Robinson Cano Sweepstakes Thread

[Guest]

This guy can't be a real person right now.

[treebird]

i bet beerhere makes a stupid post soon

[BeerHere]

Damn people. Lighten up. It's Friday for [expletive] sake.

[imb]

man youre lucky its not thursday cause id [expletive] you up

[Guest]

@BobGlauber 36m

 

Dear Mariners fans: Congrats on Cano. Tremendous hitter and fielder. Let's see if $240 mil will convince him to run out grounders.

 

Yes, because getting out faster makes it all worth it.

 

 

I don't think running hard gets you out faster - or not much faster anyway. :-)

[Derwood]

So how many starting 2B last year were 35 or older?

 

And how many of those would still be owed $120 million for years 36-41?

 

This contract is ludicrous

[Sammy Sofa]

So how many starting 2B last year were 35 or older?

 

And how many of those would still be owed $120 million for years 36-41?

 

This contract is ludicrous

 

Yes, pity the poor AL team that will be forced to continually start him at 2B for the entire length of his contract. Lordy, if only there was an option through which they might be able to maximize his offensive value even as his defensive ability declines...BUT HOW?!? HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW?!?!?!?

[Derwood]

yeah, but the DH is poopy

 

and what are the chances he'll be better than a league-average DH in years 7-10 of that contract?

 

Then again, in 2020, $24 mil/year will be the going rate for league-average

[Sammy Sofa]

You're really concerned for the Mariners over this.

 

If they can swing the money they're probably not too worried about those last 2-3 years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus Cano is a good [expletive] hitter.

[Derwood]

You're really concerned for the Mariners over this.

 

If they can swing the money they're probably not too worried about those last 2-3 years.

 

I'm not worried about the Mariners. I'm worried about precedent and the setting of the market down the line. I was hoping that GM's would learn from the Pujols deal, but they have not.

 

I'm kinda shocked that the "#poortomricketts" crowd isn't more concerned about impact bats getting ludicrous contracts

[Sammy Sofa]

Big name players getting ridiculous deals isn't anything new.

[Derwood]

Big name players getting ridiculous deals isn't anything new.

 

okay?

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, it's not much of a precedent if it's basically business as usual.

[imb]

There are 30 teams or whatever and shitloads of money floating around. When an elite guy shows up on the market, one of those 30 teams are going to blow up their budget to sign him. Nothing short of a salary cap will ever change that.

[XZero771679666304]

 

If they can swing the money they're probably not too worried about those last 2-3 years.

 

People say this, but I don't think it's true, or at least it's not true that they don't need to be worried about those last years. It's pretty clear that even the mighty moneybag Yankees are feeling burned by their experience with long contracts for aging players, mostly because A-Rod's presence is hindering them to a significant degree as they make an effort to dance around the luxury tax threshold. It's part of the reason the Tigers ate money to move Prince while he is still movable. And I'd bet a kidney that if Arte Moreno had it to do over again, he wouldn't give Albert that contract (and he's only two years in).

 

These decade long mega deals are proving to be a bad idea, and it's obvious that having a ton of money isn't sparing the teams that give them out a pretty severe headache.

 

At this point the only way out is to deal the player away while they have some value left, while eating as little of the remaining contract as possible. It's a gamble. And in Seattle's case, it's a high risk gambit because to even begin to justify it, they're going to have to throw more money on top of that money.

 

Teams will continue to give out bad contracts (unless a cap is put in place, which won't happen), but as more and more of them end badly, we'll see less and less of them, even from teams that can "afford" them. Money is a finite resource, and that luxury tax hurts, even for the big boys. People can rationalize it by using inflation and front end production as justification, but having bad/washed up players with huge contracts isn't something that any team wants, and it sin't something that any team can just brush off. You can spend money without being gratuitous about it, as even the Yankees are beginning to realize (though they're still in a bit of a bind because they have no farm system or particularly trade-able assets).

 

At least the M's have some cheap, young assets to go along with Cano and whoever else they sign, so long as Jack Z. doesn't completely lose the plot trying to save his own ass.

 

And Cano is great hitter, but he is as valuable as he is in large part because of his position. A 38 year old Cano at DH probably isn't going to be anything to write home about.

[Guest]

Cano was 15th in MLB in wOBA this year, his bat plays regardless of position.

