Robinson Cano Sweepstakes Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

But by all means, let's sit in smug satisfaction that we finally have owners that realize any deal over 2 years or 3 million is a wasteful expenditure

[Guest]

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???

 

Didn't he specifically say 8-10 year deals?

[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???

 

Didn't he specifically say 8-10 year deals?

 

That certainly is specific

[Guest]

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???

 

Didn't he specifically say 8-10 year deals?

 

That certainly is specific

 

Well, there definitely is a threshold at some point where it's not a good idea.

 

I don't think he just conveniently phrased it to leave out the Ellsbury contract like you're implying.

[Guest]

But by all means, let's sit in smug satisfaction that we finally have owners that realize any deal over 2 years or 3 million is a wasteful expenditure

 

How is this constructive in any way?

 

I mean everyone knows I have no problem with ridiculing crappy posters making crappy points, but I don't see that as what is going on with XZero...

[Sammy Sofa]

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???

 

Somehow the Yankees simply trying to manage their huge spending to a slightly less huge level has become "BIG CONTRACTS ARE DYING!!!"

[Guest]

30% fewer years = "slightly less huge"

[Derwood]

It's like the Soriano contract never happened

[Guest]

It's like the Soriano contract never happened

 

Christ, I have to argue with both sides of you lunatics.

 

What exactly was so horrific about the Soriano contract?

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, for one, the idea that 10 year contracts are going away seems a faulty premise since one was just signed. And yeah, in the context of the team we're all here for 7 year monster deals might as well be 10 year monster deals. Those monsters shrinking a couple years isn't drastically changing the FA landscape, nevermind that there seems to be little indication that the giant deals won't continue besides "well, the Yankees aren't doing them right now so...profit?"

 

It just seems like wishful thinking to think that 8-10 year deals are going away; there's always going to be a team willing to to pay that or that needs to barring some kind of crazy industry collapse.

[Derwood]

It's like the Soriano contract never happened

 

Christ, I have to argue with both sides of you lunatics.

 

What exactly was so horrific about the Soriano contract?

 

Ask the people who bitched and moaned about it every day since it was signed

[Sammy Sofa]

It's like the Soriano contract never happened

 

Christ, I have to argue with both sides of you lunatics.

 

What exactly was so horrific about the Soriano contract?

 

Ask the people who bitched and moaned about it every day since it was signed

 

The meatballs?

[Guest]

Well, for one, the idea that 10 year contracts are going away seems a faulty premise since one was just signed. And yeah, in the context of the team we're all here for 7 year monster deals might as well be 10 year monster deals. Those monsters shrinking a couple years isn't drastically changing the FA landscape, nevermind that there seems to be little indication that the giant deals won't continue besides "well, the Yankees aren't doing them right now so...profit?"

 

It just seems like wishful thinking to think that 8-10 year deals are going away; there's always going to be a team willing to to pay that or that needs to barring some kind of crazy industry collapse.

 

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

 

At some point, at a certain length and size of contract, even the richest teams are hurting themselves more than helping themselves (yes, in terms of winning games, not just payroll efficiency)...so it's not like, "well someone else is willing to do it so if we want to get that guy we have to do it" is a always going to be good justification for doing it. That's what I don't get about this argument. I get that "You have to do it to get great free agents..." but is getting great free agents, particularly these older ones that are now the norm, a good thing at literally any cost? Where is the line drawn?

 

What/where that point is, I'm not really smart or informed enough to say...but it seems silly to justify it by saying well if you want this guy you have to do it. Then you're probably better off having smart front office people find wins elsewhere. It's not like you need elite superstars to win in baseball. It's not basketball.

[Guest]

It's like the Soriano contract never happened

 

Christ, I have to argue with both sides of you lunatics.

 

What exactly was so horrific about the Soriano contract?

 

Ask the people who bitched and moaned about it every day since it was signed

 

Um, OK?

 

I'm asking you. Make an actual point.

 

According to Fangraphs, Soriano has been worth about $90.6M in the 7 years since signing that deal.

 

Not quite what he's been paid but far from crippling or being anything resembling a cautionary tale.

Edited December 7, 2013 by David

[Boris]

I MISS YOU FONZI!!!

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, for one, the idea that 10 year contracts are going away seems a faulty premise since one was just signed. And yeah, in the context of the team we're all here for 7 year monster deals might as well be 10 year monster deals. Those monsters shrinking a couple years isn't drastically changing the FA landscape, nevermind that there seems to be little indication that the giant deals won't continue besides "well, the Yankees aren't doing them right now so...profit?"

 

It just seems like wishful thinking to think that 8-10 year deals are going away; there's always going to be a team willing to to pay that or that needs to barring some kind of crazy industry collapse.

 

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

 

At some point, at a certain length and size of contract, even the richest teams are hurting themselves more than helping themselves (yes, in terms of winning games, not just payroll efficiency)...so it's not like, "well someone else is willing to do it so if we want to get that guy we have to do it" is a always going to be good justification for doing it. That's what I don't get about this argument. I get that "You have to do it to get great free agents..." but is getting great free agents, particularly these older ones that are now the norm, a good thing at literally any cost? Where is the line drawn?

 

What/where that point is, I'm not really smart or informed enough to say...but it seems silly to justify it by saying well if you want this guy you have to do it. Then you're probably better off having smart front office people find wins elsewhere. It's not like you need elite superstars to win in baseball. It's not basketball.

 

I'm just saying it's wishful thinking to think they're going away, not that the Cubs have to pay them.

[Cubswin11]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

[Clem Fandango]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

 

http://i.imgur.com/WKHMF.gif

[imb]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

 

http://blacksportsonline.com/index/5yvj8o.gif

[jersey cubs fan]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

 

That's why you always leave a note.

 

http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/463/019452_26.jpg

[Guest]

'Bey wins.

[Guest]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

 

Oh, Jack Z

 

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/543180/83290912.gif

[Guest]

I really want that to be true...but it just can't be, can it?

[Guest]

From looking at the writer's twitter timeline, it seems like it's half true. The Mariners were the only team to offer 9/225 or close to that, and they pretty quickly raised that to 10/240 without needing to. The bit about the Mariners hearing of a 9/225 deal and upping the offer in response does not appear to be true.

[RynoRules]

By mid-day Friday, Seattle had heard that some team bid nine years and $225 million for Robinson Cano, so the Mariners upped their bid to $240 million and 10 years before apparently realizing the initial bid had come from themselves, too.

 

That's why you always leave a note.

 

http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/463/019452_26.jpg

 

+1