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.
2016 Non-Sox Thread
|
Post by southernredsoxality on Feb 18, 2016 15:06:55 GMT -5
Kinda sucks Gourriel defected so late in the offseason, and in his career too for that matter. He would outperform Sandoval for about half the money and no pick. I wouldn't be so sure. Gourriel is 31, not 37 or something. Consider that Hector Olivera got 6/62.5 (incl. 28M signing bonus) despite health questions on his arm. Gourriel is better and isn't even a year older (although he'll be signing a couple years later), and he's way better, presumably without the health issues. Half was a bit extreme by me, but I think significantly less for sure. I don't see him getting more than 5/70, although maybe he has a great workout and someone like the Dodgers or the Hankees go crazy. It's gonna be interesting to see how the whole thing unfolds regardless.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 19, 2016 13:44:24 GMT -5
Really sad news that Tony Phillips passed away yesterday at 56. Phillips was an extraordinary player in his day, and one of the most versatile players I ever saw. Imagine if Ben Zobrist was a really good fielder at all those defensive position he played, and you'd have Phillips. It's pretty shocking too, as Phillips kept himself in excellent shape. He would pop in various independent leagues after his MLB career ended, playing in eight games last season in the Pacific Association.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 20, 2016 6:12:56 GMT -5
I caught the news on the car radio about Phillips. They called him a utility player. I think the language needs to be revamped, with a broader set of categories. That "utility" player accumulated 50+ wins. A lot of people would tell you he was at the heart of those championship calibre Oakland teams he played on, and one tough out.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Feb 20, 2016 13:15:06 GMT -5
I caught the news on the car radio about Phillips. They called him a utility player. I think the language needs to be revamped, with a broader set of categories. That "utility" player accumulated 50+ wins. A lot of people would tell you he was at the heart of those championship calibre Oakland teams he played on, and one tough out. This is true, Norm. A "utility player" has traditionally been defined as a complementary part of your roster who substitutes in various spots when your core players aren't in the lineup for whatever reason and whose amount of playing time is basically dictated by the need to replace the core players. We are talking about players who ARE part of the core and whose own play dictates that they are in the lineup much/most of the time, but who just happen to play several positions reasonably to very well. As a result, the roster use strategy has them planned to be playing in various positions to give several other core players breaks or to substitute in when their performance patterns suggest that they would be a better option to fill a particular position on a particular day. Such a player is also generally seen as a perfectly fine longer-term regular if a requirement for their services at a single position manifests itself (through injury, trade, unexpected bad performance, whatever.) So call them "versatility players" rather than "utility players." Then we can start discussing/arguing which players fall in each category. Phillips was a versatility player. Zobrist is a versatility player. Is Brock Holt a versatility player? Maybe a lot harder to say. And sometimes, whether a player slots as a utility player or a versatility player depends on how good the starting lineup is. On a mediocre-to-decent team, a player competent at several positions may have the manager looking for a way to get him in the lineup most days to improve the lineup via favorable matchups, or to replace a slumping player, which always seems to be happening to SOMEONE among the starters. I.e., the quality of the roster creates a versatility player. On the other hand, maybe no player could qualify as a versatility player on, say, the 1975 Reds.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 20, 2016 19:10:14 GMT -5
Per Jon Heyman, the Orioles finally sign Yovani Gallardo -- $35M/3 years (some of that $ deferred), with an option year. Orioles punt their 14th overall draft pick, and get a 2 WAR pitcher to upgrade a still-highly-suspect rotation. He had the worst K-rate of his career in 2015, had a unusually low HR-rate, and is turning 30 this month. The AL East will have some fun with him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2016 21:23:49 GMT -5
Don't love parting with a pick for him, but his upside is easily worth 3/$35M. Even if he really is only a 2.0 WAR pitcher (and he's been 2.5+ in bWAR three of the last four years), he'd need to be what - a 5.0 WAR player over the course of the deal to be worth it? And from where the Orioles are concerned, "above replacement level" isn't just an abstraction - the alternative is probably something right around replacement level.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 20, 2016 22:36:34 GMT -5
Money wise that is a very good deal for the Orioles.
