drewski6

Maybe in the PhFiLippines

If Buster Posey and whomever is the manager came to the conclusion that Arraez is worth 12m as a second baseman, then I find it likely that its at least an option for team Venezuela. Im not saying its the right option or for sure means that Contreras is going to disappoint. I am just saying there are more options than just Contreras at 1b or Contreras on bench with Arraez at 1b. For the record, I think Venezuela is dumb to bench Contreras - so my position is not this smells like a bad signing.

Opportunity matters and KC is prob like our seventh best outfielder and might become our 3rd best infielder behind Story and Contreras by June. Not saying he is or that he is destined to become that , just saying to help this team at OF, KC needs like 3 injuries. To help this team at 2b/ss/3b - he may need 0 injuries....Because Mayer and Durbin dont have the same grasp on the jobs that abreu/cedanne/anthony/duran do, and Id put eaton above kc at this point.

okay Moonie Slav

I thought it was a fair question. Willson, in his managers opinion, is not a better starting option than not only Luis Arraez (only could get a 1 yr contract) but also Gleybar Torres , Geno , M. Garcia , and Tovar . Torres, Arraez, Geno were all 1 yr contract guys. Tovar plays on a terrible team (rockies). Yet our stud acquisition who is supposed to not only replace Bregman but also save Breslows weird offseason and anchor our lineup - isnt his managers top choice to beat out any of these 5 guys? Im not worried about it, and I get riding the hot bat. But its not one player who is getting the nod over Contreras. Its the entire infield and DH. I know its hard to accept, but in 2026 guys move around, and all of the guys playing over Contreras have experience at multiple infield positions. Arraez isnt even a 1b primary, he's playing 2b for the Giants this year. So why not play him at 2b? Because Torres is there (so Torres is also getting playing time over WILLson). As is M. Garcia (Torres could just as easily play 3b, with Arraez to his natural position of 2b), and Tovar (Garcia can play SS), and even Geno (WILLson can DH). Thats not a who's who of elite players, sorry. Thats a bunch of could only get 1 yr guys. But yet that entire infield (and DH) have Contreras pushed to cheerleader role. You can make that infield work subbing in Contreras for ANY of Arraez, Torres, Garcia, Tovar, Geno. I dont think you deserve tomatoes chucked at you for asking if this is something to be concerned about even though Im not personally concerned.

Better than Tony Clark vibes , in which case we'd prob have to hide WiLLiam Contrera's wife

And also because studs are rare. I will accept this though.

Would you be willing to keep sending him down if his struggles continue and he starts getting expensive for a AAA player? Thats my concern, that they already chose him to be on this team with that contract, and now could that create a situation where we arent letting the best man win. Because Eaton passed him on the depth chart.

But in real life you dont only get 9 starting position players and 4 bench guys. If you lock up a bunch of solid guys to value deals, that may look great from a war / $$ perspective, but you have nowhere to add a true stud. So if you wanna go this route, and Im warming up to it, I would say just be willing to make a trade where you WAR/SS isnt the primary. For example if you have 9 2.5 WAR guys making 1m, thats great WAR/$, but it prob doesnt win the world series and can be better. So maybe you trade 2 guys who have a 2.5 WAR/$$ for a 7.5 WAR guy making 30m. The other 7 WAR / $$ value guys who you didnt trade do set up a nice foundation to allow you to go get that stud, even though that stud isnt great WAR/$$ himself because 15m (or higher guys) are never great from WAR/$$ perspecitve but its nice to have studs.

It depends on the GM but point taken with Breslow. Because hes more active than Bloom. As long as you are willing to wheel and deal, I guess locking up a player has less downside then if you were just going to sit with him. And I know that sounds weird, but some GMs just dont shake things up as much as others. Bello would still be a nice trade asset if we didnt extend him, and I actually think maybe even a little more. But if thats the downside, its not a lot of downside (he would have had 30 trade units but now he has 25 isnt the end of the world). And theres always other variables. So if I have 2 awesome position players and an awesome pitcher, Im more willing to extend a B- player because thats still a solid player, and I dont need to keep the door open for studs because I already have 2, so Im trying to build around them, and this hypthetical B- guy is cheap and can compliment what I already have in place

