SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mike Trout: worth "Opening" the Checkbook for?
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 20, 2014 14:16:07 GMT -5
It really depends what team budgets are at that point, but one player in baseball doesn't make that much of a positive difference to go too crazy on one player when there are other players around as well. I don't care how good they are. It's not worth potentially crippling your budget if something happens to that player. No one is baseball makes enough of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 20, 2014 14:24:35 GMT -5
It really depends what team budgets are at that point, but one player in baseball doesn't make that much of a positive difference to go too crazy on one player when there are other players around as well. I don't care how good they are. It's not worth potentially crippling your budget if something happens to that player. No one is baseball makes enough of a difference. Well let's just not sign anyone then. If you're going to spend money in free agency, I'd rather spend $300 on one of the best players ever than $300 on a Carl Crawford type and some aging #2 starter.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 20, 2014 15:53:09 GMT -5
Trout is a Jersey boy, and actually may prefer to eventually play on the east coast. Certainly the Yankees were close by where he grew up. I was so surprised when the Angels decided to not give the kid an extra bone or two for this season. Being cheap with a talent like this seems to be irrational and not thinking ahead about keeping him happy and content. When they decided to do that, my first thought was that he will eventually leave, but who knows.
The Angels are certainly in a pickle with those two huge, terrible contracts they have with Pujols and Hamilton. Already they are feeling the pinch with respect to adding to their rotation. They may really have some problems financially taking care of such a great 5-tool player. Can you even think of other legit 5-tool players now-a-days??
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 20, 2014 15:56:46 GMT -5
Can you even think of other legit 5-tool players now-a-days?? Andrew McCutchen's absurd .322/.402/.531 line over the last two seasons, with elite CF defense and 47 combined SBs, says hi.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 20, 2014 16:01:12 GMT -5
I think Jason Heyward will be a FA we go after. Great D in RF and will only be 26 years old. You'd be getting prime years there.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 20, 2014 16:01:33 GMT -5
OK......you got me. My statement is that they are extremely rare.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 20, 2014 16:15:22 GMT -5
Trout is a Jersey boy, and actually may prefer to eventually play on the east coast. Certainly the Yankees were close by where he grew up. I was so surprised when the Angels decided to not give the kid an extra bone or two for this season. Being cheap with a talent like this seems to be irrational and not thinking ahead about keeping him happy and content. When they decided to do that, my first thought was that he will eventually leave, but who knows. The Angels are certainly in a pickle with those two huge, terrible contracts they have with Pujols and Hamilton. Already they are feeling the pinch with respect to adding to their rotation. They may really have some problems financially taking care of such a great 5-tool player. Can you even think of other legit 5-tool players now-a-days?? Listening to MLB radio the other day, and Trout's agent was, as you say, quite put off by Trout's receiving the minimal salary possible. But, they also mentioned that a deal was in the works to buyout his arbitration years, and just the arbitration years. Given the video game numbers, the Angels want to rope him in before an arbitrater makes the decision for them. This could benefit both the club - they get him at what might be less than someone stunned by those numbers might give him - and Trout who'd make considerably more money up front. Even at the lowest estimate of what wins above replacement are worth, the guy has after all been ringing up $40-$50 million in value. And I may be low! This hints at the leverage he'll have if and when he reaches free-agency, given that he stays healthy of course.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 20, 2014 16:32:40 GMT -5
It really depends what team budgets are at that point, but one player in baseball doesn't make that much of a positive difference to go too crazy on one player when there are other players around as well. I don't care how good they are. It's not worth potentially crippling your budget if something happens to that player. No one is baseball makes enough of a difference. Well let's just not sign anyone then. If you're going to spend money in free agency, I'd rather spend $300 on one of the best players ever than $300 on a Carl Crawford type and some aging #2 starter. Yea that's not what I said, I would be happy to sign him to a big deal. If we were talking today's luxury tax figure, I'd go to 30m per season over 10 years but sorry I'm not going 35-40 for 12-15. I don't care how good he is. Also, the chances of him sustaining his greatness at these levels over those years is lower then low. As in never been done before. And the Carl Crawford contract was horrible and not at all what the Sox want to repeat and the Sox have never given a pitcher of any kind 160m so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 20, 2014 16:34:59 GMT -5
Chris Capuano.
Just kidding, but I'd like to see a power bat like Giancarlo on this team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 20, 2014 16:46:25 GMT -5
OK......you got me. My statement is that they are extremely rare. I hear ya. I just love me some McCutchen and think he's a criminally underrated player, even with the MVP win last year.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 20, 2014 17:33:17 GMT -5
I'd really like to see what trout does over the next four years before I make my decision. Maybe I'm a hater, but I just can't see Trout averaging 9.5 war a year, he's good, he's great, he's amazing, and his sample size is big enough to judge him, but the next four years will be more telling than the last two, and we are assuming he will continue to be two wins better than anyone else alive. That's asking for too much consistency if you ask me.
