The money either goes to billionaire owners, or millionaire players. The billionaire owners have been rich and will be rich for generations; the players have a small window to earn with a unique ability God blessed them. How can you criticize players for trying to earn every penny they can? Someone's going to get the money and I'd rather it be the players.

It's called economic reality and right now it seems a couple of money grubbing agents telling them to wait it out because someone will pay them. I've said it elsewhere before - I don't see either player as worth that kind of money. They want long term contracts for "safety", but don't like it when someone passes them on the salary ranking.  I'd say mgmt is going through risk assessment with their finance folks and deciding the value for their return on investment isn't worth it. There's only so much money it TV contracts, gate, ad revenue, stadium concessions, tax breaks, etc. that the market can bear. No one is in it to lose money especially not 'billionaire owners' who have either built it up or inherited it.

I wish they would sign.  Sick of MLB network showing the Yankee lineup with Harper or Machado in it.  Or the ripkensmoltzreynoldswhoever ex-player siren song of complaints of why aren't they and everyone else who has ever played signed for millions.

I feel sorry for the players having such a sorry ass union. Particularly the MLB players under club control.  

Open the books, salary cap and a salary floor, and better revenue re-distribution.

Or forget all that and put Harper on Astros.

Springer

Altuve

Bregman

Harper

Correa

Gurriel

*******

whoever C, DH is

The game is skewing younger and front offices now understand how to properly value players better than before.  The egos and impulsiveness of a small group of owners used to fuel the market for players, but that seems to have turned.

Last year it seemed like a no brainer that Hosmer was going to sign with the Redsox to a massive contract. They passed and signed Moreland for pennies on the dollar and got the World Series MVP for a minor league second baseman. 

Hosmer got his money, but at the cost of going to SD. Moreland put up virtually the same numbers for a lot less. 

Superstar pitching seems to be worth it. Superstar bats can go cold at any time. Harper and Machado have had some very ugly years. A league average replacement with some moves at the deadline can easily outweigh signing one of these guys for 10 years. 

The owners are wealthy. But most teams aren’t making money hand over fist year after year. The return on investment is when the team is sold. But I don’t have an issue with players being paid whatever the market will bear.  What the market will not bear is ten year contracts. Does anyone wonder if the Angels have any regrets over the Pujols contract?

Even seven years is risky. The Red Sox were fortunate the Dodgers were willing to take on Carl Crawford’s ridiculous seven year contract. When it was signed I was shocked a 29yo with a speed game got a seven year contract. I figured the Red Sox were willing to suffer later for immediate return. They turned out to be wrong all the way around. 

What set me off last week was Even Longoria complaining about management. Anyone publicly complaining making what he makes is out of touch. He signed a lucrative six year contract five years ago. In four of the five years he’s had an average OPS. He’s been a waste of money. 

I wouldn’t want to give Harper ten years. He plays so aggressively he’s offen banged up. How will he hold up in his 30’s. I wouldn’t want to give Machado ten years and hope his attitude holds up. 

Like I stated I’m not against whatever owners will give players. But how much is enough? With money where it’s at for top players I would think more would be looking for the optimum place to play and live not bragging rights on the biggest contract. There’s always going to be the next bigger contract some else signs. Let’s say someone signs for 200M instead of 300M. It’s about 100M after taxes. If you have 100M in the bank instead of 150M what the hell is the difference? Once you have 10M you’re a 1 percenter. Take 100M and put it in a no risk 3% (CD bad investment). Chances are you can do better investing wisely. But it’s still 3M per year in interest. 

The players who get screwed are those who are part of the domino effect. Until Harper and Machado sign this year’s market for players isn’t actually established. 

If there is a problem it’s the fault of the players and the players association.  In the last negotiations they agreed to a soft cap (luxury tax and draft slot penalties). 

There is never enough for them, nor should there be. Revenues have more than doubled in the last 20 years, yet the players get a lower share than they did even in the 70s. No MLB team has ever gone bankrupt. The owners are like bums begging on the corner with a ham under the other arm. If every player took the philosophy of "this is enough money", they never would have gotten the money in the first place. Most of the people who are against the players union are big on other unions for more "respectable" jobs. Marvin Miller fought for free agency under the principles that teams would want to win and thus would spend money to win. Now, teams don't care about the product, and going into the season there are only 6 teams that could conceivably win the WS.

There is going to be a major labor war in 2022.

Teams have seen too much risk, low reward for long term contracts. First ridiculous one was when A-Roid signed with the Texas Rangers and the owner was basically bidding against himself.

Pay the minor leagues more than $16,000 a season.

All of baseball should be ashamed!

A 10 yr deal has small chance of being a winner for an organization, if you include the Manny factor it is considerably less, they are just beginning to figure it out. Scott Boras doesn't care a damn bit about anyone but Scott Boras, that includes his clients. Bitch all you want about greedy owners and players but the market forces eventually find a value. 

Player strike in 2022 - they would be JACKASSES TO WALK OUT ON STRIKE but then again...

Hungry dogs run faster

Why wait? Strike now and bring up the Milb’rs

old_school posted:

A 10 yr deal has small chance of being a winner for an organization, if you include the Manny factor it is considerably less, they are just beginning to figure it out. Scott Boras doesn't care a damn bit about anyone but Scott Boras, that includes his clients. Bitch all you want about greedy owners and players but the market forces eventually find a value. 

Player strike in 2022 - they would be JACKASSES TO WALK OUT ON STRIKE but then again...

Hungry dogs run faster

The "market force" in this case is collusion. Whether it rises to the level of criminal behavior, I don't know.

BaseballBUDDY posted:

Why wait? Strike now and bring up the Milb’rs

MLB will not bring up players during a strike. 

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

A 10 yr deal has small chance of being a winner for an organization, if you include the Manny factor it is considerably less, they are just beginning to figure it out. Scott Boras doesn't care a damn bit about anyone but Scott Boras, that includes his clients. Bitch all you want about greedy owners and players but the market forces eventually find a value. 

Player strike in 2022 - they would be JACKASSES TO WALK OUT ON STRIKE but then again...

Hungry dogs run faster

The "market force" in this case is collusion. Whether it rises to the level of criminal behavior, I don't know.

I believe the market force is good business sense. If a team signs a bunch of long term contracts they will get stuck with a bunch of dead money. 

Between Sandoval, Ramirez and Castillo the Red Sox got stuck with a lot of dead money. They have Prices huge contract for four more years. They were fortunate to get out of the Crawford contract. They’ve paid a lot in salary tax and loss of draft position. With all the young players they have coming into free agency in the next two years they can’t afford to sign Kimbrel to a long term contract. Plus I don’t believe he’s worth after he became Maalox Man out if the pen at age thirty.

The Red Sox have been trying to work a long term deal with Mookie Betts for two years. I’m betting it hasn’t got done because they haven’t offered beyond 5-7 years.

Even the Yankees chose to build through development rather than offer a lot of long term contacts. The Dodfers spent so much money the past few years they can’t afford to spend anymore.

If the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodfers are now spending wisely the players and afents better take notice. These are the teams with money. 

I cant imagine what Harper wants if he turned down 10/300 from the Nationals.

Matt13 posted:

BaseballBUDDY posted:

Why wait? Strike now and bring up the Milb’rs

MLB will not bring up players during a strike. 

Not only will MLB teams use MILB replacement players during a strike, they have. Do some homework on 1995.

RJM,

There is no empathy here.  Zero.   This is big business with big numbers.  Last time I checked this is a marketplace, whereby talented individuals and organizations are free to set their price.   There is no collusion here, just freaking common sense.   The MLB long-term-contracts pendulum is swinging back to reality.   Everyone of us deals with a labor market when we look for a job or when our employer lets us go.  Harper, Machado and others are not concerned about Joey-Bag-of-Donut's employment situation unless they are paying to come see them play MLB.   Everybody does what they need to do to support their families and lifestyles, including baseball superstars.  That is the free market economy.

A follow up question a could be...."Do you think Harper and Machado are getting bad business advice and read the labor market incorrectly a few months ago and are now trying to save face?"   My answer is absolutely yes.  Harper should have jumped at the Nats offer, and frankly I don't care what Machado does.

When the ceiling is raised for players like Harper and Machado the players below on the salary ladder tend to move up a step or two. So you could argue the agents are in collusion to drive up salaries.

Pedroia took a lot of heat from the players association when he signed a long term, hometown discount contract with the Sox. His attitude was it was enough money, his family has nothing to worry about and he will be a Sox lifer.

The person who really gets hurt by this whole situation is the dad in a family of four who has to tell his kids he can’t afford about $400 (decent seats, hot dog, soda, ice cream, parking) to take them to a MLB game. 

Decent left field grandstand seats at Fenway are $60. The three food items are another $24. Parking is $40. Eating nothing and taking the T is still $65 per person.

I’m reminded of a sign in the bleachers after Bill Campbell blew another save (signed 3 yrs/2M). “Dump Campbell.  Bring back the $1.50 bleacher seat.” When the Sox signed Campbell they doubled bleacher seats to $3. Even at $3 it was still the cheapest free high in America.  

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

A 10 yr deal has small chance of being a winner for an organization, if you include the Manny factor it is considerably less, they are just beginning to figure it out. Scott Boras doesn't care a damn bit about anyone but Scott Boras, that includes his clients. Bitch all you want about greedy owners and players but the market forces eventually find a value. 

Player strike in 2022 - they would be JACKASSES TO WALK OUT ON STRIKE but then again...

Hungry dogs run faster

The "market force" in this case is collusion. Whether it rises to the level of criminal behavior, I don't know.

please please expand on this. I would love for you to explain how multiple offers of 7 plus years and over 250m is collusion... the floor is yours. 

