Snell to the Padres?

[old nurse]

 

Because YOU don't know the players doesn't mean they aren't excellent players. Dealing with the age and contract factor attached to Darvish, the Cubs got a very attractive package. Frankly, in raw talent, it's more than I'd have paid if I were GM.

None really have a pedigree unless you call being drafted in the second round something special. The percentage of 2 round players that become above average is what? Has anybody ever tracked how well 16 year old bonus babies have turned out? It is not unfair to call them lottery tickets even though they are good for 16-20 year old players. 

[Vanimal46]

Because YOU don't know the players doesn't mean they aren't excellent players. Dealing with the age and contract factor attached to Darvish, the Cubs got a very attractive package. Frankly, in raw talent, it's more than I'd have paid if I were GM.

You’re right. I don’t know these players. I trust people who are paid to know these players like K Law. He wrote in the Athletic that it’s an underwhelming package of prospects for Darvish.

[old nurse]

 

The Pham/Cronenworth deal is already a loss, unless Xavier Edwards somehow becomes a HOF player.

So the prospects Chicago received made trading Darvish worthwhile yet the ranked prospect the Rays got is somehow worthless unless he turns into a HOF player..  Maybe Cronenworth is the second coming of Merrifield. Maybe not. He now appears to be anointed superstar status off from a few games,  Coupled with Vanimal’s comment all I am allowed to say is wow.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When the Cubs were bad they were still a well attended team. The Cardinals send players away regularly, yet they draw . Players draw fans you say. Twins attendance dropped like a rock in spite of Pucket after 1992. Look at the history of Pittsburg. Getting to the wild card drew fans. Way back when the were we are family they were one of the top drawing teams. The Oakland team has been playing in a dump for how many years? That is the fault of the rest of baseball? Revenue sharing is there. Statistica says that the Rays in 2019 had over 260 million in revenue. Forbes will tell you the same thing and that they made 68 million. Tampa is not poor

No, winning draws fans and a World Series team just traded away a good player for budgetary reasons.

 

I don’t know why you’re being so obstinate about that being bad for baseball as a whole.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because YOU don't know the players doesn't mean they aren't excellent players. Dealing with the age and contract factor attached to Darvish, the Cubs got a very attractive package. Frankly, in raw talent, it's more than I'd have paid if I were GM.

 

I can't find one analyst that agrees with this stance. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

They came out in handfuls for Pucket after 1992, not droves. Outside of Kershaw how many Dodgers have been there over 6 years. They did not keep Turner nor Peterson. I doubt that if they could have fans that there would not be people staying away because those two are now gone. 

 

I believe I was saying what Brock's point was, not mine......I agree, winning is the most important thing, but I also think it isn't hte ONLY thing....YMMV, of course, I have no horse in this race.

[nicksaviking]

 

Or the A's. Or the Pirates. The massive inequity in baseball is bad for the sport as a whole, as it turns MLB into a regional entity, not the nationwide entity it needs to be to thrive. We've seen this happening for decades now as the payroll gap grows.

 

In 1990, the Royals (!!!!!) had the highest payroll in baseball at $23.8m. The lowest payroll was the White Sox (???) at $8.5m.

 

The lowest payroll team had a payroll of 40% of the highest payroll team. The median team had a payroll of 67% of the highest payroll team.

 

In 2019, the Red Sox had the highest payroll in baseball at $222.2m. The lowest payroll was the Rays at $60.4m.

 

The lowest payroll team had a payroll of 27% of the highest payroll team. The median team had a payroll of 56% of the highest payroll team.

 

Yeah, in the early 1990's the Royals, Twins and A's were often the big spenders. MLB needed collusion to work without a salary cap and floor and reasonable revenue sharing. It's not working now.

 

It's really not about the Rays being smart moving players prior to them busing, they should have the option to go either way. 

 

Pittsburgh is the worst of the bunch though, and they often get a pass. The other mid market teams at least bump payroll for a half decade once they get a new stadium.  Pittsburgh got their new stadium and jumped to the middle of the pack in payroll for only one year. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's really not about the Rays being smart moving players prior to them busing, they should have the option to go either way.

Exactly.

