*2014-15 Hot Stove Thread: The Padres won it I guess (1 Viewer)

[jfranco77]

IMO, the only thing unsettling about the Cuddyer contract is the loss of the draft pick. I don't have any qualms with the length or the annual value. In fact, one could argue the Mets did well in that regard considering he had 15 mil for one year in Colorado already on the table thanks to a qualifying offer.

Assuming the Mets sign another QO player or two, even that doesn't look that bad.

 

[MAC_32]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health. Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

 

[Limp Ditka]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

Panda's year was an outlier?

His OPS, OPS+ were the lowest they've been since 2010 and have gone down every year since 2011. WAR up only because of a good defensive year which is a facet of his game that no one is signing him for.

 

[Eephus]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

so what are you suggesting? Even the Yankees and Dodgers say they don't want to play the free agent game but it's still the best short-term way to pick up a few wins. Prospects are great and cheap. But sometimes they bust and they usually don't magically appear to fill a hole at the major league level. Trades require comparable talent to go in the other direction.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Yeah Panda was terrible last year.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Yeah Panda was terrible last year.

And MAC's been terrible for years.

 

[MAC_32]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

Panda's year was an outlier?

His OPS, OPS+ were the lowest they've been since 2010 and have gone down every year since 2011. WAR up only because of a good defensive year which is a facet of his game that no one is signing him for.

from a health standpoint as I already wrote above, yes.Read first next time.

 

[MAC_32]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

so what are you suggesting? Even the Yankees and Dodgers say they don't want to play the free agent game but it's still the best short-term way to pick up a few wins. Prospects are great and cheap. But sometimes they bust and they usually don't magically appear to fill a hole at the major league level. Trades require comparable talent to go in the other direction.

wait til waves two and three, let the spenders use their budget then come in and swoop up what's left.

 

[MAC_32]

Yeah Panda was terrible last year.

And MAC's been terrible for years.

wrong thread, if you're having your period and need to yell at someone bump that thread. Don't #### up this one.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Hahaha

 

[Eephus]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

so what are you suggesting? Even the Yankees and Dodgers say they don't want to play the free agent game but it's still the best short-term way to pick up a few wins. Prospects are great and cheap. But sometimes they bust and they usually don't magically appear to fill a hole at the major league level. Trades require comparable talent to go in the other direction.

wait til waves two and three, let the spenders use their budget then come in and swoop up what's left.

All the Black Friday doorbusters will be gone by Xmas Eve

 

[RnR]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

Panda's year was an outlier?

His OPS, OPS+ were the lowest they've been since 2010 and have gone down every year since 2011. WAR up only because of a good defensive year which is a facet of his game that no one is signing him for.

from a health standpoint as I already wrote above, yes.Read first next time.

So let's assume you meant that as a health outlier. He has averaged 138 games played per season for his six full years as a big-league regular. If a guy that has played just over 85% of his team's games over the past six years is considered a health risk, then nearly every player signed this off-season carries that kind of baggage.

 

[rodg12]

This is a snippet from Sheehan's newsletter (actually from last offseason) about how the money really doesn't matter anymore

[SIZE=9pt]Back in March, Forbes produced revenue figures for the 30 MLB teams, which totaled about $6.8 billion. Maury Brown, a couple of months prior, estimated that MLB's total revenues ran to about $7.5 billion[/SIZE]. (Some share of the difference between the two figures is money that goes to the league itself.) Regardless of which number you take, we know that the figure will be going up; new local-television contracts will be kicking in, with revenue sharing spreading that money around the league. The new national deals with Fox and Turner start in 2014. Brown estimated that revenues could reach $9 billion in 2014. Foreshadowed last week in Georgia, it may not be long before the next wave of ballpark extortions hits land. US Cellular Field and Rogers Skydome are approaching their silver anniversaries, the Oakland situation continues to fester, and while Dodger Stadium is a jewel, the $2.15 billion the Guggenheim Group paid for the Dodgers seems to have the expectation of a new downtown venue built into it. There's no reason to think that MLB's revenues will be slipping in the short and medium terms.

