05-28-2009, 12:04 PM
<!--quoteo(post=40762:date=May 28 2009, 10:58 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40760:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40756:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40749:date=May 28 2009, 10:31 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 28 2009, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't. It was about playing time and getting more left handed. I think money and the ownership transfer was used as a diversion. We still spent (and threw away) plenty of money in the offseason on other players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are welcome to believe that it wasn't about money, and you very well could right, but the fact is, Miles is making less than half of what DeRosa was.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year.
If you're claiming fiscal responsibility, you don't sign a guy like Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract. Miles is replaceable with a guy making league minimum. See Scales, Bobby.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butch, this is a total bullshit argument. You are now arguing 2 points completely unrelated to your original. 1, should we have signed Miles at all? I agree we should not have. 2, should we have spent that much money on him? I agree we should not have. But because we don't like the signing, and because we don't like the amount, that still doesn't give you the right to change the laws of accounting and pretend signing Miles and trading Derosa doesn't save the Cubs money, because it does. In the aggregate, they both cost 5 million, but one costs us 5 million over 2 years, and one costs us 5 million this year. Those aren't the same thing.
It wasn't. It was about playing time and getting more left handed. I think money and the ownership transfer was used as a diversion. We still spent (and threw away) plenty of money in the offseason on other players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are welcome to believe that it wasn't about money, and you very well could right, but the fact is, Miles is making less than half of what DeRosa was.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year.
If you're claiming fiscal responsibility, you don't sign a guy like Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract. Miles is replaceable with a guy making league minimum. See Scales, Bobby.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butch, this is a total bullshit argument. You are now arguing 2 points completely unrelated to your original. 1, should we have signed Miles at all? I agree we should not have. 2, should we have spent that much money on him? I agree we should not have. But because we don't like the signing, and because we don't like the amount, that still doesn't give you the right to change the laws of accounting and pretend signing Miles and trading Derosa doesn't save the Cubs money, because it does. In the aggregate, they both cost 5 million, but one costs us 5 million over 2 years, and one costs us 5 million this year. Those aren't the same thing.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.