InsideThePark

The only way I can see to fix the service time issue is a strict free agent age. Everyone is a free agent at 29. Years 26, 27, and 28 are arbitration years. If the player makes the league before then he gets league minimum the first year and then marginal increases based on how he statistically performs up to a maximum of double his previous years salary. Anything that uses service time is going to result in teams holding players down until they're just under whatever the limit is. The players offer back in November had a hybrid system IIRC of 6 years service time or age 29. That might fix the problem for a Julien Merryweather who's never going to reach 6 years service time before he's 29(he's already older), but the high end guys are the ones teams manipulate. Vladdy is still going to be held down for the handful of days at the start of his rookie year so he reaches 5.9 years of service time at the end of his 6th season so the team gets an extra year. So not even the PA's suggestion solves the issue they're trying to fix

I like the thought. The idea needs work. Lets say in Year 1 the bottom 3 is Teams A, B, and C. Team B wins the 1st pick. In Year 2 the bottom 3 is A, C, and D. Team D wins the first pick. In Year 3 it's A, C, and D again. Team D wins the 1st pick again. In Year 4 it's A, C, and D again. Team D is eligible to win the pick for the 3rd year in a row but Teams A and C are not because they lost in the 3 years prior? Perhaps a lottery where if you win it you can't win it again for the next 5 years. Removing teams based on chances they had previously while allowing other teams who've won before in just seems wrong to me. Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL it takes more than 3 years to develop most prospects, even the top picks. In year 4 teams A and C will be lucky if their pick in year 1 is in the league by then. Especially since the draft happens the following season. It's essentially less than 2 years of development(Draft in June of Year 2 to Year 4 start in April). Teams should strive to get better sure, but losing a lottery 3 times is hardly something that should be punished. The right way to build is to develop initially and then made additions as you're on your way up, which those prospects won't be there in 2 years. How many people here made fun of the Rangers for paying way too much money to try to get better when we all know that's the wrong strategy for them in their current timeline. By the time they're good those contracts will be only a burden.

I'm obviously responding in jest to the guy who called Gausman bad because he doesn't win games. Not that that's my opinion.

I don't know what "Estimated player benefits to be paid" that goes up by exactly 500k every year is. But I'm pretty sure it's not included in the team payroll estimates that usually get tossed out there. We should be in the 140 range.

We can't. We already wasted out money on a pitcher who can't get wins

I don't see any reasonable world where the Jays move Vlad off 1st, and I don't see any reasonable world where the Jays commit to the DH being used everyday for Vladdy/Freeman for the next 4 to 6 years. It only makes any sense if Freeman is ticking off items on a list, and now that he's got a World Series he wants to play in Canada for a 1 year or something. Which also doesn't make sense. The whole thing doesn't make sense. Maybe the Jays are doing him a solid and helping him leverage the Braves for more money as a screw you to AA or something.

If Rodon signs for 1 year I could still see us being in on that. I'm not expecting any other longer term starting pitching though

That's pretty solid. Given the money that's being tossed around I thought it would cost more. I'm happy.

Yeah that's actually quite good.

I think it's entirely possible that's the 2B options. I think they're done with Biggio at 3rd though. Even in that case they'd acquire someone for 2nd. I really don't think you see both of Espinal starts at 3rd, Biggio at 2nd and your bench is something like Valera, and Smith. They're bringing in a 3rd capable potential starter and it's likely someone who can play 3rd if Espinal gets hurt or bombs out.

They're not going into the season with Espinal and Moreno as their only options at 3rd. Espinal might be able to handle it but you want to have another reasonable option, and Moreno might be that down the line, but they're clearly not looking at him that way this coming season. He's played like 4 or 5 games there between the minors and the AFL combined.

Ray, Gausman, and Rodon probably cost 25 million each. Unless Rodon is willing to go longer term, smaller AAV. I'm expecting 1-2 years in the 20's million range for him. They've committed around 120 so far including arb raises. Even if they can go as high as 180 million payroll I don't really expect them to spend 50 of the remaining 60 on 2 starting pitchers when they need another pen arm, another starting infielder and it's possible they go after an outfielder/DH option to help rotate through because they feel unwilling to use Kirk as the DH.

Ray, Gray, Gausman, Rodon. Need to get 1 of those guys. 2 seems unlikely, but could be possible if it includes Gray.

Nobody has to surrender a 1st round pick to sign someone anymore. Well except the Mets this year. You give up your 2nd highest pick. Which in the Mets case is 14th overall because they didn't sign Rocker last year so has 2 first rounders.

I'll take Rodon and Gray plz

Can Pujols be a starter instead? I think he can do it

Full season from Berrios, full season from Springer, and extra couple weeks of Manoah. Full seasons from Cimber, and Richards. Biggio not being hurt or playing hurt literally the entire year. Not using Roark, Milone, and Zeuch to start games for an entire month. Having Jansen, Kirk or Moreno as the starting catcher instead of McGuire for 2 months. Internal development from our young players. Players being comfortable just from playing at home rather than Dunedin and Buffalo. A W/L that more accurately reflects our run differential rather than being 7 or 8 wins worse than our Pythag record. Yeah we're screwed. At best we can pay 60 million dollars per year to maybe replace ray and Semien and hope 91 wins is good this time.

Not sure I'd want either front or back loaded TBH. Back loading really ties up the end years, while front loaded causes issues now and if he opts out we lose out on the cheaper years. I'd be most happy with 11 this year then and even 20 for the other 6 years

I can never remember, does the 2nd highest/3rd highest, etc pick include any comp picks you receive? So for example we get 2 comp picks between round 2 and 3 if we don't resign Ray and Semien. Lets say we sign Corey Seager and Verlander, we give up our 2nd round pick for 1 of them. Is the other pick we give up our 3rd round pick, or the highest of our 2 comp picks

That guy actually had some really solid points about Montoyo. He could have fit right in had he just left out the rest of his thoughts.

I have no idea whether he'd be willing to come here or not. But if he were willing to sign to play 3rd being as left handed bat it feels like the perfect fit. If he wants to stay at SS then moving Bo to 3rd makes is less appetizing obviously but I'm still interested. With around 110 committed including arbitration estimates we should have somewhere between 40 and 70 million to spend. I don't think multiple long term deals would be a good idea because it squeezes the Vlad/Bo last arb and FA years. So signing Corey would change the Starting Pitching calculus but you could try to get creative via trade, or try to do something short term there with a Rodon, Syndergaard, Verlander, Kershaw or Scherzer if you're near the upper end of the payroll range. There aren't that many holes where you'd spend the money elsewhere besides 3B/SP. Some for the pen and perhaps a LH corner OF/DH. My plan A would be Corey Seager, Kirk as the DH, cheaper pen options, and then spend the rest on starters with the payroll deciding whether I can afford a high end free agent arm or I need to go the trade route. If you go the trade route I feel like Kirk is probably an asset that goes the other way in which case perhaps you use the extra payroll room on someone like Schwarber to fill that hole. I fear term for Seager might be a sticking point on our end, but he's 27. With the window we have I think you can't worry about those 35-37 aged seasons right now. If you're willing to go 7 we have a big window for all of those years I think you bite the bullet on those last couple to make it happen. I'm all in. 9-10 years x 28-32 million

That's better than charging me too much for a Kyle Seager because you're fresh out of Corey Seager's I guess

I'd like to order me 1 Corey Seager please.

This except you're the Astros and Trout is Carlos Correa