GatewayRedbirds.com

Posted: **January 18 18, 11:38 am**

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?

Posted: **January 18 18, 11:45 am**

I can understand the argument that we'd rather see the players making money than the owners pocketing more profit. But I'm still confused as to why we want veteran players making more than they should for longer than they should.

Pay pre-arb players better, and I think the whole economy of the game improves.

Posted: **January 18 18, 11:54 am**

eno doesn't really answer the question at hand but still

tacopocket
12:50
how did Minnesota steal reed like that?!!?! he's a very good reliever who can close. When bullpen arms are becoming more and more valuable so I was shocked to see that deal? Especially when you compare it to the wade davis deal (which I personally think was a pretty bad deal). Why didn't the Nats, Cards, Cubs, dodgers, etc.... beat that contract???

Eno Sarris
12:51
Cards shoulda been ON that.

v2micca
12:28
In your mind, what team remains the most logical landing place for Mike Moustakas?

Eno Sarris
12:31
If Yanks have the money... They at around 176, so if they can get him for 15-18 a year, they might get him. I'm sure he wants more. He's got the second best projected WAR among FAs... Mets aren't going to spend like that, probably. Cardinals as a dark horse? What do the Twins have left to spend after a starter?
Weird how the market just dried up for him.

Posted: **January 18 18, 12:02 pm**

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
dmarx114 wrote:
MrCrowesGarden wrote:Never take a discount.
I wonder what Allen Craig thinks about that?
I wonder what Chris Sale and Christian Yelich think about it.

Never take a discount

Obviously they valued financial security.

Posted: **January 18 18, 12:02 pm**

Long division
12:32
Which division will have the closest race this year?

Eno Sarris
12:32
AL East? NL Central could be sneaky close.

Posted: **January 18 18, 12:05 pm**

Popeye_Card wrote:I can understand the argument that we'd rather see the players making money than the owners pocketing more profit. But I'm still confused as to why we want veteran players making more than they should for longer than they should.

Pay pre-arb players better, and I think the whole economy of the game improves.

I’d like to see team controlled players paid better, but at these five minutes, that’s not gonna happen. So in the immediate future I’d like to see my favorite team improved, and the most obvious way to do that is through additional spending. Right now it seems that ownership is pocketing a nice windfall and hoping fans don’t notice.

Posted: **January 18 18, 1:16 pm**

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.

Posted: **January 18 18, 1:36 pm**

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?

Posted: **January 18 18, 1:50 pm**

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?

if they're less productive? yes they should. they should be paid accordingly for the work they are doing now, not for work done in the past.

your analogy isn't really apples to apples though...

As you advance in your 30's, your body normally isn't in it's "prime" any longer...so you're not going to be as productive in your mid/late 30's like you were in your mid/late 20's.

But what's happened in previous years; players were paid in according to what they did in the past, and what the new teams HOPED they could do going forward.

Teams have noticed these 5-6-7 year deals more often than, are not what they hoped for towards the end of the contract, and are stuck paying a lot of money for what the player did in the past, and not what they are currently doing (see someone like pujols for example)

Teams are now seeing that, and they're just not willing to eat the last 2-3-4 years of a bad contract any longer.

Older players and their agents, are going to have to start to realize that unless you're a superstar in his prime (like machado/harper next year), and you're 30+ years old, you are going to have to settle for a 2-3 year deal now...and i'm ok with that.

edit - and i'm fine with a rework of the CBA to reward players EARLIER in their careers with more money, be it achieving FA earlier/less years of control for the team.

that would prob kill small market teams, so not sure how that would work...maybe more/higher draft picks for those smaller market teams that are constantly losing their young players, to try and rebuild quicker; i dunno

Posted: **January 18 18, 2:46 pm**

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.

GatewayRedbirds.com

"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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