PDA

View Full Version : Would you have gone 5 years and $80M for Anibal Sanchez?



Seth Stohs
12-13-2012, 05:20 PM
Earlier Nick asked if you would go 2 years and $30 million on RHP Ryan Dempster, who apparently signed with the Boston Red Sox for 2 years and $26 million.

It sounds as though the Cubs and RHP Anibal Sanchez are nearing a 5 year, $75 million deal. So, the similar question for the forum is: Would you have signed Anibal Sanchez for 5 years and 80 million? They theory, of course, is that the Twins would have had to overpay a little bit to have "won" the Sanchez derby.

I would have liked the deal at 5 years and $75 million, so I would be good with 5 years and $80 million just because he is very good, and unlike most free agents, he is still young and so the five years on him wouldn't scare me quite as much as a 3 year deal on some 33 year old.

joeboo_22
12-13-2012, 05:23 PM
I wouldn't touch Dempster for anything close to that, but Sanchez unless there is something else either in the medical reports or just personal history, seems like a good deal. I would take this deal over the Correia signing any day of the week.

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
12-13-2012, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't touch Dempster for anything close to that, but Sanchez unless there is something else either in the medical reports or just personal history, seems like a good deal. I would take this deal over the Correia signing any day of the week.

Exactly, Dempster can be a workhorse of any rotation but he definitely was not worth that contract, and its likely he will get lit up in the AL EAST. I like Sanchez a lot, but i think he is a solid # 2 pitcher and thats a nice deal for him.

Willihammer
12-13-2012, 05:45 PM
Heck I would be alright giving him 6/90 like he asked for originally

johnnydakota
12-13-2012, 05:53 PM
uuhhmmmm dam skippy, but we need to remember who is captining this ship
Sanchez would be a piece to the puzzle and would contribute after the rebuilding stag..

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-13-2012, 05:54 PM
The good news with dempster and Sanchez is neither one got an absurd salary, which means we should be able to get marcum or Jackson at a half way decent rate

Riverbrian
12-13-2012, 05:55 PM
Heck I would be alright giving him 6/90 like he asked for originally

Me 2... I'd go 6/90 just to bring him and hopefully have him around when Meyer and Mays arrive.

edavis0308
12-13-2012, 05:55 PM
If all years have the same salary.. that contract is going to look like a steal in the back half.. assuming he doesn't completely fall off a cliff.

johnnydakota
12-13-2012, 06:10 PM
The good news with dempster and Sanchez is neither one got an absurd salary, which means we should be able to get marcum or Jackson at a half way decent rate

Hahahahaha ok, acept the fact Correia was it and the rest of the money will go towards payroll slashing bonuses for the front office.

diehardtwinsfan
12-13-2012, 06:12 PM
Sanchez - yes
Demster - no way.

gunnarthor
12-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Sure. He's probably worth it and would have been around for the finished rebuild.

minn55441
12-13-2012, 06:37 PM
Sanchez - yes
Demster - no way.

My thoughts exactly. We not only need help in 2013 but in the years to follow. With Demsters age, he isn't going to be around when we need him. Not only in terms of the contract, but also with his age he won't be pitching at the level we need in 2015 and beyond.

Buy quality or youth and hopefully both in the same contract.

70charger
12-13-2012, 06:39 PM
I would consider it because he's young, and with a longer-term deal, he would be more than just a bridge to the next set of pitching prospects; instead, he could actually provide some veteran leadership while Meyer and May get acquainted with the league (heck, even Gibson, Hendriks, and possibly even Wimmers too).

johnnydakota
12-13-2012, 06:53 PM
Apperently Sanchez is still in play ,should the twins jump in with an offer of 5/80,and a opt out after 3 years?

kryptik
12-13-2012, 06:58 PM
In a heartbeat for Sanchez.

SgtSchmidt11
12-13-2012, 07:14 PM
I didn't like the Dempster contract but I wouldn't mind the Twins doing this, although I think that maybe they could have tried to get him at 6/90 or even 6/85.

minn55441
12-13-2012, 07:21 PM
It's not my money, so yes make him an offer he can't turn down. We will be overpaying, but that is what the market is dictating the price is for a quality starting pitcher. Kind of like paying $3 a gallon for gas the first time, it seemed like we were being robbed every time we filled up. Now it looks like a bargain.

