Trout

fenwaysouth posted:

Go44Dad,

So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series.  Everybody's goal is to win a World Series.  Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them.   I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings.  You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams.  Please convince me otherwise.

I don't know if everyone's primary goal is to win a championship, though (while it may sound funny, I would bring up the Pirates as an example of a club that does not have that as a primary goal.) There's a bottom line involved, and if a signing creates a better outcome in that regard than the alternatives, then it's a good contract for the team. I simply don't see a ring/no ring dichotomous outcome to be the best way to measure these, because then any contract, no matter how team-favorable, that didn't result in a championship would be defined as a bad one.

Matt13 posted:

That "mass exodus" is at a rate of less than half it was from the 15 years before. The tide seems to be turning.

It's a mass exodus of middle, upper middle, and upper class taxpayers, not necessarily a drop in population. California is attracting a lot of homeless and legal and illegal immigrants.

People just can't afford to live there anymore. I was offered a job there a while ago and turned it down because of the cost of living.

Coach Koz posted:

Matt13 posted:

That "mass exodus" is at a rate of less than half it was from the 15 years before. The tide seems to be turning.

It's a mass exodus of middle, upper middle, and upper class taxpayers, not necessarily a drop in population. California is attracting a lot of homeless and legal and illegal immigrants.

People just can't afford to live there anymore. I was offered a job there a while ago and turned it down because of the cost of living.

I know. I'm referring to the exodus; if I was referring to the population, I would have mentioned that it has continuously grown. As I stated, the rate of exodus is half of what it was up through 2005.

I would also point out that the groups you listed are not mutually exclusive.

fenwaysouth posted:

So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series.  Everybody's goal is to win a World Series.  Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them.   I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings.  You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams.  Please convince me otherwise.

What can a GM do to put together a team that's "capable of winning" a WS? A huge part of that is assembling talent. Proven talent costs money. What's the alternative for a GM? Is there a better way to go about building a WS contender? Good teams are working on all the other stuff (analytics, player development, etc), but you still need great talent and that talent is in limited supply. Trout's estimated arbitration value for 2019 was more than $50M.

And don't let a few big contracts distract you from the real story in MLB salaries... they're going down as a % of revenue. The top guys are getting big money (during arbitration years and FAs), but the rest are no longer getting crazy money.

And another responsibility of the GM/owner is to make money. These high profile players directly impact revenue growth. Just look at Phillies ticket and jersey sales after the Harper signing.

Here's an interesting article about Trout's potential value.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mi...-on-the-table-again/

Go44dad posted:

I'm going fishing today. 

Bass fishing or trout fishing?

Largemouth bass fishing is awesome in my area.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

 

And don't let a few big contracts distract you from the real story in MLB salaries... they're going down as a % of revenue. The top guys are getting big money (during arbitration years and FAs), but the rest are no longer getting crazy money.

I think that advanced analytics and the push towards multi-position role players have a lot to do with that. Teams realize that controllable players making around the MLB minimum can provide near the same needed production as a middling $6M-$10M / year veteran especially if that controllable player can fill in at multiple positions.

And with the recent success of young players like Torres, Acuna, Soto, etc. teams are realizing they don't need to wait until a player is 23 or 24 or 25 before giving them a shot at regular playing time in the big leagues.

The flip side is that a lot of these young players (not just the young breakout stars) brought up now will be free agents in their 20's like Harper and Machado. That shoudl swing the salary pendulum back towards the players within the next decade.

Coach Koz posted:

Matt13 posted:

That "mass exodus" is at a rate of less than half it was from the 15 years before. The tide seems to be turning.

It's a mass exodus of middle, upper middle, and upper class taxpayers, not necessarily a drop in population. California is attracting a lot of homeless and legal and illegal immigrants.

People just can't afford to live there anymore. I was offered a job there a while ago and turned it down because of the cost of living.

Just saw an article on this:

https://www.latimes.com/politi...-20190311-story.html

"State demographers, digging into federal census data, found that significantly more people earning above $125,000 were moving into California than were leaving. And more earning less than $75,000 were taking off.

I also have a degree in economics.  Plus, I had a son who emerged from college in 2010.

I am also old enough to remember what it looks like when a recession ends for real (as in 1982), and not according to someone's technical definition.

Coach Koz posted:

Go44dad posted:

I'm going fishing today. 

Bass fishing or trout fishing?

Largemouth bass fishing is awesome in my area.

2019Dad posted:

Coach Koz posted:

Matt13 posted:

That "mass exodus" is at a rate of less than half it was from the 15 years before. The tide seems to be turning.

It's a mass exodus of middle, upper middle, and upper class taxpayers, not necessarily a drop in population. California is attracting a lot of homeless and legal and illegal immigrants.

