|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 3, 2019 12:07:30 GMT -5
Wow, Bill James laying the wood! I agree with a majority of what he's saying, although I'm not taking the likes of Bryant, Borgarts or Baez over Machado or Harper. If I can have one of them on a 3 year deal and only take Machado or Harper if I have to commit to 10/300 I am not returning calls to Machado or Harper. Unless I’m mostly interested in a PR campaign to appease casual fans who know their names but not the names of other players who are just as productive baseball players but don’t have the benefit of the hype they do. Which is why The WhiteSox and Padres are interested and the Yankees seem not to be. |
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on Feb 3, 2019 21:19:30 GMT -5
lol @ Rosenthal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 5:09:08 GMT -5
Machado, 6 years @ 170 is more than fair. 180 in a push or 165 on the other end.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 4, 2019 12:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemarlin on Feb 4, 2019 16:52:05 GMT -5
Cueto's one brief AL stint was a disaster. And he's old, DLd, and probably overweight. Getting rid of Els would be great, but taking on Cueto would be a waste of money |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 4, 2019 17:13:20 GMT -5
Amazing we spent that much on a group where several may not even start regularly (or at all) and only Zach Britton is an elite player. |
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 4, 2019 18:20:21 GMT -5
According to Ken Rosenthal, the Rockies are talking to Arrenado about a long term deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on Feb 4, 2019 19:03:10 GMT -5
According to Ken Rosenthal, the Rockies are talking to Arrenado about a long term deal. It would be wise to lock him up. If you believe the rumor mill, he's going to have more suitors next year than Machado & Harper have right now. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Feb 4, 2019 20:34:58 GMT -5
According to Ken Rosenthal, the Rockies are talking to Arrenado about a long term deal. It would be wise to lock him up. If you believe the rumor mill, he's going to have more suitors next year than Machado & Harper have right now. This sounds like something that should get done. He should be a legacy player for them. Sign a deal fair for both sides, no off-season drama, everybody goes away happy. Honestly, I hope something similar happens with the Angels and Mike Trout and I suspect it might. Or more importantly for our purposes, the Yankees and Aaron Judge. |
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 4, 2019 20:59:50 GMT -5
It would be wise to lock him up. If you believe the rumor mill, he's going to have more suitors next year than Machado & Harper have right now. This sounds like something that should get done. He should be a legacy player for them. Sign a deal fair for both sides, no off-season drama, everybody goes away happy. Honestly, I hope something similar happens with the Angels and Mike Trout and I suspect it might. Or more importantly for our purposes, the Yankees and Aaron Judge. I think locking up Judge, Severino, etc is a big part of the lack of interest in Machado and Harper. But if Trout is available that’s a different story. He actually is generational greatness in a way that neither of them are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 1:48:09 GMT -5
The Yankees can certainly afford to lock up several of their cornerstone players, but if history is any judge, they won’t. We’ve heard all sorts of reasons why they won’t spend to bring in a final piece to gain separation with the Sox and Astros. Some more absurd than others. The one that makes the most sense is that Hal is not prepared to win a championship at the expense of going beyond his predetermined budget. He would rather take his chances with a probable WC finish once again than fully commit to bringing one of Machado or Harper aboard, just like he passed on Verlander, Scherzer, Cole and Corbin. Who can blame him when revenues from TV and merchandise along with other endorsements are through the roof. There’s winning and there’s winning, and winning the bottom line is more important than raising another banner if push comes to shove. Which one of us can definitively say we wouldn’t do the same given the same circumstances?
|
|
|
|
Post by domeplease on Feb 5, 2019 10:30:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 5, 2019 17:30:08 GMT -5
If profit is your motive then Hal's supposed model makes sense. Personally I think, based on our experience with other free agents that spending huge amounts of money on free agents from other teams rarely works. I think that, not profit, is why teams are not going for those players.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 18:00:13 GMT -5
If profit is your motive then Hal's supposed model makes sense. Personally I think, based on our experience with other free agents that spending huge amounts of money on free agents from other teams rarely works. I think that, not profit, is why teams are not going for those players. I don’t think there’s a problem with large expenditures. The issue is about long commitments for those large expenditures that’s tended to last much longer than the productivity and/ or popularity of the players. Since the salary is about multiple facets including performance, popularity of the player to the fans, health, and in the case of issues like PED abuse and even spousal abuses...the team is assuming the players will always have reason for the fans to want to see them play when they offer the huge deals. When the player breaks these sanctities and then, say winds up NOT achieving a milestone the team was gambling on they’re stuck while the player merrily dances to the bank with their .220 PED - enhanced BA, bruised wife and middle finger waving at the fans and the team, far short of the once-promising HOF track... |
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 5, 2019 19:21:38 GMT -5
If profit is your motive then Hal's supposed model makes sense. Personally I think, based on our experience with other free agents that spending huge amounts of money on free agents from other teams rarely works. I think that, not profit, is why teams are not going for those players. Are you actually questioning whether profit is the motive? I guess there could be a franchise where profitability isn’t specifically the motive but long term franchise valuation is even if short term profitability is impaired. But honestly be real. The only reason owners care about winning is if it translates to profit and franchise enterprise value. They’re investors not fans. |
|