This is a very disappointing off season if we don't add anyone better than Correia.

ashburyjohn
12-13-2012, 07:21 PM
My snap reaction was yes I would sign Sanchez. Then I tried to think about how Terry Ryan sees it, in terms of risk. Sign him to 5 years, then the last year of the contract you'll be paying him (say) $15M or $16M in 2017. This is right in the heart of the new window of competitiveness, right? Will that $16M be part of the winning formula? Or will it be a boat-anchor preventing you from making a deal to push this juggernaut team to a second straight title?

Well, roll the clock back 5 years to 2007. Not that all of these pitchers were available to sign at the time, but let's focus on who was completing his 28-year-old season, just as Sanchez is now. Limit it to guys who clearly were established starters. These 28-year-olds were:

Carlos Silva
Johan Santana
Gil Meche
John Lackey
Jeremy Guthrie
Mark Buehrle
Erik Bedard

Isn't this kind of a Murderer's Row of pitchers who teams actually *did* make an investment in? And with the exception of Buehrle, aren't they the ones that, 5 years later, fans of their current teams wail and gnash their teeth over?

Now put yourself in Ryan's shoes. Are you really going to pull the trigger on Sanchez for 5 years?

As I said above, I would. And this quick little bit of research reaffirms my reminder to myself, that when Terry Ryan and I disagree about something, take another good hard look.

minn55441
12-13-2012, 07:24 PM
Just saw this on CBS sports
Unlike Josh Hamilton, Anibal Sanchez (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/players/playerpage/533212/anibal-sanchez) is giving his old team the last shot at his services. After being offered a reported $75 million over five years by the Cubs (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/teams/page/CHC/chicago-cubs), Sanchez gave the Tigers (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/teams/page/DET/detroit-tigers) one more chance to match the offer, CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman reports.
Detroit had been offering a four-year deal to Sanchez, but in reaction to the offer from the Cubs, the team will likely have to offer five years in order to keep him.

I wonder if he is giving anyone else a shot still?

TopGunn#22
12-13-2012, 07:26 PM
I'd go 5 yrs. 80 mil or 6 yrs. 90 mil. Please reference the thread with the idea floated about trading Morneau and Willingham to Texas. This would be part of the rebuild. With the pitching staff we would have for this year, fronted by Sanchez, and the young talent in the pipeline, the Twins could surprise some people in 2013 but would be a force to be reckoned with in 2014 and beyond. You spend for QUALITY. Sanchez is quality.

Fire Dan Gladden
12-13-2012, 07:34 PM
I am of the opinion that no pitchers are worthe the money and length. As good as they can be, there is just as much risk that they will burn out, blow a ligament, or just stop pitching well. 3 years max.

kab21
12-13-2012, 07:36 PM
I would have no problem if the Twins went to 5/80 or even 6/90. I think they will have a difficult time spending their available payroll during the next several seasons. There's a good chance that Sanchez could be solid for most of the contract and it seems like there will be a lot of inflation in baseball salaries soon.

Top Gun
12-13-2012, 08:02 PM
I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

johnnydakota
12-13-2012, 08:14 PM
I would sign either but I would try trade them for prospects after two years.

Which makes them an asset, unlike Correia

spycake
12-13-2012, 09:28 PM
I would say no to Anibal Sanchez at that contract.

We all hate that the Twins are cheap, but I think we secretly like that they are frugal. I like the fact that when they have a hole/opening on the team, they don't immediately go into the free agent market and start bidding on whatever is available at that position. I think that's how the worst MLB contracts come about -- obviously some huge money deals like Zito and Soriano, but also some lower-level free agent duds too: Gary Matthews, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Silva, Jacque Jones, etc. I have a hard time believing that those guys were truly desired at those prices - but impatient teams with immediate needs boosted their market considerably. Put another way, the Twins never wake up really regretting a free agent tryst from the night before.