 

As for Pittsburgh, my belief that MLB needs more financial equality is completely separate from my belief that Pittsburgh’s ownership is rotten. I will not defend that organization.

[Rosterman]

 

Twins equivalent something like:

 

Balazovic - Patino

Jeffers - Mejia

Enlow - Wilcox

Canterino - No young catcher so pay the pitching price

 

In this guys opinion, that'd be an overpay, unfortunately, SD just set the market for SP trades pretty high

 

I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS. I would just "buy" a free agent.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

 

Which FA starter is that good this year? Or even close? 

[biggentleben]

 

I can't find one analyst that agrees with this stance. 

Then you're missing a LOT of them, specifically the ones who have actually seen the players.

 

Eric Longenhagen is higher on the players the Cubs received than I am.

[biggentleben]

 

Which FA starter is that good this year? Or even close? 

I'd rather have Odorizzi over Snell any day.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Eric Longenhagen is higher on the players the Cubs received than I am.

I was going to pop in to say Longenhagen is pretty high on the Cubs side of the deal.

[Sielk]

No, winning draws fans and a World Series team just traded away a good player for budgetary reasons.

 

I don’t know why you’re being so obstinate about that being bad for baseball as a whole.

Cutting cost might have played a role in the Snell trade but I wouldn't call that the only reason the Rays did it.

 

Trading star players long before their contracts end to stock up their system is just what the Rays do. And they've been pretty successful at winning with this strategy.

 

It's hardly a fire sale and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some prospect the Rays got in one of their trades steps up and takes Snell's place.

 

That said, I agree that it would be better for baseball if revenue was distributed equally.

 

But to say that teams like the Rays are automatically bad for baseball? I'd prefer watching the Rays over the Angels or the Phillies anytime. The Snell trade fits with the Rays long term strategy and that strategy still makes the Rays look a lot better than certain teams (see again Angels, Phillies etc.) who squander a ton of money and still don't get anything done.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Cutting cost might have played a role in the Snell trade but I wouldn't call that the only reason the Rays did it.

Trading star players long before their contracts end to stock up their system is just what the Rays do. And they've been pretty successful at winning with this strategy.

It's hardly a fire sale and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some prospect the Rays got in one of their trades steps up and takes Snell's place.

That said, I agree that it would be better for baseball if revenue was distributed equally.

But to say that teams like the Rays are automatically bad for baseball? I'd prefer watching the Rays over the Angels or the Phillies anytime. The Snell trade fits with the Rays long term strategy and that strategy still makes the Rays look a lot better than certain teams (see again Angels, Phillies etc.) who squander a ton of money and still don't get anything done.

As mentioned earlier, I don't mind the Rays trading Snell or any other single player in their organization. It's about need, not want.

 

But look at the Rays' payroll. I guarantee you that out of the many players they've traded over the past decade, they wanted to keep some of those players but could not for financial reasons.

 

Baseball would be better if teams like the Rays, through revenue sharing and obligation (carrot and stick), were forced to maintain a more competitive payroll comparative to the league. That means teams like the Rays, Pirates, As, etc., would receive sharing to increase their payroll but also create a floor no team can drop below, say $90-100m. Add a draft lottery (or similar mechanism) and you'd all but kill intentional 2-3 year tanking, which is becoming a big problem in the sport to the detriment of fans and interest.

 

More equity between payrolls will make for a better game overall. The Rays can and should operate by shuffling players to keep open a competitive window but that shouldn't be a strategy they're forced to employ because they can't afford to keep even their modestly-paid players.

[The Wise One]

 

Yeah, in the early 1990's the Royals, Twins and A's were often the big spenders. MLB needed collusion to work without a salary cap and floor and reasonable revenue sharing. It's not working now.

 

It's really not about the Rays being smart moving players prior to them busing, they should have the option to go either way. 

 

Pittsburgh is the worst of the bunch though, and they often get a pass. The other mid market teams at least bump payroll for a half decade once they get a new stadium.  Pittsburgh got their new stadium and jumped to the middle of the pack in payroll for only one year. 

According to Forbes the Rays made 69 million in 2019. How could they not go either way on a player upon occasion?. Snell was not worth the money to them.