Levine - Aramis signs with Milwaukee for 3 years

[Tracer Bullet]

Maybe Ramirez didn't want to be a Cub anymore

 

Probably not, in part because our douchebag color commentator was allowed to launch on him constantly and no one from the front office bothered to call him out on it.

 

and also in part because the first thing our new gm did was pass on his option [EDIT i'm an idiot, ignore that part. we picked up the option and offered arb knowing aramis would choose free agency] and, at least to all outward appearances, make no effort whatsoever to even talk to him about coming back. it's certainly possible that we considered bringing aramis back and it never leaked and his agent was too lazy to mention it an effort to up his value, but it looks more like we weren't interested in aramis at any price. and at this price, i think that was a mistake.

 

if hendry were here, we'd all be talking about how he was infatuated with stewart and stupidly wanted to trust his scouts and find a diamond in the rough instead of just spending a very reasonable sum of money on a player who has actually had good and great seasons. but i suppose such apocrypha are only to used to describe the inner workings of front offices we don't have cute nicknames for.

 

Boy, one false step and the whole stack of cards comes down. Nice anti-jebadore rant though.

[Guest]

the cubs may have picked up their half of the option, but was it ever realistic that Aramis would pick up his half?

Ramirez thought he could do better than 1 year and 16 million in free agency. He got 2/20 with an option for 3/32, so I guess he was right?

 

the mutual option is for a 4th year.

 

he got 3 for 32 with a mutual option for a 4th year that doesn't appear to be disclosed, but if it's declined by the team he gets an additional $4M

 

It's 3/36 bc that $4m is guaranteed.

 

What if the Brewers pick up the option but he declines it?

 

Trying to imagine the likelihood that happens. How old will he be then?

[Guest]

Ramirez thought he could do better than 1 year and 16 million in free agency. He got 2/20 with an option for 3/32, so I guess he was right?

 

the mutual option is for a 4th year.

 

he got 3 for 32 with a mutual option for a 4th year that doesn't appear to be disclosed, but if it's declined by the team he gets an additional $4M

 

It's 3/36 bc that $4m is guaranteed.

 

What if the Brewers pick up the option but he declines it?

 

Trying to imagine the likelihood that happens. How old will he be then?

 

Not likely. Unless Braun hooks him up.

[Tracer Bullet]

the cubs may have picked up their half of the option, but was it ever realistic that Aramis would pick up his half?

Ramirez thought he could do better than 1 year and 16 million in free agency. He got 2/20 with an option for 3/32, so I guess he was right?

 

the mutual option is for a 4th year.

 

he got 3 for 32 with a mutual option for a 4th year that doesn't appear to be disclosed, but if it's declined by the team he gets an additional $4M

 

It's 3/36 bc that $4m is guaranteed.

 

What if the Brewers pick up the option but he declines it?

 

Oops, misread the option.

[treebird]

Maybe Ramirez didn't want to be a Cub anymore

 

Probably not, in part because our douchebag color commentator was allowed to launch on him constantly and no one from the front office bothered to call him out on it.

 

and also in part because the first thing our new gm did was pass on his option [EDIT i'm an idiot, ignore that part. we picked up the option and offered arb knowing aramis would choose free agency] and, at least to all outward appearances, make no effort whatsoever to even talk to him about coming back. it's certainly possible that we considered bringing aramis back and it never leaked and his agent was too lazy to mention it an effort to up his value, but it looks more like we weren't interested in aramis at any price. and at this price, i think that was a mistake.

 

if hendry were here, we'd all be talking about how he was infatuated with stewart and stupidly wanted to trust his scouts and find a diamond in the rough instead of just spending a very reasonable sum of money on a player who has actually had good and great seasons. but i suppose such apocrypha are only to used to describe the inner workings of front offices we don't have cute nicknames for.

 

Boy, one false step and the whole stack of cards comes down. Nice anti-jebadore rant though.

 

i'm still very pro-epstein in general. hopefully, this is all part of some bigger plan, and when it is revealed i will know i was foolish to have ever questioned any of its intricacies.

[USSoccer]

And Aramis isn't likely to live up to that contract.

 

Horsecrap. Say that this June when Ian effing Stewart is batting .212 and we're in 4th place.

[Guest]

And Aramis isn't likely to live up to that contract.

 

Horsecrap. Say that this June when Ian effing Stewart is batting .212 and we're in 4th place.

 

That's relevant to Aramis living up to the contract he signed?

[Brian]

Really wouldn't want part of that 3rd year...

 

The Cubs picked up his option, he didn't and said he was moving on... what more could Theo have done? Any extension that Theo could have felt comfortable offering Aramis before Aramis said he was moving on would not have got it down. I'm guessing Aramis anticipated a bigger market for himself.

[Guest]

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And Aramis isn't likely to live up to that contract.

 

Horsecrap. Say that this June when Ian effing Stewart is batting .212 and we're in 4th place.

He won't be doing that well. Neither will the team.

[Guest]

By the way, if we were going to be in 4th place with Stewart, Aramis probably wouldn't be making the difference.

 

I suppose I'd feel much better though if we owed Aramis a bunch of money at ages 35-37 because he'd be giving us a nice OPS on said 4th place team.

