Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2019 MLB thread
#1
With Machado FINALLY signing for 10 yr/300 million it's probably a good time to start talking about baseball.  These mega deals never work out.  And with a small market team like San Diego it'll be worse.   The Padres young talent is a year away at best so I don't get the rush to lock yourself into this deal when your team isn't ready.  

At least if the Phillies signed him or Harper you can point to them going for it with their young talent already there.  

And I hope the players get all they can but they also need to STFU about this free agency stuff.  I may be later and later but guys are still getting paid.  besides Harper/Machado were holding things up big time.  They were hoping the other would sign first so they would get better leverage on their deal.  Now harper can point to 300 million as  his floor and he won't look silly for turning down 300 million from the Nats.  

As for regular baseball the NL Central looks to be the best in baseball with even the Reds getting some fresh blood on the team.  The Cubs should still win esp if Darvis and Bryant are healthy.  They basically didn't play last year and the Cubs won 90+ games.

Too early for predictions but will be curios if any new team breaks out as a contender like in previous years with the Cubs/Astros.
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#2
This league is going to have a strike before the CBA expires. Mark my words.

As a Machado owner in a dynasty league I am not too enthused about his landing at Petco.
Reply
#3
A deal like Machado can easily work out. He's 26. He doesn't have to be great at 36 for SD to get their money's worth. If he helps them sell tickets and become competitive, he can be worth $60 million a year for 5 years easily. Then anything he has left in the tank from 32 on is gravy.

Above average players get $10 million a year. I'd take a Machado over 3 replaceable guys.

In 1992, the Giants gave Barry Bonds the biggest contract in sports history: 6 years, $43.75 million. That deal probably made the Giants over a billion dollars in revenue.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#4
(02-19-2019, 05:44 PM)farsight Wrote: A deal like Machado can easily work out. He's 26. He doesn't have to be great at 36 for SD to get their money's worth. If he helps them sell tickets and become competitive, he can be worth $60 million a year for 5 years easily. Then anything he has left in the tank from 32 on is gravy.

Above average players get $10 million a year. I'd take a Machado over 3 replaceable guys.

In 1992, the Giants gave Barry Bonds the biggest contract in sports history: 6 years, $43.75 million. That deal probably made the Giants over a billion dollars in revenue.

It seems like the biggest issues with the current MLB CBA are:

1.)No remedies, whatsoever, for service-time manipulation. In exchange for 11 games the Cubs controlled the rights to Kris Bryant for an entire extra year, potentially costing him 30-50 million dollars.
2.)Too many years of team control prior to arbitration kicking in.
3.)Lack of an international draft.  
4.)Qualifying offers are too punitive in nature considering the dollar value attached (conceivably you are exchanging a one year 17-18 million dollar deal for a possible projected return several multiples of that depending on the valuation of the draft pick).  

I would also note that the way minor league baseball players are treated is disgraceful and I can't believe it's legal.

**Machado is an outlier in that he became a free agent so young.
Reply
#5
(02-19-2019, 05:44 PM)farsight Wrote: A deal like Machado can easily work out. He's 26. He doesn't have to be great at 36 for SD to get their money's worth. If he helps them sell tickets and become competitive, he can be worth $60 million a year for 5 years easily. Then anything he has left in the tank from 32 on is gravy.

Above average players get $10 million a year. I'd take a Machado over 3 replaceable guys.

In 1992, the Giants gave Barry Bonds the biggest contract in sports history: 6 years, $43.75 million. That deal probably made the Giants over a billion dollars in revenue.

I'm not denying your financial calculus there- after all, baseball owners seem to be doing fine, regardless of what they're paying players- so yeah, maybe it is a sound deal.  All I know is my instinct tells me I'm fine that it wasn't my team that inked it.

Juiced Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time, and they still didn't win anything until after he retired.  Machado is a great player now, but he's not the best in baseball, let alone all time.  I get that he is younger than guys like Pujols, and Cabrera were when they signed their ten year deals-- but in 4-5 years there could be a drop off. You just don't know when that will happen, especially with the steroid era stuff seemingly out of the game.  Some guys can last until their mid-30's-- others drop off in their early 30's.  If he is even hitting, say, .280 with 30 homers a year, is that worth 30 million?  Maybe-- but probably only to a team that carries a 200 million dollar payroll.  As a White Sox fan, I wouldn't have turned down having him in the lineup, but I can't say I am broken up about him going somewhere else.  Especially a team like the Padres.
Reply
#6
(02-19-2019, 05:44 PM)farsight Wrote: In 1992, the Giants gave Barry Bonds the biggest contract in sports history: 6 years, $43.75 million. That deal probably made the Giants over a billion dollars in revenue.

Very true, but what's funny is that is literally the only long-term free agent deal that has worked out for them in the last 25 years. All the deals since then have been disasters, especially the high-priced "talent" they've signed the last few years. 