PABaseball posted:

Last year it seemed like a no brainer that Hosmer was going to sign with the Redsox to a massive contract. They passed and signed Moreland for pennies on the dollar and got the World Series MVP for a minor league second baseman. 

Hosmer got his money, but at the cost of going to SD. Moreland put up virtually the same numbers for a lot less. 

Superstar pitching seems to be worth it. Superstar bats can go cold at any time. Harper and Machado have had some very ugly years. A league average replacement with some moves at the deadline can easily outweigh signing one of these guys for 10 years. 

I don't disagree with your overall argument, but superstar pitchers can go cold too, or even worse, lose a year or more to TJ surgery.   As for Harper and Machado having "very ugly years".  I think you are exaggerating more than a bit to make your case.

RJM posted:

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

 

I believe the market force is good business sense. If a team signs a bunch of long term contracts they will get stuck with a bunch of dead money. 

Between Sandoval, Ramirez and Castillo the Red Sox got stuck with a lot of dead money. They have Prices huge contract for four more years. They were fortunate to get out of the Crawford contract. They’ve paid a lot in salary tax and loss of draft position. With all the young players they have coming into free agency in the next two years they can’t afford to sign Kimbrel to a long term contract. Plus I don’t believe he’s worth after he became Maalox Man out if the pen at age thirty.

The Red Sox have been trying to work a long term deal with Mookie Betts for two years. I’m betting it hasn’t got done because they haven’t offered beyond 5-7 years.

Even the Yankees chose to build through development rather than offer a lot of long term contacts. The Dodfers spent so much money the past few years they can’t afford to spend anymore.

If the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodfers are now spending wisely the players and afents better take notice. These are the teams with money. 

I cant imagine what Harper wants if he turned down 10/300 from the Nationals.

RJM you need to stop now, there is no place left for logic in this world.

Poor Manny acts like a ass on the biggest stage AND uses that same stage to speak his mind showing what a selfish SOB he is... but it is collusion...sure. 

Harper has 10 yrs and 300m or there about from the Phillies just has to sign but it is not enough...it was better then the Nats offer but it is collusion...he doesn't have 6 teams dumb enough to over pay him!! 

Maybe he will go on the just pay him even though he doesn't want to work plan!! 

The guy who is going to shafted is Trout, he is maybe the one guy worth 10 years and 300+ but his contract is coming due at what may be a very bad time. 

In answer to the OP, I have zero sympathy for the FA's in question. I do have sympathy for the players in minor pro ball who are making near starvation wages. Just found out that the local, very good quality, Independent League team pays their player $1800/month. Players are falling over each other to get spot on the team.

Some other, less high profile teams pay $500-800/month.

JCG posted:

PABaseball posted:

Last year it seemed like a no brainer that Hosmer was going to sign with the Redsox to a massive contract. They passed and signed Moreland for pennies on the dollar and got the World Series MVP for a minor league second baseman. 

Hosmer got his money, but at the cost of going to SD. Moreland put up virtually the same numbers for a lot less. 

Superstar pitching seems to be worth it. Superstar bats can go cold at any time. Harper and Machado have had some very ugly years. A league average replacement with some moves at the deadline can easily outweigh signing one of these guys for 10 years. 

I don't disagree with your overall argument, but superstar pitchers can go cold too, or even worse, lose a year or more to TJ surgery.   As for Harper and Machado having "very ugly years".  I think you are exaggerating more than a bit to make your case.

Re: Pitchers and their arms

The only way Price was going to be worth the money (7yr/210M) is winning a World Series. He’s not going to get better than his in decline numbers. The absurdity is the Sox could have resigned Lester for 5yr/125M.

57special posted:

In answer to the OP, I have zero sympathy for the FA's in question. I do have sympathy for the players in minor pro ball who are making near starvation wages. Just found out that the local, very good quality, Independent League team pays their player $1800/month. Players are falling over each other to get spot on the team.

Some other, less high profile teams pay $500-800/month.

you nailed it, players are falling all over themselves for the chance to be on the team. If they weren't salaries may go up, then again there may not be any market for the higher price Independent teams...so they would just fold. 

The supply of players is way way out of whack with the demand for them, there will never be any money in MiLB for that reason alone. There never has been any money there and there never will be. Players play for close to free for a chance at the dream. That's why I just smile when I hear MiLB guys call themselves professionals...it may be accurate but that doesn't make it impressive IMO. 

In my view, while no one needs to feel sorry for Machado or Harper, I think it is totally a non-starter to suggest they are in the wrong.  They are battling Billionaires, they are the talent and they have a limited number of years to maximize the return on their talent. 

As it relates to Milb, so much is not understood or appreciated.  MLB wants them to compete against the best to get them the AB's and innings to get better to matriculate up.  The owners of MILB teams make millions of dollars on their backs.  The billionaires were concerned enough that they poured money into the pockets of lobbyists and Congress to pass the ridiculous "Save America's Pastime" laws to further allow MLB to control the playing conditions and compensation at all levels of MILB and to remove MLB from wage laws.

This complete farce does not end for the player when he is released. Many get released in the face of career ending injuries for which MLB is completely responsible under all Workers' Compensation laws.  In my view, it would be intriguing to  to look at and understand the costs of medical care which MLB shifts to the private and taxpayer sectors by failing to completely and properly provide medical care, for which it is legally responsible,  to those injured while playing MILB and then washed out through a release.

old_school posted:

Matt13 posted:

The "market force" in this case is collusion. Whether it rises to the level of criminal behavior, I don't know.

please please expand on this. I would love for you to explain how multiple offers of 7 plus years and over 250m is collusion... the floor is yours. 

I doubt I can convince you, but I'll give it a try.

MLB total revenue increased $1 Billion from 2016-218. MLB total payroll increased $0 over the same period.

The Nats reportedly offered Harper $300M over 10 years in November. The Nats are ranked 9th in market size. Is it unreasonable for Harper to assume that he would get a better offer from a bigger market team over the winter? Scherzer got $30M/year for 7 years in 2015. Price got more than that. Neither of those guys (and I love Scherzer) put butts in seats, or get eyes on devices like Harper.

I haven't heard anyone asking fans to feel sorry for these guys... not even Boras.

JCG posted:

PABaseball posted:

Last year it seemed like a no brainer that Hosmer was going to sign with the Redsox to a massive contract. They passed and signed Moreland for pennies on the dollar and got the World Series MVP for a minor league second baseman. 

Hosmer got his money, but at the cost of going to SD. Moreland put up virtually the same numbers for a lot less. 

Superstar pitching seems to be worth it. Superstar bats can go cold at any time. Harper and Machado have had some very ugly years. A league average replacement with some moves at the deadline can easily outweigh signing one of these guys for 10 years. 

I don't disagree with your overall argument, but superstar pitchers can go cold too, or even worse, lose a year or more to TJ surgery.   As for Harper and Machado having "very ugly years".  I think you are exaggerating more than a bit to make your case.

The argument was more or less that pitchers can get away with it more because it is still easier to get outs than get hits. Plus, bad starts can be saved by good hitting. But yes I agree.

However, Harper has had 2 ugly years where he hit below .250 and did not have 100 RBIs. Last year especially, considering he was hitting around .190 heading into the all star break. Either way he has only hit above .274 twice in his career. It is hard to justify that money when guys making 2 million a year can put up similar numbers. You would be paying for the flare, the mound charges, the sound bits, the jersey sales, and the excitement. Not the year in year out consistency that you get from a guy like Trout. Even Machado has never hit over .300, .290 once with a few sub 100 RBI seasons. 

PABaseball posted:

JCG posted:

PABaseball posted:

Last year it seemed like a no brainer that Hosmer was going to sign with the Redsox to a massive contract. They passed and signed Moreland for pennies on the dollar and got the World Series MVP for a minor league second baseman. 

Hosmer got his money, but at the cost of going to SD. Moreland put up virtually the same numbers for a lot less. 

Superstar pitching seems to be worth it. Superstar bats can go cold at any time. Harper and Machado have had some very ugly years. A league average replacement with some moves at the deadline can easily outweigh signing one of these guys for 10 years. 

I don't disagree with your overall argument, but superstar pitchers can go cold too, or even worse, lose a year or more to TJ surgery.   As for Harper and Machado having "very ugly years".  I think you are exaggerating more than a bit to make your case.

The argument was more or less that pitchers can get away with it more because it is still easier to get outs than get hits. Plus, bad starts can be saved by good hitting. But yes I agree.

However, Harper has had 2 ugly years where he hit below .250 and did not have 100 RBIs. Last year especially, considering he was hitting around .190 heading into the all star break. Either way he has only hit above .274 twice in his career. It is hard to justify that money when guys making 2 million a year can put up similar numbers. You would be paying for the flare, the mound charges, the sound bits, the jersey sales, and the excitement. Not the year in year out consistency that you get from a guy like Trout. Even Machado has never hit over .300, .290 once with a few sub 100 RBI seasons. 

Most Everything I have heard or read is that MLB is now negotiating from the position of future production and value rather than past production and "rewarding" for past production.  This is a big focus in our area as the Giants have large contracts for injured pitchers and position players. some of whom helped them to some of their 3 championships, by the time they signed bigger deals.

If that is true,  players like Harper and Machado are at maximum potential value. Each is 26 and by many measurements, likely to  be reaching their full potential in the next 3-5 years.

PABaseball posted:

However, Harper has had 2 ugly years where he hit below .250 and did not have 100 RBIs. Last year especially, considering he was hitting around .190 heading into the all star break. Either way he has only hit above .274 twice in his career. It is hard to justify that money when guys making 2 million a year can put up similar numbers. You would be paying for the flare, the mound charges, the sound bits, the jersey sales, and the excitement. Not the year in year out consistency that you get from a guy like Trout. Even Machado has never hit over .300, .290 once with a few sub 100 RBI seasons. 

