Go get Verlander

[alarp33]

 

You read way too much into a simple statement. I'm literally not sure the league has changed. Darvish got real money. What has changed is teams are not willing to pay much for mediocre players, but I'm not certain they have stopped paying for elite players. Imo, we don't have enough data on that.

 

These are the number of free agents who received 6+ years in Free Agency over the past 3 offseasons; I think the days of Pujols and Cabrera receiving 10+ years in their 30's are long gone.  Though you certainly may see younger guys like Harper / Machado get 10+

 

2016 - 6 (Price (7), Greinke (6), Heyward (8), C Davis (7), Upton (6), Cueto (6))

2017 - 0

2018 - 2 (Darvish (6), Hosmer (8) - especially Hosmer, I think pretty universally disliked contracts)

 

[Mike Sixel]

These are the number of free agents who received 6+ years in Free Agency over the past 3 offseasons; I think the days of Pujols and Cabrera receiving 10+ years in their 30's are long gone. Though you certainly may see younger guys like Harper / Machado get 10+

 

2016 - 6 (Price (7), Greinke (6), Heyward (8), C Davis (7), Upton (6), Cueto (6))

2017 - 0

2018 - 2 (Darvish (6), Hosmer (8) - especially Hosmer, I think pretty universally disliked contracts)

 

I agree with this. Last year's class stunk also....

 

I don't know where this six year thing came in...arrieta got large money, but a short duration.

 

I really think elite players will still get paid. I don't think that has really changed.

[alarp33]

 

I agree with this. Last year's class stunk also....

I don't know where this six year thing came in...arrieta got large money, but a short duration.

I really think elite players will still get paid. I don't think that has really changed.

 

Right, players are always going to get $$, but the thing that has changed is years. Which is exactly what MLR was saying. You'll probably see more and more deals like Arrietta was given. Higher than expected $ per year, lower years. Darvish is making $7 million more this year than he will in the final 2 years of his deal which i found interesting. Pujols on the other hand made only $12 million his 1st season in LA, but will get $30 million in his final season (when he's 41)

 

Are you really going to take a position that the FO's around the league have become considerably less inclined to sign deals that take a player well past their prime.

[alarp33]

Also if you really need more evidence of a shift in how teams operate in Free Agency, didn't Scott Boras literally threaten to sue owners on behalf of free agents this winter because he was claiming collusion?

[old nurse]

 

I predict between today and Aug 31 prospect for veteran trades will occur, including some prospects from top 100 lists.

 

So I do not agree your premise.

Yes prospects will get traded. Some of them top 100.  I would bet Acuna or Soroka are not going anywhere if Atlanta makes a trade.  Yankees made 3 trades last year and would not give up Sheffield.  They gave up Kaprellian who is rated highly but injured and more questions than answers.  Rental players are not going to get the great returns.  You will not see the Addison Russell type trades.  High ceiling near major league players will not be moved.

[old nurse]

 

 

Other than Chief, no one is saying prospects aren't worth much. No one is saying only use one channel to acquire talent.

Most prospects are not worth much. The trick is to know which ones are.

[Mike Sixel]

Right, players are always going to get $$, but the thing that has changed is years. Which is exactly what MLR was saying. You'll probably see more and more deals like Arrietta was given. Higher than expected $ per year, lower years. Darvish is making $7 million more this year than he will in the final 2 years of his deal which i found interesting. Pujols on the other hand made only $12 million his 1st season in LA, but will get $30 million in his final season (when he's 41)

 

Are you really going to take a position that the FO's around the league have become considerably less inclined to sign deals that take a player well past their prime.

Where have I done that? We disagree on some things, why make up things we don't disagree on?

 

I do think someone will sign a player for a long deal, to stretch out the dollars. And I do think there will still be deals where teams expect to like the front of deal much more than the back....

[Darius]

All of this talk about Verlander and trades.

 

Well, if we would've gotten Verlander, imagine what we could trade him for before this year's deadline.

[Monkeypaws]

 

Most prospects are not worth much. The trick is to know which ones are.

This is true - who would have guessed that among Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Rosario, that the latter would be the star of the bunch.

[alarp33]

 

Where have I done that? We disagree on some things, why make up things we don't disagree on?

I do think someone will sign a player for a long deal, to stretch out the dollars. And I do think there will still be deals where teams expect to like the front of deal much more than the back....

 

The bottom of my post was what MLR wrote... you replied you weren't sure the league has changed. I was just providing examples of how its changed. I didn't make anything up. 

