**Official 2014 MLB Regular Season-All over but the shouting (1 Viewer)

[guru_007]

Michael Brantley or Austin Jackson

Do either of these guys (or both) break out this year?

I've passed on both of them in just about every league.

Brantley is okay, but doesn't seem to do anything good enough to warrant a lineup spot in all but the deepest of leagues.

Hits about .280, obp about .335, maybe 10 hrs, maybe 15 sb's, 70 rbis, 70 runs. I don't know if any of those categories will be exceed. Those stats to me are okay, but unless I have a starter hurt, I think there are always better options available.

Jackson is about the same, but because he strikes out way, way too much, he is probably not a good top of the order guy. And if he is not at the top of the order, he is not scoring nearly as many runs. He has shown a better aptitude on the basepaths to get 25-30 sb's which would make him rosterable, but the last two years he has only combined for 20 sb's. in my eyes, he's a pass. If he could ever have some better plate discipline he would be a better bet, imo, Even though he has cut down on the k's a bit, he still doesn't pass the eye test to me, I see way too many bad swings from this guy

 

[cheese]

I just don't understand why you wouldn't just wait 2 years if you're going to pay absolute top dollar. If he stays on this level for 2 more years, offer him 8/260 then. If he doesn't offer the lower market value deal at that time or let him walk.

The only reason to do a deal this early in the game and commit to all those years is to get some type of discount, which nobody believes they got.

 

[cheese]

At this point in his career, it seems like 200 IP for Cingrani would be wishful thinking even if they were allowing it. He has to get deeper into games to get there. Last season's IP per start translates to 172 IP if he takes every turn this season.

This is always my biggest concern with young pitchers. I can handle a guy getting shut down in September because there are always streaming options available. But pitchers on short pitch counts don't stick around long enough to earns wins or rack up big SO numbers.

Of all the Reds players, Cingrani is probably the one I'm more skeptical on than the national perception. He's still basically a 1 pitch pitcher that lives up in the zone. That is a bizarre way to pitch for a lefty starting pitcher. I honestly can't even think of anyone to compare it to. He has maintained a huge whiff rate his whole life with swinging strikes on high fastballs. That skill worked great in MLB last year, but I think it's a hard way to live and his margin for error is going to be small. I expect a high HR rate this year personally although I am hoping for the best as a Reds fan.

It's easy to say that he needs to go deeper in games, but he just does not have the arsenal to pitch to contact. He relies on fastballs just off the plate or just up to get almost all of his outs. I don't think he can be effective and try to be pitch efficient.

 

[RnR]

Sounds like a late-inning reliever in the making.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I don't think it's that bad a deal. There's obvious a pretty good chance the Tigers will be overpaying for his age 35-40 seasons, but with contract inflation over 10 years it might not even be that bad.

His age 35-40 seasons are 75% of the deal. He was already signed through his age 32 season.

To me, that's the key. If this were a ten year free agency deal, it would be excessive but understandable. He means a lot to the city and the fans, he's an amazing talent, you don't want to lose him to someone else's crazy bid. etc. But what are the chances that two years from now someone would want to sign him to a deal for $250 million? Seems unlikely. I can't remember anyone even signing a >$150 million dollar deal at that age other than A-Rod's hilarious deal. Miggy's a special talent so he wouldn't necessarily be constrained by previous deals, but he's also not the fittest guy in the world, hard to imagine he ages well.

I think about it like this - It's hard for me envision a scenario (barring unforeseen injury/suspension) over the next 5 seasons where the Tigers are better without Cabrera than with they are with him. The 5 after that are almost certainly going to be a bad deal for the team but 1) they're likely to get at least some productivity in years 6 and 7 and 2) contract inflation over 10 years will somewhat ease the effect of the sunk cost in the tail years.

As you point out he was already under contract for 2 of the first 5, so they have basically bought 3 additional years at the back end of his prime for 5 years of the contract being an increasing constraint on their overall competitiveness. That obviously doesn't seem like a good deal, and it's easy to question if they needed to do this extension now, but we don't know what was being communicated between the team and the player. Plus, if you look at the deal that Pujols got at age 32, it's highly likely Cabrera gets a similar length/value contract to this in 2 years.

