|
Post by tehmpus on Feb 28, 2019 21:39:52 GMT -5
Phillies should never have gone over Stanton's record. That said, at least they didn't give him an opt out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 22:01:38 GMT -5
Phillies should never have gone over Stanton's record. That said, at least they didn't give him an opt out. I can't believe the Phillies signed him for 13 years! Based on the way he plays, I have Harper hitting at an elite level for about 6 years. Very violent swing. I think he could produce better than league average based on health for 8-9 years and the 10th year he would be a shell of his former self. Like .240/.315 with 15-20 home runs. Philly fans will be going absolutely nuts the last five years of that deal which is unfortunate because 10 years from now we are going to be talking about Harper in the same breath as the Pujols contract. Completely forgetting the highly productive years. If I were the Phillies, I would have been more comfortable giving him 330 over 10 as opposed to adding three extra years to get the AAV down.
|
|
|
Post by jerm42991 on Feb 28, 2019 23:01:16 GMT -5
Phillies should never have gone over Stanton's record. That said, at least they didn't give him an opt out. I can't believe the Phillies signed him for 13 years! Based on the way he plays, I have Harper hitting at an elite level for about 6 years. Very violent swing. I think he could produce better than league average based on health for 8-9 years and the 10th year he would be a shell of his former self. Like .240/.315 with 15-20 home runs. Philly fans will be going absolutely nuts the last five years of that deal which is unfortunate because 10 years from now we are going to be talking about Harper in the same breath as the Pujols contract. Completely forgetting the highly productive years. If I were the Phillies, I would have been more comfortable giving him 330 over 10 as opposed to adding three extra years to get the AAV down. Why? If you were willing to go 10/330, why not take 3 years for free? Even if he plays 80 games they were free
|
|
|
Post by Returnofstevefitz on Mar 1, 2019 8:44:33 GMT -5
Finals numbers:
Manny 10/300
Harper 13/330
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 8:47:22 GMT -5
I can't believe the Phillies signed him for 13 years! Based on the way he plays, I have Harper hitting at an elite level for about 6 years. Very violent swing. I think he could produce better than league average based on health for 8-9 years and the 10th year he would be a shell of his former self. Like .240/.315 with 15-20 home runs. Philly fans will be going absolutely nuts the last five years of that deal which is unfortunate because 10 years from now we are going to be talking about Harper in the same breath as the Pujols contract. Completely forgetting the highly productive years. If I were the Phillies, I would have been more comfortable giving him 330 over 10 as opposed to adding three extra years to get the AAV down. Why? If you were willing to go 10/330, why not take 3 years for free? Even if he plays 80 games they were free True, plus he's just not good enough to have the largest contract in MLB history. He's just not. They should have given him one less year, and kept the total under Stanton's contract. Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records".
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 8:48:28 GMT -5
Finals numbers: Manny 10/300 Harper 13/330 Both were overpaid, but I think this just proves how stupid the Padres GM is sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 9:22:28 GMT -5
Why? If you were willing to go 10/330, why not take 3 years for free? Even if he plays 80 games they were free True, plus he's just not good enough to have the largest contract in MLB history. He's just not. They should have given him one less year, and kept the total under Stanton's contract. Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records". <<Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records".>> B I N G O You can see by what he "settled" for , that is what it was really all about, the ego of having the largest contract ever. He supposedly wanted to go to the Cubs or Dodgers , those were the places he WANTED to play for and live . The Cubs were not an option , but LA supposedly was offering a shorter deal with an AAV as high as 45 , why in the world would he not take that? Either way he's set for life and he'd be where he WANTED to be. But after all the talk of not even 10 years being enough for him , you knew his target wasn't where he wants to play, it was where a team would give him a record deal. His and Boras ego would not allow a 5 year 45 million a year deal . Even though it would be a record AAV , it was not the biggest contract ever. Too bad it will be short lived when Trout's next deal blows that away.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 9:25:21 GMT -5