 

There's always going to be bad deals (I don't see any way the Hosmer deal looks good in the long run if he doesn't opt out) but teams ARE changing their behavior when it comes to handing out long term deals. 5 years ago is there any chance Lance Lynn would've been agreeing to a 1 year deal in late March for $8 million? He would've been a lock for 4-5 years prior to this shift in FA

[nicksaviking]

****Moderator Note****

 

Things are starting to get too personal here. There are too many veiled and not so veiled accusations and there is quite a bit of mis-characterization or at least presumption of other posters intentions. Please dial it back.

[Major League Ready]

 

You read way too much into a simple statement. I'm literally not sure the league has changed. Darvish got real money. What has changed is teams are not willing to pay much for mediocre players, but I'm not certain they have stopped paying for elite players. Imo, we don't have enough data on that.

You have a point. I did not exclude the the best of the best. I agree. Superstars will likely not be handled any differently but that is a very small group and does not characterize the market as a whole. I also did not think it was necessary to point this out as it has been a consistent theme with the media. Machado and Harper will get crazy deals. I thought it was equally obvious draft picks are not an issue when signing a superstar. So, yes, superstars will likely not be handled differently but FA practices and contract length will most likely continue to follow the changes seen last winter.

[alarp33]

Harper and Machado are unique cases because they are hitting Free Agency before their age 27 seasons.

 

It will be more interesting to see what happens with Donaldson or Dozier. If the o/u for number of years they get was 3.5, I’d take the under on both for sure. I think that’s a major shift from 5+ years ago

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The poster originally stated it only started working out for the Yankees (and Dodgers) once they stopped buying players.

 

That's ... incorrect, to be politically correct.

 

For one thing, they have never been "down."

 

For another, they haven't stopped buying players.

 

And if you really want to consider missing the playoffs in three of the last four seasons as "down," then that completely invalidates the poster's position that they've only gotten good in recent years once they stopped buying players. 

 

Your point seems to be they should go back to buying players, shouldn't it?

Why does it have to be one or the other (which may be your point)? The Yankees are in the luxurious position of being able to make absolutely asinine decisions (Ellsbury) and still be okay.

 

But in Cashman's defense, he orchestrated their rebuild wonderfully. They retooled incredibly quickly, which indicates some savvy baseball moves but also a bit of luck that everyone stays healthy and pans out as expected.

 

The (good) Yankees have never been all about buying players. They've always had a core mostly built on in-house talent; what separates them from the Minnesotas and San Diegos is that they can also go out and spend $100m a season on free agents.

 

That doesn't give mid-market teams a pass for prolonged incompetence but it gives teams like the Yankees a huge leg up when they can go buy an additional 5-10 WAR per season on a regular basis.

[USAFChief]

Why does it have to be one or the other (which may be your point)? The Yankees are in the luxurious position of being able to make absolutely asinine decisions (Ellsbury) and still be okay.

 

But in Cashman's defense, he orchestrated their rebuild wonderfully. They retooled incredibly quickly, which indicates some savvy baseball moves but also a bit of luck that everyone stays healthy and pans out as expected.

 

The (good) Yankees have never been all about buying players. They've always had a core mostly built on in-house talent; what separates them from the Minnesotas and San Diegos is that they can also go out and spend $100m a season on free agents.

 

That doesn't give mid-market teams a pass for prolonged incompetence but it gives teams like the Yankees a huge leg up when they can go buy an additional 5-10 WAR per season on a regular basis.

Agreed.

 

The Yankees have an advantage, and they use it. They buy wins, both with money and trade.

[alarp33]

 

Agreed.

The Yankees have an advantage, and they use it. They buy wins, both with money and trade.

 

You are willfully ignoring the facts here.  Yes the Yankees have an advantage.  No, the Yankees are not buying wins.  The Yankees are winning this year because they have drafted extremely well, and made many shrew trades that don't involve buying anyone, they involve smart baseball decisions.  

 

WAR Leaders

 

Severino (International FA, $225,000 signing bonus)

Judge (drafted)

Gregorious (traded for when coming off a season with .653 OPS)

Brett Gardner (drafted)

Stanton (traded for - bought)

Hicks (we all know the story here)

Sanchez (international FA)

Torres (waved white flag and traded Chapman at deadline)

Green (traded for, non roster invitee to Spring)

[Major League Ready]

 

Harper and Machado are unique cases because they are hitting Free Agency before their age 27 seasons.

