Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 71

Thread: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

  1. #46
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    [QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2302720]But you're missing the point... if Washington can afford to pay it, aren't they better off with Werth than without? Isn't that the real objective here?

    In 5 years, there's no doubting it might be $18 million down the toilet. But right now, they're trying to improve their club. They did that. They had to overpay.

    OK so it's a bad deal. If they don't make it, they're down Dunn and they also don't have Werth. How does that help them?

    In baseball's landscape, you have to overpay to compensate for the teams that have gigantic payrolls. I just don't know what you'd have the Nationals do. They're not getting better by not getting these players. So sooner or later, you have to spend money on good players and hope the contract doesn't burn you too much.

    It's a bad move no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's still a bad move. I'm glad the Nat's made this move and not theReds.


    .
    Last edited by Ron Madden; 12-05-2010 at 10:57 PM.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Madden View Post
    It's a bad move no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's still a bad move. I'm glad the Nat's made this move and not theReds.


    .
    Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  4. #48
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.
    I can't argue with you like some Philadelphia Lawyer, all I can say is it's a bad move. Small to mid market clubs should always try to avoid bad moves.

  5. #49
    It's showtime! RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.
    I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.
    "Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  6. #50
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.
    BINGO!!!

  7. #51
    Member Topcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,934

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Contracts a complete joke as should be noted as such.
    2006 Redzone mock Draftee's- 1(st) Daniel Bard(redsox), 1(st sup)( Jordan Walden (Angels), 2(nd) rd.- Zach Britton(Orioles), 3(rd) Blair Erickson(Cardinals), 3(rd) Tim Norton( Yankees),(cuz its a Tim Hortons thing

    Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.

  8. #52
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Madden View Post
    I can't argue with you like some Philadelphia Lawyer, all I can say is it's a bad move. Small to mid market clubs should always try to avoid bad moves.
    Philadelphia lawyer? All I'm asking is that if you make a blanket statement like, "it's a bad move," I would expect some reasoning why. That's all. Why is it a bad move? Is it too much to ask someone to expound on their rationale? This is a message board for discussion. What good is it to state something if you're not willing to explain it? You went out of your way to quote me saying, "no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's a bad move." So since you're willing to tell me I'm wrong, why not explain yourself?
    Last edited by Brutus; 12-05-2010 at 11:49 PM.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  9. #53
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.
    OK but one is being paid $14 million, the other $18 million. That's not really a fraction. In fact, the general belief is that each win above replacement is worth between $4-4.5 million. Considering Werth's 3-year average is about 1.2 wins better than Dunn was at first base last year, it seems the money is actually worth it. Werth is a better player than Dunn so he's worth more money.

    So again, the length is understandably long, but if you examine the dollars per year, this actually is a very, very fair deal. Werth is werth (pun intended) $4 million more a year than Dunn.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  10. #54
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Philadelphia lawyer? All I'm asking is that if you make a blanket statement like, "it's a bad move," I would expect some reasoning why. That's all. Why is it a bad move? Is it too much to ask someone to expound on their rationale? This is a message board for discussion. What good is it to state something if you're not willing to explain it? You went out of your way to quote me saying, "no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's a bad move." So since you're willing to tell me I'm wrong, why not explain yourself?
    I said earlier in this thread that I believe The Nat's would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn than to spend $126MM over 7 years for Jason Werth.

    I honestly believe that, I had no intention to offend you by quoting your post.

  11. #55
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Madden View Post
    I said earlier in this thread that I believe The Nat's would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn than to spend $126MM over 7 years for Jason Werth.

    I honestly believe that, I had no intention to offend you by quoting your post.
    I wasn't offended, and I had no problem with you stating you believed it was a bad deal. I just didn't get your rationale and was seeking an explanation. That's really all there was to it.