True, plus he's just not good enough to have the largest contract in MLB history. He's just not. They should have given him one less year, and kept the total under Stanton's contract. Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records". <<Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records".>> B I N G O You can see by what he "settled" for , that is what it was really all about, the ego of having the largest contract ever. He supposedly wanted to go to the Cubs or Dodgers , those were the places he WANTED to play for and live . The Cubs were not an option , but LA supposedly was offering a shorter deal with an AAV as high as 45 , why in the world would he not take that? Either way he's set for life and he'd be where he WANTED to be. But after all the talk of not even 10 years being enough for him , you knew his target wasn't where he wants to play, it was where a team would give him a record deal. His and Boras ego would not allow a 5 year 45 million a year deal . Even though it would be a record AAV , it was not the biggest contract ever. Too bad it will be short lived when Trout's next deal blows that away. Well at least Trout has earned a record deal.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 9:55:26 GMT -5
<<Of course, that probably wouldn't have gotten him signed, and Bryce would have just whined and cried about the free agent market, and continued to hold out until he got to "break records".>> B I N G O You can see by what he "settled" for , that is what it was really all about, the ego of having the largest contract ever. He supposedly wanted to go to the Cubs or Dodgers , those were the places he WANTED to play for and live . The Cubs were not an option , but LA supposedly was offering a shorter deal with an AAV as high as 45 , why in the world would he not take that? Either way he's set for life and he'd be where he WANTED to be. But after all the talk of not even 10 years being enough for him , you knew his target wasn't where he wants to play, it was where a team would give him a record deal. His and Boras ego would not allow a 5 year 45 million a year deal . Even though it would be a record AAV , it was not the biggest contract ever. Too bad it will be short lived when Trout's next deal blows that away. Well at least Trout has earned a record deal. Exactly. Harper is not even the best RF in the game , so why should he be paid like the best player in the game? But on the flipside, I understand it , it's the hype and the excitement Harper brings.' His personna often outweighs his stats , so he also brings a different element to it all in his own way, and that does add value. Had the Cubs given Harper the same deal , in all honesty , I probably would not be complaining, I'd be celebrating. 13 years is crazy , but you deal with that down the road. In 10-13 years the 22 million he's making a year then could look like peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by Returnofstevefitz on Mar 1, 2019 9:59:10 GMT -5
Finals numbers: Manny 10/300 Harper 13/330 Both were overpaid, but I think this just proves how stupid the Padres GM is sometimes. No offense, but you always seem really mad when players (people) make a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 10:37:34 GMT -5
Both were overpaid, but I think this just proves how stupid the Padres GM is sometimes. No offense, but you always seem really mad when players (people) make a lot of money. None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well.
|
|
|
Post by Returnofstevefitz on Mar 1, 2019 10:48:21 GMT -5
No offense, but you always seem really mad when players (people) make a lot of money. None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well. But that's the thing though, those guys performed and earned it. You haven't even given Manny and Harper a chance to earn their new contracts. It's going to take a long time to see if they earn it, but my thought process has always been, for any player who signs a big time contract, 70% and it's earner. Perform for 70% of your huge contract. Anything at 70% and up is gold IMO
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 10:57:54 GMT -5
None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well. But that's the thing though, those guys performed and earned it. You haven't even given Manny and Harper a chance to earn their new contracts. It's going to take a long time to see if they earn it, but my thought process has always been, for any player who signs a big time contract, 70% and it's earner. Perform for 70% of your huge contract. Anything at 70% and up is gold IMO Manny is essentially a third baseman that wants to play shortstop at a poor defensive production level instead. If you know anything about baseball, shortstop is a defense first position. Manny also thinks he's too good to run to first base. 3rd base is a rare position, so I thought he'd earn a pretty nice contract, but the San Diego GM Preller is a moron, so he skewed the market and won the bidding. I thought the White Sox and Philadelphia bids were more in line. Harper has been a douche, and simply isn't in the conversation of being the best player in baseball. If you play fantasy baseball, you're not taking Harper in the first round of your fantasy draft. He might get taken 2nd or 3rd round, but not first. He's just not that good. Once again, I figured he'd be due for a big payday, but not that big. Arenado earned his extension dollars. Harper IMO did not earn this. So yeah, the top two free agent contracts were unfair. Others were spot on, and even others bargains. One of the problems with the free market is that players don't get paid what they earn in most cases. Some guys are overpaid, others underpaid. It's just supply/demand, and negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 11:01:36 GMT -5
