what is going on this off season?
by tkballer22 on Dec 20, 2008 4:53 PM PST
Email
PrintI am really disappointed to see the way the off season has gone for baseball. I really dont know if it is the economy that is causing this problem or if it just a higher level of greed that has erupted. I don't remember an offseason where there was this much drama.
First the Furcal incident. I am glad to see that the Braves have dismissed Furcal's agency from ever dealing with them again. Good for the Braves. i am glad this didnt happen to Seattle, or I would hate to see the amoutn of posts this blog would explode with. I am not a Braves nor a Dodgers fan, so I really dont take this move personally. I think this was one of the shadiest things that a player could do to a team.
Secondly, the whole Boras situation. Does Scott Boras realize that the economy is in shambles? That economically the game of baseball could be in trouble if things keep going the way they are? I guess he really doesn't care. He'll get his and that's all that matters. I hope there is a little collusion in the league and the amount that Tex gets isn't close to what Boras wants. Either that or he signs with Boston and falls flat.
Lastly, Manny Ramirez is a whiny bitch and I would love to see him have the same problems Tex is gonna have. I loved the comment a few weeks ago where he basically said he was going to possibly not play next year if he doesnt get the years and money he wants. Good. Stay away. The only person you'll hurt is yourself. Look at what Barry Bonds did to himself. No one would sign him for the league minimum last year. Maybe this is the best way to get these assholes out of the leauge. Ignore them and don't give in to their demands.
I am very satisfied that Seattle has made the moves they have made. I would love to see them upgrade second base and get a big bopper to play 1B/DH/LF and see what happens. Im glad these high priced babies aren't coming anywhere near Seattle because regardless of their talent, they arent worth the headache. (See Sexson, Richie)
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
MLB owners aren't in the bread line.
They’ll pay up to whatever they feel is appropriate. Scott Boras’ job is to get as much money for his client as he can. The team tries to get the best deal it can. It’s called negotiation.
If no owner in baseball is willing to give Tex that much money, they won’t. It’s not like Boras is breaking into someone’s house and stealing their money. It’s up to the owners how much they’re willing to pay, and we’re not in any place to tell them how to spend their money. Blaming players and their agents for “greed” is ridiculous. It’s a business, and owners and workers negotiate fair salaries based on merit and demand. Just like your employer and mine.
This is very, very basic economics. This is how free agency works. Scott Boras doesn’t have a responsibility to help owners make more money. If you think players are making too much money, stop buying tickets and merchandise.
by Teej on Dec 20, 2008 6:17 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
True, but
the owners are well aware that attendance and revenues are likely to drop next season, and may well drop considerably; as such, Bora$’ overreaching has already hurt his clients, and is likely to hurt them more. At this point, I’m rooting for someone like Adam Dunn to fall to the M’s on a relatively cheap 1- or 2- year deal to DH, hoping that the economy will rebound and they’ll be able to get the big money later. I don’t know that I’d call it likely, but the way the market’s going, I wouldn’t be shocked if there are significant bargains out there for the savvy GM. (Which, now that we actually have one, is nice to think about.)
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 20, 2008 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
If Boras is indeed "overreaching," then the final price will drop to reflect that.
And that will be natural.
I just take exception to the idea that Scott Boras should give a shit about the recession and stop doing his job. If the current economic state is so bad that owners need to cut down on their spending, then they will! But the players are under no obligation to do them any favors.
If I were a baseball player
I would want Scott Boras to be my agent. His job is to maximize the dollars his clients receive, and he does his job better than almost any agent out there. As Teej said, it’s down to ownership – if they don’t want to pay it, they won’t. The stupidity and willingness to overpay isn’t Boras’ fault.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Yup.
And “overpaying” means different things to different teams. If just one team in MLB decides Mark Teixeira is worth $24 million a year for eight years, then that’s what he’ll get paid. And there’s nothing wrong with that from an ethical or business standpoint. (Though of course it sucks to root for a team that overpays miserably for a free agent.)