The problem for the Twins is that they are so averse to signing free agents, they won't sign anybody, or they self-impose a spending cap (which appears to be $5 million for free agent starters) which effectively precludes them from signing anybody decent. They need to identify guys they really want, and if those guys hit free agency and the Twins have a need for them, they need to bid fairly aggressively. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but Mark Buehrle is the most obvious example that comes to mind: that would have been about three times the largest "true" free agent Twins contract ever (Willingham, I think), but Buehrle is the Grecian ideal of a Twins pitcher if such a thing exists: good control, incredibly consistent and durable, great defense, quiet, low-profile, etc. And the Twins were already looking at some potentially long-term rotation holes last offseason. It could have been a match made in heaven if the Twins had ANY kind of a smart strategy at actually acquiring good players on the free agent market.

So basically, yeah, if Sanchez isn't anything special to the Twins (and it doesn't appear that he should be), I fully endorse NOT breaking the bank to get him now. Although the other part of this is, if there isn't a special guy like Buehrle available, and you still have a need, you need to be aggressive trading (which TR has been this offseason) and also more aggressive on short-term deals for GOOD lower-tier pitchers (Brandon McCarthy, possibly Dempster, maybe even Scott Baker, but definitely NOT Kevin Correia). Willingham actually fits this mold on the offensive side of the ledger -- he isn't a superstar, and in many ways is not a stereotypical Twins type of player, but he's good, and the contract just isn't big enough to ever be really regrettable. At minimum, they need to make a move like that on the pitching side of the ledger -- it will likely cost more, but it should still fit the market. But I'm afraid it will be another year, at least, before they realize this.

mike wants wins
12-13-2012, 09:42 PM
I do not secretly like that they are frugal.

kab21
12-13-2012, 09:55 PM
There's getting good value for your money and there's being a miser. I don't have any problem with trying to get good value but I think FA is evolving and salaries are going to inflate and teams are going to be taking a lot of players off the market in what looks like big deals. It's possible that the Twins go into next offseason with <50M (possibly <40M) committed and very few options to spend it on then also. At some point you have to spend the money.

Twins Twerp
12-13-2012, 09:58 PM
I openly like that they are frugal IF they now keep there studs for big money. Even then you see some bad deals with long deals ie Morneau. But with new stadium revenue imagine how the last four years would have been with hunter and santana

And punto :)

Kwak
12-13-2012, 10:15 PM
Just saw this on CBS sports
Unlike Josh Hamilton, Anibal Sanchez (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/players/playerpage/533212/anibal-sanchez) is giving his old team the last shot at his services. After being offered a reported $75 million over five years by the Cubs (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/teams/page/CHC/chicago-cubs), Sanchez gave the Tigers (http://twinsdaily.com/mlb/teams/page/DET/detroit-tigers) one more chance to match the offer, CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman reports.
Detroit had been offering a four-year deal to Sanchez, but in reaction to the offer from the Cubs, the team will likely have to offer five years in order to keep him.

I wonder if he is giving anyone else a shot still?

Losing teams have to pay the premium. Sanchez's loyalty indicates that players really do prefer to play on a winner.
As for offering him the 5/80--as long as it doesn't cost a draft pick, yes. If a draft choice is forfeited, then no.

glunn
12-13-2012, 11:13 PM
Whatever his value, I would add 10% for the benefit of keeping him from Detroit. And I agree that a premium need to be paid to attract good players to the Astros of the AL.

Kwak
12-13-2012, 11:21 PM
It's not my money, so yes make him an offer he can't turn down. We will be overpaying, but that is what the market is dictating the price is for a quality starting pitcher. Kind of like paying $3 a gallon for gas the first time, it seemed like we were being robbed every time we filled up. Now it looks like a bargain.

This is a very disappointing off season if we don't add anyone better than Correia.
There was a SA on #13 @2.99 today!

Top Gun
12-13-2012, 11:48 PM
Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Padres are "strongly pursuing" Edwin Jackson.

While the Pads appear to be big fans of E-Jax, he might ultimately be out of their price range. Rosenthal says the market for Jackson is "strong," and the Padres "may bow out" if the right-hander gets 4-5 years at $12-13 million per season. The Rangers, Brewers, Angels and Indians are also known to have interest in Jackson, though Texas and Milwaukee prefer him on a short-term deal.
Related: Padres (http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/clubhouse/mlb/sd%20/padres)

Source: Ken Rosenthal (https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/279446405037322240)

glunn
12-14-2012, 12:06 AM
I could see giving Jackson 4 years at $13 million. The Twins need to get one more decent pitcher if they want to avoid last place 3 years in a row. The Twins could easily lose more that $13 million in revenue next year if they continue to put out a third rate product.

