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.
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 18, 2019 17:57:02 GMT -5
I have to agree that article is kinda crazy. 4 years 60 million is a very good offer for Grandal given his age and issues. Harper turned down 10 years 300 million, what would have been one of the biggest deals ever. Two of the biggests deals ever in A-Rod and Stanton were traded because their teams couldn't afford them. Baseball is broken but Grandal and Harper aren't good examples. They should have taken the money and ran to the Bank! I kept saying who in their right mind would top 300 million over 10 years for Harper. It's like his expectations were simple too high given his production! He is Trout, heck he's not even Betts, and he's certainly not A-Rod! If Machado can't get more than 25 million over 7 years that is a great example. If Kimbrel can't get a good 3-4 year deal that is a great example. Jeffery Loria bought the Marlins for $150m and sold them for $1.2b. Couldn't afford Stanton? Not counting any other money he made in the process, he could have given a $500m contract to a hamster and he still would have come out of the deal with a cool half-bil for his troubles.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 18, 2019 18:15:43 GMT -5
Grandal has his limitations, but he's inarguably one of the top few offensive catchers in baseball and is a good pitch framer. There should have been more than ONE team offering him a multi-year deal. He essentially got the yips in the playoffs - "wasn't good enough to start" kind of oversells it. Well that is a different point than saying he could only get a 1 year deal barely more than the qualifying offer. He got a $60 million offer and chose not to sign it. Maybe it was a little low, but I really don't think so considering he's 30. Johnathon Lucroy was one of the best catchers in baseball at age 30 2 years ago. Now at age 32, he got $3.4M for 1 year because that's all he's worth. Russell Martin and Brian McCann are other good examples of how catchers age really quickly. I don't think that you are really objective here, and I am not trying to attack you by saying that. Your on the record as thinking that FA has created problems for ownership, that is fine. However, it is not just the individual circumstance that should be under the microscope. It is the state of FA and the promise of fair play by the owners. It isn't happening, and that is what this article says.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 18, 2019 21:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 19, 2019 7:57:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2019 10:35:45 GMT -5
Well that is a different point than saying he could only get a 1 year deal barely more than the qualifying offer. He got a $60 million offer and chose not to sign it. Maybe it was a little low, but I really don't think so considering he's 30. Johnathon Lucroy was one of the best catchers in baseball at age 30 2 years ago. Now at age 32, he got $3.4M for 1 year because that's all he's worth. Russell Martin and Brian McCann are other good examples of how catchers age really quickly. I don't think that you are really objective here, and I am not trying to attack you by saying that. Your on the record as thinking that FA has created problems for ownership, that is fine. However, it is not just the individual circumstance that should be under the microscope. It is the state of FA and the promise of fair play by the owners. It isn't happening, and that is what this article says. I'm only talking about Grandal, nothing else. Saying Grandal could only get a 1 year deal is disingenuous when he got a $60 million offer. I liked the rest of the article. I do not support the owners other than the fact that they shouldn't be forced to act stupid by giving out undeserved contracts to the wrong players. I also don't want to see Albert Pujols embarrass himself for another 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2019 10:39:15 GMT -5
Nice quote that supports my argument with umass about the shift in production. “Twenty years ago, roughly I think 45 percent of wins above replacement were due to players that were beyond six years of service,” Henry said. “That number now is 25 percent.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 19, 2019 14:59:22 GMT -5
Plowed through the article and, just as you say, it's a must read. It covers a lot of the discussion we've had here and while I have a criticisms about some of it (see below) the bulk of it is right on. It's easy enough to synthesize the problem: the value proposition is in young players payed at obscene discount rates; the cost center is for older players payed at grossly inflated rates. Even David Price, who just had a good season, and an outstanding post-season, hasn't really been worth what he's been payed by the Sox over the last three years. That hasn't been lost on the ownership class. Once again as has happened many times in the past 100+ years, ownership is maximizing profit at the expense of the players, let alone the game. That asymmetry is at the heart of the exploitation that's emerged over the last two years. The players need to get out of the weeds and really take a big picture/long-term view of their best interests. Can they do that? And if so, how do they get fans on their side? It will take a really concerted effort on the part of the players to understand, plan for, and deal with the asymmetry. It is after all, baked right into the heart of the CBA. A few thoughts about how they can do that: - Stay away from individual salaries and instead ask the question of how much profit should be reserved for the players.