I also don't see teams very willing to go over 10 years, some probably will if trout continues, but to me the most important part of his contract will be the player options. I think he signs somewhere in the 10 year 300-350m range, but he will have 1-3 opt out dates durring his prime years. We're guessing his age 30 season will be an opt out, but I could see him having one three years in, where he could just add three more years, and I'm assuming he would have another opt out after that.
Also, sorry to be a pessimist, but 2018 is lining up to be another spending season for the Yanks. A-rod and cc come off the books, and they'll be young and cheap (by yankees standards) with only els, McCann, and tanaka on the books.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 20, 2014 17:38:41 GMT -5
Rethinking about it, that might be a good option for the sox, depending on the roster makeup Give him 10-12 years 30m+ and a couple opt out clauses early in the contract. Assuming he continues to produce he will opt out at age 28-30, in which case we probably got a bargain if we let him walk If he doesn't we will still have him through the peak years into his age 35-37 season.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 20, 2014 17:43:09 GMT -5
Well let's just not sign anyone then. If you're going to spend money in free agency, I'd rather spend $300 on one of the best players ever than $300 on a Carl Crawford type and some aging #2 starter. Yea that's not what I said, I would be happy to sign him to a big deal. If we were talking today's luxury tax figure, I'd go to 30m per season over 10 years but sorry I'm not going 35-40 for 12-15. I don't care how good he is. Also, the chances of him sustaining his greatness at these levels over those years is lower then low. As in never been done before. And the Carl Crawford contract was horrible and not at all what the Sox want to repeat and the Sox have never given a pitcher of any kind 160m so I'm not sure what you are talking about.That's my point. You're better off signing the one best player around for whatever it takes rather than spreading the money around among second-tier players. I know there's this weird misguided notion that he was somehow responsible for the Rangers being crappy when he was with them, but the original A-Rod contract is probably the best free agent signing ever.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2014 18:06:39 GMT -5
Yea that's not what I said, I would be happy to sign him to a big deal. If we were talking today's luxury tax figure, I'd go to 30m per season over 10 years but sorry I'm not going 35-40 for 12-15. I don't care how good he is. Also, the chances of him sustaining his greatness at these levels over those years is lower then low. As in never been done before. And the Carl Crawford contract was horrible and not at all what the Sox want to repeat and the Sox have never given a pitcher of any kind 160m so I'm not sure what you are talking about.That's my point. You're better off signing the one best player around for whatever it takes rather than spreading the money around among second-tier players. I know there's this weird misguided notion that he was somehow responsible for the Rangers being crappy when he was with them, but the original A-Rod contract is probably the best free agent signing ever. The A-Rod signing was cool, sure. But Barry Bonds by the Giants and Greg Maddux by the Braves would both like a word.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 20, 2014 18:22:37 GMT -5
Would I love to sign Mike Trout? Absolutely. Would I shell out the ridiculous figures mentioned in this thread? Probably not. 10/$300 million? Sure. 12/$500 million? No. Anything higher, lol no. Yankees can deal with that.
For that price we could hypothetically (afterall, this entire thread is pretty much a giant hypothetical) sign 2, 7+ WAR players or 3, 5+ war players and get better value.
Trout is amazing. I'd trade a whole damn country to get him on the Sox...but those kinds of numbers are just prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 20, 2014 18:35:31 GMT -5
I'd give out absurd contracts like are being discussed if there were zero risk. Because the worst case scenario ends up as a complete disaster that would ruin the franchise for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Feb 20, 2014 19:06:33 GMT -5
As much as Trout deserves a great payday, building a team where he could get twice as much as the next highest paid player on the team is inviting chemistry issues. That roster may not be balanced and cause lot of issues. I doubt we will see a 40mil+ per year contract in the next 2-4 years.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 20, 2014 19:09:36 GMT -5
Would I love to sign Mike Trout? Absolutely. Would I shell out the ridiculous figures mentioned in this thread? Probably not. 10/$300 million? Sure. 12/$500 million? No. Anything higher, lol no. Yankees can deal with that. For that price we could hypothetically (afterall, this entire thread is pretty much a giant hypothetical) sign 2, 7+ WAR players or 3, 5+ war players and get better value. Trout is amazing. I'd trade a whole damn country to get him on the Sox...but those kinds of numbers are just prohibitive. The average number of 7 WAR players available in free agency each year rounds to zero. And three 5 WAR guys? That's close to what the Yankees did this offseason and you all mocked them for it.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 20, 2014 19:39:09 GMT -5