[XZero771679666304]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

[USSoccer]

By the way, if we were going to be in 4th place with Stewart, Aramis probably wouldn't be making the difference.

 

I suppose I'd feel much better though if we owed Aramis a bunch of money at ages 35-37 because he'd be giving us a nice OPS on said 4th place team.

 

Oh, okay. That makes total sense.

 

If 3 weeks ago this is what Ramirez had wanted, we should have been all over it like Mizzou on hair gel

[Guest]

By the way, if we were going to be in 4th place with Stewart, Aramis probably wouldn't be making the difference.

 

I suppose I'd feel much better though if we owed Aramis a bunch of money at ages 35-37 because he'd be giving us a nice OPS on said 4th place team.

 

Oh, okay. That makes total sense.

 

If 3 weeks ago this is what Ramirez had wanted, we should have been all over it like Mizzou on hair gel

 

I was attempting to make as much sense as you.

 

Here's actual logic...

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

[Guest]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Why does that matter? You're still paying him the same amount and paying it later is better than paying it sooner. That's not the problem with the deal. The problem with the deal is Aramis isn't likely to be productive enough to justify it.

 

He's being paid on past production and a bounce-back season at age 33.

[USSoccer]

 

Here's actual logic...

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

 

Out of curiosity, what does that look like if you normalize his 2010 where he was hurt like half the year?

[Tracer Bullet]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Um, that's a terrible idea.

[USSoccer]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Why does that matter? You're still paying him the same amount and paying it later is better than paying it sooner. That's not the problem with the deal. The problem with the deal is Aramis isn't likely to be productive enough to justify it.

 

He's being paid on past production and a bounce-back season at age 33.

 

Bounce back? Did I misunderstand his 2011?

[Exile on Waveland]

And Aramis isn't likely to live up to that contract.

 

Horsecrap. Say that this June when Ian effing Stewart is batting .212 and we're in 4th place.

 

You're right: neither Stewart nor the Cubs (unless something big happens) are likely to be very good. But I'm not sure Ramirez will be able to run in three years, much less live up to his contract. He's a declining (yes, he had a nice rebound year), injury-prone, 33-year old that's been worth a total of 3.8 WAR the last three years. I remain a big Ramirez fan, but I wouldn't have given him 3/$36.

[XZero771679666304]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Why does that matter? You're still paying him the same amount and paying it later is better than paying it sooner. That's not the problem with the deal. The problem with the deal is Aramis isn't likely to be productive enough to justify it.

 

He's being paid on past production and a bounce-back season at age 33.

 

I suppose it really doesn't. I suppose it's just the idea of paying a broken down guy 16MM.

[Guest]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Why does that matter? You're still paying him the same amount and paying it later is better than paying it sooner. That's not the problem with the deal. The problem with the deal is Aramis isn't likely to be productive enough to justify it.

 

He's being paid on past production and a bounce-back season at age 33.

 

Bounce back? Did I misunderstand his 2011?

 

? I'm just saying it was his best season since 08.

 

As for your question about 09, I'm not great with it, but a quick and dirty way to figure that I suppose would be to double his WAR since he played 82 games. That would put him at 2.4 WAR for that year, and 5.0 WAR for the 3 years.

 

But then, he missed those games because of the shoulder thing, so it seems disingenuous to do.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd have been all right with that contract if the structure were reversed (front loaded rather than backloaded). I want no part of paying Aramis $16MM when he is 36. If he's still capable of playing 120+ games by then, I'll be shocked.

 

Why does that matter? You're still paying him the same amount and paying it later is better than paying it sooner. That's not the problem with the deal. The problem with the deal is Aramis isn't likely to be productive enough to justify it.

 

He's being paid on past production and a bounce-back season at age 33.

 

Bounce back? Did I misunderstand his 2011?

 

What did you understand 2011 to be? To me, it was a nice bounce back season after a -1 WAR season (negative!). Do you think that trend is likely to continue into his age 34, 35, and 36 seasons? I'd say the better bet is that last year was one of his last signs of life.

[bukie]

 

Here's actual logic...

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

 

Out of curiosity, what does that look like if you normalize his 2010 where he was hurt like half the year?

His 2009, you mean? If you extrapolate his 2009 production to his normal service time (130 games), the sum total was 4.5 WAR over the past 3 years.

[Guest]

 

Here's actual logic...

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

 

Out of curiosity, what does that look like if you normalize his 2010 where he was hurt like half the year?

His 2009, you mean? If you extrapolate his 2009 production to his normal service time (130 games), the sum total was 4.5 WAR over the past 3 years.

 

Way better than what I did. I did assume 2009 also.

[Ski]

Injury prone 33 year old with an iffy shoulder who will be 37 at the end of this deal has to put up 7.2 WAR (that's with a fairly generous valuation of a win at $5M) over the course of the contract to be worth the contract.

 

Said player put up 3.8WAR over the past 3 years.

Fangraphs has Aramis as being worth 6.2 wins the last three years:

 

2009: 2.2 WAR (in only 82 games)

2010: .4 WAR

2011: 3.6 WAT