Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2017-18 Hot Stove League Thread: Peter Bourjos & Ryan Flaherty are signs the end is near


Recommended Posts

And anyone arguing for Moose getting paid needs their ####### head examined. Never played 150 games in a season and the guy's gotten north of a 2WAR twice in his career. He still mathed out at 1.8 despite a completely flukeish 38 jacks last year.

Yeah, I'm really hoping my team is forking over :moneybag: and picks for that guy.

Same goes for Darvish and Arrieta. Declining stats, north of 30. Injury history on Darvish. Want to blame the CBA on SPs going deep falling out of favor in the modern game and an increased emphasis on relief pitching?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 674
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Will Jeter be giving gift baskets to all 19 remaining Marlins fans?

I'm gonna sign Mike Moustakas to just kind of hang out on my couch.

On 2/5/2018 at 10:14 PM, shadyridr said:

Mets making some great moves this off-season. Who woulda thunk it?

Still will fight to get third place in the division.  I agree with you though, the Mets have done well this offseason.  Frazier for only two years at $17 MM is fantastic.  Adds some meat to the lineup and solidifies the left side of the infield (hated to see the Mets repeat the fiasco at third from last year) and, he's supposedly a very good clubhouse guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rodg12 said:

Free Agents after 4 years of team control if the owners insist on keeping the current status quo relative to luxury tax, amateur spending caps and the like.  Oh, and we're going to need a salary floor as well that increases at the same rate as the luxury tax.

pipe dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owners and front offices are upsetting the apple cart.  Before, it was basically agreed that the peanuts of $ the players get relative to their value would be compensated when they finally did hit the open market.  Take a flawed player like Moose that Limp Ditka railed on.  He's been worth $90 million to the Royals in his time there.  Paid out $24 million though.  Alex Cobb, $78 million to $18 million.  Even Yu Darvish $141 million to his $50 million contract.  The agreement was that a team would compensate them on the open market for that value lost.  Now, the owners are saying eff that. Owners want their cake of having cheap controlled talent for 6 years and then eat it too by not paying FAs after their control ends.  Players should just accept this and go on about their merry way?  GTFOH.  Fundamental change needs to happen. Sick and tired of seeing so many people argue in favor of the billionaire owners instead of the players that actually put the product on the field that we all love.  They deserve their cut.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the players not getting their cut?  

JD Martinez is getting sick of the Red Sox offering him 5 years, $125 million dollar contract because he wants a 7 year, $210 million dollar contract.

Martinez will be 31 this year.  WTF in their right mind is gonna pay a mid-30's player $25-$30 million per year?  Martinez had a great last few seasons, but that's not the Red Sox, or any other potential suitors fault that he did not get paid.  They are paying for FUTURE ####### returns.  He's been about a 4.0 - 4.5 WAR player the last few years.  That's tremendous.  Not top 10 in the league tremendous, but he sure as hell wants to get paid better than these guys - how many players are getting paid $25M+ per year?  Maybe 15 or so, including the likes of  Jason Heyward, Yoenis Cespedes, and 38 year old Albert Pujols who hasn't put together a 4.0 WAR season since he was 32 ####### years old.

OMG the owners are smarting up and not bending over to the agents demands???  No way.  

I'm not by any means feeling sorry for billionaire owners, but I'm sure as #### not feeling sorry for this players that are complaining about the unGodly amounts of money they are getting paid as it is.  

And as a fan of a particular team it's wise, shrewd, downright smart of the owners to try to keep costs down on younger talent and fill in with some higher priced free agents to make a TITLE run, i.e. Astros, Houston.  Royals, Kansas City.  Fans care about titles, not how much players get paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, guru_007 said:

1 - Where are the players not getting their cut?  

2 - And as a fan of a particular team it's wise, shrewd, downright smart of the owners to try to keep costs down on younger talent and fill in with some higher priced free agents to make a TITLE run, i.e. Astros, Houston.  Royals, Kansas City.  Fans care about titles, not how much players get paid.

1 - The first 10 years of their careers.

2 - Yes, that's how they want you to think and not think about the hundreds of millions the owners make every year on the backs of those younger players making 500K. It's "smart" of the owners but it's an unfair system that makes it possible. Players were willing to look past it knowing there was a big pay day at the end but it you take that away, the whole system falls apart.

