Buerhle to Marlins

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Jesus fuck, I hope this team sucks

[metirish]

$58 million - 4 years, and they will probably get Fielder if they can't land Pujols....wankers

[smg58]

Their fire sale next year at this time should be fun.

[Fman99]

Wow that's a stupid amount of money. It's Appieresque.

[seawolf17]

I'd read that the first time to offer four years would get him; Loria's gone bazonkers.

[nymr83]

The Marlins are handing out not just money, but YEARS, like an ownership group that doesn't expect to be around long. Maybe the SEC investigation thing is really serious?

[Edgy MD]

I hear they signed David Beckham. Just 'cuz.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

All joking aside, isn't this spending and the stuff around it a gigantic red flag to these guys? Their owner has a track record of lying to fans and the state, is under investigation from the SEC, and only had a marginal/nominal role in putting together the 2003 team (with John Henry/Dombroski doing most of the heavy lifting before he stepped into the owner's slot). They have never-- never-- drawn any fans on a consistent, franchise-sustaining basis. Every contract they've handed out so far appears to be more heavily backloaded than a Basketball Wife. Plus, the last time the Marlins went on a spending spree, they traded all their talent a year later.

I honestly don�t understand why any player would want to go play there over anywhere else offering a comparable deal, especially when they are basically telegraphing their intent to unload everyone with their insistence on not handing out no-trade clauses.

[Edgy MD]

Who's getting similar offers elsewhere, though?

I agree with most of your well-organized thoughts and words, but munny's munny. The Dodgers went bankrupt, but the players still got paid.

[Frayed Knot]

I guess Ozzie can't be too bad a manager to work for if Buehrle* is following him across the country.




* btw, that's the proper spelling (yes, I had to look it up).
I think the Mets didn't go after him strictly out of concern for Grimm's automatic complier PotG spreadsheet. There just would have been too many combinations thrown in there that the damn thing might have exploded.

[metirish]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: All joking aside, isn't this spending and the stuff around it a gigantic red flag to these guys? Their owner has a track record of lying to fans and the state, is under investigation from the SEC, and only had a marginal/nominal role in putting together the 2003 team (with John Henry/Dombroski doing most of the heavy lifting before he stepped into the owner's slot). They have never-- never-- drawn any fans on a consistent, franchise-sustaining basis. Every contract they've handed out so far appears to be more heavily backloaded than a Basketball Wife. Plus, the last time the Marlins went on a spending spree, they traded all their talent a year later. I honestly don�t understand why any player would want to go play there over anywhere else offering a comparable deal, especially when they are basically telegraphing their intent to unload everyone with their insistence on not handing out no-trade clauses.

it's crazy , I look forward to it all going pear shaped.

[Frayed Knot]

They especially seem to be playing fast and loose with [u:3buguiel]the length[/u:3buguiel] of these deals.

- word had it that no one (not just the Mets) wanted to go over four guaranteed for Reyes ... until the Marlins gave him six
- wanting to lock up the 32 y/o Pujols for a full decade even as the Cardinals say that the reports of their 10/220 offer aren't close to accurate in money or in years
- Buerhle (33 by Opening Day) reportedly had numerous suitors at 3 years and made it be known that the first to go to 4 would be declared the winner ... and BAM there are the Marlins

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's that extra year or two that's splashing the pot in the poker hands for these guys.

But again... HEAVILY backloaded. I almost feel bad* for J---J---J---J--- and his family, who I'd imagine will see what the house-buying market is like in at least three different cities over the life of his contract (I hope Chicago and, say, Arizona show him as much "love").

*Then I remember that he could pay my family's food, power, and phone bill for life and not notice it.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: They especially seem to be playing fast and loose with the length of these deals. - wanting to lock up the 32 y/o Pujols for a full decade even as the Cardinals say that the reports of their 10/220 offer aren't close to accurate in money or in yearss

Not wrong on this one, I guess.

BTW, I missed the part about how nobody other than the Mets would give Reyes more than 4 guaranteed years. Do you remember where that came from?

[Edgy MD]

Nobody other than the Marlins would give him more than four.

[Guest attgig]

nobody's getting a no trade clause though. they're all getting dumped in a few years after they win a world series...


but seriously, what's going on in Miami? first it's the big three in the heat. and now, the marlins got 3 new guys, and counting. what are the dolphins going to do this coming off season?

[TransMonk]

I'm getting ready to make a hefty bet that the Mets will win more games than the Marlins over the next 6 years.

I expect the Miami roster to start crumbling in 2014...at which point we will have shed some big contracts and some young arms will be ready to start in Queens.

[Edgy MD]

I think the Mets' awesomeness will come faster than you think.

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: I think the Mets' awesomeness will come faster than you think.

Fill in the blank. The Mets will next make the playoffs in _______.

[TransMonk]

I sure hope Edgy's right, but I'm prepared for a lean couple of years...not that they won't be interesting.

[metirish]

TransMonk wrote: I sure hope Edgy's right, but I'm prepared for a lean couple of years...not that they won't be interesting.

2013

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I'm hopeful, too. But speaking realistically? Hell, "not painful to watch in 2013" is a long bet.

Without Reyes' production, a LOT-- like, say, hitting big on 3 out of 4 "Big Four" pitching prospects-- would have to go right for them to make the playoffs in 2014, even.

[Edgy MD]

How about hitting big on Tejada? On Havens? On Davis? On Murphy even? They have growth potential all over the field.

Not to go ceetar, but here I am. This is a young and increasingly inexpensive team, with reason to be optmistic --- if not always confident --- in most areas.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Hitting on all of those (with their good-but-limited ceilings, unless you think Tejada or Havens will go 30-30 on us), and 2 of the big prospects? Maybe that gets us in by, say, 2014. Maybe.

Again, I'm hopeful, too. But look at the rest of the division, sir.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy is the thing with feathers.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm an Optimistic Met Fan too.

But I usually am.

They obviously need better pitching and D each night, and to have a lot go right, but worse talent has won before. It happens all the time.

[metirish]

Welcome back Ceetar, missed you.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think the Mets can be a good, maybe even a very good, team before too long. But good enough to win? That's going to require some more time, or quite a bit of bad news for the other four teams in the NL East.

[Benjamin Grimm]

metirish wrote: Welcome back Ceetar, missed you.

Yeah, what happened to Ceetar? Someone should go see if he's still breathing.

[Guest attgig]

the mets can be good, but there's just too many variables considering our competition. I kinda feel like the Orioles of the NL east. get hopeful with some solid prospects, but then playing the yankees and redsox and rays, just too hard to actually win because the promising young starters just get crushed by the crazy offenses of the other teams.