It will be more interesting to see what happens with Donaldson or Dozier. If the o/u for number of years they get was 3.5, I’d take the under on both for sure. I think that’s a major shift from 5+ years ago

I was thinking the same. OPS+ for both Donaldson and Dozier's is way down from the past several years for Donaldson and the past couple seasons for Dozier. You bet would be safe. I can't imagine either one getting a 4 year deal. Donaldson is 33 next year. Dozier will be 32 and his WAR stands at .7 Dozier might only get a 2 year deal if he does not pick-up his play considerably.

 

It will be interesting to see the length of the Harper and Machado contracts. Cano and Pujlos are signed contracts through age 40 and 41 respectively. Will teams make that same mistake? I doubt it but just how far will they go? 

[alarp33]

 

I was thinking the same. OPS+ for both Donaldson and Dozier's is way down from the past several years for Donaldson and the past couple seasons for Dozier. You bet would be safe. I can't imagine either one getting a 4 year deal. Donaldson is 33 next year. Dozier will be 32 and his WAR stands at .7 Dozier might only get a 2 year deal if he does not pick-up his play considerably.

 

It will be interesting to see the length of the Harper and Machado contracts. Cano and Pujlos are signed contracts through age 40 and 41 respectively. Will teams make that same mistake? I doubt it but just how far will they go? 

 

I would guess Harper / Machado sign deals similar to Stanton.  10+ years, with a player opt out in there at age 30 or so.  

[Major League Ready]

 

All of this talk about Verlander and trades.

Well, if we would've gotten Verlander, imagine what we could trade him for before this year's deadline.

I would have liked to get Verlander. The remaining years and price were reasonable. However, do you suppose the fact that our team was not nearly as complete and that he likely would be traded again was a major detriment in terms of getting to waive his no trade clause? Players don't like to uproot their life and they are not going to do so for a long-shot like our team was last year. There sure was a lot of complaining over something that had almost no chance of happening.

[USAFChief]

 

I would have liked to get Verlander. The remaining years and price were reasonable. However, do you suppose the fact that our team was not nearly as complete and that he likely would be traded again was a major detriment in terms of getting to waive his no trade clause? Players don't like to uproot their life and they are not going to do so for a long-shot like our team was last year. There sure was a lot of complaining over something that had almost no chance of happening.

You must have changed your mind.  Here's your take from last August (1st page of posts in this thread):

 

 

Bingo.It's short-sighted.Why on earth would you take on the last years of this type of contract and give up prospects.If you are going to spend the money associated with this type of SP, go get one next year that is 3-5 years younger and hold on to our prospects to boot.Don't spend $28M/yr and only get the years that they are very likely to decline.Go get someone still in their prime and keep the prospects.

 

Plus, Nicksavings is likely right about his willingness to waive his NT clause.

 

[MangLitch]

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera. 

 

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid. #10 prospect and some throw-ins? I'd have gone higher than that to get a very good bullpen arm to take some pressure off our current arms.

 

Instead, we sign Belisle......................................hmpf.

 

What am I missing. 1.47 ERA. I don't care if rental or not, that is a steal for the Nats

[Vanimal46]

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera.

 

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid. #10 prospect and some throw-ins? I'd have gone higher than that to get a very good bullpen arm to take some pressure off our current arms.

 

Instead, we sign Belisle......................................hmpf.

 

What am I missing. 1.47 ERA. I don't care if rental or not, that is a steal for the Nats

 

Lots of sellers out there. The buying teams are going to find steals like this and build up their super teams.

 

KC found some prospects that may develop into something one day though!

[Otto von Ballpark]

I wasnt sure where to put this, but I am very surprised that there is not a huge conversation about what the Nationals paid for Herrera.

 

I would have a hard time believing that we shouldnt have been in those talks for the price that was paid.

Interesting idea. You'd have to think the Royals would be open to this kind of intra-division trade too, because they clearly aren't competing this year and Herrera is a rental (and they could potentially weaken a competitor's farm system).

[Mike Sixel]

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

 

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....

[Major League Ready]

 

You must have changed your mind.  Here's your take from last August (1st page of posts in this thread):

 

 

Bingo.It's short-sighted.Why on earth would you take on the last years of this type of contract and give up prospects.If you are going to spend the money associated with this type of SP, go get one next year that is 3-5 years younger and hold on to our prospects to boot.Don't spend $28M/yr and only get the years that they are very likely to decline.Go get someone still in their prime and keep the prospects.