Yes, last year was a down year for him,  but ugly? 10th in NL OPS,  1st in walks, tied for 7th in HR with 34.  8th in RBI.  I'll take it.  He's not Mike Trout, but he's still one of the top players in the NL even in an off year. BTW I don't think he was healthy for the first half.

(Also BTW I'm a Giants fan, and most Giants fans thought Harper did the right thing in going after Strickland. He's an idiot, which is why they DFA'd him.)

Steve A. posted:

Matt13 posted:

BaseballBUDDY posted:

Why wait? Strike now and bring up the Milb’rs

MLB will not bring up players during a strike. 

Not only will MLB teams use MILB replacement players during a strike, they have. Do some homework on 1995.

Take your own damn advice. They never got to the point of using them because it would, as today, required at least four teams not to play the season due to the legal ramifications. (Actually, it would have been five, because Montreal would have also been subject to Canada's ban on replacement workers.)

old_school posted:

RJM posted:

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

 

I believe the market force is good business sense. If a team signs a bunch of long term contracts they will get stuck with a bunch of dead money. 

Between Sandoval, Ramirez and Castillo the Red Sox got stuck with a lot of dead money. They have Prices huge contract for four more years. They were fortunate to get out of the Crawford contract. They’ve paid a lot in salary tax and loss of draft position. With all the young players they have coming into free agency in the next two years they can’t afford to sign Kimbrel to a long term contract. Plus I don’t believe he’s worth after he became Maalox Man out if the pen at age thirty.

The Red Sox have been trying to work a long term deal with Mookie Betts for two years. I’m betting it hasn’t got done because they haven’t offered beyond 5-7 years.

Even the Yankees chose to build through development rather than offer a lot of long term contacts. The Dodfers spent so much money the past few years they can’t afford to spend anymore.

If the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodfers are now spending wisely the players and afents better take notice. These are the teams with money. 

I cant imagine what Harper wants if he turned down 10/300 from the Nationals.

RJM you need to stop now, there is no place left for logic in this world.

Poor Manny acts like a ass on the biggest stage AND uses that same stage to speak his mind showing what a selfish SOB he is... but it is collusion...sure. 

Harper has 10 yrs and 300m or there about from the Phillies just has to sign but it is not enough...it was better then the Nats offer but it is collusion...he doesn't have 6 teams dumb enough to over pay him!! 

Maybe he will go on the just pay him even though he doesn't want to work plan!! 

The guy who is going to shafted is Trout, he is maybe the one guy worth 10 years and 300+ but his contract is coming due at what may be a very bad time. 

Logic only works if it is factually-based. To look at your own statement, the Nats and the Phillies do not have differing offers in principle--Washington has all but admitted to collusion with Philadelphia with their most recent statements.

infielddad posted:

Most Everything I have heard or read is that MLB is now negotiating from the position of future production and value rather than past production and "rewarding" for past production.  This is a big focus in our area as the Giants have large contracts for injured pitchers and position players. some of whom helped them to some of their 3 championships, by the time they signed bigger deals.

If that is true,  players like Harper and Machado are at maximum potential value. Each is 26 and by many measurements, likely to  be reaching their full potential in the next 3-5 years.

I don't disagree. I think Harper's best years are in front of him and he is somebody who I can see being in the MVP hunt every few years. He is one of the few players I would consider worth the money, just probably not for 10 years.

My point was that the star power that comes with the name has to do more with him being a teen phenom hitting 500ft HRs more than it has had to do with having consistent monster years. But I do think that will correct itself and he will start having some more of those big years like he did 2 years ago. I like him and want to see it. 

As for Machado they jury is still out on him. I just don't know if he is going to be the same player in 5 years. 

JCG posted:

PABaseball posted:

However, Harper has had 2 ugly years where he hit below .250 and did not have 100 RBIs. Last year especially, considering he was hitting around .190 heading into the all star break. Either way he has only hit above .274 twice in his career. It is hard to justify that money when guys making 2 million a year can put up similar numbers. You would be paying for the flare, the mound charges, the sound bits, the jersey sales, and the excitement. Not the year in year out consistency that you get from a guy like Trout. Even Machado has never hit over .300, .290 once with a few sub 100 RBI seasons. 

Yes, last year was a down year for him,  but ugly? 10th in NL OPS,  1st in walks, tied for 7th in HR with 34.  8th in RBI.  I'll take it.  He's not Mike Trout, but he's still one of the top players in the NL even in an off year. BTW I don't think he was healthy for the first half.

(Also BTW I'm a Giants fan, and most Giants fans thought Harper did the right thing in going after Strickland. He's an idiot, which is why they DFA'd him.)

Notice how none of Strickland's teammates even moved until Harper had already gone out to the mound and thrown a punch. It tells me that either Strickland was told not to do that before the game or that everybody on that team hated him. 

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

A 10 yr deal has small chance of being a winner for an organization, if you include the Manny factor it is considerably less, they are just beginning to figure it out. Scott Boras doesn't care a damn bit about anyone but Scott Boras, that includes his clients. Bitch all you want about greedy owners and players but the market forces eventually find a value. 

Player strike in 2022 - they would be JACKASSES TO WALK OUT ON STRIKE but then again...

Hungry dogs run faster

The "market force" in this case is collusion. Whether it rises to the level of criminal behavior, I don't know.

I don't think it's collusion. Instead I think it's analytics. teams have invested a lot of money in analytics, and not just the stuff we see on Fangraphs.  They have endless terabytes of performance and financial data that they use in their valuations of players.

I don't fault the players or the owners for trying to negotiate contracts to their own advantage, but I think that both of them - and especially player agents - need to look beyond the old contract model. The 8+ year deal contracts certainly seem to be a huge risk for owners and I'm sure that deeper analytics bear that out.  What I see coming soon is a shift to shorter 4 and 5 year contracts at $35M-$40M AAV. In fact, I think most players would jump on that but their agents don't want to give up their long term commissions.

Wow...all this talk had me actually dig into these guys numbers.  In the last 5 seasons Harper has had 3 seasons of less than 1.5 WAR.  Machado's WAR has decreased for 4 straight seasons.  They both had monster years at age 22, but I sure don't want to commit to either guy for 10 years at a record breaking deal.

Twilight Zone

its opening day and neither player signed with a team.

Do we all move on and watch our favorite team play ?

Or does MLB step in for the so-called 

, “ integrity of the game,” and bring teams back to the table.

Title of this show: Signability , it’s not just for draft prospects.

K9 posted:

Wow...all this talk had me actually dig into these guys numbers.  In the last 5 seasons Harper has had 3 seasons of less than 1.5 WAR.  Machado's WAR has decreased for 4 straight seasons.  They both had monster years at age 22, but I sure don't want to commit to either guy for 10 years at a record breaking deal.

With Harper he plays so hard will he hold up physically for ten years? With Machado does his attitude hold up for ten years?

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

RJM posted:

Matt13 posted:

old_school posted:

 

RJM you need to stop now, there is no place left for logic in this world.

Poor Manny acts like a ass on the biggest stage AND uses that same stage to speak his mind showing what a selfish SOB he is... but it is collusion...sure. 

Harper has 10 yrs and 300m or there about from the Phillies just has to sign but it is not enough...it was better then the Nats offer but it is collusion...he doesn't have 6 teams dumb enough to over pay him!! 

Maybe he will go on the just pay him even though he doesn't want to work plan!! 

The guy who is going to shafted is Trout, he is maybe the one guy worth 10 years and 300+ but his contract is coming due at what may be a very bad time. 

Logic only works if it is factually-based. To look at your own statement, the Nats and the Phillies do not have differing offers in principle--Washington has all but admitted to collusion with Philadelphia with their most recent statements.

and the White Sox and the Giants....

K9 posted:

Wow...all this talk had me actually dig into these guys numbers.  In the last 5 seasons Harper has had 3 seasons of less than 1.5 WAR.  Machado's WAR has decreased for 4 straight seasons.  They both had monster years at age 22, but I sure don't want to commit to either guy for 10 years at a record breaking deal.

Harper is not a top 10 player in the game right now & is looking for close to half a billion $$ guaranteed. This is the problem.

Is the Nationals deal still on the table for Harper? Somehow, I see this possibly going the same way that Yoenis Cespedes situation with the Mets. Nothing else was out there, back with the Mets.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

K9 posted:

Wow...all this talk had me actually dig into these guys numbers.  In the last 5 seasons Harper has had 3 seasons of less than 1.5 WAR.  Machado's WAR has decreased for 4 straight seasons.  They both had monster years at age 22, but I sure don't want to commit to either guy for 10 years at a record breaking deal.

I don't think the teams who are willing to pay Harper are weighting WAR as high as the more offensive stats. Two of those three years at <=1.5 were impacted by injury (that's a different concern), and the other was hurt by playing 1/3 of his innings in CF (where he doesn't belong). Teams want Harper mostly for his offense, and also his star power.

Machado's WAR was his highest ever in 2018 (6.6 on Baseball-Reference), it was just split between two teams.

I think much of the frenzy is due to their ages. Teams don't often get an opportunity to lock up a young star long-term.

Additionally....

1.  Star power is not factored into WAR.  Star power is putting butts in seats.   Clearly interested front offices are weighting WAR heavier than star power in both cases to date.

2. The frenzy was initiated by their agents two years ago.  You couldn't escape the media hype.  It was ridiculous in the Wash DC market.  Neither had a stellar 2017 or 2018, so their out of this world pricing demands went over like a fart in church.  Front offices aren't biting, and being smart about their money.

3.  Apparently the market has spoken and is passing on this opportunity to lock up young, overhyped stars long term.

If this was my money, I'd be doing the same thing.  It has to be about value and performance.   Both these guys are getting bad advice from their camps and not recognizing what is going on (their real value) in the real business world.  

As always, JMO.

Agent receiving 4% of the Gross is an additional problem.

