2013/14 MLB offseason transactions

[KingCubsFan]

I'm all for going nuts to get Tanaka, but I'm shocked so many people are disappointed on losing out on Ellsbury for that money. Or at least that's the way it sounds. No way in hell I'm giving him $21 million per season. Not even close. And that's even if we have a bunch of money to spend.

 

7 years at 22 per is near the upper bound of what I would've been willing to give Ellsbury, but I don't think it's an unreasonable deal at all.

 

I can respect the opinion, but I'm shocked people would think it's a reasonable deal. He's a fine but injury prone baseball player. That's pretty much it.

 

If they are going to give out a 22 million per season long-term contract, I want somebody much better.

 

There have been less than 10 hitters more valuable than Ellsbury the last 3 years: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=&filter=&players=

 

And that's a cumulative number that penalizes Ellsbury for missing half of 2012. If you want someone "much better", then you're limiting yourself to Trout, Cabrera, Cano, and McCutchen.

38th best wOBA during that time. But I don't think it was a bad deal for the Yankees. Given the Cubs' offensive ineptitude and the small CF in Wrigley, I just don't think he was the best choice for the Cubs to spend a ton of money on. And I'm generally not in favor of giving a big money deal to a player whose statistical "worth" is based on defense and baserunning, as I'm not 100% sold on the reliability of those metrics.

[Guest]

I hope Choo is a priority.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

[USSoccer]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

 

Aging? He's 28.

 

Also, you "don't believe" in it? Because I believe in the fact that this team blows and needs talent from wherever it can get it.

Edited December 4, 2013 by USSoccer

[jersey cubs fan]

Everybody who is currently alive is aging.

[jersey cubs fan]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what the Cubs PR campaign has been trying to convince the fans.

[ConstableRabbit]

Everybody who is currently alive is aging.

[abuck1220]

yeah, you should only sign guys who are either not aging (i.e. cyborgs) or benjamin button-ing it.

[Sammy Sofa]

I am baffled at the number of people who want to be the Rays from the top to bottom. Just because their talent development is good doesn't mean that not being able to pay top dollar is also good.

[Guest]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

[USSoccer]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

 

It's still aggravating nonetheless. The team sucks, and the near future looks boring and bad.

[XZero771679666304]

I think it's pretty hard to project Ellsbury, since his performance has been so inconsistent. I mean if I had any confidence he would ever even approximate his 2011 performance, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what he is at this point. Between that and the injury risk, I just don't think this was a good contract.

 

And if the report that Boston wasn't willing to go beyond $100MM is true (and 5/100 is about as far as I'd have gone, too), that's pretty telling. He might be worth it, he might not. But I honestly have no idea, and that's my problem with it.

 

And Pujols was a bad idea for much more straightforward reasons that had nothing to do with him missing seven games a year.

[Guest]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

 

It's still aggravating nonetheless. The team sucks, and the near future looks boring and bad.

 

I've resigned myself to this. Despite the rumblings, I don't expect the Cubs will be able to get Tanaka either.

[sneakypower]

Szymborski (ZiPS) is maybe the best baseball follow on twitter

 

• Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  That Trout valuation? 7/338.
   
  Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  Given Andrew McCutchen's age and awesomeness. If he were a FA today, ZiPS estimates 7-year price of $238 million
   
  Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  @Snowman_Roberts I have Ellsbury nearly at his valuation starting at 5.3 [ed: million per WAR] and *never* playing more than 119 games.
   
  Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  (4.1*5.3)+(3.7*5.6)+(3.7*5.8)+(3.4*6.1)+(2.9*6.4)+(2.5*6.8)+(1.7*7.1) = 132. I know order of operations, parentheses for readability
   
  Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  If you start at $6 million ($5.3 is still working for me overall and not inclined to move), then the ZiPS value is $150 million.
   
  Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  ZiPS WAR projection for Choo: 3.0, 2.8, 2.5, 2.0, 1.4, 0.7

 

lol:

• Dan Szymborski ‏@DSzymborski
  The Rockies are helpful for writers though. If you wrote "Rockies need 1B help" yesterday, you don't have to change it for tomorrow!

[Sammy Sofa]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

 

Even when one is resigned to the reality of the Cubs' limitations it's still frustrating when they miss out on a player they could have really used (especially when it's one with connections to the FO). Sure, almost all signs pointed to "no," but there's always the hope for some kind of surprise.

[Guest]

I think it's pretty hard to project Ellsbury, since his performance has been so inconsistent. I mean if I had any confidence he would ever even approximate his 2011 performance, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what he is at this point. Between that and the injury risk, I just don't think this was a good contract.

 

And if the report that Boston wasn't willing to go beyond $100MM is true (and 5/100 is about as far as I'd have gone, too), that's pretty telling. He might be worth it, he might not. But I honestly have no idea, and that's my problem with it.

 

And Pujols was a bad idea for much more straightforward reasons that had nothing to do with him missing seven games a year.

 

Ellsbury's performance has been very consistent(which is to say he's set a very high baseline), his problem is that he's missed time on the field.

 

The Red Sox lack of desire to give him money is probably more telling of their financial and CF situation than it is some hidden tell that Ellsbury is a time bomb.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it's pretty hard to project Ellsbury, since his performance has been so inconsistent. I mean if I had any confidence he would ever even approximate his 2011 performance, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what he is at this point.

 

Well, he was just about a 6 WAR player in 2013, so I'd have to guess that that at least falls in the realm of "approximating."

[jersey cubs fan]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

 

Why? Even when one is resigned to the reality of the Cubs' limitations it's still frustrating when they miss out on a player they could have really used. Sure, almost all signs pointed to "no," but there's always the hope for some kind of surprise.