People just can't afford to live there anymore. I was offered a job there a while ago and turned it down because of the cost of living.

Just saw an article on this:

https://www.latimes.com/politi...-20190311-story.html

"State demographers, digging into federal census data, found that significantly more people earning above $125,000 were moving into California than were leaving. And more earning less than $75,000 were taking off.

In the January state budget document, there also was this observation: “Over time the state…has become more educated on average due to outward migration of less educated residents…and inward migration of more educated people.”

Interesting - but big red flags in that article:

“California has a net out-migration of low-income folks who can’t afford to live in their state and are being pushed out by high-income homeowners. And there’s a whole other story of middle-class people struggling to pay their bills and the housing shortage hitting them hard.”

“Although California has had net out-migration among most demographic groups, it has gained among those with higher incomes ($110,000 per year or more) and higher levels of education (graduate degrees),” the state Legislative Analyst’s Office determined last year.

I'b bet that is fueled by the tech industry and a decent amount of H1B visas. The second paragraph noted above is why California welcomes illegal immigrants and protects them. Without those workers there are very few people to do the normal jobs that keep the economy moving. If this trend continues it won't end well for California.

fenwaysouth posted:

Go44Dad,

So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series.  Everybody's goal is to win a World Series.  Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them.   I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings.  You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams.  Please convince me otherwise.

GMs want to win a World Series now, or in the near future (i.e., while they still have a job).  Much like the government, selling out the future seems to be a price many are willing to pay to get what they want today.  After all, someone else will have to pay those bills.

I will add that, as much as I agree with your sentiment, the big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels Dodgers) have won more than their fare share of World Series in the free agent era, so it does seem to be a winning formula.

fenwaysouth posted:

3and2Fastball posted:

........................................

He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games.  That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.

it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Jeter with the Yankees)

 

It is good for MLB.  Trout will be Mr Angel if he isn't all ready.  Mike Trout is an incredible talent.  But I have to ask the question have you all lost your minds with these 10+ year contracts?  Really?  Do you really think these Machado, Harper, Trout contracts are good for the team, make them more competitive and bring their city a World Series championship?  I really don't.   I think these GMs are hitting the easy button, as the pendulum has swung back the other way by offering ridiculous money over long periods of time.  Very, very few of those long term contracts has paid off to date.  I would say none (instead of very few because I'm only on my first cup of coffee this AM), but Pujols, ARod twice, Cabrera, Votto, Kershaw, Cano, Price, Arenando, Stanton are all very good players.  Some will make it to the HOF.  I'll be the first to admit the Red Sox overpaid for Price, but he is not a superstar worthy of this money.  I love Nolan Arenando, but his career is just getting started...he got overpaid.  Kershaw is a heck of talent, and he will overcome his post season yips, but he is overpaid as well.  I take a contrarian view on all of this, and really believe today's GMs haven't learned how to say "no" enough to the long term deals that overcommit the teams they represent.  The upcoming MLB labor talks will be interesting, because labor is going to bitch and moan.  That is what they do.  But the reality is MLB labor has never had it better including these long term deals.

As always, JMO.

I’m in agreement. These contracts are insane. I thought Pedroia’s last contact was insane. I figure at some point the Sox are ripping the uniform off Pedroia and telling him to get lost after politely asking him to retire doesn’t work.

I thought Crawford’s seven year contract was insane even while expecting to get four solid years from him. Teams have to be careful with long term contracts that extend into the mid 30’s.

I look at Harper and see a future ugly situation. The guy plays very hard, gets banged up and misses games. I seriously doubt he will be of value by the time he’s thirty-five if not sooner. The Philadelphia fans will get ugly, err uglier. Harper will end up hating Philadelphia. His wife will get abused at the grocery store. Fans will want him gone.

Here’s another aspect to these long term contracts. Trout has never played in a winning post season game. It’s because the Angles typically don’t make the post season. Who says anything is going to change? I wouldn’t want to risk locking myself into most teams for my entire career when I’m in my mid twenties. Even with a team like the Red Sox what if ownership changes and they become the Marlins? Give me six or seven years at 40M. If my career goes down the tubes and I can’t get another big contract I’ll struggle to get by on $100+M after taxes and expenses. In six or seven years we can negotiate again. Then, if I can only get a $100M on my next contract I’ll do my best to struggle through life.

As for David Price the only thing that made him worth the money was pitching them to a World Series win. Looking at his season’s stats no way is he worth 7/210.  The Sox really screwed up playing games with Lester and not offering him 5/125. I’ll take Lester over Price any day. Price still owes Eckersley an apology. I don’t think he’s a big enough man to do it.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a degree in economics. What has it done for her ability to understand economics? She’s her own personal SNL skit when she opens her mouth.

