Cubs and Grabow discussing multi-year deal

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=69804:date=Nov 20 2009, 01:40 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 20 2009, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69802:date=Nov 20 2009, 01:34 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Nov 20 2009, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Oh, and just to add to your logic, teams only had ONE chance to offer Milty a multi-year contract, and that was after he spent 2007 with a blown out knee and played in only 60 games. Interestingly, he did get a raise even after that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing my point. It's clear that Milty wears out his welcome after a year -- all you have to do is look at the back of his baseball card.


<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm not disputing that. I'm telling you that the number of times he moved from team to team was because other teams traded for him, including one time in which the A's seemed to think he was worth Andre Ethier. If simply moving from team to team due to trades is a red light, then for God's sake, let's cut Ted Lilly now. 4 teams in 5 years.


<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm sure you're right, though. Bradley's agent was probably so busy fighting off potential suitors for his oft-injured batshit-crazy outfielder, that he accidentally took far less money and years for his client than he could have if he simply took the time and sifted through the massive pile of offers he was getting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Great snark, but it only works if I actually made the claim that people were climbing over each other to sign Bradley. Or if I insanely claimed that Bradley took a cut to play here. Of course, I never made either claim. In college, I learned that this is known as a "straw man" argument. You are making a "straw man" argument. Here is a good definition of a "straw man" argument

This is a definition of a straw man argument which is what Butch made

I, on the other hand, didn't have to resort to making a "straw man" argument. As the ONLY logical explanations for Hendry giving a guy a 30 million dollar deal when the only other competition was 12 million is:

1: He knew about the 12 million, and for no discernible reason almost tripled it.
2: He didn't know about the 12 million, and therefore knew less about the market than bloggers and message board posters.

I find neither of those explanations plausible.

As Rok said, it's possible no one else offered him 30, but I simply don't believe 12/2 was the only competition. Which is why I originally stated that we don't KNOW what the market was, and can't go by blog posts for the truth.