Hey, don't forget Strasburg.
7 years, 245 million 2020-2026 - more money than Price.
In the first 1.4 years of that deal, the Nats have gotten a total of 26.2 innings out of him with an ERA of 5.74.
And he turns 34 in July.
I've never suggested that Mookie's size would have anything to do with him regressing. But it's a fact that he had a multiplicity of little injuries this year that combined to keep him off the field for 40 games. And he turns 30 in October, with 10 more years on his contract after this year.
These contracts are just ridiculously long, it's as simple as that.
I get that. But Mookie is not a sure thing going forward either. Nobody is. Aging and injuries can turn anyone into a bad investment quickly.
Mookie is #2 to Trout's #1. Trout might be one of the 5 best players of all time.
And Trout played 36 games this year. Who can say if he now has a health issue that will plague him the rest of the way? No one is exempt.
You seem quite convinced that's going to happen.
And your argument is pretty simplistic. This franchise has already overpaid plenty of guys and survived it. They flushed a quarter billion on Pablo, Hanley and Rusney.
If you think they're going to jump in on a $300 mill guy like Correa any day, you might be waiting a long time.
I really don't think they were happy about it. They were in a bad spot, acted out of desperation and the result was less than a disaster, so if that's happiness, then I guess they were happy.
Well, he did sign 3 guys-Paxton, Wacha and Hill. Plus exercising Vaz's option, plus the extra salary for JBJ. Plus arb raises. It all adds up.
We'll be close to the tax threshold one way or another.
You've been complaining loudly about the trade ever since it was made. But it's the people defending the trade you say are getting "worked up". Funny how that works.
Well, Red, even if you look at it as Renfroe for Bradley, we traded a .237 career hitter for a .230 career hitter who plays better defense. And the money isn't that much different.
So what are you all worked up about?
Personally I think Price was a pretty small part of the Betts trade. It was a convenient opportunity to get someone to take on half of Price's salary. But I'm pretty sure if the Dodgers said no to it, the trade would have proceeded with little change to what we got back.
As for Bradley, I think Bloom feels he still has positive value. His defense should be a plus if nothing else.
I'm not riled up. I just think it's nutty. And I'm not a big prospect lover myself. But I know that they have a lot of potential value. Look at what we got for the prospects Dombrowski traded. That was only a few years ago.