Spring Training

[burlingtonbandit]

To clarify....is he saying he won't tact on a 4th year "player option" to a contract. Or is he saying he won't allow an "opt-out" clause in a contract.....errr both.

 

In reference to all of the opt out contracts this year. He slightly backtracked saying there could be a scenario where it would makes sense.

[Brownie19]

Nope.

 

I'm actually pretty excited about a 'no player option' policy. Those contracts are terrible for the team.

 

I think there are scenario when this is a win for the team. Grienke is 32 and wants a 6 year deal with an opt out after 3 years. You give him 6 years, $180M and he pitches great for the first 3 years (you get your value out of him), he opts out and then let some other team get stuck with the declining/overpaid stage of his career.

 

The team never would have gotten him to sign 3 years, $90M without the opt out, but if he pitches good - they get a steal while avoiding the decline.

 

Obviously the flip side is if he sucks - you're stuck with him long term (perhaps you shouldn't have signed him in the first place).

[burlingtonbandit]

I think there are scenario when this is a win for the team. Grienke is 32 and wants a 6 year deal with an opt out after 3 years. You give him 6 years, $180M and he pitches great for the first 3 years (you get your value out of him), he opts out and then let some other team get stuck with the declining/overpaid stage of his career.

 

The team never would have gotten him to sign 3 years, $90M without the opt out, but if he pitches good - they get a steal while avoiding the decline.

 

Obviously the flip side is if he sucks - you're stuck with him long term (perhaps you shouldn't have signed him in the first place).

 

It makes sense if the value in the short term outweighs the risk of being stuck with the entire contract but with the deals we have seen that really hasn't happened. Maybe Heyward but when you are getting into multiple opt outs all of the risk is on the team.

[BTS]

I think there are scenario when this is a win for the team. Grienke is 32 and wants a 6 year deal with an opt out after 3 years. You give him 6 years, $180M and he pitches great for the first 3 years (you get your value out of him), he opts out and then let some other team get stuck with the declining/overpaid stage of his career.

 

The team never would have gotten him to sign 3 years, $90M without the opt out, but if he pitches good - they get a steal while avoiding the decline.

 

Obviously the flip side is if he sucks - you're stuck with him long term (perhaps you shouldn't have signed him in the first place).

 

There's really only downside there. In the above scenario there are two likely outcomes:

 

1) He pitches well, and opts out because he thinks he can do better than the remaining 3/90 on his contract. The team loses an ace pitcher on a palatable contract (that presumably has some trade value).

 

2) He sucks, and doesn't use the opt-out. The team is stuck with an albatross.

[flafson]

 

Called it yesterday:

 

Feels like it's the 10th player this season that retires because of us... Some bad karma going around the clubhouse.

[Brownie19]

There's really only downside there. In the above scenario there are two likely outcomes:

 

1) He pitches well, and opts out because he thinks he can do better than the remaining 3/90 on his contract. The team loses an ace pitcher on a palatable contract (that presumably has some trade value).

 

2) He sucks, and doesn't use the opt-out. The team is stuck with an albatross.

 

The Dodgers got an ace for 3 years and then Greinke opted out. The Diamondbacks might get an ace for 1-2 years, and average, overpaid pitcher for 2-3 years and a bad, overpaid pitcher for 1-2 years.

 

IMO - this wasn't all bad for the Dodgers.

 

I just see the "end" of all these contracts as a nightmare for more teams - but a necessity (they have to be willing to eat it) to get the FA to sign with them. If there's a way to get fair value for the first 2-3 years of the contract and then let him leave and sign elsewhere (letting that team pay him for his decline) - I'm all for it (provided I'm willing to take the risk he may opt to spend his declining years on my team).

[KingKat]

The Dodgers got an ace for 3 years and then Greinke opted out. The Diamondbacks might get an ace for 1-2 years, and average, overpaid pitcher for 2-3 years and a bad, overpaid pitcher for 1-2 years.

 

IMO - this wasn't all bad for the Dodgers.

 

I just see the "end" of all these contracts as a nightmare for more teams - but a necessity (they have to be willing to eat it) to get the FA to sign with them. If there's a way to get fair value for the first 2-3 years of the contract and then let him leave and sign elsewhere (letting that team pay him for his decline) - I'm all for it (provided I'm willing to take the risk he may opt to spend his declining years on my team).

 

And the alternative to the opt out is probably a longer contract not a shorter one so I don't see the downside at all.

[flafson]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

[burlingtonbandit]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

 

What? Thats like saying if you were one of the best accountants or programmers in your field you should only make 120k/year even if you were worth 200k. Obviously the players are worth these salaries otherwise teams wouldn't be paying them.

[BTS]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

 

Why would you prefer that owners make even more money than they already do?

[BlueJayWay]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

MLB can't unilaterally impose a salary cap. It's something that's collectively bargained and the union in baseball is very strong.

 

I disagree with saying they're not worth it. If the market says they are, then they are.

[Angrioter]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

 

The business is generating a lot of money, and the more money the business generates, the more money employees should receive. Simple.

 

The price or salary of a player isn't determined by his age, production, charisma, body, etc. The salary or value$ of a player is determined by amount of the check. If the dBacks/Stewart thinks that Jose value is 34 millions by year, then Jose value is 34M by year.

