cpebbles wrote:
Vidor wrote:
This still makes no sense. First, as noted many times, there is no salary cap in base all and the Cardinals were, are, and will remain free to pay Oswalt $8M. So stating the McClellan prevents them from signing Oswalt is factually incorrect. Second, even if it were true that they can't give Oswalt eight million, linking that to McClellan makes no sense. What if they paid Schumaker less, or non-tendered him? What if they'd extended Westbrook for less? Or Lohse? What if they talked Holliday into deferring four million of his 2012 salary? What if they'd handed RF to Craig instead of signing Beltran?
McClellan seems to be turning into one of those internet whipping boys. Like Aaron Miles.
My last attempt:
No salary cap does not mean teams have no limitations on spending, no matter how many times you say it.
Yes, yes it does. They do not have a limitation on spending, and saying otherwise is factually incorrect. They choose not to expand the payroll sufficiently to sign Oswalt.
Quote:
The Schumaker deal probably should not have been done, but at least he is a better player than the alternatives (Chambers, Robinson, Brown) for his roster position, which is not the case with McClellan.
I don't believe anyone here has denied that the Westbrook extension handcuffs the team. It's just a bad decision well in the past, whereas the McClellan contract was a bad decision made while Oswalt was available and interested. There has still been plenty of complaining about it.
It's a little ridiculous to presume that Holliday would be willing to agree to any contract revisions that decrease the present-day value of his contract by $2.5 million or so.
If they hadn't signed Beltran, they would be a significantly worse team.
I do not cite X, Y, and Z to argue that they are better options--although the Schumaker contract was one that most seemed to dislike but is now oddly forgotten now that McC is the whipping boy--but to point out the fundamental illogic in deciding McC's $2.5M out of $110M or so is the reason we haven't signed Oswalt. Even if one pretends that we can't sign Oswalt, which of course we can. Roy Oswalt isn't a Cardinal b/c ownership doesn't want him badly enough, full stop. Whether or not they really need him is a judgment call; I think not but it would be nice.
I don't understand all this whipping boy talk. To me it seems like there are two kinds of "whipping boys", the first being guys that should barely be sniffing ML roles and are overused like Miles and Theriot, and the second being guys who fans feel their contract money could be used more efficiently like McClellan and Schumaker. The collective opinion here seems to take issue with the latter because we're luckily not dealing with the former. Two completely different scenarios.
Login
Register
FAQ
