[USML Announce] 7-04 USML Moves

[JHWinick at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/6/2004 12:13:44 PM Central Daylight Time, 
SpringKerb at aol.com writes:
Actually, Mulder was long gone when I did my deal with the Cups, and Greinke 
was the guy they were after anyway.  But, more to the point, Jeff is 
distorting my message.

The Cups got a perfectly good deal, at least in my opinion.   I think 
Greinke's a great long-term prospect (particularly at only $2), and so does Jeff, or 
at least so he keeps telling us.  They also got a pretty darned good looking 
young outfielder in the same deal, with a $5 salary.  Both of those players are 
Y1, so they have plenty of time to pay off.

Blocker instead went for the proven commodities with major league track 
records--Mulder, Huff, Mueller (and Olivo).  That's a different philosophy at work, 
but it hardly means Blocker got ripped off.  He went for--and clearly 
received--proven big league performers.  "Failing" to get Greinke wasn't a failure by 
Blocker to do anything; it was just the obvious implication of his tactical 
choice to go for more established players.  Mulder is clearly the right pitcher 
for that approach.  (And the statement he has "been hurt in each of the last 
few seasons" isn't very accurate.  Last year's hip injury was the only injury 
that had a signicant impact on his performance, and it has shown no signs of 
recurring.)

So the Cups got cheaper, younger, Y1 players (more risk, but potentially 
greater long-term rewards).  Blocker got older, slightly more expensive, mostly Y2 
or LT05 players (less risk, but also more limited upside potential).  Both 
teams got lots of future value, but Blocker's is mostly loaded into 2005.

Mark
I do think the Cups got a very good deal.  I think Greinke is an excellent 
prospect who has the potential to be one of the top pitchers in the American 
League over the life of his contract.  I'm not as big a fan of Ford, but its hard 
to argue with his numbers so far.

As for Blocker deal, the mere fact that you include Mueller as a key 
component of the deal speaks volumes.  Also, the reference to the fact that Blocker 
"went for" established players proves the only point that I've been trying to 
make.  Blocker knowingly left a big fish on the table.  

By the way, I've once again modified my description of the Block's Bomber 
annual campaigns.  Rather than, "perenially driving to a middle of the pack 
finish" (a rather unwieldy description), I will hereafter refer to the annual 
Blocker effort as a "drive for five" as in fifth place.

That is all (for now).

Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040706/f8df1d8b/attachment.htm