Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, October 05, 2006 |
Sapphire Bullets
- Jeff Sackmann counts Garret Anderson's $14M 2009 option as among the worst in baseball.
In the '03-'04 offseason, Anderson was the picture-perfect example of an oversized deal waiting to happen. He got MVP votes for three years running, topped 25 HRs and 100 RBIs every year of the century, and was a key part of the Angels' championship team in 2002. On the flip side, he was a 31-year-old corner outfielder with declining speed and low walk rates, one who hadn't put together a single Hall of Fame-caliber campaign. The Angels, of course, paid him for past performance ($70 million over five years, 2004-08) and spent $3 million to ensure that they'd have the first chance to overpay for Anderson's age-37 season. This contract will never quite be the albatross that Bagwell's became, but each year, it looks more likely that Anderson may not play for anyone at all in 2009.
Garret Anderson Days at the park at the close of 2008? Sure, why not, only it won't be tears of sadness the fans will be brushing back, but tears of joy... - Rick Wilton recaps this season's most significant pitching injuries, and Eric Gagne (whose "future is cloudy") and Bartolo Colon (whose rehab-rather-than-surgery route will likely "haunt the Angels") are among the headliners.
- Fired/dismissed managers: Now official: Buck Showalter of Texas; Dusty Baker of the Cubs, who was not fired, but his contract was not extended; Joe Girardi of Florida.
- Good news for the Tigers: Randy Johnson is a go for game 3.
- BS, Grady:
"You can't expect to win a ballgame in the second inning," Kent said. "It's easy to sit in the booth and color it that way and say, 'If this would have happened, they would have scored and they could have won the game.' You can't do that."
Oh, yes I can. Stop being a dope, Grady. There was no excuse for those two critical mistakes in a playoff game.
Comments:
Why are you blaming Grady for the double-play at home? Everyone is laying into him over this. He's not the third base moron who sent both runners to their death. Poor Grady gets so much undeserved heat for one little Pedro Martinez mistake.
# posted by 
: 10/05/2006 01:40:00 PM
: 10/05/2006 01:40:00 PM
What I'm blaming him for is his comment that seems to imply that runs scored in the second inning aren't as important as runs in the seventh. I understand his position as manager, and that he's partly there to deflect criticism of his players, but that was just transparently stupid.
one who hadn't put together a single Hall of Fame-caliber campaign
This makes no sense. How do you put together a HOF season? How many guys are in the HOF on the strenth of one season? And Anderson has clearly put up numbers that would be HOF caliber if he had repeated them over about 12 seasons.
I'm not saying he's anything close to a HOFer, but the idea of "single Hall of Fame-caliber campaign" is ridiculous on its face.
This makes no sense. How do you put together a HOF season? How many guys are in the HOF on the strenth of one season? And Anderson has clearly put up numbers that would be HOF caliber if he had repeated them over about 12 seasons.
I'm not saying he's anything close to a HOFer, but the idea of "single Hall of Fame-caliber campaign" is ridiculous on its face.
As far as what Kent said, it's true, you can't win a game in the second inning, but you sure as hell can lose one.
Garrett Anderson's deal was not as bad as many people think at the time. The man had not been on the DL...ever. He was one of the most consistent batter on the Angels for several years, a solid defender, the team MVP, and a guy certainly in the MVP race over a couple of years just before the contract. In addition, he had been VASTLY underpaid. The real crime of the contract was that GA had started having weird ailments that spring that seemed temporary(stalling contract negotiations), tried playing through it the first couple of weeks, signed the contract, then decided the pain was too much and he needed to figure out what was wrong. The fact that his performance has suffered because of a degenerate arthritis that was discovered AFTER the contract was signed doesn't mean that is was a terrible signing in the first place (you could argue that Erstad's was much worse considering that he only had one great season). Would he have been worth $14 million a year over the life of the contract anyways? Probably not. But should it have been expected he would have approached that over the first couple years of the contract? I say yes.
Garrett Anderson's deal was not as bad as many people think at the time. The man had not been on the DL...ever. He was one of the most consistent batter on the Angels for several years, a solid defender, the team MVP, and a guy certainly in the MVP race over a couple of years just before the contract. In addition, he had been VASTLY underpaid. The real crime of the contract was that GA had started having weird ailments that spring that seemed temporary(stalling contract negotiations), tried playing through it the first couple of weeks, signed the contract, then decided the pain was too much and he needed to figure out what was wrong. The fact that his performance has suffered because of a degenerate arthritis that was discovered AFTER the contract was signed doesn't mean that is was a terrible signing in the first place (you could argue that Erstad's was much worse considering that he only had one great season). Would he have been worth $14 million a year over the life of the contract anyways? Probably not. But should it have been expected he would have approached that over the first couple years of the contract? I say yes.
The HARBALL TIMES is quoting VLAD money for GARRET. Subtract $22 million from that salary listed. Lazy researchers there.
# posted by : 10/05/2006 04:57:00 PM
: 10/05/2006 04:57:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.