1/3.5 for Cabrera actually, not that he's anything special but what a brutal market for players.
1/3.5 for Cabrera actually, not that he's anything special but what a brutal market for players.
1.5 mil that could reach 5 mil with incentives. Great deal for SF. They probably won't contend either way, but maybe he pitches like 2016-17 for a few months and they flip him for prospects in July.Pomeranz signs with the Giants. One-year deal.
SureThree weeks to pitchers and catchers, Harper, Machado, Keuchel, Kimbrel and Pollock all still out there.
I could see Boston being the destination, too. If he shows he can get his fastball above 92 with any kind of regularity, I'm real interested.1.5 mil that could reach 5 mil with incentives. Great deal for SF. They probably won't contend either way, but maybe he pitches like 2016-17 for a few months and they flip him for prospects in July.
They're very left-handed already and needed a RHH CF specifically, plus I have to think Harper's horrid defensive 2018 combined with his price tag has to be an especially tough swallow for an analytically driven front office that is interested in defensive and roster flexibility.Another team going cheap. Why not just sign Harper?
That feels like a really good deal for LAD.Dodgers sign AJ Pollock to a 4/$50 million contract.
That’s got to be about half what he was expecting to sign for. Wow is there a market correction going on here, even as the owners take in more and more.Dodgers sign AJ Pollock to a 4/$50 million contract.
There will be a players' strike the first chance they get.That’s got to be about half what he was expecting to sign for. Wow is there a market correction going on here, even as the owners take in more and more.
For a guy who's had one All Star level season three years ago and a bunch of injury shortened decent ones around it? In his age 31 to 34 seasons? $12.5 million per year may be a little light, but a $100 million deal for him would be ridiculous.That’s got to be about half what he was expecting to sign for. Wow is there a market correction going on here, even as the owners take in more and more.
And that will be a shame. The last work stoppage did lasting damage.There will be a players' strike the first chance they get.
The players really will have no choice, though, the whole financial pay structure needs to be drastically reworked. It's going to be ugly.And that will be a shame. The last work stoppage did lasting damage.
I’d love to know the extent to which the recent depressed market is attributable to —The players really will have no choice, though, the whole financial pay structure needs to be drastically reworked. It's going to be ugly.
I think it's a combination of A and B. And with B, there's really no need for C.I’d love to know the extent to which the recent depressed market is attributable to —
A. The current CBA;
B. Relatedly, front office executives getting “smarter”;
C. Collusion.
I think that it's perfectly defensible for the Red Sox to not add a top reliever. Miller was hurt, Britton wasn't great in NY, Kimbrel is still out there, but even he didn't have a dominant season last year and is going to be on the other side of 30-years-old. I wanted Ottavino, but the Yankees got him. And one of the Red Sox best relievers from last year was signed in the spring after he came home from Japan.The collusion part kicks in because I just don't believe that the penalties for going over $246M are enough to deter every individual team from doing so given their specific circumstances. BOS is the obvious one, it is crazy to me that they did not add at least one top reliever this winter even though that would have put them over the top level again.
In addition to what JMOH said, I'm pretty sure Boston will easily have the #1 payroll going into the season, and were leaps and bounds above everyone else last year. Further, they have some potentially massive FA payouts in their very near future if they want to keep the team intact. I'm not sure the Sox not overpaying for a reliever is evidence of anything.The collusion part kicks in because I just don't believe that the penalties for going over $246M are enough to deter every individual team from doing so given their specific circumstances. BOS is the obvious one, it is crazy to me that they did not add at least one top reliever this winter even though that would have put them over the top level again.
MLBTR projected him at 4 years/$60 million so a little under, but nothing like you're suggesting.That’s got to be about half what he was expecting to sign for. Wow is there a market correction going on here, even as the owners take in more and more.
This may be the best sports related euphemism for stupid I've ever seen (even though you used it literally)only two players short of a starting outfield
*
Really all they need is to add a salary floor, the problem with MLB isn't that the Red Sox and Yankees aren't spending enough, it's the likes of TB, Miami, and Oakland who won't spend any.I think it's a combination of A and B. And with B, there's really no need for C.
Many of us knew that the new CBA was bad as soon as it was signed. I'm sure the agents did too, and I remember there being some complaints by them about not being more involved in providing input or feedback during the bargaining process.
But I don't think a strike is inevitable. Yes, there are some significant changes that need to be made. But there are a whole lot of options for making these changes to fix the problems that are now apparent. As long as both parties are truly interested in reaching an agreement (and it would certainly seem to be in their interest to do so), a reasonable solution should be possible.
So they are forced to sign a scrub reliever for a ridiculous amount of money just to get above the floor? That doesn’t make any sense, either.Really all they need is to add a salary floor, the problem with MLB isn't that the Red Sox and Yankees aren't spending enough, it's the likes of TB, Miami, and Oakland who won't spend any.
It wouldn't necessarily work like that. If the 6 or 8 cheapest teams were suddenly spending $200 million more on players they'd be competing with other teams for some of their lesser free agents and the price of them would go up. The price of the cheap teams' own players would go up. It would cost everyone more for the same players.So they are forced to sign a scrub reliever for a ridiculous amount of money just to get above the floor? That doesn’t make any sense, either.
I don't think the H1-B program really comes in to play for MLB Players, does it? I would venture to guess that almost all foreign players would be issued Visas under the P-1 program with maybe a couple exceptions as O-1's.Expansion would also create more scarcity for qualified major leaguers.
And, frankly, if the owners keep this up and don’t expand, I’d like to see some politicians start threatening their H-1B allocation. I actually prefer to have the best players regardless of their country of origin, that’s a small part of what makes MLB the gold standard. But, the H-1B program isn’t designed to allow employers to hire the very best players. It’s like affirmative action for Americans. If there’s a qualified American or green card holder available, then you don’t get an H1-B. There should not be a case where a noncitizen is on a team as a first-year minimum-salary backup catcher, while a proven major league catcher is available via free agency.
Spend money owners. You got a tax cut too.
Thanks. I’ll stop playing lawyer now.I don't think the H1-B program really comes in to play for MLB Players, does it? I would venture to guess that almost all foreign players would be issued Visas under the P-1 program with maybe a couple exceptions as O-1's.
It never seemed realistic to begin with.I'm starting to wonder if Harper is going to do much above the Nats initial offer. I could see them raising it a bit to let him save face, but based on what we're seeing so far, it's not at all clear that anyone else is going to match that.
I don't think they are talking, but I don't believe they've withdrawn it.Is the Nats offer still on the table? I did not think they were still talking.
I think they should lessen their offer - for reasons that can be debated later, the market has "corrected" and 10/300 (and forget about anything at 40) is not happening. Any chance Boras rolls the dice and gets him a 2/60 from someone and we do this dance again?I don't think they are talking, but I don't believe they've withdrawn it.
The case for Bryce is that he's only 26 and most, if not all, of a 10 year contract will be in his prime and maybe that once he has his money he'll focus on playing hard in the field. Not so reassuring.
The case against is that he's looking for super elite money and he's not a super elite player. He's only broken 5 WAR twice--mookie's done itfour times and for four straight years. Stanton's done it three times. Mike Trout 7 times in a row. Hell since his rookie year, he's only had a positive dWAR once.
As I've looked at it, the more convinced I am that the Nats should not increase their offer. And I'm not even sure they should keep the $300 mil on the table. I'm certain that the $40 million/year he reportedly wants is nuts. You can get two really good players for $20 million each.