So while I don't think there's any scenario in which you would call this a bargain for Detroit, I also think the people calling this a disaster for the team are being hyperbolic. The contract will be dead weight in the long run but is likely to be beneficial first, and in the long run we are all dead.

It's also hard for me to imagine a scenario over the next five years where the Tigers are better without Max Scherzer and Doug Fister than they are with them. If the Tigers hadn't pulled the trigger early on the Cabrera extension that might have had enough cash to keep Fister and extend Scherzer.

I didn't include Fielder in that statement because it's possible they'll be better off without him than with him if it turns out Castellanos is a stud and Kinsler retains his value from 32-35 (or that Fielder falls off a cliff), but i wouldn't want to be counting on those things.

Fister is 30, will be 32 in his first year under a new contract. Tigers believe Smyly is a better 2014 solution and that Porcello is the better long-term solution. He shouldn't be in this conversation, he's a slightly above average pitcher who the club thought had peaked.

Scherzer was as inconsistent as any pitcher in baseball three years ago, some Texas fan here was trying to tell us Colby Lewis was his equal for example. He had one very good year in 2012, and one outlier year in 2013. The Tigers offered him a six year deal that would have paid him $24 million a year, he wants 8 years. He also wants to be in Detroit but wants to test the market, so it isn't about money as much for Detroit as it is the years and the fact that Scherzer wants to test the market. If someone wants to give him eight years, then more power to them.

Re-signing Cabrera was an owner move, and he's the sixth richest owner in all of sports and about to be richer with his new Red Wings sports complex. He's in his 80s, and he wants to win. Dealing Fister is Dombrowski, dealing Fielder is a combo, but inking Verlander and Cabrera is Mr I. He's playing for the next few years and not having Cabrera in a Tigers uniform in 2016 was something he didn't want to deal with.

You also are looking at past results and predicting future returns, and with Cabrera that might not be appropriate. Pujols may rebound this year and be elite again, but he has had some nagging injuries the past two years. Saying Cabrera wouldn't get this type of deal in two years is presumptuous at best, he would likely get more from the Yankees or Dodgers if he repeats his last few years in 2014 and 2015. $30 million a year contracts will become more the norm for elite players, Trout, Harper, and others will all cash in. They could tear a knee or shoulder up in year two and be done, it's risky signing anyone to a deal like this.

Jacoby Ellsbury just got 7/$153mm from the Yankees at age 30. Joey Votto got a 10 year $225 mm contract two years ago, he's the same age as Cabrera. These contracts are becoming more the norm, and how they will all end is anyone's guess. Elite hitters can still be elite well into their 30s without steroids. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Musial, Speaker and others had very good years beyond 35. Those guys were all elite and consistent hitters, they weren't simply power guys.

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I don't think it's that bad a deal. There's obvious a pretty good chance the Tigers will be overpaying for his age 35-40 seasons, but with contract inflation over 10 years it might not even be that bad.

His age 35-40 seasons are 75% of the deal. He was already signed through his age 32 season.

To me, that's the key. If this were a ten year free agency deal, it would be excessive but understandable. He means a lot to the city and the fans, he's an amazing talent, you don't want to lose him to someone else's crazy bid. etc. But what are the chances that two years from now someone would want to sign him to a deal for $250 million? Seems unlikely. I can't remember anyone even signing a >$150 million dollar deal at that age other than A-Rod's hilarious deal. Miggy's a special talent so he wouldn't necessarily be constrained by previous deals, but he's also not the fittest guy in the world, hard to imagine he ages well.

I think about it like this - It's hard for me envision a scenario (barring unforeseen injury/suspension) over the next 5 seasons where the Tigers are better without Cabrera than with they are with him. The 5 after that are almost certainly going to be a bad deal for the team but 1) they're likely to get at least some productivity in years 6 and 7 and 2) contract inflation over 10 years will somewhat ease the effect of the sunk cost in the tail years.

As you point out he was already under contract for 2 of the first 5, so they have basically bought 3 additional years at the back end of his prime for 5 years of the contract being an increasing constraint on their overall competitiveness. That obviously doesn't seem like a good deal, and it's easy to question if they needed to do this extension now, but we don't know what was being communicated between the team and the player. Plus, if you look at the deal that Pujols got at age 32, it's highly likely Cabrera gets a similar length/value contract to this in 2 years.

