[QUOTE=astorian]
No, that’s NOT my idea of a “bad contract,” except in the moral sense (Rogers is a major scumbag… not that Johnson is any better), and I think you know that.
The point was merely that the Tigers built their pitching staff around a 40-something free agent, just as the Yankees did.
The Tigers’ gamble paid off a lot better, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were gambling on an old guy, just as the Yankees did.
The question is, is it bettert to suffer through 10 .400 seasons in the hopes that your young, inexpensive guys may suddenly click and make you a contender, or is it better to be a playoff team every year, even if you have some question marks come playoff time.
[/QUOTE]
No problem, I just mistook your tone of the previous post. I don’t know if the Tigers intended to build their rotation around a 40 year old pitcher. He was pretty much a complementary piece (that ended up being the opening day starter). Gambling on an old guy isn’t bad, and, again, making the gamble on Randy Johnson when the Yankees did did NOT look like a bad proposition at all. Clearly, Johnson fizzled when he hit New York, end of story.
When you word your question like that, then I’ll take George’s approach. If you change it slightly to take bucketfuls of shit for a bunch of years (as we’ve had to do) until you get better to (potentially) build a VERY powerful baseball team for many years..or George’s approach..I’ll take the shit.
Also, for the record, I’d put Mr. Rogers higher on the scumbag list than Mr. Johnson. I certainly haven’t forgot about his altercation with the reporter last year. He’s had anger problems his entire career.