4443555D5344030F76515B575F5A1855595B360 wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
3239313D3839226761162F373E3939783539560 wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
7B7C6A626C7B3C30496E64686065276A6664090 wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
The Marlins didn't go out and sign a bunch of people. The Reds haven't done that either. Is it because of those long term contracts to their star players? The Marlins just salary dumped the NL MVP.
I don't know why teams don't push for the front loaded contracts, especially to younger players getting their first big contract. Only in baseball do players get paid for what they did in their younger years compared to what they will do in the future. Players, who want to win, should want this too. They would still be wanted at age 35 compared to trying to be moved because they are no longer "worth" their contract.
Look at McCutchen for example (in millions): If he got $14.5 in '13, $14 in '14, $13 in '15, $10 in '16, $7.3 in '17 and due $4.5 this year wouldn't the Pirates been better off this year? He would probably be in talks of doing a similar deal going forward. And the Pirates can bring in players knowing he would no longer have to be the "da man" for the team. He would have got paid for his best years too.
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
The Marlins didn't go out and sign a bunch of people. The Reds haven't done that either. Is it because of those long term contracts to their star players? The Marlins just salary dumped the NL MVP.
I don't know why teams don't push for the front loaded contracts, especially to younger players getting their first big contract. Only in baseball do players get paid for what they did in their younger years compared to what they will do in the future. Players, who want to win, should want this too. They would still be wanted at age 35 compared to trying to be moved because they are no longer "worth" their contract.
Look at McCutchen for example (in millions): If he got $14.5 in '13, $14 in '14, $13 in '15, $10 in '16, $7.3 in '17 and due $4.5 this year wouldn't the Pirates been better off this year? He would probably be in talks of doing a similar deal going forward. And the Pirates can bring in players knowing he would no longer have to be the "da man" for the team. He would have got paid for his best years too.
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
6D666E6267667D383E497068616666276A66090 wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
The Marlins didn't go out and sign a bunch of people. The Reds haven't done that either. Is it because of those long term contracts to their star players? The Marlins just salary dumped the NL MVP.
I don't know why teams don't push for the front loaded contracts, especially to younger players getting their first big contract. Only in baseball do players get paid for what they did in their younger years compared to what they will do in the future. Players, who want to win, should want this too. They would still be wanted at age 35 compared to trying to be moved because they are no longer "worth" their contract.
Look at McCutchen for example (in millions): If he got $14.5 in '13, $14 in '14, $13 in '15, $10 in '16, $7.3 in '17 and due $4.5 this year wouldn't the Pirates been better off this year? He would probably be in talks of doing a similar deal going forward. And the Pirates can bring in players knowing he would no longer have to be the "da man" for the team. He would have got paid for his best years too.
but the Pirates would have used that contract to say they couldn't afford AJ. The Pirates payroll would not have gone up in 2013 or 2014 from what it was just because Cutch was signed. the team would have spent less on other players.
The funny thing is, I don't like many of those contracts. But it;s also true that the doom and gloom that was promised when the contracts were signed have largely been wrong. I don't see any evidence that the contracts are hurting any of those organizations.
I disagree with that. Many of those teams are trying to dump those contracts and some have been dumped. Many of those players weren't the reason why their teams did win either. They became the piece to the young core who was luckily groomed to help them.
Right. Dumping the contract is one option. Bottomline, I think many of us thought the big contracts by small mkt teams would wind up as disasters. But I can't say I know of one situation where a big contract has penalized the team (well I can think of one - Kendal and the Pirates).
I have a theory: the back end of these big contracts are running with huge growth in baseball revenues. $20M five years out in MLB is not going to impact a team the way $20M today will. The growth of revenue is a shield against the disastrous impact of those contracts.
The Marlins didn't go out and sign a bunch of people. The Reds haven't done that either. Is it because of those long term contracts to their star players? The Marlins just salary dumped the NL MVP.
I don't know why teams don't push for the front loaded contracts, especially to younger players getting their first big contract. Only in baseball do players get paid for what they did in their younger years compared to what they will do in the future. Players, who want to win, should want this too. They would still be wanted at age 35 compared to trying to be moved because they are no longer "worth" their contract.