I don't understand how people can seemingly advocate for the free market determining what players value is once they're 32 years old without recognizing that the free market had no bearing on how they were paid the 10 years before and that they were systematically underpaid for those years to the owners benefit as a result.

Edited by Northern Voice
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

1 - The first 10 years of their careers.

2 - Yes, that's how they want you to think and not think about the hundreds of millions the owners make every year on the backs of those younger players making 500K. It's "smart" of the owners but it's an unfair system that makes it possible. Players were willing to look past it knowing there was a big pay day at the end but it you take that away, the whole system falls apart.

I don't understand how people can seemingly advocate for the free market determining what players value is once they're 32 years old without recognizing that the free market had no bearing on how they were paid the 10 years before and that they were systematically underpaid for those years to the owners benefit as a result.

You seem to be under the impression that the 40 man roster is the only expense these MLB teams have

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northern Voice said:

1 - The first 10 years of their careers.

2 - Yes, that's how they want you to think and not think about the hundreds of millions the owners make every year on the backs of those younger players making 500K. It's "smart" of the owners but it's an unfair system that makes it possible. Players were willing to look past it knowing there was a big pay day at the end but it you take that away, the whole system falls apart.

I don't understand how people can seemingly advocate for the free market determining what players value is once they're 32 years old without recognizing that the free market had no bearing on how they were paid the 10 years before and that they were systematically underpaid for those years to the owners benefit as a result.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any MLB player is underpaid after 5 years of their career.  The average U.S. household salary is about $55K. 

The MIMIMUM an MLB player makes is $550K.  

They are all overpaid ####s.  Do the owners make gobs of money, sure they do, but so do CEO's of most major corporations.  

And to say the players aren't making their BIG PAY DAY is lunacy.  Look at what a MLB player made 25 years ago vs. today.  Journeymen are making fortunes.  Cry my a river for the free agents today that are not getting paid more than they deserve because their agents said so.  Superstars should get paid superstar money and I think they still do.  I don't see Kershaw or Trout crying.  I doubt Bryce Harper is going to be upset his next pay day.  Good players should make good money and they damn well do.  Just because you don't think the numbers add up, that's why it's a market system.  

It's funny because this argument makes it sound like there is communism running amok in MLB.  And about 30 years ago, fans were crying for the exact opposite reason in that big market teams (i.e. Steinbrenner's Yankees) were able to pay more then mid market/small market teams and assemble the best talent by overpaying.  Now these players are not getting overpaid and they're crying all over again.  Let's just throw stupid money at everyone!

Edited by guru_007
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, guru_007 said:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any MLB player is underpaid after 5 years of their career.  The average U.S. household salary is about $55K. 

The MIMIMUM an MLB player makes is $550K.  

The average worker doesn't generate billions in revenue. If that's the path you're going to go down, it's over before it starts. I get that it's arguing about millionaires vs. billionaires but the concepts of any other industry are still in play. I'm arguining in favour of the free market/capitalism determining what the players are worth, you're the one who seems okay with the owners communist inspired everyone gets X for the first 8 years with minimal opportunity (arbitration) to actually get their fair market worth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

The average worker doesn't generate billions in revenue. If that's the path you're going to go down, it's over before it starts. I get that it's arguing about millionaires vs. billionaires but the concepts of any other industry are still in play. I'm arguining in favour of the free market/capitalism determining what the players are worth, you're the one who seems okay with the owners communist inspired everyone gets X for the first 8 years with minimal opportunity (arbitration) to actually get their fair market worth.

I think it's folly to try to put a number on what x player generates, even if you want to use a nice metric such as WAR.  In every sport, a lot of the revenue that is generated is done so through television contracts.  

The players have a union in place to fight for their rights.  They have plenty of privilege.  I am very okay with the owners becoming more fiscally responsible when handing out contracts because let's face it, they run ALL of the risk in the event that their team turns ####, fans stop coming out and spending money and then they are on the hook for these gargantuan guaranteed contracts to under performing players.

