Hitch

Most reports I've seen suggest Myers, Cal Quantril and Luis Campusano (or possibly Gabriel Arias) with not a lot going the other way. I make that trade in a heart beat.

That's awful. Sorry man. My condolences.

Somewhere between those moments Jad accuses him of being a regular practiser of necrophilia

That's mostly all we do.

Nearly....the 'or not' needs to be underneath all the rest of the text. For added smugness. Or not.

If he doesn't, he doesn't. No harm having him around at the moment.

You can just sense some people are gunning for this move to be a bust so they can have reason to bitch at Bloom.

Much love for this post.

It could certainly go that way. If Bloom does blow it up, it obviously will. I don't think that's route he will take however, and I think he will pull off a few more moves yet.

I'm happy with the DD move. It brought us three pennants and a WS. We all knew he was going to blow up the farm, and that's exactly what happened. Some of the contracts were a mistake, but that happens. I'm a more patient man than most, I'm happy for us to take a down year*, repair some of the damage and go at it again next year in exchange for what we had under DD. I'm just glad it won't be a process that's often repeated. * I actually think we are going to surprise a lot of people this year.

Preach it sister!

Comparing to older players is fun, but ultimately useless, I think. The game has moved on. The athleticism involved now, the speed, the science behind getting athletes at their peak performance, it's a different beast. When you start losing the edge you have through speed and fast hands (which are Mookie's gifts), the science will push the game on and there's a good chance the game will pass you by somewhat. I don't think he will age well. I hope for his sake I'm wrong, but I think he will become a solid player, rather than the magician we have seen the last two or more years. The real shame is that $200 x 8 offer at the end of 2017 didn't get it done. Even if we'd gone to $250/260, we'd have gotten his best years locked in, and not had the money to make the mistake we made on Evoaldi and probably wouldn't have extended Sale as early as we did. This is why projecting contracts and situations we could find ourselves in going forward is so difficult. There's a sliding doors moment around every corner.

The union won't care, the league might. I can't see them being too pleased with such ways of getting around any possible luxury tax implications. But that's why I asked, I don't know enough on the subject.

I mean is there precedence where a contract is so obviously set up to be able to get out of luxury tax implications towards the end of a long contract? I can't imagine the league look upon such things too favourably.

Yeah there's one or two that way around I can think of. I don't recall any the way Moon is laying it out though. And you'd wonder why more are not done that way if possible.

Yeah he was worth a $2m gamble. Would have been fun to watch play out.

Is there any precedent for a deal happening as heavily skewed as you've made it? I can't think of one...

That's fine, I have no truck with that. I don't agree but I understand the point. It's just sometimes the argument is being put forward as if the risk is small. I don't think it is. For what it's worth, I think Mookie at 10 years $300m would have been worth it. Start tagging on more money and years though and it's passed the point I'm comfortable with. Not that I have much say in these matters.

Absolutely. And as you've sad before, some of the same people crying about it now would be the first calling it a stupid contract if it went south. The mind of the entitled sports fan, I guess.

Yes, it's really personal for me. *yawn*. Yes, of course, that second sentence is true. And they may still do this in a years time when he finally gets the free agency he cares about so deeply. I hope not, but we'll see.

This all comes with the giant assumption that he is still playing at least well enough to be garnering trade interest as he enters his later years of course. Or that he doesn't get injured. Or that he doesn't slow down. And I would argue a large part of his power is based in his speed, and specifically hand speed. Not two things known to stick around as you age. I mean, we can agree that the contract would be very risky, at the very least no?

Or, I could just call ******** where I see it and engage when you occasionally make a point. I'll see which one takes my fancy as we move forward.

Just trade a a 38/39 year old that relies on speed for $10m? I don't see a queue at the door. This is also assuming he's very good for the rest of it. Something a million miles away from being certain. I get why people want to keep him. If they don't think it;s a massive risk, I don't know what else to say.

Why are you so disingenuous on this? Nobody cares about your last line. People may disagree, but they don't see it as a wild statement. What people (at least speaking for myself) are finding tiresome is your continued posting of why some posters would prefer billionaires to get rich rather than keeping the best talent at the club. This you know, is ********, but you keep doing it whenever backed into a corner to explain your logic. People just understand why the move was made. The amusing thing is you agree the latter parts of the contract would be a burden as you said we'd need to plan to manage that part so its not much of a burden. Yet when others bring this up, it's the 'Billionaires wallet' nonsense.