If they want to run hard, they should join a track team...“I don’t run hard”
“Here’s $300 million”
Let that be a lesson to all you Little Leaguers out there.
If they want to run hard, they should join a track team...“I don’t run hard”
“Here’s $300 million”
Let that be a lesson to all you Little Leaguers out there.
You get some applause from me with this postMachado doggin' it in Petco for 10 years.
it will feel like 70.
I lived in San Diego. Nobody in the press will say a single bad word about him or his hustle. The fans will blandly accept him. He will be king of the town with no effort.Just what the San Diego Padres needed, a great, lovable player that will bring people off the beaches and into Petco.
We have a place down there and head down a lot. What I meant was they won’t get all excited about him as a potential great addition to the team/difference maker. It’ll be like “is this that new guy?” when he comes up.I lived in San Diego. Nobody in the press will say a single bad word about him or his hustle. The fans will blandly accept him. He will be king of the town with no effort.
Could you explain that? Isn't AAV * Years = Total Value, regardless of how that money is allocated to the various years and different buckets?AAV, not necessarily total value.
Rosenthal didn't tell us how it would exceed the Padres deal so we don't know. He did mention incentives and vesting options so maybe it was an 8 year deal with 2 vesting option years attached.Could you explain that? Isn't AAV * Years = Total Value, regardless of how that money is allocated to the various years and different buckets?
I realize that to get to apples-to-apples with the Padres, you'd have to make assumptions about what years 9 and 10 would look like, and maybe Machado didn't want to take the risk that he wouldn't be worth $25M those two years. But I'm curious how that CWS deal was going to get to "higher value" than the Padres' deal.
At the time of your post, I didn’t see the years, which I suspected were less than 10. According to JA’s post, yes, 50 million difference in guaranteed money.Could you explain that? Isn't AAV * Years = Total Value, regardless of how that money is allocated to the various years and different buckets?
I realize that to get to apples-to-apples with the Padres, you'd have to make assumptions about what years 9 and 10 would look like, and maybe Machado didn't want to take the risk that he wouldn't be worth $25M those two years. But I'm curious how that CWS deal was going to get to "higher value" than the Padres' deal.
Hell, he should be GM of the Dolphins right now.I hope that kid grows up to be the GM of the Yankees one day.
Yeah, if they can't afford the Machado contract, there's no chance they are getting Harper. They might be better off with a Keuchel consolation prize anyway, as their rotation is almost as shaky as San Diego's (and I'm a fan of their Luchessi and Lauer).Thanks for participating, Chicago. Enjoy your parting gifts of Yonder Alonso and Jon Jay.
*
June 4, 2016: Traded by the San Diego Padres with cash to the Chicago White Sox for Fernando Tatis Jr. (minors) and Erik Johnson.Thanks for participating, Chicago. Enjoy your parting gifts of Yonder Alonso and Jon Jay.
*
Really? $300M over a decade is a lot of years but seems like a bargain for Mookie.This is bad new for the Sox IMO, that becomes the baseline for a Betts extension now.
Betts will be two years older when he his FA. I’d expect fewer years but higher AAV.This is bad new for the Sox IMO, that becomes the baseline for a Betts extension now.
They traded Quintana for Eloy Jimenez and Dylan Cease in 2017, the #3 and #25 overall prospects right now, so that kind of balances the Shields fiasco.June 4, 2016: Traded by the San Diego Padres with cash to the Chicago White Sox for Fernando Tatis Jr. (minors) and Erik Johnson.
At least they got that -0.1 WAR from Big Game James over 435 innings.
Think if they put the money they spent on him towards a Machado they could be the ones with the Machado/Tatis left side?
If it wasn't for his attitude, who would pay Machado $35M per year?I think it is important to remember, when considering what kind of standard this sets for future guys like Mookie, that there's a discount built into the Machado deal due to his attitude issues. if you replace Machado's attitude with Mookie's this would probably be a $350 million contract. It's Machado's only flaw and without it he'd easily be worth $35 million a year.
this is a ridiculous post... there was no discount hereI think it is important to remember, when considering what kind of standard this sets for future guys like Mookie, that there's a discount built into the Machado deal due to his attitude issues. if you replace Machado's attitude with Mookie's this would probably be a $350 million contract. It's Machado's only flaw and without it he'd easily be worth $35 million a year.
i believe there was. just given his age and production at a prime defensive position, and the fact that Trout (who obviously should be the highest-paid) signed an early extension 5 years ago, Machado deserved to be the highest-paid player in the game on a per-year basis. shortstops who can hit are one of the most valuable commodities in the game and a 26 year-old one doesn't come on the market as a free agent very often.this is a ridiculous post... there was no discount here
Machado received the most money an athlete ever got in American sports. How much did his attitude hold him back? It's not like he "settled" for 10/$200M. In a depressed (and you can argue the causes of this depression) market, where a lot of big players were out of the running (no Boston, no NY Mets or Dodgers or Angels, and really, the Yankees didn't "need" him) he still got a bunch of cash from a team that hasn't made this big of a free agent acquisition since Bruce Hurst and Jack Clark in 1989.I wouldn't totally discount his attitude factoring into the eventual contract here. I'm not saying it makes sense or should play a role, but in the right situation it can.
