What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Brewers to offer CC Sabathia contract sometime today (1 Viewer)

Also, I'm speaking as a homer here so take it for what its worth, but if CC is serious about winning a championship I think he has a much better shot at doing it with the Brewers in the next 4 years then with the Yankees and their aging squad the next 6 years.
With all the problems and injuries the Yankees had this past year and the total disaster the season was, They won a total of 1 less game than Milwaulkee.. Now, Imagine CC was on the Yankees and the Brewers were ravaged by injuries :lmao:
Injuries really have nothing to do with it, look at what the Yankees paid to get that one last win and look what the Brewer's farm system has produced and still has waiting at bay.Give me the name of a top prospect for the Yankees? Brett Gardner is the only one I can think of that is anywhere close to major league ready. The Yankee's core is on the way wrong side of 30 and sure they can spend the money each year to bring in the talent to win games, but you need a "team" and not just talent to take home a series. The Brewer's core are still 25 or under and regardless of how much money the Steinbrenners have, Antonosio has proven himself to be a reliable decision maker and committed to putting together a winnning team.
It takes a team to make the playoffs. It takes a lot of breaks to take home a series, and great starting pitching. Not necessarily great pitchERS but pitchING. What I mean is, for every Jake Peavy and Brandon Webb and Randy Johnson that has fizzled in the playoffs the last several years, there's a Jeff Suppan or a Kenny Rogers or a Derek Lowe who has dominated. People mistakenly think the best pitchers always win. That's not true. The team that gets the best performances from those pitchers wins. Did the Yankees have the best pitchers when they were winning the WS? Not really. But David Wells, El Duque, Cone, and Pettitte typically came up big in the playoffs for whatever reason. Those guys are nowhere near the caliber of Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine, yet they beat those guys twice in a four-year span heads-up.People have simplified the playoffs to think that a team like the Yankees as presently constructed CAN'T win in the postseason. They point to things like egos and lineup structure and too many superstars and things of that nature. I myself was guilty of that just a few years ago. But it's ludicrous.I realize I'm going to get killed for the following statements, but...In 2003, the Yankees were an Aaron Boone flyball away from a 3-1 series lead over Florida in the WS.In 2004, they were a Mo Rivera save from sweeping Boston and playing for the WS. Then they were a Hideki Matsui sinking liner from winning. Then a Tony Clark ground rule double. Then a Jorge Posada flyball knocked down by the wind.In 2005, Bubba Crosby and Gary Sheffield collide in CF and cost them the clinching game against the Angels. And who beat them? A rookie pitcher with no postseason experience named Ervin Santana. So what teams should now do is throw rookies that have never been tested into the fire? That's the key to postseason success?In 2006, they entered the playoffs as the hottest team in baseball and were inexplicably shut down by Kenny Rogers. Verlander and Bonderman I'll give you, but Rogers? That was absurd. Do you think that one game was indicative of the quality of the team, or was it a fluke occurrence that came at a bad time?In 2007, Joba Chamberlain was attacked by a swarm of midges on the mound. Not saying they definitely win the game or series, but it certainly didn't help. Boston won 5/6 against the Yanks early in the regular season that year, but the Yankees dominated the head to head matchup after that point if I'm not mistaken. If they get by Cleveland, there's a decent chance they get by Boston. And that year, the NL forgot to show up for the World Series.See, the playoffs are a funny thing. One or two breaks go another way and you're talking about a World Championship or three. Just like during the Yankees winning run, we saw the following:In 1996, they're a Jeff Maier-aided HR from going down 0-1 to the O's. Then without the Leyritz HR in Game 4, they're down 3-1 and facing Smoltz in an elimination game in Atlanta. No way they'd have won. Did Leyritz hit that HR because the Yankees were a younger team, or did he hit the HR because Wohlers hung a slider?In 1998, El Duque saved their season after Knoblauch's brain lock. Then in the WS, they were a horrid non-call on strike 3 to Tino Martinez from heading into the 9th tied in Game 1. Then it took a HR off the bat of Scott Brosius (who had hit .205 the year before the Yankees signed him) in the 9th off Hoffman to win another one. So now the key to success is to sign guys who had horrible seasons the year before?In 2000, they finished the season horribly, limping into the playoffs. They were an Armando Benitez walk and a Timo Perez failure to hustle away from losing the Game 1 home opener to the Mets in the WS.In 2001, there were about 75 plays on either side (Jeter flip play, Giambi throwing error in game 5, Tino HR, Brosius HR, Rivera throwing error in Game 7) from having any one of those series go the other way.People on this and other forums go on and on all the time about how much the Yankees have sucked lately. But the simple fact is that during their so-called glory years, they were always a play or two away from not winning. And during these so-called down years, they've been a play or two away from playing for the whole thing. What I see is a team that certainly declined last season (after all, age is a part of injuries) but one that was still winning 95-100 games per year from 2001 to 2007 despite no rings. And despite the decline last year, they were within striking distance of a playoff spot when they lost Joba in late August...after having lost Wang and his 19 wins in June.If anyone is going to suggest that a team that is poised to lose its number 2 starter and has made the playoffs once since 1982 has a better shot at a championship than a team that has been in the playoffs all but once since 1994, I don't think I need to say anything other than what I just did.
Excellent post, but yes I'd still take the Brewers to have a better chance in the next 5 years.
 
