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.
2014-15 Offseason Non-Sox thread
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 9, 2015 22:09:04 GMT -5
If Farrell is more comfortable managing a bullpen with a left handed option then the GM should try his darnedest to build a bullpen around those parameters. Or you could, you know, Tommy Layne.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Feb 9, 2015 22:16:55 GMT -5
Forgot to post this the other day.Remember when we had no other outfield options during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 offseasons? Remember when a select few were calling for Boston to sign Josh Hamilton, then Shin Soo Choo the next offseason? Trust in Ben. And my god, that Pujols contract is going to be a nightmare soon...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 10, 2015 0:26:05 GMT -5
The concern was understandable, but the proposed solutions were much worse than the problem. Hamilton looked as if he was on his way down, and he was.
The Sox lucked out in 2013, thanks to the emergence of Nava and a career year from Victorino - and that old Gomes mojo©. Last year was largely a disaster, though, at least until Betts showed up and Castillo was brought on board. But imagine the "flexibility" the Sox might have had this post-season, if they'd taken on those contracts. Despite his painful first month, and his banishment to the minors, Nava was just about the equal of Hamilton offensively last season, according to BR. The difference is that Hamilton was paid 30 times more to do that dirt. That pain threshold really gets tested going forward given the eye-popping money the Angels will be paying for what was, last year, a sub-.750 OPS hitter.
While were on the subject, Nava performed as well as Choo, also. Who would you rather have, someone who takes a while to get his season started that you're paying .5 million for, or a 1.4 bWAR player who's eating $14 million in salary with much, much more to come? Nava is just as effective from the left side as Choo. The difference is that he's an obvious platoon candidate. That's much harder to will yourself to do when you'll shelling out what will be $20 million per year going forward.
While it would have been nice to have had more options last year, doing it by constraining the payroll for the foreseeable future would have been utter foolishness. It's safe to say no one will be taking those contracts off the hands of the Angels or Rangers without a ransom in cash traveling the same path.
Very bad choices, and that's a serious understatement.
Add: Just read through the article and there are lots of yuks, such as this from the ground rules section: ...and this from the Old Number 1 Worst Contract (I'm not giving the plot away here. Let's face it, you'd have to have been on a distant star the last five years to not have figured this out). The writer stakes his claim to the loneliest place in this solar system... as a fan of A-Rod: I feel confident that I'm speaking for all of us when I say that I'd want to be an observer at that riot... with beer and popcorn!
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Feb 10, 2015 2:17:30 GMT -5
I think we've seen the limits to which the Sox will go with FAs for the time being. It was good they didn't sign those guys. I think Pujols might still have some good seasons, but probably will never be worth his contract.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 10, 2015 8:09:31 GMT -5
Interesting...
Buster Olney ?@buster_ESPN 3h3 hours ago There is anger among the teams that Major League Baseball permitted Max Scherzer's deal to have such a high percentage of deferred money.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,806
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2015 8:50:46 GMT -5
Interesting... Buster Olney ?@buster_ESPN 3h3 hours ago There is anger among the teams that Major League Baseball permitted Max Scherzer's deal to have such a high percentage of deferred money. Yeah I didn't think that was fair at all
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 10, 2015 18:00:40 GMT -5
Now Petco Park is a good place for James Shields and his fly balls.
Glad we didn't get suckered into that one.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 10, 2015 20:04:30 GMT -5
Interesting... Buster Olney ?@buster_ESPN 3h3 hours ago There is anger among the teams that Major League Baseball permitted Max Scherzer's deal to have such a high percentage of deferred money. Yeah I didn't think that was fair at all If the Sox had successfully signed Lester to that type (not amount) of deal, we'd all be singing Ben's praises.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 10, 2015 20:21:52 GMT -5
I don't understand why it's not "fair" or why teams would be upset by it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 11, 2015 8:32:47 GMT -5
I don't understand why it's not "fair" or why teams would be upset by it. Isn't it being valued at less than face value for luxury tax purposes? I can see this becoming (an annoying) trend.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Feb 11, 2015 9:10:20 GMT -5
I don't understand why it's not "fair" or why teams would be upset by it. Isn't it being valued at less than face value for luxury tax purposes? I can see this becoming (an annoying) trend. Yes, but he also got a bigger contract than he would've without the deferred money. I don't really see the problem here, it's a reasonable way for a team to fund a large contract.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 11, 2015 10:14:01 GMT -5
The problem that I see with these contracts is that a team could handcuff themselves in future seasons. Imagine if the Nationals signed 5 guys or 10 guys to similar contracts, they could put themselves in a position where 8-14 years from now they won't be competing at all. It would be their own fault, but when a team isn't competitive for such a long stretch it becomes bad for baseball.