[SIZE=9pt]The Associated Press collected the salary data for all players on Opening Day rosters. That data, published in a number of places, showed that teams were on the hook for about $3.2 billion in salaries and bonuses. That means that MLB was paying out about 43% of its revenues to the players; the NFLPA got its ### handed to it in the 2011 lockout and came away with 47%, and the NBA players didn't do much better after their own lockout, as they get about half of league revenues, as do NHL players. As a percentage of revenue, MLB players get less money than do their counterparts in the other leagues. Taking the long view, this is the end product of losses in CBA negotiations that have expanded revenue sharing and penalized teams that exceed payroll thresholds, with extremely punitive penalties for teams that do so repeatedly. Make no mistake: over the last decade, MLB has clawed back many of the gains the players made in the first 30 years of free agency. MLB has also leveraged its position in labor negotiations -- against those cheating, druggie untrustworthy ballplayers, dontcha know? -- to cap its expenditures in talent acquisition, with limits on what teams can spend in the draft and the international market, so the money they're saving on player salaries isn't leaking out to college kids and teenagers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Four percent of $7.5 billion -- the difference between the percentage of revenue NFL players are guaranteed and what MLB players are getting, is $300 million. If half the money -- what NBA players get -- seems right, then we're talking about $525 million. That's the money burning holes in 30 pockets right now, money that can be banked as profit, as in Houston and Miami; used to pay down debts generated outside of baseball, as in Queens; or thrown at ballplayers. Teams can say anything they want about what they can and cannot afford, but merely looking at revenues, it's clear that MLB teams aren't coming close to spending what they can reasonably spend on payroll. This doesn't even factor in the ability to borrow against ever-rising franchise values (or RSN values) to generate cash. At least ten teams are estimated by Bloomberg to be worth more than a billion dollars.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]It is so much money that it has a distorting effect on the market for talent, not just breaking our models, but arguably invalidating the first principle: that the opportunity cost of spent money matters. The combination of so much extra cash combined with so little talent becoming freely available -- due to teams locking up the best players in baseball long-term through their peaks -- means that there isn't much opportunity cost to spending. The money is there, and if it isn't spent on free agents it's not going to be spent in the draft or in the Dominican or on a superstar because the next superstar might not hit the market for another two years.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]The money doesn't matter. It's not about whether the marginal cost of a win on the free-agent market is five million bucks or $7 million or $13 million; it's about that framework no longer being the way to evaluate signings. The extra dollars a team might spend to bring a player into the fold -- and turn a contract from a sabermetric win to a sabermetric loss -- are meaningless in the big picture because there's just no other good application of those dollars. The opportunity cost of not signing the player isn't "having the money to sign someone else", it's "having cash and no good way to use it." [/SIZE]

 

[MAC_32]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

Panda's year was an outlier?

His OPS, OPS+ were the lowest they've been since 2010 and have gone down every year since 2011. WAR up only because of a good defensive year which is a facet of his game that no one is signing him for.

from a health standpoint as I already wrote above, yes.Read first next time.

So let's assume you meant that as a health outlier. He has averaged 138 games played per season for his six full years as a big-league regular. If a guy that has played just over 85% of his team's games over the past six years is considered a health risk, then nearly every player signed this off-season carries that kind of baggage.

I hope you could assume it is health related since I wrote it in English.If you think he was anywhere near healthy for most of those 138 games per year I suggest asking a giants fan how often he was healthy in those 138 games. It wasn't often. And iirc it wasn't fluky things like being hbp. When he was healthy he did some great things, but those times are few and far between. That's difficult to manage over the course of 162+ games and it isn't like he's getting younger.

He really needs to go to the AL where they can at least mask him as a dh when he proves he can't play in the field anymore because he can't stay on it. This is the one thing that makes Boston interesting though, a natural hole will be opening soon.

 

[RnR]

None of the deals so far this off-season will cripple a team's finances (except for maybe the Stanton deal if it runs to its full duration). Cuddyer and Butler could easily earn their keep and the lengths are pretty short. Even if Martin or Panda tank in the final years of their deals, the teams can take the writedown. The biggest risk falls on small payroll teams who invest in long-term deals because they can't absorb it when things go south.

I think it's more likely both Martin and Panda tank this year and continue that trend through the duration of the contract than either of them repeat 14. Both turned outlier seasons into multi year block busters. It's more likely we see the 12 and 13 versions of these guys than the 14, Martin from a production standpoint and Panda from a health.Teams should be trying to find the next 2014 Martin, not pay for it after the fact.