Also, I'm speaking as a homer here so take it for what its worth, but if CC is serious about winning a championship I think he has a much better shot at doing it with the Brewers in the next 4 years then with the Yankees and their aging squad the next 6 years.
With all the problems and injuries the Yankees had this past year and the total disaster the season was, They won a total of 1 less game than Milwaulkee.. Now, Imagine CC was on the Yankees and the Brewers were ravaged by injuries :popcorn:
Injuries really have nothing to do with it, look at what the Yankees paid to get that one last win and look what the Brewer's farm system has produced and still has waiting at bay.Give me the name of a top prospect for the Yankees? Brett Gardner is the only one I can think of that is anywhere close to major league ready. The Yankee's core is on the way wrong side of 30 and sure they can spend the money each year to bring in the talent to win games, but you need a "team" and not just talent to take home a series. The Brewer's core are still 25 or under and regardless of how much money the Steinbrenners have, Antonosio has proven himself to be a reliable decision maker and committed to putting together a winnning team.
It takes a team to make the playoffs. It takes a lot of breaks to take home a series, and great starting pitching. Not necessarily great pitchERS but pitchING. What I mean is, for every Jake Peavy and Brandon Webb and Randy Johnson that has fizzled in the playoffs the last several years, there's a Jeff Suppan or a Kenny Rogers or a Derek Lowe who has dominated. People mistakenly think the best pitchers always win. That's not true. The team that gets the best performances from those pitchers wins. Did the Yankees have the best pitchers when they were winning the WS? Not really. But David Wells, El Duque, Cone, and Pettitte typically came up big in the playoffs for whatever reason. Those guys are nowhere near the caliber of Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine, yet they beat those guys twice in a four-year span heads-up.People have simplified the playoffs to think that a team like the Yankees as presently constructed CAN'T win in the postseason. They point to things like egos and lineup structure and too many superstars and things of that nature. I myself was guilty of that just a few years ago. But it's ludicrous.I realize I'm going to get killed for the following statements, but...In 2003, the Yankees were an Aaron Boone flyball away from a 3-1 series lead over Florida in the WS.In 2004, they were a Mo Rivera save from sweeping Boston and playing for the WS. Then they were a Hideki Matsui sinking liner from winning. Then a Tony Clark ground rule double. Then a Jorge Posada flyball knocked down by the wind.In 2005, Bubba Crosby and Gary Sheffield collide in CF and cost them the clinching game against the Angels. And who beat them? A rookie pitcher with no postseason experience named Ervin Santana. So what teams should now do is throw rookies that have never been tested into the fire? That's the key to postseason success?In 2006, they entered the playoffs as the hottest team in baseball and were inexplicably shut down by Kenny Rogers. Verlander and Bonderman I'll give you, but Rogers? That was absurd. Do you think that one game was indicative of the quality of the team, or was it a fluke occurrence that came at a bad time?In 2007, Joba Chamberlain was attacked by a swarm of midges on the mound. Not saying they definitely win the game or series, but it certainly didn't help. Boston won 5/6 against the Yanks early in the regular season that year, but the Yankees dominated the head to head matchup after that point if I'm not mistaken. If they get by Cleveland, there's a decent chance they get by Boston. And that year, the NL forgot to show up for the World Series.See, the playoffs are a funny thing. One or two breaks go another way and you're talking about a World Championship or three. Just like during the Yankees winning run, we saw the following:In 1996, they're a Jeff Maier-aided HR from going down 0-1 to the O's. Then without the Leyritz HR in Game 4, they're down 3-1 and facing Smoltz in an elimination game in Atlanta. No way they'd have won. Did Leyritz hit that HR because the Yankees were a younger team, or did he hit the HR because Wohlers hung a slider?In 1998, El Duque saved their season after Knoblauch's brain lock. Then in the WS, they were a horrid non-call on strike 3 to Tino Martinez from heading into the 9th tied in Game 1. Then it took a HR off the bat of Scott Brosius (who had hit .205 the year before the Yankees signed him) in the 9th off Hoffman to win another one. So now the key to success is to sign guys who had horrible seasons the year before?In 2000, they finished the season horribly, limping into the playoffs. They were an Armando Benitez walk and a Timo Perez failure to hustle away from losing the Game 1 home opener to the Mets in the WS.In 2001, there were about 75 plays on either side (Jeter flip play, Giambi throwing error in game 5, Tino HR, Brosius HR, Rivera throwing error in Game 7) from having any one of those series go the other way.People on this and other forums go on and on all the time about how much the Yankees have sucked lately. But the simple fact is that during their so-called glory years, they were always a play or two away from not winning. And during these so-called down years, they've been a play or two away from playing for the whole thing. What I see is a team that certainly declined last season (after all, age is a part of injuries) but one that was still winning 95-100 games per year from 2001 to 2007 despite no rings. And despite the decline last year, they were within striking distance of a playoff spot when they lost Joba in late August...after having lost Wang and his 19 wins in June.If anyone is going to suggest that a team that is poised to lose its number 2 starter and has made the playoffs once since 1982 has a better shot at a championship than a team that has been in the playoffs all but once since 1994, I don't think I need to say anything other than what I just did.
Excellent post, but yes I'd still take the Brewers to have a better chance in the next 5 years.
:headbang: Fair enough!
 
