09-11-2009, 05:18 PM
<!--quoteo(post=62723:date=Sep 11 2009, 04:08 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 11 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->jstraw, I see where you're going, but it's a mental gymnastic game, similar to "What would the '60's have been like if JFK would have survived," or "What would the world be like if Germany hadn't invaded Russia, and won WWII?"
Hindsight is 20/20. As Sipes mentioned, the best possible move we could have made at any time in Hendry's career was acquiring Carlos Beltran. We had 2 chances to do it: Jim stupidly whiffed on the mid-season trade that cost us the 2004 playoffs, and gift-wrapped them for the Astros. But he quickly realized his folly, and tried pretty hard to sign Beltran that winter. But he was outbid by the Mets, and probably thought to himself, "Dammit, that was the #1 FA, and I wanted him. Next time, no one is gonna outbid me!"
That's how we got Alf, who for all his negatives, was definitely the #1 FA during the winter in which we signed him. (and yes, it's now obvious that C Lee would have worked out a lot better for us, but <i>at the time</i>, this was questionable.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I pondered whether this is just an issue of hindsight or something else. I think it's about GM philosophy. I think there are players that are purchases and players that are rentals. I think a player at a certain stage of his career needs to be viewed as a rental and if you can't rent 'em...you should pass on them completely. Yeah, if they give you a career year, it doesn't matter but how often does that really work out?
I'm all for giving a player a ton of money for a load of years if you're getting them for what looks to be a lot of their prime. Albert money...Manny money...Jeter money... I'm fine with paying that if that's what you're getting...a franchise cornerstone for half a decade or more.
But if you're looking for a veteran or two to fill needs because you're a few role-players away for contending for a championship...rent them...don't mortgage the future for what may or may not happen with them during the front end of a long deal.
Hindsight is 20/20. As Sipes mentioned, the best possible move we could have made at any time in Hendry's career was acquiring Carlos Beltran. We had 2 chances to do it: Jim stupidly whiffed on the mid-season trade that cost us the 2004 playoffs, and gift-wrapped them for the Astros. But he quickly realized his folly, and tried pretty hard to sign Beltran that winter. But he was outbid by the Mets, and probably thought to himself, "Dammit, that was the #1 FA, and I wanted him. Next time, no one is gonna outbid me!"
That's how we got Alf, who for all his negatives, was definitely the #1 FA during the winter in which we signed him. (and yes, it's now obvious that C Lee would have worked out a lot better for us, but <i>at the time</i>, this was questionable.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I pondered whether this is just an issue of hindsight or something else. I think it's about GM philosophy. I think there are players that are purchases and players that are rentals. I think a player at a certain stage of his career needs to be viewed as a rental and if you can't rent 'em...you should pass on them completely. Yeah, if they give you a career year, it doesn't matter but how often does that really work out?
I'm all for giving a player a ton of money for a load of years if you're getting them for what looks to be a lot of their prime. Albert money...Manny money...Jeter money... I'm fine with paying that if that's what you're getting...a franchise cornerstone for half a decade or more.
But if you're looking for a veteran or two to fill needs because you're a few role-players away for contending for a championship...rent them...don't mortgage the future for what may or may not happen with them during the front end of a long deal.