It's really the agents contact in $$'s the term has no impact for the agent, until it expires.

Pay Da Man, Or NOT

Instead of blaming the owners/GM for colluding, what the agents and players should really do is blame the countless number of players who went before them who got 7-10 year contracts and then clearly made the case that not only do they do not work, they can cripple a franchise for years. 

Look around the league now.  Guys like Pujols, Miggy, Chris Davis, and recently Hosmer have long-term deals that are essentially making it impossible for their teams to compete for the free agents who are on the market.  As an Angels fan, it kills me to see a guy like Trout wasted because Arte Moreno was an absolute idiot and signed Pujols, Josh Hamilton and CJ Wilson to long-term deals that were total busts. 

The $87 million the Angels still owe Pujols over the next three years could have been better spent on a pitcher like Keuchel or a catcher/closer combo.  Instead the Angels, who already have a $166 million payroll are shopping in the bargain bin.  This situation plays out in lots of places where there are dead contracts that cannot be moved (or like Seattle require you to give up the best closer in the league and pay some money as well to move Cano).  Yet teams with much lesser payrolls like the Rays and A's have shown you can compete just as well without the mega contracts.

There are too many guys still on rosters now who are poster children for why GMs/owners needed to wake up.  Cubs fans know they are not in on Harper or Machado thanks to the Heyward and Darvish contracts.  Harper should be blaming Boras for getting bust deals for Ellsbury, Choo, and Hosmer as reminders why not to sign guys long-term. And so it goes. I amazed it took this long for teams to wise up.

Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla and Brett Saberhagen.  Bonilla will still be on the payroll when he is 72 

Backstop22 posted:

Harper should be blaming Boras for getting bust deals for Ellsbury, Choo, and Hosmer as reminders why not to sign guys long-term. And so it goes. I amazed it took this long for teams to wise up. 

I'm guessing that he'll wait until his deal is done before he thinks about that. But seriously, there's a lot of talk about the owners wising up, but until those two guys sign the jury is still out on that.

cabbagedad posted:

Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla and Brett Saberhagen.  Bonilla will still be on the payroll when he is 72 

Its a good deal if you can get it!! Staggering actually but he did give back money at the time to extend the life and help them out. I have much less problem with a negotiated plan like this where both sides were aware of what they were doing.

Claiming collusion is just silly when you have overpriced yourself based on what you deem the market should be. I don't even blame them for trying and if they accomplish it - well congrats to you, that is what the market will except. They argument of the owners should pay more solely because they can doesn't work.

Most successful businesses could pay more then they do...

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Backstop22 posted:

Harper should be blaming Boras for getting bust deals for Ellsbury, Choo, and Hosmer as reminders why not to sign guys long-term. And so it goes. I amazed it took this long for teams to wise up. 

I'm guessing that he'll wait until his deal is done before he thinks about that. But seriously, there's a lot of talk about the owners wising up, but until those two guys sign the jury is still out on that.

It does help get guys to stop holding out when an owner (Phillies) says he’s willing to spend stupidly.

Dombrowski says he isn’t interested in Kimbrel. But it’s a game. The word is the Sox are willing to sign him for one or two years. Kimbrel wants long term for 100M. It’s not lost on GM’s he was a scary closer and lost velocity in 2018. You don’t sign a 30yo closer who is losing velocity to a long term contract. 

I see a lot of people here either ignore or fundamentally misunderstand the facts. 

The owners are quite content to do long-term contracts, as long as they're undervalued and retain team control with no opt-out. That is what has been on the table. Harper and Machado have never had a negotiation as MLB players and are looking to use their leverage during one of two (at most) times they will be able to use it. 10/300 is laughable for Harper without an opt-out clause--he is worth more during the front half of the contract, and with the revenue trends, possibly even on the back half even with age regression. We are in an era where because of the current CBA, there are players under team control for over 14 years.

The idea that agents make more by convincing them to hold out is also laughable. Harper signing for, say, 4/140 is going to offer more opportunity for more money over the next ten seasons than the current offer. An opt-out on 10/300 has the same safety valve.

RJM posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Backstop22 posted:

Harper should be blaming Boras for getting bust deals for Ellsbury, Choo, and Hosmer as reminders why not to sign guys long-term. And so it goes. I amazed it took this long for teams to wise up. 

I'm guessing that he'll wait until his deal is done before he thinks about that. But seriously, there's a lot of talk about the owners wising up, but until those two guys sign the jury is still out on that.

It does help get guys to stop holding out when an owner (Phillies) says he’s willing to spend stupidly.

Dombrowski says he isn’t interested in Kimbrel. But it’s a game. The word is the Sox are willing to sign him for one or two years. Kimbrel wants long term for 100M. It’s not lost on GM’s he was a scary closer and lost velocity in 2018. You don’t sign a 30yo closer who is losing velocity to a long term contract. 

fair point on the willingness to hold out based on the comments. I would argue he followed up his words with an offer that is stupid.

One thing to consider, does Harper want to be in spring training for the entire time? It shouldn't / wouldn't take him 6 weeks to get ready for the season. I have to believe he is in shape and ready to go physically, or at least close. It is baseball he will get in full playing shape quickly enough if he is close. From there it is really just about his swing, timing and getting the flow going.

It is possible he isn't in a hurry for more then just trying to maximize his money. 

The term "hold out" is not really accurate. They are free agents and have chosen not to sign at this point. It may be small point but honestly in fairness to the player there is a big difference between being a true "hold out" who is either under a contract he doesn't like or not accepting of the club offer while under control of the CBA and a being a free agent choosing to wait and see what happens. 

Manny gets 10/300. Harper will get more than that.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Manny gets 10/300. Harper will get more than that.

Can't help but thinking that the Padres can acquire 2-3 really good players for that. They are not a player away. I agree with Mid Atlantic. Bryce Harper is wearing a big smile today.

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

After Machado here are the next 9 largest MLB contracts:

• Arod (NYY)
• Arod (Tex)
• Pujols
• Cano
• Price
• Fielder
• Scherzer
• Grienke
• Haywood

If we could go back in time and provide perfect knowledge to the parties, my guess is that only the Arod Yankees deal and the Scherzer deal would definitely get done again.  The jury is still out on Price, though trending up.  Haywood a disaster.  

K9 posted:

After Machado here are the next 9 largest MLB contracts:

• Arod (NYY)
• Arod (Tex)
• Pujols
• Cano
• Price
• Fielder
• Scherzer
• Grienke
• Haywood

If we could go back in time and provide perfect knowledge to the parties, my guess is that only the Arod Yankees deal and the Scherzer deal would definitely get done again.  The jury is still out on Price, though trending up.  Haywood a disaster.  

In today’s dollars. #10 in real dollars.  If you account for MLB revenue increases, even lower. 

K9 posted:

After Machado here are the next 9 largest MLB contracts:

• Arod (NYY)
• Arod (Tex)
• Pujols
• Cano
• Price
• Fielder
• Scherzer
• Grienke
• Haywood

If we could go back in time and provide perfect knowledge to the parties, my guess is that only the Arod Yankees deal and the Scherzer deal would definitely get done again.  The jury is still out on Price, though trending up.  Haywood a disaster.  

Yelich - seven years, $49.5M

Quintana - five years, $26.5M

Bumgarner - six years, $35.5M

Rizzo - seven years, $42M

Goldschmidt - five years, $32M

Sale - five years, $32.5M

Altuve - four years, $12.5M

Win some, lose some. 

K9 posted:

After Machado here are the next 9 largest MLB contracts:

• Arod (NYY)
• Arod (Tex)
• Pujols
• Cano
• Price
• Fielder
• Scherzer
• Grienke
• Haywood

If we could go back in time and provide perfect knowledge to the parties, my guess is that only the Arod Yankees deal and the Scherzer deal would definitely get done again.  The jury is still out on Price, though trending up.  Haywood a disaster.  

Price is only worth the money because his post season efforts got the Red Sox a World Series win. His regular season numbers since joining the Sox and age aren’t worth a superstar contract.

RJM posted:

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

 

I've thought the same thing, but I think that ego gets in the way. A lot of these guys have been coddled for a long time. And then there are the agents. I'd bet more than one agent has spent a lot of time talking a player out of a lesser deal even though the player prefers another organization or city.

K9 posted:

After Machado here are the next 9 largest MLB contracts:

• Arod (NYY)
• Arod (Tex)
• Pujols
• Cano
• Price
• Fielder
• Scherzer
• Grienke
• Haywood

If we could go back in time and provide perfect knowledge to the parties, my guess is that only the Arod Yankees deal and the Scherzer deal would definitely get done again.  The jury is still out on Price, though trending up.  Haywood a disaster.  

Joe Mauer 2011-2018... 8yr/184M

Coach Koz posted:

RJM posted:

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

 

I've thought the same thing, but I think that ego gets in the way. A lot of these guys have been coddled for a long time. And then there are the agents. I'd bet more than one agent has spent a lot of time talking a player out of a lesser deal even though the player prefers another organization or city.

Agents tell their players getting the most is best for everyone. And others took the most in the past to get you where you are. Ego is part of it too. But someone new will always top the highest paid guy. It makes me respect Gwynn and Puckett for staying in their small market town for less. Pedroia took a hometown discount because he likes playing in Boston. When asked about being lowballed he responded, “I make enough.”

MidAtlanticDad 

Yelich - seven years, $49.5M

Quintana - five years, $26.5M

Bumgarner - six years, $35.5M

Rizzo - seven years, $42M

Goldschmidt - five years, $32M

Sale - five years, $32.5M

Altuve - four years, $12.5M

Win some, lose some. 

So how can Machado be worth almost as much as 5 years of sale or Goldschmidt in just 1 year? Someone explain that to me for a guy who just completed his 4 best years in his prime and hit .282 for his career to date? Or even worse, that’s like 10 years of Altuve in a year!

