Bonderman update thread.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by Eric Cioe

I've actually been with the same girl for five years now. She just knows that I need about 3 hours to myself most days when there is a ballgame. She also loves beer, plays guitar, and puts up with my crap. Pretty ideal arrangement.

Yeah, that is not fair. Not fair, at all.

[Yoda]

Chicks dig sabers.

[Eric Cioe]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Chicks dig sabers.

Chicks dig handlebar mustaches, which are decidedly non-saber.

[hueytaxi]

I think Bonderman is sporting some new ink

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by Eric Cioe

Chicks dig handlebar mustaches, which are decidedly non-saber.

I'm as clean cut as they come. That might be part of the problem. haha.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Chicks dig Wade Garrett

[TigersSlappy]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Chicks dig sabers.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Note to Cioe: This is what a girl looks like :)

Is she a lefty?

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Note to Cioe: This is what a girl looks like :)

Originally Posted by tiger337

Is she a lefty?

I am praying with all my heart, that she's a switch hitter.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Lawdie, she be hot.

[Eric Cioe]

Originally Posted by sportz4life

I am praying with all my heart, that she's a switch hitter.

Early contender for best post of 2010.

[shauntacular]

Originally Posted by ToledoTigerFan

Lawdie, she be hot.

Yeah she's pretty much perfect. Remember "Ghost World?" Who woulda thought she'd turn into THAT.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Originally Posted by shauntacular

Yeah she's pretty much perfect. Remember "Ghost World?" Who woulda thought she'd turn into THAT.

She's almost like a digital creation of the perfect woman. I mean, sheesh, no real woman is actually THAT hot. She must have a flaw somewhere on her, but I don't know where or what it would be.

[Dunkin Darvin]

“I still don’t feel exactly where I need to be. I need someone to watch over me the whole time. I’m hoping two and a half weeks into camp, I’ll be back where I need to be.”

-- Jeremy Bonderman, Tigers pitcher, to ESPN’s Buster Olney

Someday they might be Tigers | detnews.com | The Detroit News

[sportz4life]

Last Updated: February 13. 2010 1:00AM
Bob Wojnowski
Let's be honest: Tigers are better with Johnny Damon

From The Detroit News: Let's be honest: Tigers are better with Johnny Damon | detnews.com | The Detroit News

It's a lot of money for an aging outfielder in a soft free-agent market. Fair concerns, but I don't care, and neither should the Tigers.

The Tigers would be better with Johnny Damon in their lineup, plain and simple. And if Mike Ilitch wants to spend the dough, go for it.

From a baseball standpoint for 2010, it's a good move. This is not even debatable. The Tigers would add a desperately needed left-handed hitter who could bat first or second, hit 20 home runs and take some pressure off rookie Austin Jackson.

Damon supposedly planned to make his decision by the end of the week, then said he wasn't sure about the timetable. If Ilitch has authorized a reported two-year, $14-million offer, why the delay?

Advertisement

Well of course, dogged agent Scott Boras has to solicit every last offer from the Braves or White Sox, neither of whom appears willing to go beyond one year. If Damon wants the best deal -- and truly would like to play in Detroit, as Boras giddily suggested -- he should leap now, because I don't see any team coming close to the Tigers' reported numbers.

It may seem strange the Tigers would spend so much for a 36-year-old outfielder, after other offseason moves suggested payroll deduction. It's confusing until you fully inspect their flawed lineup, and fully understand Ilitch's competitive impulsiveness. He likes big names and bold moves, and he's willing to pay for them, as he has with Magglio Ordonez, Pudge Rodriguez, Miguel Cabrera and others.

Dave Dombrowski was trying to make the roster younger and cheaper, but if the owner's mandate changes, I'm sure the GM isn't going to argue. Obviously, Boras is pitting the Tigers against other teams, real or imagined. And I'm fairly certain the Tigers are aware of two things.

Lineup needs him
No. 1, the AL Central is eminently winnable, and if they don't improve their lineup, they're going to waste what could be very good pitching.

And No. 2, I think the Tigers recognized they opened too many holes by trading center fielder Curtis Granderson and letting Placido Polanco leave. Upon further reflection by Ilitch and Dombrowski, would Damon be a way to remedy "mistakes"? Sort of, yeah.