- Seek solidarity with the minor leaguers who are the bottom feeders in this ecosystem.
- Get the players to use their social media accounts for consistent messaging about the problem.
Two critiques of the article: The idea that the MLB Network is some sort of powerful PR machine needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt. The hacks who inhabit much of it, not all but much, can be pushed aside easily enough. The same restraint that keeps them from ever mentioning owernship's role in any way, is a flaw that will come home to haunt them if they reverse course when the conflict starts. The MLBPA can hammer away at their sham objectivity and do damage to that "profit center" with social media as the vehicle. The biggest flaw in the argument is hiding in plain sight, though few have put 2+2 together at this point and come up with the right answer. Has anyone thought seriously about the jarring disconnect between the idea that fans are staying away from the parks at the same time that MLB profits have been climbing for years? It's the same trend that we're seeing across the entertainment spectrum. Netflix is even exploiting it. They are releasing first run movies for just a few weeks in theaters before pulling them for their broadband TV viewers. Hollywood has belatedly come to realize that their mealticket, and their lunch, is being stolen. Buzz gets built up, and then eyeballs are led away from those theaters, the bread-and-butter of the older movie industry. The difference with MLB? They own it all, the older venues - the parks - and the new cyber-venue, the large share of MLBAM they still hold. Now they even have Disney to do the promo work for them. People aren't going to the park as often because they can be one of those potential 60 million who can stream games, all of them, over broadband. That's where the money will increasingly be. Those who've read the links that were posted about BAM and where it's headed might ponder the question that's been asked in those pieces, about whether baseball owners have pushed their teams lower down on the asset spectrum and what that means for the players going forward. It's going to take a real confrontation, and probably an ugly one, to deal with this transformation. Networked computing power has upended every business it's touched. It's touching baseball now and guess what?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 19, 2019 15:15:25 GMT -5
I have to agree that article is kinda crazy. 4 years 60 million is a very good offer for Grandal given his age and issues. Harper turned down 10 years 300 million, what would have been one of the biggest deals ever. Two of the biggests deals ever in A-Rod and Stanton were traded because their teams couldn't afford them. Baseball is broken but Grandal and Harper aren't good examples. They should have taken the money and ran to the Bank! I kept saying who in their right mind would top 300 million over 10 years for Harper. It's like his expectations were simple too high given his production! He is Trout, heck he's not even Betts, and he's certainly not A-Rod! If Machado can't get more than 25 million over 7 years that is a great example. If Kimbrel can't get a good 3-4 year deal that is a great example. Jeffery Loria bought the Marlins for $150m and sold them for $1.2b. Couldn't afford Stanton? Not counting any other money he made in the process, he could have given a $500m contract to a hamster and he still would have come out of the deal with a cool half-bil for his troubles. How many times are you going to say that? Payroll is based off of revenue not team value or long-term profits from selling the team. The Marlins are like the A's and Tampa. You know teams that have never come close to having 30 million dollar players. What you borrow money or run in the red for years? That will only hurt your sale price in the end. This is like saying the Red Sox can afford anyone because our owner are likely looking at 3 billion if they sold the Red Sox. So why are they claiming we can't spend more when they likely made a couple hundred million in profits last year? Unlike the Marlins we can spend a lot more and not run in the Red.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 19, 2019 15:43:56 GMT -5
Nice quote that supports my argument with umass about the shift in production. “Twenty years ago, roughly I think 45 percent of wins above replacement were due to players that were beyond six years of service,” Henry said. “That number now is 25 percent. I just want to add that I don't think that is so much that free agency is bad as it is a trend based on free agent classes and young player classes. So much of those numbers has to do with the strength of the free agent classes and the strength of the prospect classes. Those numbers could look a lot different in a few years with guys like Machado, Harper, Betts, Bogearts, etc being passed 6 years yet still in their prime. 20 years ago was right about when A-Rod and Ramirez hit the market and went on for years to be top players. So many of the top spending teams are filled with younger players that are still going to be very good when they get payed. Look at the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Astros, etc. Teams keeping guys in the minors longer to maximize value also hurts those numbers because they are older when they become free agents and better the minute the step foot in the Majors. Example no way A-Rod makes the majors at 18 in todays Baseball system, it would have been 19, heck maybe even 20 so the team gets more peak years. So I don't care if they cut the years for a guy like Machado. Seven years makes sense, yet the AAV should go up. I hate the guy, yet an AAV of 25 million is a joke at his age given his talent. You want to give Kimbrel only 3-4 years ok, but his AAV should be rather high. You can limit the years, yet salaries have to go up as revenue does.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 19, 2019 16:37:07 GMT -5