As expected Friday, the New York Yankees officially tendered an offer to free-agent pitcher CC Sabathia.

The offer is expected to be six years in length and have a total value of slightly more that the record $137.5 million deal that pitcher Johan Santana signed with the Mets before last season.

Santana's deal had been the largest ever for a pitcher.

 
they said 6 years, $140 M on the radio...
Gonna be tough for the Mets to get involved in the negotiations (as has been rumored) because how do you justify it to Santana that he'll be making less money than a statistically inferior pitcher?
Mets cant get in the negotiations because they cant commit to another contract that size for a pitcher, it has nothing to do with justifying the contract to Santana.
 
they said 6 years, $140 M on the radio...
Gonna be tough for the Mets to get involved in the negotiations (as has been rumored) because how do you justify it to Santana that he'll be making less money than a statistically inferior pitcher?
Mets cant get in the negotiations because they cant commit to another contract that size for a pitcher, it has nothing to do with justifying the contract to Santana.
It's probably accurate to say that they shouldn't commit to that size contract, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they can't. They have the financial ability to do so, what with some payroll coming off and the new stadium opening.Obviously the Mets know going in what the market will be for Sabathia, and the reports of the last few days are that the Mets are indeed involved in the negotiations. So they're willing to jump in despite knowing the amount of money it'd take and that they'd be tying up somewhere between $45-$50 million on two pitchers. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that it'd be more to do with slighting Santana and upsetting their entire team's payroll structure (what happens when Wright/Reyes become FA eligible in a couple years) than their ability to sign him.

 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.

Typical :X

I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :shock:

 
Not only will this guy have the combined weight of Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright, he'll also perform about as bad as both did combined.

(Sorry, couldn't help it)

 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.Typical :excited: I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :stalker:
I disagree with almost this entire posting. Perhaps he'll work out, perhaps not. But they're not doing this to offset the "mistake" of not trading for Santana. I think they saw some of the available pitching in this market and figured they could have their caked and eat it too. Why trade a possible ace in Hughes AND a bunch of money, when you can wait a year and have a comparable pitcher to Santana (still spending money but without giving up the young ace-in-waiting). Now obviously the jury's out on Hughes, but it makes a lot of sense regardless.Anyway, CC is not coming off an inexplicable career year, as you suggested. He was the Cy Young winner last season! It's not like this ability simply came out of nowhere...he's been an ace for years now, so this is nowhere near Carl Pavano/Chan Ho Park type territory we're talking about.Maybe I'll look back in 3 years on not dealing for Santana as a horrid move, but I can't bash it after one year. We knew going into 2008 that it wasn't going to look like a great deal unless Hughes dominated. Well, he didn't. But he's still young enough to where he eventually could. If he turns out to be anything close to what Cashman expected him to be (say he's an 18 game winner in 2009), then not trading him last year all of a sudden becomes a great move.
 
Not only will this guy have the combined weight of Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright, he'll also perform about as bad as both did combined.(Sorry, couldn't help it)
Is this shtick or do you actually believe that CC Sabathia, 117-73 over his career 36-17 the last two years, and with ERAs of 3.22, 3.21, and 2.70 the last three years, will completely bust?
 
