|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 13, 2014 9:11:02 GMT -5
There is quite a list of pitchers next year. Obviously not all will be available, but some of Samardzija, Zimmerman, Price, Cueto, Latos, Fister and maybe Greinke will. If you wait a year, that's one less year of risk that the guy you signed didn't throw out his elbow or decline. This may be pedantic, but it's not really one less year of risk, you've just pushed it one year into the future. Exactly. And it might have to be one more year of risk as some these guys, being younger, might command a 7 year deal instead of a 6 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2014 9:47:31 GMT -5
There is quite a list of pitchers next year. Obviously not all will be available, but some of Samardzija, Zimmerman, Price, Cueto, Latos, Fister and maybe Greinke will. If you wait a year, that's one less year of risk that the guy you signed didn't throw out his elbow or decline. This may be pedantic, but it's not really one less year of risk, you've just pushed it one year into the future. If they sign a pitcher a year before they think they're ready to contend, it's another year of risk during the throw-away year, right? Obviously if a pitcher throws their elbow out during 2015, you won't sign them for 9 figures in 2016. Or if their fastball drops from 94 to 91 and k% drops significantly. IOW, signing a healthy Price for a similar contract as Lester is preferable to having a Lester with TJS signed to his contract next winter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 13, 2014 10:13:59 GMT -5
That's the point-- they're probably ready to contend, and if that's the case, you don't want to waste a year of potential contention by trying to be too fine with timing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2014 10:24:29 GMT -5
My point was based on the hypothetical that they might not be ready to contend in the post by James that I replied to. Avoiding a year of risk. I wasn't arguing about whether they were or weren't ready to contend.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 13, 2014 12:51:33 GMT -5
The risk that Scherzer or Lester suffers an abrupt, is-never-the-same-again pitcher is less than the risk that either the available 2016 talent pool dries up, or the market has a boom and those players end up being much more expensive.
The following year's free agent crop always looks better than the current one, because there are always some players who get extensions, and there are always a couple players who blow up or hurt. What if Price ends up needing TJS this year? What if Zimmermann resigns, or is traded to a different team who extends him? What if Samardzija ends up next year's version of Justin Masterson in 2014? If a team that might be a year away has its sights on a pitcher that it thinks is going to be good for the next five, then they should get that pitcher now. There is a risk to every strategy, so the best way to build a team is to get good players when you can get them.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 13, 2014 14:26:16 GMT -5
I agree with those who say the Cubs should sign the arms now if they feel they are ready to contend now. I just don't think they are ready to contend now. If I were the Cubs, I'd try and trade for a younger top flight arm like Cueto (unlikely bc of the division) or Zimmerman (already rumored) then fill in with cheaper backend veterans like they have in the past.
With a Zimmerman and Arrietta at the top of the rotation, if the offense takes a leap forward, you will contend anyways and can look to swing another deal for an arm midseason if you think the right deal is there.
If the offense doesn't take a leap forward, having another top flight arm won't matter anyway.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 13, 2014 15:35:44 GMT -5
@jorgearangure Source: Yasmani Tomas scheduled to fly to US tomorrow to meet with agent. Deal appears imminent, possibly by the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 13, 2014 17:19:40 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 22s23 seconds ago Sources: Stanton, #Marlins discussing $300M deal. Sources:..
Miami not holding back
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2014 17:21:25 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 22s23 seconds ago Sources: Stanton, #Marlins discussing $300M deal. Sources:.. Miami not holding back If that happens, somehow, Cafardo et al will say the Red Sox blew it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 13, 2014 17:23:13 GMT -5
My point was based on the hypothetical that they might not be ready to contend in the post by James that I replied to. Avoiding a year of risk. I wasn't arguing about whether they were or weren't ready to contend. You're not really avoiding a "year of risk" though. Any pitcher you sign carries risk and it's not really portioned out by the year. One year doesn't make much difference; the only thing that really makes a difference is signing the guy who's going to be healthy and productive for the next half decade, and that's more or less functionally random when you're talking about similar pitchers. If you had to bet your life savings on a coin flip, and you could choose a coin that's getting flipped today or a coin that's getting flipped tomorrow... who cares? Take your pick. It's not an important decision.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2014 17:33:00 GMT -5
My point was based on the hypothetical that they might not be ready to contend in the post by James that I replied to. Avoiding a year of risk. I wasn't arguing about whether they were or weren't ready to contend. You're not really avoiding a "year of risk" though. Any pitcher you sign carries risk and it's not really portioned out by the year. One year doesn't make much difference; the only thing that really makes a difference is signing the guy who's going to be healthy and productive for the next half decade, and that's more or less functionally random when you're talking about similar pitchers. If you had to bet your life savings on a coin flip, and you could choose a coin that's getting flipped today or a coin that's getting flipped tomorrow... who cares? Take your pick. It's not an important decision. There is risk that over the course of a year, a pitcher like Scherzer or Lester declines somewhat or gets hurt. There is zero risk of you signing a guy who declines or gets hurt the following year for significantly more than he's worth at the time of the signing. It's kind of like giving the Verlander contract extension early. It's unnecessary risk. I would bet that the Red Sox think this way also and probably had something to do with why they didn't extend Lester with a contract that starts in 2015. Because there is more certainty now of what he'll be next year than there was back in April. And they'd rather pay more money for less risk. It goes right along with their preference to sign guys to shorter contracts for more money.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 14, 2014 7:34:17 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 8 min. Source: Stanton deal under discussion with #Marlins is in range of 12 years/$320M. Reported last night that it was at least 10 years/$300M.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 14, 2014 12:27:39 GMT -5
I wonder what the premiums are for a Lloyds of London insurance policy covering that Stanton deal? The way things are going in baseball, $300M is not as outlandish as it first appears, especially for one of the top five players in the game. ARod got a deal almost that rich a long time ago.