2019Lefty21 posted:

So how can Machado be worth almost as much as 5 years of sale or Goldschmidt in just 1 year? Someone explain that to me for a guy who just completed his 4 best years in his prime and hit .282 for his career to date? Or even worse, that’s like 10 years of Altuve in a year!

Pretty simple. Under the current CBA, most players are underpaid in the first 6 years (before free agency), and many are overpaid once they reach FA. Teams have a finite payroll. They portion it out based on the rules of that system, with the goal of putting the best team on the field.

Ripken Fan posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Manny gets 10/300. Harper will get more than that.

Can't help but thinking that the Padres can acquire 2-3 really good players for that. They are not a player away. I agree with Mid Atlantic. Bryce Harper is wearing a big smile today.

They have their entire position-player roster locked up for at least four more years with this deal and several have room to develop. It's a risk, but they very well may have only been a player away--and if so, they created a core for the near future.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

2019Lefty21 posted:

So how can Machado be worth almost as much as 5 years of sale or Goldschmidt in just 1 year? Someone explain that to me for a guy who just completed his 4 best years in his prime and hit .282 for his career to date? Or even worse, that’s like 10 years of Altuve in a year!

Pretty simple. Under the current CBA, most players are underpaid in the first 6 years (before free agency), and many are overpaid once they reach FA. Teams have a finite payroll. They portion it out based on the rules of that system, with the goal of putting the best team on the field.

I get it but I don’t think any player in baseball is worth a guaranteed $30,000,000 a year from ages 27-37. I guess the market will show what it can handle but to me when you look at the comparison to Altuve money and stat wise it is just crazy. It’s not like Manny is a stellar teammate or member of the community either is he? I guess I’m still stuck in 1982 when the Mets stole George Foster away from the Reds for 5 year $10,000,000 contract!lol

MidAtlanticDad posted:

 

...

Win some, lose some. 

Agreed...but you tend to lose the huge ones and have a fighting chance with the smaller / shorter ones

All teams understand the risk of 10 yr deals, thus the late signing. SD has a great farm system with lots of talent to come up. Having 2 big names to achor the line up for several years (and hopefully at the current production level) was a calculated business decision. I think the 5 year opt out clause may he useless with new CBA.

Unless Machado becomes addicted to midnight runs to Roberto’s he will be sick of losing in five years. Another risk of signing Machado is a guy with his attitude is a risk of becoming a dugout and locker room cancer for young players.

”You don’t have to hustle. You’re getting paid.”

Anything beyond five years is a huge risk, especially pitchers. Maybe go seven years for young players like Machado and Harper. But ten years is insane. 

One number that is amazing is Jon Lester hasn’t missed a start in eleven years since recovering from recovering from Hodkins lymphoma. The only negative is at 33 and 34 he’s not going as far into games. This should be a flag for any team signing 30+ pitchers. 

The Red Sox really blew it. They wouldn’t give Lester 5/125M. It cost them 7/210M to find a lesser replacement. 

RJM posted:

Coach Koz posted:

RJM posted:

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

 

I've thought the same thing, but I think that ego gets in the way. A lot of these guys have been coddled for a long time. And then there are the agents. I'd bet more than one agent has spent a lot of time talking a player out of a lesser deal even though the player prefers another organization or city.

Agents tell their players getting the most is best for everyone. And others took the most in the past to get you where you are. Ego is part of it too. But someone new will always top the highest paid guy. It makes me respect Gwynn and Puckett for staying in their small market town for less. Pedroia took a hometown discount because he likes playing in Boston. When asked about being lowballed he responded, “I make enough.”

Did Tony Gwynn really stay in SD for less? I ask, because I saw a Tweet today that said when Tony Gwynn went from $1 mil. to $4 mil., he was the 3rd highest player in the game.

RJM posted:

Coach Koz posted:

RJM posted:

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

 

I've thought the same thing, but I think that ego gets in the way. A lot of these guys have been coddled for a long time. And then there are the agents. I'd bet more than one agent has spent a lot of time talking a player out of a lesser deal even though the player prefers another organization or city.

Agents tell their players getting the most is best for everyone. And others took the most in the past to get you where you are. Ego is part of it too. But someone new will always top the highest paid guy. It makes me respect Gwynn and Puckett for staying in their small market town for less. Pedroia took a hometown discount because he likes playing in Boston. When asked about being lowballed he responded, “I make enough.”

Sometimes it backfires on agent's advice.  Brewers just signed Mike Moustakas for  $10 mil for 1 year.  It was reported he was offered  $17 mil by another club, but he turned it down.  He wanted a long term deal.  The roll of the dice costed him $7 mil.

Trust In Him posted:

Sometimes it backfires on agent's advice.  Brewers just signed Mike Moustakas for  $10 mil for 1 year.  It was reported he was offered  $17 mil by another club, but he turned it down.  He wanted a long term deal.  The roll of the dice costed him $7 mil.

He lost that money last year (more than $7M, actually). He rejected the Royals' qualifying offer of $17.4M after the 2017 season. They only ended up paying him $8.7M with incentives. So that decision cost him a nice round 50% of his 2018 salary.

Trust In Him posted:

RJM posted:

Coach Koz posted:

RJM posted:

Machado just joined the “I don’t care about winning. I only care about money” club. The charter member is Eric Hosmer. Enjoy the weather and losing Manny.

The money is so big for top demand players now I don’t understand not taking a little less and playing where you can win. Maybe Machado is more interested in surfing and money than baseball. 

 

I've thought the same thing, but I think that ego gets in the way. A lot of these guys have been coddled for a long time. And then there are the agents. I'd bet more than one agent has spent a lot of time talking a player out of a lesser deal even though the player prefers another organization or city.

Agents tell their players getting the most is best for everyone. And others took the most in the past to get you where you are. Ego is part of it too. But someone new will always top the highest paid guy. It makes me respect Gwynn and Puckett for staying in their small market town for less. Pedroia took a hometown discount because he likes playing in Boston. When asked about being lowballed he responded, “I make enough.”

Sometimes it backfires on agent's advice.  Brewers just signed Mike Moustakas for  $10 mil for 1 year.  It was reported he was offered  $17 mil by another club, but he turned it down.  He wanted a long term deal.  The roll of the dice costed him $7 mil.

It backfired on Moustakas in this particular megotiation. But he’s making 10 mil because predecessors drove up the market.

I liken Machado's signing with San Diego at this stage of their rebuild to when Jayson Werth left the Phillies and signed with the Nationals.  People thought it was all about money, but the guy was willing to evaluate the talent in the pipeline and gamble that the Nats were going to be really good soon.  He was right, and the Phillies were on their way down shortly thereafter.

It's debatable which team will be better sooner between the White Sox and Padres.  But both are loaded with plenty of top prospects who could make them winners and playoff caliber in a few years (both need young pitchers to step up).  True the White Sox are in a much easier division, at least as of now with almost every team rebuilding.  But maybe they all get good at the same time.  San Diego will always struggle to stay up with the Dodgers and their huge revenues, but Arizona is just now starting a teardown and the Giants need to do likewise very soon.  If the Rockies lose Arrenado (likely now that he will be also looking for 10/$300 million), then the Padres could be the top contender to the Dodgers for most of Machado's contract. 

Add to it the no brainer choice on weather and the Sox perpetual second-fiddle status to the Cubs, Machado's decision makes a lot of sense. 

The White Sox may be second fiddle in Chicago. But does San Diego even have a fiddle?

RJM posted:

The White Sox may be second fiddle in Chicago. But does San Diego even have a fiddle?

White Sox are the 5th most popular team in Chicago right now and the Padres have no competition in town.

Anyone here (except for White Sox fans) who would play for the Sox over the Padres?

Most players do what’s best for their families and although Chicago is an awesome city, it’s also cold as heck in March and sometimes April and we won’t talk about the winters.

The Sox won 62 games last year and the Padres won 66. The Padres also have the number one farm system. 

Most think that he will never win with Padres but there are no guarantees that he’d win with the Sox either. 

I’m happy for anyone who can get $300M to play baseball and wish him the best. 

19coach posted:

RJM posted:

The White Sox may be second fiddle in Chicago. But does San Diego even have a fiddle?

White Sox are the 5th most popular team in Chicago right now and the Padres have no competition in town.

I’ll stick with, “Does San Diego even have a fiddle?” But I still think San Diego got the short end of the stick on this one. 

2019Lefty21 posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

2019Lefty21 posted:

So how can Machado be worth almost as much as 5 years of sale or Goldschmidt in just 1 year? Someone explain that to me for a guy who just completed his 4 best years in his prime and hit .282 for his career to date? Or even worse, that’s like 10 years of Altuve in a year!

Pretty simple. Under the current CBA, most players are underpaid in the first 6 years (before free agency), and many are overpaid once they reach FA. Teams have a finite payroll. They portion it out based on the rules of that system, with the goal of putting the best team on the field.

I get it but I don’t think any player in baseball is worth a guaranteed $30,000,000 a year from ages 27-37. I guess the market will show what it can handle but to me when you look at the comparison to Altuve money and stat wise it is just crazy. It’s not like Manny is a stellar teammate or member of the community either is he? I guess I’m still stuck in 1982 when the Mets stole George Foster away from the Reds for 5 year $10,000,000 contract!lol

Foster is actually the answer to one of my favorite trivia questions....who was the Opening Day Left fielder for the 1986 NY Mets.  FWIW I always thought he was an island of professionalism, respectability and class while Cashen put together a really good team.  