So while I don't think there's any scenario in which you would call this a bargain for Detroit, I also think the people calling this a disaster for the team are being hyperbolic. The contract will be dead weight in the long run but is likely to be beneficial first, and in the long run we are all dead.

It's also hard for me to imagine a scenario over the next five years where the Tigers are better without Max Scherzer and Doug Fister than they are with them. If the Tigers hadn't pulled the trigger early on the Cabrera extension that might have had enough cash to keep Fister and extend Scherzer.

I didn't include Fielder in that statement because it's possible they'll be better off without him than with him if it turns out Castellanos is a stud and Kinsler retains his value from 32-35 (or that Fielder falls off a cliff), but i wouldn't want to be counting on those things.

I don't know that this move necessarily changes the outlook on Scherzer and Fister. Cabrera was already making 44M for the next two years and again, I think the NPV of his next contract if they waited two years is probably at least what the Tigers have just agreed to. If their plan is keep him as a central component of the team through the end of his prime, they have likely just exchanged some extra risk of him losing productivity earlier than expected due to injury or sudden decline for the risk of having him walk to the Yankees, or whoever else would be willing to pay comparable dollars at that time.

I should make it clear, I don't love the deal, but I think it's understandable/justifiable on those grounds and unlikely to be a "disaster" as I've seen it described.

 

[Eephus]

David Hernandez - torn UCL

He was hurt by the longball last year but was expected to play a key role in the Diamondbacks bullpen

 

[Eephus]

Jackie Bradley's poor spring won him an all expenses paid trip to Pawtucket.

 

[Eephus]

Michael Brantley or Austin Jackson

Do either of these guys (or both) break out this year?

I've passed on both of them in just about every league.

Brantley is okay, but doesn't seem to do anything good enough to warrant a lineup spot in all but the deepest of leagues.

Hits about .280, obp about .335, maybe 10 hrs, maybe 15 sb's, 70 rbis, 70 runs. I don't know if any of those categories will be exceed. Those stats to me are okay, but unless I have a starter hurt, I think there are always better options available.

Jackson is about the same, but because he strikes out way, way too much, he is probably not a good top of the order guy. And if he is not at the top of the order, he is not scoring nearly as many runs. He has shown a better aptitude on the basepaths to get 25-30 sb's which would make him rosterable, but the last two years he has only combined for 20 sb's. in my eyes, he's a pass. If he could ever have some better plate discipline he would be a better bet, imo, Even though he has cut down on the k's a bit, he still doesn't pass the eye test to me, I see way too many bad swings from this guy

I wouldn't want to tie up an OF slot with either one of these guys except for in a really deep league. Now if they could get MI eligibility, they'd be round 6 talent.

 

[Apple Jack]

What site is the FBG of baseball?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

I agree that it's well within reason that the Tigers get their money's worth out of the contract ... but I think it's almost inevitable that they spent more than they had to since it's almost impossible to imagine someone giving 8/$250 million to a 33 year old, which is essentially what this deal is since he was already under contract through 2015. And to me, that's the key- not are you getting value based on $/WAR or whatever you want to use, but are you needlessly spending resources that could be better spent elsewhere?

What I know is the Werth deal for my team, so I can compare it to that. It was similarly ridiculed when they signed it, but three years later the Nats are probably getting their money's worth in a lot of ways that outsiders may not get. He totally changed the team's culture. He struggled in the first year and with injuries but he's been a near-.400 OBP guy the last two years and got MVP votes last year despite missing a month. He singlehandedly gave the city its greatest baseball moment since 1924. They make a ton on Werth jerseys and fake beards and great promotions. Phillies fans hate him. Basically, everyone in DC loves him. And the deal obviously hasn't prevented the team from being competitive ... yet.

But they still are handcuffed by it. They haven't been able to extend Desmond and Zimmermann yet and probably won't be able to extend Zimmermann at this point. If they'd simply signed Werth for $1 more than the second-highest bidder they'd have a lot more cash on hand, and could possibly have extended those guys past age 30 a while ago.

