Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, esmd said:

And how long was his contract?  And how many years ago was that?

recently enough that the contract is not an albatross.

2016, he still had 31 HRs, 119 RBIs and a OPS of ,.780.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a VERY risky deal in that they're banking (as as the Padres with Manny and the Phillies with Harper) that he'll continue his level of production without a major dropoff.  Personally, I think that's a dubious strategy.

Tough to say it's a bad deal or a good deal right now - just risky.  Very, very risky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redskins Rick said:

recently enough that the contract is not an albatross.

2016, he still had 31 HRs, 119 RBIs and a OPS of ,.780.

Come on.  He's had 3 good years out of 7, with 3 more years to go.  Last year he had .5 WAR, the year before that he was negative.  They'll be lucky if he's replacement value for the next 3 years at $25-$30M per season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, esmd said:

Problem, is, wouldn't that only come into play if he has a career ending injury and never plays again (like Albert Belle?).  What if he gets hurt, but only to the point where he can play, but just to the point where he's a diminished version of his current output?  Like a Chris Tillman situation, which I realize is not a great comparison since it's SP vs position player.  But man, I can see this one blowing up for the Angels.

That's obviously the risk, but I think that risk is baked into the contract. If he follows a normal aging curve he finishes his career in the same tier as Ruth and Bonds (add an * if you'd like, I'm not trying to start a PED debate) as the top players of all-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luke-OH said:

That's obviously the risk, but I think that risk is baked into the contract. If he follows a normal aging curve he finishes his career in the same tier as Ruth and Bonds (add an * if you'd like, I'm not trying to start a PED debate) as the top players of all-time.

I hear you, but that's an awful big if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, esmd said:

Come on.  He's had 3 good years out of 7, with 3 more years to go.  Last year he had .5 WAR, the year before that he was negative.  They'll be lucky if he's replacement value for the next 3 years at $25-$30M per season.

My opinion was 5 out of 7 was good, so yes 2 down year, doesnt make it an albatross, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, esmd said:

I hear you, but that's an awful big if.

7 solid years of fulltime pro pball and his worse WAR is 6.7

The man is as solid and consistence as a baseball machine as there ever was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redskins Rick said:

7 solid years of fulltime pro pball and his worse WAR is 6.7

The man is as solid and consistence as a baseball machine as there ever was.

 

I agree.  But betting that he will continue to be for the next 12 years?  That's where I have an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, esmd said:

I agree.  But betting that he will continue to be for the next 12 years?  That's where I have an issue.

No single player is worth the insane amount of money they get.

Its a risk, every time you ink a player to a big deal, but on occasion it does work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, esmd said:

I agree.  But betting that he will continue to be for the next 12 years?  That's where I have an issue.

He's so good that he won't have to continue for the next 12 years.  Unless you are like that other poster and think a bad final couple seasons on a 12 year deal makes the deal a failure no matter what was done in the first 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redskins Rick said:

No single player is worth the insane amount of money they get.

Its a risk, every time you ink a player to a big deal, but on occasion it does work.

No owner is worth the insane amount of money they get.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • I don't imagine Mason Williams will be able to play the next few days so we will probably get to see more of Hays on this homestand.
    • From a purely impersonal point of view, I agree with you.    But in the real world, guys who have been with the club most of the year and have made some contributions aren’t going to be completely cut off.    They’ll get tossed a bone here and there.     And yes, I realize that one can debate whether Smith or Wilkerson  “made some contributions.”    
    • It was intended as a wisecrack.    The mores of 1976 weren’t the same as today.    Believe me, Weaver said a lot worse.     As to Cuellar, I understand Weaver made the remark after Cuellar complained about not getting enough starts in 1976, a year in which he went 4-13 with a 4.96 ERA (66 ERA+).    To me it was just Weaver’s colorful way of saying that he felt he’d given Cuellar plenty of chances that year.    Not a comment on Cuellar’s overall performance during his career.    And my point in quoting Weaver was that Cuellar got a lot more chances that year than a pitcher without his track record would have gotten.     Even Earl Weaver believed that a guy who had earned it over a long period of time deserved some rope.   Buck was far from alone in that regard.   
    • They have to many players on the team.  I think they should be evaluating the guys who need evaluating.  I think we can close the book on Smith and Wilkerson.
    • I would keep Villar.  He is a good major league player.  We have too few of them to give them away.
    • It was a cheap shot on his first wife as well.
    • I haven't done the full 40-man eval but I'd protect him over the other guys you listed. Would the plus curve and the slider that is more slurrvy, I think he's got a pretty good chance of being a solid bullpen arm. From July to the end of the year batters slashed .147/.284/.206/.490 off him with a 0.47 ERA over 19.1 IP with 22 Ks and 11 BBs. Agreed the fastball command needs to tighten up a bit but at 93-95, it has enough on it to keep guys honest even when he not commanding as well.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...