Butler is all about value. Yes, a higher payroll team can absorb that contract, but Oakland? They can't. They need their $30 mil players to produce like $60 mil. They're not going to get that out of Butler.

Panda's year was an outlier?

His OPS, OPS+ were the lowest they've been since 2010 and have gone down every year since 2011. WAR up only because of a good defensive year which is a facet of his game that no one is signing him for.

from a health standpoint as I already wrote above, yes.Read first next time.

So let's assume you meant that as a health outlier. He has averaged 138 games played per season for his six full years as a big-league regular. If a guy that has played just over 85% of his team's games over the past six years is considered a health risk, then nearly every player signed this off-season carries that kind of baggage.

I hope you could assume it is health related since I wrote it in English.If you think he was anywhere near healthy for most of those 138 games per year I suggest asking a giants fan how often he was healthy in those 138 games. It wasn't often. And iirc it wasn't fluky things like being hbp. When he was healthy he did some great things, but those times are few and far between. That's difficult to manage over the course of 162+ games and it isn't like he's getting younger.

He really needs to go to the AL where they can at least mask him as a dh when he proves he can't play in the field anymore because he can't stay on it. This is the one thing that makes Boston interesting though, a natural hole will be opening soon.

Stop being so abrasive.

So now we're dinging players for playing at less than 100 percent health? That seems like a slippery slope.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to prove here. Panda is a pretty well-known commodity at this point. He's going to get a ton of money because he has a career .811 OPS at the hot corner and has one of the more marketable personas in the league.

He's 28. Teams are likely offering 5-6 year deals, looking to carry him to age 32 or 33 season. That's probably the breaking point at which teams should be concerned about his ability to stay at a reasonable weight and on the field as a defender.

Did you watch the postseason? He handles himself pretty well in the field for a porkster.

 

[Eephus]

Pay the Panda

 

[the moops]

He broke both hamate bones in his hand two consecutive years I think. He only has two hands and they no longer have that bone so there is that

 

[Limp Ditka]

Saw no reason to read past calling his season an outlier. Chalked it up to just being more MAC drivel. My bad.

Reading RnR's post only solidifies that it was, in fact, more MAC drivel anyway

 

[Limp Ditka]

This guy lost the majority of his games played to hamate bone fractures, while batting, so we better get him over to AL and slotted into that DH hole where he'll be safe

 

[the moops]

This guy lost the majority of his games played to hamate bone fractures, while batting, so we better get him over to AL and slotted into that DH hole where he'll be safe

they remove the bone when that injury happens

 

[Limp Ditka]

This guy lost the majority of his games played to hamate bone fractures, while batting, so we better get him over to AL and slotted into that DH hole where he'll be safe

they remove the bone when that injury happens

The exact injury is basically irrelevant. MAC's exiling a guy to the AL and a DH role because he gets hurt. The problem is, his injury history has been set because of.......that's right, hitting.

The fact that he can't do it again just makes the MAC post worse.

 

[MAC_32]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

 

[Premier]

Sounds like the Rays and Rangers have something on the burner. May be announced tonight.

 

[RnR]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

Surprised you haven't landed yourself one of them there front office jobs with all these hot takes. Could be a real asset.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

I'm not ignoring anything, especially the fact that your logic was fla\/\/ed.

 

[MAC_32]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

Surprised you haven't landed yourself one of them there front office jobs with all these hot takes. Could be a real asset.

so you think meeting panda's demands would be a good move.

 

[MAC_32]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

I'm not ignoring anything, especially the fact that your logic was fla\/\/ed.

same goes for you. You guys do a great job of talking a lot without saying anything, so just clarifying that since you're picking this battle you think signing panda to a nine figure or near nine figure contract is a good idea.

 

[Eephus]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

Surprised you haven't landed yourself one of them there front office jobs with all these hot takes. Could be a real asset.

so you think meeting panda's demands would be a good move.

Sandoval is going to get paid somewhere north of 5/$90M by somebody. He's a good player, not a superstar but he'll help whichever team signs him for a while. The fans in his new city will enjoy watching him every day; I know I have. he's fun player to watch and root for, even when he's striking out on a pitch at eye-level.

I just hope that wherever he goes, he's not a bust. He's an emotional guy who plays with his heart on his sleeve. It would suck if he doesn't meet huge expectations and becomes a target of booing.

