05-28-2009, 12:08 PM
<!--quoteo(post=40761:date=May 28 2009, 10:58 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40759:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40755:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40750:date=May 28 2009, 10:32 AM:name=ColoradoCub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 28 2009, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40748:date=May 28 2009, 09:29 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 09:29 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-->
because you are wrong?
Derosa is making 5.5 million in 2009. Miles is making 2.2 million in 2009.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should look at the quote from Hendry again. He doesn't say that money wasn't a factor, in fact, he alludes that it was, but he's still admitting that they identified moving DeRosa as the best way to get a more left handed lineup, and makes it sound like that was the primary motivation for the deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So which argument are you making? Are you saying it WAS about money, or are you saying, as Butch does, that it wasn't about money?
I am making 2 different points. One, Hendry is not going to come out and admit that the move was about money. The quote above is about as close to that as you will see a GM come, unless it's someone from a small market. So even if saving money was the primary reason for the deal, he is still going to make it sound like getting more lefthanded was the reason.
Two, despite what Butch said, trading DeRosa and signing Miles DID save them almost 3.5 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year, of course. A guy with Miles's skill set is a dime a dozen -- a player like Miles should be making league minimum. Bobby Scales does what Miles does -- but better. And yet, we're going to be paying him $5M over the next two seasons. If you're claiming some sort of fiscally responsible motivation, it's hard to look at the Miles signing and not shudder (not to mention the other money we've pissed away).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I agree that the Miles signing was a compete and utter waste of money, but you can't lump in his 2010 salary and say we are spending the same amount of money we are spending on DeRosa. If Hendry has a budget, it's for 2009, and for 2009 Miles over DeRosa saves over 3 million dollars. Add in 5.5 million for Marquis, and you've pretty much paid for Bradley.
As far as the other money we've "wasted", that would have happened anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying Miles is making the same amount of money as DeRosa. I'm saying that if cost-savings is the motivation, the signing Miles to a contract like that completely flies in the face of that approach. Not to mention, Hendry was perfectly willing to eat Gaudin's and Vizciano's salaries.
I know it doesn't all add up and make a zero sum. But if Hendry's motivation was to shed salary, you can't look at his offseason as a whole and still claim that. What's the Cubs' total payroll now? $140M? DeRosa's extra $3M (over what Miles is making) wasn't going to break the bank. It makes no sense.
The only things that make sense are:
- The DeRosa trade was to stockpile young arms to be part of the Peavy deal (which obviously wasn't in place...since it didn't happen). Which means Hendry fucked up.
- The DeRosa trade was to make us more left-handed. Which was stupid. Which means Hendry fucked up.
Any way you slice it, Hendry fucked up. And he isn't going to come right out and say that. In fact, I'm sure he'd much rather say it was a money issue.
because you are wrong?
Derosa is making 5.5 million in 2009. Miles is making 2.2 million in 2009.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should look at the quote from Hendry again. He doesn't say that money wasn't a factor, in fact, he alludes that it was, but he's still admitting that they identified moving DeRosa as the best way to get a more left handed lineup, and makes it sound like that was the primary motivation for the deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So which argument are you making? Are you saying it WAS about money, or are you saying, as Butch does, that it wasn't about money?
I am making 2 different points. One, Hendry is not going to come out and admit that the move was about money. The quote above is about as close to that as you will see a GM come, unless it's someone from a small market. So even if saving money was the primary reason for the deal, he is still going to make it sound like getting more lefthanded was the reason.
Two, despite what Butch said, trading DeRosa and signing Miles DID save them almost 3.5 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year, of course. A guy with Miles's skill set is a dime a dozen -- a player like Miles should be making league minimum. Bobby Scales does what Miles does -- but better. And yet, we're going to be paying him $5M over the next two seasons. If you're claiming some sort of fiscally responsible motivation, it's hard to look at the Miles signing and not shudder (not to mention the other money we've pissed away).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I agree that the Miles signing was a compete and utter waste of money, but you can't lump in his 2010 salary and say we are spending the same amount of money we are spending on DeRosa. If Hendry has a budget, it's for 2009, and for 2009 Miles over DeRosa saves over 3 million dollars. Add in 5.5 million for Marquis, and you've pretty much paid for Bradley.
As far as the other money we've "wasted", that would have happened anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying Miles is making the same amount of money as DeRosa. I'm saying that if cost-savings is the motivation, the signing Miles to a contract like that completely flies in the face of that approach. Not to mention, Hendry was perfectly willing to eat Gaudin's and Vizciano's salaries.
I know it doesn't all add up and make a zero sum. But if Hendry's motivation was to shed salary, you can't look at his offseason as a whole and still claim that. What's the Cubs' total payroll now? $140M? DeRosa's extra $3M (over what Miles is making) wasn't going to break the bank. It makes no sense.
The only things that make sense are:
- The DeRosa trade was to stockpile young arms to be part of the Peavy deal (which obviously wasn't in place...since it didn't happen). Which means Hendry fucked up.
- The DeRosa trade was to make us more left-handed. Which was stupid. Which means Hendry fucked up.
Any way you slice it, Hendry fucked up. And he isn't going to come right out and say that. In fact, I'm sure he'd much rather say it was a money issue.