Also - this opens the door open for an owner who was planning on selling the team a few years down the road. They may deem the reduced sales price (if there even is one) would be more than offset by the short-term revenue created by their winning team. Essentially handcuffing the next owner.
This contract alone isn't a big deal, and there have been other heavily deferred contracts in the past, but it would be in baseball's best interest to place restrictions on this. (or allow the team to move after the become crappy as the new fan base would be happy to have any team for a couple of years - but this would be pretty messed up)
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 11, 2015 15:41:47 GMT -5
The problem that I see with these contracts is that a team could handcuff themselves in future seasons. Imagine if the Nationals signed 5 guys or 10 guys to similar contracts, they could put themselves in a position where 8-14 years from now they won't be competing at all. It would be their own fault, but when a team isn't competitive for such a long stretch it becomes bad for baseball. Also - this opens the door open for an owner who was planning on selling the team a few years down the road. They may deem the reduced sales price (if there even is one) would be more than offset by the short-term revenue created by their winning team. Essentially handcuffing the next owner. This contract alone isn't a big deal, and there have been other heavily deferred contracts in the past, but it would be in baseball's best interest to place restrictions on this. (or allow the team to move after the become crappy as the new fan base would be happy to have any team for a couple of years - but this would be pretty messed up) I'm ok with this type of contract. It's only a problem if every team does this AND if the deferred amount hurts the future team. I don't see this as any worse than paying an old player $25+M annually to suck. Color me biased against the Marlins, but I think the Stanton contract is much worse for baseball. It's clearly a ploy by the Marlins to screw the system. •15:$6.5M, 16:$9M, 17:$14.5M, 18:$25M, 19:$26M, 20:$26M, 21:$29M, 22:$29M, 23:$32M, 24:$32M, 25:$32M, 26:$29M, 27:$25M, 28:$25M club option ($10M buyout) •Stanton may opt out of contract after 2020 season There's no way that he doesn't opt out; the Marlins win all around; they pay a total of $107M through his age 30 season and then he walks. Not that I wish ill on Stanton, but I do wish ill on Jeffrey Loria because he's a pox on baseball; I almost hope that Stanton suffers a significant injury in 2020 and decides to NOT opt out. That would screw the Marlins over for a long time and possibly force that terrible ownership out.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 11, 2015 16:22:54 GMT -5
I'm ok with this type of contract. It's only a problem if every team does this AND if the deferred amount hurts the future team. I don't see this as any worse than paying an old player $25+M annually to suck. Color me biased against the Marlins, but I think the Stanton contract is much worse for baseball. It's clearly a ploy by the Marlins to screw the system. •15:$6.5M, 16:$9M, 17:$14.5M, 18:$25M, 19:$26M, 20:$26M, 21:$29M, 22:$29M, 23:$32M, 24:$32M, 25:$32M, 26:$29M, 27:$25M, 28:$25M club option ($10M buyout) •Stanton may opt out of contract after 2020 season There's no way that he doesn't opt out; the Marlins win all around; they pay a total of $107M through his age 30 season and then he walks. Not that I wish ill on Stanton, but I do wish ill on Jeffrey Loria because he's a pox on baseball; I almost hope that Stanton suffers a significant injury in 2020 and decides to NOT opt out. That would screw the Marlins over for a long time and possibly force that terrible ownership out. I actually like the Stanton contract because I think it's clever and it could turn a couple of different ways. As you mentioned, if Stanton suffers a major injury and can no longer play at a high level, the Marlins are screwed (depending on their insurance). Given Stanton's size, position (I would move him to 1B quickly) and past injuries, there is a real chance this could happen. But what I really like about the contract is the high-end costs coming later in the contract. This means that the AAV is much lower than those peak years and he would be far more desirable by a team that is up against the luxury tax (which the Marlins clearly won't be). All small market teams should structure their contracts like this as they could avoid paying the cash if the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc wanted the player for the last years. The Scherzer contract is only an issue if it becomes a fad or one team goes crazy with these contracts. Guessing MLB would step in before that happened.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 12, 2015 19:45:01 GMT -5
