MLB hot stove discussion 2018/19 off season

[Vander Blue Man Group]

The Sox have a lot of money to offer.  Great players sign with bad teams all the time. 

Lester to the cubs.
Cano to the M's
Arod to the Rangers. 

All these teams were at least 20 games under the season before signing those guys.

Obviously the odds are against it happening, but if they offer the most money, it likely won't matter.  Also they have been connected to Nelson Cruz and Patrick Corbin.  They could add 80 million to their payroll this offseason and be about average.

Honestly,  I'm thrilled they are pursuing him like this whether they end up getting him or not.  I like the front office being aggressive.

And nice use of Jordan as apparently the Jordan statue was donning a Harper jersey today.

All the time?  Lester clearly had a connection to Epstein and Hoyer that had a big impact there.

How did the Cano and ARod deals work out for Seattle and Texas?  Granted, Harper is different due to his age.

[Pakuni]

All the time?  Lester clearly had a connection to Epstein and Hoyer that had a big impact there.

How did the Cano and ARod deals work out for Seattle and Texas?  Granted, Harper is different due to his age.

Barry Bonds to the Giants (72-win team previous season)
Randy Johnson to the D-Backs (65 wins)
Carlos Beltran to the Mets (76 wins)
Roger Clemens to the Blue Jays (76 wins)

I also doubt Harper ends up on the South Side, but it won't be because they had a bad record last year.

[DegenerateDish]

I’ve said the last two years in these baseball threads that come this winter, the Sox were going to be all in for free agency. They’ve been hoarding cash for the last few seasons, their future payroll commitment is zilch. They are going hard for both Machado & Harper.

The reality is, they have nothing to lose. The Kopech instagram post yesterday was legit about the jersey number. Coming strong out of the shoot and showing their interest is great. If you’re going to overpay in FA, better for a guy at 26 than in his 30’s.

Maybe they don’t get either one, but certainly love the fact they’re not eff’in around.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Barry Bonds to the Giants (72-win team previous season)
Randy Johnson to the D-Backs (65 wins)
Carlos Beltran to the Mets (76 wins)
Roger Clemens to the Blue Jays (76 wins)

I also doubt Harper ends up on the South Side, but it won't be because they had a bad record last year.

Again, that's not "all the time". It's the exception more than the rule.

[buckchuckler]

Again, that's not "all the time". It's the exception more than the rule.

Those are some of the biggest contracts in history.  Two of the deals I mentioned are 2 of the biggest 3 deals in the history of baseball (and Lester is top 10 ever for a pitcher).  Many of the top deals are like this, most of the others are others are to the Yankees.

No it doesn't happen all the time, because contracts like those don't happen all the time.  But I suppose you knew what I meant and are just being intentionally obtuse.  What does happen all the time, is that guys sign where they are offered the most money.  I imagine that will be the biggest factor for both Harper and Machado.  And Corbin.  And Cruz.  And Grandal.  And Pollock.  And McCutcheon.  And just about every other free agent.

[Lennys Tap]

Those are some of the biggest contracts in history.  Two of the deals I mentioned are 2 of the biggest 3 deals in the history of baseball.  Many of the top deals are like this, most of the others are others are to the Yankees.

No it doesn't happen all the time, because contracts like those don't happen all the time.  But I suppose you knew what I meant and are just being intentionally obtuse.  What does happen all the time, is that guys sign where they are offered the most money.  I imagine that will be the biggest factor for both Harper and Machado.  And Corbin.  And Cruz.  And Grandal.  And Pollock.  And McCutcheon.  And just about every other free agent.

If you want Scott Boras for an agent you have to go to the highest bidder - that's how he rolls.

[buckchuckler]

I hope the Cubs and the Sox pass on Harper. He's not worth it.

I'd pay $400 million over 10 years for Trout.

Harper has played 7 full seasons at this point. He's a 3-5 win player (outside of 2015). In 7 years, Trout has been 9+ WAR except for one year at 8.3 and last year's 7 win season due to injury.

The Stanton contract is a realistic comp for Harper.

I mean, you're right.  But when the biggest knock on Harper is that he isn't Trout, well that alone speaks pretty highly of him. 

The other obvious problem with you statement, is well, the Sox can't sign Trout.  For any amount right now.  They could theoretically sign Harper.  He is also, again, theoretically, just entering his prime.

The problem with the Stanton contract being comparable is the simple fact that Stanton was not a free agent.  His was signed as an extension, with out competition factoring into the contract.  So just with that, it is a different situation.

