Originally Posted by dougdirt
And I will continue to ask the same question over and over, how is it possible for someone to be the best player, but have someone else provide more value? You can't be the best, if someone else is better. The logic that is used is mind numbing.
You are right that people have been doing it for a long time. That doesn't mean it should continue happening.
Kind of the same reasoning the Astros are not going out and spending money on Free Agents. There is no value between 59 wins and 80 wins. They players they would sign would make no difference in the grand scheme. Some people view Trout as having no major impact for Angels as they would be in same shape without him this season. Not his fault but that is where most see the word value come in to play. How can something have value if you can not reap anything from it.