Predicting LT payroll

[drewski6]

13 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

As an MLBer, your body physically declining by 1-2% is a massive shift though. That would get you out of the game by age 35 for many players. Only the greats are hanging on after then and it's mainly due to name recognition to sell tickets. 

Just the bold part is wrong.  Some , sure.  But there are more guys over 34 who are still contributing to playoff wins than there are guys under 23 who are contributing to playoff wins.

[drewski6]

14 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

You cannot change your genes, but every article I've read indicates that extra exercise will delay mental decline.  I think it leans towards aerobic exercise, but all exercise helps.

For sure.  Some things are especially linked.  SOme weird connections but are too correlated to not be true.

Gut health and leg strength are 2. Mouth health is a weird third.  But I have my suspicion that mouth health and dimentia are correlated through a secondary correlation of gut health.

Physical strenght for sure, but especially leg strength.  Maybe its "dont be bed-ridden"

But 1000000% when either the body or mind rots, the other soon follows.

[drewski6]

17 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

As an MLBer, your body physically declining by 1-2% is a massive shift though. That would get you out of the game by age 35 for many players. Only the greats are hanging on after then and it's mainly due to name recognition to sell tickets. 

very correct on the 1-2% being massive though.  Imagine how easy it is to go from perfect-perfect on a fastball to slightly late. We're talking a less than 1% differnce in swing timing. Could be a difference between depositing a 3 run jack over center-left and a loud foul. No hypothetical about it.  Margin for errror that slim. 100%

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Just the bold part is wrong.  Some , sure.  But there are more guys over 34 who are still contributing to playoff wins than there are guys under 23 who are contributing to playoff wins.

Los Angeles Dodgers 35+ last playoffs: Blake Treinen (yuck), Kershaw (yuck), Freeman (720 OPS), Rojas (looking to retire)

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

very correct on the 1-2% being massive though.  Imagine how easy it is to go from perfect-perfect on a fastball to slightly late. We're talking a less than 1% differnce in swing timing. Could be a difference between depositing a 3 run jack over center-left and a loud foul. No hypothetical about it.  Margin for errror that slim. 100%

It's why a lot of guys aren't making it to the larger regression at age 40. 

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, Hitch said:

If Bres manages to get these two off the payroll, give him a 10 year contract. It ain't happening*

 

*#reversejinx

What's the difference between TEX giving the team $20M or taking back Hicks?

[Old Red]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

What's the difference between TEX giving the team $20M or taking back Hicks?

Why would Tex do either one? 

[drewski6]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Los Angeles Dodgers 35+ last playoffs: Blake Treinen (yuck), Kershaw (yuck), Freeman (720 OPS), Rojas (looking to retire)

Well, I meant guys over 33 not over 34 because I wanted to count Freeman twice.  Lets not small sample size fluxuations here.  Freddie Freeman is not a tag along on the dodgers.  He is not still playing because of PR or ticket sales. They dont need him to sell tickets.  Hes been part of their core.  Now going into age 36 season maybe that happens.

But age 35 AND age 34 (thats two full years): OPS+ = 141.

Thats my point.  The north of 33 hanger-ons are certainly there. Getting that next contract out of PR and name recognition.  But the truly great players are usually still helping their team wins even when they are north of 33 and Freeman is a pt for team drew.

[drewski6]

Just now, Old Red said:

Why would Tex do either one? 

To get better prospects in the package

[drewski6]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's why a lot of guys aren't making it to the larger regression at age 40. 

100% agreement there.  

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

To get better prospects in the package

Saeger coming to Boston isn’t happening either way.

[moonslav59]

Just now, Old Red said:

Why would Tex do either one? 

You may disagree, but you honestly need me to tell you why I think they will pay something?

He'll be 32 in April. He makes $31M x 6 years. He's played about 2 season's worth of games in the last 3 years. Do the math for yourself.

Sure, he might get $31M x 6 as a free agent, but TEX wants something back for him, right?