Look at McCutchen for example (in millions): If he got $14.5 in '13, $14 in '14, $13 in '15, $10 in '16, $7.3 in '17 and due $4.5 this year wouldn't the Pirates been better off this year? He would probably be in talks of doing a similar deal going forward. And the Pirates can bring in players knowing he would no longer have to be the "da man" for the team. He would have got paid for his best years too.
but the Pirates would have used that contract to say they couldn't afford AJ. The Pirates payroll would not have gone up in 2013 or 2014 from what it was just because Cutch was signed. the team would have spent less on other players.
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
Nah. NH already said the pirates couldnt afford to make AJ a qualifying offer at 12 mil because it was too high a percentage of overall payroll.
So he started him at 7. Then went all the way to 12 after he pizzed him off and couldn't get him back on board.
12 out of the gates without all the cheap bull@@@t would have gotten it done with a smile and thanks.
But that's NH. He's fumbled around in a big percentage of a small number of actual, meaningful moves. Very clumsy GM. Go ahead and prove me wrong NH. Let's see it.
So he started him at 7. Then went all the way to 12 after he pizzed him off and couldn't get him back on board.
12 out of the gates without all the cheap bull@@@t would have gotten it done with a smile and thanks.
But that's NH. He's fumbled around in a big percentage of a small number of actual, meaningful moves. Very clumsy GM. Go ahead and prove me wrong NH. Let's see it.
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
2D242C3D33490 wrote: Nah. NH already said the pirates couldnt afford to make AJ a qualifying offer at 12 mil because it was too high a percentage of overall payroll.
So he started him at 7. Then went all the way to 12 after he pizzed him off and couldn't get him back on board.
12 out of the gates without all the cheap bull@@@t would have gotten it done with a smile and thanks.
But that's NH. He's fumbled around in a big percentage of a small number of actual, meaningful moves. Very clumsy GM. Go ahead and prove me wrong NH. Let's see it.
The best strategy is to spend at least 10% of payroll on back up players (infielders, catchers, 4th outfielder if you think the team needs one).
So he started him at 7. Then went all the way to 12 after he pizzed him off and couldn't get him back on board.
12 out of the gates without all the cheap bull@@@t would have gotten it done with a smile and thanks.
But that's NH. He's fumbled around in a big percentage of a small number of actual, meaningful moves. Very clumsy GM. Go ahead and prove me wrong NH. Let's see it.
The best strategy is to spend at least 10% of payroll on back up players (infielders, catchers, 4th outfielder if you think the team needs one).
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
2F120C010E040F2D0512030504600 wrote: I don't think anything can be gleamed from a bidding war between the Padres and Royals.
I think something can be. You essentially have two small market teams (yes, I'm calling SD one) putting up big money offers for a primary target. Minnesota has been interested in getting Cole. Small market teams, absent us, have a plan.
I think something can be. You essentially have two small market teams (yes, I'm calling SD one) putting up big money offers for a primary target. Minnesota has been interested in getting Cole. Small market teams, absent us, have a plan.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
4C5C5D6A7C7C701F0 wrote: I don't think anything can be gleamed from a bidding war between the Padres and Royals.
I think something can be. You essentially have two small market teams (yes, I'm calling SD one) putting up big money offers for a primary target. Minnesota has been interested in getting Cole. Small market teams, absent us, have a plan.
All kinds of evidence: small mkt teams do add on. It doesn't matter now, the Pirates are way out of contention. But it mattered this time two years ago. They could have put the final touch on a WS team. Instead they began the process of letting the team rot. We're living that decision today.
I firmly believe - any other team, probably to include Tampa and Oakland, would have valued the opportunity and tried their best to win the WS. The Pirates did not. SD and KC are just the latest example of proof - the BS the FO was beginning to dish out just about two years ago was just that- BS.
I think something can be. You essentially have two small market teams (yes, I'm calling SD one) putting up big money offers for a primary target. Minnesota has been interested in getting Cole. Small market teams, absent us, have a plan.
All kinds of evidence: small mkt teams do add on. It doesn't matter now, the Pirates are way out of contention. But it mattered this time two years ago. They could have put the final touch on a WS team. Instead they began the process of letting the team rot. We're living that decision today.
I firmly believe - any other team, probably to include Tampa and Oakland, would have valued the opportunity and tried their best to win the WS. The Pirates did not. SD and KC are just the latest example of proof - the BS the FO was beginning to dish out just about two years ago was just that- BS.
Hosmer offered 7/$147M by
Is San Diego a small market team? I thought that was a pretty large area, plus had the military base there.