At least we can stop speculating about a Red Sox trade for him.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 14, 2014 12:34:29 GMT -5
My concerns over this deal are in regards to the precedent of 12 or 13 years on a deal. Do other young stars now take this as the standard negotiating line? Two or three years from now are we looking at 12 year deals or even 9 or 10 year deals for Bogaerts or Betts? Granted Stanton is a top five bat and such deals should be reserved for the elite but agents know how to play the game and Boras is certainly paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 14, 2014 12:39:04 GMT -5
I wonder what the premiums are for a Lloyds of London insurance policy covering that Stanton deal? The way things are going in baseball, $300M is not as outlandish as it first appears, especially for one of the top five players in the game. ARod got a deal almost that rich a long time ago. At least we can stop speculating about a Red Sox trade for him. Mike Trout's extension basically works out to $15m for his three arb years and $33.5m for three more FA years after that. The first year of arbitration is the cheapest and Stanton's already exhausted that so you'd expect his remaining arb years to be a little more expensive anyway. In other words $300m is pretty much market rate.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Nov 14, 2014 16:14:52 GMT -5
Giancarlo Stanton close to 13years for $325M per Jon Heyman CBS
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 14, 2014 18:52:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 14, 2014 22:12:03 GMT -5
@nickpiecoro of the Arizona Republic
Told Dbacks are getting Jeremy Hellickson from the Rays for prospects OF Justin Williams and SS Andrew Velazquez. 10:01pm - 14 Nov 14
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 15, 2014 1:51:46 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm happy for the young man. He secured multi-generational wealth for himself and his family. On the other hand, he left at least $100 million on the table. There's a bit of projection that goes into that statement. In his four full seasons with the Marlins ages 21-24, Stanton has averaged 134 games, so there's a non-trivial injury risk. He's buying up security and trading off a speculative future contract, which quite a few players have done in the last decade. The notion that he's leaving money on the table doesn't factor any of that risk in, but it's very real. Given that he has an opt-out, I think the contract looks very reasonable from his point of view.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 15, 2014 9:21:10 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm happy for the young man. He secured multi-generational wealth for himself and his family. On the other hand, he left at least $100 million on the table. It's really hard to judge this without more details, especially with the opt-out. Does the yearly salary change significantly over time? Is there a signing bonus? It's basically a 5-year contract with a player option for 8 more years, so is it 5 years/$125 million, plus option for 8/200? Or is the salary backloaded, so that it's more like 5/90 with an option for 8/235? Either way, I think it's a good deal for him with the option, but the first is better than the second.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 15, 2014 10:33:38 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm happy for the young man. He secured multi-generational wealth for himself and his family. On the other hand, he left at least $100 million on the table. On the 3rd hand, he will have $325 million. Getting nailed in the face last year might have had something to do with it. He was a fraction of an inch away from having his career ended (or worse) right there.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 16, 2014 17:01:57 GMT -5
There is a trade to announce
Cubs get: Tommy LaStella and one International bonus slot
Braves get: Arodys Vizcaino and 3 international bonus slots.
Before anyone asks this means nothing in the pursuit of Moncada, the slots add up to 800k plus and he's obviously getting way more than that.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 16, 2014 19:25:49 GMT -5
I think this actually may mean something.
Moncada's signing bonus will blow whatever bonus allowance the Cubs have, no matter what they trade for. This would be basically trading for 800k less of taxes to be owed to MLB. Relatively trivial for a team like the Cubs, unless they plan to stay within their allowance (and overage before penalties).
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 16, 2014 20:00:40 GMT -5
I think this actually may mean something. Moncada's signing bonus will blow whatever bonus allowance the Cubs have, no matter what they trade for. This would be basically trading for 800k less of taxes to be owed to MLB. Relatively trivial for a team like the Cubs, unless they plan to stay within their allowance (and overage before penalties). The Cubs are limited to 250k bonuses for this signing period. They become a viable option if 1) he doesn't get cleared before June 2015 or 2) They convince him to wait until July 2 2015. The Braves are the ones receiving the 800k+ in allotment. But it means nothing for Moncada because he is certainly going over any team's pool. Incurring the 100% tax. 800k is pennies in a transaction like that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 16, 2014 21:00:15 GMT -5
Jesus.
|
|