I know how much you love BTV, but my guess is they have him at negative value and if they want something good back for him, they will either pay some cash of take on someone like Hicks. Maybe the Dodger trade a bag of balls for him- straight up... okay.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

To get better prospects in the package

It's beyond obvious.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Saeger coming to Boston isn’t happening either way.

Agreed.

I'm kinda surprised we even asked about him.

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

The science here is simply not true.  Decline starts in the late 20s/early 30s and is very gradual (1-2%/yr) until the 40s.  The issue is to play ball at the mlb level, you dont need to decline very much to no longer be able to hang with the best of the best.

But physically, you are still on the way up at 25 and you really dont start coming down until 29-31, then it hits a second gear around 41.  But sure, sometime around 35/36, after 4-6 years of gradual decline , its very hard to still be among the best of the best.

The vast majority of MLB players who play the game are out of the game at 35.  

The average retirement age is 29.5 the average length of a career is 5.6 years. 

Your memory is failing you because whenever you think of a player who is old you think of the good ones.  No one remembers the guys who fall off and stop playing.  

You think Polanco is more likely to be a Beltre and less likely to be a Matt Kemp??? Based on what because on top of his age Polanco has the skill set that ages quicker.  Look up his statcast page, he's in the bottom of the league in bat speed and exit velocity.  That is verifiable data.  Look up what the age curve is for guys with below average bat speed and exit velocities it's below average you can look that up too, it's verifiable. 

I'm not emotional about this, I could care less.  I'm just stating that Polanco is a bad bet, if you want to make the argument that he is going to defy the odds that's fine...but why? you haven't provided any logical argument here.  Your answer can be as simple as you like him and you believe in him and THAT'S FINE!!! You're allowed to like guys but there's not real reason to think he's not a bad bet compared to other guys.  Because he just simply is. 

[Hugh2]

29 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Well, I meant guys over 33 not over 34 because I wanted to count Freeman twice.  Lets not small sample size fluxuations here.  Freddie Freeman is not a tag along on the dodgers.  He is not still playing because of PR or ticket sales. They dont need him to sell tickets.  Hes been part of their core.  Now going into age 36 season maybe that happens.

But age 35 AND age 34 (thats two full years): OPS+ = 141.

Thats my point.  The north of 33 hanger-ons are certainly there. Getting that next contract out of PR and name recognition.  But the truly great players are usually still helping their team wins even when they are north of 33 and Freeman is a pt for team drew.

I'm not saying guys north of 35 aren't good.  Many of them are, the point is most don't make it there to be good.  Polanco could OPS .600 next year and look even worse coming into the following spring and not be on a team and he won't make it there.  He might not make it to 34. 

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

21 65% of prime, 22 70%, 23 75%, 24 85%, 25 90%, 26, 95%, 27 100%, 28 98%, 29 96%, 30 94%, 31 91%, 32 88%, 33 84%, 34 78%, 35 68%

Would be my estimates. And Im not talking out my butt here.  I am 41 with a dad suffering from early dimentia (hes 75 going on 95) so Ive been doing a TON of reading and consulting with my doctors (i have plenty because my best friend is a doctor as our a few of my uncles, and i have my own PCP)...So ive been reading up a lot on decline both physical and mental (spoiler alert, they are linked) especially lately.

I'm 43, and was semi professional athlete for a few years.   I get it, but understand there is a big difference between us and them. 

I worked my ass off from 40-42, lost the 60 lbs I had gained, lost an addtional 20 and got down to 7% body fat and looked better than I ever had at any point in my entire life.  But the fact of the matter is I had to put in twice the amount of work and I was playing sports against professionals anymore.  If I put the same amount of work in at 27 I'd be even better and stronger then.  None of us escape father time.  Again I'm 43, and in many ways I feel 10X better than these 20 year old shmucks but at the end of the day I'm 43....not 23.  It ain't the same. 

Doing something well, and then doing it at the pro level is an entirely different thing. 