I think the biggest disconnect here is that the remaining free agents, in my eyes, are asking for sums of money that are ludicrous considering their skill set.  JD Martinez is a nice player.  $20M/year for 5 years is a great salary. Nope, not even close to good enough.  Alex Cobb is a nice pitcher, not much of a track record and on the wrong side of 30, but a pitcher I'd be willing to take a chance on as an owner for say 3 years $36Million. NOPE, not ####### good enough for him.  Honestly, I also think a bigger issue is the agents.  They cannot get clients if they routinely have players that accept contracts which are perceived as undervalued, so they fight with unrealistic expectations for their clients.  They don't generate billions for baseball owners, they generate millions for themselves.  Maybe the players union should look into that.

Edited by guru_007
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, guru_007 said:

I think it's folly to try to put a number on what x player generates, even if you want to use a nice metric such as WAR.  In every sport, a lot of the revenue that is generated is done so through television contracts.  

The players have a union in place to fight for their rights.  They have plenty of privilege.  I am very okay with the owners becoming more fiscally responsible when handing out contracts because let's face it, they run ALL of the risk in the even that their team turns ####, fans stop coming out and spending money and then they are on the hook for these gargantuan guaranteed contracts to under performing players.

I think the biggest disconnect here is that the remaining free agents, in my eyes, are asking for sums of money that are ludicrous considering their skill set.  JD Martinez is a nice player.  $20M/year for 5 years is a great salary. Nope, not good enough.  Alex Cobb is a nice pitcher, not much of a track record and on the wrong side of 30, but a pitcher I'd be willing to take a chance on as an owner for say 3 years $36Million. NOPE, not ####### good enough for him.  Honestly, I also think a bigger issue is the agents.  They cannot get clients if they routinely have players that accept contracts which are perceived as undervalued, so they fight with unrealistic expectations for their clients.  They don't generate billions for baseball owners, they generate millions for themselves.  Maybe the players union should look into that.

It is not a free market system for the players for their first several years in the league. Their salaries are artificially held down. Do you disagree with this point?

If you don't disagree with that point, don't you see where it becomes unfair to the players when they finally are part of a free market system at age 32 and after having their salaries held down that entire time are now told "aging curve", "wrong side of 30".  More than 3/36 for Alex Cobb at this point may very well be a "bad" deal to make but you paid him

  • 480K in 2012 when he was worth 2.2 WAR
  • 502K in 2013 when he was worth 2.5 WAR
  • 517K in 2014 when he was worth 2.8 WAR
  • 4M in 2017 when he was worth 2.4 WAR

He made 4M in 2015/16 when he was injured so he's made some back, but in all, he's made 14M for 10 wins. He's been worth roughly 70M, so even if he gets 3/36 and flames out, he has been underpaid relative to what he would probably have made had he been subject to a free or even free-er market earlier in his career.

I think it's completely unfair to significantly underpay players for their younger (and now we know younger = peak) years and then when they're 32, decide not to pay them citing "market says that's what they're worth". 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Voice, we are never going to see eye to eye on this issue.   It was collectively bargained and agreed upon that the first few years of a ball players career were under club control, yes.  By the same token, when players are drafted highly, they are given signing bonuses.  Frankly, I'm too lazy to look up these bonuses, but do you think the hundreds of players that get these bonuses but never live up to their lofty expectations should pay these bonuses back?  Of course not.

And by the same token, I don't feel that any club owes Alex Cobb anything for previous years when he outperformed his salary.  Who's to say in 2020 when he is 33 years old, he has a -1.2 WAR and is getting paid $12.5 million, should he give back his current club 1/2 his salary because he is no longer much good?  Of course not.

Maybe club control could be shortened slightly, but again, these players are still getting paid huge sums of money so my heart doesn't bleed for them one bit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, guru_007 said:

Northern Voice, we are never going to see eye to eye on this issue.   It was collectively bargained and agreed upon that the first few years of a ball players career were under club control, yes.  By the same token, when players are drafted highly, they are given signing bonuses.  Frankly, I'm too lazy to look up these bonuses, but do you think the hundreds of players that get these bonuses but never live up to their lofty expectations should pay these bonuses back?  Of course not.

