I would MUCH rather see a guy like Wilken Ramirez get a decent look than have Damon eat up a roster spot and extra cash. I would be hesitant to even spend $2mil on him if I was DD.

1) Competing teams (or teams who think they are competing) are myopic. They spend money to win. This describes the Tigers in 2010 AND 2011.

2) Any money the Tigers lose this year will likely be used to offset Ilitch’s gains elsewhere. He has loads of tax attorneys and accountants smarter than even the Fan graphs geeks who will ensure that this happens.

Say it with me friends, a Damon 1 year deal for anything less than $7M /yr will have ZERO effect on 2011.

The more I think/read/dream about it, Damon would be a perfect fit here, provided that Leyland can give up on his Guillen and Inge man-crushes and use them accordingly.

Peavy is great and their pitching is good, but they traded most of their pitching depth away for Peavy also. If someone gets hurt, they have nobody decent to fall back on.

Here’s my rundown on their everyday players:
C – Pierzynski, 33, and he’s on the last year of his contract. Top prospect, Tyler Flowers is being groomed to replace him. Grade: B

1B, Konerko will turn 34 and on the last year of his contract. He’s OK, but his best days are behind him. Grade: B-

Beckham, 2b. He can hit and should improve, but his defense is questionable. Grade: C+

Teahen at 3B. He strikes out a ton and doesn’t walk much. He was very unproductive for KC. His defense is marginal at best. He was a decent utility player, but he has no business starting at any one position everyday. They were better off keeping Getz and Fields. Grade: D-

Alexei Ramirez at SS. He was a Cuban defector and now in his 3rd season with the club. They say he’s 28, but he’s probably 33. He’s been a notorious slow starter. They dropped him to the 8th spot in the line-up last year. He’s got some pop, but he doesn’t walk much. Defense has been good. Grade : C+

Juan Pierre in LF. Another guy who doesn’t walk much. He can hit singles and steal some bases. His OBP the last 5 years was about .330, and that has made him a much less effective lead-off hitter. He no longer has the great speed or range to be an everyday CF. He has one of the worst throwing arms also. LA seemed eager to give him away for nothing and pay for much of his salary. Grade: D

Alex Rios in CF. He had a .296 OBP last season. His game deteriorated in every aspect. They’re stuck with him for the next 5 seasons because of the ridiculous contract he has. Picking him up off waivers from Toronto is perhaps the biggest bonehead mistake ever by a GM. Grade: D

Carlos Quentin in RF. His defense is suspect. His OBP skill are suspect. His power is awesome. He’s a .260ish hitter with 30 -40 HR potential. He’s your everyday Marcus Thames. Grade: C

Kotsay / Jones at DH. Both players are done. Either have been productive in the past several years. A few more square pegs that Chicago is trying to fit in a round hole. Grade : F

How far their pitching can carry them is the only question. Too many misfit role players for them to be much better than .500.

That is genius. I second the motion. All in favor?

(chorus) Aye!

Oppose?

(TSE) Nay.

The ‘ayes’ have it, the motion carries.

I think we need to invent our own TSE-version of Godwin’s Law; something along the lines of, “as an online discussion with TSE grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ‘logic’ or ‘sound reasoning’ approaches 1.” Then we could invoke TSE’s Law whenever somebody used these terms in an argument, meaning they automatically lose the argument. Or we could just stop responding to him, which seems much simpler.

As for your example, you are again focusing on TODAY’S decision, which is not what I’ve done at any point. In your example, you’re comparing signing Damon today with giving up $6 mm in assets to acquire an infielder that’s around after this year. I absolutely 100% agree that this impact the future and payroll decisions in 2011. I have not at any point argued otherwise. What I’ve said all along is that IF they sign Damon today, when they finish shaping the roster this time in 2011, they aren’t going to make those decisions based on a cost that’s already been paid.

My point actually DOES make logical sense, and in fact you said yourself that “Damon isn’t a sunk cost until AFTER we’ve made the move”. I have not argued anything different from that. You have not convinced me that you understand my point by consistently making reference to things that I never said.

And if the money is in the budget, let’s say we do my trade idea where I acquire a new starting infielder. I’m making a trade by giving up players we have, and to balance the trade I throw in 6 million of money as financial juice to get the trade. So now our payroll is the same as if we signed Damon, let’s just say Damon was 6 million. So in once case, 6 mill worth of our assets are in a one year rental, and in the other case 6 mil of our assets attribute to the new starting infielder that will be here long-term as a result of the deal. That’s called trading a future chip for a present chip. They have the same value, but one is condensed to one unit of time and now, and the other is spread out over a period of time. Signing Damon makes it impossible to escape these dynamics, thus your point does not have a logical substance to it to exist as valid, and therefore it’s unacceptable imo.

You are misinterpreting what I’m saying, and doing so in a condescending fashion. Again, the tone is uncalled for. I have no problem that you disagree with me, but nothing I’ve said defies logic or common sense as you assert. Please read carefully because I don’t get the sense that you’re understanding my point. Let me try and clarify.

I am not implying that a decision should be made one way or another TODAY based on whether something is or is not a sunk cost. It’s not a sunk cost until they’ve actually paid it, and I recognize as much. I said as much in my earlier post (which you seemingly did not read carefully enough) and have not said anything to the contrary. I am pointing out that in 2011, when the sunk cost of paying for Johnny Damon’s contract has already occurred, it will not have an influence on payroll decisions in 2011.

Further, I never said that spending money today has no impact on the future. I think that argument could be fairly made (i.e., player development). I don’t argue with this point. My point is that if they spend $4 million today for one year of Johnny Damon, it will not prevent them from spending those dollars in 2011. I was very clear that this applies to payroll decisions. From that perspective, the notion of “sunk cost” fits.

Let’s imagine a scenario where the Tigers have a $50 mm payroll for each 2010 and 2011, and they sign Damon for one year at $5 mm. Now their 2010 payroll is $55 mm but 2011 is still $50 mm. Before the start of 2011 (which is what I’ve been referring to the entire time) when Damon’s contract is up, they don’t trade a player to “recoup” the lost $5 mm on Damon. They can’t, the dollars are gone, the cost is sunk. Payroll decisions at that point in time are made based on expected ticket sales, merchandising, revenue sharing, TV deals, etc. for the coming season(s). Simply put, they are made based on expected future profitability (or more accurately expected future revenue), not to try and recoup some cost that occurred over the previous season. If they expect future revenues to justify the cost of another $5 million player, they will look to add one. If they don’t expect as much, they won’t. Whether they do or not has nothing to do with paying Damon the year before. It just doesn’t.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

I still disagree with you, even if it’s less money it still affects the future. You cannot escape that fact no matter what you believe. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of logic and common sense. If you make a statement that defies the very cores of logic and common sense, you have to be able to take the punches when you get slaughtered for those perversions.

I should have been clearer in my post, but signing Damon for a one-year deal at a reasonable salary (let’s say $3-4 million range) doesn’t affect 2011 decisions. Washburn and Huff are not equivalent situations because we traded young players for them. That would not be the case with Damon. Valverde is not equivalent because he is signed for 3 years (2 + option, technically), so he would in fact have an impact on 2011 moves.

Signing Damon does in fact give us less money for THIS year, but I was not disagreeing with that point. My contention is that giving Damon $4 mm this year does not influence what decisions are made next year (assuming it’s a one-year deal. Again, a point I should have made clearer). That is, by giving him the contract today, it would become a SUNK COST, meaning it cannot be recuperated in the future. Therefore, future payroll decisions cannot and should not be made in 2011 trying to recoup that expense from 2010. That’s my only point.