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

I agree that it's well within reason that the Tigers get their money's worth out of the contract ... but I think it's almost inevitable that they spent more than they had to since it's almost impossible to imagine someone giving 8/$250 million to a 33 year old, which is essentially what this deal is since he was already under contract through 2015. And to me, that's the key- not are you getting value based on $/WAR or whatever you want to use, but are you needlessly spending resources that could be better spent elsewhere?

What I know is the Werth deal for my team, so I can compare it to that. It was similarly ridiculed when they signed it, but three years later the Nats are probably getting their money's worth in a lot of ways that outsiders may not get. He totally changed the team's culture. He struggled in the first year and with injuries but he's been a near-.400 OBP guy the last two years and got MVP votes last year despite missing a month. He singlehandedly gave the city its greatest baseball moment since 1924. They make a ton on Werth jerseys and fake beards and great promotions. Phillies fans hate him. Basically, everyone in DC loves him. And the deal obviously hasn't prevented the team from being competitive ... yet.

But they still are handcuffed by it. They haven't been able to extend Desmond and Zimmermann yet and probably won't be able to extend Zimmermann at this point. If they'd simply signed Werth for $1 more than the second-highest bidder they'd have a lot more cash on hand, and could possibly have extended those guys past age 30 a while ago.

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

In 2012, Pujols got a 10 year 240M, back loaded contract at age 32. Without doing the math I'd guess the NPV of the Pujols and Cabrera deals are pretty close. So I don't see how that's impossible to imagine at all. In fact I think the evidence suggests that the Tigers probably paid the market rate. The questionable part is more the timing and the fact that doing it early didn't get them a more team friendly deal.

 

[Eephus]

I'm trying to think of an example of a huge extension to avoid future free agency that worked out really well for the team. I'm talking about veteran superstars, not buying out arb years of younger guys. The three obvious points of reference are the A-Rod, Howard and Helton extensions but I'm probably missing some less disastrous ones.

 

[cheese]

I'm trying to think of an example of a huge extension to avoid future free agency that worked out really well for the team. I'm talking about veteran superstars, not buying out arb years of younger guys. The three obvious points of reference are the A-Rod, Howard and Helton extensions but I'm probably missing some less disastrous ones.

I don't know if paying $250M can ever work out REALLY well, but I know that if the Reds had not extended Votto, he'd be playing for another team right now and our offense would be borderline terrible.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

I agree that it's well within reason that the Tigers get their money's worth out of the contract ... but I think it's almost inevitable that they spent more than they had to since it's almost impossible to imagine someone giving 8/$250 million to a 33 year old, which is essentially what this deal is since he was already under contract through 2015. And to me, that's the key- not are you getting value based on $/WAR or whatever you want to use, but are you needlessly spending resources that could be better spent elsewhere?

What I know is the Werth deal for my team, so I can compare it to that. It was similarly ridiculed when they signed it, but three years later the Nats are probably getting their money's worth in a lot of ways that outsiders may not get. He totally changed the team's culture. He struggled in the first year and with injuries but he's been a near-.400 OBP guy the last two years and got MVP votes last year despite missing a month. He singlehandedly gave the city its greatest baseball moment since 1924. They make a ton on Werth jerseys and fake beards and great promotions. Phillies fans hate him. Basically, everyone in DC loves him. And the deal obviously hasn't prevented the team from being competitive ... yet.

But they still are handcuffed by it. They haven't been able to extend Desmond and Zimmermann yet and probably won't be able to extend Zimmermann at this point. If they'd simply signed Werth for $1 more than the second-highest bidder they'd have a lot more cash on hand, and could possibly have extended those guys past age 30 a while ago.

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

In 2012, Pujols got a 10 year 240M, back loaded contract at age 32. Without doing the math I'd guess the NPV of the Pujols and Cabrera deals are pretty close. So I don't see how that's impossible to imagine at all. In fact I think the evidence suggests that the Tigers probably paid the market rate. The questionable part is more the timing and the fact that doing it early didn't get them a more team friendly deal.