As for Machado he has been a great defensive player who has shown increasing power.  That is almost sure to be trimmed significantly playing 81 games in that cavern in SD vs Camden Yards.  He may never hit 30 HR in a season over the life of the contract.  If SD gets .285 25 HR and 90+ RBI with 145 games played at a Gold glove level for about 6 or 7 years it won't be a terrible deal.  But I can see at 31 or 32 he drops off and the defense fades as injuries start to happen so he plays 100 games a year a couple of times on the back end of the deal.  I think NL teams are looking into the future and see the DH coming soon.  If he becomes a DH after 5 years at age 32 the Padres will have made a bad deal. 

Albert Pujols averaged 30 HRs and 100 RBI for ages 34 to 37 and I don't think Machado will produce anything that good at that stage of his career but if he does then the Padres made a great move stats wise.  We'll see if he can be what Foster was for the Mets which was someone to lead a franchise out of the wilderness to become a competitive playoff caliber team.

I hated the hosmer deal but like the machado deal. It is a risk but consider he is still young. Fangraphs said using an average age decline curve his value actually projects more than 300m.

I don't think it is a bad move, they have a ton of prospects to back him up.

luv baseball posted:

2019Lefty21 posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

2019Lefty21 posted:

So how can Machado be worth almost as much as 5 years of sale or Goldschmidt in just 1 year? Someone explain that to me for a guy who just completed his 4 best years in his prime and hit .282 for his career to date? Or even worse, that’s like 10 years of Altuve in a year!

Pretty simple. Under the current CBA, most players are underpaid in the first 6 years (before free agency), and many are overpaid once they reach FA. Teams have a finite payroll. They portion it out based on the rules of that system, with the goal of putting the best team on the field.

I get it but I don’t think any player in baseball is worth a guaranteed $30,000,000 a year from ages 27-37. I guess the market will show what it can handle but to me when you look at the comparison to Altuve money and stat wise it is just crazy. It’s not like Manny is a stellar teammate or member of the community either is he? I guess I’m still stuck in 1982 when the Mets stole George Foster away from the Reds for 5 year $10,000,000 contract!lol

Foster is actually the answer to one of my favorite trivia questions....who was the Opening Day Left fielder for the 1986 NY Mets.  FWIW I always thought he was an island of professionalism, respectability and class while Cashen put together a really good team.  

As for Machado he has been a great defensive player who has shown increasing power.  That is almost sure to be trimmed significantly playing 81 games in that cavern in SD vs Camden Yards.  He may never hit 30 HR in a season over the life of the contract.  If SD gets .285 25 HR and 90+ RBI with 145 games played at a Gold glove level for about 6 or 7 years it won't be a terrible deal.  But I can see at 31 or 32 he drops off and the defense fades as injuries start to happen so he plays 100 games a year a couple of times on the back end of the deal.  I think NL teams are looking into the future and see the DH coming soon.  If he becomes a DH after 5 years at age 32 the Padres will have made a bad deal. 

Albert Pujols averaged 30 HRs and 100 RBI for ages 34 to 37 and I don't think Machado will produce anything that good at that stage of his career but if he does then the Padres made a great move stats wise.  We'll see if he can be what Foster was for the Mets which was someone to lead a franchise out of the wilderness to become a competitive playoff caliber team.

I agree with what you say 100%....just $300,000,000 is one heckuva wager for any of that coming true...just my opinion.

I have a question....raise your hand if you wouldn’t take the deal if you were Machado? 

If you raised your hand, please explain your ideal scenario.

Is there any pressure to win in SD?  That's just another reason why I believe he's not worth that money.  I wouldn't take that money only if there was a better offer elsewhere.  Mo Vaughn once said - "It's not about the money".  Did anyone really believe him? Get what you can get when you can get it.

After the contract is signed is when I can feel a little bit of empathy...when he has to take the field to earn that ginormous contract.   Machado is a tool.  Now he is a rich tool with with talent and skills on the baseball field.   The problem is he is not going to be able to live up to that money because there is no supporting cast and nobody to protect him in the lineup with the possible exception of Hosmer who has a decent eye at the plate.  Plus Petco is not a hitters ball park, and not a long ball friendly stadium.   Nobody on the current Padres team is hitting over .300.   It is going to be a brutal year for Machado at the plate.  

I’ll never fault a player for taking as much as a team is willing to give him. But as a star I would think Machado would want to go somewhere with a track record and on the verge of winning. The Padres have been pointed in the right direction and failed many times in the past. As least when Jon Lester signed with the Cubs he was jumping on board with Theo Epstein's reputation. 

I don’t believe Machado has ten years of good attitude in him. He’s more likely to be a poor attitude role model for young players. To look ten years out is very high risk. I’ll push in my chips the Padres don’t win a World Series with Machado. I don’t believe this is a risky bet in any way. In the long run the Dodgers, Giants and Dbacks front offices will keep them more viable contenders. 

Lefty - It sure is a ton of dough and a big bet for Padres.  They won't move the needle meaningfully until and if the farm system bears fruit.  If you look at the Padres pipe in some ways the Mets comparison makes more sense.  When Foster signed with them in 1982 guys like Strawberry, Gooden, Mitchell, Dykstra and Backman were still in the minors and Wilson, Brooks, Mazzilli  and other trade pieces were sitting there early in their MLB careers.  

I do not think Machado is the same kind of character guy that Foster was but he is a major league all-star.  If he can find a way to be a positive leader for kids coming up and put up the kind of numbers I talk about above then it won't be an awful deal. 

But that is a series of if's and those parleys carry high odds.  So if I had to bet in 3 years Machado is still a valuable asset that the Yanks or Red Sox will come back to look at because a $30MM contract may not look so bad to them when they have to pony up for some of the younger stars they have now.  

Apparently the Padres performed another act of Stupid Padres Franchise Moves. They signed Machado for 300M when his next best other offer was between 175-250M.

Was deal 10 years?  If it was 7 for $210MM or something close to those numbers it is basically he same deal with more years on it.  It is the length more than the 30 APS that might bite them if he plays like he should at least until age 31 or 32.  

They had to go for more years to get him is my bet and that other offers were also in the 30 per range.

RJM posted:

Apparently the Padres performed another act of Stupid Padres Franchise Moves. They signed Machado for 300M when his next best other offer was between 175-250M.

That is not true. The best competing offer was 8/250, with the potential to be 10/350.

It came out Saturday the only on the table offers were somewhere between 175-250. The Padres overpaid. According to several scouts the problem Machado had and Harper has is they’re not worth 300 mil because neither of them are considered the top five players in the game. One insider said the reason Harper hasn’t signed yet is he’s caught between the Phillies having the offer that saves him embarrassment and not really wanting to play there.

I’m pretty sure the Sox offer had the potential to exceed $300M with incentives but Manny went with the guaranteed money. 

Harper gets 13/330. Boras does it again. That's why high profile players sign with him.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Harper gets 13/330. Boras does it again. That's why high profile players sign with him.

He turned down 30MM/yr from the Nats to get 25.385MM/yr from the Phillies (on a contract he'll never see the end of) and that's 'doing it again'? Maybe if you subscribe to AOC math.....

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

I believe Harper is overrated. He plays hard and gets banged up. I don’t believe he has anything close to a thirteen year shelf life as a top producer. I see an end result similar to Pujols. 

In the short term I’m happy he’s not signing with the Dodgers or Cubs. While the Red Sox are in capable of getting to the World Series mode these two teams are the top threats. In the beginning I was hoping he wouldn’t end up on the Yankees or Astros. 

DesertDuck posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Harper gets 13/330. Boras does it again. That's why high profile players sign with him.

He turned down 30MM/yr from the Nats to get 25.385MM/yr from the Phillies (on a contract he'll never see the end of) and that's 'doing it again'? Maybe if you subscribe to AOC math.....

According to multiple reports, about $100M of the Nats' offer was deferred compensation. So the present value was significantly less than a "standard" 10/300 deal.

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

MidAtlanticDad posted:

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

What is this image I’m not seeing?

Good riddance and dont let the screen door hit you on the way out.  What a greedy sob.  Sick of his half assed effort running to first among other things.  

25.7 AAV Nats offered 30 (and that was their FIRST OFFER, could have negotiated more, but they wanted to test the free agent market)

Over $4m less for 3 more years and the Nats probably would have made that deal last fall too btw.

Meanwhile a real team guy would have stayed and taken even less (or agreed to the deferred comp) in order to win a ring.  Make the team around me better, I'm staying and I'm richer than I could ever want anyway so I will take a little less to give you room to get better.  

I can't wait for the boos the first game.  Have fun Phillies fans, because he will break your heart.  And now your bank.

Lived and worked in Philly and was there when McNabb got drafted.  I told the guys I worked with they did not deserve him and that a worse bunch of people exist anywhere in the US.  They agreed with me - a ton of ridicules people there.  Then there is the sports radio which is a whole other level.  I don't think the baseball stadium has a jail like the Vet did so maybe things are improving - but duck in December if you are Santa.

Harper had better be REAL good otherwise he'll have 12 1/2 years of headaches and Boras will be nowhere to be found now that Harper will be 40 when this deal ends.

I don't know where the notion comes from that guys have to be team players. When they're under contract absolutely. Once that ends they're free men. After years of slaving around in the minors for piss poor wages, I don't blame them for trying to take advantage of every penny they can get their hands on. If he donated 100 million of that contract to charity would people still call him selfish? 

FWIW - The Nats have put together some very good teams in the past few years. And every year they prove to be soft and unable to perform on the big stage. I don't blame him for leaving

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

I believe Harper is overrated. He plays hard and gets banged up. I don’t believe he has anything close to a thirteen year shelf life as a top producer. I see an end result similar to Pujols. 

In the short term I’m happy he’s not signing with the Dodgers or Cubs. While the Red Sox are in capable of getting to the World Series mode these two teams are the top threats. In the beginning I was hoping he wouldn’t end up on the Yankees or Astros. 