I understand their desire to get Harper to bring back some excitement to the team but I'm hoping he just signs with the Phillies.
Reply
#7
All I need to know about Machado happened last in the playoffs when he was with the Dodgers and was asked why didn't run it out to 1st and he responded with, "Hustling isn't my cup of tea" !

Yeah, I'm going to judge him based on this one comment. F@%K Off, Manny. At least Pujols with his bad contract doesn't come off as a dick.
Reply
#8
(02-19-2019, 07:45 PM)history buff Wrote: All I need to know about Machado happened last in the playoffs when he was with the Dodgers and was asked why didn't run it out to 1st and he responded with, "Hustling isn't my cup of tea" !

Yeah, I'm going to judge him based on this one comment. F@%K Off, Manny. At least Pujols with his bad contract doesn't come off as a dick.

Machado's been a jackass for years, it wasn't just that one comment!
Reply
#9
(02-19-2019, 06:32 PM)bailey Wrote: Juiced Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time, and they still didn't win anything until after he retired. 

Well, that's a silly argument. With a manager other than Dusty Baker, Bonds has a World Series MVP to his name. His value isn't impacted by the performances of the people around him.

(02-19-2019, 06:58 PM)Alt-molt Wrote: Very true, but what's funny is that is literally the only long-term free agent deal that has worked out for them in the last 25 years. All the deals since then have been disasters, especially the high-priced "talent" they've signed the last few years. 

I understand their desire to get Harper to bring back some excitement to the team but I'm hoping he just signs with the Phillies.

Since Bonds, the vast majority of the Giants' free agent deals have been picking up stars past their prime for shorter contracts, but with no upside. So instead of Zito-sized disaster, they get a bunch of smaller flame-outs. Less press, worse result.

Last year, $30 million bought the Giants McCutchen, Longoria and Dyson. I'd rather have Harper than all three.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#10
(02-19-2019, 08:04 PM)farsight Wrote: Well, that's a silly argument. With a manager other than Dusty Baker, Bonds has a World Series MVP to his name. His value isn't impacted by the performances of the people around him.

I used Bonds as an illustration since you'd brought him up.  The point is even with the most dominant offensive force ever in your lineup, nothing is guaranteed.  I was merely using your post as a jumping off point to discuss why I was fine with my team not being the one who signed him.  One position player, especially one who doesn't hold a candle to robo-Bonds, just isn't worth 25-30% of a team's payroll.  (Nothing you said specifically contradicts this, but again, I was just adding to the discussion, as it were.)
Reply
#11
Well sure, nothing is guaranteed. But Bonds didn't have to win a Worlds Series single-handedly to be worth way more than the contract he was given.

If Machado or Harper sell tickets and jerseys, raise ratings and also happen to make their teams competitive, their value can easily exceed $300 million, even if their teams constantly flame out before hoisting a trophy.

As an exercise, google your favorite team's salaries from last year, and see if $30 million really seems like that much compared to what mediocre world-class baseball players get paid. I did it for the Giants, and despite being lukewarm on Harper as a person, I'm all-in on paying Harper the player.

Machado can suck it, though. Glad I get to root against him.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#12
The only guy worth 30+ million is Mike Trout and even with him the Angles can’t make the playoffs. I would like Harper on my team, love it if he could get back to hitting over .300, but a wise team could invest that 300 million in 4 or 5 players and get better results.
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#13
Where are you getting these 5 guys at $6 million a year?

If they're free agents, they must be terrible, or role players.

If they're from your farm system, you already control them, so either you've got a championship team you drafted yourself, or they're not good enough.

If they're via trade, they're either terrible, or the other team isn't going to trade them.

The Astros had a payroll of $139 million two years ago, and were considered a lower-spending team among contenders, with a lot of talent on cheap draft contracts. They still paid Carlos Beltran $16mil. At $6mil each, they got... Luke Gregerson and Tony Sipp. $5mil got them... their backup catcher.

26 year-old all-stars don't come up for free agency often. They're worth it.

Harper's OBP was .393 last year, btw. That was 9th in all of baseball. The big concerns were that his power dipped a bit and his defense was atrocious. I do find it odd that people seem to think he'll get more than Machado, who plays a top-notch 3rd base.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#14
(02-20-2019, 06:55 AM)farsight Wrote: Where are you getting these 5 guys at $6 million a year?
The guys aren't getting a 10 year deal.  I'm saying use that 300 million you would spend over 10 and give it to 4 or 5 guys over a shorter time.  10 year deals are insane.  
Cubs got Zobrist for 4 yrs/56 mil.  2 out of the 3 years he was great.  A veteran like him.  Add two stud relievers who will come in handy when the playoffs come.  Then add a 100 million dollar player.  
What did Harper do against Wade Davis at the end of Game 5 in 2017?  Stuck out.  Davis then signed a 3 year, 52 mil deal with the Rockies.  
In 2015 David Ross signed a 2 yr/5 mil deal with the Cubs and he was one of the most important pieces to the Cubs winning.  
If a team like the Padres has the young talent coming up then why waste a ton of money on 1 guy when you can spend the money wisely.  And with Free Agents signing later you can get deals because these guys have to sign-they want money.
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#15
(02-20-2019, 06:55 AM)farsight Wrote: I do find it odd that people seem to think he'll get more than Machado, who plays a top-notch 3rd base.