 

These long term deals are a cost to capture the remaining elite seasons. The examples where that has come back to haunt teams(Yankees, Angels) are those who have signed several of those deals and simultaneously stopped producing quality through the farm system. So judging "these types of deals" as a category is faulty. If the M's sign Cano and then try to add Choo for 6/100 and then do the same thing next offseason with Scherzer and Hanley, yes, that will almost certainly mortgage their future. But if they understand the responsibility that comes with having that type of commitment, and don't have to worry about their payroll cratering like the Cubs have had these last few years, it's not damaging long term on its face.

[XZero771679666304]

Cano was 15th in MLB in wOBA this year, his bat plays regardless of position.

 

 

It does now, sure. Cano is an elite hitter, but he's not an offensive monster (like say, Pujols or A-Rod were in their primes, or even Fielder). If, as some have predicted and seems likely, he'll need to be moved off of second, his offensive value diminishes. As he declines, it's only going to be more the case. I don't see it as a case of "we can just move him to DH as he nears 40 and his bat will still play".

 

And of course long term deals given to older players are a cost to capture elite seasons, that much is implicit. It's when the deals become too long than the costs begin to outweigh the benefits. For most long term deals (5-7 years) this doesn't seem to happen as much. But the 8-10 year deals are proving (in the few cases we've seen) to be detrimental. I just think that's a line we're going to see crossed less and less frequently going forward.

 

I'm incredulous that getting 2-3 elite seasons is worth the 7-8 seasons of decline and mediocrity that follows. If it were closer to an even split, that would be more acceptable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Cano was 15th in MLB in wOBA this year, his bat plays regardless of position.

 

 

It does now, sure. Cano is an elite hitter, but he's not an offensive monster (like say, Pujols or A-Rod were in their primes, or even Fielder). If, as some have predicted and seems likely, he'll need to be moved off of second, his offensive value diminishes. As he declines, it's only going to be more the case. I don't see it as a case of "we can just move him to DH as he nears 40 and his bat will still play".

 

Why not? It's not like Someone has to be Pujols or ARod to work as a DH; why can't Cano be like a less power-mad Ortiz as he shifts into that role?

 

And of course long term deals given to older players are a cost to capture elite seasons, that much is implicit. It's when the deals become too long than the costs begin to outweigh the benefits. For most long term deals (5-7 years) this doesn't seem to happen as much. But the 8-10 year deals are proving (in the few cases we've seen) to be detrimental. I just think that's a line we're going to see crossed less and less frequently going forward.

 

People have been saying that for years and years; with all of the money out there these aren't going to vanish. There are always going to be teams with money willing to gamble on getting more out of a big contract than they lose.

 

I'm incredulous that getting 2-3 elite seasons is worth the 7-8 seasons of decline and mediocrity that follows. If it were closer to an even split, that would be more acceptable.

 

That's...an odd way of looking at it. "Decline and mediocrity" are not the same thing; an elite player declining can still be very valuable for years away from their peak, so lumping everything together as 7-8 years of burning money seems like a pretty huge generalization.

[XZero771679666304]

Cano was 15th in MLB in wOBA this year, his bat plays regardless of position.

 

 

It does now, sure. Cano is an elite hitter, but he's not an offensive monster (like say, Pujols or A-Rod were in their primes, or even Fielder). If, as some have predicted and seems likely, he'll need to be moved off of second, his offensive value diminishes. As he declines, it's only going to be more the case. I don't see it as a case of "we can just move him to DH as he nears 40 and his bat will still play".

 

Why not? It's not like Someone has to be Pujols or ARod to work as a DH; why can't Cano be like a less power-mad Ortiz as he shifts into that role?

 

And of course long term deals given to older players are a cost to capture elite seasons, that much is implicit. It's when the deals become too long than the costs begin to outweigh the benefits. For most long term deals (5-7 years) this doesn't seem to happen as much. But the 8-10 year deals are proving (in the few cases we've seen) to be detrimental. I just think that's a line we're going to see crossed less and less frequently going forward.

 

People have been saying that for years and years; with all of the money out there these aren't going to vanish. There are always going to be teams with money willing to gamble on getting more out of a big contract than they lose.

 

I'm incredulous that getting 2-3 elite seasons is worth the 7-8 seasons of decline and mediocrity that follows. If it were closer to an even split, that would be more acceptable.

 

That's...an odd way of looking at it. "Decline and mediocrity" are not the same thing; an elite player declining can still be very valuable for years away from their peak, so lumping everything together as 7-8 years of burning money seems like a pretty huge generalization.

 

We haven't seen the 9-10 year threshold reached often enough for people to have been saying anything about it for years. Deals of that length are mostly a recent development, and are already falling out of favor.

