|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2016 11:35:49 GMT -5
It's funny you think 2013 is an example of why they"ll sign super elite free agents in 2018-19. In 2013 they let the best free agent on market go because they wouldn't go beyond 7 years after what happened with ARod, and said contracts over 7 years have too much risk and 240 million was too much money to tie up in one player. Harper and Machado are most likely getting 10 year deals, heck they might be longer. They might get 300-400 million each. No way a team signs both and assumes that much risk at that type of money. In 2013 they only signed one really big long term deal and it has completely back fired. The other deals were for 5, 3 and 1 year. Robinson Cano was 31 years old and signed a deal with Seattle that would take him into his 40s, something Cashman had already done with A-Rod and wasn't going to do again. Bryce Harper can sign a 10 year deal and still be 37 when it's done and Machado could do the same and not be much older. We're talking about younger free agents here. And Otani, if he's around at that point, will still be quite young. There is a difference between that and signing a 31 year old to a decade long contract. Which is why those two players might get 12-13 year deals. Heck even at ten years the risk is massive. One bad injury and those super elite players could become just good players making 35-40 million a year. Go look at Mark Teixeira age 33-36 seasons. He only had one good season and retired after his age 36 season. Go look at Albert Pujols numbers. If you think a 10 year deal doesn't carry massive risk because it only takes them to age 37 your very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2016 13:26:21 GMT -5
Robinson Cano was 31 years old and signed a deal with Seattle that would take him into his 40s, something Cashman had already done with A-Rod and wasn't going to do again. Bryce Harper can sign a 10 year deal and still be 37 when it's done and Machado could do the same and not be much older. We're talking about younger free agents here. And Otani, if he's around at that point, will still be quite young. There is a difference between that and signing a 31 year old to a decade long contract. Which is why those two players might get 12-13 year deals. Heck even at ten years the risk is massive. One bad injury and those super elite players could become just good players making 35-40 million a year. Go look at Mark Teixeira age 33-36 seasons. He only had one good season and retired after his age 36 season. Go look at Albert Pujols numbers. If you think a 10 year deal doesn't carry massive risk because it only takes them to age 37 your very wrong. I get your point that if a player is 26 or 27 at free agency there might be a deal exceeding 10 years on the table. That's kind of hard to fathom but could happen. I would tend to doubt it for the reason you mentioned. Still it's not really that hard to imagine the Yankees taking gambles like that with Harper, Machado and Otani. Those guys aren't likely to go belly up right away, and if the Yanks get several great years out of them, well it's not hard to imagine the Steinbrenner boys selling the team while they're winning for some sort of massive price. I think that's a gamble the Yanks will be quite willing to take. Keep in mind something else. Say the Yanks ink Harper to a deal of 10 years $350 to $400 million, it's just a matter of time before that deal gets topped. Think of Porcello's annual salary. $20 million was supposed to be bordering on ace money. Now the ante is up to $30 - $34 million/year for an "ace". Before long it could be $50 million/year. I always wonder where it's going to stop, but it just keeps going. In other words by Year 6 of those deals the money might either not be so daunting given what the market conditions of that time are or the Yankee brass simply might not care by then - if they are indeed looking to sell while the frachise is at its highest value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 20, 2016 13:29:19 GMT -5
The cable money is also a bubble waiting to burst. The inflation will end at some point and a lot of teams are going to be saying "oh #$*@$#"
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 20, 2016 13:42:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2016 14:00:44 GMT -5
The cable money is also a bubble waiting to burst. The inflation will end at some point and a lot of teams are going to be saying "oh #$*@$#" I keep wondering when that will be. I thought we would have seen this by now, but we still haven't. Can't wait to see the players' association reaction once this happens.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2016 14:18:54 GMT -5
The cable money is also a bubble waiting to burst. The inflation will end at some point and a lot of teams are going to be saying "oh #$*@$#" Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2016 14:29:02 GMT -5
Which is why those two players might get 12-13 year deals. Heck even at ten years the risk is massive. One bad injury and those super elite players could become just good players making 35-40 million a year. Go look at Mark Teixeira age 33-36 seasons. He only had one good season and retired after his age 36 season. Go look at Albert Pujols numbers. If you think a 10 year deal doesn't carry massive risk because it only takes them to age 37 your very wrong. I get your point that if a player is 26 or 27 at free agency there might be a deal exceeding 10 years on the table. That's kind of hard to fathom but could happen. I would tend to doubt it for the reason you mentioned. Still it's not really that hard to imagine the Yankees taking gambles like that with Harper, Machado and Otani. Those guys aren't likely to go belly up right away, and if the Yanks get several great years out of them, well it's not hard to imagine the Steinbrenner boys selling the team while they're winning for some sort of massive price. I think that's a gamble the Yanks will be quite willing to take. Keep in mind something else. Say the Yanks ink Harper to a deal of 10 years $350 to $400 million, it's just a matter of time before that deal gets topped. Think of Porcello's annual salary. $20 million was supposed to be bordering on ace money. Now the ante is up to $30 - $34 million/year for an "ace". Before long it could be $50 million/year. I always wonder where it's going to stop, but it just keeps going. In other words by Year 6 of those deals the money might either not be so daunting given what the market conditions of that time are or the Yankee brass simply might not care by then - if they are indeed looking to sell while the frachise is at its highest value. Just think about Arods 25 million deal with Texas and Manny's 20 million deal with us 15 years ago. Right after that there was a market correction. Deals went down not up. Wasn't it Arods new deal with Yankees that broke his own record? If Harper gets 10 years 400 million there's a very good chance that his deal expires before it gets topped.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Nov 20, 2016 23:08:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 20, 2016 23:25:10 GMT -5
Figures. The Yankees can't help themselves but to buy all the best available talent. I thought they were going to try and save their picks too.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 20, 2016 23:30:40 GMT -5
Figures. The Yankees can't help themselves but to buy all the best available talent. I thought they were going to try and save their picks too. I hope they do buy both, with long deals at $22-27M AAV.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 0:08:49 GMT -5
Figures. The Yankees can't help themselves but to buy all the best available talent. I thought they were going to try and save their picks too. I sure do hope they sign both. Buy two of the best free agents in the weakest free agent class in over a decade. Those two guys don't scare me one bit long term. Would cost them two draft picks and give them a very small draft pool. Eat up all that free money on two aging sluggers.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 21, 2016 14:41:17 GMT -5
I desperately want Jim Bowden to become the GM of a team again so my GM can fleece him of all his good young prospects for "gritty, seasoned veterans."
