sk7326

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.

So, I can have a 26 year old superstar, or a 29 year old reliever who can't throw strikes anymore. Hmmmmm.

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)

The value per win is different by team - and sometimes during the season. I mean, JD Martinez was a 3 or 4 win improvement over the incumbent DHs ... but those wins were immensely valuable to the Red Sox because he literally solved their only weakness. For a team like Philadelphia, 3 or 4 extra wins could get them to MAKE THE PLAYOFFS which is another new revenue stream - one which the owners get a much larger slice of. The marginal value of those extra wins is enormous. Now for a non contender, your math is right. Also - baseball is fun and great baseball players are worth watching. Now the playoffs are largely a crapshoot - but MAKING THE PLAYOFFS is not.

When the top 3 free agents are unsigned entering the season - that is the definition of teams not trying to improve. You might want the owners to keep all the money entering the system and just sit on profits - I do not. Baseball pays its players a smaller slice of the pie than any other sport. And any offseason this dull is bad for everyone - the players and the fans, and industry popularity. And - TV pays for mostly everything. The fans pay for quite a bit - but it's small relative to TV (though fans watching obviously is critical there). Most of these players came from nothing. Hal Steinbrenner's biggest accomplishment was not being an uberdouche to his dad.

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.

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.

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

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

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