Astros were never a consideration, unless a short term pillow deal.  They've got some bills coming due in a few years.  You will see 3 of these 4 hit free agency.  Correa, Springer, Altuve and Bregman.  I hope they don't see Cole on FA market.

Not sure about the Yankees.  All the write ups are about how smart they have become with money, moves and player development.  But then again they took on G Stanton's deal.  Stanton's not even Lance Berkman, and that is with Berkman's broken down and old years included. Don't believe the born again Yankees.  

Familiar cries of "Not worth it" are yelled at the sky everytime a big deal is signed.  Player salaries as a percent of revenues are at their lowest level since the days of Curt Flood.

RJM, did Shaughnessy put down his scotch long enough to log his opinion?

Go44dad posted:

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

I believe Harper is overrated. He plays hard and gets banged up. I don’t believe he has anything close to a thirteen year shelf life as a top producer. I see an end result similar to Pujols. 

In the short term I’m happy he’s not signing with the Dodgers or Cubs. While the Red Sox are in capable of getting to the World Series mode these two teams are the top threats. In the beginning I was hoping he wouldn’t end up on the Yankees or Astros. 

Astros were never a consideration, unless a short term pillow deal.  They've got some bills coming due in a few years.  You will see 3 of these 4 hit free agency.  Correa, Springer, Altuve and Bregman.  I hope they don't see Cole on FA market.

Not sure about the Yankees.  All the write ups are about how smart they have become with money, moves and player development.  But then again they took on G Stanton's deal.  Stanton's not even Lance Berkman, and that is with Berkman's broken down and old years included. Don't believe the born again Yankees.  

Familiar cries of "Not worth it" are yelled at the sky everytime a big deal is signed.  Player salaries as a percent of revenues are at their lowest level since the days of Curt Flood.

RJM, did Shaughnessy put down his scotch long enough to log his opinion?

He must be taking a few days off. There hasn’t been a column since Sunday. But given the news is from today it wouldn’t be until tomorrow anyway. 

Unfortunately Nick Carfado (beat writer and baseball notes reporter who dropped dead a few days ago) won’t have commentary. He was well connected throughout the league. With ten calls he would get ten opinions.

I’m surprised Bill Plaschke of the LA Times didn’t trash Harper for not signing with the Dodgers. He’s an angry, get off my lawn old timer.

Plaschke criticized the Dodgers. He said the length and the money are absurd. But he added with all the money the Dodgers make they could have afforded him. 

I think we know how the Phillies feel about adding the DH to the NL....

RJM posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

 

What is this image I’m not seeing?

https://twitter.com/barstoolsp...211457201623042?s=12

luv baseball posted:

Lived and worked in Philly and was there when McNabb got drafted.  I told the guys I worked with they did not deserve him and that a worse bunch of people exist anywhere in the US.  They agreed with me - a ton of ridicules people there.  Then there is the sports radio which is a whole other level.  I don't think the baseball stadium has a jail like the Vet did so maybe things are improving - but duck in December if you are Santa.

Harper had better be REAL good otherwise he'll have 12 1/2 years of headaches and Boras will be nowhere to be found now that Harper will be 40 when this deal ends.

if Harper is like Mcnabb yes he is going to get vilified. I don't expect to see that, I see him being out of the Utley, Dykstra, Rose, Clark, Barkley, Iverson type who play hard. In Philly if you play hard you will loved, if you play hard and win you will write your own ticket. McNabb was a selfish, sensitive whiner who played his worst at the biggest moments...and then blamed others. I was a season ticket holder for just about his entire career, he was loved for years when he came to town. He got killed (rightfully so) at the end of career when his attitude and approach to the game changed. I actually blame Andy as much as Donnie Mac for the problems there. 

As far as your boorish, outdated and semi truthful comments on Philly I imagine there weren't many folks wishing you had stayed. It is a great area with awesome people...can't be a snowflake and survive in Philly. It is good you didn't go to NY or you wouldn't have made it long enough to leave. 

I have to imagine you weren't a fan of Wing Bowl either...another iconic event. 

how I see this deal is this.

Year 1-4 about market price fair enough

Year 4-7 assuming he continues his career path he may actually be a bargain. 

Year 8-13 will be diminishing returns with the end mostly likely not pretty on a value level. However with salaries what they are and have been 25m a year in a large market is not likely to be a major issue. 

Time will tell, has he to produce and stay healthy but it is possible that the Phightin Phils got a relative bargain here. 

old_school posted:

how I see this deal is this.

Year 1-4 about market price fair enough

Year 4-7 assuming he continues his career path he may actually be a bargain. 

Year 8-13 will be diminishing returns with the end mostly likely not pretty on a value level. However with salaries what they are and have been 25m a year in a large market is not likely to be a major issue. 

Time will tell, has he to produce and stay healthy but it is possible that the Phightin Phils got a relative bargain here. 

Good analysis...I'll add that if the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (needed for '22) enhances player compensation the way I think it will he might be a big bargain in the middle years.

Someone mentioned on Twitter if it was possible that he took a very small salary in the potential strike/walkout year (2022?), so that his potential loss of salary would be less?  Interesting if they thought that way.  

Harper playing hard?  In your dreams.  Count how many times he actually runs to first...or the number of bad pitches he continues to swing at....Yes he has power and gets his HRs in, but in between he shows what and who he cares about.  We loved him in DC because of his take no prisoners attitude and he wanted to make baseball fun again, and that's a clown question bro etc.  But we mostly stopped loving him two seasons ago.  Still, he could have had what he ended up getting from the Nats.  They offered him 300/10 last fall.  Boras wanted to test the free agent market, and that soured the Nats ownership on even revisiting their original offer.  I am positive the Nats would have given him that deal.  

Let's come back next year and compare Juan Soto to Bryce.  Let's come back in 10 years and see hard he played, if he is still playing and if the $ was worth it.

And to answer the person who said these players are entitled to get what they can.  Bryce never suffered through minor league pay.  He has no college debt ha ha.  He could have been the kind of guy that said I want to stay here and win the series, give me x and take the extra to build a championship team.  He could have been loyal. Yes these guys have every right to go and get every last dollar for their families and their future.  But they don't have to, and plenty of players have proved their loyalty by locking up before becoming free agents, by taking pay cuts or being creative with the structures of their contract, by simply staying put and letting all the little boys and girls who have jerseys with their names on them still want to wear them.  I know I am not in that situation so it is easy to sit hear and judge, but I for one and am not sorry to see Harper leave.  The Nats just improved their defense by a LOT and will still have the big bats and parted ways with a selfish immature player who we will now get to see still strike out and this time cheer.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

RJM posted:

MidAtlanticDad posted:

RJM posted:

Phillies fans can be excited today. In about years six through thirteen they will be constantly bitching about Harper. 

However, without knowing how the contract is structured it’s about 25M per year. 25M might be a great deal in a few years if Harper is still performing. 

 

What is this image I’m not seeing?

https://twitter.com/barstoolsp...211457201623042?s=12

LOL. I saw a similar one.

https://twitter.com/paulhembo/status/1101212012707758080

TWOBOYS ... Are you still at your first employer out of loyalty? Of did you find out what you’re worth at some point? 

I'm retired and sadly no one ever paid me millions of dollars a year to play a sport I love, so no going there RJM.  It is comparing an apple and kiwi.  But yes, you opened the door, so in fact I turned down SEVERAL more lucrative jobs during my life because I did not want to move or uproot my family or I did not want to live in X.  I turned down Goldman Sachs in fact, just to name one, and there are not many people who can say that from 1990. 

There are always factors beyond $ in any job move, even for professional athletes.  Bryce for example wanted a LT deal.  That appears to have been important to him.  

Other athletes value the team that drafted them and often stay because they want to spend their career there.  That does not make them better people or guys who leave for more money bad people.  It is just about what is important to you, the person that matters.  In my view, in the case of Bryce Harper, he has always valued himself over the team.  Which he can do.  Good luck in Philly for the next 13 years Bryce.  That's all I'm saying.  

Twoboys posted:

I'm retired and sadly no one ever paid me millions of dollars a year to play a sport I love, so no going there RJM.  It is comparing an apple and kiwi.  But yes, you opened the door, so in fact I turned down SEVERAL more lucrative jobs during my life because I did not want to move or uproot my family or I did not want to live in X.  I turned down Goldman Sachs in fact, just to name one, and there are not many people who can say that from 1990. 

There are always factors beyond $ in any job move, even for professional athletes.  Bryce for example wanted a LT deal.  That appears to have been important to him.  

Other athletes value the team that drafted them and often stay because they want to spend their career there.  That does not make them better people or guys who leave for more money bad people.  It is just about what is important to you, the person that matters.  In my view, in the case of Bryce Harper, he has always valued himself over the team.  Which he can do.  Good luck in Philly for the next 13 years Bryce.  That's all I'm saying.  

 

You avoided the question. Anyone in demand has turned down offers. But you never once moved on for better pay? 

old_school posted:

luv baseball posted:

Lived and worked in Philly and was there when McNabb got drafted.  I told the guys I worked with they did not deserve him and that a worse bunch of people exist anywhere in the US.  They agreed with me - a ton of ridicules people there.  Then there is the sports radio which is a whole other level.  I don't think the baseball stadium has a jail like the Vet did so maybe things are improving - but duck in December if you are Santa.

Harper had better be REAL good otherwise he'll have 12 1/2 years of headaches and Boras will be nowhere to be found now that Harper will be 40 when this deal ends.

if Harper is like Mcnabb yes he is going to get vilified. I don't expect to see that, I see him being out of the Utley, Dykstra, Rose, Clark, Barkley, Iverson type who play hard. In Philly if you play hard you will loved, if you play hard and win you will write your own ticket. McNabb was a selfish, sensitive whiner who played his worst at the biggest moments...and then blamed others. I was a season ticket holder for just about his entire career, he was loved for years when he came to town. He got killed (rightfully so) at the end of career when his attitude and approach to the game changed. I actually blame Andy as much as Donnie Mac for the problems there. 

