Wade Miley: Not bad actually

[a700hitter]

That's the thing about long contracts. The quality of the player on the field will eventually decline.

The quality of every player eventually declines. If we get some good years out of them, I am happy. I think an acquisition is bad if the player is not good and never performs well for us.

[a700hitter]

No, the large contracts make me shudder because I don't like large contracts.

Uh, okay ... even though it doesn't effect you financially?

[jacksonianmarch]

Take the large contracts and cut them in half. That is what you pay for. You are paying for the first half of the contract and hoping to break even the last half. You don't dip into the FA market unless you think you are one guy away. Rebuilding in FA is a good way to require rebuilding again in short order. The Yankees have rebuilt via FA since 2003 and have only won one title in that time. But, if you truly think your team is one ace away, then the money spent on that contract in comparison with the revenue generated for a WS run would be far lesser and a wise investment.

[sk7326]

I imagine the Nationals are probably going to go into a soft rebuild over the next few years. They might be competitive again in a few years, but would they rather keep Scherzer, or upgrade to someone younger with the 30M/Y when they are competitive again? The later years in these kinds of contracts always suck.

 

Oh I don't think so. They have either one or two true aces (depending on how you look at it), and a rotation which underachieved but does not lack ability. They have one of the league's top 3 position players (and another who'd crack a reasonable Top 20, injury problems granted). Their bullpen is a disgrace, and their manager in 2014 was a comically bad continuous source of tactical mistakes. Between working the bullpen and replacing the manager with somebody minimally competent, they should be back in the hunt.

[jacksonianmarch]

I agree sk. I think the Nats are going to let Zim and Fister walk and probably be in the market for another starter.

[a700hitter]

I agree sk. I think the Nats are going to let Zim and Fister walk and probably be in the market for another starter.

I think they have a big stud prospect Lucas Giolito who may be ready for the rotation.

[sk7326]

I agree sk. I think the Nats are going to let Zim and Fister walk and probably be in the market for another starter.

 

And Ian Desmond too. And Denard Span will be on the market too. Between Trea Turner, Michael Taylor, Giolito and Reynaldo Lopez (who might be more of a swingman/releiver), they have a lot of help on the way. They are going to be contenders next year with any sort of decent manager. (and the candidates that have been mentioned, Bud Black, Alex Cora, perhaps Torey Lovullo, would qualify)

[Kimmi]

The quality of every player eventually declines. If we get some good years out of them, I am happy. I think an acquisition is bad if the player is not good and never performs well for us.

 

Of course. Hence, the ownership's philosophy to not sign older players to long contracts, along with their philosphy to sign players to fewer years at more money per year. I agree with both lines of thinking.

[Kimmi]

Uh, okay ... even though it doesn't effect you financially?

 

It affects the long term outlook of my team. It very well could affect the quality of the team in 5 years or so.

[Bellhorn04]

Uh, okay ... even though it doesn't effect you financially?

 

There are good reasons to shudder. If the player doesn't live up to the big contract (Hanley and Panda) they can screw up your team pretty good.

[a700hitter]

There are good reasons to shudder. If the player doesn't live up to the big contract (Hanley and Panda) they can screw up your team pretty good.

They make me shudder regardless of their contracts. They stink from day 1. Stars on big contracts usually give you a few good years before they turn bad. I don't shudder if a star declines after giving us 2, 3 or 4 good years. Edited October 16, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

They make me shudder regardless of their contracts. They stink from day 1. Stars on big contracts usually give you a few good years before they turn bad. I don't shudder if a star declines after giving us 2,3 or 3 good years.

 

I agree.

 

I think we could expect Price to be very good for about 3 years then start to fade.

 

The owners have no one other than themselves to blame for the proliferation of bloated contracts. If they refused to pay such numbers it would eventually stop.

[a700hitter]

I agree.

 

I think we could expect Price to be very good for about 3 years then start to fade.

 

The owners have no one other than themselves to blame for the proliferation of bloated contracts. If they refused to pay such numbers it would eventually stop.

If they don't shudder when they give away these contracts, it doesn't bother me a bit as long as the players are good productive players for a few years. It's not my money.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree.

 

I think we could expect Price to be very good for about 3 years then start to fade.

 

The owners have no one other than themselves to blame for the proliferation of bloated contracts. If they refused to pay such numbers it would eventually stop.