Plowed through the article and, just as you say, it's a must read. It covers a lot of the discussion we've had here and while I have a criticisms about some of it (see below) the bulk of it is right on. It's easy enough to synthesize the problem: the value proposition is in young players payed at obscene discount rates; the cost center is for older players payed at grossly inflated rates. Even David Price, who just had a good season, and an outstanding post-season, hasn't really been worth what he's been payed by the Sox over the last three years. That hasn't been lost on the ownership class. Once again as has happened many times in the past 100+ years, ownership is maximizing profit at the expense of the players, let alone the game. That asymmetry is at the heart of the exploitation that's emerged over the last two years. The players need to get out of the weeds and really take a big picture/long-term view of their best interests. Can they do that? And if so, how do they get fans on their side? It will take a really concerted effort on the part of the players to understand, plan for, and deal with the asymmetry. It is after all, baked right into the heart of the CBA. A few thoughts about how they can do that: - Stay away from individual salaries and instead ask the question of how much profit should be reserved for the players.
- Seek solidarity with the minor leaguers who are the bottom feeders in this ecosystem.
- Get the players to use their social media accounts for consistent messaging about the problem.
Two critiques of the article: The idea that the MLB Network is some sort of powerful PR machine needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt. The hacks who inhabit much of it, not all but much, can be pushed aside easily enough. The same restraint that keeps them from ever mentioning owernship's role in any way, is a flaw that will come home to haunt them if they reverse course when the conflict starts. The MLBPA can hammer away at their sham objectivity and do damage to that "profit center" with social media as the vehicle. The biggest flaw in the argument is hiding in plain sight, though few have put 2+2 together at this point and come up with the right answer. Has anyone thought seriously about the jarring disconnect between the idea that fans are staying away from the parks at the same time that MLB profits have been climbing for years? It's the same trend that we're seeing across the of entertainment spectrum. Netflix is even exploiting it. They are releasing first run movies for just a few weeks in theaters before pulling them for their broadband TV viewers. Hollywood has belatedly come to realize that their mealticket, and their lunch, is being stolen. Buzz gets built up, and then eyeballs are led away from those theaters, the bread-and-butter of the older movie industry. The difference with MLB? They own it all, the older venues - the parks - and the new cyber-venue the large share of MLBAM they still hold. Now they even have Disney to do the promo work for them. People aren't going to the park as often because they can be one of those potential 60 million who can stream games, all of them, over broadband. That's where the money will increasingly be. Those who've read the links that were posted about BAM and where it's headed might ponder the question that been asked in those pieces, about whether baseball owners have pushed their teams lower down on the asset spectrum and what that means for the players going forward. It's going to take a real confrontation, and probably an ugly one, to deal with this transformation. Networked computing power has upended every business it's touched. It's touching baseball now and guess what? I don't think the players union has a leg to stand on. Owners (of big market teams) are not afraid to pay for performance with reasonable tolerance for risk. What's not happening now is the long term boat anchor contracts. If Harper or Machado asked for $30M/yr for 2-3 yrs, I'm sure a few teams will bite, but not for 7-10 years. Pujols, whose track record in STL was as bankable as it gets, then becomes erratic in LA, net average of a good player, but far below what the Angels are on the hook for. Meaning the Angels will be unlikely to build a great team around Trout. The other issue is the revenue disparity between small and big market teams. Some redistribution exists? but I understand the big market team owners are not happy about what the small market teams do with the money. Something like the NFL, in which the league pays bonuses to youngers players. Or perhaps defraying minor league player salaries, but teams must still pay the signing bonuses?
