Essentially you're trading your speculative commodities for a known, more polished product. It's just another way to reduce risk...trading off a cheap volatile product for a more stable, more expensive (but still manageably so for at least a few years) one. If you manage your assets well, you can probably fill out your rotation with good to average arby pitching for your pitching prospects...that should be enough to keep the team competitive until they reach FA. By then, the next crop of draftees should be ready to be turned into reasonably priced MLB pitching.haltz wrote:I follow until here. Is there that much of a failure rate? I have no idea on the numbers.3. Trade your young pitching prospects for arby pitching
The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
- EastonBlues22
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4799
- Joined: May 7 06, 11:31 pm
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
- JL21
- NPR & THT Contributor
- Posts: 36130
- Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
- Location: Chocolate City
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
Interesting... would that be a constant cycle then?EastonBlues22 wrote:Essentially you're trading your speculative commodities for a known, more polished product. It's just another way to reduce risk...trading off a cheap volatile product for a more stable, more expensive (but still manageably so for at least a few years) one. If you manage your assets well, you can probably fill out your rotation with good to average arby pitching for your pitching prospects...that should be enough to keep the team competitive until they reach FA. By then, the next crop of draftees should be ready to be turned into reasonably priced MLB pitching.
- EastonBlues22
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4799
- Joined: May 7 06, 11:31 pm
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
It's not my model, but theoretically...yes. You could always sign long term any obvious gold that happened to fall into your lap (to replace the ace who's contract ran out, etc.), but for the most part you adhere to the cycle. Budget conscious teams will always be willing to listen to offers that keep their bottom line under control...so there should never be a lack of willing trading partners.RC21 wrote:Interesting... would that be a constant cycle then?EastonBlues22 wrote:Essentially you're trading your speculative commodities for a known, more polished product. It's just another way to reduce risk...trading off a cheap volatile product for a more stable, more expensive (but still manageably so for at least a few years) one. If you manage your assets well, you can probably fill out your rotation with good to average arby pitching for your pitching prospects...that should be enough to keep the team competitive until they reach FA. By then, the next crop of draftees should be ready to be turned into reasonably priced MLB pitching.
The best part is you don't have to actually develop any stud pitching prospects. As long as there is hype, there will be interest...so all you have to do is wait until their value is perceived to be high then sell. It's a lot easier to pull that off with prospects than it is with people who have established track records at the MLB level.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 11671
- Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
- Location: In a Small Town with Jack and Diane
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
A risk management scheme in an illiquid market will come with heavy transaction costs. That's how you end up with the Haren-Mulder trade.EastonBlues22 wrote:Essentially you're trading your speculative commodities for a known, more polished product. It's just another way to reduce risk...trading off a cheap volatile product for a more stable, more expensive (but still manageably so for at least a few years) one. If you manage your assets well, you can probably fill out your rotation with good to average arby pitching for your pitching prospects...that should be enough to keep the team competitive until they reach FA. By then, the next crop of draftees should be ready to be turned into reasonably priced MLB pitching.haltz wrote:I follow until here. Is there that much of a failure rate? I have no idea on the numbers.3. Trade your young pitching prospects for arby pitching
It's also hard to produce good pitching prospects consistently.
- EastonBlues22
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4799
- Joined: May 7 06, 11:31 pm
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
In this sort of approach you're never going to be dealing for a post-arby all-star. You're not dealing pitchers who are ready to step in to the MLB that year...you might as well just keep them if you hold onto them for that long. Trades like Haren-Mulder and Jennings-Hirsh/Buchholz are not the ones being proposed.greenback44 wrote: A risk management scheme in an illiquid market will come with heavy transaction costs. That's how you end up with the Haren-Mulder trade.
It's also hard to produce good pitching prospects consistently.
You're essentially looking to aquire average arby pitching (with, obviously, the potential to be above average...if only slightly) with "top end" lower level prospects. Yes, you need the ability to draft kids with "potential"...but that's also part of why he specified that you draft pitchers to hitters in at least a 2:1 ratio, so that you'll have that stable of prospects to deal from.
If a few of them blossom with another team, well, that's great...that will keep teams coming back to make similar deals in the future. You're not trying to rob teams blind, just eliminate organizational risk to sustain a long run of competitiveness.
- Asmodai
- Veteran Player
- Posts: 1124
- Joined: February 9 07, 7:37 pm
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
That's not exactly true. It's hard to produce pitching prospects that produce at the ML level consistently, but it's not hard to produce pitching prospects and dump them before they get hurt or flame out. In other words, you're dealing with a market inefficiency - teams overpaying for pitching prospects. (actually it's the other way around right now. teams arent willing to part with their prospects. They think theyre trading at 1 to 1, so they wont do it. Theyre just not smart enough to realize they'd get $2 on the dollar by trading the prospect)greenback44 wrote:It's also hard to produce good pitching prospects consistently.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 11671
- Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
- Location: In a Small Town with Jack and Diane
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
Good luck with that. Again, there's a premium to be paid on these guys. Here's a list of all the pitchers in their first five years in the majors with at least 180 IP in 2007:EastonBlues22 wrote:You're essentially looking to aquire average arby pitching (with, obviously, the potential to be above average...if only slightly) with "top end" lower level prospects.