I think it's a pretty good chance he busts by year two of the deal. He has a ton of pitches on his arm and is incredibly overweight. When is that ever a good combination?

Yanks are paying strictly for past performance here. I really hope they lock this guy up for 7 years. I wouldn't be shocked to see that if his agent plays the California card.

I love that the Yanks are going back to their crazy free-agency ways.

 
Not only will this guy have the combined weight of Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright, he'll also perform about as bad as both did combined.(Sorry, couldn't help it)
Is this shtick or do you actually believe that CC Sabathia, 117-73 over his career 36-17 the last two years, and with ERAs of 3.22, 3.21, and 2.70 the last three years, will completely bust?
Shtick.I think Sabathia will be fine, but I do agree that the Mets got a better deal with Santana. And I do believe the potential is there, as Cappy mentioned. Guy has thrown A LOT at this point in his career.Hideo Nomo is a good reference for what happens when heavy workloads early in the career can affect you later on. I don't think Sabathia will have that sharp of a decline, but by the end of the deal, to see a good decline in production wouldn't shock me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's a pretty good chance he busts by year two of the deal. He has a ton of pitches on his arm and is incredibly overweight. When is that ever a good combination?Yanks are paying strictly for past performance here. I really hope they lock this guy up for 7 years. I wouldn't be shocked to see that if his agent plays the California card.I love that the Yanks are going back to their crazy free-agency ways.
:rolleyes: He reminds me of David Wells
 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.

Typical :bs:

I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :doh:
Seriously? The guys been a top pitcher since the beginning of his career.
 
they said 6 years, $140 M on the radio...
Gonna be tough for the Mets to get involved in the negotiations (as has been rumored) because how do you justify it to Santana that he'll be making less money than a statistically inferior pitcher?
Mets cant get in the negotiations because they cant commit to another contract that size for a pitcher, it has nothing to do with justifying the contract to Santana.
It's probably accurate to say that they shouldn't commit to that size contract, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they can't. They have the financial ability to do so, what with some payroll coming off and the new stadium opening.Obviously the Mets know going in what the market will be for Sabathia, and the reports of the last few days are that the Mets are indeed involved in the negotiations. So they're willing to jump in despite knowing the amount of money it'd take and that they'd be tying up somewhere between $45-$50 million on two pitchers. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that it'd be more to do with slighting Santana and upsetting their entire team's payroll structure (what happens when Wright/Reyes become FA eligible in a couple years) than their ability to sign him.
You over estimate the Mets cashflow. They really dont have much payroll to work with this offseason and have a ton of positions to fill. Sure, I guess they could sign CC if they wanted to field a team a quarter of which should be in the minors. They need 2 starting pitchers, an infielder, a LFer, a whole new bench, and a completely revamped bullpen. To sign CC, they'd have to ignore all those other needs in the FA market, and god knows they cant trade for crap with their farm system. And just because a team like the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. make an offer doesnt mean they're serious about signing a player.

 
they said 6 years, $140 M on the radio...
Gonna be tough for the Mets to get involved in the negotiations (as has been rumored) because how do you justify it to Santana that he'll be making less money than a statistically inferior pitcher?
Mets cant get in the negotiations because they cant commit to another contract that size for a pitcher, it has nothing to do with justifying the contract to Santana.
It's probably accurate to say that they shouldn't commit to that size contract, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they can't. They have the financial ability to do so, what with some payroll coming off and the new stadium opening.Obviously the Mets know going in what the market will be for Sabathia, and the reports of the last few days are that the Mets are indeed involved in the negotiations. So they're willing to jump in despite knowing the amount of money it'd take and that they'd be tying up somewhere between $45-$50 million on two pitchers. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that it'd be more to do with slighting Santana and upsetting their entire team's payroll structure (what happens when Wright/Reyes become FA eligible in a couple years) than their ability to sign him.
You over estimate the Mets cashflow. They really dont have much payroll to work with this offseason and have a ton of positions to fill. Sure, I guess they could sign CC if they wanted to field a team a quarter of which should be in the minors. They need 2 starting pitchers, an infielder, a LFer, a whole new bench, and a completely revamped bullpen. To sign CC, they'd have to ignore all those other needs in the FA market, and god knows they cant trade for crap with their farm system. And just because a team like the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. make an offer doesnt mean they're serious about signing a player.
I also overestimated the reports about the Met interest. Newsday is now saying they won't get involved in the bidding, so it makes everything I said moot anyway.The fact that they aren't, and probably never were, involved in the bidding suggests you were spot-on with your assessment of their financial position.

