I don't believe in the philosophy of the tenured pro athlete.Felix The Cat wrote:Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?ZigZagCardsFan wrote: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.pioneer98 wrote:Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?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.
"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread
- ZigZagCardsFan
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 5531
- Joined: July 29 06, 6:26 pm
Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread
- 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
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.
- Hoot45
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4008
- Joined: October 8 14, 11:41 am
Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread
I see Josh Harrison made a "just trade me too and tank already" comment.
- Jocephus
- 99% conan clips
- Posts: 63658
- Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread
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!
- MinorLeagueGuy
- The Angst is Real
- Posts: 18261
- Joined: September 8 10, 2:57 pm
Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread
Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..
- 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
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..
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.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.
- 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
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.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..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.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.
If I could get a controlled pitcher or two for him I'd be happy.
- 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
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).Popeye_Card wrote:Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.Felix The Cat wrote:Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?ZigZagCardsFan wrote: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.pioneer98 wrote:Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?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.
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.
- 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
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.Famous Mortimer wrote: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).Popeye_Card wrote:Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.Felix The Cat wrote:Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?ZigZagCardsFan wrote: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.pioneer98 wrote:Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?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.
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.
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.
- 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
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.Popeye_Card wrote: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.Famous Mortimer wrote: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).Popeye_Card wrote:Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.Felix The Cat wrote:Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?ZigZagCardsFan wrote: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.pioneer98 wrote:Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?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.
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.
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.