Code: Select all
Cnt Player ERA+ IP Year Age
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+---+
1 Brandon Webb 156 236.1 2007 28
2 Fausto Carmona 145 215 2007 23
3 Danny Haren 143 222.2 2007 26
4 Erik Bedard 141 182 2007 28
5 Cole Hamels 135 183.1 2007 23
6 Scott Kazmir 132 206.2 2007 23
7 Justin Verlander 122 201.2 2007 24
8 Matt Cain 122 200 2007 22
9 James Shields 120 215 2007 25
10 Ian Snell 118 208 2007 25
11 Adam Wainwright 118 202 2007 25
12 Chien-Ming Wang 117 199.1 2007 27
13 Rich Hill 116 195 2007 27
14 Tom Gorzelanny 114 201.2 2007 24
15 Jeff Francis 112 215.1 2007 26
16 Joe Blanton 111 230 2007 26
17 Felix Hernandez 109 190.1 2007 21
18 John Maine 109 191 2007 26
19 Daisuke Matsuzaka 104 204.2 2007 26
20 Chad Gaudin 99 199.1 2007 24
21 Wandy Rodriguez 98 182.2 2007 28
22 David Bush 87 186.1 2007 27
23 Jose Contreras 83 189 2007 35
24 Dontrelle Willis 82 205.1 2007 25
25 Daniel Cabrera 81 204.1 2007 26
Code: Select all
Cnt Player ERA+ IP Year Age
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+---+
1 Brandon Webb 154 235 2006 27
2 Aaron Harang 128 234.1 2006 28
3 Justin Verlander 125 186 2006 23
4 John Lackey 123 217.2 2006 27
5 Chien-Ming Wang 121 218 2006 26
6 Erik Bedard 120 196.1 2006 27
7 Brett Myers 118 198 2006 25
8 Nate Robertson 118 208.2 2006 28
9 Jeff Francis 116 199 2006 25
10 Clay Hensley 114 187 2006 26
11 Aaron Cook 114 212.2 2006 27
12 Chris Capuano 112 221.1 2006 27
13 Dontrelle Willis 112 223.1 2006 24
14 Jeremy Bonderman 111 214 2006 23
15 Jose Contreras 109 196 2006 34
16 Matt Cain 108 190.2 2006 21
17 Danny Haren 108 223 2006 25
18 Scott Olsen 107 180.2 2006 22
19 Jake Peavy 103 202.1 2006 25
20 Ervin Santana 102 204 2006 23
21 David Bush 102 210 2006 26
22 Cliff Lee 102 200.2 2006 27
23 Zach Duke 100 215.1 2006 23
24 Felix Hernandez 96 191 2006 20
25 Ian Snell 95 186 2006 24
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+---+
Cnt Player ERA+ IP Year Age
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+---+
26 Joe Blanton 92 194.1 2006 25
27 Carlos Silva 75 180.1 2006 27
- EastonBlues22
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4799
- Joined: May 7 06, 11:31 pm
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
We're talking players like the pitcher Jason Marquis was before his arby years, not guys who are already league average or better in their early 20s. We're talking guys who should be league average through most of their arby years, but who are not there yet.
Pitchers like that are a lot cheaper.
Pitchers like that are a lot cheaper.
-
- http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy
- Posts: 24994
- Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
- Location: St. Louis
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
What makes this even more ridiculous is that Rivera hasn't responded...
And did anyone else hear about this potential trade? Colletti would have been dense to make this deal (and the Marlins for not accepting).According to SI.com's Jon Heyman, Mariano Rivera hasn't responded to a three-year, $39 million offer made by the Yankees.
$39 million for a 38-year-old reliever who slipped last year seems more than fair. His previous deal was two years with an option, and he ended up earning $31.5 million over the three seasons. Obviously, he's a weaker bet for the future now than he was then.
The same report says the Dodgers and Marlins discussed a Cabrera deal during the summer, with Chad Billingsley, Matt Kemp and James Loney going the other way. According to MLB.com's Jim Molony, the Marlins turned it down. If that's the case, they must be regretting it right now. As is, they'd be quite fortunate to get two of those players from the Dodgers.
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: The outrageously exorbitant contract $ thread
I'm not sure if this means the Red Sox offered him this contract or if another team did.BOSTON -- Mike Lowell now has a formal offer to consider.
While the details are not clear, the Boston Herald and WBZ-TV's Dan Roche are reporting that the World Series MVP has been offered a three-year contract worth $35-$45 million.