Pujols' contract came after his Age 31 season, with the deal starting in his Age 32 season. Cabrera's free agency would have arrived after his Age 33 season, with the new deal starting his Age 34 season. HUGE difference in terms of number of years at or near peak performance (although as the Angels are finding out, players often start dropping off quickly well before 34). Hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million to have a player for a deal that starts at age 34.

ETA: Actually I think this is off: this is his Age 31 season, so his free agency would arrive after his Age 32 season, a year earlier than I say above. So a little better. Still think it's hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million for a deal starting at age 33, especially given his body type and limitations on the field and the basepaths.

 

[Eephus]

I'm trying to think of an example of a huge extension to avoid future free agency that worked out really well for the team. I'm talking about veteran superstars, not buying out arb years of younger guys. The three obvious points of reference are the A-Rod, Howard and Helton extensions but I'm probably missing some less disastrous ones.

I don't know if paying $250M can ever work out REALLY well, but I know that if the Reds had not extended Votto, he'd be playing for another team right now and our offense would be borderline terrible.

The Reds got a significant discount on Votto's first two FA seasons. He doesn't shoot up to $20M until 2016. The end is a long ways away but there's at least the opportunity to the club to come out ahead on the WAR ledger during Votto's prime.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

I agree that it's well within reason that the Tigers get their money's worth out of the contract ... but I think it's almost inevitable that they spent more than they had to since it's almost impossible to imagine someone giving 8/$250 million to a 33 year old, which is essentially what this deal is since he was already under contract through 2015. And to me, that's the key- not are you getting value based on $/WAR or whatever you want to use, but are you needlessly spending resources that could be better spent elsewhere?

What I know is the Werth deal for my team, so I can compare it to that. It was similarly ridiculed when they signed it, but three years later the Nats are probably getting their money's worth in a lot of ways that outsiders may not get. He totally changed the team's culture. He struggled in the first year and with injuries but he's been a near-.400 OBP guy the last two years and got MVP votes last year despite missing a month. He singlehandedly gave the city its greatest baseball moment since 1924. They make a ton on Werth jerseys and fake beards and great promotions. Phillies fans hate him. Basically, everyone in DC loves him. And the deal obviously hasn't prevented the team from being competitive ... yet.

But they still are handcuffed by it. They haven't been able to extend Desmond and Zimmermann yet and probably won't be able to extend Zimmermann at this point. If they'd simply signed Werth for $1 more than the second-highest bidder they'd have a lot more cash on hand, and could possibly have extended those guys past age 30 a while ago.

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

In 2012, Pujols got a 10 year 240M, back loaded contract at age 32. Without doing the math I'd guess the NPV of the Pujols and Cabrera deals are pretty close. So I don't see how that's impossible to imagine at all. In fact I think the evidence suggests that the Tigers probably paid the market rate. The questionable part is more the timing and the fact that doing it early didn't get them a more team friendly deal.

Pujols' contract came after his Age 31 season, with the deal starting in his Age 32 season. Cabrera's free agency would have arrived after his Age 33 season, with the new deal starting his Age 34 season. HUGE difference in terms of number of years at or near peak performance (although as the Angels are finding out, players often start dropping off quickly well before 34). Hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million to have a player for a deal that starts at age 34.

ETA: Actually I think this is off: this is his Age 31 season, so his free agency would arrive after his Age 32 season, a year earlier than I say above. So a little better. Still think it's hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million for a deal starting at age 33, especially given his body type and limitations on the field and the basepaths.

2016 will be Cabrera's first year on the new contract and will be his age 33 season. So he's only offset one year from where Pujols was and the contract extension (minus vesting option years) would end after his year 40 season vs. 42 for Pujols. I haven't seen a breakdown of the salary by year for Cabrera, which would be required to calculate the NPV of the deals, but since we know Pujols' deal was heavily back-loaded they have to be close.

Of course, you can look at that and say the deals are just equally bad but it still doesn't mean that the Tigers overpaid vs. the market. It's just thinking that they could have used the money more efficiently elsewhere. The counter to that is the uncertainty of being able to replace Cabrera's likely production in his tail prime years. Just because you have the money to spend doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get comparable or better performance out of it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@Ken_Rosenthal: New drug agreement: As previously reported, 80 games for first offense, 162 for second, lifetime ban for third.