In his 10 most comparable hitters by age, are names like Griffey Jr., Frank Robinson, Mike Trout, Eddie Mathews, Miguel Cabrera and Tony Conigliaro.  That's 5 Hall of Famers ( 2 future, but basically sure things, and top caliber HOF-ers at that), and a career tragically cut short.  Others on the list include Andruw Jones and Justin Upton. 

Even with that, it is almost certain the team that signs Harper will overpay for him.  Where the Sox are right, now, I'm ok with that.  I think they should front load a deal because they have basically no commitments on the books right now.  Front load it so in years 7-8-9 and however long after you aren't in a Pujols situation.  Front load it to make it more attractive.  That is a card the Sox can play that other franchises may not be able to match.

[buckchuckler]

If you want Scott Boras for an agent you have to go to the highest bidder - that's how he rolls.

Huh, does he have that reputation?  I had no idea.  It isn't like that has been his thing for like 20 years.

[buckchuckler]

Oh, and Arod worked out fine for the Rangers.  He had 2 monster years, then they traded him for Soriano who had 2 monster years for them.  Aside from all the other stupid BS that makes him a compete pariah, Arod always produced when he was on the field.  He basically lived up to that contract, now, we all know how, but it wasn't the albatross that Cano has become.  Those contracts aren't analogous in anything other that dollars.

Another factor here is that when Arod signed, there were only a few teams over 100 million in payroll, making his 25 even more significant.  Now most teams are in the middle 100's.  Some far over, so a 25-30 million contract isn't exactly the same burden.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Those are some of the biggest contracts in history.  Two of the deals I mentioned are 2 of the biggest 3 deals in the history of baseball (and Lester is top 10 ever for a pitcher).  Many of the top deals are like this, most of the others are others are to the Yankees.

No it doesn't happen all the time, because contracts like those don't happen all the time.  But I suppose you knew what I meant and are just being intentionally obtuse.  What does happen all the time, is that guys sign where they are offered the most money.  I imagine that will be the biggest factor for both Harper and Machado.  And Corbin.  And Cruz.  And Grandal.  And Pollock.  And McCutcheon.  And just about every other free agent.

If you didn't mean "all the time" you should have said something else.  Lester didn't take the biggest deal. Heyward didn't take his biggest offer (wish he would have in hindsight).  It's unusual but it happens.

Yes, free agents often take the biggest deal. How much more are the Sox going to have to offer than the next biggest competitor for Machado or Harper to take a massive leap of faith?

[buckchuckler]

If you didn't mean "all the time" you should have said something else.  Lester didn't take the biggest deal. Heyward didn't take his biggest offer (wish he would have in hindsight).  It's unusual but it happens.

Yes, free agents often take the biggest deal. How much more are the Sox going to have to offer than the next biggest competitor for Machado or Harper to take a massive leap of faith?

Ha.  Ok then.  Heyward got opt outs from the Cubs which added non monetary value to his deal that the Cards didn't add if I am remembering correctly.  That is still value, and will almost certainly pertain to Harper.  Thats why front loading the deal could be a factor.  Heyward took the deal that gave him the most value.

How about this.  When a player has the opportunity to sign a deal that will make him one of the 5 or so highest paid players in the game they sign with the highest bidder, but without regard to record.

The top 3 ever, the ones most similar to Harper or Machado:

Arod to Texas.  Terrible record the previous year.  Left a competitice team.  Record not a factor.

Pujols to the Angels.  They were good.  So were the Cards.  Angels offered more money.  Record not a factor.

Cano to the M's.  20 games under.  Record not a factor.  Left a competitive team.

Cano and Pujols' deals are the same terms.

Record doesn't matter when the deal is of this magnitude.

Your examples are the ones that are anecdotal and exceptions.

[🏀]

I mean, you're right.  But when the biggest knock on Harper is that he isn't Trout, well that alone speaks pretty highly of him. 

The other obvious problem with you statement, is well, the Sox can't sign Trout.  For any amount right now.  They could theoretically sign Harper.  He is also, again, theoretically, just entering his prime.

The problem with the Stanton contract being comparable is the simple fact that Stanton was not a free agent.  His was signed as an extension, with out competition factoring into the contract.  So just with that, it is a different situation.

In his 10 most comparable hitters by age, are names like Griffey Jr., Frank Robinson, Mike Trout, Eddie Mathews, Miguel Cabrera and Tony Conigliaro.  That's 5 Hall of Famers ( 2 future, but basically sure things, and top caliber HOF-ers at that), and a career tragically cut short.  Others on the list include Andruw Jones and Justin Upton. 

