Poll: How offensive was Chuck Armstrong's decision to keep Washburn?
by Steve Nelson on Sep 7, 2008 1:32 PM PDT
Email
PrintWe've commented ad nauseum about Chuck Armstrong's decision to kill the deal to trade Washburn to the Twins. That FanPost generated more comments than any other that I've done.
But I think it's time to get more quantitative about our feelings. Yes, the decision was offensive, but how offensive was it? Midlly offensive or gut-sickening bad??
And what better way to get quantified than by getting polled. So here it is, a Lookout Landing poll for gauging our revulsion.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
IMO it was offensive, but marginally speaking, no more offensive than his usual obstructive stupidity
I do believe the reaction to the Washburn non-deal was overblown.
Absolutely.
I basically had to tune out the blog community because the outrage was getting to be too much. Of course he should have been dumped for nothing, but that opportunity still exists in this off season and there are much bigger things to worry about. I know that the salary dump will help; I’m just saying it’ll help only so much.
If they could somehow find a way to unload the next three years of Joh or Silva (yeah right), I would think this org’s future might be a little brighter. This next year of Wash and Batista basically mean nothing— yes, that is $16M that could be spent elsewhere, but we’re unlikely to spend it anyways. I’m more upset about the four roster spots of the aforementioned.
That opportunity does not exist this off-season.
Once the season’s over there will be other pitchers available who cost less and suck less. We had one shot at this because of the paucity of starters available in August and the Twins took a crazy risk.
This was an appalling failure simply because of what a complete no-brainer it was. We have a below average starter making a ton of dough, and someone offered to let us have that not be the case. Armstrong’s decision is easily the second worst decision the team has made this season.
The worst, of course, is Kenji’s extension. I rank the Bedard trade below both of these because I can at least see what Bavasi was trying to do. I disagree with his execution, but it wasn’t a laughable plan on its face.
Keeping Washburn was.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
My Ranking:
1. Bedard Trade – Cheap good CF, good cheap pitching prospects, good cheap SU/CL for 2 years of good pitcher
2. Silva Signing – $48M Cha Seung Baek
3. Johjima Extension – Falling off the face of the earth was unforseeable, but org has too much depth at C
4. Holding back RRS and Morrow – leads doing stupid things like (1) and (2)
5. Not dumping Washburn for a bag of beans
The saddest part about 1 and 2 is that they’re going to end up paying roughly $100M for those two pitchers- the $48M and ~$16M to the pitchers, and potentially $30M to replace all the pieces they gave up that were cheaply under club control
The thought process behind the Washburn non-trade is the most abhorrent thing about it, though.
It’s indicative of everything that’s wrong with the franchise; inability to evaluate pitching talent, inability to read the market and predict the ways in which it’s likely to change going forward, over-valuation of veterans, way too much stock put into the assumed reaction of casual fans, etc.
J.K.L.
by Aaron Campeau on Sep 8, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I was jaded enough to not be surprised.
Just like when I tried to shrug off the Silva signing. That one to me is the hardest to deal with— $48M for an average pitcher when we were fully staffed in the average pitcher prospect department.
No disagreement there.
The Silva signing might be the worst move (based on intent and thought process) this franchise has ever made.
J.K.L.
by Aaron Campeau on Sep 8, 2008 1:41 AM PDT up reply actions
THIEEEEFFF!!!!
It definitely ranks right up there.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Sep 8, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Their philosophy is a known quantity
It was offensive but it wasn’t a shock, nor was it the worst decision they’ve ever made.
I forgot about Silva.
Silva’s worse.
And again, the Bedard trade I think is defensible. They went out and got something valuable, and they overpaid horribly for it. With Washburn and Silva there’s no value coming to the M’s. You can’t get these wrong if you know the first thing about baseball.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
I know my opinion might not be the most informed but...
Look, you have a very rich owner who doesn’t give a shit about the money on Washburns contract. So trading him for nothing just to spare the expense of his contract is pointless. In the analogy about the apartments, its as if the owner is a multi billionare and doesn’t care in the slightest about the 20,000.
If the twins were going to give up decent prospects in return, then I getting angry would make sense, but since (From what ive gathered) the deal was basically just getting rid of Washburn in exchange for his plane ticket to Minnesota, there is no reason to get upset at all.
Exceeding expectations is less a matter of luck than possession of certain assets.
More money? He doesn't care about the money!
A rotation spot would be a compelling argument, but who would competently fill the spot without hindering their development?
Exceeding expectations is less a matter of luck than possession of certain assets.
by anaheim angels on Sep 7, 2008 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
There is obviously a limit to how much they're willing to spend each year
The money that goes to Washburn is part of that total sum, and that money could go to something more useful.
Like Stephen Strasburg's record signing bonus?
- talent by a mile, may even be in the bigs in ’09 + Scott Boras == big dough
I see the future. I see cake.
Well
Given the team is going to cut payroll and rebuild, the money at this point actually does matter… but that’s hindsight being 20/20: we didn’t know they planned to rebuild at the time, and they probably didn’t know either.
I think a lot of people just want the expensive, whiny mediocrity gone above all else… and when there was an easy chance to offload him for any sort of return, it riled a lot of people up that the deal ultimately wasn’t done.
"...they probably didn't know either." That's a big problem.
Nothing I’ve seen, or heard from the FO would make me question this part of your statement. But it’s not the point of this post so I won’t belabor the issue.
"Steee-rike!" cries the umpire, and the westward course of empire flows unchecked. Paul O'Neil in SI.
They're rich, not stupid.
That remark is the best thing I have ever received from Southwest Airlines.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
I only say this because I think you'd care
but it’s ad nauseam – accusative form.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 7, 2008 8:50 PM PDT reply actions
Yes - thank you. I've never studied Latin
I’ve never studied Latin so I wasn’t aware there was an accusative tense. I will store that info for future reference.
Future perfect, or future subjunctive reference?
;-)
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Sep 8, 2008 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