That makes a lot more sense

I thought you had said on another page in defense of the Bello extension in particular, that you are not unhappy with it because the post control added years beat FA price-tag for a player like Bello, and thats why I said its more about value one would have had without extension vs value with extension. But it may have been in response to a different question. Do you think the Bello contract hurts us going forward vs was the extension worth it are not exactly the same question. I believe there are 2 post-control years (including the option), and those salaries arent bad vs cost of FA equivalent, but prob not as valuable as we thought when we extended One thing that I also consider is where we're at. So like for example, if I lose in WS to dodgers with 3 contributing rookies, I may keep em cheap and sign vets around them because thats how I add max talent and get over that hump. So someone asked why spend on FA vs internally - and the reason is because that way, you can have both (spend on the FA + keep the internal guy cheap) This creates future headaches and financial cliffs ;) for sure. So to me, it depends where in the window we are. There are times to be more willing to worry about later when later comes and focus on short term (not saying go all-in because thats a little extreme). Im just saying ....Think of it like a sliding scale and on one end of spectrum you have fortify current roster and on other side focus on future. And I dont like to ever be extreme on one side or the other, but where exactly I am on that spectrum depends. And right now its tough because we are good but also young, so its not easy decision to say we should focus on short term or long term, so right now because of this team, Im pretty close to the middle and think we should weighing now vs later pretty evenly balanced.

Everyone other than established very good players (im talking multiple 4+ WAR years) and top 20 MLB prospects needs to continue to prove that they are better than the next man up. They need to earn their way on by being the best of the candidates. And by definition, they cant all be the best of the candidates. When you start going crazy on the extensions to chase value, and you end up locking up all these guys - you just penciled em in vs making them earn it. I say open competition that is fair, and not predetermined. Thats why I love WWE wrestling. Nothing is predetermined. Its all just honest and fair athletic competition.

The issue is that its one less spot for a player who is better than KC. But thats not really directed at you because you arent a guy who thinks we should trade from redundancy and you value depth. I dont have too much beef with KC extension in a vacuum. But if theres 2 injuries next year to outfielders and we need a guy, I dont want to bring up KC over Eaton due to the fact that we paid him. When you start making playing time decisions based on who you paid , you are running contra to playing the best 9 position players and starting the best 5 starters.

But you have to take into account that we already had him under control. If I have a rookie breakout. I have 2 pre-arb years, 3 arb years with him. If I sign him to 6 years (buying one free agent year) - thats not exactly apples to apples to signing a free agent for 5 years. Crochet isnt getting top of the market money either because he was signed when the team still had 2 years control and we leveraged that. Like MVP was saying, you should really only lock up the highest upside guys. Because otherwise you are marrying yourself to average players and even though it isnt like killing us in Bellos case, theres just not enough of a reason to lock up an average player/pitcher when you could just keep em cheap. Remember, when he got this extension, we thought he was baby-Pedro. And his extension reflects that. And now, looking back, it appears a little overzealous to extended him because we thought hed be next Pedro. And looking back why even did we think he'd be Pedro? Because hes Dominican and Pedro liked him? He is a likeable guy, Bello, Ill give him that. But you dont guarantee all those years and hand Bello all that security and give him a pay bump along the way, and in return get one FA year that pays a #4 pitcher middle of the rotation pitcher money. And now we have a situation where our rotation should be Crochet, Suarez, Gray, Oviedo, Early and it wont be because we married Bello because he reminded us of Pedro, so we thought he had tremendous upside but he really never did. His spin rates, his arm action, his extension, his pitch mix, his velocity, his control and command - they all suggest #3/#4 pitcher and its what he always been. If he was Venezuelan , I dont think he gets that extension because the Pedro comparisons would have never happened. We dont have to marry every player that comes up.

My posting style is prob mostly derived from my disorganized hyper-active brain

2 reasons. 1. Because the question posed was why would they ever call him up this early and so I operated from a standpoint that he'd be called up (not to imply that I agree he should be - just tried to think of a reason why a team would consider it) 2. To take a cheap shot at your WAR / $$ is everything belief because its an oversimplification. WAR/$$ is a good great way to view a contract , sure, but saying [insert anything] is all about [insert anything] is false. WAR/$ is not the be-all, end-all way of evaluating a contract/potential FA contract because nothing is the be-all, end-all way of evaluating a contract/potential FA contract. Now regarding the cheap shot - I am making an effort to be less of a "dingus" to you and at least it wasnt personal this time. My personal mantra is: People say everything happens for a reason but the truth is the opposite. Nothing happens for a reason. Anything that has ever happened ever has happened because of a combination of MULTIPLE reasons.