 

Plus, Nicksavings is likely right about his willingness to waive his NT clause.

My recollection was his salary was $20M/yr. and I did not remember they gave up 3 good prospects to get Verlander. My recollection was the prospects were marginal because Houston took on the salary. Looking at what Houston gave up, It would have cost us Romero or Gordon plus somethink like Kirilloff and Baddoo, maybe Rorvert instead of Baddoo but that cost makes no sense for a team that even with the addition of Verlander is not even close to NY, Boston or Houiston. So, having looked at the deal again, I would not have traded for Verlander. Great move when you are in Houstons position, absolutely stupid in the Twins position. We had a less than 10% chance of making the wildcard game which of course is a 50/50 proposition at best. Expending 3 valuable resources for a 10% shot gets you fired in the real world and baseball management practices are catching up to the real world.

 

[USAFChief]

 

My recollection was his salary was $20M/yr. and I did not remember they gave up 3 good prospects to get Verlander. My recollection was the prospects were marginal because Houston took on the salary. Looking at what Houston gave up, It would have cost us Romero or Gordon plus somethink like Kirilloff and Baddoo, maybe Rorvert instead of Baddoo but that cost makes no sense for a team that even with the addition of Verlander is not even close to NY, Boston or Houiston. So, having looked at the deal again, I would not have traded for Verlander. Great move when you are in Houstons position, absolutely stupid in the Twins position. We had a less than 10% chance of making the wildcard game which of course is a 50/50 proposition at best. Expending 3 valuable resources for a 10% shot gets you fired in the real world.

I guess you changed your mind again.

 

 

[Vanimal46]

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

 

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....

The options are limited unless they want to give up on what we think are 'core' players.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Sano is the primary 1B starting next season.

[MangLitch]

 

Interesting idea. You'd have to think the Royals would be open to this kind of intra-division trade too, because they clearly aren't competing this year and Herrera is a rental (and they could potentially weaken a competitor's farm system).

 

My thoughts exactly. If he had years I would have understood. But KC is out and they shouldn't care who he goes to, highest bidder.

 

It looks like it was 10/15/throw in.... so you could have gone Diaz/Blankenhorn and a mid 20 and outbid them...... Or something of that nature.. I would jump on that in a heartbeat for 3 months. If the FO truly believes that this is a blip and good things are ahead this season, this seems like a move that could have really paid off for the rest of the season and potentially playoffs. 

 

Who knows, might have been able to sign him too if wanted. Rodney's replacement next year. 

 

I guess that is why I work in Banking and not the FO of a MLB team

[MangLitch]

 

I wouldn't do a rental if I was the Twins, not this year....I'm only dealing from way down on the list, or for players with more than 1 year left on their deal.

 

The hard part is what position.....catcher and 1B and maybe MIF are about it, unless one is moving Sano to 1B full time, which isn't happening in A ball....

 

If you could get 3 impact months out of a guy that could allow Molly to back off Reed and Pressly. While only giving up mid level guys..... I think you do it in a heart beat if you truly believe you still have a shot. That is one heck of a solid piece. 

 

I don't think the Twins odds are great but this would not be a make or break move and could have huge upside if the twins would sneak in the playoffs. Just seemed odd. We have good depth in the system at some of the positions they got back and figured we could have offered a better package. 

[alarp33]

 

If you could get 3 impact months out of a guy that could allow Molly to back off Reed and Pressly. While only giving up mid level guys..... I think you do it in a heart beat if you truly believe you still have a shot. That is one heck of a solid piece. 

 

I don't think the Twins odds are great but this would not be a make or break move and could have huge upside if the twins would sneak in the playoffs. Just seemed odd. We have good depth in the system at some of the positions they got back and figured we could have offered a better package. 

 

You keep calling this odd. It is possible the Twins did try to make a deal and the Royals liked what they got from Washington.Believe it or not, MLB teams use their own prospects rankings and scouting reports, not the lists you and I do to decide on players. It is also possible the Twins did not want to give up what the Royals wanted. Also possible the Twins didn't have interest in Herrerra. Lots of players will be traded between now and the end of August. Some may be traded by the Twins, some may be traded to the Twins, some may be traded between teams who are not the Twins. 

 

Or even more plausible, since the GM has come out and said it, it was really hard for them to trade a player they signed at 16, and they wanted to put him in a great spot where he could compete for a title...