XZero771679666304

I have to think there will be some serious restrictions on how the fielder can position themselves in front of the base/plate. Well, yeah, they're obviously going to have to take away the catcher's right to completely block the plate. Pretty much like all the other bases. I also think the rule will end up primarily banning contact above the waist, which it pretty much responsible for all of the ugly collisions. They've done that in college ball and by all accounts it works fine. It's not that complicated, really.

I'm sure many of you have heard, but MLB is essentially banning home plate collisions. I am totally in favor of this. Old school types will hate this, but it needed to be done.

So apparently the M's would include Zunino in a Price trade. Nothing like trading from one of your areas of greatest weakness to supplement your lone area of strength.

I'm not even sure I'd project Anderson to be better than Pomeranz this year. Yeah, that's kind of shocking. Bad move for the Rockies (imo).

They'll have a very nice rotation with Walker, too.

I think it may have been the scathing condemnation of the hall of fame from his show tonight.

They may be.

What a self-centered prick.

Jack Z. was a rising star when he left the Brewers, and now it'd be shocking for him to get another job once he's fired (and I think that is inevitable). His regime has been a dumpster fire, almost as bad as Bavasi's, which is really saying something. Mariner's ownership might want to hire some kind of outside firm to hire their next GM.

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? 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. 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.

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.

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.

Did he now? I had no idea.

So long, Taijuan Walker. What they really need is another bat or two. That's what Hellickson will be for next year, once he rebounds. I meant the Mariners need another bat or two, certainly more than they need David Price. The idea of trading Walker for Price is pretty stupid, imo. If you're going to trade Walker, you do it for some offense.

So long, Taijuan Walker. What they really need is another bat or two.

I can't step away for a second. Am I wrong, or is that a lot for Granderson? No, I think that's pretty fair.

These never end well. Stupid money/length Jack Z. is desperate, as he came in with a lot of expectations on his regime and they've failed. This attempt is a gambled to save his job. But if it happens, it will just be another nail in his coffin. They're not one player away.

Yeah, that's about what I was thinking.

I think there's a distinct possibility Tanaka isn't posted if his team only stands to get $20MM. They'll certainly be less motivated.

I obviously don't know precisely what the financial constraints are or why they're there, but I definitely think many people prefer to believe the Rickettses are just being miserly because it makes them easier to vilify, and angry people like to cast blame. As for the Tanaka/posting situation, I have no idea how this is going to turn out. If they try to set a bidding cap it creates some potential issues; if they set it too low, what incentive do NPB teams have to post their stars? What about when a glut of teams bid the max? I head someone suggest the cap be set at $20MM...at that price, many teams will be involved, and who knows if the Golden Eagles even deem it worth posting him. But you think they have to try and implement some sort of balancing mechanism so smaller market teams can actually compete in the bidding process. Until some kind of agreement is reached on these issues, it's impossible to predict who's going to end up with him, or if he'll even be posted. As fir the Cubs part, I won't be surprised if the Cubs either win the bid, or put in a weak, token bid. If we end up in a scenario where there is a cap or a similar scenario where multiple teams get to negotiate with him, I'm not sure that I like the Cubs' chances, even if they offer him the most.

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.

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.

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.

He'll be 36 in the last year of this contract. It's not the age, it's the inability to stay on the field. I know his injuries have been "freaky", but it's hard to ignore. And you have to believe the reason he signed already is that he and his camp knew that was easily the best offer they were going to get.

I wanted Ellsbury and I'm disappointed we didn't get him, but there's no way I'd have given him seven years.