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 19, 2019 17:01:19 GMT -5
After reading the article Chris posted, John Henry's comments, and the comments here a couple ideas popped to mind:
- Service time could (and really should) start from the day you are drafted or signed. This would end the policy of keeping players in the minors too long, and would bring players to free agency for more of the period when they are most valuable. For it to protect development of emerging young teams you may have to introduce a restricted free agency period as other leagues have that may extend a bit past the current 6 year window to account for the fact that baseball players typically cannot jump right onto major league rosters like they can in other sports.
- It seems almost impossible to fix this without finding a percentage of revenues that goes to players that is agreeable to both sides.
- Owners must be quite confident that the fan base will remain loyal no matter what they do, even if the attendance declines are from fans moving online as Norm stated. My gut says one of the biggest draws for the casual fan is the experience of going to a ballpark which cannot be replicated online and this is still a sign the game is losing appeal. But of course this is opinion only.
-
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 19, 2019 17:11:22 GMT -5
Jeffery Loria bought the Marlins for $150m and sold them for $1.2b. Couldn't afford Stanton? Not counting any other money he made in the process, he could have given a $500m contract to a hamster and he still would have come out of the deal with a cool half-bil for his troubles. How many times are you going to say that? Payroll is based off of revenue not team value or long-term profits from selling the team. The Marlins are like the A's and Tampa. You know teams that have never come close to having 30 million dollar players. What you borrow money or run in the red for years? That will only hurt your sale price in the end. This is like saying the Red Sox can afford anyone because our owner are likely looking at 3 billion if they sold the Red Sox. So why are they claiming we can't spend more when they likely made a couple hundred million in profits last year? Unlike the Marlins we can spend a lot more and not run in the Red. I can't imagine.The owners make a billion here, a billion there, but they can't afford $30m contracts. Well, I never was good at economics...
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 19, 2019 18:08:03 GMT -5
How many times are you going to say that? Payroll is based off of revenue not team value or long-term profits from selling the team. The Marlins are like the A's and Tampa. You know teams that have never come close to having 30 million dollar players. What you borrow money or run in the red for years? That will only hurt your sale price in the end. This is like saying the Red Sox can afford anyone because our owner are likely looking at 3 billion if they sold the Red Sox. So why are they claiming we can't spend more when they likely made a couple hundred million in profits last year? Unlike the Marlins we can spend a lot more and not run in the Red. I can't imagine.The owners make a billion here, a billion there, but they can't afford $30m contracts. Well, I never was good at economics... I'd love to see you run a business at a net negative yearly because of money you'll make down the road when you sell it. You just don't do that long term. You get some companies like Netflix that do it to gain market share over short periods. It makes zero sense for a Baseball team unless you can win a championship. The fact the Marlins can't afford a guy like Stanton is why baseball is broken, not on the owners.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 19, 2019 18:23:59 GMT -5
Plowed through the article and, just as you say, it's a must read. It covers a lot of the discussion we've had here and while I have a criticisms about some of it (see below) the bulk of it is right on. It's easy enough to synthesize the problem: the value proposition is in young players payed at obscene discount rates; the cost center is for older players payed at grossly inflated rates. Even David Price, who just had a good season, and an outstanding post-season, hasn't really been worth what he's been payed by the Sox over the last three years. That hasn't been lost on the ownership class. Once again as has happened many times in the past 100+ years, ownership is maximizing profit at the expense of the players, let alone the game. That asymmetry is at the heart of the exploitation that's emerged over the last two years. The players need to get out of the weeds and really take a big picture/long-term view of their best interests. Can they do that? And if so, how do they get fans on their side? It will take a really concerted effort on the part of the players to understand, plan for, and deal with the asymmetry. It is after all, baked right into the heart of the CBA. A few thoughts about how they can do that: - Stay away from individual salaries and instead ask the question of how much profit should be reserved for the players.
