MLB 2019 off-season

1485486488490491553

Comments

  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,854
    edited February 13
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,766
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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.
    Predominantly white fanbase that use their concern over hustle to be a thin veil for so much more that they really think about someone non-white? No way, I don't believe it.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,854
    edited February 13
    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 didn't really care what his deal was.  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.
    Post edited by pjhawks on
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    pjhawks 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.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,854
    pjhawks 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...
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks 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...
    Point being. I am fine with judges strikeouts because he is such a tough at bat, gets on base at a great clip and is always in a 3-2 count. Howard was not a tough at bat like that 
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 10,154
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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


    3 batter minimum would be good but there needs to be caveat to it that isn’t so slanted towards the offense.
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,262
    So let's say - and I know this isn't a frequent occurrence, it's just my curiosity - a relief pitcher is called in to face a certain batter.  When that pitcher gets the call, the opposing manager then calls for a pinch-hitter.  Is that going to count as 2 batters or 1?  Common sense tells me 1, because it's only one spot in the batting order. But I could see certain managers trying to dispute it saying it's 2, because the purpose of bringing in the relief was to face the original batter.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,766
    You bring up a good point because it's a completely dumb rule to impose.

    I agree there's ways, and needs, to speed up the game - batter minimums for pitchers are not one of them.
  • JK_LivinJK_Livin South JerseyPosts: 7,263
    Eliminate batting gloves and you could shave 30min from every game.
    Alright, alright, alright!
    Tom O.
    "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
    -The Writer
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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.
    Haha. It's also not a coincidence that the avg. career of a MLB player is 5.5 years and club control lasts 6.
    I did not realize this until you posted it and just read it again in this.  Pretty wild.

    5. One quick “state of baseball” thought to close this out. I’m not sure there’s anything that can be done to fix free agency at this point. Teams are refusing to pay big money to older players (they won’t even pay big money to 26-year-old stars!) and it’s difficult for me to see that changing. It’s not like aging curves are going to change, you know? Because of that, the MLBPA should focus on increasing pay for players with 0-6 years of service time in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. Remember, only a relatively small percentage of players even make it to free agency. Last season 1,379 players appeared in a Major League Baseball game and only 145 became Article XX(B) free agents, meaning they had at least six years of service time. A 2007 study found the average MLB career lasts 5.6 years and my guess is that number has come down as teams increasingly eschew veterans. Raising the minimum salary should be an obvious priority for the union. I also like the idea of replacing arbitration with restricted free agency. Rather than go to arbitration, players with 3-6 years of service time would be allowed to negotiate and sign a contract with any team, though their original team can match it and keep him. The player gets increased leverage and therefore increased earning potential. There could also be a draft pick compensation component as well. Sign a restricted free agent and you lose this pick(s), lose a restricted free agent and you get this pick(s). Something like that. The NHL has restricted free agency and, generally speaking, NHL players make the most money in years 3-7 of their careers. In fact, nowadays many of the largest NHL contracts in terms of average annual salary are going to players in their restricted free agent years. Imagine if Jacob deGrom or Kris Bryant could’ve gone out into restricted free agency this winter rather than be stuck negotiating with one team. Restricted free agency could be a game-changer for baseball and the MLBPA. If not restricted free agency, the union should still focus on raising pay for players in years 0-6 of their career. Get those guys more money because a) free agency doesn’t pay like it once did, and b) only a relatively small percentage of players make it to free agency anyway.

    http://riveraveblues.com/2019/02/thoughts-pitchers-catchers-report-spring-training-183996/

  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,766
    Yeah, good stuff - that's where my thinking was on a lot of things: reduce controllable years, set a salary floor (player minimum that increased across the board) and tie payroll for those that don't meet the minimum salary, yet receive revenue sharing, to suffer some kind of penalty; that way there's just as much of a cheapskate tax as much as there's a luxury tax.

    Basically, I am a proponent of there being a salary floor and no salary cap. Let the market dictate for the most part while ownership would get the assurance of a minimum cost for fluctuations in a huge liability like payroll. Oh, and those at the bottom of the food chain would truly be rewarded with a minimum salary that would be commensurate with an incredibly specific skill that only a small % of people in the country/world can do which are still grossly profiting billionaire owners.

