08-15-2010, 03:25 PM
<!--quoteo(post=111019:date=Aug 15 2010, 01:47 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 15 2010, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=111018:date=Aug 15 2010, 12:28 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 15 2010, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=111017:date=Aug 15 2010, 10:39 AM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Aug 15 2010, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=111001:date=Aug 14 2010, 05:17 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 14 2010, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->At what point is his roster spot worth more than however much he's getting paid, if a league-minimum utility player can do the job...no worse?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What were your feelings on the day he signed?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm asking a real question, not a rhetorical question. At what point? I'm serious...at what point is he literally taking up valuable space and his paycheck is no reason for his continued presence?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In his defense, this is a big problem for a lot of teams, not just Hendry. The Indians, for example, have the same situation with Travis Hafner, the Rockies with Todd Helton, the Astros with Carlos Lee....the teams feel as if they have to play these guys, just to justify the gigantic financial outlay, but it means putting a worse team on the field.
Maybe it isn't a fabulous idea to sign guys in their 30's to hundred-million-dollar contracts?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I'm not trying to open up the Hendry debate again. I'm genuinely curious at what point a declining player simply has got to go...irrespective of his salary. I mean, if he's playing worse than a handful of guys we have waiting in AAA, he's just in the way, right? Is salary alone a reason to keep a guy on the roster? At some point do you deal him for <i>whatever</i> portion of his salary the market is willing to take on, just to rid yourself of him? He's not to that point yet but I seriously...can't see him being a reasonable presence on a 25-man roster two or three years from now.
What were your feelings on the day he signed?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm asking a real question, not a rhetorical question. At what point? I'm serious...at what point is he literally taking up valuable space and his paycheck is no reason for his continued presence?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In his defense, this is a big problem for a lot of teams, not just Hendry. The Indians, for example, have the same situation with Travis Hafner, the Rockies with Todd Helton, the Astros with Carlos Lee....the teams feel as if they have to play these guys, just to justify the gigantic financial outlay, but it means putting a worse team on the field.
Maybe it isn't a fabulous idea to sign guys in their 30's to hundred-million-dollar contracts?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I'm not trying to open up the Hendry debate again. I'm genuinely curious at what point a declining player simply has got to go...irrespective of his salary. I mean, if he's playing worse than a handful of guys we have waiting in AAA, he's just in the way, right? Is salary alone a reason to keep a guy on the roster? At some point do you deal him for <i>whatever</i> portion of his salary the market is willing to take on, just to rid yourself of him? He's not to that point yet but I seriously...can't see him being a reasonable presence on a 25-man roster two or three years from now.