 

[RnR]

I like what Eephus is doing here. Talking about the Panda like he's already gone. Sabs is getting ready to cave on that 7th season in negotiations, don't you worry GB.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Sure, go ahead and ignore a guy with weight problems playing third getting shut down because of his foot and his ham. Give a guy with weight problems a pile of money too? That'll motivate him!

I'm not ignoring anything, especially the fact that your logic was fla\/\/ed.

same goes for you. You guys do a great job of talking a lot without saying anything, so just clarifying that since you're picking this battle you think signing panda to a nine figure or near nine figure contract is a good idea.

3rd base is kind of a barren wasteland right now. Available talent, this year and next, is close to non existent. 2016 FA class includes no one under 30 and anyone that is, or ever was, All Star level talent is north of 35 (Beltre, Ramirez)

He's in the right place at the right time and his agent knows it. He's proven to be a post season monster, and as someone mentioned before, he's a marketing dream. If someone doesn't have a surefire 3B in their pipeline, they're going to pay for him since he's the going to be the best available for at least 2 FA cycles.

That's going to warrant the money he's going to get.

Does it end up being a good investment? Hell if I know. But since you're so certain of the future, I'll just let you continue to spew your crap about it.

 

[MAC_32]

I'm not certain about anything. In the great words of the dude, it's just my opinion, man.

 

[MAC_32]

You guys just get your period with me every couple of months.

Knock it off.

 

[Eephus]

I like what Eephus is doing here. Talking about the Panda like he's already gone. Sabs is getting ready to cave on that 7th season in negotiations, don't you worry GB.

I have that 90% Red Sox article bookmarked

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You guys just get your period with me every couple of months.

Knock it off.

I never put you on ignore, can't say the same for dparker.

 

[MAC_32]

You guys just get your period with me every couple of months.

Knock it off.

I never put you on ignore, can't say the same for dparker.

youre not in the circle jerk thread. If you wish to continue go there and stop ####### up this one.

 

[Anarchy99]

I find it amusing that the Bosox wouldn't offer Adrian Beltre much more than $10 million a year when they had him, now they are said to be considering $20 million a year for Panda. Beltre has averaged .315-29-94 with Texas with an .893 OPS and won 2 Gold Gloves for the Rangers.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You guys just get your period with me every couple of months.

Knock it off.

I never put you on ignore, can't say the same for dparker.

youre not in the circle jerk thread. If you wish to continue go there and stop ####### up this one.

It's everyone's fault but yours, same as it ever was. Are you drinking on a school night again?

 

[Smack Tripper]

This is a snippet from Sheehan's newsletter (actually from last offseason) about how the money really doesn't matter anymore

[SIZE=9pt]Back in March, Forbes produced revenue figures for the 30 MLB teams, which totaled about $6.8 billion. Maury Brown, a couple of months prior, estimated that MLB's total revenues ran to about $7.5 billion[/SIZE]. (Some share of the difference between the two figures is money that goes to the league itself.) Regardless of which number you take, we know that the figure will be going up; new local-television contracts will be kicking in, with revenue sharing spreading that money around the league. The new national deals with Fox and Turner start in 2014. Brown estimated that revenues could reach $9 billion in 2014. Foreshadowed last week in Georgia, it may not be long before the next wave of ballpark extortions hits land. US Cellular Field and Rogers Skydome are approaching their silver anniversaries, the Oakland situation continues to fester, and while Dodger Stadium is a jewel, the $2.15 billion the Guggenheim Group paid for the Dodgers seems to have the expectation of a new downtown venue built into it. There's no reason to think that MLB's revenues will be slipping in the short and medium terms.

