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 James Dunne on Nov 18, 2014 22:07:02 GMT -5
I guess what's hard to predict is how much $31 million AAV will be worth in current dollars under the next CBA. If the next contract is more friendly to players - with, say, a built-in annual increase in the soft cap amount, and you know the Yankees and Dodgers are going to be pushing for that - then it's not at all inconceivable that it's today's equivalent of $20 million. Stanton's opt-out is mostly just a hedge against a market explosion.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 18, 2014 23:07:33 GMT -5
Rob Bradford ?@bradfo 45s45 seconds ago
Source: Five teams showing legitimate interest in Jonny Gomes
GOMES!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Nov 19, 2014 0:19:42 GMT -5
Billy Butler appears to get 3/30 from the Oakland A's. I'd have thought that he'd be able to get more. I can't knock Oakland for making seemingly quiet, but good moves.
Robert Murray @robertmurraymlb Follow
Source: Billy Butler agrees to three-year, $30M deal with the #Athletics. $5 million signing bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 19, 2014 1:04:37 GMT -5
Rob Bradford ?@bradfo 45s45 seconds ago Source: Five teams showing illegitimate interest in Jonny Gomes GOMES!!!! Fixed...
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 19, 2014 6:30:51 GMT -5
A's sign Billy Butler for 3/$30m. Steamer projects him for -0.2 WAR next year, but I trust Billy Beane more than Steamer.
Also, Billy Beane is probably not done dealing yet. Maybe he'll send us a backup catcher if we ask nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 19, 2014 7:21:12 GMT -5
As for what Stanton may be thinking, my guess is that taking a fastball to the kisser can change your perspective on things a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 19, 2014 8:11:22 GMT -5
Stanton is thinking I have nothing to lose. He's going to pocket over 100m the next 6 years and if he lights it up, stays healthy and the Marlins stink he can opt out and at least match the last 7 years with a better team... And if anything goes wrong from him to the market then he gets to take that money.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 19, 2014 8:11:46 GMT -5
The Butler pickup is classic As, I like it for them and think he does well in that ballpark... Big alleys to work with for him.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 19, 2014 9:22:39 GMT -5
The Butler pickup is classic As, I like it for them and think he does well in that ballpark... Big alleys to work with for him. I like the acquisition from an on the field standpoint -- Butler will work well as a potent bat vs. LHP, as the A's have lots of LHH's with big platoon stats -- but I just don't understand how he got $30/3. Seriously, was anyone else, Royals included, going to give him $20/2? Because I'd have to think long and hard about offering even $16/2.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 19, 2014 10:02:11 GMT -5
I like the acquisition from an on the field standpoint -- Butler will work well as a potent bat vs. LHP, as the A's have lots of LHH's with big platoon stats -- but I just don't understand how he got $30/3. Seriously, was anyone else, Royals included, going to give him $20/2? Because I'd have to think long and hard about offering even $16/2. Perhaps the see his only slightly-below-average defensive stats at first (-5.6 UZR/150 career) and think that he's going to bounce back with the bat and be much more valuable at first. Otherwise - it just seems like too much for a DH coming off a bad year (even if he is only 28 - may be strong indicator of a bounce back). One interesting bit is that last year was his first year with strong lefty/righty splits - previously he had been pretty neutral vs both. Have to imagine he is a full-timer and not a platoon partner given his high salary (for the A's) and his Right-handedness.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 19, 2014 10:04:32 GMT -5
Rob Bradford ?@bradfo 45s45 seconds ago Source: Five teams showing legitimate interest in Jonny Gomes GOMES!!!! Six divisions. So, other than Sox, the five other last place finishers, Minnesota, texas, Philadelphia, Cubs or Arizona, want this turnaround specialist?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 19, 2014 11:09:57 GMT -5
Yes, Stanton can opt-in and get that full contract, but given the leverage he had as a 25-year-old stud who could have forced his way to a big-market team, he could have done more. The idea with most opt-outs (i.e., ones structured with a relatively consistent AAV) is that it gives players a high financial floor (the full value of the contract) but an even higher financial ceiling (they can opt-out and get that second long-term contract a la Sabathia). That higher ceiling is the whole reason opt-outs are so player-friendly. However, with Stanton's deal as backloaded as it is, that higher ceiling doesn't really exist. Even if he keeps playing essentially as well as he has and there are six more years of inflation, 7/$218m seems tough to match/beat as a player entering his decline years. Therefore, the opt-out didn't really increase his financial ceiling much, because it's hard to see him getting much more than the total 13/$325m no matter how well he plays. Yes, he still has a high financial floor (the aforementioned 13/$325m), which is certainly the driving motivation of his signing such a deal, but he could and should have gotten more upside. Basically, it's the opposite of what Boras advises, and Boras is a damn good agent for a reason. Especially when teams have a much better understanding of the current or likely disasters - Pujols, Fielder and Cabrera at that point.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 19, 2014 11:20:00 GMT -5
I mean if the A's are such believers in random bouncebacks... any chance we can get something from them for Allen Craig?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 19, 2014 11:33:19 GMT -5
I mean if the A's are such believers in random bouncebacks... any chance we can get something from them for Allen Craig? Yea, so the same people who cried about how terrible he is could come back and cry that we got robbed when he starts putting up 2013 stat lines.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 19, 2014 11:36:58 GMT -5
A package of Craig and some prospects for Sonny Gray wouldn't be a bad idea... Ok ok Samarja or whatever his name is is a more likely target.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 19, 2014 12:20:31 GMT -5
Hey, I'll give the A's credit. A team that is normally financially prudent went out and signed a player for more money than he is worth at a position of huge need for the club. Good for them.
