Offseason baseball Thread

If the revenues are there why is it stupid?

 

1/5 of the payroll to a .280 35hr 95rbi hitter who plays very good defense, whose head isn’t always in the game. Do 10year deals ever work out for both parties?
And a 40m average? Is he really 20% more valuable than Kershaw? I’ve watched Manny the past few years, intermittently. I like him a lot but he’s not in Trout, Stanton and Harper class, yet

 

So is Jeter just doing the typical - I'm going to clean house and start from scratch thing that a lot of new bosses do? It doesn't sound like he has been extracting maximum value from the deals so far, yet I don't see him as someone who figures the best way for the Marlins to make it financially is to not compete on the field.

 

Perhaps not, but he is entering his prime and there is plenty of reason to believe Ozuna's growth last season was real. I saw a good breakdown of his game on MLB Network earlier today. Ozuna made changes to his stance that allowed him to eliminate the huge hole he used to have in his swing on pitches low and outside. The power was always there. He just had to make some adjustments to be a more consistent hitter and he made them. He could backslide a little as his BABIP last year was a bit high, but this seems like a very good get for the Cardinals.

 

You said no player was worth it

 

The teams I root for, I get Angelos, Snyder and Robert Sarver. That's a poopfecta of bad ownership if I've ever seen it.

 

I do not like the Cardinals but their talent evaluation is generally very good. If they like Ozuna then it will probably be a good move. Pay for his prime years, then move him. Organizational approach since Branch Rickey.

 

In theory he’s worth what anyone in the market will pay.
Is he 20% better than Kershaw who makes 33? But Kershaw’s is market rate at the time his contract was signed. I just don’t see the benefit to a 10 year contract. And while Machadowill be 36 at the end of a 10 year contract, he will have been a major league player for 17 years at the end of the contract. That’s a very old 36.

I don’t think he’s worth it, and a player that seeks such a long term contract is sacrificing money for security. Theoretically, since the market sets itself every year, a player who signs a 1 year contract would make more than if they signed a long term contract, over the course of their career. But players know the risk of injury, of a bad season, of slumps drivingnumbers down, of playing for a bad team and having their numbers reflect their team (Manny may be a a victim of this). Teams don’t benefit from long term deals, they benefit from 4-6 year contract of entering or in their primes.

 

You wouldn't sign Trout to a 10 year deal?

 

Most of these guys who get these huge deals are 27 or so when they sign them. If you're giving this guy that kind of contract, you have to believe you're close to a World Series contender, so you figure on a four-year window to accomplish that. There are too many moving parts for any team to have longer than that.

So the real key with any of these big deals is to give the player an opt-out in their age 31 or 32 season - and then let them go, almost no matter what. The market will have risen by then and, assuming they have a decent walk year, they'll inevitably opt out. With the PED Era largely behind us, it makes almost no sense to give more than a 2-year deal to anyone over age 32.

 

The PED era is not largely behind us but I agree with you for the most part. I would very rarely give long term deals, your best value is always pre arb days but there are a few player that I would give ten years to and Trout is one of them.

 

Interesting. I'm open to that discussion. The home run spike this season was largely suspected to be attributed to a juiced ball. Do you think players are using PEDs as much or more than say 1998-2003? Are they ahead of the testing?