 

You can blame it on the owners, or you can blame it on us, the fans. We're the ones paying the tab. We're making them all rich, players and owners.

[Bellhorn04]

If they don't shudder when they give away these contracts, it doesn't bother me a bit as long as the players are good productive players for a few years. It's not my money.

 

I would argue that it is your money. You're one of the people who goes to games and supports the team financially. You're one of the ones who pays those bloated ticket prices.

[cp176]

Much of this discussion centers around what constitutes a "star". Ramirez, Sandoval, and Porcello are not in the same category as Price. Their contracts were ridiculous regardless of what market trends seem to be. I won't be back in Fenway until the product on the field might justify raising ticket prices as they have continually done year after year.

[a700hitter]

I would argue that it is your money. You're one of the people who goes to games and supports the team financially. You're one of the ones who pays those bloated ticket prices.

 

Yep, and when I can't afford to go to the games, I will stop going. I went only twice this year, because I didn't think the product on the field was worth the price. In the last game that I attended, I had my four seats all to myself. No one that I knew wanted to waste their time watching them and I couldn't even give the other 3 seats away. I think I had them listed on Stubhub for $10. In years when they are competitive and fun to watch, I go to between 10 and 12 games a season-- about one weekend series each month. I don't mind paying the price and I can afford it. It is one of the few luxuries that I indulge in. If they stink, at these high prices, I don't go. I can spend my money in more enjoyable ways than watching a last place team with no hope.

 

If they get guys like Price or Greinke, they would be giving me something fun to watch. I would expect those guys to break down at some point (every athlete breaks down with age), and I would expect that management will find suitable replacements. In the end it is Henry's money and he has to figure out how to best market his team to make his target profit, but don't charge me $75 for a reserved ticket to see Buchholz, Porcello, Miley, Kelly and Masterson. Keep the tickets Mr. Henry if that is what you are offering. You wasted your money on those chumps, and I will not subsidize you. If you want my money, give me a good product. I don't care how he does it-- long term contracts, trades, voodoo. It makes no difference to me. He is in charge of a billion dollar enterprise. He needs to figure it out. I could give a rats ass about his balance sheet or whining about the back end of big contracts or excuses about not wanting to sacrifice the future for the short term. He is the head of the Boston Red Sox -- one of the richest and most elite baseball franchises. There is no excuse to finish last for 3 years out of 4. They should never have to make an excuse about sacrificing the future- that is a concern for small market teams. The Red Sox should be competitive almost every year.

 

If a Canadian team can stock its team with Price and Tulo at the trading deadline and add them to a star studded power laden lineup that already includes Bautista, Encarnacion and Donaldson, save me the excuses for Mr. Henry and his clueless crew over the last several years. Spare me the excuses for management that hasn't produced a single meaningful arm since Buchholz. I am very hopeful that DD will right this ship of fools and produce a consistent winning competitive team. I will not shudder at the contracts if he brings in high producing talent.

Edited October 16, 2015 by a700hitter

[SoxHop]

Uh, okay ... even though it doesn't effect you financially?

 

You get that there is a limit to how much a team can spend on the player payroll before the whole thing is non profitable right? Now that limit is really never going to be known to us, but it seems to be around 200 mil a year before the owners can't afford their penthouses and high priced jewelry for their wives. So as fans we have to assume that every year the salary needs to be about 200 mil.

 

Handing out long term contracts that don't pay off for the last three years is great for a while....... then the hangover hits.... and it can be a long hangover......

 

Long term conracts that blow up a year or two earlier handcuff a team for more than a couple of years......... and I get Hanley and Sandoval already have, that's a whole other discussion.

 

As a fan I want to see the team do well, we all do. I don't want to win now and have the team be a dumpster fire in a few years after. This can happen if multiple long term handcuffing contracts are made in the present......... we all get that right??????

 

So yes.............. I shudder too at long contracts.............. imagine if Hanley and Sand had 6 year contracts......... I bet you just puked in your mouth reading that......

[Bellhorn04]

You get that there is a limit to how much a team can spend on the player payroll before the whole thing is non profitable right? Now that limit is really never going to be known to us, but it seems to be around 200 mil a year before the owners can't afford their penthouses and high priced jewelry for their wives. So as fans we have to assume that every year the salary needs to be about 200 mil.

