MLB 2025 World Series

Indifference71 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  

Cliffy6745 said:

Wobbie said:

Indifference71 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  

I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.

kinda like Bonds

Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, that papelbon does not like, I like. So I think his character is just fine 

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Wobbie said:

hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/01/24/free-agency-gig-economy-dj-lemahieu-brian-dozier-jed-lowrie

giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

Still not buying it.

the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."

Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Wobbie said:

hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/01/24/free-agency-gig-economy-dj-lemahieu-brian-dozier-jed-lowrie

giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

Still not buying it.

the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."

Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.

yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point... 

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Wobbie said:

hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/01/24/free-agency-gig-economy-dj-lemahieu-brian-dozier-jed-lowrie

giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

Still not buying it.

the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."

Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.

yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point... 

Jesus christ.  Yes, for 10 years, because like I said, if they fall off a cliff at 33 (as a charted showed), you are only getting 3 so so years.  Sure there is a ton of risk, but you are signing a top 10 player in the game for his prime years.  Also these are not going to be your average 33 year old players, so who knows. You are going to have to take a risk to get that production.  It's crap if not.

maybe harper but no way i'd give a dog like machado 10 years. the chances of getting even 7 good years from him is almost nil. and when i say 7 good years i mean him not dogging it so much you have to cut him loose.  machado in philly for 10 years is a recipe for ugly divorce

Manny has had less injuries and is the better fielder. There is a very good chance he ages better than Harper, though Harper is the better player.  If Phils get Harper for 10, that DH rule change will be important.

I don't think Manny's personality fits with Philly well either.

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.

WRONG.  i never said Ryan's was a good deal. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made.  of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.

WRONG.  i never said Ryan's was a good deal. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made.  of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.

Ha, I remember you defending that contract, for sure.

But you are incorrect.  Big hairy monsters also have high OBP.  I hated Howard's eye.  He was a one tool hitter.  If he got on base at the same clip he did pre- 2008, I would be all about it.

haha too funny - so yea you wanted Ryan to be one of the greatest players in the history of the game i guess.  do you know what his numbers were pre-2008? my god if he kept that pace up...