Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
Sure I think it's relevant. There always has to be comparisons. The market is the market. For example Pujols signs a contract just 2 million more than A-Rod's 252 million. If a team thought they would get Pujols for less than 252 they were mistaken. The Angels realized this and snuck in and got him while everyone else was twiddling their thumbs over term and money.
|
People make comparisons, but in terms of pure economics it's ridiculous. If market conditions are different so why should the numbers stay the same?
Quote:
|
Scouts say Darvish is much better than Dice-K so the bid should be higher especially if a team is gonig into a blind auction. The Rangers bid just 600000 more than the Dice-K bid. If the Jays just bid around 45 million then they were not serious. If they thought oh the Yankees or the Red Sox aren't in it so the market must be down, they were mistaken. Better to overbid then to come up emptyhanded. Rogers should have blown them out of the water or not bid at all.
|
Like I said, since Darvish is that much better than Dice-K why would he get only $600k more in the bidding? Market conditions. The teams involved, apprehension of bidding so much after Dice-K didn't pan out, etc. If Darvish blows Dice-K out of the water then why should we even consider a bid of a few thousand more serious? Shouldn't the winning bid have cleared $55-60 million then? The fact that Darvish got basically the same as Dice-K shows the market was down.
And, no, it's not better to overbid than come up empty handed. It's ridiculously short-sighted to say that the Jays should've bid $60m just "to make sure". AA had a value he established for Darvish and Texas exceeded it. To go over that limit is what bad general managers do.