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 21, 2016 16:56:59 GMT -5
The cable money is also a bubble waiting to burst. The inflation will end at some point and a lot of teams are going to be saying "oh #$*@$#" I agree 100%. Lots of talk about cable companies eventually having to offer channels ala cart. At that point, the grossly inflated subscriptions numbers will be more accurate and then cable companies will get a subscription correction and that will not be kind to teams,
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 23, 2016 22:22:36 GMT -5
For reference, the Steinbrenner fortune is based on world shipping. World shipping has been depressed for many years now. It cost a lot to have large ships maintained at sea. On the other hand, don't look for any of them in the food stamp line.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 24, 2016 13:50:27 GMT -5
For reference, the Steinbrenner fortune is based on world shipping. World shipping has been depressed for many years now. It cost a lot to have large ships maintained at sea. On the other hand, don't look for any of them in the food stamp line. I believe the outlook for the next year is flat to down a percent or two at best.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 4, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5
If I'm putting 2+2 together correctly, it appears that the Yankees are trying to get under the cap this year in order to go all out next year. There are rumors that Gardner and Ellsbury could be had, they didn't match for Beltran, they traded McCann, they don't appear to be serious bidders for Encarnacion or Bautista and the Chapman to the Yanks talk seems to be simmering.
The Sox on the other hand aren't likely to be big spenders next off season so there's less incentive to get under the cap than exists for them. For the Sox, the modus operandi seems to be avoiding long term commitments to pave the way for future prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 4, 2016 10:42:58 GMT -5
If I'm putting 2+2 together correctly, it appears that the Yankees are trying to get under the cap this year in order to go all out next year. There are rumors that Gardner and Ellsbury could be had, they didn't match for Beltran, they traded McCann, they don't appear to be serious bidders for Encarnacion or Bautista and the Chapman to the Yanks talk seems to be simmering. The Sox on the other hand aren't likely to be big spenders next off season so there's less incentive to get under the cap than exists for them. For the Sox, the modus operandi seems to be avoiding long term commitments to pave the way for future prospects. The Yankees are due for a splash. Don't be surprised to see Encarnacion get signed by the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 5, 2016 0:25:17 GMT -5
For all the good things cashman has done this offseason for the evil empire, signing holiday can not be considered one of them.
I know they lost out on the Beltran sweepstakes, and I see their thinking, but I was never a holiday fan. Really thinking cashman laid an egg on this one.
|
|
|
Post by wrangler713 on Dec 5, 2016 8:59:41 GMT -5
For all the good things cashman has done this offseason for the evil empire, signing holiday can not be considered one of them. I know they lost out on the Beltran sweepstakes, and I see their thinking, but I was never a holiday fan. Really thinking cashman laid an egg on this one. Nope. This was a good sign. They have the extra money, it cost them only money. They are in at the deadline they go for it, they aren't they can trade away Tanaka, Pineda, Holliday, Headley, Clippard for prospects. I believe they will trade Gardner this off season. I really like the Holliday move, one of my favorites players.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 5, 2016 9:16:05 GMT -5
The cable money is also a bubble waiting to burst. The inflation will end at some point and a lot of teams are going to be saying "oh #$*@$#" I agree 100%. Lots of talk about cable companies eventually having to offer channels ala cart. At that point, the grossly inflated subscriptions numbers will be more accurate and then cable companies will get a subscription correction and that will not be kind to teams, Please go back and read the stuff on MLBAM. The analysts' estimate is that the vehicle is worth $5 billion at a minimum. I have no idea what the profits look like, but there were upwards of 60 million simultaneous feeds from Advanced Media to customers on any given day. Do the math and your mind will be blown. That's before we talk about leasing/sales to high-end customers including HBO which went with the best after trying to roll their own and failing badly. Again, I have no idea how much that's impacted their bottom line, but I'll bet they're swimming in cash. I know that's a separate entity, but it has to have an effect on their spending habits. It's hard to overestimate how valuable that property is, now and far into the future. Add: I'm going to beat this one into the ground so that we all get on the same page. Not only does MLB not give a crap about the future of satellite/cable, they have actively sought to steal their lunch and they've done just that. I thought it was a stretch a few years back when the MLBAM exec talked about that, broadcasting more and more of their own games. Not anymore. Now they have the best of both worlds. They can market showcase events such as the playoffs and the Series and mine the old media while it lasts, while selling millions of annual subscriptions to the hard core over broadband. They have rendered the middlemen - and women - irrelevant to getting their product out. If that sounds familiar, it should given what just went down in politics. That's one of the primary takeaways from digital networks and the proliferation of information channels.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2016 9:30:06 GMT -5
Not to get too far off topic but I would love to see the demographics of baseball fans. I just wonder how many 30 and under fans there are companies to 20-30 years ago.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Dec 6, 2016 16:34:09 GMT -5
Hope they get Chapman rather than the Cubs or a contender at this point.
|
|