Personaly I'm against these large contracts for DH-only as you can get much more value by signing guys that can actually play defense. I understand that we've been doing that for a decade now with Papi, but Ortiz is in a different league than the rest of these DH-only players. He's likely to be the first DH-only type elected for the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 19, 2014 13:45:07 GMT -5
Yes, Stanton can opt-in and get that full contract, but given the leverage he had as a 25-year-old stud who could have forced his way to a big-market team, he could have done more. The idea with most opt-outs (i.e., ones structured with a relatively consistent AAV) is that it gives players a high financial floor (the full value of the contract) but an even higher financial ceiling (they can opt-out and get that second long-term contract a la Sabathia). That higher ceiling is the whole reason opt-outs are so player-friendly. However, with Stanton's deal as backloaded as it is, that higher ceiling doesn't really exist. Even if he keeps playing essentially as well as he has and there are six more years of inflation, 7/$218m seems tough to match/beat as a player entering his decline years. Therefore, the opt-out didn't really increase his financial ceiling much, because it's hard to see him getting much more than the total 13/$325m no matter how well he plays. Yes, he still has a high financial floor (the aforementioned 13/$325m), which is certainly the driving motivation of his signing such a deal, but he could and should have gotten more upside. Basically, it's the opposite of what Boras advises, and Boras is a damn good agent for a reason. This post surprises me because you've basically ignored your whole argument from last years Mike Trout extension thread when you were arguing about 40m AAV contracts not being out of the norm. If you were right at that point, then the opt out absolutely offers some real upside from a financial perspective. Besides all that, the opt out gives him an escape from a place he might not want to be. The fact he got an opt out of any kind on a 13 years $325m contract in a major win. He got hit in the face and hasn't played since. There is a chance he's not going to be the same player... is it a big chance? probably not, but any chance like that after you handed a guy that type of contract is scary. Stanton did very well.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 19, 2014 13:47:22 GMT -5
Hey, I'll give the A's credit. A team that is normally financially prudent went out and signed a player for more money than he is worth at a position of huge need for the club. Good for them. Personaly I'm against these large contracts for DH-only as you can get much more value by signing guys that can actually play defense. I understand that we've been doing that for a decade now with Papi, but Ortiz is in a different league than the rest of these DH-only players. He's likely to be the first DH-only type elected for the Hall of Fame. Not to get side tracked but there is a very very small chance Papi makes the HOF. Besides the DH thing he has the PED issue and both those things are hard to overcome on their own let alone together.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 19, 2014 13:58:26 GMT -5
Yes, Stanton can opt-in and get that full contract, but given the leverage he had as a 25-year-old stud who could have forced his way to a big-market team, he could have done more. The idea with most opt-outs (i.e., ones structured with a relatively consistent AAV) is that it gives players a high financial floor (the full value of the contract) but an even higher financial ceiling (they can opt-out and get that second long-term contract a la Sabathia). That higher ceiling is the whole reason opt-outs are so player-friendly. However, with Stanton's deal as backloaded as it is, that higher ceiling doesn't really exist. Even if he keeps playing essentially as well as he has and there are six more years of inflation, 7/$218m seems tough to match/beat as a player entering his decline years. Therefore, the opt-out didn't really increase his financial ceiling much, because it's hard to see him getting much more than the total 13/$325m no matter how well he plays. Yes, he still has a high financial floor (the aforementioned 13/$325m), which is certainly the driving motivation of his signing such a deal, but he could and should have gotten more upside. Basically, it's the opposite of what Boras advises, and Boras is a damn good agent for a reason. This post surprises me because you've basically ignored your whole argument from last years Mike Trout extension thread when you were arguing about 40m AAV contracts not being out of the norm. If you were right at that point, then the opt out absolutely offers some real upside from a financial perspective. Besides all that, the opt out gives him an escape from a place he might not want to be. The fact he got an opt out of any kind on a 13 years $325m contract in a major win. He got hit in the face and hasn't played since. There is a chance he's not going to be the same player... is it a big chance? probably not, but any chance like that after you handed a guy that type of contract is scary. Stanton did very well. I agree...and will also add that I think this is a great contract for Stanton, Marlins and baseball in general. The player and team showed great commitment to each other and a large market team doesn't get to pilfer another potential superstar.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2014 14:36:25 GMT -5