[Hugh2]

50 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Just the bold part is wrong.  Some , sure.  But there are more guys over 34 who are still contributing to playoff wins than there are guys under 23 who are contributing to playoff wins.

You want to play semantics here and define what I said? ok, using the term "great" was probably a little far fetched, perhaps I should have said really really good consistent players. 

Also using the 34 and 23 is a little ridiculous as the average age of a rookie is 24.5  Most guys aren't even in the league yet and I'm not advocating building a team of 23 year olds.  I'm advocating AGAINST signing Polanco because I think he is a huge risk and will be a bust. 

[Hugh2]

Ok I'm done with this because I feel like I'm poo pooing on Polanco as if he kicked my dog and called my mom a *** or something.  I got nothing against the guy and hope I'm wrong.  I just think he's a poor bet for the 2026 Boston Red Sox who can do much better. 

[drewski6]

27 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The vast majority of MLB players who play the game are out of the game at 35.  

The average retirement age is 29.5 the average length of a career is 5.6 years. 

Your memory is failing you because whenever you think of a player who is old you think of the good ones.  No one remembers the guys who fall off and stop playing.  

You think Polanco is more likely to be a Beltre and less likely to be a Matt Kemp??? Based on what because on top of his age Polanco has the skill set that ages quicker.  Look up his statcast page, he's in the bottom of the league in bat speed and exit velocity.  That is verifiable data.  Look up what the age curve is for guys with below average bat speed and exit velocities it's below average you can look that up too, it's verifiable. 

I'm not emotional about this, I could care less.  I'm just stating that Polanco is a bad bet, if you want to make the argument that he is going to defy the odds that's fine...but why? you haven't provided any logical argument here.  Your answer can be as simple as you like him and you believe in him and THAT'S FINE!!! You're allowed to like guys but there's not real reason to think he's not a bad bet compared to other guys.  Because he just simply is. 

Im not as interested in polanco as you are giving me credit for, i am more making the case that generally speaking guys who are around 32 in age tend to help their teams more than guys who are around 23 in age.

[Hugh2]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im not as interested in polanco as you are giving me credit for, i am more making the case that generally speaking guys who are around 32 in age tend to help their teams more than guys who are around 23 in age.

Which is a weird because I’m not taking about any 23 year olds here, I was specifically and exclusively talking about Polanco

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im not as interested in polanco as you are giving me credit for, i am more making the case that generally speaking guys who are around 32 in age tend to help their teams more than guys who are around 23 in age.

I’ve seen a lot of the comments you’re liking that are in line with my thinking so I’m thinking something is getting lost in translation here.  Trust me I don’t care as much as my unreasonable number of posts may suggest lol

[drewski6]

19 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Ok I'm done with this because I feel like I'm poo pooing on Polanco as if he kicked my dog and called my mom a *** or something.  I got nothing against the guy and hope I'm wrong.  I just think he's a poor bet for the 2026 Boston Red Sox who can do much better. 

You are making a fine case against polanco. My only point has alwasy been that younger and cheaper isnt always better.  Story was better in 2025 than Mayer was, and that would not have changed if Mayer made it through the season.  There is something to be said for having been there before. There is something to be said for maturity and professionalism.

As I hvae suspected for a little while, we are more talking past each other than disagreeing.  I am not , at all, trying to make a case specific to Polanco.  I would be disappointed with Polanco.  My point is that some people, maybe not necessarily you, but some people poo-poo every potential player acquisition north of 30, and Im just saying to those people pump the breaks on that.

There are plenty of 31,32,33 yr olds that are still helping their teams win.  They dont give the championship to the youngest team.  If you build your team around guys under 25, chances are, you are not a championship team.  

Im speaking more generally. I dont even really like Jorge Polanco. I liked Placido Polanco more.

But I am sad about Alonso.