Oh, and
have you ever tried to get a “big bopper” on the cheap? Doesn’t happen. Economics again.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Pena is a huge anomaly, though.
AAAA players don’t often turn into 4 win players overnight.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2008 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
True, though Pena isn't a true-talent 4 win player
And there are a lot of players who could give you a couple of wins (or just a bunch of HRs) for cheap. I don’t know if that fits the definition of ‘big bopper’, but these are the kinds of problems we get into when using cliches to describe players (clearly, you weren’t doing so, AC – I’m just sayin’).
He's probably a 3 win player true talent, which the kind player he was going into '07 doesn't become often.
He was a 5.75 win player in ’07, which…wowsers.
But I don’t disagree with what you’re saying at all.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2008 11:03 PM PST up reply actions
You both make good points.
Forgive me, because I took a few years off from baseball when I went to college (stupid college paper), but why was Pena considered expendable. I know he was a 1B/DH type, but he seemed to always have a solid bat.
TTO guys were (are?) wildly underrated.
because Pena was seen as such a can’t-miss prospect coming, his low BA and high strikeouts led to him being labeled as a bust.
So, stupidity basically.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2008 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
He would have had a hell of a season in AAA while Sexson stunk up the joint
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Washingtonhighways.org
He would have had a hell of a season in AAA while Vidro stunk up the joing
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Washingtonhighways.org
Well, he wasn't that good
He could take a walk, but he didn’t have amazing power, and….yeah, those strikeouts.
Dan Johnson’s ‘05 was very similar to Pena’s ’04, and in the end both got cut.
I’m not denying that Pena was better than most thought, and that there’s still some stigma to high K, high BB players. But NOBODY saw Pena’s ‘07 coming. Cust’s breakout was less out-of-the-blue.
I know people say good bats at easy defensive positions are easy to get
and for the most part I agree with that. The problem I have is that most of these guys are risky pickups. When Pena was picked up he was high risk. They look like good pickups when they work out but how often do they actually give substantial WAR. I would guess usually they can’t give more than 1 WAR with a large spread of outcomes. The successes are great but the failures can be brutal to watch.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 5:44 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't say Pena was a high-risk pickup for the Rays.
They weren’t going to contend either way, and he signed a one-year minor-league deal for $800,000. If he sucked, he sucked, but he wasn’t going to cripple the team if he failed.
Pena was less than no risk. They cut him.
The only reason he was on the team is because Greg Norton hurt his knee the week before the season started. The Rays shouldn’t get a whole lot of credit for Pena. They were lucky.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
I didn't mean high risk as in you'll lose money
I meant high risk as in he might suck. You only have so many roster spots and can only pick up so many of these guys. Trying a guy out who might be good or might suck has a cost that is not associated with the player’s cost. He is using up plate appearances other more reliable players could be using.
I agree they aren’t going to hurt teams too much but you can’t necessarily rely on them to give you good production.
Reliability has its price.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
If he turns out to not be very good he is blocking better players
That sounds stupid but to use an example….
Brad Wilkerson was signed for a relatively small amount and sucked. In retrospect the team would have been better putting almost anyone in there. He was blocking a variety of prospects or other “better” players with his roster spot. There are only 25 roster spots and a limited number of plate appearances on the team and if you have a relatively high risk player taking a spot/PA who sucks then that hurts the team.
We always say its an easy thing to do to find these guys but I bet if we made a list of these guys right now that are freely available a few would do very well but a lot would be horrible. The only way a team can find out if they are going to be good or bad is to give them plate appearances. If they do poorly (and some will) this takes away from the impact of when they work out. On average, I bet they give some small value but they won’t be contributing a lot to the team. If they were, teams would catch on and they would become more valuable. Certain free agents are paid a lot because they are viewed as reliable. They may or may not be reliable but teams do this because they realize the negative impact players with high levels of risk can make.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2008 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know what the point of this game is, but it's fun to play.
by JI on Dec 22, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
Its easy to do in hindsight
I challenge you guys to predict who will be the next Ryan Ludwick or Milton Bradley for 2009.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
It's not like signing Milton Bradley was a major theme around here last year.
by Graham MacAree on Dec 22, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
Oh yeah. So did I.