 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.

Typical :popcorn:

I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :confused:
Seriously? The guys been a top pitcher since the beginning of his career.
I guess we have a different opinion of how we define a "top pitcher." He's a left-handed Mike Mussina. Solid. But, not the caliber of other "top pitchers" to come out in recent years. He's no Santana. And, he's certainly a reach at the $140+ million or whatever the Yanks end up spending on him.
 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.

Typical :bs:

I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :banned:
I think Yankee fans expected Hughes to contribute maybe a little :thumbup: and even Kennedy to be a part of the rotation Plus a lot more from Melky.... A LOT!!!!!I think Yankee fans understood it was a roll of the dice to hope the young guys would come thru AND get their pitcher without paying the price in young talent...

I wasn't sure what to do - The fact that Hughes Kennedy and Melky ALL turned out to be worthless last year makes it real simple now..... But, that Yankee team won 89 games, If you get what anyone expected out of those 3 players, I'd think you squeek a few more wins out of that and it's a different discussion...

I also don't think we know ALL the details of what was offered....

But, that said, yeah, at this point, Yankee fans will be happy with CC.

Lets move on.....

LOOK AT YOU, YOU WERE RIGHT!!!!!!

 
I think it's a pretty good chance he busts by year two of the deal. He has a ton of pitches on his arm and is incredibly overweight. When is that ever a good combination?

Yanks are paying strictly for past performance here. I really hope they lock this guy up for 7 years. I wouldn't be shocked to see that if his agent plays the California card.

I love that the Yanks are going back to their crazy free-agency ways.
Going Back?

The decision last year was.. Make the move now or next year... It was no surprise.

We all knew they were shedding a ton of money this year - We all pretty much expected a FA pitcher or 2 this year - why act surprised?

 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.

Typical :banned:

I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :thumbup:
Seriously? The guys been a top pitcher since the beginning of his career.
I guess we have a different opinion of how we define a "top pitcher." He's a left-handed Mike Mussina. Solid. But, not the caliber of other "top pitchers" to come out in recent years. He's no Santana. And, he's certainly a reach at the $140+ million or whatever the Yanks end up spending on him.
Mussina is a borderline HOFer. I guess we DO have different definitions of top pitchers.
 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.Typical :thumbup: I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :goodposting:
I don't want him for the deal they are talking about. Any pitching contract longer then 4 years is a bad idea.
 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.Typical :bs: I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :unsure:
I don't want him for the deal they are talking about. Any pitching contract longer then 4 years is a bad idea.
In fairness, this isn't Carl Pavano or Jaret Wright -- guys who showed inconsistent glimpses of ability that caused us to overpay. It's also not Randy Johnson or Kevin Brown -- guys who used to be great but were approaching the twilight of their careers. It's an ace pitcher, coming off his two best seasons, still in his prime. Will he be worth the money in years 4, 5, 6? Perhaps not. But they need to give him those years in order to get him for the next three, and I think he, along with a healthy Joba and Wang, form a very formidable top 3 both in the regular season and in a playoff series. If Hughes is even marginally effective, combined with Pettitte or Moose that's suddenly a very good rotation.
 
Still can't get over the fact that the Yanks never pulled the trigger on the Santana deal last year. Now, they're in a position to vastly overpay for this fat tub coming off an inexplicable career year.Typical :lmao: I'm sure most Yankee fans will be happy with this signing, if/when it happens. Just like most Yanks fans seemed rather content holding on to Kennedy and Hughes, rather than trade in those chips for a HOF lefty. :P
I don't want him for the deal they are talking about. Any pitching contract longer then 4 years is a bad idea.
In fairness, this isn't Carl Pavano or Jaret Wright -- guys who showed inconsistent glimpses of ability that caused us to overpay. It's also not Randy Johnson or Kevin Brown -- guys who used to be great but were approaching the twilight of their careers. It's an ace pitcher, coming off his two best seasons, still in his prime. Will he be worth the money in years 4, 5, 6? Perhaps not. But they need to give him those years in order to get him for the next three, and I think he, along with a healthy Joba and Wang, form a very formidable top 3 both in the regular season and in a playoff series. If Hughes is even marginally effective, combined with Pettitte or Moose that's suddenly a very good rotation.
And does it really matter if you are the Yanks? So they pay him for 6 years...even if they only get 4 good years out of him, $140mm is what they had to pay to get him to come to the Yanks for those 4 years. They were even smart enough to spread that $140mm out over 6 years.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top