But I would never give up a 1st round pick to sign him.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Feb 21, 2016 8:13:11 GMT -5
The 14th pick is worth about $15M if I'm not mistaken. That makes it essentially a 3/$50M deal, which it's a bit too much for a 2 WAR pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 21, 2016 9:42:27 GMT -5
But would be about right for a 2.5 WAR type, I think.
The draft pick compensation system is awful. The Orioles gave up the #14 pick for Gallardo, Boston gave up nothing for Price. That is a broken system.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Feb 21, 2016 9:51:49 GMT -5
Money wise that is a very good deal for the Orioles. But I would never give up a 1st round pick to sign him. Although for a lot of the short term deals, it often is deferring the pick, because they get a pick when the player leaves. For example, when Duke signed Nelson Cruz in 2014 he gave up a first (or second depending on Jimenez), but when Cruz left for Seattle the following year, Duke got a 1st round Comp. pick back (36th). Three years makes it a bit harder to project that he would get a qualifying offer, but the value of that "lost pick" has to be reduced for that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 21, 2016 10:05:38 GMT -5
But would be about right for a 2.5 WAR type, I think. The draft pick compensation system is awful. The Orioles gave up the #14 pick for Gallardo, Boston gave up nothing for Price. That is a broken system. And it's not a new problem. They tweaked the system with the last CBA to fix some issues, but they created and maintained just as many. Why do the picks out have to match the picks in? For instance, why not make it so in cases like Price's, the signing team still gives up a pick while the Jays wouldn't get a pick? You could get even more complicated by having the process for lost picks run completely separately to the process for gained picks. For instance, tier all the players based on previous performance and have them worth 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round picks to the team that loses them depending on how good the player was. Then have the picks lost be determined by salary. If a player is paid in the top x% of players you give up a first. The next x% is worth a second. What are the holes in a plan like that?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 21, 2016 11:03:07 GMT -5
Measures of performance, for one. Those presentations Boras prepares in order to sell his players... would those be the basis for assessing that? I'm sure he'd want his say. And whatever happens, I don't want Elias anywhere near the evaluations.
|
|
kman22
Veteran
Posts: 937
Member is Online
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 21, 2016 12:40:12 GMT -5
But would be about right for a 2.5 WAR type, I think. The draft pick compensation system is awful. The Orioles gave up the #14 pick for Gallardo, Boston gave up nothing for Price. That is a broken system. And it's not a new problem. They tweaked the system with the last CBA to fix some issues, but they created and maintained just as many. Why do the picks out have to match the picks in? For instance, why not make it so in cases like Price's, the signing team still gives up a pick while the Jays wouldn't get a pick? You could get even more complicated by having the process for lost picks run completely separately to the process for gained picks. For instance, tier all the players based on previous performance and have them worth 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round picks to the team that loses them depending on how good the player was. Then have the picks lost be determined by salary. If a player is paid in the top x% of players you give up a first. The next x% is worth a second. What are the holes in a plan like that? From the players' perspective, that's a major incentive for the teams to avoid bigger salaries. If they know that they can pay $149M over the course of the deal and give up a 2nd, but $150M would cost a 1st, the team is going to be a lot less inclined to pony up an extra million (essentially chump change in those negotiations), because of the additional penalty.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 21, 2016 13:50:10 GMT -5
But would be about right for a 2.5 WAR type, I think. The draft pick compensation system is awful. The Orioles gave up the #14 pick for Gallardo, Boston gave up nothing for Price. That is a broken system. And it's not a new problem. They tweaked the system with the last CBA to fix some issues, but they created and maintained just as many. Why do the picks out have to match the picks in? For instance, why not make it so in cases like Price's, the signing team still gives up a pick while the Jays wouldn't get a pick? You could get even more complicated by having the process for lost picks run completely separately to the process for gained picks. For instance, tier all the players based on previous performance and have them worth 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round picks to the team that loses