Shane Wahl
12-14-2012, 12:23 AM
Absolutely not. The difference between Sanchez and Dempster, Marcum, and Jackson is not that great at all. There's an extra 30-50 million involved for no real apparent reason.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-14-2012, 08:48 AM
Sanchez ends up back with the Tigers...damn?

Seth Stohs
12-14-2012, 09:07 AM
Looks like 5 years and $80 million to stay with the Tigers. Sanchez actually went back to the Tigers to give them the final opportunity.

chagen
12-14-2012, 09:08 AM
The tigers sign Sanchez another big contract. The Twins sign Kevin Correia.

This must be the TV Revenue that the tigers are pulling in. LOL

No they have an owner committed to winning good for them. I'm jealous

Brock Beauchamp
12-14-2012, 09:10 AM
Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Padres are "strongly pursuing" Edwin Jackson.

While the Pads appear to be big fans of E-Jax, he might ultimately be out of their price range. Rosenthal says the market for Jackson is "strong," and the Padres "may bow out" if the right-hander gets 4-5 years at $12-13 million per season. The Rangers, Brewers, Angels and Indians are also known to have interest in Jackson, though Texas and Milwaukee prefer him on a short-term deal.
Related: Padres (http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/clubhouse/mlb/sd%20/padres)

Source: Ken Rosenthal (https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/279446405037322240)

If the Padres can afford Jackson, there is no ****ing reason why the Twins shouldn't be in on the bidding.

COME ON, Ryan.

I can understand not wanting to get involved in a five year deal to a pitcher. But a four year deal to a 28 year old? That's a relatively small risk. The same goes for a three year deal to a 32 year old or a two year deal to a 35 year old.

beckmt
12-14-2012, 09:16 AM
Losing teams have to pay the premium. Sanchez's loyalty indicates that players really do prefer to play on a winner.
As for offering him the 5/80--as long as it doesn't cost a draft pick, yes. If a draft choice is forfeited, then no.
I believe he was offered arbitration, and I agree with this. Good point.

Mr. Ed
12-14-2012, 09:20 AM
Another day, another downer, with no commitment to this point for REAL pitching to be added.
FA pitching is a mystery to the GM of the MN Twins.

ThePuck
12-14-2012, 09:35 AM
Tigers just got Sanchez...pitching staffs are getting stronger in the AL Central. Tigers, Royals, Indians (if you have faith in Bauer)....

mike wants wins
12-14-2012, 09:36 AM
Maybe Ryan should sign Kluwe....to learn how to actually punt..

kab21
12-14-2012, 09:43 AM
Sanchez ends up back with the Tigers...damn?

Does it matter? the Twins aren't going to beat any of the other teams in the central and that includes the Indians which are pretty bad.

old nurse
12-14-2012, 09:45 AM
Somewhere there has to be a metric for pitchers on multiyear contracts that due to injury or quick decline ended up a poor investment.

If for the second six years the statistics show he has an identical record to the first 6 you would have to say bust. The contract is still based on potential.

spycake
12-14-2012, 09:48 AM
Jackson, last 3 seasons: 100 ERA+

Sanchez, last 3 seasons: 109 ERA+

(And for the record, Dempster is at 102 ERA+ for the same period)

Games started and innings have been virtually the same over this span (although Jackson was obviously more durable 4+ seasons ago).

It will be interesting to see what Jackson gets relative to Sanchez. The Padres rumor has them dropping out if bidding gets to 5/65 which seems like a pretty good estimate for his eventual contract. I don't think I'd give him that if I were the Twins, and I would be stunned if the Twins are actually considered serious bidders for him.

Dempster at 2/26 or 2/30 (or perhaps even 3/39 as once rumored) looks pretty nice and conservative by comparison. (Especially if it meant no Correia at 2/10.) It's probably the kind of move the Twins are going to have to start making occasionally if they want to get back into serious contention, unless they get really lucky in prospect development.