- Seek solidarity with the minor leaguers who are the bottom feeders in this ecosystem.
- Get the players to use their social media accounts for consistent messaging about the problem.
Two critiques of the article: The idea that the MLB Network is some sort of powerful PR machine needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt. The hacks who inhabit much of it, not all but much, can be pushed aside easily enough. The same restraint that keeps them from ever mentioning owernship's role in any way, is a flaw that will come home to haunt them if they reverse course when the conflict starts. The MLBPA can hammer away at their sham objectivity and do damage to that "profit center" with social media as the vehicle. The biggest flaw in the argument is hiding in plain sight, though few have put 2+2 together at this point and come up with the right answer. Has anyone thought seriously about the jarring disconnect between the idea that fans are staying away from the parks at the same time that MLB profits have been climbing for years? It's the same trend that we're seeing across the of entertainment spectrum. Netflix is even exploiting it. They are releasing first run movies for just a few weeks in theaters before pulling them for their broadband TV viewers. Hollywood has belatedly come to realize that their mealticket, and their lunch, is being stolen. Buzz gets built up, and then eyeballs are led away from those theaters, the bread-and-butter of the older movie industry. The difference with MLB? They own it all, the older venues - the parks - and the new cyber-venue the large share of MLBAM they still hold. Now they even have Disney to do the promo work for them. People aren't going to the park as often because they can be one of those potential 60 million who can stream games, all of them, over broadband. That's where the money will increasingly be. Those who've read the links that were posted about BAM and where it's headed might ponder the question that been asked in those pieces, about whether baseball owners have pushed their teams lower down on the asset spectrum and what that means for the players going forward. It's going to take a real confrontation, and probably an ugly one, to deal with this transformation. Networked computing power has upended every business it's touched. It's touching baseball now and guess what? I don't think the players union has a leg to stand on. Owners (of big market teams) are not afraid to pay for performance with reasonable tolerance for risk. What's not happening now is the long term boat anchor contracts. If Harper or Machado asked for $30M/yr for 2-3 yrs, I'm sure a few teams will bite, but not for 7-10 years. Pujols, whose track record in STL was as bankable as it gets, then becomes erratic in LA, net average of a good player, but far below what the Angels are on the hook for. Meaning the Angels will be unlikely to build a great team around Trout. The other issue is the revenue disparity between small and big market teams. Some redistribution exists? but I understand the big market team owners are not happy about what the small market teams do with the money. Something like the NFL, in which the league pays bonuses to youngers players. Or perhaps defraying minor league player salaries, but teams must still pay the signing bonuses? Gotta point out Pujols was going into his age 32 season and got 10 years, Machado and Harper are going into their age 26 seasons. Pujols deal took him to age 42, ten years for Machado and Harper take them to their age 35 seasons, 7 years would be age 32 seasons. Pujols was worth 4.8, 1.5, 4.0, and 3.0 bwar age 32 to 35. I see zero reason why Machado shouldn't get at minimum 7 years at 30 plus million. Theres being smart and not giving out stupid deals like Pujols and wanting to basically reduce all risk for owners which is what your 2-3 year deals are.