The Tigers did err by not offering Polanco arbitration, which would have kept him here or landed them a draft pick. It's too early to tell if the Granderson trade was a long-term gaffe, but it sure created short-term complications.

Damon wouldn't fix everything, please. But he'd help, possibly quite a bit.

There's a public-relations bonus to landing a popular player, but that's not what intrigues me. Damon is a .288 hitter who slugged a career-best 24 home runs for the Yankees last season. He gets on base and runs well. He won a World Series in New York and Boston. He's a shaky left fielder, yes, but he sure isn't any rougher than Carlos Guillen.

While Granderson's slump contributed to his exit, what about Guillen? He hit only .242, often was injured, and complained after the season about a reduced role. And he's not much younger (34) than Damon.

Ilitch plays to win
We're all over-thinking this, wondering why the Tigers would slash cost, then add cost, try to get younger, then get older. The fact is, Ilitch is emotional and reactionary, and usually eager to back his sentiments with his checkbook. I think that's a good thing.
The Tigers' offense was brutal to watch last season and it risks being even worse. As spring training nears, worries grow and competitiveness kicks in. The Tigers' reported offer is similar to their signing of closer Jose Valverde -- expensive, but the best option available.

Would they be overpaying? Probably. Would they be a better team in 2010 because of it? For sure.

Wojo..this is why, it's often hard to take you seriously..you would rather rationalize to save your own ** instead of admit you had the offseason wrong..

too bad..solid article until the bolded portion. what makes writers so stupid..The Tigers never vasilated about spending money, they reshaped the roster, decided to consider deals to get younger and improve the team, but always try and win..Not a real difficult idea to comprehend..It's like people think Detroit had an created a budget, had their organizational meeting, then their 80 year old owner, decided to play fanatsy baseball after agreeing to stay within budget..guys..if these scribes really believe this..I have some swamp land..The Tigers have known for 2 months Damon and Valvaerde may be available and likely discussed them in their meeting in December..good teams prepare for these things..it's not a Disney movie.

[Dunkin Darvin]

Originally Posted by sportz4life

Wojo..this is why, it's often hard to take you seriously..you would rather rationalize to save your own ** instead of admit you had the offseason wrong..

too bad..solid article until the bolded portion. what makes writers so stupid..The Tigers never vasilated about spending money, they reshaped the roster, decided to consider deals to get younger and improve the team, but always try and win..Not a real difficult idea to comprehend..It's like people think Detroit had an created a budget, had their organizational meeting, then their 80 year old owner, decided to play fanatsy baseball after agreeing to stay within budget..guys..if these scribes really believe this..I have some swamp land..The Tigers have known for 2 months Damon and Valvaerde may be available and likely discussed them in their meeting in December..good teams prepare for these things..it's not a Disney movie.

If writes were just honest sometimes and said things like "well I guess I was wrong the Tigers aren't dumping salary" then try to analyze what they are trying to do it would be much easier to like them and take them seriously.

[Scottwood]

Everyone has it in their heads that the Granderson trade was about money and nothing they have done after the fact will change it. Its dumb and completely illogical, but whatever. They will continue to say the same thing for years and years even though it was a faulty assumption in the first place. Even SABR sites I respect like FanGraphs and The Hardball Times continue to mention that the Tigers traded Granderson to cut payroll. Its frustrating, but people generally have a hard time admitting they made a wrong assumption and usually just run with it from there. So, on the one hand, it is understandable.

[Hart]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

Everyone has it in their heads that the Granderson trade was about money and nothing they have done after the fact will change it. Its dumb and completely illogical, but whatever. They will continue to say the same thing for years and years even though it was a faulty assumption in the first place. Even SABR sites I respect like FanGraphs and The Hardball Times continue to mention that the Tigers traded Granderson to cut payroll. Its frustrating, but people generally have a hard time admitting they made a wrong assumption and usually just run with it from there. So, on the one hand, it is understandable.

