"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Locked
User avatar
ZigZagCardsFan
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 5531
Joined: July 29 06, 6:26 pm

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by ZigZagCardsFan »

Felix The Cat wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.
Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?
As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.
Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?
I don't believe in the philosophy of the tenured pro athlete.

User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 23631
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

It sounds like Brad Thompson is getting to be the in game analyst with Danny Mac for about 15 games, taking them all from Hrabosky. Horton, McCarver and Edmonds workload unchanged.

User avatar
Hoot45
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4008
Joined: October 8 14, 11:41 am

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by Hoot45 »

I see Josh Harrison made a "just trade me too and tank already" comment.

User avatar
Jocephus
99% conan clips
Posts: 63658
Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by Jocephus »

ATCQ
11:04
Is it possible that between the Ozuna trade and the Piscotty trade, the Cardinals both improved their team AND their farm?

Jeff Sullivan
11:04
30-40% yes!

User avatar
MinorLeagueGuy
The Angst is Real
Posts: 18261
Joined: September 8 10, 2:57 pm

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by MinorLeagueGuy »

Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..

User avatar
heyzeus
Everday Unicorn
Posts: 41342
Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by heyzeus »

MinorLeagueGuy wrote:Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..
Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports that the Brewers are getting close to a trade.
The club has been shopping dynamic outfielder Domingo Santana this offseason, but have yet to find a potential match in any deal. The Brewers have a logjam of outfielders, so making a move prior to the start of spring training seems like an inevitability.
Seems crazy to me they'd be trading a 25 yo under cheap team control who just put up 30 HR and a .371 OBP in his first full MLB season. You do you, Brew crew.

User avatar
signthief
Veteran Player
Posts: 810
Joined: August 2 11, 9:04 am
Location: At the gettin' place

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by signthief »

heyzeus wrote:
MinorLeagueGuy wrote:Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..
Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports that the Brewers are getting close to a trade.
The club has been shopping dynamic outfielder Domingo Santana this offseason, but have yet to find a potential match in any deal. The Brewers have a logjam of outfielders, so making a move prior to the start of spring training seems like an inevitability.
Seems crazy to me they'd be trading a 25 yo under cheap team control who just put up 30 HR and a .371 OBP in his first full MLB season. You do you, Brew crew.
Personally, I'm in favor of trading Santana, in the right deal of course. He is a terrible fielder and his value will never be higher in my opinion. I'd be asking a lot, but I wouldn't hesitate to move him, particularly given the Brewers' outfield depth at really every level.

If I could get a controlled pitcher or two for him I'd be happy.

User avatar
Famous Mortimer
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3636
Joined: November 14 14, 5:23 am
Location: Cherokee

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by Famous Mortimer »

Popeye_Card wrote:
Felix The Cat wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.
Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?
As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.
Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?
Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.
It seems that the unwritten agreement between ownership and players was that ownership would get the first six years cheap, then *whoever* would pay them a proper payday for their later years. Now, it would appear ownership is ignoring their side of things. You don't want to pay players going into their thirties, fine, but then reduce the automatic team control years (which is no better for the game or fans than the reserve clause was).

User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 29877
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by Popeye_Card »

Famous Mortimer wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
Felix The Cat wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.
Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?
As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.
Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?
Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.
It seems that the unwritten agreement between ownership and players was that ownership would get the first six years cheap, then *whoever* would pay them a proper payday for their later years. Now, it would appear ownership is ignoring their side of things. You don't want to pay players going into their thirties, fine, but then reduce the automatic team control years (which is no better for the game or fans than the reserve clause was).
I don't think they're ignoring anything. It is the deal the player's union collectively bargained, which is dominated by the veterans. Vets get paid, rookies have to earn it. That's the way it has always worked. The players need to change their philosophy if they want better balance.

GM's are smarter now. They aren't going to keep signing veterans that don't provide value--that's a great way to lose your job.

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 23105
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

Popeye_Card wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
Felix The Cat wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.
Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?
As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.
Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?
Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.
It seems that the unwritten agreement between ownership and players was that ownership would get the first six years cheap, then *whoever* would pay them a proper payday for their later years. Now, it would appear ownership is ignoring their side of things. You don't want to pay players going into their thirties, fine, but then reduce the automatic team control years (which is no better for the game or fans than the reserve clause was).
I don't think they're ignoring anything. It is the deal the player's union collectively bargained, which is dominated by the veterans. Vets get paid, rookies have to earn it. That's the way it has always worked. The players need to change their philosophy if they want better balance.

GM's are smarter now. They aren't going to keep signing veterans that don't provide value--that's a great way to lose your job.
So the next collective bargaining session will see the players go for 4 or 5 years instead of 6 I'll bet. And that will probably bring a work stoppage.

Locked