A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

of course they are. They are not the only problem - the Phillies are in some ways worse - but sure they are a problem.

 

I can't really blame any owner who decides they don't want to pay a big luxury tax bill.

[dgalehouse]

of course they are. They are not the only problem - the Phillies are in some ways worse - but sure they are a problem.

 

To be fair , the Phils seem like one of the few teams that is willing to spend . However , a lot of guys don't want to play there if they don't have to .

[sk7326]

I can't really blame any owner who decides they don't want to pay a big luxury tax bill.

 

I just want the sense the owner is doing everything the can to win. Hal is doing - less than that. Yay!

[Nick]

So sox fans defending the bullpen doesn't get tiring?

 

I'm amused to hear from Yankee fans about what is wrong with the Sox on daily basis.

[notin]

So sox fans defending the bullpen doesn't get tiring?

 

 

That sounds like an issue I would take up with the man holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come to this site...

[sk7326]

I'm amused to hear from Yankee fans about what is wrong with the Sox on daily basis.

 

The Yankees built an impregnable bullpen which then barfed out a near 5.00 ERA in the ALDS ... so the expertise there is meh.

[moonslav59]

I can't really blame any owner who decides they don't want to pay a big luxury tax bill.

 

Me, too, but the Yanks could spend more and still be under the line. I guess they are looking further down the road and want to keep their stars.

[notin]

To be fair , the Phils seem like one of the few teams that is willing to spend . However , a lot of guys don't want to play there if they don't have to .

 

 

I do doubt many players look at teams the ways fans do, and despite what players say, I bet going to a winning team isn’t that high on the priority list when they’re free agents...

[Slasher9]

I'm amused to hear from Yankee fans about what is wrong with the Sox on daily basis.

 

hahahaha.

the 20th century was 2 decades ago.

[Bellhorn04]

Me, too, but the Yanks could spend more and still be under the line.

 

Under the $40 million+ line you mean?

[moonslav59]

Under the $40 million+ line you mean?

 

Yes.

[sk7326]

Me, too, but the Yanks could spend more and still be under the line. I guess they are looking further down the road and want to keep their stars.

 

This makes sense in theory - but flags fly forever, and signing a 26 year old already-really good player aligns perfectly with the other guys. If they punt on this, it's good for us - so I weep for nobody.

[sk7326]

To be fair , the Phils seem like one of the few teams that is willing to spend . However , a lot of guys don't want to play there if they don't have to .

 

Are they? They dumped salary in the offseason already - yet they are on the cusp of making a leap. They are the sort of team who benefits a ton from the marginal wins a stud would provide.

[moonslav59]

This makes sense in theory - but flags fly forever, and signing a 26 year old already-really good player aligns perfectly with the other guys. If they punt on this, it's good for us - so I weep for nobody.

 

I hope the Yanks sign one. Really, I do.

 

It will mean they can't afford to keep one of their better players down the road.

[sk7326]

I hope the Yanks sign one. Really, I do.

 

It will mean they can't afford to keep one of their better players down the road.

 

It means they will probably choose not to - but that is a Hal problem. The Yankees can afford anything they want. Flags fly forever - games aren't played today for three years from now. The chances to win titles are special and it is derelict to not to push your chips in when that chance is there. (and the chips are there)

[moonslav59]

It means they will probably choose not to - but that is a Hal problem. The Yankees can afford anything they want. Flags fly forever - games aren't played today for three years from now. The chances to win titles are special and it is derelict to not to push your chips in when that chance is there. (and the chips are there)

 

If they can "afford anything they want", they'd sign Machado.

[sk7326]

If they can "afford anything they want", they'd sign Machado.

 

Why would you think that? They make tons of money and spend relatively little on players. The proof is in the priorities. They could afford Machado - all 30 teams could.

[moonslav59]

Why would you think that? They make tons of money and spend relatively little on players. The proof is in the priorities. They could afford Machado - all 30 teams could.

 

It's obvious.

 

They want to make money just like everyone else, and Machado does not make them money.

 

Machado hurts their future.

 

Machado is a bum and a cancer.

 

Need more reasons?

[Bellhorn04]

Why would you think that? They make tons of money and spend relatively little on players. The proof is in the priorities. They could afford Machado - all 30 teams could.