Here is what bothers me: People assume that because we went out and signed Valverde and likely Damon, that means the Granderson trade could not have been about shedding payroll. I completely disagree with that. All that those signings prove is that Illitch did not demand a huge reduction in payroll. But I think there is a very good chance DD considered the benefits of saving money when deciding to make that trade. It might not have been the sole reason he made it, but it had to factor in to the decision.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Hart

Here is what bothers me: People assume that because we went out and signed Valverde and likely Damon, that means the Granderson trade could not have been about shedding payroll. I completely disagree with that. All that those signings prove is that Illitch did not demand a huge reduction in payroll. But I think there is a very good chance DD considered the benefits of saving money when deciding to make that trade. It might not have been the sole reason he made it, but it had to factor in to the decision.

I also think the trade was made, in part, to free up money to make other moves, both for this year and future years. I don't think money was the only consideration but I believe it was part of it.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by Hart

Here is what bothers me: People assume that because we went out and signed Valverde and likely Damon, that means the Granderson trade could not have been about shedding payroll. I completely disagree with that. All that those signings prove is that Illitch did not demand a huge reduction in payroll. But I think there is a very good chance DD considered the benefits of saving money when deciding to make that trade. It might not have been the sole reason he made it, but it had to factor in to the decision.

Finances play a part in any decision. That is a given. I don't think they played any bigger role in the Granderson trade than they do in any other move. And, the only thing to suggest otherwise is assumptions based on... what?

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by Hart

Here is what bothers me: People assume that because we went out and signed Valverde and likely Damon, that means the Granderson trade could not have been about shedding payroll. I completely disagree with that. All that those signings prove is that Illitch did not demand a huge reduction in payroll. But I think there is a very good chance DD considered the benefits of saving money when deciding to make that trade. It might not have been the sole reason he made it, but it had to factor in to the decision.

DD considered the factors of getting younger, better and exchanging 26 years of contract control for 6.

The Granderson was trade was not about shedding payroll, it was about reallocating resources, getting younger and addressing multiple concerns by adding new players and removing others. I think it's been proven that the reasons Granderson was traded had little to do with current concerns about spending money.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

Finances play a part in any decision. That is a given. I don't think they played any bigger role in the Granderson trade than they do in any other move. And, the only thing to suggest otherwise is assumptions based on... what?

Each of the players they received was less expensive than each of the players they gave up. They will also be under the team's control for longer, which is also related to finances. This is not a typical move by a contending team with a high payroll. On the other hand, the Yankees received the most expensive and least risky player for 2010 in the deal. None of this necessarily makes it a bad trade for the Tigers but I think there was a significant financial component.

[itsallgood8989]

Has anybody noticed that Jackson, the pitcher we traded is in arbritration and is likly to win a contract for over 6m a year? We got a pitcher back that is right around the same value as he, + or - for a biginning MLB contract and a number of years of team control.

We are always talking about Granderson, but we need to remember that you need to analysis all sides of the trade. I agree with Sportz4life, this trade was about a reallocation of resources that DD felt gave us better long term viability.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by tiger337

Each of the players they received was less expensive than each of the players they gave up. They will also be under the team's control for longer, which is also related to finances. This is not a typical move by a contending team with a high payroll. On the other hand, the Yankees received the most expensive and least risky player for 2010 in the deal. None of this necessarily makes it a bad trade for the Tigers but I think there was a significant financial component.

If finances were a big part of the deal, they never would have let Magglio hit the $15 million jackpot, signed Valverde or offered Damon a contract. If we really needed to cut costs like so many are saying, then Illitch has lost his mind and forgot how to count money. That or he has amnesia and has forgotten that we have no money to spend. We have a lot of money coming off the books after this season and Granderson had a good contract. If we wanted to keep him, we would have.

They got cost controlled players in the deal, but I don't see the problem with that or why that makes it a financial decision. I also don't think that DD thinks we got worse with this deal for 2010. It is very possible that the 4 players we got in the deal will combine to post a higher WAR than we would have got from Jackson/Granderson. We retooled a bit for the future and remained competitive for 2010. Moves don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Illitch has not shown a tendency to let money get in the way of making moves and he wouldn't stop now.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by itsallgood8989

Has anybody noticed that Jackson, the pitcher we traded is in arbritration and is likly to win a contract for over 6m a year? We got a pitcher back that is right around the same value as he, + or - for a biginning MLB contract and a number of years of team control.