I have NEVER understood why Harper for even one moment was considered a better target than Machado.  Yeah, they're both jerks, but at least Machado is a jerk who plays gold glove defense and doesn't have a track record of injuries. 

I'd also point out that Machado has something like 6 more WAR over his seven year career than Harper, which is not a marginal difference.
Reply
#16
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/man...he-padres/

Quote:Machado’s overall production and youth make him one of the most appealing free agents in baseball history. The former Oriole and Dodger has produced the 26th most wins above replacement among position players through age 25 in baseball history (33.8), according to Baseball-Reference.com. For comparison, fellow 26-year-old free agent Bryce Harper is 41st (27.4).

So yeah, Harper's an extremely rare and valuable free agent opportunity. But Machado's worth more for sure.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#17
(02-20-2019, 03:23 PM)farsight Wrote: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/man...he-padres/

Quote:Machado’s overall production and youth make him one of the most appealing free agents in baseball history. The former Oriole and Dodger has produced the 26th most wins above replacement among position players through age 25 in baseball history (33.8), according to Baseball-Reference.com. For comparison, fellow 26-year-old free agent Bryce Harper is 41st (27.4).

So yeah, Harper's an extremely rare and valuable free agent opportunity. But Machado's worth more for sure.

When Harper turned down that 10 year, 300 million deal my initial reaction was "I don't think he beats that as a free agent."  Now maybe there are some non-monetary wrinkles, but having seen Machado just sign that same deal with an opt-out (which, admittedly, is a pretty big "get") I am hard-pressed to wonder if the Nationals' first offer wasn't a possible overpay.  

In looking at fangraphs rankings of position players, Machado has been in the top 10 of WAR three times ... and that's while playing for a black hole of a franchise.  Harper appearances in the top 10?  Once.  Machado looks like he shows up more frequently in the 11-20 range, as well.
Reply
#18
Harper's had two phenomenal seasons. He missed those WAR rankings two years ago due to injury, but still had a great year.

To put in perspective why these guys are worth the money: Harper's worst year would've made him the best player on the 2018 Giants.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#19
(02-20-2019, 05:39 PM)farsight Wrote: Harper's worst year would've made him the best player on the 2018 Giants.

No need to introduce AAA teams into the discussion.
Reply
#20
Nolan Arenado signing an 8 year/$260M extension to stay in Colorado.
Reply
#21
260 million goes a hell of long way in Colorado. He can get himself his own fortress.
Reply
#22
Rockies overpaid him. His home/away splits are very noticeable. He's still good, just not 32.5 a year good
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#23
(02-26-2019, 04:03 PM)anyawatchin angel Wrote: Rockies overpaid him.  His home/away splits are very noticeable.  He's still good, just not 32.5 a year good

Arenado must have read up on his own advanced metrics on fangraphs.  Every single "under the hood" stat had him a noticeable downward trajectory last year.  Only an unsustainable HR/FB ratio and some fortunate BABIP (and Coors) kept him from being just "very good" instead of "elite in baseball."  
His hard-hit/barreled ball stats are trending the wrong way.

I find it interesting how many Boras clients have been getting fucked over or dicked around with over the last few years.  Keuchel and Gio Gonzalez?  Unsigned, even though a few other somewhat comparable free agent pitchers have been snapped up.  Marwin Gonzalez?  Who had a 4.5 WAR in 2017?  Took a relatively paltry two year deal.  Moustakas?  Boras utterly and completely mishandled his representation of Moustakas.  First by refusing to negotiate an extension, then by rejecting the QO, and finally by turning down the Angels (who subsequently signed Cozart).  Moustakas over the past two seasons hasn't come close to recouping the 17.4ish million that the QO would have given him.  Harper?  I think Harper is overrated, personally, but this situation is getting a little strange.  Arrieta stupidly turns down a deal from the Cubs only to get paid much less by the Phillies.  Seems like there are a lot of these examples recently.  Has Boras burned too many bridges?  J.D. Martinez didn't get what he wanted, either.  

