moonslav59

I'd go something like this.... (of course, there are exceptions to every grouping) 23-24 Pre-prime (semi productive) 25-26 Productive pre-prime 27-29 Peak prime 30-32 Productive post prime 33-34 Post prime (semi productive) 35> Steep decline likely

So, by your definition, the Sox have nobody in the unproductive post prime years and 3 guys in productive post prime. Of those 3, Pearce is our short end platoon 1Bman and Pedey and Wright are not being counted on for anything in 2019. The Yanks have... Sabathia and Happ are "unproductive" post prime and are in the starting rotation. Gardner, Ellsbury and Tulu are in productive prime, with only Gardner being counted on for anything significant. Ottavino is nearing productive post prime. Price & Moreland turned 33 at the end of last season.

Thanks. The sample size is 9. Votto & 1st ARod- very good Cano & Jeter- good or looking good or decent, so far. Stanton- jury still out Longoria- kinda bad 2nd ARod & Tulo- bad Pujols- very bad

Yes, there is a big difference, and I guess as long as the scam teams still keep enough fans to keep making money, there's no incentive for their GMs to change their M.O. There's another (bigger) subset of owners and GMs who make enough moves to tease their fans and give the appearance they will be competitive or semi-competitive, at least every now and then, but they never will do what it takes to create a top 4 team, on paper. Every now and then, a small market team surprise everyone, but they never have the "best team on paper" the years they win or make it to the WS. I'm not saying it was all luck; some small market teams like Oakland, KC and TB are very well managed and find unconventional ways to win, but it is rare for a team like the Astros to strategically tank as part of a plan to build a championship.

Here are all the 10+ year contracts I could find... $325/13 Stanton $275/10 ARod (2nd one) $252/10 ARod $240/10 Pujols $240M/10 Cano $225/10 Votto $189/10 Jeter $157M/10 Tulo Maybe I missed somebody.

Peak is probably closer to 26-29 or 27-30.

His contract hurts the future, even if Machado does not stink up the place.

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?

Too radical. It wouldn't be baseball anymore. It would be like soccer.

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

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.

Yes.

Many remember the great O's from the 70's, but that 1966 team was stacked! MVP Robinson Triple Crown winner. Boog Powell .287 34 109 Brooks Robinson .269 23 100 Curt Blefary .255 23 64 Luis Aparicio at SS and Paul Blair in CF- talk about "strong up the middle!" Jim Palmer Dave McNally

First of all, there has never been another Frank Robinson... literally, he's the only MLB player to ever have that common name. He led the league in OPS 4 times- 3 in the NL and once in the AL. He won a triple crown in 1966: .316 49 122. He aged well. He had an .843 OPS at age 35 on. (.954 from age 30-34.) Career: .915 vs RHPs .947 vs LHPs His career numbers at 154 games (677 PAs): .294 33 104 He also won a GG, 2 world series and a Manager of the Year Award.

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.

We also made a major contribution to the rotation 3 years ago. GS'd in 2015 32 Miley 28 Porcello 25 Kelly 21 ERod 18 Buchholz 11 Owens 9 Masterson 9 Wright 9 RHill,Breslow, Barnes & Johnson Only Porcello & ERod are still in our rotation or have been the last 3 years in a significant way. Additions to the rotation: 2016: Price and Pom (mid season) 2017: Sale, Fister (Velazquez) 2018: Eovaldi (mid season) I think the 3 in red helped more than Kimbrel, but your point is still a good one.

I think a lot of people assumed the Yanks & Dodgers reset their tax last year, so they could go large this year, and that at least one of them would nab Machado or Harper. (They still might, if the price is right.)

FA Signings Year- over $20M/yr, $15-19.9M- $9M-14.9 2019, so far 2- 7- 19 2018: 4- 3- 13 2017: 2- 10- 11 2016: 8- 9- 17 2015: 3- 4- 27

There is some hope for Workman: .747 OPS against career is not great, but... .535 2 outs w RISP .708 medium leverage (.794 High) and Hembree... .746 OPS against, career .654 Med Leverage .734 High Leverage .654 Late & Close Both should only be in medium leverage situations most of the time.

Plus, he was class.

I totally agree, and the charm of Fenway is part of the whole mystique and tradition, despite the uncomfortable seating arrangement. What really gets me is these small market teams that can barely put together a major league roster building costly, new stadiums, when moving to another city was probably a better idea.

He was one of the greats!

The Phillies have announced the trade, acquiring Realmuto in exchange for Alfaro, Sanchez, Stewart and international funds. It seems, then, that the bonus money was the fourth component of the deal, rather than an additional minor league talent. I wonder if this means they may not get Machado or Harper.

Not many can say they had a year like his 3 years ago. We'll see what he looks like in ST'ing and maybe decide by then, which Thornburg he might be in 2019.

Hasn't there always been about 10 teams out of it before the season ever starts? Even before free agency? Before comp picks? Before the luxury tax? Before the harsher penalties started? It's hard to think of a way to force low budget teams to spend more- not that this would guarantee they become competitive, but over time, you'd think they'd have to be good at some point, if only briefly here and there. Raising the minimum pay would help a lot of players. Starting the arb process a year or two earlier would spread the wealth among players more, but teams may trade their arb guys to save money. I think the players need to push for a minimum team spending budget that rises over the term of the agreement. More revenue sharing might help smaller teams, but only if they are mandated to spend the money gained from the share on player salary. (Ex. Let's say the league minimum team budget is set at $65M and team A gets $10M in sharing, then they'd have to have a budget of $75M, or maybe half the $10M, so $70M total. If teams can't make it under this structure, then they should move or fold. Sharing all local TV money would be the great evener, but it won't happen.