We are always talking about Granderson, but we need to remember that you need to analysis all sides of the trade. I agree with Sportz4life, this trade was about a reallocation of resources that DD felt gave us better long term viability.

I agree with this and this is the financial component. I think the need to reallocate resources came first and then Dombrowski found a trade which he felt could help do that while also not hurting the team on the field in the long run. If there was no need to reallocate resources, I think the Tigers may have gone in a different direction this winter though.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

If finances were a big part of the deal, they never would have let Magglio hit the $15 million jackpot, signed Valverde or offered Damon a contract. If we really needed to cut costs like so many are saying, then Illitch has lost his mind and forgot how to count money. That or he has amnesia and has forgotten that we have no money to spend. We have a lot of money coming off the books after this season and Granderson had a good contract. If we wanted to keep him, we would have.

They got cost controlled players in the deal, but I don't see the problem with that or why that makes it a financial decision. I also don't think that DD thinks we got worse with this deal for 2010. It is very possible that the 4 players we got in the deal will combine to post a higher WAR than we would have got from Jackson/Granderson. We retooled a bit for the future and remained competitive for 2010. Moves don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Illitch has not shown a tendency to let money get in the way of making moves and he wouldn't stop now.

They moved every single expensive player they could at the beginning of the winter. A lot of it involved good decisions but this is not something they have done in the past few years. Thus, I think their moves were made with finances in mind more than usual.

DD doesn't think he got worse with the deal for 2010 because he was able to use the money saved to make other moves.

I think they kept Ordonez because people within the organization felt he would get better in the second half and help them get into the playoffs. There was probably a lot of thought given to letting him go.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by tiger337

I agree with this and this is the financial component. I think the need to reallocate resources came first and then Dombrowski found a trade which he felt could help do that while also not hurting the team on the field in the long run. If there was no need to reallocate resources, I think the Tigers may have gone in a different direction this winter though.

I'd argue that the main point was getting 5+ years of Scherzer, Coke, Schlereth and Jackson as opposed to just 2 more years of Jackson and 3 more of Granderson. There are finances involved with that, but the key point is that you get more players who are part of your teams core for longer periods of time. Plus, I think Scherzer is being underrated in all of this and is going to be a heck of a piece to this deal if he can stay healthy. In the long run, it could be possible that a straight up trade of Granderson for Scherzer would have been enough and the other 3 pieces more than made up for losing 2 years of Edwin Jackson.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by tiger337

DD doesn't think he got worse with the deal for 2010 because he was able to use the money saved to make other moves.

That could be part of it. He also might think that the 4 players we got will combine to make a bigger impact than Granderson and Jackson would have in 2010. The latter is not exactly impossible.

[Walt]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

I'd argue that the main point was getting 5+ years of Scherzer, Coke, Schlereth and Jackson as opposed to just 2 more years of Jackson and 3 more of Granderson. There are finances involved with that, but the key point is that you get more players who are part of your teams core for longer periods of time. Plus, I think Scherzer is being underrated in all of this and is going to be a heck of a piece to this deal if he can stay healthy. In the long run, it could be possible that a straight up trade of Granderson for Scherzer would have been enough and the other 3 pieces more than made up for losing 2 years of Edwin Jackson.

Are you saying Scherzer could be this years Edwin Jackson?

[Hart]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

I'd argue that the main point was getting 5+ years of Scherzer, Coke, Schlereth and Jackson as opposed to just 2 more years of Jackson and 3 more of Granderson. There are finances involved with that, but the key point is that you get more players who are part of your teams core for longer periods of time. Plus, I think Scherzer is being underrated in all of this and is going to be a heck of a piece to this deal if he can stay healthy. In the long run, it could be possible that a straight up trade of Granderson for Scherzer would have been enough and the other 3 pieces more than made up for losing 2 years of Edwin Jackson.

That might be true but the fact that we are even talking about how getting those 4 players for a longer term and much less money proves in my mind that finances were a part of this deal. People don't like to use the term "shedding payroll" because it sounds like you are rebuilding for the future and making a trade ONLY to save money but that is not always the case.