And let's not forget Boras's absolutely biggest clusterfuck:  the Greg Holland disaster.  I wonder if Scott Boras is still representing Holland. Holland turns down three years, 52 million (would have been the richest reliever contract, ever), then rejects the QO, then gets bailed out by the Cardinals who foolishly paid him 14 million to be a complete disaster. He signs this year for 3.5 million. Let's generously assume he gets the same salary next season (it's probably just as good of a bet that he'll be out of baseball); running the numbers, Boras cost Holland 31 million dollars.  Wade Davis, a better RP, happily accepted the deal Holland rejected.  

**I would also note that I think Bryant and Boras turning down that 200 million extension from the Cubs may turn out to be a huge mistake. Thanks to service-time manipulation (Bryant has a right to be pissed) Bryant won't have a chance to become a free agent prior to the cba expiring and a work stoppage likely wiping out a season. Arb contracts aren't guaranteed and nobody is going to sign him in the teeth of a work stoppage (cause they'll have to pay him during a strike or lockout). That, plus injury woes, and he may come to rue the day he allowed Boras to convince him to turn down multi-generational wealth.
Reply
#24
Teams have to be sick of Boras at this point. His players never sign extensions and always leave. I get Bryant turning down 200 million cuz he could get more but honestly how much more does he want? the extra 100 million probably comes down to less than 50 after taxes and Boras. And it's not like there is a team in Vegas. Is he really going to have more fun than playing with the Cubs?
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#25
(02-26-2019, 07:26 PM)anyawatchin angel Wrote: Teams have to be sick of Boras at this point.  His players never sign extensions and always leave.  I get Bryant turning down 200 million cuz he could get more but honestly how much more does he want?  the extra 100 million probably comes down to less than 50 after taxes and Boras.  And it's not like there is a team in Vegas.  Is he really going to have more fun than playing with the Cubs?

Agreed.  I think many GMs/Owners are tired of his attention-grabbing schtick.
Reply
#26
60 Minutes did a great piece on Scott Boras years ago. May have been with Steve Kroft or the late Mike Wallace, anyway one of things I remember was they interviewed some sports writers and one of them talked about how Boras tried to be a ball player himself and wasn't good enough or felt he wasn't given a "fair shot". Now, as a sports agent he's doing everything he can to get back owners and squeeze literally every penny he can out of them.
Reply
#27
(02-26-2019, 07:33 PM)Overlord Wrote: Agreed.  I think many GMs/Owners are tired of his attention-grabbing schtick.

Are you trying to make me like him?

Unless superstar players get tired of making huge stacks of money, owners' low opinions of him are a feature, not a problem.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#28
Harper to Phillies. Reportedly 13 years for $330M.
Reply
#29
So it runs out in 2032? As if I didn't dislike Harper enough, now his contract makes me ponder my own mortality.
Reply
#30
No opt-outs either which is surprising.
Reply
#31
Yeah, this is a weird deal.

No opt-outs, so he can basically fire Boras tomorrow.

I assume he's not as dumb as ESPN, so he doesn't actually think this makes him the highest paid player in baseball.

It's about $25mil/year, well under Machado, and surprisingly in-line with current contracts. Boras didn't break the bank here.

It makes me wonder if the Phillies really ended up bidding against themselves, or if Harper just fell in love with the idea of getting booed by his home fans for about 10 of the next 13 years of his life.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#32
Harper really wanted a contract to exceed 300 million. 13 years is nuts. I wonder if it's heavily frontloaded the first few years cuz I can't see the Phillies wanting to pay 25 mill the final 5 years

The Nats contract was actually better. by year 10 he'd be up 50 million. Got ti think he's pissed at his agent.
AIt's just tits and dragons. - Ian McShane on Game of Thones
Reply
#33
The overall length and total compensation is gaudy, but the AAV is not. Plus, with a contract this long, "deferred" money is actually what's happening here.
Reply
#34
(02-28-2019, 06:41 PM)anyawatchin angel Wrote: Harper really wanted a contract to exceed 300 million.  13 years is nuts.  I wonder if it's heavily frontloaded the first few years cuz I can't see the Phillies wanting to pay 25 mill the final 5 years

The Nats contract was actually better.  by year 10 he'd be up 50 million.  Got ti think he's pissed at his agent.

It's the opposite. The team wants to pay more money -later-, and the player wants it -earlier-.

Everyone knows Harper won't be worth $25mil at age 39. What the contract tells us is that his value -now- is something like $50mil or more.

But Philly doesn't way to pay luxury tax, or lose on investment/interest income on that extra $25mil.

Giants' offer was apparently 12yr/$310mil, so pretty similar.

While I would've liked my team to sign a real hitter, I can at least look forward to Phillies' fans making Harper miserable for years to come.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
#35
Glad Giants didn't get him. Yeah they're gonna stink this season(s) but Harper just isn't the guy I want to hitch the team's wagon to.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)