I’m just trying to say that there are only a few of these guys that work out each year and its a little tricky to pick which will work and which will be busts.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
If you can't compete without the gamble paying off there was no risk in the first place
by Graham MacAree on Dec 22, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
You know thats almost never the case.
Usually these guys are hoped to produce ~2 WAR (Branyan) and two wins isn’t the difference between competing. If you are a team that is on the 90 win threshold there is something to be said for taking a “reliable” 2 WAR instead of a “cheap/risky” 2 WAR.
If you are trying to build a competitive team for cheap these guys are great and I think we can all agree we love these signings.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
What is your argument here, because this whole thing started with you saying
Tampa picking up Carlos Pena was risky and now you just said those types are great for teams with low payrolls trying to be good. I have lost the point you are trying to make.
Yeah thanks for getting me back on track...
I’m saying they are great deals but everybody makes them sound like they are so easy. When we say these bargain pickups are great we often forget to look at all the ones which don’t work out too. They are great moves to make because they can give a team great production for a tiny investment but we should remember that they don’t always work. Some teams prefer to pay more for reliable players.
We do a pretty good job of projecting a player’s average performance but risk projections are also extremely important when assigning value to players.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think anyone assumes these types of pickups work 100% of the time.
We have first hand experience with them failing.
Just making sure.
I’m sure you guys do. Just feel like a reminder was needed. I didn’t really mean to turn this into a big discussion because I don’t really think much explanation was needed. Probably just too bored which leads to excessive rambling.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
I don't call that free or cheap
Greene is probably -10 offense and 0 defense which makes him about 2 WAR. His contract is 6.5 million and the cardinals gave up a couple prospects (not good though) on top of that.
Freely available to me means a guy like Milton Bradley last year or Branyan this year. A cheap short term deal. If you want a freely available SS I would say Adam Everett would have fit the bill better.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
The Cardinals gave up a better hitting version of Sean Green
to acquire him. The Padres were giving him away.
…And of course he projects to 2 WAR, the next Carlos Pena isn’t going to project to a 4 WAR player. The whole point is that Greene is a good candidate to break his 50% projection. Maybe he’s not literally freely available, but that’s a quality regular on a one year deal that was had easily.
Adam Everett is slightly above replacement, he’s never shown the remotest signs that he was a potential break out candidate on offense. There’s no decent argument that he’s the next Milton Bradley.
*Milton Bradley made over 5 million dollars last year.
by JI on Dec 22, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't every player a good candidate to break their 50% projections?
And don’t they have an equally good chance of not making their 50% projections.
I get what you are saying though. Greene will be interesting to watch next year. I feel like the trade will either work great for the Cards or just suck a big one.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 22, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
I have a hard time sympathizing with a bunch of billionaires
People pay to see the players, the players deserve their fair share of the pot. What the players should do with that money is another discussion entirely.
Yup.
And if people think players make too much, then they think baseball as a whole makes too much. And that requires you to ignore how business operates.
You can’t keep voting for stadium financing and pouring your money into tickets, MLB.tv, jerseys and hats, then expect players to make what you make.
It's hard trying to explain
why cutting payroll wouldn’t result in lower ticket prices Teams will charge the highest amount they can get away with regardless of the payroll or the product on the field.
It's possible, but it's not at all common
The Padres, for instance, decided not to raise season-ticket prices next year and will lower the price of some tickets. But even that was a tough decision for them, despite their horrible team and the fact that they plan to cut payroll from $73 million to somewhere in the $40 million range.
(This is an unusual case, of course, because of John Moores’ divorce.)
Yeah, I don't know why people always think it's higher salaries leading to higher ticket prices
when it’s higher ticket prices (revenue) leading to higher salaries. And the drive behind higher ticket prices is pure market economics.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