 

[dparker713]

I'm trying to think of an example of a huge extension to avoid future free agency that worked out really well for the team. I'm talking about veteran superstars, not buying out arb years of younger guys. The three obvious points of reference are the A-Rod, Howard and Helton extensions but I'm probably missing some less disastrous ones.

ARod was not an extension. He opted out (which voided the subsidy from the Rangers) and then resigned with the Yankees for more per season.

 

[dparker713]

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

Overall, the owners have been pocketing a higher and higher percentage of overall revenue, so these are really self-imposed artificial caps on spending.

 

[dparker713]

Are the tigers insane?

Cabrera should put Bobby Bonilla to shame with all the deferring that will need to be done with that contract.

He's the best hitter of your lifetime, he's worth twice what they are paying him for the next several years.

Top 5, yes. Best? Debatable. Should be the highest paid player in the game, IMO. But the duration scares me.

And not sure what's so funny about stating a fact.

Its not really debatable. Best hitter of recent vintage is Bonds and its not particularly close. 2001-2004 seasons are just ridiculous.

 

[Don Quixote]

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

Overall, the owners have been pocketing a higher and higher percentage of overall revenue, so these are really self-imposed artificial caps on spending.

Hardball Times had an interesting piece up today discussing that: http://www.hardballtimes.com/predicting-major-league-baseball-salary-growth/ The salaries/revenue graph shows the decline there.

 

[Eephus]

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

Overall, the owners have been pocketing a higher and higher percentage of overall revenue, so these are really self-imposed artificial caps on spending.

Hardball Times had an interesting piece up today discussing that: http://www.hardballtimes.com/predicting-major-league-baseball-salary-growth/ The salaries/revenue graph shows the decline there.

The assumption is that revenues will continue to trend up. A lot of the new money has come from increases in local television deals. There are two potential problems with that. First, that the regional sports networks will be able to set their price for their packages to the carriers. The second is that the teams are now locked into long-term deals (some very long) with the networks. All I know about the deals is what is made public so I don't know what kind of escalators are included. But if a team's cable deal runs into 2030, they could end up with unfavorable contract terms towards the end.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Will year 9 of the Cabrera contract be worth $29 million? Probably not, but what if year 7 is? At that point guys will be making more than $40 million a year at this rate, I think it's well within reason that the Tigers can get their money's worth out of this contract.

I agree that it's well within reason that the Tigers get their money's worth out of the contract ... but I think it's almost inevitable that they spent more than they had to since it's almost impossible to imagine someone giving 8/$250 million to a 33 year old, which is essentially what this deal is since he was already under contract through 2015. And to me, that's the key- not are you getting value based on $/WAR or whatever you want to use, but are you needlessly spending resources that could be better spent elsewhere?

What I know is the Werth deal for my team, so I can compare it to that. It was similarly ridiculed when they signed it, but three years later the Nats are probably getting their money's worth in a lot of ways that outsiders may not get. He totally changed the team's culture. He struggled in the first year and with injuries but he's been a near-.400 OBP guy the last two years and got MVP votes last year despite missing a month. He singlehandedly gave the city its greatest baseball moment since 1924. They make a ton on Werth jerseys and fake beards and great promotions. Phillies fans hate him. Basically, everyone in DC loves him. And the deal obviously hasn't prevented the team from being competitive ... yet.

But they still are handcuffed by it. They haven't been able to extend Desmond and Zimmermann yet and probably won't be able to extend Zimmermann at this point. If they'd simply signed Werth for $1 more than the second-highest bidder they'd have a lot more cash on hand, and could possibly have extended those guys past age 30 a while ago.

That's the problem- no matter how much a guy means to the fans and how much value he gives you on the dollar, anything you pay over market is money that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe this deal won't look way over market in two years, but considering how unlikely it is that it will be under market, why not wait and find out?

In 2012, Pujols got a 10 year 240M, back loaded contract at age 32. Without doing the math I'd guess the NPV of the Pujols and Cabrera deals are pretty close. So I don't see how that's impossible to imagine at all. In fact I think the evidence suggests that the Tigers probably paid the market rate. The questionable part is more the timing and the fact that doing it early didn't get them a more team friendly deal.