[Governator]

I honestly don't know why MLB doesn't put caps on salaries like they do in other sports.

It's ridiculous that a player makes over 30M per year these days. None of them are worth it, just cap it to ~20M and be done with it.

They all have huge sponsorship contracts anyway, it's not like they need that extra money, it's just about showing everyone else that you get the most.

 

 

Why? That just means owners can reap bigger profits and care less about the on field product. What they need is a better way to help fund low budget teams but capping everyone to $150MM or $20MM contracts isn't going to do that. If they lowered the luxury tax a bit more and used some of the new money from it to support the bottom feeders of the league I think it could help. Regardless, at the end of the day MLB has a lot of parity in the sport right now and stars should be paid accordingly.

 

What the MLB should do is limit the amount of years a contract can be guaranteed but not the money of said contract. 10+ years is just absurd.

[Orgfiller]

The business is generating a lot of money, and the more money the business generates, the more money employees should receive. Simple.

 

The price or salary of a player isn't determined by his age, production, charisma, body, etc. The salary or value$ of a player is determined by amount of the check. If the dBacks/Stewart thinks that Jose value is 34 millions by year, then Jose value is 34M by year.

 

I'd say this is exactly what determines the price/value of a player. If Prince Fielder, Bautista and Heyward (cheating I know) go on the market tomorrow, you know who's getting the most money.

[flafson]

MLB can't unilaterally impose a salary cap. It's something that's collectively bargained and the union in baseball is very strong.

 

I disagree with saying they're not worth it. If the market says they are, then they are.

 

I don't believe this environment is an actual free market environment.

[Sammy225]

The business is generating a lot of money, and the more money the business generates, the more money employees should receive. Simple.

 

The price or salary of a player isn't determined by his age, production, charisma, body, etc. The salary or value$ of a player is determined by amount of the check. If the dBacks/Stewart thinks that Jose value is 34 millions by year, then Jose value is 34M by year.

 

Don't use DBacks/Stewart in an argument you loose a lot of credibility lol

[Angrioter]

I'd say this is exactly what determines the price/value of a player. If Prince Fielder, Bautista and Heyward (cheating I know) go on the market tomorrow, you know who's getting the most money.

 

Do you know what's the Greinke's value?

Answer is: 206.5M

[Orgfiller]

Do you know what's the Greinke's value?

Answer is: 206.5M

Greinke is a really good pitcher. Dave Stewart is a really bad GM. Greinke is likely not worth that much. Alex Rodriguez is not worth $20M right now, and Josh Hamilton sure as hell isn't worth $30M.

[RealAccountant]

Huh? Shapiro isn't the GM.. He even said on the radio he was impressed with the moves Atkins made shoring up depth implying he didn't really have any part in those deals.

 

 

Shapiro president n GM

 

Atkins admin assistant

[Angrioter]

Greinke is a really good pitcher. Dave Stewart is a really bad GM. Greinke is likely not worth that much. Alex Rodriguez is not worth $20M right now, and Josh Hamilton sure as hell isn't worth $30M.

 

Then blame the FO and owners.

[GD]

Do you know what's the Greinke's value?

Answer is: 206.5M

 

free agency != rational market

[Orgfiller]

Then blame the FO and owners.

 

We do blame the FO...we blame them for (vastly) overpaying players past their market value.

[Angrioter]

free agency != rational market

 

Stewart to the owner "Hey Boss, can i give 206.5 millions of your 99999999999999999 millions to an old pitcher called Greinke?"

 

Owner to Stewart "Another fat Cuban?"

 

Stewart to the owner "NO. He's a white gringo"

 

Owner to Stewart "OK. Bring that white ass to Arizona"

[Angrioter]

We do blame the FO...we blame them for (vastly) overpaying players past their market value.

 

The market value is a myth.

The market value depend of the past contracts.

 

$WAR with depends of: Greinke, Price, Heyward, Cespedes and next year Jose 28 AAV.

[GD]

Stewart to the owner "Hey Boss, can i give 206.5 millions of your 99999999999999999 millions to an old pitcher called Greinke?"

 

Owner to Stewart "Another fat Cuban?"

 

Stewart to the owner "NO. He's a white gringo"

 

Owner to Stewart "OK. Bring that white ass to Arizona"

 

ang

 

what

[Brownie19]

Why would you prefer that owners make even more money than they already do?

 

It's like he doesn't understand this concept. Unfortunately - he's not the only one. I hear this a lot. They probably think the kid selling popcorn (who has no unique or valuable skill) should be making $40/hr instead of giving the players more.

[glory]

AJ Jimenez is being showcased for the Astros today according to some Houston writer on Twitter. Wonder if they have another JD Martinez they don't appreciate.

[Boxcar]

AJ Jimenez is being showcased for the Astros today according to some Houston writer on Twitter. Wonder if they have another JD Martinez they don't appreciate.

 

Preston Tucker, Tyler White

[BTS]

Why is a team with Josh Thole and Humberto Quintero as their catching depth looking to trade AJ Jimenez?

[burlingtonbandit]

Why is a team with Josh Thole and Humberto Quintero as their catching depth looking to trade AJ Jimenez?

 

Because he is out of options and won't make the team. Pretty simple lol