
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Ima Pseudonym <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : On 3 Dec 2003 13:43:35 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (simy1) wrote: :>> :>> I don't think that's fair to Sabean; the obvious retort is to check out :>> how the Texas Rangers are doing. :> :>Not comparable. Arod costs 10M more per season and delivers 3 to 4 :>wins less, also per season. It's not identical, but it's comparable. Sabean's built a solid support squad. : Also not comparable since the Rangers' short term moves since signing : ARod have been almost uniformly bad. To say that Sabean's strategy is : better than another strategy that has been ineptly applied is not : saying very much. Fair enough, but it's not the only example out there, just the most extreme one. Sabean's had seven seasons, and he's been anywhere from 86-76 to 100-61; sure, it's great to have Bonds, but Sabean's strategy for building around him has worked out OK. : Otoh, the Rangers are developing a core of young : players the likes of which the Giants won't have when Bonds retires. Hey, who knows? He ain't going anywhere yet... JHB
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |