Photo

San Francisco Giants


  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#181 BSLSethBondroff

BSLSethBondroff

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,204 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:18 PM

He has more homers than Paul Goldschmidt since the AS break.

Goldy hit two tonight...Maybe he read your post!!! 


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this
@beginthebegin71

#182 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,667 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 03:04 PM

Really good article by Giants 3B Matt Duffy.

 

http://www.theplayer...ts-the-new-kid/



#183 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 118,599 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 01:34 PM

FanGraphs: Giants Sign Jeff Samardzija



#184 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,862 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 05 December 2015 - 01:37 PM

Options running out. Should be talking to Kazmir.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#185 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 118,599 posts

Posted 15 December 2015 - 01:05 PM

FanGraphs: Johnny Cueto's Two-Year Six-Year Contract



#186 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,788 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 01:23 AM

FanGraphs: Johnny Cueto's Two-Year Six-Year Contract

 

 

The industry is seeing more and more of these, and the rest of us are still trying to figure out how to wrap our heads around them. The best I’ve seen it put: this kind of contract is a two-year deal with a four-year player option

 

 

That's the best description I've seen too...


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#187 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 88,593 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 16 December 2015 - 09:14 AM

An aspect of these opt outs that I will be interested to follow is what teams give them the deal after the opt out and which teams stay away.

 

I think teams, generally speaking, are doing this in hopes the player opts out.


  • Russ likes this
@BSLRobShields

#188 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,969 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 December 2015 - 09:57 AM

An aspect of these opt outs that I will be interested to follow is what teams give them the deal after the opt out and which teams stay away.

 

I think teams, generally speaking, are doing this in hopes the player opts out.

 

Well what opt out contracts have already reached the opt out time?

 

The Yanks and Dodgers clearly did not want CC or Greinke to opt out. 

 

What other cases have there been?

 

And I doubt the Cubs will want Heyward to opt out, unless he is under performing, and then he won't opt out anyway.



#189 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,788 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 10:01 AM

Well what opt out contracts have already reached the opt out time?

 

The Yanks and Dodgers clearly did not want CC or Greinke to opt out. 

 

What other cases have there been?

 

And I doubt the Cubs will want Heyward to opt out, unless he is under performing, and then he won't opt out anyway.

 

ARod...

 

And, yeah, the MFYs didn't want either him or CC to opt out and leave... but if you ask them now....


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#190 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,009 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 10:02 AM

What other cases have there been?

 

Rodriguez opted out of his record deal after 7 seasons (with ~$80M left).  Signed 10/$275M after that.



#191 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,969 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 December 2015 - 10:04 AM

OK, so the opt out hasn't worked for any of those 3 teams.



#192 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 10:29 AM

Well what opt out contracts have already reached the opt out time?

 

The Yanks and Dodgers clearly did not want CC or Greinke to opt out. 

 

What other cases have there been?

 

And I doubt the Cubs will want Heyward to opt out, unless he is under performing, and then he won't opt out anyway.

 

The Economist claims that J.D Drew, A-Rod, Burnett, CC, Soriano and Greinke all had an opt-out clause in their contract and exercised it. I wouldn't count Soriano as he had 1 year remaining. Wells had that clause in his contract and decided not to exercise it.

 

Drew had 3 and 33 remaining and gained another 2 years and $37M. Burnett had 2 and 24 remaining and gained another 3 and 58.

 

http://www.economist...tracts-baseball


  • mweb08 likes this

#193 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 88,593 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 16 December 2015 - 09:30 PM

The fact that the Yanks were dumb enough to give those big deals to CC and AROD sort of illustrates my point though.

 

They are in the middle of 2 regrettable deals.

 

After 2007, AROD opted out,  The following season, he was about a 6 WAR player and the next 3 seasons he was a 4ish WAR player.  The last 4 years, he was a 5 WAR player total.  So yes, he was good the first 4 years of his new deal but so what?  You could have gotten good production for that money and had a younger asset and now you wouldn't be screwed with his contract.

 

CCs new deal started in 2012.  2012 was a very solid season but he has been shit since.

