|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 23:15:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 22:04:42 GMT -5
I know one thing. Boston can win a World Series Title without Trout playing like one of the best players in history. Just a contrarian point to signing him. That said it would be great to see him roaming the field at Fenway Park. I think that may be the Webster definition of "greedy" however.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 22:02:06 GMT -5
OK......you got me. My statement is that they are extremely rare. I hear ya. I just love me some McCutchen and think he's a criminally underrated player, even with the MVP win last year. This. Pittsburgh management hasn't exactly helped in the matter with minimalistic payrolls. However it appears the young talent on the roster should bring more national attention his way as they become more frequent wild card contenders and receive more national games.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:48:14 GMT -5
If he continues his level of play and hits free agency at 25, with the boost in the luxury tax limit that I'm guessing will be the next CBA, my estimate is 15 years, $700 million. No, I'm not exaggerating. Yet another reason LA needs to get a deal done by next year if they don't want him to reach free agency. Each year his price escalates both based upon performance and the economics of the game.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:43:37 GMT -5
I mean think of it this way for the Angels. Trout becomes a free agent in the 2018 season. The Angels are paying Josh Hamilton $32 million in each of 2016 and 2017. If you are wiling to pay that sum for Hamilton you have to imagine Trouts agent will want to exceed those figures. Fortunately for LA Hamilton will be a free agent also which realistically allows the team to sign Trout and not have it increase the 2018 budget much from 2017 and likely saves money as Trout would no doubt be pulling down 15 to 18 million by 17 through arbitration. So replace 50 million in 17 from Hamilton and Trout with 35 to 40 million for Trout and a cost controlled player and you can envision LA getting through the first half of the contract financially as they currently stand.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:33:12 GMT -5
Trout is definitely one player you have to be in on but if he continues his production and reaches free agency I believe we are going to see an unfathomable contract. At this point it appears the Yankees have decided exceeding the luxury tax is not an issue under the right circumstances. The Dodgers will be out from Ethier and could team Trout and Puig with an outrageous player personnel budget. With few top tier young players reaching free agency the bidding war would be outrageous. Easily twice the Tanaka market in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 0:20:25 GMT -5
Has there been any reports on Owens offseason conditional? He could benefit by adding more strength particularly leg strength. I believe he has another mph or two in that body. Any inside info?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 0:08:47 GMT -5
This is horrendous. Just when you think the organization can't lower itself anymore after watching Amaro handle personnel decisions.
For the record what does this mean for Wetzler if he is losing his amateur status? Does he just sit out and enter the draft this June as I suspect?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 19, 2014 14:00:32 GMT -5
Then differentiate between the QO ( aka "franchise tag") limited to two uses at an increasing rate each use and the compensatory pick system to provide teams with some compensation. Is the NFL model bad for baseball?
Also with the continuing escalation of AAV on contracts don't you expect the current QO system to approach 18 to 19 million very soon. Do you suspect this will result in less QOs offered in general especially on the Drew, Morales, etc.. type of players?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 17, 2014 21:47:23 GMT -5
Best case scenario, Pittsburgh signs Morales, Toronto signs Santana, Cruz signs with Minnesota, and Drew signs with the Mets. The Red Sox end up with picks #25,#33,#34,#66, and #106? Toronto, Minnesota and the Mets all have protected picks so I believe Boston would only move up 1 to 26th followed by pick 34 and 35 in the supplemental. Both of Torontos 1sts are protected.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 17, 2014 21:31:17 GMT -5
I still think it was a solid deal at the AAV but I agree giving a fourth year wasn't ideal. I'm surprised to hear they thought Boston would be involved even with the Dempster news. The draft pick alone should have guaranteed they weren't. Toronto on the other hand i could have imagined as Santana's home run tendency doesn't appear to match up in Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 17, 2014 19:39:22 GMT -5
A minor worry to this point but it does support the thinking of proven injury risk with some of the starting staff and the security that having a Dempster on staff protected against.
Workman held his own last season filling in for a few starts and out of the pen. Owens had a sensational year at Salem and Portland. Ranaudo was excellent most of the year for Portland in what was finally a healthy year for him. I'm looking for consistency with those three but I really will be watching Webster, De la Rosa and Barnes to see who can take a step forward after some struggles last season.
It is time for this group to make a case for in season call ups and their future roles starting in 2015. What I like best is having a deep group all in or near the AAA level which should create a little friendly competition to push these players to bring out their best.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 17, 2014 18:32:59 GMT -5
Good sign for the Orioles if they get it done. Worth the risk for $12 mil per year.