Would I love to sign Mike Trout? Absolutely. Would I shell out the ridiculous figures mentioned in this thread? Probably not. 10/$300 million? Sure. 12/$500 million? No. Anything higher, lol no. Yankees can deal with that. For that price we could hypothetically (afterall, this entire thread is pretty much a giant hypothetical) sign 2, 7+ WAR players or 3, 5+ war players and get better value. Trout is amazing. I'd trade a whole damn country to get him on the Sox...but those kinds of numbers are just prohibitive. The average number of 7 WAR players available in free agency each year rounds to zero. And three 5 WAR guys? That's close to what the Yankees did this offseason and you all mocked them for it. Hypotheticals are hypotheticals. The entire thread is a hypothetical, so why can't I make up my own? Trout isn't touching FA. And, no I'm not talking about doing what tYankees did. I'm talking signing guys who are still constantly producing a 5.0+ WAR, not guys who used to do it like Beltran and McCann, or a guy like Ellsbury who seems to bounce between awesome WAR and barely above average WAR due to injury. Also, the most important part is not letting a guy who has consistently produced said 5.0+ WAR walk in favor of other, less productive guys.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 20, 2014 19:58:38 GMT -5
And, no I'm not talking about doing what tYankees did. I'm talking signing guys who are still constantly producing a 5.0+ WAR, not guys who used to do it like Beltran and McCann, or a guy like Ellsbury who seems to bounce between awesome WAR and barely above average WAR due to injury. Also, the most important part is not letting a guy who has consistently produced said 5.0+ WAR walk in favor of other, less productive guys. Uh, there aren't exactly a lot of players reaching free agency who "consistently produced 5.0+ WAR" as you define it above. There are exactly 6 position players who have produced 5+ fWAR in each of the last three years: Cabrera, Votto, Beltre, McCutchen, Cano, and Zobrist. Very few of these guys reach free agency for obvious reasons. There certainly aren't any in the FA class of 2015, for instance. Even if you got lucky and there was a run of true superstar free agents, good luck trying to sign three of them for less than what you'd give Trout. Oh, did I mention that you'd be getting four prime Trout years if you signed him in free agency, while you'd likely only get the decline years of most other free agents?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2014 20:17:23 GMT -5
OK......you got me. My statement is that they are extremely rare. I hear ya. I just love me some McCutchen and think he's a criminally underrated player, even with the MVP win last year. They're certainly rare, but the entire concept of a "5-tool player" is extremely overrated as well. It assumes that the five tools are all equally valuable, when they clearly are not.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Crowell on Feb 20, 2014 20:47:54 GMT -5
Yea and I wouldn't even call Mike Trout a 5-tool player. His arm strength is below average. That doesn't take away from the fact that he is the best player in baseball, but if you watch him play consistently, you will hesitate to call him a "5-tool player".
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 22:02:06 GMT -5
OK......you got me. My statement is that they are extremely rare. I hear ya. I just love me some McCutchen and think he's a criminally underrated player, even with the MVP win last year. This. Pittsburgh management hasn't exactly helped in the matter with minimalistic payrolls. However it appears the young talent on the roster should bring more national attention his way as they become more frequent wild card contenders and receive more national games.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 22:04:42 GMT -5
I know one thing. Boston can win a World Series Title without Trout playing like one of the best players in history. Just a contrarian point to signing him. That said it would be great to see him roaming the field at Fenway Park. I think that may be the Webster definition of "greedy" however.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 20, 2014 22:12:40 GMT -5
And, no I'm not talking about doing what tYankees did. I'm talking signing guys who are still constantly producing a 5.0+ WAR, not guys who used to do it like Beltran and McCann, or a guy like Ellsbury who seems to bounce between awesome WAR and barely above average WAR due to injury. Also, the most important part is not letting a guy who has consistently produced said 5.0+ WAR walk in favor of other, less productive guys. Uh, there aren't exactly a lot of players reaching free agency who "consistently produced 5.0+ WAR" as you define it above. There are exactly 6 position players who have produced 5+ fWAR in each of the last three years: Cabrera, Votto, Beltre, McCutchen, Cano, and Zobrist. Very few of these guys reach free agency for obvious reasons. There certainly aren't any in the FA class of 2015, for instance. Even if you got lucky and there was a run of true superstar free agents, good luck trying to sign three of them for less than what you'd give Trout. Oh, did I mention that you'd be getting four prime Trout years if you signed him in free agency, while you'd likely only get the decline years of most other free agents? I know everyone's allergic to spending money after the 2011 debacle, but really, the problem the Red Sox hit wasn't in signing one really expensive top-five-in-baseball player. It was signing a bunch of second-tier guys. And if there's a lot of risk in spending a ton of money on a A-Rod/Mike Trout type player, well, there's even more risk when you split that money up among a bunch of Crawford/Hamilton/Werth class players. (By the way, I'm not totally on board with his WAR scores because of various defensive issues, but holy crap, Ben Zobrist is an underrated player.)
|
|
|