I don't understand why it's not "fair" or why teams would be upset by it. Two reasons: #1 if a team experiences financial distress, the team becomes a ward of the rest of the league. There is no better way to do that then to owe ungodly sums of money to players who can't help you win and thus can't help your revenue drivers. #2 The two cases where teams did have to be taken over ushered in owners with little financial discipline who drove up the market for talent. The Rangers, mostly in the international market. And the Dodgers....well everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 12, 2015 21:15:53 GMT -5
I don't understand why it's not "fair" or why teams would be upset by it. Two reasons: #1 if a team experiences financial distress, the team becomes a ward of the rest of the league. There is no better way to do that then to owe ungodly sums of money to players who can't help you win and thus can't help your revenue drivers.No better way? Has it ever even happened before?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 12, 2015 21:59:49 GMT -5
Two reasons: #1 if a team experiences financial distress, the team becomes a ward of the rest of the league. There is no better way to do that then to owe ungodly sums of money to players who can't help you win and thus can't help your revenue drivers.No better way? Has it ever even happened before? There have been a few instances of deferred contracts, but none at anything close to $15M annually. Aroldis Chapman comes to mind but his is only a mil or two annually. Either way; I think there are probably better ways to ruin a team than paying tomorrow for today's success.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2015 22:49:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure deferred money is any more of a threat to the long-term financial health of a franchise than your run-of-the-mill long-term, big-money contract. In fact, because the annual payout is lower with a deferred-money contract, it might even be healthier for franchises because it allows you to spread out the same payout over a longer period. The real issue is just that these mega-contracts have almost never been good for the team giving them out. Look at Pujols or Mauer or Fielder or A. Rodriguez or Cabrera or Votto or Verlander or Kemp.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 12, 2015 23:40:13 GMT -5
...or Choo or Hamilton or...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 13, 2015 8:19:59 GMT -5
It's not a threat yet... It could get out of hand quickly if it's not addressed though, like the national debt.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 13, 2015 10:22:00 GMT -5
The difference is that a retired player can't help to create revenues that might cover his salary. Obligations that don't have matching revenue sources can create problems in any business.
Let's say that a team had a large amount of deferred obligations to players that weren't playing. Well that's less money to spend on payroll, park maintenance etc. A viscous cycle can be created. If the team holds back on resources that can maintain or increase revenue, revenue will fall which in turn leads to even less money spent on revenue drivers.
It's awfully hard to ruin a team permanently as the Dodgers situation showed. These are great enduring brands with awesome potential revenue streams. However any brand will at least be temporarily damaged if the underlying business is starved of resources. A team with large obligations to players who aren't playing, is much more likely to be forced to do that.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 13, 2015 12:37:40 GMT -5
Jon Heyman ?@jonheymancbs 3m3 minutes ago Miami, FL donaldson will receive $4.3M (he sought $5.725M). big arb loss since he has 3 arb yrs left, and salary affects future
4 Donaldson's to 1 Pablo Sandoval. Great move by the blue jays
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 13, 2015 13:39:36 GMT -5
If Farrell is more comfortable managing a bullpen with a left handed option then the GM should try his darnedest to build a bullpen around those parameters. Or you could, you know, Tommy Layne. Problem with that is that he can't get righties out and they want someone with a major league track record.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 13, 2015 13:40:42 GMT -5
It's not a threat yet... It could get out of hand quickly if it's not addressed though, like the national debt. Well Jim teams can't print money so it's a little different.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 15, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5
keithlaw ?@keithlaw 2h2 hours ago Terrible news. “@hardballtalk: Mariners prospect Victor Sanchez in intensive care after being hit by a boat wp.me/p14QSL-2jLO ”
|
|
|