Would the Tiger's have made this trade if Granderson and Jackson cost the same as the four players we are getting in return for the remainder of their contracts? I think that is very questionable.

[Hart]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

If finances were a big part of the deal, they never would have let Magglio hit the $15 million jackpot, signed Valverde or offered Damon a contract. If we really needed to cut costs like so many are saying, then Illitch has lost his mind and forgot how to count money. That or he has amnesia and has forgotten that we have no money to spend. We have a lot of money coming off the books after this season and Granderson had a good contract. If we wanted to keep him, we would have.

They got cost controlled players in the deal, but I don't see the problem with that or why that makes it a financial decision. I also don't think that DD thinks we got worse with this deal for 2010. It is very possible that the 4 players we got in the deal will combine to post a higher WAR than we would have got from Jackson/Granderson. We retooled a bit for the future and remained competitive for 2010. Moves don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Illitch has not shown a tendency to let money get in the way of making moves and he wouldn't stop now.

The Maggio decision was made to make the playoffs. If the Tigers knew they were going to miss the playoffs, I doubt whether they let the option vest.

I always don't think the Tigers had planned on pursuing Valverde or Damon when they made the trade. I do think they planned on adding payroll but not as much as it looks like they are going to now. I think they just found those two guys to be better bargains than they expected.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

I'd argue that the main point was getting 5+ years of Scherzer, Coke, Schlereth and Jackson as opposed to just 2 more years of Jackson and 3 more of Granderson. There are finances involved with that, but the key point is that you get more players who are part of your teams core for longer periods of time. Plus, I think Scherzer is being underrated in all of this and is going to be a heck of a piece to this deal if he can stay healthy. In the long run, it could be possible that a straight up trade of Granderson for Scherzer would have been enough and the other 3 pieces more than made up for losing 2 years of Edwin Jackson.

They will probably get more than five years combined out of the four players they acquired but it's unlikely that they will get 5+ full years out of each of the four of the players they acquired.

I also think Scherzer has a chance to be very good. In fact, he is the one player they got who makes me somewhat ok about the deal. However, I don't think the Diamondbacks are dumb. I think AZ made him available because of questions about his durability. If he stays healthy, he can be better than Jackson but he's risky I think.

Of course there are scenarios which can make this a good deal for the Tigers as well as a bad deal. There is certainly a good deal of upside in the deal but I think the Tigers took some risks in exchange for financial flexibility.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Hart

I always don't think the Tigers had planned on pursuing Valverde or Damon when they made the trade. I do think they planned on adding payroll but not as much as it looks like they are going to now. I think they just found those two guys to be better bargains than they expected.

I agree with this. If other teams were offering three year contracts, I don't think they Tigers would have gotten involved.

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

If finances were a big part of the deal, they never would have let Magglio hit the $15 million jackpot, signed Valverde or offered Damon a contract. If we really needed to cut costs like so many are saying, then Illitch has lost his mind and forgot how to count money. That or he has amnesia and has forgotten that we have no money to spend. We have a lot of money coming off the books after this season and Granderson had a good contract. If we wanted to keep him, we would have.

They got cost controlled players in the deal, but I don't see the problem with that or why that makes it a financial decision. I also don't think that DD thinks we got worse with this deal for 2010. It is very possible that the 4 players we got in the deal will combine to post a higher WAR than we would have got from Jackson/Granderson. We retooled a bit for the future and remained competitive for 2010. Moves don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Illitch has not shown a tendency to let money get in the way of making moves and he wouldn't stop now.

Amen.

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by Hart

That might be true but the fact that we are even talking about how getting those 4 players for a longer term and much less money proves in my mind that finances were a part of this deal. People don't like to use the term "shedding payroll" because it sounds like you are rebuilding for the future and making a trade ONLY to save money but that is not always the case.

Would the Tiger's have made this trade if Granderson and Jackson cost the same as the four players we are getting in return for the remainder of their contracts? I think that is very questionable.