Yes, Stanton can opt-in and get that full contract, but given the leverage he had as a 25-year-old stud who could have forced his way to a big-market team, he could have done more. The idea with most opt-outs (i.e., ones structured with a relatively consistent AAV) is that it gives players a high financial floor (the full value of the contract) but an even higher financial ceiling (they can opt-out and get that second long-term contract a la Sabathia). That higher ceiling is the whole reason opt-outs are so player-friendly. However, with Stanton's deal as backloaded as it is, that higher ceiling doesn't really exist. Even if he keeps playing essentially as well as he has and there are six more years of inflation, 7/$218m seems tough to match/beat as a player entering his decline years. Therefore, the opt-out didn't really increase his financial ceiling much, because it's hard to see him getting much more than the total 13/$325m no matter how well he plays. Yes, he still has a high financial floor (the aforementioned 13/$325m), which is certainly the driving motivation of his signing such a deal, but he could and should have gotten more upside. Basically, it's the opposite of what Boras advises, and Boras is a damn good agent for a reason. This post surprises me because you've basically ignored your whole argument from last years Mike Trout extension thread when you were arguing about 40m AAV contracts not being out of the norm. If you were right at that point, then the opt out absolutely offers some real upside from a financial perspective. Besides all that, the opt out gives him an escape from a place he might not want to be. The fact he got an opt out of any kind on a 13 years $325m contract in a major win. He got hit in the face and hasn't played since. There is a chance he's not going to be the same player... is it a big chance? probably not, but any chance like that after you handed a guy that type of contract is scary. Stanton did very well. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Here's the Trout thread-- nowhere did I suggest that $40m contracts would be the norm, nor do I expect them to be so. There's some upside, but there's not a lot. Stanton has all the leverage in this situation-- he's a clear stud who has made enough money already that he's not desperate for funds. He decided not to try to get as much as he could, and that was his choice and a perfectly defensible one. My point was only that he could have easily asked for more and gotten it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 19, 2014 15:42:59 GMT -5
did you delete a post? you're getting sneaky over there... kidding, I think.... That wasn't the thread I was referring to anyways, it was a different Trout thread and I looked it up before I posted. The post I can't find right now, you referenced the luxury tax line going up to the 250m range and in that case a 40m AAV being rather normal (obviously for a top of the line player). It talked about a 24m contract not being a problem at that point, but of course if it didn't go up then that 24m was a lot.... pissed off I can't find that thread I just looked at before making that last post and damn you if you deleted your post..
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 19, 2014 16:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 19, 2014 17:30:19 GMT -5
Sad, but seemingly common when it comes to money.
If my father said that to me, I'd have socked him right then and there. First you have the gall to steal $2 million from me, when clearly he was more than willing to help out, then you ask for $10 million more in order to be "bought out?"
Pathetic humans and supposed parents.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2014 23:21:24 GMT -5
did you delete a post? you're getting sneaky over there... kidding, I think.... That wasn't the thread I was referring to anyways, it was a different Trout thread and I looked it up before I posted. The post I can't find right now, you referenced the luxury tax line going up to the 250m range and in that case a 40m AAV being rather normal (obviously for a top of the line player). It talked about a 24m contract not being a problem at that point, but of course if it didn't go up then that 24m was a lot.... pissed off I can't find that thread I just looked at before making that last post and damn you if you deleted your post.. I don't remember ever having made a post like that, and I certainly didn't delete it.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 20, 2014 10:05:47 GMT -5
Sad, but seemingly common when it comes to money. If my father said that to me, I'd have socked him right then and there. First you have the gall to steal $2 million from me, when clearly he was more than willing to help out, then you ask for $10 million more in order to be "bought out?" Pathetic humans and supposed parents. Unfortunately, this happens a lot. NHLer Jack Johnson just filed for bankruptcy after he entrusted his $30 plus million career earnings to his parents, who have no financial background and leveraged him to the hilt. bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/11/20/blind-sided.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
|
|
|