By all accounts the Yankees were essentially out on Machado largely because of Steinbrenner. Wasn't this at least in part attitude related? Even if 10/300 is "market value", the fact that the Yankees (or another team potentially) didn't jump in and try to beat that seems relevant in this case.
That's quite possibly true. But the truth is ... none of us have any idea whether the Yankees made an offer to Machado, and we're not likely to find out. So while I understand your inclination to see things in a certain light, there's just no way of knowing whether that idea holds water.NY specifically is definitely valuing character or attitude or whatever you want to call that quite a bit these days when choosing who to go after. That’s IMO the bulk of why they seemingly much prefer Arenado to Machado, leadership, clubhouse presence, that kind of thing.
That’s believable considering they’ve always targeted nothing but the highest character players in free agency.NY specifically is definitely valuing character or attitude or whatever you want to call that quite a bit these days when choosing who to go after. That’s IMO the bulk of why they seemingly much prefer Arenado to Machado, leadership, clubhouse presence, that kind of thing.
Don't be silly. They signed Chapman as their one example to show how a player with a troubled past can become a saint by donning pinstripesWere the Yankees valuing character and leadership when they re-signed Chapman?
This was never really true, he just wanted to prove he could play both positions to teams before free agency and he's much more valuable at 3B where he is special defensively than he is at SS where he is adequate. He will be at 3B in SD once Tatis is up and maybe even before that.Arenado also plays third base, Machado wants to play shortstop.
And unlike ARod, it doesn't seem like he wanted to move. No matter how slimming pinstripes make him look.
All I'm doing is reporting what I see, not saying I agree with it or it's wise. I think some of it is their worries about public perception and the flak they took in the wake of the Chapman acquisition and re-signing is a factor. If you put Arenado's personality/temperament into Machado's body, I think he's a Yankee right now. SD jumped in after they saw NY was not really in and their competition was just PHI and CHW.Were the Yankees valuing character and leadership when they re-signed Chapman?
Actually we know pretty much exactly what happened here, NY said publicly in Dec before meeting with Machado that they weren't going to $300M, they offered him/Lozano something around $220M at the meeting in Dec (not a 'formal offer' but they were ready to move right then according to reports), and when Machado wasn't interested and made it clear that he was going to the highest bidder, NY basically moved on while keeping a toe in the water in case he changed his mind or his market fell apart.That's quite possibly true. But the truth is ... none of us have any idea whether the Yankees made an offer to Machado, and we're not likely to find out. So while I understand your inclination to see things in a certain light, there's just no way of knowing whether that idea holds water.
Wait a second, so the Yankees were willing to sign Machado (despite his bad attitude) if he agreed to their (very below market) terms?Actually we know pretty much exactly what happened here, NY said publicly in Dec before meeting with Machado that they weren't going to $300M, they offered him/Lozano something around $220M at the meeting in Dec (not a 'formal offer' but they were ready to move right then according to reports), and when Machado wasn't interested and made it clear that he was going to the highest bidder, NY basically moved on while keeping a toe in the water in case he changed his mind or his market fell apart.
You're correct about that. My bad.This was never really true, he just wanted to prove he could play both positions to teams before free agency and he's much more valuable at 3B where he is special defensively than he is at SS where he is adequate. He will be at 3B in SD once Tatis is up and maybe even before that.
No ... you know what they wanted you to hear. If you believe that these stories you hear are the whole truth, then I don't know what to tell youActually we know pretty much exactly what happened here, NY said publicly in Dec before meeting with Machado that they weren't going to $300M, they offered him/Lozano something around $220M at the meeting in Dec (not a 'formal offer' but they were ready to move right then according to reports), and when Machado wasn't interested and made it clear that he was going to the highest bidder, NY basically moved on while keeping a toe in the water in case he changed his mind or his market fell apart.
It's them putting a value on a player, which includes the whole package, on field, off field, things they know much more about than we do. I guess you could call it 'cheap' but it's also pretty much where the market was for him until SD got involved maybe 3-4 weeks ago.Wait a second, so the Yankees were willing to sign Machado (despite his bad attitude) if he agreed to their (very below market) terms?
This isn't the Yankees developing a conscience, it's the Yankees being cheap.
I don't see any reason to doubt this specifically, but as always, YMMV.No ... you know what they wanted you to hear. If you believe that these stories you hear are the whole truth, then I don't know what to tell you
This seems pretty reasonable to me. I'd have the same fears.Honestly I think some of what happened was that NY heard along with everyone else that Machado really wanted to come to NY. When it became clear at/after their meeting that he was just going to take the highest offer no matter who it was from (as is his right, obviously), that played into the fears NY had about him (their front office was split on pursuing him from the beginning) that he might go into cruise control once he had signed his massive deal.
Again, I'm not agreeing (or disagreeing) with how they approached this, but I do think this was at least a component of what happened.