Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

The worst contract I've ever seen

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,087 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:14 PM

http://sports.yahoo....-020323816.html

#2 ChiTownTwinsFan

ChiTownTwinsFan

    Moderation in all things ...

  • Twins Mods
  • 7,046 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:34 PM

Oy ... thank God that wasn't our signing.
🐜 ⚾️ 🐜 ⚾️ 🐜 Antsy for baseball! 🐜 ⚾️ 🐜 ⚾️ 🐜

#3 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 616 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:39 PM

http://sports.yahoo....-020323816.html


I thought it would be the Joe Mauer contract.

#4 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,898 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:41 PM

Blackburn? Capps? Pavano?
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#5 twinsfan34

twinsfan34

    Paul DeVos

  • Members
  • 731 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:00 PM

As my dad has said many times, "there's a sucker born every day."

#6 EephusKnuckler

EephusKnuckler

    Member

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:01 PM

Ya, almost 22mil a year for a 30 year old oft-injured speed guy seems like a poor use of funds. It's funny because of all the gnashing of teeth from Sox fans, though.

The article says they're still trying to retain Cano, but this move makes me doubtful. The way Cano and his camp have operated so far, I can't imagine they'll take this news lightly. Just earlier today there was a report that Cano and the Yankees were far apart and I don't think this kind of signing is going to help matters. He's gonna take a reasonable (not 300 million, lol) deal somewhere else.

#7 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,630 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:15 PM

Oft injured? He is the safest FA this year, though seven years is one more than I would have done.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#8 twinsfan34

twinsfan34

    Paul DeVos

  • Members
  • 731 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:32 PM

It could be a little bit of addition by subtraction too. Helps Yankees, hurts Red Sox. Maybe why they were more willing to go after Ellsbury and for as much as they did.

Edited by twinsfan34, 03 December 2013 - 10:40 PM.


#9 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 10:39 PM

Looks like they are spending there savings on A-RODs contract.
Im guessing they will sign another player or 2 who have
draft pick compensations attached to them, as of now the Yankees lost 2 picks

#10 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:00 PM

Basically, you're paying $22M for Kenny Lofton. No way would I do that.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#11 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:45 PM

Ooffda! Man this contract is bad.

#12 iastfan112

iastfan112

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:03 AM

Ellsbury's average out 5ish wins(even with missing significant time to injury) over the past 3 years, 22 million per is not that bad of deal. Speed guys tend to age well offensively as well so that helps even if he has to move from center in the later half of this contract. I personally see this turning out like Torii Hunter's deal with the Angels, viewed as an overpay at the start but ends up being something close to market value.

#13 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:15 AM

Speed guys do not age well offensively.

Anyway, Ellsbury is definitely worth a lot of money, but I would really like to see the second best offer to him. 6/100 seems on target. This is really out there.

#14 ND-Fan

ND-Fan

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:54 AM

I kind of wonder these deals for seven years is like deferred contract instead paying it like in 5 year deal they do 7 years and money paid out at end after inflation is not what it would have been if they paid dollar value out in 5 or 4 year deal. I it gives them control of that player if they do age out better than they anticipated for extended years. Also the last years of the contract I have seen where they trade the Player and pay excess of salary to another team and they move on to another player. Remember in Money Ball when Billy Bean tells David Justice he's only paying so much he's worth now and Yankees are paying rest of his salary. I think this is how Yankees approach these deals they are always playing to win now and if they do win its makes franchise worth more and continually increases revenue to continue to pay these salaries. Inflation and continued growth covers what they overpay and value of Yankees just keeps increasing because of this and strokes ownership ego's in that their always considered a winner. That's big difference between baseball and football where they all teams share revenue and work under salary cap spent on players you don't get this big difference on how teams spend on players all are pretty much equal.

#15 iastfan112

iastfan112

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:12 AM

Speed guys do not age well offensively.

Anyway, Ellsbury is definitely worth a lot of money, but I would really like to see the second best offer to him. 6/100 seems on target. This is really out there.


http://www.insidethe...eed_age_better/
http://www.fangraphs...dy-outfielders/

Now obviously Ellsbury could bust but the athleticism speed players possess tend to make them age pretty gracefully.

#16 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 534 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 06:30 AM

Yeah this isn't a horrible deal... contracts worse than this happen all the time. In a vacuum it's an overpay, but the Yankees aren't in a vacuum- there is a lot of pressure on the organization and it's dealing with uncertainty (e.g., A-Rod & Cano). They wanted to add a very good player quickly, and did so.

#17 MichiganTwins

MichiganTwins

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 07:56 AM

Oft injured? He is the safest FA this year, though seven years is one more than I would have done.

He has played 4 full or close to full season and the other two seasons he played a combined 92 games. (not counting his 2007 season when he was first brought up) I would not stick that much money for a guy who has played a full season every other year. Plus, if that every other holds that means 4 hurt years and 3 healthy in this contract. (sarcasm) Anyway, what makes you say he is the safest free agent?

#18 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,630 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 07:59 AM

What makes a contract bad?

1. The money could be used better elsewhere, but remember, you can only have 24 guys.

2. The money keeps them from signing another player. We know, probably, this is not the case for the Yankees.

3. The team keeps playing a player that is bad because he makes money. No idea if this will happen if Jacoby becomes bad or not.

Is he worth that much to a team where the money creates opportunity costs? I think that is debatable, but for the Yankees? It creats no opportunity cost at all probably.

Not all wins are equal, and not all payroll situations are equal. He's one of the best players in baseball the last few years. If he gets them over the top and in the playoffs, that's worth a lot to them.

the Yankees were 16th in runs scored last year. It is easier to fix that in FA than it is to fix pitching.

In a vacuum, for other teams, it might or might not be a good deal. For a team that really does not have budget constraints, I don't get how this can be considered a bad deal.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :)


#19 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 525 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:10 AM

How do you like that ... Mike and I agree. This is not such a bad deal if you are the Yankees. We won't really know for seven years. Recent history would suggest these 7+ year deals are likely to fail more than they succeed. How bad an idea this is would depend on the teams relative ability to absorb the contract.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 04 December 2013 - 08:12 AM.


#20 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,944 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:17 AM

This news might be better than the Nolasco and Hughes signings combined.

Yes, I hate the Yankees that much. I love seeing them do something so monumentally stupid that no one can believe it.