    Something to keep in mind though, it's likely that since Dunn signed for $14 million, they would have had to given him more than $14 million or a longer deal than 4 years to get him signed. So if it had taken a deal similar to Werth, does that also become a bad deal?
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  12. #56
    It's showtime! RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    OK but one is being paid $14 million, the other $18 million. That's not really a fraction. In fact, the general belief is that each win above replacement is worth between $4-4.5 million. Considering Werth's 3-year average is about 1.2 wins better than Dunn was at first base last year, it seems the money is actually worth it. Werth is a better player than Dunn so he's worth more money.

    So again, the length is understandably long, but if you examine the dollars per year, this actually is a very, very fair deal. Werth is werth (pun intended) $4 million more a year than Dunn.
    Wait a minute--now who is looking at the deal in a vacuum? Sure, if you are considering the deal just for 2011, Werth at $18 million and Dunn at $14 million might make some kind of sense. But that's not what the deal is! Werth in his age 36-39 seasons at $18 million per? Come on now! To talk about the immediate value of this deal as the only thing that matters is to, well, abstract it completely out of context. Actually, I think it is even arguable that Dunn--"old ball" skills and all--is more likely to play to live up to the next four year than is Werth.

    I suppose you can argue (as I believe you have, in fairness) that teams like DC have to throw down the gauntlet in order to land players of this caliber. But did they have to shell out this much money in order to get a decent-to-above-average corner OF who is already past his peak years? Apparently Boras made that argument--and Rizzo et al. were puddy in his hands.
    "Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  13. #57
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    I wasn't offended, and I had no problem with you stating you believed it was a bad deal. I just didn't get your rationale and was seeking an explanation. That's really all there was to it.

    Something to keep in mind though, it's likely that since Dunn signed for $14 million, they would have had to given him more than $14 million or a longer deal than 4 years to get him signed. So if it had taken a deal similar to Werth, does that also become a bad deal?
    It has been reported since mid season that Dunn was asking Washington for a 4 year deal. I've read they agreed on money but the Nat's only offered a 2 or 3 year deal. Can't remember if it was 2 years or 3 years.

  14. #58
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,423

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    here is why it is a bad deal. 2010 was Werth's best year. He played in a park that is homer friendly. He saw a ridiculous spike in his doubles, while his HR's dropped by nearly 10. Now he moves to the WAS which isn't HR friendly. But instead of 16 or so games there, now it's 81. I think his power suffers. I think he'll be pitched around more, and I think he'll try to adjust by expanding his strikezone. I think he's more 2008-09 than he is 2010, And I think his 3 year splits show he will be closer to an .820 OPS player overall next year.

    Bad move. They didn't get better. The did however make a minisplash. Value wise they'd be better off if they had paid Dunn 60M over 4 years.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  15. #59
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,687

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Holy Wayne Garland, that's a Mark Davis payoff if there ever was one.

  16. #60
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    Wait a minute--now who is looking at the deal in a vacuum? Sure, if you are considering the deal just for 2011, Werth at $18 million and Dunn at $14 million might make some kind of sense. But that's not what the deal is! Werth in his age 36-39 seasons at $18 million per? Come on now! To talk about the immediate value of this deal as the only thing that matters is to, well, abstract it completely out of context. Actually, I think it is even arguable that Dunn--"old ball" skills and all--is more likely to play to live up to the next four year than is Werth.

    I suppose you can argue (as I believe you have, in fairness) that teams like DC have to throw down the gauntlet in order to land players of this caliber. But did they have to shell out this much money in order to get a decent-to-above-average corner OF who is already past his peak years? Apparently Boras made that argument--and Rizzo et al. were puddy in his hands.
    But I already acknowledged that, to me, if a byproduct of getting him now and the next few years for fair market value is adding a few additional years to the end of the deal, it's worth it. If they will be able to make other moves in those years despite paying $18 million for what's assumed to be a crippled has-been, so be it.

    I agree with you, the end of that deal is likely going to be brutal. But the first half of it is market value. And in order to sign him for market value now, they had to overpay later. In a vacuum, it's not a good deal. But what's the alternative? Perhaps it's Dunn, but we can't assume they could have had Dunn at 4 years, $56 million because that's what he actually went for. Perhaps they would have had to overpay him as well.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25