Edit: This also of course requires sacrificing the #17 pick elevating Boston's first rounder.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 14, 2014 22:11:38 GMT -5
Look at the arms that Toronto drafted but did not sign. There are at least a half dozen if I recall.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 13, 2014 12:41:36 GMT -5
Yeah I would rather the international players be in the same draft from the perspective of annually competitive teams. For instance in a year like this year Boston would be picking from the 30th best international player so a prospect of the Devers quality would never make it to the Red Sox. In a draft where both are brought together it does require smarter scouting and projection analysis when comparing the international, high school and college talent. Additionally you can merge the spending budgets for MLB teams to be more flexible in signing draft picks.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 6, 2014 15:50:25 GMT -5
This would seem to provide a more complete understanding of the slow moving Drew market. Much younger and would likely require a lower AAV.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 4, 2014 14:36:08 GMT -5
Significant deal coming from the Braves as they have multiple young players to consider locking up. It appears the Braves have bought out multiple free agent years for Freeman in this deal removing one more potential free agent from the market.
On the other hand Heyward only signed for his remaining arbitration years which makes sense off a down injury plagued year vs Freeman off of a to this point career year.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 31, 2014 11:26:03 GMT -5
I see Cecchini as more of a Left Field version (less arm) of Nick Markakis. Oh wait, were not doing comps. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 30, 2014 23:10:24 GMT -5
True but the Red Sox 11 to 20 would still be ahead of a few teams 1 to 10 lists but of course Milwaukee doesn't set a very high bar.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 29, 2014 15:12:37 GMT -5
That would be Felix Hernandez like starting so young. Although Felix was 19 years 4 months when he debuted.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 29, 2014 14:24:50 GMT -5
I'm interested in his team top 10 tomorrow. We know it will be:
1 Bogaerts 2 Owens 3 Bradley Jr 4 Cecchini 5 Swihart 6 Betts 7 Barnes
We also know Law has Webster in the top 10 from his chat. Who will be the last two? I imagine it comes down to Ranaudo, Vazquez and Ball. Who would you be more surprised to see left out? Also does it upset you that guys the team passed on in the draft are showing up high on top 100 lists (Shipley, Meadows, Smith) where as Ball is not? I suspect there was not enough sample after signing to accurately gage his potential vs someone like Hunter Harvey who vaulted up with an impressive debut.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 28, 2014 19:00:04 GMT -5
Buster Olneys early playoff picks. (Insider piece) insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post?id=4595Saying the Yankees are in a rare position to take on large salary at the deadline is not false but to propose that they could add Tulowitzki if he became available is far fetched not because of finances but they have very very limited prospects and not enough to equal the cost needed to pry him away.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 27, 2014 20:41:47 GMT -5
Ortiz is an annoying but not an idiot. He has zero leverage and knows his only chance is to threaten the Sox and scare them into doing something. Even if he has another great year, he will be a 39 year old DH with a high pick attached to him. Only 15 teams have a position for him. Of those 15, who can actually think of signing him to a big money 2 year deal? Two things here. First if Boston puts a QO on him it is nearly 15 mil next offseason. Would Ortiz turn down 15 mil for one season, maybe but his market will be limited. Perhaps Houston makes sense with another protected first rounder as an outside option. Secondly is 2 years and 24 mil better or worse? Lower AAV for luxury purposes and vs a QO it is essentially a second year for 9 mil which is reasonable. In this scenario it could be best to play out the season to see if there is a significant production drop from age or health. The issue is if he wants a 2 year 30+ mil deal. Then I QO and wait even though I never want to see him go. At this early time my breaking point is 2 and 26 at the end of the season assuming a similar but slightly regressed year in comparison to this past predicting a slow drop over the next two.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 27, 2014 0:06:10 GMT -5
I too liked Meadows as an option given the board at pick 7 but was surprised by the Ball pick somewhat as I thought Shipley was more likely. For a college pitcher he still seems to represent additional upside. Ball probably offers more upside but a little more risk. Perhaps being a lefty (Ball) vs a righty (Shipley) was also a factor. If I recall I had Smith behind Shipley and Meadows plus Frazier.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 22, 2014 21:26:55 GMT -5
Was always a big fan of Sizemore. A shame how his career was derailed. I hope the time away has improved his health enough to give him a few years of playing time either with Boston or another team. I'll be rooting for him to surprise us.
|
|