ThePuck
12-14-2012, 10:51 AM
Jackson, last 3 seasons: 100 ERA+

Sanchez, last 3 seasons: 109 ERA+

(And for the record, Dempster is at 102 ERA+ for the same period)

Games started and innings have been virtually the same over this span (although Jackson was obviously more durable 4+ seasons ago).

It will be interesting to see what Jackson gets relative to Sanchez. The Padres rumor has them dropping out if bidding gets to 5/65 which seems like a pretty good estimate for his eventual contract. I don't think I'd give him that if I were the Twins, and I would be stunned if the Twins are actually considered serious bidders for him.

Dempster at 2/26 or 2/30 (or perhaps even 3/39 as once rumored) looks pretty nice and conservative by comparison. (Especially if it meant no Correia at 2/10.) It's probably the kind of move the Twins are going to have to start making occasionally if they want to get back into serious contention, unless they get really lucky in prospect development.

And Marcum's ERA+ is like 112 over the last three years

mike wants wins
12-14-2012, 11:04 AM
It matters in 2014 and 2015... These are not 1 year deals.

nicksaviking
12-14-2012, 11:18 AM
If a risk terrified team like the Twins were forced to give a three or four year deal, you'd think Jackson would be the target. Perhaps he won't pitch like a $13 million arm, but on the other hand, his track record also would indicate he wont be a total bust and pitch below a $10 million value. Plus, he has proven to be a very tradable commodity if need be.

Rosterman
12-14-2012, 11:30 AM
Here's my question. At what level do you pay different position players.
What is a catcher worth that catches 120+ games compared to one that catches 80 games.
What is a power hitter (slugging %) worth compared to an average hitter (OBP).
What is the going price for relief help. Do you add a million for games/innings pitched/WHIP and subtract a million if strong middle relief.

What is a closer really worth? Aren't they basically replaceable? You have gems, diamonds and such...but they only need to really close if you are ahead in the game.

Is a veteran free-agent starter worth basically $1 million a win, or eventually $1 million per game started with a chance of winning only half those games (maybe the team wins another 20% of the starts).

In someways, I would rather pay a guy $15-20 million if he is playing everyday and producing, that just 33 times a year. Of millions to the guy who pitches 50 games and 60 innings.

At what point is a starting pitcher waaaaay overpaid? Do you just try and stay in the $4-8 million range and hope they win 8-12-14 games for you? Then rotate in another guy?

What makes a starting pitcher worth $1 million a victory?

TK10
12-14-2012, 11:30 AM
I would have given him 5 years and $80 million, yes, but I never would have given him my heart.

SweetOne69
12-14-2012, 11:32 AM
No they have an owner committed to winning good for them. I'm jealous

Actually it is they have an owner desperate to win a WS Title before he dies. Illitch owns both the Red Wings and Tigers. While the Red Wings have been perennial winners, the Tigers have barely sniffed the postseason in the 20 years that he has owned the club. He is getting up there in years and the last few years he as take a huge loss on the Tigers in the effort to get a WS title.

mike wants wins
12-14-2012, 11:36 AM
Sweetone....do you see any evidence the twins owners are committed to winning at all?

nicksaviking
12-14-2012, 02:36 PM
Sweetone....do you see any evidence the twins owners are committed to winning at all?

The Twins too had an aging owner whose time was running out. He didn't go all in to win, instead he just made threats to get a new stadium. A new stadium that he had to chip in less money for, than did the Tigers owner for his stadium built eight years earlier, whan stadiums were built for much less.

SweetOne69
12-14-2012, 02:41 PM
The Twins too had an aging owner whose time was running out. He didn't go all in to win, instead he just made threats to get a new stadium. A new stadium that he had to chip in less money for, than did the Tigers owner for his stadium built eight years earlier, whan stadiums were built for much less.

But he had already won it twice.

SweetOne69
12-14-2012, 02:42 PM
Sweetone....do you see any evidence the twins owners are committed to winning at all?

Yes I believe that the Pohlad family is committed to winning. But they intend to do it by operating it as a stand alone self sustaining entity.

mike wants wins
12-14-2012, 03:10 PM
Yes I believe that the Pohlad family is committed to winning. But they intend to do it by operating it as a stand alone self sustaining entity.