|
|
|
Post by sportnik on Jan 19, 2019 23:16:29 GMT -5
So far as this impacts the Sox, if the market is truly depressed, isn't the right baseball move to attempt to sign Harper & trade Betts, knowing that Betts is likely to walk at the end of his deal. This all assumes that, because the market is suppressed this offseason, Harper could be signed at a discount to what Betts would be looking for in a couple years. The Sox could rebuild their farm system by moving Betts. Harper is on a similar level as Betts & his stats would tick up in Fenway. This would give the Sox more long term stability moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 20, 2019 1:20:16 GMT -5
I actually expect the Sox to re-sign Betts given that the market is depressed, that he might just decide that's where his real interests are. I also don't think there's much comparison, and that he's considerably more valuable than Harper and I'll bet the team feels the same way.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 22, 2019 5:59:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Jan 22, 2019 8:57:26 GMT -5
So I 100% believe that baseball's salary structure is broken and younger players should be being paid a LOT more. But what's so fascinating about all of these talks is people keep bringing up the past deals by guys like Pujols, Stanton, A-Rod's extension or Russell Martin and does anyone consider those good contracts? Stanton is at least still valuable, but I don't know if he's "worth" that salary now. Martin and Pujols have turned into absolute disasters and A-Rod's $275 million extension ended up pretty bad as well (especially with all the PED news at the end).
I honestly don't know if there is an easy fix. My first thought was maybe it's just only 1 year of league minimum and 5 years (or less?) of arbitration. And in arbitration it doesn't matter if it's your 1st year or 5th year, you get what your last season was worth, so if Mookie had his 2018 season in his first year of arb, he still gets $20 million, but if he's worse in 2019, he gets less than $20 million (with some kind of clause that you can't drop a players salary more than X% to cover injuries). I'm sure there's tons of loopholes in that to pick apart, but that should at least get players more of a fair salary their first couple years in the league. I think also a huge deal would be setting a reasonable salary floor. You need to spend at least $X amount to get revenue sharing
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Jan 22, 2019 9:28:20 GMT -5
I actually expect the Sox to re-sign Betts given that the market is depressed, that he might just decide that's where his real interests are. I also don't think there's much comparison, and that he's considerably more valuable than Harper and I'll bet the team feels the same way. The slow market shluld help the Sox keep this team togethee but I suspect most of the players won't sign extensions and things will drag out for months over the off season. Betts will most likely wait to sign until months into the offseason ( the one where he is free agent). Of the Red Sox offer.the most money he will eventually re-sign.. Bogaerts who is up first, will probably be a similar situation. Although his contract will be less then Betts. Sale feels like the most likely to agree to an early extension. But thatz not a lock and his durability concerns complicate things.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jan 22, 2019 12:23:42 GMT -5
Am I the only one who feels like there's a big disconnect between Harper's reputation and his actual value?
The media touts him as this super-ultra-mega-star. They make it sound like all 30 teams should line up to offer him $300M or more... and apparently the Nationals already have, if rumors are to be believed. But his super-ultra-mega-star year was in 2015. Since then, Harper's been more of a good player than a great one. His WAR over that span is less than that of Xander Bogaerts, for instance.