 

So, for the opt out years, the Yankees paid out 317 million dollars and 30.6 fWAR...Which is 10.3M per win.  10.5 of that WAR was in the first years of each deal.

 

So yes, they didn't want them to opt out but their own stupidity (and huge bank account) led them to sign them anyway.

 

For me, its a tale of why you don't care these guys leave.  AROD was almost a 10 WAR guy in 2007...It took the next 2 full seasons to beat that and he never had 2 more seasons total to top it.

 

Now, the contract was frontloaded, so at least they aren't getting as burned, money wise now as they could have but still, these deals are perfect examples of why teams should just let another team be the dumb one that pays big for the declining years.


@BSLRobShields

#194 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 17 December 2015 - 08:35 AM

The fact that the Yanks were dumb enough to give those big deals to CC and AROD sort of illustrates my point though.

 

This is the same argument I had with McNulty. The fact is that every team is dumb enough to give out those large deals when they probably shouldn't. The exceptions are teams that can't afford to do so (Rays, Athletics, Orioles...). As long as teams are stupid, having opt-outs makes little sense.

 

The Red Sox were an exception to this rule because they tried not to sign older players. Unfortunately, this resulted in them giving a lot of money to Porcello. At least they were stupid in a different way, right?


  • RShack likes this

#195 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,969 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 17 December 2015 - 09:13 AM

The other problem is that it's not all about these teams being stupid, it's that the timing of the opt-out can totally suck for the team. If you have an elite player opt out of your contending team, well that sucks because obviously you'd rather still have that player and that's far from stupid. The Dodgers rightfully would still want Greinke for 3/72. 

 

So then there is pressure to either retain that player or replace him (unless you have great internal replacements). So that leads to what is probably a worse contract than what was left on the players original deal, either for the same player or someone new. 



#196 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 88,593 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 17 December 2015 - 09:31 AM

The other problem is that it's not all about these teams being stupid, it's that the timing of the opt-out can totally suck for the team. If you have an elite player opt out of your contending team, well that sucks because obviously you'd rather still have that player and that's far from stupid. The Dodgers rightfully would still want Greinke for 3/72. 

 

So then there is pressure to either retain that player or replace him (unless you have great internal replacements). So that leads to what is probably a worse contract than what was left on the players original deal, either for the same player or someone new. 

Pressure or not, you still have to be smart.  


@BSLRobShields

#197 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,788 posts

Posted 17 December 2015 - 09:43 AM

Pressure or not, you still have to be smart.  

 

Owners-as-a-group have proven themselves time and time again to be extremely not-smart... every single thing that makes it worse for teams is something the owners themselves made happen... which means even smart teams face toxic standard practices due to the stupidity of the owners...

 

A smart team cannot single-handedly change the reality they are presented with... the overt moronic nature of megabuck opt-out contracts is only the latest example... just because it appears to the new normal, that doesn't mean it's a good thing... as with other things stupid, the rich teams can and will exploit this to weaken the non-rich one teams...


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#198 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 17 December 2015 - 10:06 AM

So, here's my question. Suppose that owners decide that spending a lot of money on free agents that are over 32 is a mistake. Presumably, the amount of revenue going to players significantly declines. After all, there are relatively few free agents that hit FA that are under 30. Even those FAs under 30 would receive fewer years as teams show an unwillingness to sign players to deals covering when them past 35 or so.

 

If players' revenue share does a) decrease as a percentage significantly and b) decrease in absolute terms then players' will be upset. They're not angry with the status quo because they're seeing a good increase in salaries even if they're getting less revenue overall. That's the benefits of living in good times. But when that changes, they're going to be upset and strike.

 

Ultimately, this likely causes owners and players to agree to pay younger players more. Someone needs to get paid and if it isn't older players then it needs to be younger players. But this severely impacts low market clubs. If minimum wage goes from .5M to 1.5M, then what exactly do the Rays do? Forget about being active in free agency, they'll be paying an extra $15-20M to have guys on their teams that have six or fewer years of service time. That's huge if their payroll is only $70-80M. Meanwhile, mid market teams will be able to better compete for elite free agents because they'll get less money. It's hard for an Arizona to sign a Greinke at 6/$205M. Far easier to sign him at 4/$110M even if you're paying another $20M for minimum wage players.