    Baseball was ahead of the curve (pun intended) even though they went through a major strike. But other sports - the NBA, NFL  directly - could be said in the same vein that certain players would definitely be benefiting from a cap being taken off - you could reasonably justify someone like Lebron James being paid +$90M/year.  Or someone like Aaron Rodger, Tom Brady, doing the same. 
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 29,459
    Yeah, good stuff - that's where my thinking was on a lot of things: reduce controllable years, set a salary floor (player minimum that increased across the board) and tie payroll for those that don't meet the minimum salary, yet receive revenue sharing, to suffer some kind of penalty; that way there's just as much of a cheapskate tax as much as there's a luxury tax.

    Basically, I am a proponent of there being a salary floor and no salary cap. Let the market dictate for the most part while ownership would get the assurance of a minimum cost for fluctuations in a huge liability like payroll. Oh, and those at the bottom of the food chain would truly be rewarded with a minimum salary that would be commensurate with an incredibly specific skill that only a small % of people in the country/world can do which are still grossly profiting billionaire owners.

    Baseball was ahead of the curve (pun intended) even though they went through a major strike. But other sports - the NBA, NFL  directly - could be said in the same vein that certain players would definitely be benefiting from a cap being taken off - you could reasonably justify someone like Lebron James being paid +$90M/year.  Or someone like Aaron Rodger, Tom Brady, doing the same. 
    I like this.  I don't think there will ever not be a cap of some sort though.  A few teams would just have such a big advantage, but there are things they can do with international money, picks, etc. to skew things back to smaller markets.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,766
    I feel like the NBA could get away with it before the NFL since to me it's much more driven by individual players that can't be replicated as easily.
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 25,521
    cliffy - one main point of the SI article is that the d**gers cut payroll by $100M, most of their guys didn’t even play half the schedule at one position and they still won 6 straight division titles. I don’t know harper or machado’s vs. lefty/righty splits but if they’re not good they would most likely sit out when not in a good “analytical” situation.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 21,124
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    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.
    Harper is in no way the better player.

    Machado is hands down better fielder than Harper.

    I'd take my chances with no hustle Machado all day long with the way he shuts down 3rd base.

    Someone mentioned the "hustle and white fans" and you could not be more correct.
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 17,367
    Guys like Marwin Gonzalez who most thought would be a nice pick up have yet to be signed
    I miss igotid88
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,262
    igotid88 said:
    Guys like Marwin Gonzalez who most thought would be a nice pick up have yet to be signed
    Would've looked nice in a Cubs uniform.  Marwin at short, Baez at 2nd.  But no we got Daniel Descalso.
  • mfc2006mfc2006 PDX--->KCPosts: 32,152
    edited February 14
    igotid88 said:
    Guys like Marwin Gonzalez who most thought would be a nice pick up have yet to be signed
    Really hope Houston re-signs him, but I think it may be a long shot.
    Post edited by mfc2006 on
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 35,169
    I never knew there was an “e” and an “m” in this thing


    chinese-happy.jpg
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 10,218
    For Eddie & Mike.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,262
    I never knew there was an “e” and an “m” in this thing


    When I was a kid I always wondered why the Expos logo spelled "elb."  It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realized the whole thing was a capital M.  But the e and b are actually intentional, standing for "Expos baseball."  The white part is just white, not intended to be a letter.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,766
    That is a long time.
  • markymark550markymark550 Columbia, SCPosts: 4,482
    I never knew there was an “e” and an “m” in this thing


    When I was a kid I always wondered why the Expos logo spelled "elb."  It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realized the whole thing was a capital M.  But the e and b are actually intentional, standing for "Expos baseball."  The white part is just white, not intended to be a letter.
    I thought the same thing about the "elb" as a kid. I always wondered if that was some weird Montreal/Canada slang. Interesting about the Expos Baseball part.
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 10,218
    I never knew there was an “e” and an “m” in this thing


    When I was a kid I always wondered why the Expos logo spelled "elb."  It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realized the whole thing was a capital M.  But the e and b are actually intentional, standing for "Expos baseball."  The white part is just white, not intended to be a letter.
    Oh, didn't even know about the B, so its Eddie, Mike & Boom.
    This weekend we rock Portland
Sign In or Register to comment.