No offense, but you always seem really mad when players (people) make a lot of money. None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well. Yeah, but unless a player dogs it , I really don't think it's fair to complain what they make. You can't blame them for what a team was willing to pay them. And in a case like Heyward, there were three teams willing to pay him that well or better , it's what the market was at the time. And times have changed, it's hard to see Heyward pulling down that kind of cash while Adam Jones is still sitting at home waiting to get a job , but teams are no longer paying for what is on your baseball card already. We all know it's now all about what you might provide, not what you already did . And Jones is at the point where his production could probably be found in a 25 year old making 450K , so unless teams want to pay for the veteran leadership it's going to be a solid case of reality for players in their mid 30's that there best salary days are well in the past and they need to start taking what they can get now and cast ego's aside. I know it's hard to go from a guy raking in 17 million a year to whatever he's being offered now , but that's the market now. And I kind of get a chuckle out of the people who say that teams are making crazy money so why get cheap now , it's not a matter of getting cheap , it's a matter of wising up , why spend 5 years and 100 million on a 33 year old Adam Jones like teams would have 5 years ago when you can get the same results from a young arbitration controlled player. Just because teams were dumb with their money in the past doesn't mean they should continue to be.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 11:04:09 GMT -5
None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well. Yeah, but unless a player dogs it , I really don't think it's fair to complain what they make. You can't blame them for what a team was willing to pay them. And in a case like Heyward, there were three teams willing to pay him that well or better , it's what the market was at the time. And times have changed, it's hard to see Heyward pulling down that kind of cash while Adam Jones is still sitting at home waiting to get a job , but teams are no longer paying for what is on your baseball card already. We all know it's now all about what you might provide, not what you already did . And Jones is at the point where his production could probably be found in a 25 year old making 450K , so unless teams want to pay for the veteran leadership it's going to be a solid case of reality for players in their mid 30's that there best salary days are well in the past and they need to start taking what they can get now and cast ego's aside. I know it's hard to go from a guy raking in 17 million a year to whatever he's being offered now , but that's the market now. And I kind of get a chuckle out of the people who say that teams are making crazy money so why get cheap now , it's not a matter of getting cheap , it's a matter of wising up , why spend 5 years and 100 million on a 33 year old Adam Jones like teams would have 5 years ago when you can get the same results from a young arbitration controlled player. Just because teams were dumb with their money in the past doesn't mean they should continue to be. I think the Padres would disagree with your last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 11:12:43 GMT -5
But that's the thing though, those guys performed and earned it. You haven't even given Manny and Harper a chance to earn their new contracts. It's going to take a long time to see if they earn it, but my thought process has always been, for any player who signs a big time contract, 70% and it's earner. Perform for 70% of your huge contract. Anything at 70% and up is gold IMO Manny is essentially a third baseman that wants to play shortstop at a poor defensive production level instead. If you know anything about baseball, shortstop is a defense first position. Manny also thinks he's too good to run to first base. 3rd base is a rare position, so I thought he'd earn a pretty nice contract, but the San Diego GM Preller is a moron, so he skewed the market and won the bidding. I thought the White Sox and Philadelphia bids were more in line. Harper has been a douche, and simply isn't in the conversation of being the best player in baseball. If you play fantasy baseball, you're not taking Harper in the first round of your fantasy draft. He might get taken 2nd or 3rd round, but not first. He's just not that good. Once again, I figured he'd be due for a big payday, but not that big. Arenado earned his extension dollars. Harper IMO did not earn this. So yeah, the top two free agent contracts were unfair. Others were spot on, and even others bargains. One of the problems with the free market is that players don't get paid what they earn in most cases. Some guys are overpaid, others underpaid. It's just supply/demand, and negotiation. I don't really ever look at the dollar amount that hard and judge. It's all about getting the guy and what it takes a team to get them in their uniform. I'm just going to use Soriano as an example as he was one of the first to sign a deal that went well beyond 5 years. People were saying from the get go on how that's going to bite the Cubs in the ass the later years of the deal , that 8 years is crazy. Well signing him just like the Phillies signing Harper really wasn't about the later years of the deal , it was about getting them on the team now, when they were really wanted . And then you deal with the later years ......later. If you're not giving them what it takes, you simply don't get them.
