maplesyrup
New member
Out-Yankeed. Love it.
The Official 2013 MLB Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
Kin
Active member
It's a strange deal though. Paying a middle infielder until he's 41 at a rate that really only makes sense if he can continue to play the middle infield until that age is a deal I understand being reticent about...if it weren't for their willingness to give all that money to Ellsbury.
maplesyrup
New member
@Ken_Rosenthal
Cano at Safeco since 05: .309/.350/.487. All of MLB: .251/.315/.383. Only player in SEA history better than .309 BA at Safeco: Ichiro .320
Wow, I had no idea Safeco was that brutal for hitters.
Cano at Safeco since 05: .309/.350/.487. All of MLB: .251/.315/.383. Only player in SEA history better than .309 BA at Safeco: Ichiro .320
Wow, I had no idea Safeco was that brutal for hitters.
#1PilarFan
New member
Keep in mind, I think Cano will have enough pop in his bat to play DH once his body fails him at 2B, so he will have some value in the later years of his contract. Not $24m, but what can you do, it's MLB Free Agency.Nik the Trik said:
Kin
Active member
#1PilarFan said:
Well, I suppose I see the sort of thing you're talking about, the sort of .850 OPS/20+ homerun years as being what we should expect out of a guy with Cano's career when he's 34-36. 37-41, as we've seen with guys like Jeter and A-Rod, are when guys are real question marks to be in the line-up, let alone contribute at 70-80% of what they used to.
#1PilarFan
New member
Well I don't think anyone, including the Mariners, believes Cano will be a force for the duration of his contract. That's just the cost of doing business in the majors. Premium free agents are few and far between and the ones that are available are likely to be extremely overpaid. But as we've seen in the past, there aren't many truly untradeable contracts (I mean, if Wells can be dealt, really anyone can be) so the M's can look forward to that, I guess.
dappleganger
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
I did offer more money per year.
I'm upset the Jays weren't in on this, at least it wasn't reported.
bustaheims
Well-known member
dappleganger said:
I'm sure AA kicked the tires there, but, at the end of the day, they never would have offered anywhere close to what Seattle did. I'm not sure any other team would have, really. At least, not for as many years.
Kin
Active member
#1PilarFan said:
I don't necessarily disagree, I just think that most free agents who sign deals of this calibre don't derive a huge chunk of their value from what position they play(Say, like Fielder or Pujols) and the ones that do, like A-Rod, tend to see their values decrease sharper than most.
Andy007
Well-known member
dappleganger said:
The Jays don't give out contracts exceeding 5 years. AA was not kicking any tires.
Don't get your hopes up on the Jays being in on any good FA. They will sign minor league FA's, cheap 2nd (or 3rd) tier leftover FA's or give up quality pieces for a player in a trade that could have once been signed for little to no compensation. Essentially they have employed the Brian Burke holier than thou motto when it comes to free agency and have taken it to a more preposterous degree.
Kin
Active member
So today in the Hall of Fame's logic, the most significant man in baseball in the latter half of the century, the man who ended the reserve clause and is one of the three or four most significant people in Baseball history was deemed, again, not worthy of HOF induction.
But win a bunch of division titles because you've got a pitching staff of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz? Come on in!
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10108269/joe-torre-tony-la-russa-bobby-cox-elected-hall-fame
But win a bunch of division titles because you've got a pitching staff of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz? Come on in!
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10108269/joe-torre-tony-la-russa-bobby-cox-elected-hall-fame
KoHo
New member
Keith Olbermann made a good point about this on his show last night. Tony La Russa owes much of his success to the steroid era's two biggest abusers in Mark McGuire and Jose Canseco. While managing them, he actively denied their steroid use. After managing them, he actively campaigned for McGuire to be voted into the hall of fame. Yet he gets voted in unanimously while one of the all-time greats gets snubbed every year.Nik the Trik said:
And as for Marvin Miller? The owners and executives on the committee that would vote Miller in hate his guts.
Kin
Active member
KoHo said:
I don't know how true that is.
I mean, for starters, I'm not on board with the general tone of steroid moralizing there as I don't think PED use in the 90's was the tragedy some people are trying to make it out to be. I certainly don't see a chasm of difference between it and the rampant amphetamine use in Baseball in the 60's and 70's that every likes to conveniently forget when they're trying to turn A-Rod into the boogeyman.
Additionally, it's certainly not something that can be limited to La Russa. I mean, Torre managed Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Roger Clemens and lots of other people who have been associated with PED use in the past. I don't see it as any more virtuous if Torre wants to profit greatly from the performance of those players and then say they shouldn't get into the HOF unless he's willing to include himself in that discussion.
But more to the point I just don't see evidence that the underlying statement is true. La Russa had a good record as a manager in Chicago before McGwire and Canseco, he had a good record as a Manager in Oakland with them and then he had a very good record, the best of his career, in St. Louis without either one. So the idea that he owes "most" of his success to those two players doesn't really hold water with me. If there's a singular player who was most crucial to his success it's probably Albert Pujols.
Now, if Olberman's point is that it looks like Baseball is looking to keep players out of the Hall of Fame but not managers, essentially saying that players were solely to blame and MLB is blameless, then, yes that's just further evidence of how lousy MLB is as an institution but the answer there isn't to keep managers from the era out of the hall alongside the players, it's to stop being all school-marmish about steroids.
KoHo said:
Which is just emphatically ridiculous at this point. Even if they don't want to admit that the post-free agency era has been tremendously profitable for teams as well as players, I'd really like to have a conversation with a person who is alive today who thinks that owners should have been able to own a player's rights for life.