One day this past season I was watching a Reds' broadcast when the topic of Votto's contract came up. The Reds' announcers had good discussion both for and against the contract but what really caught my attention was long-time radio voice Marty Brennaman's hatred of the contract.
The attached story captures both Brennaman's disdain for the contract, as well as the author's argument as to why the contract makes sense.
https://calltothepen.com/2017/01/05/cin ... oey-votto/
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
Lol. That article sums up how I feel about it anyway. A contract can be insane, but a RELATIVE bargain at the same time.
These revenue numbers are hard to wrap the head around. They continue to skyrocket. MLB inflation is true insanity. BUT, that's the landscape. Those are the market conditions.
Normal Teams are pumping 44-45+% of revenue into ML payroll. Teams like us, more like a lowly 40%. These monies are going to find their ways into the ML players pockets, whether fans want it to or not.
These revenue numbers are hard to wrap the head around. They continue to skyrocket. MLB inflation is true insanity. BUT, that's the landscape. Those are the market conditions.
Normal Teams are pumping 44-45+% of revenue into ML payroll. Teams like us, more like a lowly 40%. These monies are going to find their ways into the ML players pockets, whether fans want it to or not.
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
Brennaman is a dinosaur. Also sounds like he has an axe to grind with Votto. But times have changed and just like a welder is exponentially worth more money now than decades ago, so are great ball players like Votto, Stanton and others.
Someday, I hope the Pirates have a player worthy of a market competitive contract like Votto has, and the Pirates have the nerve, desire, and capacity to offer it. I know it will likely take an ownership change for that to happen. If not, we will become competitively extinct -- like the dinosaurs are, and like Marty will soon be.
Someday, I hope the Pirates have a player worthy of a market competitive contract like Votto has, and the Pirates have the nerve, desire, and capacity to offer it. I know it will likely take an ownership change for that to happen. If not, we will become competitively extinct -- like the dinosaurs are, and like Marty will soon be.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
0D202D3C3B2A3D7D7E4F0 wrote: Votto turned 34 in September. His contract guarantees him 157 million from now thru age 40. That's got to limit the trade possibilities. I can easily see him having another 2 great years. Maybe 3. But players in their later 30s tend to have more injury issues or just decline due to age, bat speed, etc. The Reds are obligated by the contract and if they're lucky, they will get solid production from him thru most of the remaining years of the contract. But it's doubtful other teams would gamble 157 million on a 34 year old, even when he is currently very productive.
I agree. Even how great Votto has been, other teams would have to think it's a gamble. Not many players produce like that into their 40's. The Reds would have to eat salary if he is ever traded.
I agree. Even how great Votto has been, other teams would have to think it's a gamble. Not many players produce like that into their 40's. The Reds would have to eat salary if he is ever traded.
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
4A4D617660030 wrote: Brennaman is a dinosaur. Also sounds like he has an axe to grind with Votto. But times have changed and just like a welder is exponentially worth more money now than decades ago, so are great ball players like Votto, Stanton and others.
Someday, I hope the Pirates have a player worthy of a market competitive contract like Votto has, and the Pirates have the nerve, desire, and capacity to offer it. I know it will likely take an ownership change for that to happen. If not, we will become competitively extinct -- like the dinosaurs are, and like Marty will soon be.
We don't need a Votto. The question for me in this discussion is the value of any long term (4+ years) that pushes in on the "magic allocation" the Pirates preach. We've been taught that 4x$20M is too risky. Is it really? That's where the Pirates intersect with this issue, basically every year. Other teams are carrying players that exceed that % allocation and whose sheer size makes the future look risky. But a $20M obligation today is not going to look the same in a few years. At least not to other organizations.
Someday, I hope the Pirates have a player worthy of a market competitive contract like Votto has, and the Pirates have the nerve, desire, and capacity to offer it. I know it will likely take an ownership change for that to happen. If not, we will become competitively extinct -- like the dinosaurs are, and like Marty will soon be.
We don't need a Votto. The question for me in this discussion is the value of any long term (4+ years) that pushes in on the "magic allocation" the Pirates preach. We've been taught that 4x$20M is too risky. Is it really? That's where the Pirates intersect with this issue, basically every year. Other teams are carrying players that exceed that % allocation and whose sheer size makes the future look risky. But a $20M obligation today is not going to look the same in a few years. At least not to other organizations.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
5777647978160 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
4542545C5245020E77505A565E5B1954585A370 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).
But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS. We’re really talking about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.
For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).
But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS. We’re really talking about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.
For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
08283B2627490 wrote: As it relates to the Pirates regarding the Votto situation....seems there are two questions; could the Pirates afford it and should the Pirates afford it.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).
But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS. We’re really talking about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.
For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.
Agreed. And that arbitrary rule creating an arbitrary line just happens to help insure the payroll will stay well below just about every team.
My opinion is they could and they shouldn’t. With what’s going on this offseason...or more specifically what hasn’t gone on...it appears more and more team are shying away from the idea of overpaying players based on past performance. This could all change if we need the bottleneck burst and guys start getting 6-8 year deals. But if it holds, it benefits the Pirates.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any real chance of that. And not all of this is past performance. AJ was not signed because the Pirates did not want to pay fair mkt value for one season. The one year at $12M or so the Pirates could have signed him for was a good contract, for the Pirates. But they said "no".
The SD v KC "bidding war", Cleveland with Encarnanico; the Brewers and Ryan B; the Reds with Bailey, etc etc, all point to a reality that doesn't seem to fit The pirates narrative: bad business to do such deals. Looks to be that small mkt teams can do a deal and not cripple the organization.
Perhaps I should clarify. I was saying I don’t think the Pirates should overspend for previous performance. Meaning, stay away from giving guys big money into their mid to late 30’s (and based on this offseason, appears to be a philosophy change around baseball).
But I am saying they could and should be able to handle a big contract without it crippling them. The line about allocating certain percentage of payroll to one player is BS. We’re really talking about two arbitrary numbers; the overall payroll and the percentage of that going to one player.
For example, had McCutchen signed a more player friendly extension and was earning 20 million 2016-2019, that’s something the Pirates should absorb, be comfortable with and shouldn’t force them to salary dump him.
Agreed. And that arbitrary rule creating an arbitrary line just happens to help insure the payroll will stay well below just about every team.
-
Bobster21
Pirates v Reds/Huntington v Williams
It would be interesting to know at organizational meetings how much time is spent discussing talent acquisition and how much is spent discussing minimizing payroll.