Irrelevant conclusion, but that's all trolls offer. Irrelevant comments. We have seen time and time again with Pujols etc that these monster contracts signed after they have already made hundreds of millions only harm the franchise. Has to be a strict clause where salary lost due to extended injuries is given back to the team to improve the roster for all twilight contracts - guys who have already made more than 200 million in their career.
Nobody cares what you would do if you were someone else - you're not. As a sports fan and someone who wants franchises to remain competitive it's better to compare them to Tim Duncan, an elite athlete and champion, than the average lazy , overweight fan.
Even if Verlander signed for the minimum or left there was 0 chance Luhnow was offering Cole more than the Yankees (especially the contract length) and Cole wasn't taking a discount lol. There's a huge difference between 36 million for 9 years and 33 million for 2 years. Forget about Cole, Verlander had nothing to do with him leaving
Forgotten. But there was a ton of other talent out there, always has been, and Verlander's contract played a huge part in crippling those opportunities, having to get another war vet in Greinke at a high rate, and in general, hurting the team at a time when they had to put more chips in before deciding on Springer or Correa.
You do realize Verlander signed his extension late during spring training last year right? If they wanted to they could've signed some FAs during the offseason. What does Greinke Verlander's fault? He was pitching like a CY Young pitcher. Unless you somehow think Verlander's contract is what caused them to go out and trade for...another big contract, which makes no sense lol. Verlander's contract is over by the time Correa is a FA so he doesn't matter, but sure I'll give you Springer.
Assume this thread is about sacrifice bunting. JV has pitched his whole career pitching in the American league so you can't expect a successful sacrifice.
Why? Teams can already purchase insurance at a fair market rate for this if they want, and teams already price age into the risk valuation of their contracts. Why is that not enough? If you want Verlander to take less if he's injured, then you should offer him a whole lot more if he's not injured. He'd have gotten a hell of a lot bigger contract for his performance if the team didn't account for age/risk already.
