Jump to content

Bautista's extension

clapdiddy

By clapdiddy
in MLB

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
You must think Nick was a bad contract then.

I must have missed the season where Nick had a .691 OPS like Rios did in 2009. Nick's contract is still break even at least, probably better. Rios' may or may not be a disaster. It still could turn out OK

Back to Bautista, I susoect they will regret the deal, but we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
I must have missed the season where Nick had a .691 OPS like Rios did in 2009. Nick's contract is still break even at least, probably better. Rios' may or may not be a disaster. It still could turn out OK

Back to Bautista, I susoect they will regret the deal, but we'll see.

I'm sorry but did Rios put up that year before or after he signed the extension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
This is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with Nick Markakis.

Sure it does, if you actually take the time to understand the context of the conversation I was having with SJ.

SJ put the Rios contract in with Ryan and Wells...which I think is wrong.

Those were bad contracts from the beginning...The Rios contract was not.

Rios got an extension after being to Toronto what Nick is to us...similar players in RF providing WAR's about the same by the time they signed their contracts.

The Rios contract turned out poor but so could Nick's.

So, if you think signing Rios at the time of his deal was a poor move, I don't see how you can really say Nick's deal was better.

If you want to say Rios' contract has turned out poor, that's fine...but that's a seperate argument than the way SJ presented it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ledzepp8 Hangout Grand Counsel

ledzepp8

Posted
Posted
Sure it does, if you actually take the time to understand the context of the conversation I was having with SJ.

SJ put the Rios contract in with Ryan and Wells...which I think is wrong.

Those were bad contracts from the beginning...The Rios contract was not.

Rios got an extension after being to Toronto what Nick is to us...similar players in RF providing WAR's about the same by the time they signed their contracts.

The Rios contract turned out poor but so could Nick's.

So, if you think signing Rios at the time of his deal was a poor move, I don't see how you can really say Nick's deal was better.

If you want to say Rios' contract has turned out poor, that's fine...but that's a seperate argument than the way SJ presented it.

Perhaps his (Rios) contract shouldn't be put in comparison to Ryan or Wells, but Nick's contract has not been poor. That's the point and it's why it's irrelevant to the conversation.

If you want to say it's unfair to judge Rios' contract in hindsight, then that's fine and I would probably agree with that. But I don't think you point a contract that has been good (so far) as proof of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Palmoripken Hangout Grand Counsel

Palmoripken

Posted
Posted

I think this is very risky move on the Jays part for a guy who showed unprecedented power last year. Not saying Bautista is a roid user but this is a guy who increased his highest SLG by 200+ points, nearly doubled his career home run rate, and had his season last year acccounted for a third of his RBIs. Now, time will tell but I think the Jays are taking a risk here. For the sake of our division and us, I hope it backfires on them. Nothing personal, only business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
Perhaps his (Rios) contract shouldn't be put in comparison to Ryan or Wells, but Nick's contract has not been poor. That's the point and it's why it's irrelevant to the conversation.

If you want to say it's unfair to judge Rios' contract in hindsight, then that's fine and I would probably agree with that. But I don't think you point a contract that has been good (so far) as proof of your argument.

Of course, Rios contract hasn't really been bad...he has been worth 40 million thus far...He could put up a WAR of 0 in 2011 and 2012 and still be worth that deal.

And I already made it clear why I brought up Nick's contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crazysilver03 Hangout Grand Counsel

Crazysilver03

Posted
Posted
Of course, Rios contract hasn't really been bad...he has been worth 40 million thus far...He could put up a WAR of 0 in 2011 and 2012 and still be worth that deal.

And I already made it clear why I brought up Nick's contract.

How does that make sense? If his contract is $57.3M for the first 6 years and has only accrued "$40M" in the first four years, how could he post 0 the next two years and make the deal worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
How does that make sense? If his contract is $57.3M for the first 6 years and has only accrued "$40M" in the first four years, how could he post 0 the next two years and make the deal worth it?

He has been worth 40M in the first 3 years of the deal. Those 3 years were at the salary of 16M..total. He earns 24M the next 2 years.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted
Usually when you put a player on waivers early in his contact in hope of another team claiming him, the contract was not good for you. Pretty simple.

Except Toronto got a very good year from him in the first year of the contract and then they got a terrible half year and put him on waivers.

You can argue that they were lucky to get out from the contract...You can also argue that they gave up on him too quickly since he was worth a WAR of almost 4 this past year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...