Did they do that earlier this decade? Which big piece did they fill with FA? DH/OF? Nope. When have you ever seen them do that? They are $25MM down from last year, Blackburn, Morneau come off next year, and they add $25mM in revenue....have you seen it this year?

Because to me, committing to winning is spending resources when it is available to make your team better.

USAFChief
12-14-2012, 03:46 PM
Actually it is they have an owner desperate to win a WS Title before he dies. Illitch owns both the Red Wings and Tigers. While the Red Wings have been perennial winners, the Tigers have barely sniffed the postseason in the 20 years that he has owned the club. He is getting up there in years and the last few years he as take a huge loss on the Tigers in the effort to get a WS title.

Can you prove that Illitch has "take (sic) a huge loss on the Tigers?"

70charger
12-14-2012, 06:01 PM
Here's my question. At what level do you pay different position players.
What is a catcher worth that catches 120+ games compared to one that catches 80 games.
What is a power hitter (slugging %) worth compared to an average hitter (OBP).
What is the going price for relief help. Do you add a million for games/innings pitched/WHIP and subtract a million if strong middle relief.

What is a closer really worth? Aren't they basically replaceable? You have gems, diamonds and such...but they only need to really close if you are ahead in the game.

Is a veteran free-agent starter worth basically $1 million a win, or eventually $1 million per game started with a chance of winning only half those games (maybe the team wins another 20% of the starts).

In someways, I would rather pay a guy $15-20 million if he is playing everyday and producing, that just 33 times a year. Of millions to the guy who pitches 50 games and 60 innings.

At what point is a starting pitcher waaaaay overpaid? Do you just try and stay in the $4-8 million range and hope they win 8-12-14 games for you? Then rotate in another guy?

What makes a starting pitcher worth $1 million a victory?

What is the meaning of life?

old nurse
12-14-2012, 07:16 PM
Here's my question. At what level do you pay different position players.
What is a catcher worth that catches 120+ games compared to one that catches 80 games.
What is a power hitter (slugging %) worth compared to an average hitter (OBP).
What is the going price for relief help. Do you add a million for games/innings pitched/WHIP and subtract a million if strong middle relief.

What is a closer really worth? Aren't they basically replaceable? You have gems, diamonds and such...but they only need to really close if you are ahead in the game.

Is a veteran free-agent starter worth basically $1 million a win, or eventually $1 million per game started with a chance of winning only half those games (maybe the team wins another 20% of the starts).

In someways, I would rather pay a guy $15-20 million if he is playing everyday and producing, that just 33 times a year. Of millions to the guy who pitches 50 games and 60 innings.

At what point is a starting pitcher waaaaay overpaid? Do you just try and stay in the $4-8 million range and hope they win 8-12-14 games for you? Then rotate in another guy?

What makes a starting pitcher worth $1 million a victory?

Sanchez has won an averae of 8 games a year. That would be nearly 2 million a victory. It will be interesting to watch the Angels as they throw money at hitters.

old nurse
12-14-2012, 07:19 PM
Can you prove that Illitch has "take (sic) a huge loss on the Tigers?"

#21 Detroit Tigers - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Detroit-Tigers_332729.html)

A 29.1 million lost estimated by Forbes for 2011. Add Fielder's cost for more losses.

TheLeviathan
12-14-2012, 07:32 PM
#21 Detroit Tigers - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Detroit-Tigers_332729.html)

A 29.1 million lost estimated by Forbes for 2011. Add Fielder's cost for more losses.

Bah....numbers are for whipper-snappers!

That said, I'm sticking with my Terry Ryan March interview saying the Twins weren't "comfortable" with some of the prices out there. It's coming folks, start preparing.

old nurse
12-14-2012, 07:44 PM
Bah....numbers are for whipper-snappers!

That said, I'm sticking with my Terry Ryan March interview saying the Twins weren't "comfortable" with some of the prices out there. It's coming folks, start preparing.

I think Ryan is uncomfortable paying someone over a million a win.

TheLeviathan
12-14-2012, 08:07 PM
I think Ryan is uncomfortable paying someone over a million a win.

And with good reason. But that doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow for many.