[SIZE=9pt]The Associated Press collected the salary data for all players on Opening Day rosters. That data, published in a number of places, showed that teams were on the hook for about $3.2 billion in salaries and bonuses. That means that MLB was paying out about 43% of its revenues to the players; the NFLPA got its ### handed to it in the 2011 lockout and came away with 47%, and the NBA players didn't do much better after their own lockout, as they get about half of league revenues, as do NHL players. As a percentage of revenue, MLB players get less money than do their counterparts in the other leagues. Taking the long view, this is the end product of losses in CBA negotiations that have expanded revenue sharing and penalized teams that exceed payroll thresholds, with extremely punitive penalties for teams that do so repeatedly. Make no mistake: over the last decade, MLB has clawed back many of the gains the players made in the first 30 years of free agency. MLB has also leveraged its position in labor negotiations -- against those cheating, druggie untrustworthy ballplayers, dontcha know? -- to cap its expenditures in talent acquisition, with limits on what teams can spend in the draft and the international market, so the money they're saving on player salaries isn't leaking out to college kids and teenagers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Four percent of $7.5 billion -- the difference between the percentage of revenue NFL players are guaranteed and what MLB players are getting, is $300 million. If half the money -- what NBA players get -- seems right, then we're talking about $525 million. That's the money burning holes in 30 pockets right now, money that can be banked as profit, as in Houston and Miami; used to pay down debts generated outside of baseball, as in Queens; or thrown at ballplayers. Teams can say anything they want about what they can and cannot afford, but merely looking at revenues, it's clear that MLB teams aren't coming close to spending what they can reasonably spend on payroll. This doesn't even factor in the ability to borrow against ever-rising franchise values (or RSN values) to generate cash. At least ten teams are estimated by Bloomberg to be worth more than a billion dollars.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]It is so much money that it has a distorting effect on the market for talent, not just breaking our models, but arguably invalidating the first principle: that the opportunity cost of spent money matters. The combination of so much extra cash combined with so little talent becoming freely available -- due to teams locking up the best players in baseball long-term through their peaks -- means that there isn't much opportunity cost to spending. The money is there, and if it isn't spent on free agents it's not going to be spent in the draft or in the Dominican or on a superstar because the next superstar might not hit the market for another two years.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]The money doesn't matter. It's not about whether the marginal cost of a win on the free-agent market is five million bucks or $7 million or $13 million; it's about that framework no longer being the way to evaluate signings. The extra dollars a team might spend to bring a player into the fold -- and turn a contract from a sabermetric win to a sabermetric loss -- are meaningless in the big picture because there's just no other good application of those dollars. The opportunity cost of not signing the player isn't "having the money to sign someone else", it's "having cash and no good way to use it." [/SIZE]

I was about to post a far less eloquent, sourced and informative version of this, but this is the bottom line. These are wall street guys in the strip club right now... none of these contracts are actually outrageous, particularly in this era of offense and with the largess available.

I just wished we could have seen Trout or Kershaw, or to a lesser degree Stanton hit the open market. I think Trout would have gotten 500 million for between 10-15 years

 

[Eephus]

Evan Longoria's extension was only two years ago but it looks like a relic now.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

You guys are talking like MLB doesn't have a luxury tax, and that there's only been one team to-date that's really gone over it for an extended amount of time and by a considerable amount. LA blew through it this year, and they're already making noise about getting back under.

MLB owners don't want to get in an arms race with each other.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Doyers acquire Joel Peralta and Adam Liberatore from Tampa for Jose Dominguez and Greg Harris.

Think this is a win for LA. Peralta's a paltry 2.5mm next year with team options for the same amt in 16 and 17. Liberatore's better than Dominguez. Harris has some promise, but he's in A-ball.

 

[Eephus]

You guys are talking like MLB doesn't have a luxury tax, and that there's only been one team to-date that's really gone over it for an extended amount of time and by a considerable amount. LA blew through it this year, and they're already making noise about getting back under.

MLB owners don't want to get in an arms race with each other.

We'll see how long it takes for the Yankees and Dodgers to get back under the threshold. It's going to be hard with the way MLB contracts are structured. The Yankees might be able to escape the luxury tax sooner than the Dodgers because their big deals expire sooner. But that's only if New York controls its spending which is by no means a sure thing. I hear the Dodgers' talk but I don't see how they're going to dump their toxic contracts before 2017.

The NBA's CBA negotiated in shorter max contract length but the MLBPA will fight to the death before agreeing to that.

 

[Eephus]

Doyers acquire Joel Peralta and Adam Liberatore from Tampa for Jose Dominguez and Greg Harris.

Think this is a win for LA. Peralta's a paltry 2.5mm next year with team options for the same amt in 16 and 17. Liberatore's better than Dominguez. Harris has some promise, but he's in A-ball.

that paltry $2.5M pushes LA over the $189M luxury tax threshold. They now have $192M committed for 16 players in 2015.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

There seems to be lingering anger from Tampa towards the Cubs for the Maddon deal, and they are exacting spite by dragging out the search for his successor.

