sk7326

I don't know what they will do - but they seem to be considering it. This is good for me - I am all for teams trying to win - that clearly is an endangered species in the industry.

"when that window closes" could be highly dependent on their own extend/no extend decisions. But the org is acting like a team that is trying to maximize the window's length. Dombrowski is not doing things somebody expecting the window to close anytime soon would do. It is interesting.

A lot will depend on this season. If Bogaerts matches or exceeds his 2018 output, allaying fears of a fluke, then a 6/130 type of deal is very plausible. Now - that Dombrowski did not trade Bogaerts this offseason seems to indicate the Red Sox are bullish on 2018 not being a fluke.

It would seem that way - but they passed on chances to trade some of the guys they have to make decisions on. There was a really strong case to deal Bogaerts - but the team didn't. They clearly are expecting to at least try to keep him. This is not something a team hellbent on resetting would do.

I am curious where Henry's head's at - because Dombrowski is surely not ACTING like someone who is going to dump their core guys. They are trying to extend Sale. They sat out the prime window to deal Bogaerts. They sat out the prime window to deal Bradley.

I am absolutely certain this team will not just reset for resetting sakes. There will be churn - but opportunities are special. Henry clearly understands this better than a lot of owners.

He was 25 when he entered it - he was a really great player before his deal started too. There is no real way to measure the impact PEDs may or may not have had on his performance. Showering 32 year Pujols with a massive deal was suicidal ... getting a guy in his prime is different. Machado fits virtually every team's timeline.

Yeah - faced without a guy like Machado becoming truly available, the Padres were probably 2 years away from their internal talent justifying a hired gun. But a guy like Machado WAS avaliable, so why not? Getting a 26 year old at/near his prime fits virtually every time table there is.

The Padres had a giant steaming turd at 3B - with a high caliber prospect maybe 2 years away. They have a lot of young talent ready to arrive in the next year or two. Guys like Machado just don't become available all the time. The industry is swimming in cash. Machado absolutely fits their timetable of contention. This contract has risk (like all contracts do), but the real comp for this sort of contract is ARod's texas deal - and that worked out just fine. Now they need starting pitching, but have the prospect depth to do something about it. Meanwhile they have an actual star to provide some stability while their guys who could very well be stars get their feet wet. This makes sense for everybody.

Maybe - I think they might have had the terms semi agreed to. Eovaldi at that price is not a steal - but fair and betting on some achievable upside.

I am sure there were. But the Red Sox could win any bidding war, and they had a job opening. If another team offered $28M the Sox probably don't get him - but it is safe to infer that the offers were all relatively close. JD was always the type of guy (30 year old unathletic DH type) who could age quickly. He made tons of sense for Boston since the marginal value he could produce was so critical to them. (basically being one dimensional is not a problem when it is the one dimension separating you from a 108 win season) He might not live up to 2018 - but who cares. He has paid the deal off already.

Who determines merit - and why would it be static? I mean player measurement has evolved greatly, and with all the Statcast API stuff will evolve even more. Why should GMs bear no risk here?

Basicaly this is a technocratic version of the reserve clause - or it could work out that way.

Figure it out then - you have a chance to win now, go for it. Flags fly forever, and you can never guarantee future chances. I mean, for all the sniffing at Dombrowski's trades and so forth - all you got was a title and 3 playoff berths.

The short contracts are stupid - protecting GMs and owners from themselves. The NBA has a problem with that where it means teams are turning rosters over constantly and it is hard to keep players period. Now you describe the Yankees to a T - they want to keep the YES money. Good on them. I am glad you are on board with that. There is no real problem with MLB contracts. The horrible ones were known to be problematic at the time - I mean the deal to Pujols was walking into a bear trap. The basic problem is the players union got much dumber after Fehr left and got no guaranteed piece of the pie when the owners were stepping into a massive amount of cash. So this serves them right to a certain degree. The best way to get guys in their prime money is to get rid of salary arbitration in favor of a year of restricted free agency and let em go. Now if that is tied to a salary cap - fine, but I don't think the teams who own their own networks want to share to that degree. Besides, the Marlins are getting nearly $100M before selling a single ticket, so I can see that. Where the league is saving money is on players under arbitration, low entry level salaries and paying minor leaguers below minimum wage. So improve all of those (even though minor leaguers are not union members) and get players into free agency earlier, and the other stuff solves itself. What we have right now is a system where a lot of teams are not trying to win ultimately, which is not good for the fans. This is one of the cases where the players goals align with the fans pretty well.

Awful is relative. After all if the entire player cohort is undervalued - the awful contracts aren't actually as awful as they seem. Putting that aside there is a case for almost every team to sign a 26 year old All Star.

I wouldn't even go that far - you can get much more bang for reliever pitcher buck elsewhere.

They certainly do if you buy the logic of the billionaires - or just want free stuff.

Votto He will be a drag - but I suspect he will retain his ability to get on base for another 2-3 years. It will be suboptimal for his salary - but nothing which anyone will regret too much.

I would not be surprised if the eventual deal ended up something like that.

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.

We'll see what happens. The gap between Keuchel and Kimbrel as far as offseason prizes to go is vast.

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.

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.

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.