 

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

[cp176]

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

 

Did i hear right the other day that Harper just got a haircut? hmmm

[oldtimer]

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

 

I agree that examples of long term contracts that haven't paid off abound. A smart owner wants to avoid a long term commitment which may in the end hamper the club. Even with that said, we have seen our own guys make bad decisions on contracts. There doesn't have to be collusion among owners to stop getting into these contracts, just the realization that they are highly risky. Price was questionable at the time but has given us some value. Time will tell if 7 years made sense.

[notin]

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

 

 

Of course none of them were 26 either.

 

I agree there is risk. Evan Longoria was roughly the same age as Machado when he signed a 10 year deal. But 8 years for a 26yo player isn’t the worst contract we will see this off season...

[Bellhorn04]

Of course none of them were 26 either.

 

I agree there is risk. Evan Longoria was roughly the same age as Machado when he signed a 10 year deal. But 8 years for a 26yo player isn’t the worst contract we will see this off season...

 

What will be the worst, soothsayer?

[sk7326]

It's obvious.

 

They want to make money just like everyone else, and Machado does not make them money.

 

Machado hurts their future.

 

Machado is a bum and a cancer.

 

Need more reasons?

 

If a 26 year old is hurting your future - that is not much of a future. The latter reasons are unsourced nonsense. He fits in with any team's timeline. And the Yankees can afford any player they want, contrary to what Steinbrenner tells people. Player salaries are decreasing while the industry is drowning in money - the facts here refute any claims of poverty. Fans identify with the owners - I expect that, but it is still remarkable to me.

Edited February 9, 2019 by sk7326

[sk7326]

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

 

There is a very high likelihood that the first 5 years of the deal will more than make up for any dropoff in the final 2 or 3.

 

Ellsbury was 31 when he signed his Yankees deal. Pujols was 32. Alex Rodriguez was 25 when he signed his deal with the Rangers which was an absolute win on any level. The Rangers dealt him because their team stunk - but that's a different issue.

 

These cases are just not comparable. A guy like Machado fits virtually every team's lifecycle.

[Bellhorn04]

There is a very high likelihood that the first 5 years of the deal will more than make up for any dropoff in the final 2 or 3.

 

Ellsbury was 31 when he signed his Yankees deal. Pujols was 32. Alex Rodriguez was 25 when he signed his deal with the Rangers which was an absolute win on any level. The Rangers dealt him because their team stunk - but that's a different issue.

 

These cases are just not comparable. A guy like Machado fits virtually every team's lifecycle.

 

Those are all fair points. But 26 years old or not, an 8 year commitment is arguably risky for the injury factor alone. And Machado has already had surgeries on both knees.

[Bellhorn04]

Ellsbury was 31 when he signed his Yankees deal. Pujols was 32. Alex Rodriguez was 25 when he signed his deal with the Rangers which was an absolute win on any level. The Rangers dealt him because their team stunk - but that's a different issue.

 

The question (admittedly unanswerable) with A-Rod is how much of those big numbers was attributable to pharmaceutical assistance.

[jacksonianmarch]

8 years $220 mil is a great starting point for Machado. I thought he’d beat that, but it’s not a “hang up the phone” offer. I wonder if Machado wishes he took that at this point.

 

Here’s the thing Machado should do. He should come back to the Yankees and say yes to 8 years $220 mil. He should ask for the first $100 mil in the first 3 years with an opt out after that. He hits the market again at 29 with a new CBA agreed to. The Yanks get the AAV down, Machado goes to the team he wants with an AAV he won’t beat if he exercises the opt out.

 

The thing we are seeing with NY to this point is flexibility. Stanton is the longest contracted Yankee, but even he could be off the books in 2 years and with the Marlins extended deal and $30 mil kicked in, his lux tax hit is only $22 mil AAV. The bad deal for Ellsbury ends after 2020. Tanaka’s contract ends after 2020. Every other player on the team can be cleared from the payroll within 3 seasons. I am surprised the Yanks haven’t dipped into the Harper or Machado sweeps in a harder way, but flexibility is something they didn’t have for years and is the exact reason why the yanks fell from grace from 13-16.

[sk7326]

it is reasonable to expect 4 or 5 peak-ish years from that deal. That alone makes the deal a win in total. Obviously PED assessments are pointless to make - baseball careers typically do not flame out at 27 either way. I mean most old timey careers were solidly peaking in the 28-32 range.

[notin]

What will be the worst, soothsayer?

 

 

Going by results to date - Sandoval. But those 8 figure contracts that go into a player’s 40s like Pujols and Cabrera looked like bad ideas from day one. I do think Joey Votto, whose deal is similar, will become as burdensome, but to his credit, hasn’t yet...