Im looking at sportrac right now and it appears that we had a 1.5M penalty to a 250m payroll. I may be misreading or Sportrac may be wonky. I dont really compare CBT basis to cash. I compare cash without penalty to cash+ penalty because thats the actual impact and seabeach fred taught me that hypotheticals and projections are for libtards. BUT HOLY CRAP - I just wanted to 2x check something and learned something. The 1.5M we paid in tax last year actually WASNT the true cost of going over because only teams that didnt go over get a piece of that delicious Dodgers+Mets tax penalty. Last year - there was 400m distributed to 21 teams so like 20m/each. So by going 1.5m over last year they forfeited 20m. So the real cost of going over last year was 21.5. So the question is was it incompetence that led to going jsut over or a baseball decision (e.g. we like our team and dont want to cut 1.5m from 250m even though doing so would actually save us 21.5M cuz we'd get a cut of the penalty money) Props to you if you factored that in.. Thats a good job tracking down effected variables.

I think inflation kind of saved their bacon. 2 WAR guys 22m per now (included in that is a short term premium). The salary during what would have been arb1 and arb2 years is roughly equal to what he would have gotten in arb, in what would be his arb3 year, getting more stinky vs what he would have made in arb3, So that year looks bad, but then the next year its a 1 yr contract at 19m and thats a discount for a #3/4 pitcher and will be even more of a discount in 4 years, plus theres a team option year with a miniscule buyout. I would say the extension looks bad if you go by AAV but you shouldnt. The extension isnt great but its not particularly bad either because inflation saved it from turning south hard. I think hed have slightly more trade value today if no extension, but its not drastic. I would agree the contract had more downside than upside. But I cant really call that out without being a hypocrite because I celebrated Bregman's deal with us and the downside was more than the upside there. More downside than upside is kind of the cost of doing business. But I do lean agree that in this particular case, the extension doesnt appear particularly rosy. Also the elephant in the room is that hes prob not one of our best 5 starters but he'll prob be in teh rotation because we can send Early down. So if you are mr. the games in April matter just as much (not you specifically, but Ive heard that) know that Bello being on the team makes us worse in April, but its not really a huge deal to me because injuries will make him one of our 5 best for most of the season or if we have injury luck- he'll or someone else wil get moved when we jsut cant keep Early (and/orTolle) down any longer.

I go back to Beltre's deal with the Rangers. When signed everyone was like "good player, but wow-what an overpay. Too many years!" 2 yrs later- everybody and their mother trying to trade for that contract (and he was north of 30 with the 2 front years of the contract already burned by then!). And it was funny to see the progression of those efforts..... started with like "hey, we'll take this bad contract off your hands if you eat a bitt", to "we'll take this contract off your hands with no money eaten" to "hey, we'll actually give you a bit for this contract" to multiple teams bidding against each other to trade for him. I forget if the Rangers ever moved him when he was under that contract Im a nothing is ever always true kind of guy. But one thing I would try to take advantage of is that inflation in MLB contracts dont happen simultaneously to inflation in real-life. So like USA might have 3% inflation 5 years in a row, and for simplicity lets say thats 15% (I know its not), but then what sometimes happens is mlb contracts lag but then catch up with a hard-adjustment. Thats usually when you see the "the free agent signings this year have gone crazzzzzy, you see what these teams are paying" .....Well I got news, that bump is a league wide adjustment to years of lagging behind inflation and those "craaaazy" contracts are the new norm. So I say, if the free agents are getting approx what similar free agents got 7 years ago....It might be a good idea to go large and long, get in before the adjustment. I think people approach refi's this way (take advantage before it goes up, but not baseball contracts). For this reason, I was team extend Swayman. People like you cant make him the third highest paid goalie, and I said he'll be be the third highest paid goalie for a week, and in 2 years he'll fall out of top 10 highest paid goalies. Look forward. Expect inflation"

I honestly do not think they are doing these extensions to "fake" a higher payroll. I might have at one point. I do think some posters go by AAV for deceptive reasons , but not everyone going by AAV is doing it to mislead. They may just not understand how little the luxury tax matters unless you are going to full Dodgers. Its adding 1.5% to our payroll this year, and we're a repeat offender.