Neither the Cubs nor Maddon have spoken a word about his coaching staff. Supposedly, if Dave Martinez gets the Tampa job he will keep most of the staff, and as a consequence Maddon will go into next year with the current Cubs coaches. However, if Tampa cleans house then Martinez and a couple of others will come to Chicago.

Supposedly, Tampa already knows what they are going to do but are deliberately keeping quiet to impede the Cubs.

 

[Premier]

Doyers acquire Joel Peralta and Adam Liberatore from Tampa for Jose Dominguez and Greg Harris.

Think this is a win for LA. Peralta's a paltry 2.5mm next year with team options for the same amt in 16 and 17. Liberatore's better than Dominguez. Harris has some promise, but he's in A-ball.

I know Peralta's numbers are fine but there was just something incredibly uncomfortable about watching him pitch with a lead. Seems like he always gave up a 400-foot homer. Not going to miss him.

 

[MAC_32]

You guys just get your period with me every couple of months.

Knock it off.

I never put you on ignore, can't say the same for dparker.

youre not in the circle jerk thread. If you wish to continue go there and stop ####### up this one.

It's everyone's fault but yours, same as it ever was. Are you drinking on a school night again?

Literacy down? Wrong thread.

 

[pantagrapher]

Nats have apparently made Zimmerman and Fister (both have one year left) available.

There were rumors weeks ago that Cubs were talking to the Nats about J Zimmerman. Speculation was the Nats wanted too much. I wonder if they're opening it up to see if they can force the Cubs hand a bit. I have a feeling he's headed to the North Side one way or another.

 

[RnR]

There seems to be lingering anger from Tampa towards the Cubs for the Maddon deal, and they are exacting spite by dragging out the search for his successor.

Neither the Cubs nor Maddon have spoken a word about his coaching staff. Supposedly, if Dave Martinez gets the Tampa job he will keep most of the staff, and as a consequence Maddon will go into next year with the current Cubs coaches. However, if Tampa cleans house then Martinez and a couple of others will come to Chicago.

Supposedly, Tampa already knows what they are going to do but are deliberately keeping quiet to impede the Cubs.

Good for them.

 

[pantagrapher]

There seems to be lingering anger from Tampa towards the Cubs for the Maddon deal, and they are exacting spite by dragging out the search for his successor.

Neither the Cubs nor Maddon have spoken a word about his coaching staff. Supposedly, if Dave Martinez gets the Tampa job he will keep most of the staff, and as a consequence Maddon will go into next year with the current Cubs coaches. However, if Tampa cleans house then Martinez and a couple of others will come to Chicago.

Supposedly, Tampa already knows what they are going to do but are deliberately keeping quiet to impede the Cubs.

Good for them.

Yeah, petty if true. But this sounds more like someone trying to stir the pot. I don't get how this helps Tampa or hurts the Cubs that bad.

 

[Grahamburn]

There seems to be lingering anger from Tampa towards the Cubs for the Maddon deal, and they are exacting spite by dragging out the search for his successor.

Neither the Cubs nor Maddon have spoken a word about his coaching staff. Supposedly, if Dave Martinez gets the Tampa job he will keep most of the staff, and as a consequence Maddon will go into next year with the current Cubs coaches. However, if Tampa cleans house then Martinez and a couple of others will come to Chicago.

Supposedly, Tampa already knows what they are going to do but are deliberately keeping quiet to impede the Cubs.

Jerry: "Excuse me I'd like to return this jacket."

Teller: "Certainly. May I ask why?"

Jerry: "........For spite..."

Teller: "Spite?"

Jerry: "That's right. I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me."

Teller: "I don't think you can return an item for spite."

Jerry: "What do you mean?"

Teller: "Well if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way,then

we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund"

Jerry: "That's ridiculous, I want to return it. What's the difference what the reason is."

Teller: "Let me speak with the manager...excuse me .............Bob!"

(walks over to the manager and whispers)

Teller "........spite....."(Manager walks over)

Bob: "What seems to be the problem?"

Jerry : "Well I want to return this jacket and she asked me why and I said for spite and now she

won't take it back."

Bob: "That's true. You can't return an item based purely on spite."

Jerry:. "Well So fine then ..then I don't want it and then that's why I'm returning it"

Bob: "Well you already said spite so......"

Jerry: "But I changed my mind.."

Bob: "No...you said spite...Too late."