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.
The Twins payroll for last year was only 65 million. And now they're going to pay one guy approximately 1/3 of that? That should be interesting.
It might take a little longer, but Mauer, should he continue his fine play, will still end up with the Yankees, Red Sox or some other large market club sometime in the future....that's the way MLB works.
The Twins payroll for last year was only 65 million. And now they're going to pay one guy approximately 1/3 of that? That should be interesting.
It might take a little longer, but Mauer, should he continue his fine play, will still end up with the Yankees, Red Sox or some other large market club sometime in the future....that's the way MLB works.
Can't guarantee that! If he stays for the full 8 years,he might wind up as a DH or 1B. The Yanks also have about 2 or 3 catching studs in the minors named Romine,and Montero so he probably wont be coming to the Yanks. I'm glad they signed him before he could hit free agency though, because it shows the loyalty of the player and the organization.
The next best catcher in the league was
#22 Victor Martinez: 25.8
So. Mauer was twice as good (compared to average) as the next best guy.
I don't expect Mauer to keep putting up seasons like that but he's is an absolute stud. He'll probably catch for a few more years then move to 1st or DH. His value will take a hit then because of positional adjustments, but in a few years salaries will probably be going up.
The Twins didn't get a huge bargain with Mauer, but they get a tremendous player for right around his market value.
EDIT:
RE Romine and Montero: Montero will be a big hitter. He's questionable as a catcher. Romine is a fringe starter/back-up. Nothing special
These megabuck long term deals strike me as foolhardy because you are entering into a contract which is win/win for one side, but win/lose for the other. Mauer will be getting the full amount whether he wins the MVP award every year of the contract, plays well in four of the seasons but poorly in the other four, or even if he gets hurt and hardly plays at all during the contract's covered period. The Twins will be paying and they might get great value, but might not.
The same may be said of any baseball contract, but it is especially dangerous in these long term immense money deals. The Twins now have so large a percentage of their expenditures invested in a single enity, that should that entity turn sour, they are out not only the performance expected, but also the financial resources to repair/replace the damaged goods.
Has anyone done an organized study of how rewarding/damaging long term contracts have been? Obviously we can all come up with anecdotal evidence....the Bonds and Maddox deals worked out extremely well for the Giants and Braves, but then you look at Albert Belle in Baltimore or Mike Hampton in Colorado or Ken Griffey Jr for the Reds....
Over payed, you could own 2 quality players for that price.
One player that produces 7 wins is a better deal than two players who each produce 3.5 wins. There are a limited number of roster spots so the more talent you can concentrate in one position the better.
One player that produces 7 wins is a better deal than two players who each produce 3.5 wins. There are a limited number of roster spots so the more talent you can concentrate in one position the better.
Hmnmm...does it work that way? What if the 7 wins player is the centerfielder, and the alternative is a platoon of the two 3.5 win players. By your theory, though the same value was produced, the 7 win player is the better deal because he uses up but one roster spot.
Where does that other roster spot go? If it goes to another player who is also 3.5 wins at another position, or would be 3.5 wins as a centerfielder, but isn't because he sits in favor of the 7 win player, you have not gained anything.
So, I think that your premise is conditionally valid. It would depend upon the nature of the rest of the roster talent.
Hmnmm...does it work that way? What if the 7 wins player is the centerfielder, and the alternative is a platoon of the two 3.5 win players. By your theory, though the same value was produced, the 7 win player is the better deal because he uses up but one roster spot.
Where does that other roster spot go? If it goes to another player who is also 3.5 wins at another position, or would be 3.5 wins as a centerfielder, but isn't because he sits in favor of the 7 win player, you have not gained anything.
So, I think that your premise is conditionally valid. It would depend upon the nature of the rest of the roster talent.
Sure. You can't construct your roster idiotically. Having Pujols, Fielder, Howard and Tex probably isn't the best use of resources.
See the 2009 Washington Nationals who had about 10 outfielders (Milledge, Dunn, Willingham, Dukes, Kearns, Harris) and nary a relief pitcher
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.
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.
