The Bryce is Right, Bitch

[Liam Neeson]

It's probably that Goldschmidt extension rumor that just popped up.

[NonProfitCow]

If the cardinals sign Bryce Harper I’m telling you right now I will only watch 2/3 of the cubs games this year AT MINIMUM

 

Where's he going to play with Ozuna, Dex & Trout 2.0?

Right field

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's probably that Goldschmidt extension rumor that just popped up.

 

If it’s not Harper to the Cubs, then this is the next best thing.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I haven't been paying attention to the Cards or their needs much, but couldn't it be Machado rather than Harper?

 

ETA: Oh, wait. Yeah, it's likely more about that extension brought up a few posts above.

[weis21]

[Sammy Sofa]

[Banedon]

[ThePenguin11]

It’s really dumb that Harper and Machado have yet to sign. Are they still expecting some bidding war to magically happen? Are they expecting a team to come out of the woodwork and offer $350MM over ten years with so little interest in the market? People can blame owners but this falls squarely on the agents who create otherworldly expectations for these players and don’t ever lay out the real possibilities. It’s not like there isnt precedent the past couple years that the market for mega free agents is down.

[Sammy Sofa]

agents who create otherworldly expectations for these players and don’t ever lay out the real possibilities.

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

[ConstableRabbit]

If the cardinals sign Bryce Harper I’m telling you right now I will only watch 2/3 of the cubs games this year AT MINIMUM

Why would that make you start watching more games?

[Derwood]

agents who create otherworldly expectations for these players and don’t ever lay out the real possibilities.

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

 

Yes, but they are up against a mountain of dumb contracts that owners have signed off on in recent years that is now making everyone nervous about laying out 10 years. It's not fair, but every contract from Pujols to Hosmer is stacking up against Harper and Machado's demands. Smart people realize that Harper =/= Hosmer, but owners are using those bad decisions as an excuse to not back the Brinks truck up for the guys who actually deserve it

[Cubfanintheknow]

Does anyone think the process could have been sped up a bit if Harper or Machado set their own arbitrary deadline? Team execs might have a little more incentive to speed up the process to get their best offer on the table earlier.

[Sammy Sofa]

agents who create otherworldly expectations for these players and don’t ever lay out the real possibilities.

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

 

Yes, but they are up against a mountain of dumb contracts that owners have signed off on in recent years that is now making everyone nervous about laying out 10 years. It's not fair, but every contract from Pujols to Hosmer is stacking up against Harper and Machado's demands. Smart people realize that Harper =/= Hosmer, but owners are using those bad decisions as an excuse to not back the Brinks truck up for the guys who actually deserve it

 

They're making horsefeathers up because they realized they can game the system based off of the shitty player negotiations from the last collective bargaining agreement; stop with your tortured caveats that basically amount to, "look, this is BS, but I can actually kinda see where they're coming from with this BS, so they're not all wrong." The vast majority of teams could easily afford either guy and are simply either choosing not to try (and a bunch of those are simply choosing not to try at anything besides being awful, period), or trying to lowball a couple of generational talents like THAT'S inexplicably the way to course correct shelling out for much older and much worse players (when most of the time those "bad contracts" either paid off or broken even or came pretty damn close; the truly bad ones are still the obvious exceptions and not the rule).

 

Plus it's ridiculous to continually say things like, "nervous about laying out 10 years;" nobody is ACTUALLY paying for either for a decade unless something goes really wrong and they don't opt out well before then. They're horsefeathering disingenuous scum acting like they're locking themselves into a 8 or 10-year deal with a couple of guys this good and this young (nevermind how ridiculous it is to be hemming and hawing even if they WERE actually locking in with guys, again, this good and this young).

[Bertz]

I'm not worried about them getting their money. This is just the new normal. The modern ivy league front office is so far up its own ass that it can't get anything done (FA or trade) without a deadline. You will see teams fill holes in November/December, but luxury items are going to be a Jan/Feb thing until something pretty fundamentally changes.

 

Boras has been playing this game for years, and while there have been a few misses, he's come through like 90% of the time. And those misses have been on MUCH lesser talents, we're talking like Matt Wieters and Greg Holland.

[Bull]

agents who create otherworldly expectations for these players and don’t ever lay out the real possibilities.

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

Free agency is fine. Fix prearb

[Bryants Disco Ball]

So just to review, did some guy tell some other guy something he heard from a Brewers FO type, but that the guy couldn't say anything because his friend would get fired? And then sometime in the next few hours he tweeted exactly what his friend said detail for detail and even said what role his friend has?

[Derwood]

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

 

Yes, but they are up against a mountain of dumb contracts that owners have signed off on in recent years that is now making everyone nervous about laying out 10 years. It's not fair, but every contract from Pujols to Hosmer is stacking up against Harper and Machado's demands. Smart people realize that Harper =/= Hosmer, but owners are using those bad decisions as an excuse to not back the Brinks truck up for the guys who actually deserve it

 

They're making horsefeathers up because they realized they can game the system based off of the horsefeathers player negotiations from the last collective bargaining agreement; stop with your tortured caveats that basically amount to, "look, this is BS, but I can actually kinda see where they're coming from with this BS, so they're not all wrong." The vast majority of teams could easily afford either guy and are simply either choosing not to try (and a bunch of those are simply choosing not to try at anything besides being awful, period), or trying to lowball a couple of generational talents like THAT'S inexplicably the way to course correct shelling out for much older and much worse players (when most of the time those "bad contracts" either paid off or broken even or came pretty damn close; the truly bad ones are still the obvious exceptions and not the rule).