 

And "decline and mediocrity" is a pretty poor way of putting it...maybe not getting enough "elite" seasons to justify the deal. Of course that varies from player to player (it appears the Angels may well get zero elite seasons (depending on how you define that) from Pujols, the Yankees got a couple from ARod on his last deal, the Tigers got maybe one from Prince before they ate money and sent him away).

 

Who knows how many elite season the Reds will get out of Votto, since his 10-year deal hasn't even started yet. At this point, the only ones you can look at and stay "that worked out well" were Jeter's and A-Rod's (the first one, obviously). Both were well under 30 when they were signed.

 

Teams will continue to give out long term contracts to players who are too old in an attempt to extract value on the front end by paying for it on the back. But I don't think we will see this trend continue with the really long-term contracts, because that back end is proving to be much longer than the front. Especially as we see fewer and fewer young stars make it to free agency. If the Yankees showing restraint in this area isn't a sign of that, I'm not sure what is.

[Sammy Sofa]

All it really takes is one team willing to gave 8-10 years for a guy; that type of situation likely isn't going away. You say you think teams are shying away from it, but we just had a team do it 2 days ago. It was never something that was happening left and right.

[Guest]

Cano was 15th in MLB in wOBA this year, his bat plays regardless of position.

 

 

It does now, sure. Cano is an elite hitter, but he's not an offensive monster (like say, Pujols or A-Rod were in their primes, or even Fielder). If, as some have predicted and seems likely, he'll need to be moved off of second, his offensive value diminishes. As he declines, it's only going to be more the case. I don't see it as a case of "we can just move him to DH as he nears 40 and his bat will still play".

 

Why not? It's not like Someone has to be Pujols or ARod to work as a DH; why can't Cano be like a less power-mad Ortiz as he shifts into that role?

 

And of course long term deals given to older players are a cost to capture elite seasons, that much is implicit. It's when the deals become too long than the costs begin to outweigh the benefits. For most long term deals (5-7 years) this doesn't seem to happen as much. But the 8-10 year deals are proving (in the few cases we've seen) to be detrimental. I just think that's a line we're going to see crossed less and less frequently going forward.

 

People have been saying that for years and years; with all of the money out there these aren't going to vanish. There are always going to be teams with money willing to gamble on getting more out of a big contract than they lose.

 

I'm incredulous that getting 2-3 elite seasons is worth the 7-8 seasons of decline and mediocrity that follows. If it were closer to an even split, that would be more acceptable.

 

That's...an odd way of looking at it. "Decline and mediocrity" are not the same thing; an elite player declining can still be very valuable for years away from their peak, so lumping everything together as 7-8 years of burning money seems like a pretty huge generalization.

 

We haven't seen the 9-10 year threshold reached often enough for people to have been saying anything about it for years. Deals of that length are mostly a recent development, and are already falling out of favor.

 

And "decline and mediocrity" is a pretty poor way of putting it...maybe not getting enough "elite" seasons to justify the deal. Of course that varies from player to player (it appears the Angels may well get zero elite seasons (depending on how you define that) from Pujols, the Yankees got a couple from ARod on his last deal, the Tigers got maybe one from Prince before they ate money and sent him away).

 

Who knows how many elite season the Reds will get out of Votto, since his 10-year deal hasn't even started yet. At this point, the only ones you can look at and stay "that worked out well" were Jeter's and A-Rod's (the first one, obviously). Both were well under 30 when they were signed.

 

Teams will continue to give out long term contracts to players who are too old in an attempt to extract value on the front end by paying for it on the back. But I don't think we will see this trend continue with the really long-term contracts, because that back end is proving to be much longer than the front. Especially as we see fewer and fewer young stars make it to free agency. If the Yankees showing restraint in this area isn't a sign of that, I'm not sure what is.

I might be oversimplifying here, but the bottom line is that with few exceptions, teams that win have great players making a lot of money and mythically* not earning every dollar that make.

 

But, besides that I have a hard time understanding the attachment that fans like us have to the owners money.

 

*mythically- the $$/win calculation isn't real, it's made up. It's fun to talk about and probably a fair approximation of something, but it's not valid.

[RynoRules]

Cano could be this generation's Edgar Martinez.

[jersey cubs fan]

All it really takes is one team willing to gave 8-10 years for a guy; that type of situation likely isn't going away. You say you think teams are shying away from it, but we just had a team do it 2 days ago. It was never something that was happening left and right.

It's neither new nor going away. Both the contracts and apparently people claiming it will never happen again.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Yankees just [expletive] signed Jacoby Ellsbury to a 7 year deal, where is this "when the Yankees won't do it..." idea coming from???