 

The only way to deal with that is to increase revenue sharing to ensure that teams like the Rays can field a team and get at least a few free agents. That means that on the one hand, large market clubs are paying out more of their revenues in revenue sharing and they have more competition for elite free agents.

 

It strikes me that it may be better for them to be stupid and spend money on older free agents to prevent this scenario from happening. Maybe it's not such a bad plan after all.



#199 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,788 posts

Posted 17 December 2015 - 10:21 AM

So, here's my question. Suppose that owners decide that spending a lot of money on free agents that are over 32 is a mistake. Presumably, the amount of revenue going to players significantly declines. After all, there are relatively few free agents that hit FA that are under 30. Even those FAs under 30 would receive fewer years as teams show an unwillingness to sign players to deals covering when them past 35 or so.

 

If players' revenue share does a) decrease as a percentage significantly and b) decrease in absolute terms then players' will be upset. They're not angry with the status quo because they're seeing a good increase in salaries even if they're getting less revenue overall. That's the benefits of living in good times. But when that changes, they're going to be upset and strike.

 

Ultimately, this likely causes owners and players to agree to pay younger players more. Someone needs to get paid and if it isn't older players then it needs to be younger players. But this severely impacts low market clubs. If minimum wage goes from .5M to 1.5M, then what exactly do the Rays do? Forget about being active in free agency, they'll be paying an extra $15-20M to have guys on their teams that have six or fewer years of service time. That's huge if their payroll is only $70-80M. Meanwhile, mid market teams will be able to better compete for elite free agents because they'll get less money. It's hard for an Arizona to sign a Greinke at 6/$205M. Far easier to sign him at 4/$110M even if you're paying another $20M for minimum wage players.

 

The only way to deal with that is to increase revenue sharing to ensure that teams like the Rays can field a team and get at least a few free agents. That means that on the one hand, large market clubs are paying out more of their revenues in revenue sharing and they have more competition for elite free agents.

 

It strikes me that it may be better for them to be stupid and spend money on older free agents to prevent this scenario from happening. Maybe it's not such a bad plan after all.

 

Well, something is gonna have to change sooner or later... because with guys who are pretty-good but far-from-great getting $100M+ contracts, well, the very same factors that led to that also lead to the same kind of guys getting $150M and then $200M contracts before too long...

 

There is no way keeping that trend going is smart... and it's the dang owners who *insisted* on the things that ramp up player salaries like clockwork...

 

AFAIK, the best way to stop it is to do what Charley O said back when the owners first started cutting their own throats, and that's to make everybody a FA all at once instead of having players gradually trickle in to that category if/when they prove they're good enough to stick around... Finley saw what making everybody FA's would do:  it would make salary benchmarks be based on everybody, not just the best guys... but the owners couldn't even think straight about it.  Well, the proof is in results, and Finley accurately predicted exactly what has happened due to what the owners insisted on:  that the salaries of the best players become the benchmark that improperly drives the salaries for ordinary players.  That is *exactly* how both arb and FA work... and that's a factoid which is not debatable..

 

If you were trying to design a system that is guaran-damn-teed to very methodically send players salaries through the roof, you couldn't do better than what the owners have put in place... keeping it going isn't gonna make anything any better, it's just gonna keep the same trend line going, as it causes salaries for ordinary players to inexorably climb to increasingly more absurd levels...

 

The mechanisms themselves guarantee that, and they're the mechanisms the owners *demanded*... Marvin Miller just smiled and told the owners, "OK,  you win about those things... but in return, I want the contracts guaranteed..." and the idiotic owners agreed...  (you couldn't make this stuff up....)


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#200 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,969 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 17 December 2015 - 11:03 AM

Pressure or not, you still have to be smart.  

 

Either way the team is getting screwed in the moment because they're losing a guy they don't want to lose or they are paying him more than they would have otherwise. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners