Gary Matthews Jr. gets 5/50 from Angels

[Soul]

Insane. Soriano may have been in line with the market after all. I still can't get my mind around 11 per for a guy like Matthews.

 

I wonder how many million per year out of 11 would be directly attributable to that amazing catch he made, which was splashed all over ESPN and the ESPYs?

[UBlink]

I know that defense isn't the most important thing, but for old times sake I just went to MLB.com and reviewed some of GMJ's defensive highlights from 2006. As far as highlights go I'd rather watch defense than offense anytime, and his highlights are spectacular.

 

Not saying I want him on the Cubs, but man he's awesome to watch.

[Backtobanks]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

[E.J.]

Angels signed him.

 

Ken Rosenthal[/url]"]In yet another eye-popping free-agent signing, the Angels have reached agreement with center fielder Gary Matthews Jr. on a five-year, $50 million contract, FOXSports.com has learned.

 

The 32-year-old Matthews, who still must pass a physical, is coming off a breakout season in which he batted .313 with 19 homers and 79 RBIs and played stellar defense for the Rangers.

 

He likely will bat leadoff for the Angels and give them increased athleticism in center field, reducing the defensive burden on right fielder Vladimir Guerrero and left fielder Garret Anderson.

[frostwyrm]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

[RynoRules]

Wow.

 

I still think pierre's was worse. At least Matthews can hit for some power.

[frostwyrm]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

[goonys evil twin]

I never would have thought he would have made $10 million in his career a couple seasons ago. If he repeats 2006, they'll be fine. But how likely is that to happen?

[RynoRules]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

 

I still don't understand why you feel that way. If they ink Schmidt and manage to deal for a corner OFer of value, will your opinion change?

[C.C.]

Shheez! The Soriano signing is getting better and better.

[UBlink]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

 

 

Not.

 

 

Even.

 

 

Close.

[RynoRules]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

 

 

Not.

 

 

Even.

 

 

Close.

 

I was thinking the Dreifort contract; maybe the Neagle deal. Burnett may join their ranks eventually.

[frostwyrm]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

 

 

Not.

 

 

Even.

 

 

Close.

 

Are you talking dumbest in hindsight, or dumbest at the time the decision was made? To me this is plainly a terrible deal, no hindsight necessary.

[RynoRules]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

 

 

Not.

 

 

Even.

 

 

Close.

 

Are you talking dumbest in hindsight, or dumbest at the time the decision was made? To me this is plainly a terrible deal, no hindsight necessary.

 

How about both?

 

The Dreifort and Neagle deals were dumb "ab initio" (at the time they were made).

[frostwyrm]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

 

I still don't understand why you feel that way. If they ink Schmidt and manage to deal for a corner OFer of value, will your opinion change?

 

No. MLB is currently giving birth to a flock of albatrosses. This pattern of giving so-so players superstar contracts based on one great year is going to come to an ugly end. There's no way this level of stupidity can remain unacknowledged for long.

[goonys evil twin]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

 

I still don't understand why you feel that way. If they ink Schmidt and manage to deal for a corner OFer of value, will your opinion change?

 

No. MLB is currently giving birth to a flock of albatrosses. This pattern of giving so-so players superstar contracts based on one great year is going to come to an ugly end. There's no way this level of stupidity can remain unacknowledged for long.

 

As long as the Cubs don't give so-so players superstar contracts, it's not an issue for them.

 

With $115m available this year, blowing up and starting fresh was a bad idea.

[UBlink]

Angels signed him to 5 years/$50 million. WOW!

 

Dumbest. Contract. Ever.

 

 

Not.

 

 

Even.

 

 

Close.

 

Are you talking dumbest in hindsight, or dumbest at the time the decision was made? To me this is plainly a terrible deal, no hindsight necessary.

 

Living in Ranger country I had the opportunity to watch him all last year and he was amazingly consistent. Even if you take the OPS of his worst month (.792), for a top tier defensive CF the contract might be 1 or 2M over market. With his athleticism he should make it through the 5 years without losing too much.

 

Can you say Chan Ho Park?

[rocket]

wow. all that money and years for a guy whose had only one good whole season, and it was when he was 32.

[goonys evil twin]

Living in Ranger country I had the opportunity to watch him all last year and he was amazingly consistent. Even if you take the OPS of his worst month (.792), for a top tier defensive CF the contract might be 1 or 2M over market. With his athleticism he should make it through the 5 years without losing too much.

 

Can you say Chan Ho Park?

 

The problem is you are talking about one year.

[RynoRules]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

 

I still don't understand why you feel that way. If they ink Schmidt and manage to deal for a corner OFer of value, will your opinion change?

 

No. MLB is currently giving birth to a flock of albatrosses. This pattern of giving so-so players superstar contracts based on one great year is going to come to an ugly end. There's no way this level of stupidity can remain unacknowledged for long.

 

Understood and agreed - but why does that mean we should not spend and try to improve now? If you are worried about cash, the Cubs likely have been sitting on tens of millions in profit for years. They must have enormous operating income between tickets, concessions, merchandising, etc. I still do not understand why you feel this way.

[goonys evil twin]

Understood and agreed - but why does that mean we should not spend and try to improve now? If you are worried about cash, the Cubs likely have been sitting on tens of millions in profit for years. They must have enormous operating income between tickets, concessions, merchandising, etc. I still do not understand why you feel this way.

 

The sitting on profits arguement doesn't mean much. They don't have a treasure chest of cash they've been holding onto that they'll use for a rainy day. They still have to run this business on an operational basis, spending less than they take in. As long as they can maintain the payroll level, there's no reason why they shouldn't up it this year. If they were planning to slash in 2008, then we're in trouble.

[UBlink]

Living in Ranger country I had the opportunity to watch him all last year and he was amazingly consistent. Even if you take the OPS of his worst month (.792), for a top tier defensive CF the contract might be 1 or 2M over market. With his athleticism he should make it through the 5 years without losing too much.

 

Can you say Chan Ho Park?

 

The problem is you are talking about one year.

 

I know I'm only talking about one year, that's why I looked for consistency within the year. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect future performance at least as good as his worst month in that one year.

[Mark_R]

Time for a title change.

[YearofDaCubs]

wow. all that money and years for a guy whose had only one good whole season, and it was when he was 32.

And that is the reason why there was a lot of criticism about the DeRosa signing. Of course 4mil per compared to 10mil is a big difference.

[frostwyrm]

5/50 for Matthews has erased any lingering doubt in my mind that the Cubs should have gone into retooling mode in 2007.

 

I still don't understand why you feel that way. If they ink Schmidt and manage to deal for a corner OFer of value, will your opinion change?

 

No. MLB is currently giving birth to a flock of albatrosses. This pattern of giving so-so players superstar contracts based on one great year is going to come to an ugly end. There's no way this level of stupidity can remain unacknowledged for long.

 

As long as the Cubs don't give so-so players superstar contracts, it's not an issue for them.

 

With $115m available this year, blowing up and starting fresh was a bad idea.

 

So you think Soriano will justify his salary in RF for 8 years? I don't.