And by the same token, I don't feel that any club owes Alex Cobb anything for previous years when he outperformed his salary.  Who's to say in 2020 when he is 33 years old, he has a -1.2 WAR and is getting paid $12.5 million, should he give back his current club 1/2 his salary because he is no longer much good?  Of course not.

Maybe club control could be shortened slightly, but again, these players are still getting paid huge sums of money so my heart doesn't bleed for them one bit.

 

Agree to disagree, I guess. The owners want people to think exactly like you do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, guru_007 said:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any MLB player is underpaid after 5 years of their career.  The average U.S. household salary is about $55K. 

The MIMIMUM an MLB player makes is $550K.  

 

This is next level dumb.  Please remove guru from your username and ban yourself from the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, guru_007 said:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any MLB player is underpaid after 5 years of their career.  The average U.S. household salary is about $55K. 

The MIMIMUM an MLB player makes is $550K.  

They are all overpaid ####s.  Do the owners make gobs of money, sure they do, but so do CEO's of most major corporations.  

And to say the players aren't making their BIG PAY DAY is lunacy.  Look at what a MLB player made 25 years ago vs. today.  Journeymen are making fortunes.  Cry my a river for the free agents today that are not getting paid more than they deserve because their agents said so.  Superstars should get paid superstar money and I think they still do.  I don't see Kershaw or Trout crying.  I doubt Bryce Harper is going to be upset his next pay day.  Good players should make good money and they damn well do.  Just because you don't think the numbers add up, that's why it's a market system.  

It's funny because this argument makes it sound like there is communism running amok in MLB.  And about 30 years ago, fans were crying for the exact opposite reason in that big market teams (i.e. Steinbrenner's Yankees) were able to pay more then mid market/small market teams and assemble the best talent by overpaying.  Now these players are not getting overpaid and they're crying all over again.  Let's just throw stupid money at everyone!

when did they let you out of mayberry?  are you accessing this site on the public library computer?  I've haven't heard this level of turnip truck rube drivel in a long time

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Joe Girardi did not seem all that enthused with his new gig on MLB Network. I would imagine it is a bit of a shock to the central nervous system to go from filling out a lineup card with Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton to having to share screen time with Billy Ripken. 

That's his normal personality

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Limp Ditka said:

Mike Lowell just mentioned that no one's going to be crying about someone making $17m over 2 years when talking about the Todd Frazier deal. Then I laughed thinking about some of the people in here

:shrug:

Anecdotal evidence means nothing.  Frazier contract is solid.  Doesn't mean that the whole of FA this offseason has been fair or that the way players are compensated right now is a fair system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, rodg12 said:

:shrug:

Anecdotal evidence means nothing.  Frazier contract is solid.  Doesn't mean that the whole of FA this offseason has been fair or that the way players are compensated right now is a fair system.

While the MLB big league team gets the lowest % of sport related income among the big 4, MLB franchises probably have the most expenses when it comes to maintaining their organization. Guaranteed contracts, more travel, 80 home games, 5 levels of minor leagues (yes some of these expenses are handled by the farm team themselves, but there's still a cost), etc.

I'm not going to argue that these guys shouldn't hit FA earlier. Not getting rid of a year of arb was the first thing I laid at the MLBPAs feet when I said there was an argument for the deal being bad, but they're also partially to blame for not keeping their house clean during the PED years and expanding the prime years and lifespan of their members.

Edited by Limp Ditka
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Premier said:

Yes, but they have to get funding. 

And for the record I think they get the funding. I think they already have a deal done tbh. Too much money at stake -- even for St. Pete. Once they demolish the Trop that site is worth a fortune. Nobody wants to keep the dome on there for another 10 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2018 at 7:15 PM, rodg12 said:

Rays announcing a move to Tampa and a new stadium site by Ybor City?

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/rays-announcing-move-tampa-mlb-st-petersburg-mlb-ybor/17nvnhcmttg8t1iwe92rorablr

@Capella / @Premier can you confirm? Big news for them if so!

Killer parties at Rays games :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care that only two people will get this reference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northern Voice said:

Killer parties at Rays games :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care that only two people will get this reference.

Would be a lot of fun. Really hope it happens. Since it's in Tampa I don't really give a #### how how they fund it. I'm good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...