People want to use this guy as an example that the system is broken and the owners are colluding... and while I don't necessarily disagree, I don't think Harper is a good example at all. I think it's just as likely that the perception of his worth is divorced from his actual worth. If he declined Washington's $300M bid because he wanted more, then maybe the market isn't the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2019 13:47:31 GMT -5
Am I the only one who feels like there's a big disconnect between Harper's reputation and his actual value? The media touts him as this super-ultra-mega-star. They make it sound like all 30 teams should line up to offer him $300M or more... and apparently the Nationals already have, if rumors are to be believed. But his super-ultra-mega-star year was in 2015. Since then, Harper's been more of a good player than a great one. His WAR over that span is less than that of Xander Bogaerts, for instance. People want to use this guy as an example that the system is broken and the owners are colluding... and while I don't necessarily disagree, I don't think Harper is a good example at all. I think it's just as likely that the perception of his worth is divorced from his actual worth. If he declined Washington's $300M bid because he wanted more, then maybe the market isn't the problem here. We'll see what Mookie and Trout get in 2021. Harper and Machado are both guys with pretty big flaws, not like that has prevented stupid contracts before. I think the bigger issue with the problem of the CBA in baseball is that teams are not as dumb as they used to be. Teams are not going to let Boras force teams to bid against themselves anymore, that much is clear. The solution is not to force them to be dumb again, but to make them pay the most for the best players while they are the best players. And that's going to be tough for the small market and big market teams to come together on. It might also be tough for the players to come together on considering all the star players that have waited for their paydays only to see them go to players still under team control. I'm skeptical that they'll fix anything even after a long lockout.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 16:24:12 GMT -5
Am I the only one who feels like there's a big disconnect between Harper's reputation and his actual value? The media touts him as this super-ultra-mega-star. They make it sound like all 30 teams should line up to offer him $300M or more... and apparently the Nationals already have, if rumors are to be believed. But his super-ultra-mega-star year was in 2015. Since then, Harper's been more of a good player than a great one. His WAR over that span is less than that of Xander Bogaerts, for instance. People want to use this guy as an example that the system is broken and the owners are colluding... and while I don't necessarily disagree, I don't think Harper is a good example at all. I think it's just as likely that the perception of his worth is divorced from his actual worth. If he declined Washington's $300M bid because he wanted more, then maybe the market isn't the problem here. No you are not! Harper is like A-Rod yet without the production besides that one great year. He has all the talent, yet something is missing. He could go on to be the best player in Baseball for the next 5-7 years or continue down his current path. Frankly he should have taken that 300 million and ran to the bank as fast as he could have. He just hasn't put up enough numbers to justify more. Heck you can make a great case that offer was crazy.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 16:33:28 GMT -5
Am I the only one who feels like there's a big disconnect between Harper's reputation and his actual value? The media touts him as this super-ultra-mega-star. They make it sound like all 30 teams should line up to offer him $300M or more... and apparently the Nationals already have, if rumors are to be believed. But his super-ultra-mega-star year was in 2015. Since then, Harper's been more of a good player than a great one. His WAR over that span is less than that of Xander Bogaerts, for instance. People want to use this guy as an example that the system is broken and the owners are colluding... and while I don't necessarily disagree, I don't think Harper is a good example at all. I think it's just as likely that the perception of his worth is divorced from his actual worth. If he declined Washington's $300M bid because he wanted more, then maybe the market isn't the problem here. We'll see what Mookie and Trout get in 2021. Harper and Machado are both guys with pretty big flaws, not like that has prevented stupid contracts before. I think the bigger issue with the problem of the CBA in baseball is that teams are not as dumb as they used to be. Teams are not going to let Boras force teams to bid against themselves anymore, that much is clear. The solution is not to force them to be dumb again, but to make them pay the most for the best players while they are the best players. And that's going to be tough for the small market and big market teams to come together on. It might also be tough for the players to come together on considering all the star players that have waited for their paydays only to see them go to players still under team control. I'm skeptical that they'll fix anything even after a long lockout. I just have to ask what is Machado's big flaw? The only thing I see is him being dirty, yet his teammates like him. For me he's the true jewel of the offseason. I might hate Machado the person, yet Machado the player is crazy talented and there's nothing he can't do. He doesn't have the crazy up and downs that Harper does. He doesn't have the long injury history that Harper has. He can play SS and 3B. Heck I'd bet he could be well above average in the OF if you needed that at a certain point. He seems like a rather safe bet. He might not have Harpers ceiling, but his floor is crazy high unlike Harper.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2019 17:26:42 GMT -5