 

Actually, SoxHop, the Red Sox have made their budget for payroll fairly clear - they try to keep it at or around the luxury tax threshold, which makes perfect economic sense.

 

The threshold the last few years has been 189 million. But that includes some costs that do not show up in the salary figures you see for the players. The biggest amount is benefit payments which are now somewhere around 12 million a year.

 

So the real budget for salaries is somewhere around 175 million.

 

Signing David Price would be great. But his 30 million a year obviously takes up a big chunk of that payroll budget. That's why it matters to us as fans.

[a700hitter]

You get that there is a limit to how much a team can spend on the player payroll before the whole thing is non profitable right? Now that limit is really never going to be known to us, but it seems to be around 200 mil a year before the owners can't afford their penthouses and high priced jewelry for their wives. So as fans we have to assume that every year the salary needs to be about 200 mil.

 

Handing out long term contracts that don't pay off for the last three years is great for a while....... then the hangover hits.... and it can be a long hangover......

 

Long term conracts that blow up a year or two earlier handcuff a team for more than a couple of years......... and I get Hanley and Sandoval already have, that's a whole other discussion.

 

As a fan I want to see the team do well, we all do. I don't want to win now and have the team be a dumpster fire in a few years after. This can happen if multiple long term handcuffing contracts are made in the present......... we all get that right??????

 

So yes.............. I shudder too at long contracts.............. imagine if Hanley and Sand had 6 year contracts......... I bet you just puked in your mouth reading that......

I get all of that, but it is not my business. If they are not smart enough to manage their business without spending themselves into insolvency, they shouldn't own this kind of business. Their balance sheet is not my worry. Other teams sign these star ballplayers to big contracts and they manage to stay in business even when the players deteriorate at the end of the contracts. It can be done successfully. Our guys managed to spend $200 million the last 2 seasons and run a bunch of Yugos onto the field.

 

In the end, I have no control over their finances, so I don't worry about it. I have control over whether I go to the games and spend my money. I don't go to many games if they have an uninspired last place team. The fact that they spent $200 million on garbage the last couple of years indicated to me that the organization needed changes. They have taken steps to address that, and we shall see if they made the right moves.

[a700hitter]

Signing David Price would be great. But his 30 million a year obviously takes up a big chunk of that payroll budget. That's why it matters to us as fans.

All that matters to the fans is whether they get Price or don't get him. Their budget and how they manage it is their concern. If they do a lousy job of it and put out a lousy product, that is my concern. If they sign price for $160 million, I am not going to lock myself in my bathroom and cry about how they can afford a bullpen. They need to find a way. Every team in their division found ways to be better than them the last 2 seasons, and those teams used very different approaches. Red Sox management found a way to pay more per win the last 2 years than probably any team in history.

[Bellhorn04]

All that matters to the fans is whether they get Price or don't get him. Their budget and how they manage it is their concern. If they do a lousy job of it and put out a lousy product, that is my concern. If they sign price for $160 million, I am not going to lock myself in my bathroom and cry about how they can afford a bullpen.

 

Of course not. But the allocation of the budget is all part and parcel of the stuff most of us amateur GM's like to jibber-jabber about here on an ongoing basis.

 

PS if they can sign Price for 160 million I don't think Kimmi will shudder.

[jacksonianmarch]

Everything has an acquisition cost. Just so happens that the cost of what you need most is at a premium

[Bellhorn04]

Everything has an acquisition cost. Just so happens that the cost of what you need most is at a premium

 

It's either that or trade a bunch of good prospects, which is a different form of cost.

[a700hitter]

Of course not. But the allocation of the budget is all part and parcel of the stuff most of us amateur GM's like to jibber-jabber about here on an ongoing basis.

 

PS if they can sign Price for 160 million I don't think Kimmi will shudder.

I am just speaking for myself. I am just a fan. I don't pretend to jibber jabber about budgetary matters other than my own. If the rest of you want to get involved in a micro-analysis of the team's finances, go right ahead if you find enjoyment in that. At the macro- level, $189 million for a last place team is an overpay.

 

As for whether Kimmi will shudder if Price gets a $160 million deal from the Red Sox, you would have to ask her. I would not.