I have a degree in economics with a concentration in quantitative analytics. I never spent a day in my life in the economics field. It was my major because math was easy and interesting for me. The analytics I ultimately used running a business.

A college degree doesn’t make a person an expert. It’s just a marker demonstrating potential. An adult who has a hunger to educate himself in his spare time on a subject will know more than the person with the degree on the topic who never uses it. 

Go44dad posted:

Coach Koz posted:

Go44dad posted:

I'm going fishing today. 

Bass fishing or trout fishing?

Largemouth bass fishing is awesome in my area.

Then there’s Randy “Small Bat” Bass. I remember the Padres trying to sell the fans on this guy was the real deal. He was ready to fulfill his potential. The Padres were his fourth team in four years. In the immortal words of Bill Belichick the next year he on to Texas.

https://www.baseball-reference...ers/b/bassra01.shtml

A long term deal that did work well was the Scherzer deal. 210m turned into a bargain.

Also the first 10 year contract of Arod was a bargain.

252m 2001-2010, 71 WAR

The mistake was the second extension he got signing him until ue he was 41.

The big issue is less contract length but end age. An age  27 to 36 contract can go wrong too of course if the player falls apart at 30 but the worst contracts are the ones going till 40.

Players do decline from age 30 to 35 but after 35 they really fall apart. 

Because of this I like contracts like machado who end at age 36 because it means you likely get a lot of good years, some ok one and maybe 1 or 2 bad ones. In contrast those old 31 to 40 contracts like pujols often mean like half of the years are really bad which is why they are rarely given out anymore.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

fenwaysouth posted:

So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series.  Everybody's goal is to win a World Series.  Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them.   I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings.  You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams.  Please convince me otherwise.

What can a GM do to put together a team that's "capable of winning" a WS? A huge part of that is assembling talent. Proven talent costs money. What's the alternative for a GM? Is there a better way to go about building a WS contender? Good teams are working on all the other stuff (analytics, player development, etc), but you still need great talent and that talent is in limited supply. Trout's estimated arbitration value for 2019 was more than $50M.

And don't let a few big contracts distract you from the real story in MLB salaries... they're going down as a % of revenue. The top guys are getting big money (during arbitration years and FAs), but the rest are no longer getting crazy money.

And another responsibility of the GM/owner is to make money. These high profile players directly impact revenue growth. Just look at Phillies ticket and jersey sales after the Harper signing.

Here's an interesting article about Trout's potential value.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mi...-on-the-table-again/

MAD,

So, you answered your question for me.  If MLB salaries are coming down as you contend, then you go shopping and get yourself value that doesn't commit the team long term.    Recently, you had a number of World Series championship teams (Astros, Cubs, Red Sox) that developed their farm systems then signed valuable pieces to the puzzle that they control for a few years.   Yes, it is hard work finding value and finding fit, but these top level teams are doing it.   I see the Yankees have recently developed some financial discipline and are beginning to use this approach too with the exception of Stanton..Yankees had a brain fart there.  Yes, even Brian Cashman is turning over a new leaf and hunting for valueable pieces to the puzzle rather than signing free agents willy-nilly.  When I see the Yankees watching their wallet and winning 100 games then I get really worried.

The talk in Beantown has already started about what to do with Mookie Betts.  He is going to command a lot of money.  Honestly, I don't see the Red Sox offering beyond 7 years given their current operating model.  I love Mookie and everything he has done for Boston and the Red Sox.  These are tough financial decisions, and I think the smarter GMs are walking away from the big dollar/10+ year deals.   JMO.

RJM posted:

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a degree in economics. What has it done for her ability to understand economics? She’s her own personal SNL skit when she opens her mouth.

I have a degree in economics with a concentration in quantitative analytics. I never spent a day in my life in the economics field. It was my major because math was easy and interesting for me. The analytics I ultimately used running a business.

A college degree doesn’t make a person an expert. It’s just a marker demonstrating potential. An adult who has a hunger to educate himself in his spare time on a subject will know more than the person with the degree on the topic who never uses it. 

AOC was asked to comment on Trout's contract: " So like, he's making like 35 Million a year, so like he can keep maybe half of the first 10 Million after Federal (37%) & California State Taxes (13.3%), then he should, like , pay like 70% Federal on the rest cuz, like, it's not fair." "Please put me in charge of the Economy. Cuz, like, I have a degree in Econ." 

Midlo Dad posted:

A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon.  7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.

This a baseball site. Take this ignorant propaganda to Redditt ... or some maga trailer park.

Dirtbag30 posted:

Midlo Dad posted:

A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon.  7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.

This a baseball site. Take this ignorant propaganda to Redditt ... or some maga trailer park.

While he shouldn’t have taken the thread political he didn’t launch a personal attack as you did. Personal attacks are not allowed on this site. If you can’t act civil please leave and don’t come back.