-07-30 13:57, Colin William pisze:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> BTW, what the hell is Houston thinking? Am I missing something, or did
>>>> they get really fleeced on this deal? They're paying something like
>>>> half of Oswalt's salary, and from all indications, didn't get a whole
>>>> lot in return. I can see them doing a salary dump, but they didn't
>>>> really do that.
>>>
>>> I don't get that at all. I cannot fathom why they're picking up any of
>>> Oswalt's salary - I'd have figured he'd have been a pretty attractive
>>> pickup, but I guess the no-trade clause dampened his value. Still, I
>>> think they got completely hosed.
>>
>> http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2010/07/why-the-oswalt-deal-worked/
>
> I remain unconvinced, but time will tell.

This is the problem with big contracts. Players are worth it, but
nothing more. Look at Lowe. He's an usable starter. But his net worth is
probably negative - no team would take him for free.

I think the system which keeps a player's contract for six years below
its real value also inflates the contracts of the older players. There's
much more money available for them.
From: zig zigalo on
Tomasz Radko wrote:
> W dniu 2010-07-30 21:51, Tarkus pisze:
>> On 7/30/2010 7:36 AM, Tomasz Radko wrote:
>>> W dniu 2010-07-30 13:57, Colin William pisze:
>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>> BTW, what the hell is Houston thinking? Am I missing something,
>>>>> or did they get really fleeced on this deal? They're paying
>>>>> something like half of Oswalt's salary, and from all indications,
>>>>> didn't get a whole lot in return. I can see them doing a salary
>>>>> dump, but they didn't really do that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't get that at all. I cannot fathom why they're picking up
>>>> any of Oswalt's salary - I'd have figured he'd have been a pretty
>>>> attractive pickup, but I guess the no-trade clause dampened his
>>>> value. Still, I think they got completely hosed.
>>>
>>> http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2010/07/why-the-oswalt-deal-worked/
>>
>> I remain unconvinced, but time will tell.
>
> This is the problem with big contracts. Players are worth it, but
> nothing more. Look at Lowe. He's an usable starter. But his net worth
> is probably negative - no team would take him for free.

a player is worth what someone will pay him.
>
> I think the system which keeps a player's contract for six years below
> its real value also inflates the contracts of the older players.
> There's much more money available for them.

they're essentially getting paid based on past performance. early buyers
have the bargains, while the orioles get to overpay.

zig



First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Heyward steals home...
Next: What about Jim Edmonds?