Jump to content
Kevin Gausman takes the bump against the Guardians! Come join the discussion! ×
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

KingKat

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,529

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Toronto Blue Jays Videos

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking

Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KingKat

  1. KingKat
    How did Lake end up on the roster? Did they just randomly decide to swap out Ceciliani for him?
  2. KingKat
    Giddy up! I'd gladly drop Enciarte for Burns.
  3. KingKat
    yes
  4. KingKat
    How did you guess the name of my home heating and venting themed Def Leppard cover band?
  5. KingKat
    Not sure why you say this. They aren't that different from Loup's (611 OPS against versus Loup's 582).
  6. KingKat
    That's questionable at best. Girodo has no real track record and Loup's four seamer is s*** this year. http://www.fangraphs.com/fgraphs/10343_P_FT_20160614.png
  7. KingKat
    Not good is relative. He should be an effective loogie.
  8. KingKat
  9. KingKat
    That took me way longer to parse than I'd like to admit.
  10. KingKat
    Soft hands and and a big bat are the way to his heart.
  11. KingKat
    Jon Gray does not actually look like Syndergaard.
  12. KingKat
    England always gets WAY more attention than their squad actually merits. The announcing in today's game was just ridiculous. You would have thought Iceland had defeated defending world champions Germany instead of a mediocre transitional England squad. Don't get me wrong though. This was a super exciting moment for Iceland. A quarter-final birth in a first ever major tournament is an awesome, historic feat enhanced rather than diminished by the fact that it's not a fluke.
  13. KingKat
    Yeah pretty historic win though it should be noted this England side was shite and Iceland was good enough to bump the Netherlands right out of the tournament. This was an upset in terms of the history and size of the two countries but the better team won.
  14. KingKat
    Ice to see you England!
  15. KingKat
    Your bust / doesn't bust dichotomy doesn't work. What are the last years of "don't bust" scenario really worth? My guess is not that much. I think you should feel perfectly fine with pocketing the best years and moving on. You're just assuming that because the front end looked good, the back end will look good but the back end is usually where you sacrifice value in order to get value at the front end. If the player wants to take you off the hook for that, just let him. You still go the best years anyways.
  16. KingKat
    I mean at this point, the only way to settle the argument would be a rigorous statistical analysis but yeah I think even if you limit the sample to contracts that look good in the first two years, most contracts en up looking bad by the end because of things like sudden decline, injury, etc. Bautista is a weird scenario though because his contract is really, really small for a 5 year contract. Usually those are like 20 millions per which makes the odds of surplus value much lower. That's an outlier contract.
  17. KingKat
    No I don't have proof. It certainly seems that way when I watch them. Is your experience different?
  18. KingKat
    No.
  19. KingKat
    You would have been stuck with those lousy players regardless of whether you gave them the opt out so I hardly see why that matters nor why everyone brings it up. And you wouldn't lose the good players. You'd just have them for less time which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's arguably better.
  20. KingKat
    That's not the point. They are the best at it. Have been for years.
  21. KingKat
    Not going to lie, I kind of felt like Boxy's improvements were being a bit overrated compared to mine. Not that we don't both suck of course.
  22. KingKat
    I don't think this is a correct assumption. Just because the players didn't bust initially doesn't mean they are sure to provide value at the end of the contract. It's likely that several of them wouldn't in which case it becomes someone else's problem which is a win. Fact is you get the best years of the contract for less overall commitment. That's a deal you would do every time if it were possible initially. You're not going to end up with more dead money doing this. The bad contracts will still be the bad contracts and the good ones will be shorter which is also good because it mitigates the risk of them going bad midstream. It's win-win. The optics make it looks like it's only beneficial to the player but it's also beneficial to the team.
  23. KingKat
    Why you you have more dead money? You'd commit to the front end of the deal either way. In some cases, you would lose the back end. Why would that mean you have more dead money? If anything it would occasionally save you from dead money.
  24. KingKat
    They wouldn't but that doesn't matter. It's still beneficial to the team to have them.
  25. KingKat
    Yeah well taking the two best seasons off a long term contract and shaving the rest is a no brainer. That's why I'm 100% in favour of player opt outs.
×
×
  • Create New...