Pujols' contract came after his Age 31 season, with the deal starting in his Age 32 season. Cabrera's free agency would have arrived after his Age 33 season, with the new deal starting his Age 34 season. HUGE difference in terms of number of years at or near peak performance (although as the Angels are finding out, players often start dropping off quickly well before 34). Hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million to have a player for a deal that starts at age 34.

ETA: Actually I think this is off: this is his Age 31 season, so his free agency would arrive after his Age 32 season, a year earlier than I say above. So a little better. Still think it's hard to imagine anyone investing $250 million for a deal starting at age 33, especially given his body type and limitations on the field and the basepaths.

This is the second time you've said this but it is anecdotal at best. Cabrera has played 148 games or more in each of the last ten seasons, 157 or more in eight of those. EIGHT! His "body type" is big dude, he's not exactly fat he's just big and strong. He's one of the best baserunners I've ever seen, he will steal a base when guys aren't paying attention and he rarely makes mistakes on a batted ball. The one thing that is very underrated about Cabrera are his hands and his baseball IQ, which is very high. He's scored over 100 runs in four straight seasons, and being good on the basepaths is not necessarily related to speed. Yeah he's slow, but he's not Prince Fielder.

He's fine at 1B also, way better than the guy we had over there the last two years.

 

[Eephus]

Ten years is a long time

 

[Annyong]

Are the tigers insane?

Cabrera should put Bobby Bonilla to shame with all the deferring that will need to be done with that contract.

He's the best hitter of your lifetime, he's worth twice what they are paying him for the next several years.

Top 5, yes. Best? Debatable. Should be the highest paid player in the game, IMO. But the duration scares me.

And not sure what's so funny about stating a fact.

Its not really debatable. Best hitter of recent vintage is Bonds and its not particularly close. 2001-2004 seasons are just ridiculous.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Are the tigers insane?

Cabrera should put Bobby Bonilla to shame with all the deferring that will need to be done with that contract.

He's the best hitter of your lifetime, he's worth twice what they are paying him for the next several years.

Top 5, yes. Best? Debatable. Should be the highest paid player in the game, IMO. But the duration scares me.

And not sure what's so funny about stating a fact.

Its not really debatable. Best hitter of recent vintage is Bonds and its not particularly close. 2001-2004 seasons are just ridiculous.

I'm the biggest Bonds fan out there, he is not the natural hitter Cabrera or Pujols are. Bonds might have had the best eye though of anyone ever to play sans Williams and Ruth. His BB/K ratios were ridiculous even before the steroids. But take out those steroid years and his SLG percentage is similar to Cabrera and worse than Pujols, and his average was 30 points lower than those two.

Bonds is the best player in my lifetime, maybe in the last 60 years.

 

[the moops]

Cabrera is one of the best baserunners you have ever seen?

 

[Eephus]

Cabrera is one of the best baserunners you have ever seen?

He won't be in 2023

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Cabrera is one of the best baserunners you have ever seen?

I knew that would get you.

You and shady are the two most predictable posters, never fails.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think Cabrera could steal 40 bags a year, he just doesn't want to.

 

[the moops]

your homer Detroit shtick is a bit ridiculous at times good doctor.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

your homer Detroit shtick is a bit ridiculous at times good doctor.

Yeah, that's what they were saying a few years ago when I said Scherzer was gonna be a stud.

 

[MAC_32]

your homer Detroit shtick is a bit ridiculous at times good doctor.

every team needs guys like him, to be fair he is the same way with his other teams too. I like watching games with guys like him, blind optimism tastes good six beers deep.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

your homer Detroit shtick is a bit ridiculous at times good doctor.

every team needs guys like him, to be fair he is the same way with his other teams too. I like watching games with guys like him, blind optimism tastes good six beers deep.

Shouldn't you be in another thread being all butthurt about bombs on planes or because RnR took you to the woodshed again? Who the #### asked you anyway?

 

[the moops]

salty dd is a good dd

 

[MAC_32]

salty dd is a good dd

It's almost like I can see the vein bursting out of his forehead.

 

[Eephus]

salty dd is a good dd

It's almost like I can see the vein bursting out of his forehead.

