Schad wrote:I_Like_Dirt wrote:Roark's contract wouldn't be bad if he was still an okay pitcher. He just sucks. That's the thing with Matz. Does he suck? If he does, it's not the cost. He just sucks. He might suck. I kinda think he will.
But getting caught up in the cost? Nah. Adding up costs for the year isn't how it always works. Having one-year salaries invariably limits things a lot. You just wanted different risks on different players you like better. That's all this is no mattee how much you try and twist it.
It's not unlike all that talk about how Stanley Johnson was a problem contract for the Raptors. Or Norm. It's not a problem. It's all about if the player is good or not and you're convinces Matz isn't. No need to hide it. It's a fine opinion.
The contract does play into it. Absolutely, Roark and Matz are totally defensible if they don't suck, but even with something of a rebound, there's a good chance that the opportunity cost of having them exceeds the difference between what they provide versus other options. We aren't operating in a vacuum here: we have a bunch of better-than-replacement-but-worse-than-average backend/swingmen types, and innings going to Roark/Matz are innings that those other players could provide at a teensy fraction of the cost.
If Matz and Roark rebound and are better than those guys by, I dunno, 1 fWAR combined (which is about what the favourable Steamer projections have them at), you could on one hand look at that as a found win, I guess. But it's also a win for which we paid an additional $16m, and that's bad resource allocation. $16m should be expected to buy you more than one win.
Matz's contract is excellent value when compared to Roark. The only way I would appreciate the Matz deal is if we are able to offload Roark and this was just a replacement move.