Im a case by case guy, if your position (and Im not sure it is) that you shouldnt extend a middle of the rotation guy, I would disagree just because there are probably times when it makes sense. If you are saying "generally dont extend 3/4 guys", thats an interesting guideline and I could see myself jumping on with it because Im a big believer in looking at things from a lens of replacable vs not-replacable. So for example, I may extend a lefty reliever over a righty reliever because the lefties are harder to find (and as always w me, Im not saying I would always extend a lefty and I would never extend a righty). I dont believe in hard rules. Everything is case by case But if you mean specifically to Bello, my other comments in this post are irrelevant.

Pros and cons to everything. One additional pro to extending (and Im not as into them as you are- and thats not intended as a diss or an implication that you are wrong or anything like that)....I just want to clarify that Im not mr always extend (because I believe in cyclicality, so if Im in a window I may keep my contributors at min wage because i focus on short term over long term when in windows, and that doesnt even imply id never extend if in that window - just that Im always case by case). That aside aside, but one thing that I talk about here a lot and really not many others do .....but its is important as anything.....is.....INFLATION If you can lock up someone who will be at prime in 2030 at a 2026 rate theres value in that because inflation only goes one way. This is also why Im not as scared to go long as some. "he'll be declining in 2030 and youll be paying him top dollar!" Yeah but, it wont be top dollar in 2030. Would be my rebut. Player x will prob be overpaid in 2030 because thats how long term contracts go but it wont be as bad as it appears because inflation. Im sure; however, that agents have found a way to bake inflation into the cake because its makes sense to do that and Im sure they arent bad at their jobs.

A cheap team could trade out from that final arb 3 year and have him next 2 years at like 6m each (assuming like 4.5m arb 1, 7.5m arb 2). I ran the math and calculated that because he has like 25m in trade value and like 50m remaining on the deal (not including the option) over 4 years that comes to like 19m/yr (75/4) in expected value. So a trade partner would be getting 38m in value for 12m in pay for like 26m excess value over next 2 years with the bonus of a modest trade asset entering year 3. So 38-12 = 26...then hed have an extra like 5m for that final arb year, which is more trade value than he has (so the extension is underwater) but only slightly. The trade value hed have without the extension is close to the trade value he has with it.......And theres a reason for this.... And that reason is that looking at things from an AAV/lux tax standpoint is stupid. And when they extended him, the salary for each arb year was intended to closely reflect what we thought each arb year would be. So think hed get 5m in arb 1, pay him 6m in that year.... The extension was neither good or bad because it was made with the expectation hed be like a #3/4 starter, and hes been roughly that. We were hopeful hed be better and that would make the extension worth it but he hasnt been. But its not like killing his value. These extensions look absolutely terrible - if you look at tax hit as the payroll and its not. Full stop. But our overall payroll looks better if you look at it from a tax hit perspective (what did i say this morning its like 256m tax hit vs 215 expected cash payments), so the water carriers want you to look at it from a tax hit perspective but thats dumb because the tax hit and penalties only matter if you go full dodgers. And if you are going to go full dodgers, internal extensions are small speed bumps. The penalties are borderline irrelevant. The cash is what matters. When we extend, we try to keep the cash equivalent to what it would have been had there been no extension. So the only way to win/lose (when looking at payroll from a cash perspective) is to have a significant fluctuation in the player. Bello has not had a big fluctuation - so we're about even on the extension, maybe a little underwater (hed have slightly more trade value had we not extended him). Our payroll is 215m, only the anti-labor folks on here want to go by the tax hit. And its inaccurate.

I lean agree. It might be something other than pure wins/losses contributing to a call up. Like maybe they have a TV deal up for renewal and young players = more eyes. Nobody wants to watch a team of journeyman struggle but its always fun to watch the up-and-comers, even if they lose because then those losses are "growing pains / flashes of whats to come", It gives a reason to care even if the team stinks.