BigP50
04-21-2012
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 7,856
- Liked Posts:
- 546
- Location:
- Lincoln, Nebraska
maybe they signed him so it would be easier to trade him?
Great bargain. Hope he isn't flipped now.
I like the signing, but why would you de-value a trade chip by saddling him with a $65MM payday? That's not what you do if you want to maximize his trade value...
If I had to guess, they weren't liking the offers for Danks and probably figured its best to extend him. Like I said in the Hanley Ramirez thread, I don't think anyone is getting moved because they aren't getting offered the returns KW expects, which isn't a bad thing, there just doesn't seem to be a market for those guys. I'd bet Quentin and Floyd are on the 25 man roster when we stroll into Texas on Opening Day.
If I had to guess, they weren't liking the offers for Danks and probably figured its best to extend him. Like I said in the Hanley Ramirez thread, I don't think anyone is getting moved because they aren't getting offered the returns KW expects, which isn't a bad thing, there just doesn't seem to be a market for those guys. I'd bet Quentin and Floyd are on the 25 man roster when we stroll into Texas on Opening Day.
I don't think that's how you build trade value though. If you were going to move Danks, you offer him arbitration, sign him to that one-year deal, and then try again midseason or next offseason. You don't throw $65MM at him. That says "we're keeping you"...
Isn't that what I said? I said "they weren't liking the offers for Danks and probably figured its best to extend him."
Right, I was speaking about the previous commenters who worried about him getting traded afterwards.
Ah, fair enough. My bad.