 

Plus it's ridiculous to continually say things like, "nervous about laying out 10 years;" nobody is ACTUALLY paying for either for a decade unless something goes really wrong and they don't opt out well before then. They're horsefeathering disingenuous scum acting like they're locking themselves into a 8 or 10-year deal with a couple of guys this good and this young (nevermind how ridiculous it is to be hemming and hawing even if they WERE actually locking in with guys, again, this good and this young).

 

AGAIN, I'm neither siding with nor excusing the owners. I'm just looking at the reality of the BS circumstances that the owners have created that is depressing the market on Harper and Machado. They have very effectively convinced the common baseball fan that Luxury Tax=Salary Cap, and they've put profit margins above winning. For a small handful of teams, spending this money on these players makes no sense (the Marlins, for example, would not get a good ROI on either, because their entire franchise sucks), but most teams are simply deciding that nickeling and dimeing their way to 75 wins is an acceptable business model

Edited February 2, 2019 by Derwood

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

Free agency is fine. Fix prearb

 

I hear this stuff and am very recently coming to realize that often the intention is to take from the older players to give to the younger players. While I can’t assume that is what you mean, that can also burn in hell

 

I think they are saying to give those older players their big money when they are still young, so that when they are old and not as good, they don't get screwed by not getting the big money they couldn't get when they were still young.

[Derwood]

 

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

Free agency is fine. Fix prearb

 

I hear this stuff and am very recently coming to realize that often the intention is to take from the older players to give to the younger players. While I can’t assume that is what you mean, that can also burn in hell

 

It's very simple: players are grossly underpaid in their prime years, so they ask for monster contracts to make up for it in their post-prime years. Owners are now cooling on those mega-contracts, so they are setting up a system that they don't pay the players in either case. The Bryants and Betts and Lindors of the world should be getting paid more earlier in their careers

[Bull]

Free agency is fine. Fix prearb

 

I hear this stuff and am very recently coming to realize that often the intention is to take from the older players to give to the younger players. While I can’t assume that is what you mean, that can also burn in hell

 

It's very simple: players are grossly underpaid in their prime years, so they ask for monster contracts to make up for it in their post-prime years. Owners are now cooling on those mega-contracts, so they are setting up a system that they don't pay the players in either case. The Bryants and Betts and Lindors of the world should be getting paid more earlier in their careers

I just think that players should be paid when they’re producing and that EVEN Bryce Harper will not produce enough to justify a $35 million salary in his age 36 year, And that the nationals should have been paying him more the last few years.

 

This is much more pronounced with players like pujols. the Cardinals got ridiculously cheap production out of him and now the Angels are hamstrung. I just think the Cardinals are awful and deserve awful things.

 

Basically, if a player never realizes a big free agency payday due to an injury (potentially even caused by misuse and medical team incompetence) he could have provided great value to a team without ever getting paid for it. So yeah, Tom, I’m saying pay older (post prime) players less and younger (valuable) players more (commensurate with their value).

 

Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s what needs done.

[Sammy Sofa]

- Setting up a situation where you take from older players to pay players with little to no track record is setting up a situation where everyone gets underpaid in the long run. It basically makes it OK to say - not pay Trout or Harper in their 30s (because having those guys then will allegedly hurt a franchise) because they were less underpaid in their 20s. And that’s just the Trout and Harpers of the world - forget the many, many quality and high quality players/employees that aren’t those guys.

 

Which is why it makes the most sense that rookie deals are cut down. Rookie contracts should be down to 3-4 years (though I think they'll likely only be able to cut it down to 5), and you should have to first bring up a player within 3 years (at the very most) instead of 5.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Honestly if this happens again next offseason, players should strike

[JennieGarthAlgar]

So just to review, did some guy tell some other guy something he heard from a Brewers FO type, but that the guy couldn't say anything because his friend would get fired? And then sometime in the next few hours he tweeted exactly what his friend said detail for detail and even said what role his friend has?

 

tbf, the likely LARPer did start their tweet by writing : "Here's what ive been told I can say"

[Bull]

- Setting up a situation where you take from older players to pay players with little to no track record is setting up a situation where everyone gets underpaid in the long run. It basically makes it OK to say - not pay Trout or Harper in their 30s (because having those guys then will allegedly hurt a franchise) because they were less underpaid in their 20s. And that’s just the Trout and Harpers of the world - forget the many, many quality and high quality players/employees that aren’t those guys.

 

Which is why it makes the most sense that rookie deals are cut down. Rookie contracts should be down to 3-4 years (though I think they'll likely only be able to cut it down to 5), and you should have to first bring up a player within 3 years (at the very most) instead of 5.

Exactly. I’m not saying do one without the other. I’m also not proposing any specific plan.

 

I’m just saying arenado making 26 million this year makes more sense to me than pujols making 28 million this year.

 

If owners are going to pretend this a free market, then make it a free market. Or whatever.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Ed. note: Theo Epstein is in Boston for Hot Stove Cool Music and Jed Hoyer is in Arizona, so when, who, and where a meeting could have occurred is in question.