dimitrig

We were out of Rondons.

That's not the point. Howie is 31 and about to become a free agent. Meanwhile, the team has other needs.

This means Howie can still be a pitchman for Howard's TV and Appliance.

I am not sure they know what they are doing. Blowing up a pretty good team for no apparent reason. Are they going to be sold?

There's a glut of available starters? Can we obtain some, please?

Um, no.

My point is that the dollars ARE NOT the same. A 3/$100M contract is $33M per year. A 5/$125M contract is $25M per year and (more importantly) $25M less. If the guy is confident he can produce at a certain level then he might be willing to take 30% more per year for a shorter contract. If he can continue to perform then he will get that much OR MORE in years four and five. From a player's perspective it could really mean 5/$150M versus 5/$125M. That's why I mentioned Michael Jordan as an example. I realize every contract is taking many factors (such as injuries) into account, but I can see that a shorter contract for more $$$ would definitely appeal to teams and could also appeal to some players.

So why not sign the guy to a $100M/200 year contract?

This is the first reponse that is not ridiculous. Why is the luxury tax based on annual average value instead of the value in every given year? If that's the case then why not sign guys to a long-term contract at fewer $$$ per year? To me, it still makes sense to have the flexibility rather than locking into a shitty contract for more years. That long contract will hamstring a team forever. For the same amount of $$$ I would rather get it over and done with. It's cute to say: "Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125?" but that's not the argument. What if you can get them for 3/$100?

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

Kendrick trade value: Strong to very strong

The Machine:

Rumor I read had Lester going to the Dodgers and the Dodgers then trading Greinke for prospects.

I was thinking Kate.

And how much does the average starter make? CJ Wilson is the 16th highest paid starting pitcher in all of MLB but he provides average performance and not just in number of innings pitched. What a hot commodity!

Oh, sorry. 6 innings.

Why do the Angels do this? I'd rather have Butler at 3/$30M than Vernon Wells at 3/$65M. Oh, and we gave up a player in that deal!

I can barely even tolerate one woman at a time.

CJ's big problem is that he's a starter who gives you 5 innings max.

I agree that it's not a huge risk to take on CJ at this point since it is only two years. However, the argument is that they would give up prospects to do it. That's harder to swallow.

Howie's a good 2B, but you have to give to get. Angels need pitching. Our freaking collective BULLPEN started games.

Jays would have been better off trading for Conger.

Conger was definitely underappreciated. Pretty good talent for a backup.

I think so, too. Pretty soon Howie will be too expensive and we will lose him for nothing.

Lindsay Lohan