 

I just didn't have any hope they would get such a player, so it wasn't the least bit surprising to me. When I saw the story there was no feeling of, "damn I really hoped they get him," because they have made it abundantly clear they aren't even trying to sign guys like that.

 

I'm frustrated as hell about the way they are running this team, but because of that I also had no thought they would sign him, so it's hard to get disappointed about any one player they "missed" on.

[Sammy Sofa]

Kind of surprised by some of the reaction considering I thought we all assumed they weren't going to be in on anything interesting.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too.

 

Why? Even when one is resigned to the reality of the Cubs' limitations it's still frustrating when they miss out on a player they could have really used. Sure, almost all signs pointed to "no," but there's always the hope for some kind of surprise.

 

I just didn't have any hope they would get such a player, so it wasn't the least bit surprising to me. When I saw the story there was no feeling of, "damn I really hoped they get him," because they have made it abundantly clear they aren't even trying to sign guys like that.

 

I'm frustrated as hell about the way they are running this team, but because of that I also had no thought they would sign him, so it's hard to get disappointed about any one player they "missed" on.

 

I cant help having feelings, man.

[Guest]

I think it's pretty hard to project Ellsbury, since his performance has been so inconsistent. I mean if I had any confidence he would ever even approximate his 2011 performance, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what he is at this point. Between that and the injury risk, I just don't think this was a good contract.

 

And if the report that Boston wasn't willing to go beyond $100MM is true (and 5/100 is about as far as I'd have gone, too), that's pretty telling. He might be worth it, he might not. But I honestly have no idea, and that's my problem with it.

 

And Pujols was a bad idea for much more straightforward reasons that had nothing to do with him missing seven games a year.

 

Well, the Red Sox do have a good reason to not want to spend too much on Ellsbury (Jackie Bradley Jr).

[XZero771679666304]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what the Cubs PR campaign has been trying to convince the fans.

 

It's not just the Cubs, though. It conveniently fits the current mode of the team, but there is definitely a movement against big contracts for post prime players taking shape. Boras clients may remain en exception, but free agency in general is in decline.

 

Big contracts to guys who will be over 30 for most of it are a bad idea, and we're seeing less of them being given out, and that trend will likely continue. I mean if this is 4 or 5 years ago and he's the same age, Cano would have gotten his $260MM from New York already.

 

As executives are getting smarter and locking up players while they're young (which is a different kind of risk, but a better one, imo), the idea that to have good players, teams have to spend big and reconcile with paying for the bad years at the end of player's careers is becoming less and less true. Elite players are making it to the market less and less frequently.

 

And imo, the Yankees are doing what they're doing because the're facing short term irrelevancy otherwise. I and I think it's still 50/50 as to whether or not it will work.

[XZero771679666304]

I think it's pretty hard to project Ellsbury, since his performance has been so inconsistent. I mean if I had any confidence he would ever even approximate his 2011 performance, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what he is at this point. Between that and the injury risk, I just don't think this was a good contract.

 

And if the report that Boston wasn't willing to go beyond $100MM is true (and 5/100 is about as far as I'd have gone, too), that's pretty telling. He might be worth it, he might not. But I honestly have no idea, and that's my problem with it.

 

And Pujols was a bad idea for much more straightforward reasons that had nothing to do with him missing seven games a year.

 

Well, the Red Sox do have a good reason to not want to spend too much on Ellsbury (Jackie Bradley Jr).

 

True, but the sentiment seems to be that no one else was close to what the Yankees were offering, either. Again, I have no problem with the AAV, but with his injury history, I don't think that being shy about giving him more than five years is unreasonable at all.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

 

Aging? He's 28.

 

Also, you "don't believe" in it? Because I believe in the fact that this team blows and needs talent from wherever it can get it.

 

If by 28 you mean 30, then you are correct.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Everybody who is currently alive is aging.

 

Agreed. But I only make $35,000 per season.

[Guest]

Albert Pujols missed about 7 games a year for 11 years before signing his big deal.

 

There's going to be reasons not to sign every long term deal. Ellsbury does have injury risk, but as a speed guy he's also more likely to age better than the Pujolses or Matt Hollidays of the world. It's not some huge steal for the Yankees, but it's a perfectly fine contract to pay him. In fact, if you start him at 5.5 WAR for next year and have him decline at the normal rate starting immediately, then his expected output is 153 million over 7 years.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't believe in giving out long-term, big money contracts to aging veterans when they did all their best stuff for another team. That's why I pretty much hate the top end of free agency. If you find me the guy who is still yet to hit his prime (Tanaka) then I'm willing to go good years and money.

 

I don't agree Ellsbury will end up being worth close to his contract over the life of the deal. He's got Carl Crawford written all over him.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what the Cubs PR campaign has been trying to convince the fans.

 

It's not just the Cubs, though. It conveniently fits the current mode of the team, but there is definitely a movement against big contracts for post prime players taking shape. Boras clients may remain en exception, but free agency in general is in decline.

 

Big contracts to guys who will be over 30 for most of it are a bad idea, and we're seeing less of them being given out, and that trend will likely continue. I mean if this is 4 or 5 years ago and he's the same age, Cano would have gotten his $260MM from New York already.

 

As executives are getting smarter and locking up players while they're young (which is a different kind of risk, but a better one, imo), the idea that to have good players, teams have to spend big and reconcile with paying for the bad years at the end of player's careers is becoming less and less true. Elite players are making it to the market less and less frequently.

 

And imo, the Yankees are doing what they're doing because the're facing short term irrelevancy otherwise. I and I think it's still 50/50 as to whether or not it will work.

That is called collusion and it's illegal. The owned have already lost millions trying in the past.

T