Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2019, 01:37 PM
 
26,202 posts, read 48,994,276 times
Reputation: 31740

Advertisements

IMO it's just nuts. What worries me is that some players with these huge contracts seem to have a short shelf life, i.e., they're great for a few years then go downhill fast, leaving their teams with a fat financial obligation, for years, for a player who's increasingly closer to just plain average or a bit above.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2019, 03:12 PM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,280,313 times
Reputation: 4766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
IMO it's just nuts. What worries me is that some players with these huge contracts seem to have a short shelf life, i.e., they're great for a few years then go downhill fast, leaving their teams with a fat financial obligation, for years, for a player who's increasingly closer to just plain average or a bit above.
Exactly. Anaheim has already seen it with Albert Pujois. I would have done a lesser contract and front loaded it. Contract would have a very different look starting around 33 or 35. Anaheim never got their monies worth out of Albert, but his contract is a bargain in today's time, compared to when he signed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2019, 05:57 PM
 
33,983 posts, read 17,018,158 times
Reputation: 17176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
IMO it's just nuts. What worries me is that some players with these huge contracts seem to have a short shelf life, i.e., they're great for a few years then go downhill fast, leaving their teams with a fat financial obligation, for years, for a player who's increasingly closer to just plain average or a bit above.
Which makes up for them being underpaid in the pre Free Agency years, including arbitration.

DeGrom's Fair market Value 2019 is far more than $17 mill arbitration consensus deal. Prior year, he made $7.4 mill.

Trout until 2019 made $77 mill in 6 years with a WAR of 64.3.

Personally, I would favor arbitration not based on years, but at bats, or games started/relieved.

perhaps say 500 abs, 30 starts, or 50 innings in relief, career, makes one arbitration eligible.

Players, just like those of us in other professions, should always be able to get Fair Market Value. Not be an indentured servant to one team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2019, 06:56 PM
 
1,553 posts, read 924,292 times
Reputation: 1659
Mike should've come back home and won a couple rings with Bryce and the Philly boys.

Guess he doesn't mind playing for a perennial also-ran … a team that will ALWAYS be in the Dodgers' shadow...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2019, 07:24 PM
 
33,983 posts, read 17,018,158 times
Reputation: 17176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market Junkie View Post
Mike should've come back home and won a couple rings with Bryce and the Philly boys.

Guess he doesn't mind playing for a perennial also-ran … a team that will ALWAYS be in the Dodgers' shadow...
Phils are much further away than even adding Trout to win a World Series.

ERA 11th of 15 NL teams in 2018.

10th year before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 05:53 PM
 
1,584 posts, read 979,940 times
Reputation: 2609
Quote:
Originally Posted by weezerfan84 View Post
Exactly. Anaheim has already seen it with Albert Pujois. I would have done a lesser contract and front loaded it. Contract would have a very different look starting around 33 or 35. Anaheim never got their monies worth out of Albert, but his contract is a bargain in today's time, compared to when he signed.
There’s a big difference between the Angels contracts with Pujols vs. Trout.

They signed Pujols to a 10 year deal starting with his age 32 season — and his decline was already underway. Pujols gave the team two excellent seasons, three other seasons that were at least above replacement, and two bad years — plus he’s a lock to give the Angels three more awful seasons.

Trout, who signed a 12 year contract, is going into his age 27 season. He’s still in his prime, and even if he ages like Pujols, he will have given the Angels seven great seasons, three above replacement seasons, and two bad years. And he could do better than Pujols did. That’s far better value for the team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 05:57 PM
 
1,584 posts, read 979,940 times
Reputation: 2609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
IMO it's just nuts. What worries me is that some players with these huge contracts seem to have a short shelf life, i.e., they're great for a few years then go downhill fast, leaving their teams with a fat financial obligation, for years, for a player who's increasingly closer to just plain average or a bit above.
Not sure why you think Trout is going to have a short shelf life. He’s going into his prime at age 27 next year, when his new deal starts. Unless he suffers a career threatening injury, I can’t see him falling off for another 5-7 years.

A number of players who fell off quickly were signed to big contracts later in their career (Pujols) or were hefty slugger types (Prince Fielder, Mo Vaughan, Pablo Sandoval). The latter tend not to age well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 10:21 PM
 
1,553 posts, read 924,292 times
Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Phils are much further away than even adding Trout to win a World Series.

ERA 11th of 15 NL teams in 2018.

10th year before.

Look at that '08 rotation, Bob

Hamels … and a bunch of mutts...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2019, 03:58 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,264 posts, read 1,481,253 times
Reputation: 12668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Phils are much further away than even adding Trout to win a World Series.

ERA 11th of 15 NL teams in 2018.

10th year before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market Junkie View Post
Look at that '08 rotation, Bob

Hamels … and a bunch of mutts...
Using the meaningless label 'mutts' doesn't change the fact that the 2008 Phillies were 4th in the 16-team NL in ERA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2019, 07:09 AM
 
Location: In an indoor space
7,685 posts, read 6,189,475 times
Reputation: 5154
As they say "You gotta play the games".

On paper verses the actual results.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top