Even with that, it is almost certain the team that signs Harper will overpay for him.  Where the Sox are right, now, I'm ok with that.  I think they should front load a deal because they have basically no commitments on the books right now.  Front load it so in years 7-8-9 and however long after you aren't in a Pujols situation.  Front load it to make it more attractive.  That is a card the Sox can play that other franchises may not be able to match.

It was more of a wild thought process of why this unprecedented money is being looked at for Harper and is it warranted. Not a reflection of organization or  need.

[CTWarrior]

Guilty of saying the quiet parts out loud. Not everyone in MLB management thinks this way, but I'd bet that there are more that think the MLB is a machine that will survive whatever labor issues they face.

As other labor stoppages in sports have shown, he's wrong.

He's 100% correct.  The game will go on regardless.  If all of these players quit, there would still be interest in the game, kids would still play it and the game would be as good as ever shortly (though probably closer to 7 or 8 years than 3).  Players come and go but the game goes on.

[DegenerateDish]

The White Sox approach is similar to what you see NFL teams doing with QB’s on rookie deals. The Bears trading for Mack is a perfect example. The Sox have a bunch of hopefully good young players who won’t hit free agency until the mid 2020’s. They have an incredibly low future payroll commitment with their current roster. If they think they can contend in 2020 with their young guys, and you have in the open market two star players in their prime, at positions of need, do everything you can to go get them. Eventually you’re going to want to go out and get someone of a Harper/Machado caliber.

The Sox could offer 10/350 to both guys, and front load $50 mil in year one to both, and stay under the tax.

[WarriorDad]

Barry Bonds to the Giants (72-win team previous season)
Randy Johnson to the D-Backs (65 wins)
Carlos Beltran to the Mets (76 wins)
Roger Clemens to the Blue Jays (76 wins)

I also doubt Harper ends up on the South Side, but it won't be because they had a bad record last year.

A few more

Nationals signed Werth
Padres signed Hosmer
Mets signed Beltran
Tigers signed Pudge
Mariners signed Beltre

[GB Warrior]

Water coolers everywhere cower in fear https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/11/09/carlos-zambrano-says-he-wants-to-make-comeback/

[buckchuckler]

He's 100% correct.  The game will go on regardless.  If all of these players quit, there would still be interest in the game, kids would still play it and the game would be as good as ever shortly (though probably closer to 7 or 8 years than 3).  Players come and go but the game goes on.

I have to disagree with this.  If there were replacement players, even guys in the minors right now, it would be rough for a couple years.  Interest would drop, as the skill level dropped.  It would take a long time to recover.  Financially it would really suffer.

And some of these players clearly are not replaceable.  Trout is a once every 50 years type of talent.  Same with Kershaw.  The guys that are the 26th-30th guys on the roster would be the best players in the game that would lead to less interest, I know it would for me, and I am a pretty die hard baseball fan. Have you ever watched even a AA game? It is rough baseball in a lot of ways.

Players come and go, but it is a cycle.  They aren't replaced.  Ruth and Gehrig gave way to Williams, Musial and DiMaggio, who gave way to Mantle, Mays, Robinson and Aaron. They gave way to Yaz and Bench, to Schmidt, Yount, and Ripken.  To Bonds, Sosa (double ick) Griffey, Thomas, Mcgwire and Thome.  To Jeter, Vlad, and Miggy.  To Trout and Harper.  To Acuna, Soto and Vlad Jr.  The same could be said on the pitching side. 

Baseball is the players.  They aren't even close to replaceable.  It is the great players and the transcendent talents that draw you in.  It is Arenado playing 3rd.  Scherzer dominating starts, and it is (I guess...) Baez being the most exciting tag slider around.

Will there be another generation of great players, yes, of course there will be.  That doesn't mean these guys are replaceable.  They influence the guys that will be behind them.  They mentor and shape the guys that will become those stars.  Baseball, more than any other sport is connected to its past greats, their achievements are still hallowed, their names still revered. 

Eh, maybe I'm wrong and I'm just too sentimental about it.  But to say every player could be replaced in 2-3 years, even to say the game would be just as good in 10 years, seems like ignorance and hubris all in one.

[GGGG]

To be honest, I don't think baseball players draw people in like they used to.  I think that's why the national numbers are way down.  Before he was traded to Milwaukee last year, Christian Yelich could have walked into my house and sat on my couch and I would have had no idea who he was.  I knew the name, but don't recall ever seeing him play.