[Palodios]

There probably hasn't been a better year to look for starting pitching out of free agency. There is enough talent available that they might be able to get a strong #2 like Gallardo/WY Chen for 60 million.

 

The problem is, where on earth are they going to find a strong #1 who doesn't hate David Ortiz?

[a700hitter]

There probably hasn't been a better year to look for starting pitching out of free agency. There is enough talent available that they might be able to get a strong #2 like Gallardo/WY Chen for 60 million.

 

The problem is, where on earth are they going to find a strong #1 who doesn't hate David Ortiz?

LOL! But they would love not having to face him.

[Spudboy]

Yep, and when I can't afford to go to the games, I will stop going. I went only twice this year, because I didn't think the product on the field was worth the price. In the last game that I attended, I had my four seats all to myself. No one that I knew wanted to waste their time watching them and I couldn't even give the other 3 seats away. I think I had them listed on Stubhub for $10. In years when they are competitive and fun to watch, I go to between 10 and 12 games a season-- about one weekend series each month. I don't mind paying the price and I can afford it. It is one of the few luxuries that I indulge in. If they stink, at these high prices, I don't go. I can spend my money in more enjoyable ways than watching a last place team with no hope.

 

If they get guys like Price or Greinke, they would be giving me something fun to watch. I would expect those guys to break down at some point (every athlete breaks down with age), and I would expect that management will find suitable replacements. In the end it is Henry's money and he has to figure out how to best market his team to make his target profit, but don't charge me $75 for a reserved ticket to see Buchholz, Porcello, Miley, Kelly and Masterson. Keep the tickets Mr. Henry if that is what you are offering. You wasted your money on those chumps, and I will not subsidize you. If you want my money, give me a good product. I don't care how he does it-- long term contracts, trades, voodoo. It makes no difference to me. He is in charge of a billion dollar enterprise. He needs to figure it out. I could give a rats ass about his balance sheet or whining about the back end of big contracts or excuses about not wanting to sacrifice the future for the short term. He is the head of the Boston Red Sox -- one of the richest and most elite baseball franchises. There is no excuse to finish last for 3 years out of 4. They should never have to make an excuse about sacrificing the future- that is a concern for small market teams. The Red Sox should be competitive almost every year.

 

If a Canadian team can stock its team with Price and Tulo at the trading deadline and add them to a star studded power laden lineup that already includes Bautista, Encarnacion and Donaldson, save me the excuses for Mr. Henry and his clueless crew over the last several years. Spare me the excuses for management that hasn't produced a single meaningful arm since Buchholz. I am very hopeful that DD will right this ship of fools and produce a consistent winning competitive team. I will not shudder at the contracts if he brings in high producing talent.

 

I'm with you on this. I don't go to games very often and like yourself, I want to see a competitive team when I do go. Next time you get stuck with tickets give me a holler. I'd love to go with you. Even at face value!!!

[Spudboy]

Actually, SoxHop, the Red Sox have made their budget for payroll fairly clear - they try to keep it at or around the luxury tax threshold, which makes perfect economic sense.

 

The threshold the last few years has been 189 million. But that includes some costs that do not show up in the salary figures you see for the players. The biggest amount is benefit payments which are now somewhere around 12 million a year.

 

So the real budget for salaries is somewhere around 175 million.

 

Signing David Price would be great. But his 30 million a year obviously takes up a big chunk of that payroll budget. That's why it matters to us as fans.

 

I get the disproportionality of a Price type contract and how it could limit roster building. However, competent managers know how to juggle things like minimum contracts for rookies and minor league type players. $175 mil minus $30 mil still leaves three times what the small market teams spend each year.

 

I think that if the proper, sound moves are made, Ted is correct. A team like the Sox should be in the hunt most years. 3 last place finishes in 4 years is quite a statement on how badly this team has been managed ( not Farrell ).

[SoxHop]

There probably hasn't been a better year to look for starting pitching out of free agency. There is enough talent available that they might be able to get a strong #2 like Gallardo/WY Chen for 60 million.

 

The problem is, where on earth are they going to find a strong #1 who doesn't hate David Ortiz?

 

ahaha..... yea....... the Price and Papi thing I think may be trouble...... enough so that he is not on the purchasing list.....

 

funny enough........ I think Cherrington knew last year wasn't worth going after a starter..... but knew this year would be..........