Lets see, if I trade 2 assets that in my opinion, have peaked in value, for 4 assets that haven't and I dont compromise production and it leaves resources that allow me to acquire even more production, is that shedding payroll. How is this different than selling 2 stocks and buying 4 I deem have more upside..

Either you're shedding payroll or you're not. There is a huge difference in rebalancing and leveraging asstes to increase the quality of your roster.

What I'm saying is, dont call it one thing, then change that definition to fit your argument.

The Tigers for the millionth time didn't trade Granderson because because of money..which is in a backhanded way what you initially were inferring.

This nonsense is exactly what I called out Wojo for this morning..

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by Hart

Would the Tiger's have made this trade if Granderson and Jackson cost the same as the four players we are getting in return for the remainder of their contracts? I think that is very questionable.

That is not a fair question b/c player's contracts always factor into trade decisions and effects players value. How long players are under contract also effects their value. If the 4 players we got back in return would only combine to give us 5 years of playing time and cost the same as Jackson and Granderson, then I doubt we would make the deal. Who would? They are an asset b/c we have each of them under our control for 5+ years and that adds a heck of a lot of value to them. That doesn't make it a financially driven deal, though. It is just smart to load up on cost controlled players under your control for 5 to 6 years.

When people are saying that we traded him for financial reasons, they are implying that if we had $60 million committed in 2010, rather than $120 million, then we never would have traded Granderson and Jackson. In other words, if we were not hamstrung by the bad contracts for the 2010 season then we wouldn't have traded him. I don't believe that is the case and no other move they have made this off season or in the past under Mike Illitch suggests that is the case, especially b/c those same bad contracts that are supposedly hamstringing us this off season are virtually all off the books next year. They could have taken the hit on Granderson and Jackson's contract for 1 more year if they really wanted too. But, they didn't. If the finances were so tight, they also wouldn't have brought back Laird or Bobby Seay. But, so far, they have.

[tiger337]

Scott, you say that contracts factor into all deals but then you say that these deals are not based on finances. If deals are bases on contracts, then they are based on finances. How much a deal is based on finances depends on a team's situation. The Yankees go into the off-season thinking about which players they can add without worrying too much about money or how many years of player control they have. The Pirates go into the off-season knowing they can't add any huge contracts and hoping they don't have to shed any. Every move they make has heavy financial considerations.

Other teams fall in between. After the 2007 season, the Tigers were almost like the Yankees trading away players who they controlled for several seasons and adding expensive players with little regard for contracts. This off-season, the Tigers have operated very differently. You might prefer the way they are doing things now but it's a change from some past years. Instead of just adding players, they are reallocating resources and trying to acquire some younger players. Maybe next year when they have more money available available, they'll go back to adding rather than reallocating.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by sportz4life

Either you're shedding payroll or you're not. There is a huge difference in rebalancing and leveraging asstes to increase the quality of your roster.

What I'm saying is, dont call it one thing, then change that definition to fit your argument.

The Tigers for the millionth time didn't trade Granderson because because of money..which is in a backhanded way what you initially were inferring.

This nonsense is exactly what I called out Wojo for this morning..

I don't think Hart inferred that they were shedding payroll. He said Granderson and Jackson were dealt, in part, so they could use the money in other deals later in the season. That's really not very different from what you're saying.

[Scottwood]

Originally Posted by tiger337

Scott, you say that contracts factor into all deals but then you say that these deals are not based on finances.

I never said they were not based on finances, or at least I didn't mean to imply that. I said the Granderson/Jackson deal was not based on finances anymore than any other deal is. Saying that this was a financially-driven deal would seem to imply that finances were a larger part of the decision making process than is normal.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Scottwood

When people are saying that we traded him for financial reasons, they are implying that if we had $60 million committed in 2010, rather than $120 million, then we never would have traded Granderson and Jackson. In other words, if we were not hamstrung by the bad contracts for the 2010 season then we wouldn't have traded him. .

I actually think that is the case. I do not think they would have made that trade if they did not commit themselves to all the bad contracts. I also don't think they would have let Polanco go (even though I think it was the right move). I think they would have just added players the way they have the last six off-seasons. Maybe, it will turn out to be a good trade and a good new way of doing things. I don't think it's business as usual though.