|
|
|
Post by jerm42991 on Mar 1, 2019 11:14:35 GMT -5
But that's the thing though, those guys performed and earned it. You haven't even given Manny and Harper a chance to earn their new contracts. It's going to take a long time to see if they earn it, but my thought process has always been, for any player who signs a big time contract, 70% and it's earner. Perform for 70% of your huge contract. Anything at 70% and up is gold IMO Manny is essentially a third baseman that wants to play shortstop at a poor defensive production level instead. If you know anything about baseball, shortstop is a defense first position. Manny also thinks he's too good to run to first base. 3rd base is a rare position, so I thought he'd earn a pretty nice contract, but the San Diego GM Preller is a moron, so he skewed the market and won the bidding. I thought the White Sox and Philadelphia bids were more in line. Harper has been a douche, and simply isn't in the conversation of being the best player in baseball. If you play fantasy baseball, you're not taking Harper in the first round of your fantasy draft. He might get taken 2nd or 3rd round, but not first. He's just not that good. Once again, I figured he'd be due for a big payday, but not that big. Arenado earned his extension dollars. Harper IMO did not earn this. So yeah, the top two free agent contracts were unfair. Others were spot on, and even others bargains. One of the problems with the free market is that players don't get paid what they earn in most cases. Some guys are overpaid, others underpaid. It's just supply/demand, and negotiation. Teams are going younger because the difference between a 10 year old vet and a kid aren’t that great. Why would you pay 20 times more for the same production?
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 11:20:00 GMT -5
Yeah, but unless a player dogs it , I really don't think it's fair to complain what they make. You can't blame them for what a team was willing to pay them. And in a case like Heyward, there were three teams willing to pay him that well or better , it's what the market was at the time. And times have changed, it's hard to see Heyward pulling down that kind of cash while Adam Jones is still sitting at home waiting to get a job , but teams are no longer paying for what is on your baseball card already. We all know it's now all about what you might provide, not what you already did . And Jones is at the point where his production could probably be found in a 25 year old making 450K , so unless teams want to pay for the veteran leadership it's going to be a solid case of reality for players in their mid 30's that there best salary days are well in the past and they need to start taking what they can get now and cast ego's aside. I know it's hard to go from a guy raking in 17 million a year to whatever he's being offered now , but that's the market now. And I kind of get a chuckle out of the people who say that teams are making crazy money so why get cheap now , it's not a matter of getting cheap , it's a matter of wising up , why spend 5 years and 100 million on a 33 year old Adam Jones like teams would have 5 years ago when you can get the same results from a young arbitration controlled player. Just because teams were dumb with their money in the past doesn't mean they should continue to be. I think the Padres would disagree with your last sentence. I really can't argue with you on this one. I don't like the Machado signing for them for many reasons. I know they could afford it, I know they are an upstart team with a ton of young talent and a loaded system so even though I thought it was a big overpay last year , I understood the Hosmer signing. He's a good role model, works hard, over achieves and enjoys playing the game and would be a good guy for young players to be around and learn from which adds value well beyond what stats he might have. Manny, not so much. I don't think that's going to be a great fit and with the way that franchise operates like a yo-yo , he's probably traded to the Yankees within 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Mar 1, 2019 12:05:29 GMT -5
Giants offered 12 years 310 , but were given a last chance to better the 13 and 330 , but were told because of the California taxes the offer would need to top the Phillies by at lest 20 million.
Dodgers supposedly offered a three-year, $135MM pact ($45MM AAV) and a four-year, $168MM ($42MM AAV).
But Boras said Bryce told him he wanted the longest deal and did not want to be a free agent again, that's why he also instructed him not to negotiate any opt outs.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Mar 1, 2019 13:38:56 GMT -5
None taken. I just wish it all evened out a bit more. Guys getting kicked out of the league because teams need rookie players to save money seems pretty harsh to me. "The league is getting younger" has been a mantra. What isn't said is that veteran players cost too much for some teams, and they are forced to go young. I'd like to see more veterans making in the 5-15M range rather than having to settle for minor league deals and such as well. Some players deserve to earn more, others less. I think my way of looking at it is more balanced than you tend to think. But yes, I am more vocal about the players who earn more than they are producing (Heyward for instance). Hard to see a guy making that kind of cash, and not earning it while others have to settle for much less. Lester is a guy who got a huge contract and earned it. I respect him a lot. Edwin Jackson did not. I also believe that it's time to really pay some of our young core players and see who wants to stay long term. The Cubs don't offer chump change extensions. They are soid/legit. Let's offer Schwarber and Hendricks some cash. No, I think players deserve their fair share. Cole Hamels seems worth his 20M as well. But that's the thing though, those guys performed and earned it. You haven't even given Manny and Harper a chance to earn their new contracts. It's going to take a long time to see if they earn it, but my thought process has always been, for any player who signs a big time contract, 70% and it's earner. Perform for 70% of your huge contract. Anything at 70% and up is gold IMO I tell you what. Let's test your opinion in reality. If you lend me $100, I'd be willing to pay you back $70. The missing $30 isn't worth your time, right? This is why the excessive years contracts just don't work out in the long run.
|
|