As far as your boorish, outdated and semi truthful comments on Philly I imagine there weren't many folks wishing you had stayed. It is a great area with awesome people...can't be a snowflake and survive in Philly. It is good you didn't go to NY or you wouldn't have made it long enough to leave. 

I have to imagine you weren't a fan of Wing Bowl either...another iconic event. 

Every W by the Iggles was "We're going to the Super Bowl!"  every loss was "They're nothing but garbage!"  17 times a year - bye weeks got crazy because half the people thought they won and the other half thought they lost.  It was hysterical to watch everyone bleed out every week.  Say what you want about McNabb but except for a year or two when White was there it was a sinkhole for almost 20 years until McNabb and Reid made them a professional outfit.

Was around when they had the first WIng Bowl and it was embarrassing.  It was WWE meets stupidity & gluttony.  They must be up to 25 by now...What a mess.

The people were great on an everyday basis especially the South Philly crowd but something weird happened whenever the Iggles or Flyers played.  The funniest part to me was they were in on the joke - they knew they were stupid and reveled in it.  I admired them for that because they had no shame in who they were.  I took plenty of crap from them but it was all good natured (never mean or hurtful) and gave as good as I got.  Been called a "Stand up guy" by all of them.  In my 30 years of knowing Philly/South Jersey folks it is generally as high a compliment as you can get from them.

Maybe the town changed in the last 20 years since I left - but the people I still know from there haven't.  Hope Wentz gets back his form - he'll be in for a rough ride if he doesn't.  St Nick might not be there to bail him out next year.

For what it's worth WFAN callers in NY are in the same league.  Was there when that abortion on humanity was inflicted in the 80's and not only survived but thrived.    

I lived in a suburb of Philadelphia for eighteen years. There’s no doubt the fans are bi-polar. When I moved there I started out as a secondary to Boston teams fair weather Philadelphia fan except for the Sixers (no frick’n chance growing up a Celtics fan). Then I discovered Philadelphia sports talk radio callers were the best entertainment available after a Philadelphia team loses.

I always explained Philadelphia to friends as not being the best place to live for any one thing like many other cities claim. But overall it’s a good place to live. I’m still there about every three months. One trip is a Red Sox versus Orioles and Phillies trip.

I thought Eagles fans might act like they finally got ****** after not winning a championship in most fan’s lifetimes. But they were worse than ever. I came prepared with my Gimme Five tee to keep them at bay. One thing Boston sports fans have learned real well from Yankees fans is how to be incredibly obnoxious about winning. 

 Of course, this tee is now obsolete.

13 years but its ages 26-38. The last couple years probably won't be great -- 37 and 38 year olds generally aren't -- but many thought he would get $330/10, so the last three years can be a throwaway.

He took the most money, which is what free agents always do:

https://deadspin.com/these-wer...er-offers-1832983665

"And the Nationals’ reported 10-year, $300 million offer made to Harper before the end of the regular season? It included so much deferred money (it would have paid Harper through the year 2053) that its present-day value wasn’t in the same ballpark as the other offers. $184 million, according to Verducci, or $240 million, per the Post’s Neil Greenberg. The math on deferred contracts is tricky, but since the former figure is coming via Boras and the latter via the Nats, you should feel safe pegging the true value as somewhere in between."

RJM - have to agree on the Yanks fans - but Belichick said while visiting MetLife with Parcells - there's the two we won and the two we gave'em.  Gotta love the when we lose we're still better point of view.  Warm fuzzies from everyone!

Just remember that was the Nats first offer.  Their starting point -- could have negotiated but Boras/Haper chose not to ever negotiate.  No one ever starts the discussion with their best offer!

And no RJM, I have only moved for worse pay actually.  Never for better.  But I know that is unusual and not the norm.  

Twoboys posted:

Just remember that was the Nats first offer.  Their starting point -- could have negotiated but Boras/Haper chose not to ever negotiate.  No one ever starts the discussion with their best offer!

And no RJM, I have only moved for worse pay actually.  Never for better.  But I know that is unusual and not the norm.  

 

That offer was so pathetic that it really wasn't an offer. Harper doesn't owe the Nationals a courtest of refusal, nor are they entitled to his attention. When they go that bad on lowballing, they have failed to earn those things.

Here is what I referenced some days back as Harper's contract not being the biggest, the largest contracts put into constant dollars, etc.  (Thanks to Fangraphs and Craig Edwards)

Also, the contracts of Harper and Machado are within $2M of each other on the net present value of the respective cash flows.  Value the opt out as you want.  Machado could dip in again for more than Harper in theory based on the length of the respective deals.  Value chances of winning a world series as you want, value the sun of Southern CA vs Philly as you want.  

What's missing for a true net comparison of the financials is the impact of taxes.

Thanks for that chart, very informative.

That offer was so pathetic that it really wasn't an offer. Harper doesn't owe the Nationals a courtest of refusal, nor are they entitled to his attention. When they go that bad on lowballing, they have failed to earn those things.

I have to say that this is just wrong.  The rumors are that Harper and Boras wish they would have TAKEN the Nats offer if they could go back in time as they did not expect the market to be like it was, despite the eventual signings by Manny and Bryce.  There is nothing pathetic about offering 300m for 10 years last fall.  The supposed deferrals and back end structure allowed the Nats to deal with other players and signings (like getting Corbin and instantly making the pitching rotation better).  Have you run the tax consequences and present values?  Probably not so do not say the offer was pathetic as neither of us know the actual details.  Plus then you go back and say this is what I don't like about the offer, I want this instead etc.  

Moreover there is this thing in the world called common courtesy.  Harper did say no thank you, that they wanted to test the free agent market.  And the Nats are not entitled to his attention?  He was drafted by them, lived in (and loved) DC and was given a lot of free reign here.  They have an existing relationship and btw a very good one with Boras who represents multiple other Nats.  The Nats do not need to earn anything from Bryce it is JUST THE OPPOSITE.  He needs to earn his salary -- they are/were his BOSSES.  He was given a very good starting offer (if you look at the chart, the differences between Machado and Harper in terms of net present value are $2 m) and decided to move on, as his right.  But no need to be rude, which he wasn't.  Some sources in DC are saying they regret not signing so there you go.

Do you understand the Nationals offered 300 paid out over 35 years? That’s money not in Harpers account earning interest. What if the Nationals went bankrupt in twenty years? It’s not likely. But anything is possible.

If he was listening to Boras and he was, then anything the Nats offered that wasn't 10 Years $300+ was almost certain to be rejected and market tested.

Nats were kind of cagey here - they knew that and made an offer that on the face seems very real but term was too long.  Nats win the PR battle because they get to say they tried to keep him rather than just outright lowballing him.  I don't think they had the stomach for this kind of deal.

FWIW I think the Arenado deal was a winner for both sides.  Rockies have cornerstone player locked up for fair money and he will probably spend his whole career in Denver. Looking for at least another 6 years of 35 HR 120 RBI per from him. He will be hanging up HOF numbers and might have biggest totals for any 3B ever if he stays healthy and in CO.

Something to think about when paying players long term deals.  Consider the Mets will have that HOF'er Bobby Bonilla on the payroll for longer than the Phillies will have to pay Harper.  Anyone think those 95 homers he hit for the Mets were any kind of bargain?  Desperation is a terrible thing. 

Bonilla requested the deferred payoff. The Mets were going to pay whether it was in NPV or deferred. It was a good deal for the Mets. The decision to sign Bonilla at all was the bad decision.

Regarding Arenado he stayed in Colorado where he wasn’t risking his numbers and power reputation diminished. Although at a 56/44 home and away ratio with his homer totals he would still be 30+ playing elsewhere.

RJM - agree on Bonilla deferred comp but Wilpon's invested the money with Madoff and gave Bonilla an 8% coupon which is pretty rich.  They made other deals of this type with Saberhagan and Gilkey so it looks like they had a fondness for trying to make bets to get out of these big contracts at that time.

IMO they were three time losers on this.  1) Signing Bonilla at all  2) Betting they could earn more than the deferred comp 3) Money with Madoff.

Flip side is they took the money they saved deferring Bonilla's money and bought Mike Hampton and that help pay off in one of the few bight spots in the last 30 years for the Mets in a WS appearance.  The compensatory pick they got for Hampton leaving was parlayed into David Wright. 

So they were actually big winners on the baseball side of dumping Bonilla even if they got bruised in the wallet as it looks like they did.  

Pocket watching....

Salary talk is just more fan fodder for discussions and arguments.  See above thread.

I wonder if sports would be less enjoyable if salaries were private.  My answer is no.  We would move on to another subject to argue about.  

The Machado and Harper deals sound fair to me.  Baseball has built a crappy salary system.  Proof of how difficult bargained change is more than anything.  "Owners, players, let's work together for a common good"  LOL!  Looking forward to the strike when the CBA expires.

fenwaysouth posted:

After the contract is signed is when I can feel a little bit of empathy...when he has to take the field to earn that ginormous contract.   Machado is a tool.  Now he is a rich tool with with talent and skills on the baseball field.   The problem is he is not going to be able to live up to that money because there is no supporting cast and nobody to protect him in the lineup with the possible exception of Hosmer who has a decent eye at the plate.  Plus Petco is not a hitters ball park, and not a long ball friendly stadium.   Nobody on the current Padres team is hitting over .300.   It is going to be a brutal year for Machado at the plate.  

I'm not saying they can't screw it up, and I'm not saying that Milb performance gurantees MLB performance, but seems like everyone in baseball says that the Padres have the top-ranked farm system, so I think that it would be reasonable for Machado to expect to play for a contending team, if not this year, then very soon.  And it's not like the NL West isn't ripe for the taking.