NBA Basketball is still very much a player-driven sport.  But I think outside of a few outliers, baseball, football and college basketball have become much more about the teams than the players.  Unplug one...plug in another...life goes on.

So while I don't think James is "100% correct," I think he is about 90%.

[GB Warrior]

To be honest, I don't think baseball players draw people in like they used to.  I think that's why the national numbers are way down.  Before he was traded to Milwaukee last year, Christian Yelich could have walked into my house and sat on my couch and I would have had no idea who he was.  I knew the name, but don't recall ever seeing him play.

NBA Basketball is still very much a player-driven sport.  But I think outside of a few outliers, baseball, football and college basketball have become much more about the teams than the players.  Unplug one...plug in another...life goes on.

So while I don't think James is "100% correct," I think he is about 90%.

Doesn't help that baseball does a sh!it job of marketing its one generational player and the best he can do/wants to do is market for Subway.

[buckchuckler]

Rumors abound that the Cubs are not only open to trading Bryant, but are "making an effort" to trade him.

My first thought here is that his shoulder must be a problem, I just don't understand why else they would shop him.

The initial report I saw I didn't mention because it was just a "there are not untouchables" deal, which doesn't mean much, but since there have been some report that it may be more than that. 

I can't see it happening.  Who knows though.

[CTWarrior]

Doesn't help that baseball does a sh!it job of marketing its one generational player and the best he can do/wants to do is market for Subway.

Trout is really good, but he isn't all that exciting.  He makes a great catch now and then, but only 10-15 a year.  That is another problem for the causal fan.  Greatness in baseball is performing well more often than not over the long haul.  When you watch Lebron, he may have an off night, but you can count on seeing him doing a few amazing things.  Same with a great QB in football.  Trout could easily go 0-3 with a walk or two and not have anything interesting hit to him.  There's a good chance you won't see a great player do anything great at a random baseball game.

[DegenerateDish]

Rumors abound that the Cubs are not only open to trading Bryant, but are "making an effort" to trade him.

My first thought here is that his shoulder must be a problem, I just don't understand why else they would shop him.

The initial report I saw I didn't mention because it was just a "there are not untouchables" deal, which doesn't mean much, but since there have been some report that it may be more than that. 

I can't see it happening.  Who knows though.

They know it's a long shot to re-sign him eventually. Rumors have been out there for a while that he's always been pissed about the service time issue, and he was going to 100% test the market when the time comes. Shoulder is probably an issue, but I'm personally not surprised by this news.

I can see the Cubs and Mets being trading partners here.

[Pakuni]

Doesn't help that baseball does a sh!it job of marketing its one generational player and the best he can do/wants to do is market for Subway.

Trout, as good as he is at baseball, has all the charisma of a park bench. Add that to the fact that he plays on the #2 team in a West Coast city, and I have a hard time blaming baseball for the relative lack of attention Trout receives.

[Pakuni]

To be honest, I don't think baseball players draw people in like they used to.  I think that's why the national numbers are way down. 

Except the national numbers aren't really way down. The World Series was down this year, but that's in comparison to the 2016 and 2017 numbers, which were the highest in more than a decade. This year's numbers were very much on par with what baseball has seen for most of the past 10-12 years.
And national regular season ratings on Fox and ESPN have been on the rise the past two (plus?) years.
Now, if you want to say they're way down compared with two decades ago, that's true. There's all sorts of reasons for that (fragmentation of the audience, way more entertainment options, cord-cutting, etc.), beyond how much baseball players themselves draw people in.

So while I don't think James is "100% correct," I think he is about 90%.

Sure, if sports fans across the nation suffered collective amnesia, he'd be right. But since that's not likely, most fans would remember the players who are gone, recognize that what's on the field is an inferior product and turn away in droves. Like in 1987, when football fans stayed away en masse from the NFL's replacement games.

[Pakuni]

They know it's a long shot to re-sign him eventually. Rumors have been out there for a while that he's always been pissed about the service time issue, and he was going to 100% test the market when the time comes. Shoulder is probably an issue, but I'm personally not surprised by this news.

I can see the Cubs and Mets being trading partners here.

This seems much ado about nothing. Epstein was asked if he considered Bryant and Rizzo "untouchables" for trades and he said words to the effect of, "I've never considered a player untouchable and I'm not going to do that now."
That somehow has been spun into "The Cubs will consider trading Bryant." I mean, that's not totally wrong, but it's awfully misleading.