A guy like that shouldn't be authorized to launch drone strikes

 

[Doctor Detroit]

salty dd is a good dd

It's almost like I can see the vein bursting out of his forehead.

Were you six beers in?

Take a look at the last two summers, I complain about the Tigers more than anyone. You being all butthurt yet again because I said you were an idiot for saying that you "evaluate trades at the moment they are made," is entertaining. I think I said something to you two years ago and you didn't come back to the thread. Just tell me what it was, I'll say it now hoping you lose your password to FBG.

 

[MAC_32]

You're an emotional fan, that isn't a bad thing, embrace it and stop fighting it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You're an emotional fan, that isn't a bad thing, embrace it and stop fighting it.

Guilty as charged, but I'm not a blind homer. I'm more optimistic than most at times, and more pessimistic than most at times. But I understand reality. Here is a good example.

 

[Billy Bats]

I just got an alert that says Trout is getting a 6/144 extension.

eta: Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 40s

As others have reported, exact numbers for Trout with #Angels are six years, $144.5M. Three a rbi years, three FA years. Free agent at 29.

 

[whoknew]

I just got an alert that says Trout is getting a 6/144 extension.

Saw that. Good deal for both sides.

 

[MAC_32]

salty dd is a good dd

It's almost like I can see the vein bursting out of his forehead.

Were you six beers in?Take a look at the last two summers, I complain about the Tigers more than anyone. You being all butthurt yet again because I said you were an idiot for saying that you "evaluate trades at the moment they are made," is entertaining. I think I said something to you two years ago and you didn't come back to the thread. Just tell me what it was, I'll say it now hoping you lose your password to FBG.

i have no idea what you are talking about but I just checked out the link. I think it shows exactly what I'm talking about. You are an emotional fan, I am even keeled. Probably to a fault. I didn't like what was going on in August, but I wasn't surprised and wasn't freaking out about it either. I thought we would still be there in October then you never know.I like watching games with people like you as it brings out more of the fan in me, but it doesn't change who I am and how I think. I mean if my team does something dumb I will go ape ####, see Brandon Weeden, but if it is debatable...I am definitely more conservative, for better or worse. There is a legit argument this is a bad contract, and it could be, but I think we will survive as long as Mr. I is living. My worry creeps up if he kicks it in the next couple years then Miggy hits the wall, could be a painful half decade if all the wrong things happen.

 

[Eephus]

Lincecum was hit by a comebacker on the back of the knee. X-rays are negative but his start on Thursday is in question.

 

[MAC_32]

Lincecum was hit by a comebacker on the back of the knee. X-rays are negative but his start on Thursday is in question.

####

 

[scoobus]

More pitching injuries this spring than normal?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Lincecum was hit by a comebacker on the back of the knee. X-rays are negative but his start on Thursday is in question.

It's possible this knocks some sense into him.

 

[dparker713]

More pitching injuries this spring than normal?

Seems that way, but it may just be the injuries are to more prominent pitchers.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

salty dd is a good dd

It's almost like I can see the vein bursting out of his forehead.

Were you six beers in?Take a look at the last two summers, I complain about the Tigers more than anyone. You being all butthurt yet again because I said you were an idiot for saying that you "evaluate trades at the moment they are made," is entertaining. I think I said something to you two years ago and you didn't come back to the thread. Just tell me what it was, I'll say it now hoping you lose your password to FBG.

i have no idea what you are talking about but I just checked out the link. I think it shows exactly what I'm talking about. You are an emotional fan, I am even keeled. Probably to a fault. I didn't like what was going on in August, but I wasn't surprised and wasn't freaking out about it either. I thought we would still be there in October then you never know.I like watching games with people like you as it brings out more of the fan in me, but it doesn't change who I am and how I think. I mean if my team does something dumb I will go ape ####, see Brandon Weeden, but if it is debatable...I am definitely more conservative, for better or worse. There is a legit argument this is a bad contract, and it could be, but I think we will survive as long as Mr. I is living. My worry creeps up if he kicks it in the next couple years then Miggy hits the wall, could be a painful half decade if all the wrong things happen.

I agree with that, but I'm not a blind homer which is what you accused me of.

It's all good, my apologies for getting emotional about it.