them depending on how good the player was. Then have the picks lost be determined by salary. If a player is paid in the top x% of players you give up a first. The next x% is worth a second. What are the holes in a plan like that? I don't like the idea of tying the compensation to performance, because presumably salary paid is already based largely on a performance/potential/age scale. Tying it to salary would work perfectly. And they don't need to be strict dollar amount cutoffs, or strict round cutoffs. Tie each pick to a dollar amount for all 40 rounds, and add picks in until the point of compensation. So the difference of a million dollars wouldn't be the difference between surrendering a #1 or #2 - it would be the difference between surrendering, say a #2 and a #9 and a #2 and a #11. And I agree that there's absolutely no reason for lost picks and gained picks to be attached. The Blue Jays shouldn't get a pick for losing Price after two months, but the Red Sox should have to surrender one for signing the highest salary free agent pitcher in history.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 21, 2016 14:13:42 GMT -5
I don't see the great need to have to lose a pick for signing a free agent. Just give out comp picks like the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by bbscouts on Feb 21, 2016 14:23:49 GMT -5
I agree that the signing team shouldn't lose a pick as this is an artificial restraint on the players ability to get a fair market deal. Comp picks could be created based on service time with the former team and WAR value over that time.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 21, 2016 14:37:31 GMT -5
Which WAR value, though? And WAR values are adjusted as we get information. Could a team appeal for lost compensation if a player is found three years later to have been slightly less valuable? Tough to make that system work fairly, I think.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 21, 2016 14:38:41 GMT -5
But would be about right for a 2.5 WAR type, I think. The draft pick compensation system is awful. The Orioles gave up the #14 pick for Gallardo, Boston gave up nothing for Price. That is a broken system. An "ideal" system would include a salary cap covering both salary and signing bonuses and no draft. Can't happen in MLB, but I really don't understand how sports with salary caps can justify retaining the draft.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 21, 2016 15:01:27 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, the ideal system for me would involve eliminating the forfeiting of picks by teams who sign significant free agents and instead just compensating the teams who lost the most net free agents-- in other words, the NFL system. Create some number of comp picks between the first and second round, and the teams who lost the most in terms of net contract value get those picks in order. You could weigh it by how long the free agent was a member of his previous organization (in other words, a team losing a player who was on the roster for 6+ years gets a multiplier over a player who was traded for at the deadline).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 21, 2016 15:09:51 GMT -5
Instead of just ordering the picks as a compensation round, award compensation picks based directly on how much the player signed for with a service time multiplier. You lose Albert Pujols after 10 years and he gets $240 million? Here is the #15 pick. You lose Nick Punto after two months and he got $470K? Here is pick #2,677.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Feb 21, 2016 20:13:49 GMT -5
You could weigh it by how long the free agent was a member of his previous organization (in other words, a team losing a player who was on the roster for 6+ years gets a multiplier over a player who was traded for at the deadline). This might do significant damage to the trade market though. Something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Feb 22, 2016 10:45:45 GMT -5
Personally, I think the compensation should be proportional not to how much a player ends up signing for but how much the losing team offered him to stay (reminiscent of a qualifying offer). If you weren't willing to pony up in the first place you don't get much back.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 22, 2016 13:22:29 GMT -5
How about we just don't have compensation picks? That seems like an elegant solution.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 23, 2016 11:03:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 23, 2016 11:17:31 GMT -5
If we assume that 68,000 car is the least expensive and the 300,000 car (of course an Aventador is closer to 400K stock from Lamborghini...) the most expensive, and the remaining six cars fall within that range distributed evenly he has spent 1.47 million dollars on customized cars. Hope he is making good investments otherwise. But I suppose he'll have made 111 million by the end of 2018 so no big deal.
I would like to see video of that sidewinder entering a slightly uphill parking lot or going over a speed bump.
|
|
|