Breaking Murikami to the White Sox 2 x $17M

[harmony]

Did anyone think Jorge Polanco would land a more lucrative contract than Munetaka Murakami this offseason?

[D-train]

I would not mind seeing OKA and a trade for Brendan Donavan.

Not going to do both I wouldn't think but Oka can DH/3B and Donovan at 2B/3B/RF and LF to let Randy DH might work. That would be a good offseason.

I see that Brendan is only slotted to make 5.4M on Roster Resource so if Murakami got 2X17 maybe OKA sign at 3X14M or some such. But I hat this moronic approach that you have rookies slotted into slots. Fk that rookies need to be basically injury fill inns when needed. I could also go if somebody falls flat on their face. Not multiple rookies who did not prove they belonged the year before just because they are on lists.

If Colt just crushes it on D and with the bat then you push OKA or Donavan to 2B/OF/DH.

I agree but that is there philosophy. The key component of the their sustainability mantra is that they need a bunch of kids making minimum wage and if they don't let them play then they need to spend millions to go outside the org to fill holes.

[DavidGee24]

That Murikami only got two years and 17 million from the second-worst franchise in MLB says a lot. EVERYONE was sour on him. A franchise like the White Sux can shrug and say sure, why not. Okamoto seems like a much better player, although we're not going to sign him either due to our ban on Japanese players.

[HawkandMariner88]

Is it better if you let the kids play & save some money or spend big have them unperform. Which would you rather have.

[D-train]

Is it better if you let the kids play & save some money or spend big have them unperform. Which would you rather have.

The more you spend the more likely you are to have good production because you are paying for proven established players as opposed to potential. Pretty simple.

[GL_Storm]

Is it better if you let the kids play & save some money or spend big have them unperform. Which would you rather have.

The more you spend the more likely you are to have good production because you are paying for proven established players as opposed to potential. Pretty simple.

You're also typically spending on an asset that's in decline, especially with the middle class of players, which is the group that the Mariners are typically buying from. That's Mitch Garver, for instance. They aren't buying from the Bo Bichette aisle at the free agent store.

[D-train]

Is it better if you let the kids play & save some money or spend big have them unperform. Which would you rather have.

The more you spend the more likely you are to have good production because you are paying for proven established players as opposed to potential. Pretty simple.

You're also typically spending on an asset that's in decline, especially with the middle class of players, which is the group that the Mariners are typically buying from. That's Mitch Garver, for instance. They aren't buying from the Bo Bichette aisle at the free agent store.

Yep and they just did it again yesterday