We'll see what Mookie and Trout get in 2021. Harper and Machado are both guys with pretty big flaws, not like that has prevented stupid contracts before. I think the bigger issue with the problem of the CBA in baseball is that teams are not as dumb as they used to be. Teams are not going to let Boras force teams to bid against themselves anymore, that much is clear. The solution is not to force them to be dumb again, but to make them pay the most for the best players while they are the best players. And that's going to be tough for the small market and big market teams to come together on. It might also be tough for the players to come together on considering all the star players that have waited for their paydays only to see them go to players still under team control. I'm skeptical that they'll fix anything even after a long lockout. I just have to ask what is Machado's big flaw? The only thing I see is him being dirty, yet his teammates like him. For me he's the true jewel of the offseason. I might hate Machado the person, yet Machado the player is crazy talented and there's nothing he can't do. He doesn't have the crazy up and downs that Harper does. He doesn't have the long injury history that Harper has. He can play SS and 3B. Heck I'd bet he could be well above average in the OF if you needed that at a certain point. He seems like a rather safe bet. He might not have Harpers ceiling, but his floor is crazy high unlike Harper. He's a punk who just isn't smart. Like for the Dodgers in the WS, he got all excited about some play where he got the runner home (or maybe just advanced, don't remember) on a ground ball, but the win probability for the game went down because the outs were more important at that point. A smart player knows that before he's in the batter's box. From his reaction, he was probably attempting to do that. That added to his complete laziness in running the bases at all times. If he can't get up for hustling in the freaking World Series, how hard is he going to be trying when he's in year 2 of a 12 year contract when his team is struggling in May and the fans start booing him? Hell, maybe he just quits trying hard altogether once he signs this deal. Because he already doesn't try too often. And I don't care if it's "not a part of his game". It f'ing should be in the damn playoffs. The 2018 Red Sox would not ever stand for any player standing in the batters box admiring their HR that ended up a single because he doesn't care more about his team than himself. But who could hold him accountable after he has his $300 million or whatever it is? I also cannot overlook the dirty bullsh*t when he's deliberately trying to injure someone in the cheapest way possible. I would never ever want that **** on my favorite team. I could not route for him. He'll take a lot of babysitting.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 22, 2019 18:01:23 GMT -5
We'll see what Mookie and Trout get in 2021. Harper and Machado are both guys with pretty big flaws, not like that has prevented stupid contracts before. I think the bigger issue with the problem of the CBA in baseball is that teams are not as dumb as they used to be. Teams are not going to let Boras force teams to bid against themselves anymore, that much is clear. The solution is not to force them to be dumb again, but to make them pay the most for the best players while they are the best players. And that's going to be tough for the small market and big market teams to come together on. It might also be tough for the players to come together on considering all the star players that have waited for their paydays only to see them go to players still under team control. I'm skeptical that they'll fix anything even after a long lockout. I just have to ask what is Machado's big flaw? The only thing I see is him being dirty, yet his teammates like him. For me he's the true jewel of the offseason. I might hate Machado the person, yet Machado the player is crazy talented and there's nothing he can't do. He doesn't have the crazy up and downs that Harper does. He doesn't have the long injury history that Harper has. He can play SS and 3B. Heck I'd bet he could be well above average in the OF if you needed that at a certain point. He seems like a rather safe bet. He might not have Harpers ceiling, but his floor is crazy high unlike Harper. Just looking at the back of the baseball card, Manny Machado isn't a big on base guy. He's a free swinger. If he's not getting some BABIP luck with a higher average, he'll have years where he has a really low OBP. Back in 2017, he had a OBP of .310 for example, which is really suboptimal. The thing I was surprised about was that Manny was pegged to be a really bad short stop according to DRS and he had a -13 DRS at short stop in 2018. I thought he would be elite there, but maybe he's lost a step since his younger days. He might have bulked up and filled out causing him to lose a step. Still, a really plus defender if not elite, even in limited action at 3B in 2018. I was just shocked how bad he was at short stop in 2018 according to DRS. Those would probably be his two biggest flaws. Not a big OBP guy, and maybe not a short stop anymore. The rest of the stuff like not hustling is annoying, but teams can probably easily put up with it with his production.
|
|
|