[Hugh2]

14 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

You are making a fine case against polanco. My only point has alwasy been that younger and cheaper isnt always better.  Story was better in 2025 than Mayer was, and that would not have changed if Mayer made it through the season.  There is something to be said for having been there before. There is something to be said for maturity and professionalism.

As I hvae suspected for a little while, we are more talking past each other than disagreeing.  I am not , at all, trying to make a case specific to Polanco.  I would be disappointed with Polanco.  My point is that some people, maybe not necessarily you, but some people poo-poo every potential player acquisition north of 30, and Im just saying to those people pump the breaks on that.

There are plenty of 31,32,33 yr olds that are still helping their teams win.  They dont give the championship to the youngest team.  If you build your team around guys under 25, chances are, you are not a championship team.  

Im speaking more generally. I dont even really like Jorge Polanco. I liked Placido Polanco more.

But I am sad about Alonso.

Personally I think you need balance.  I did want Alonso though.  Now I'm wondering if our best case scenario would be Bregman/Marte......which I'd be more than happy with. 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Personally I think you need balance.  I did want Alonso though.  Now I'm wondering if our best case scenario would be Bregman/Marte......which I'd be more than happy with. 

Best case maybe, but unlikely.

[moonslav59]

56 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The vast majority of MLB players who play the game are out of the game at 35.  

The average retirement age is 29.5 the average length of a career is 5.6 years. 

Your memory is failing you because whenever you think of a player who is old you think of the good ones.  No one remembers the guys who fall off and stop playing.  

You think Polanco is more likely to be a Beltre and less likely to be a Matt Kemp??? Based on what because on top of his age Polanco has the skill set that ages quicker.  Look up his statcast page, he's in the bottom of the league in bat speed and exit velocity.  That is verifiable data.  Look up what the age curve is for guys with below average bat speed and exit velocities it's below average you can look that up too, it's verifiable. 

I'm not emotional about this, I could care less.  I'm just stating that Polanco is a bad bet, if you want to make the argument that he is going to defy the odds that's fine...but why? you haven't provided any logical argument here.  Your answer can be as simple as you like him and you believe in him and THAT'S FINE!!! You're allowed to like guys but there's not real reason to think he's not a bad bet compared to other guys.  Because he just simply is. 

You make some good points, but isn't the important thing to know is how many 30-32 year olds who are still FT'ers go on to play 2, 3, 4 or more productive seasons?

I'm not sure comparing them to all those who never made it to 30 matters much.

Age decline is real and very common. It's the norm not the exception. It's not always easy to judge who will age well. If someone could do that...

[moonslav59]

We might settle on...

Bregman and Hoskins

Marte and Suarez

Polanco and Paredes

We're probably done with a search for a solid #2, although Brez refused to sat Gray was one.

[drewski6]

19 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Personally I think you need balance.  I did want Alonso though.  Now I'm wondering if our best case scenario would be Bregman/Marte......which I'd be more than happy with. 

that would be a salvage.

[drewski6]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Best case maybe, but unlikely.

oh no, we suck again

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

For sure.  Some things are especially linked.  SOme weird connections but are too correlated to not be true.

Gut health and leg strength are 2. Mouth health is a weird third.  But I have my suspicion that mouth health and dimentia are correlated through a secondary correlation of gut health.

Physical strenght for sure, but especially leg strength.  Maybe its "dont be bed-ridden"

But 1000000% when either the body or mind rots, the other soon follows.

Going down the rabbit hole, but:

• I make a shake every day, and yogurt is part of it.  I belive that the healthier your gut is, the easier it is to absorb nutrients, and the easier to flush out toxins.
• Leg strength helps decrease and mitigate falls, which can be an quality of life threat.  And the same with arm strength.  The stronger you are, the more involved with life you'll be.

After half-assing it for years, I am finally getting some consisdtent time at the gym, and I can feel the difference.  I have no idea how someone my age is 'supposed' to feel, but I don't feel any different than 40 years ago.  And my spouse laughs at me, but I see no reason why I cannot be much better.