Manny!!!!

[backwardsk]

I think any 6/175 contract for a 35-year-old is by definition a terrible contract. The only ways it wouldn't be terrible are if you went back in time and hand picked one of the greatest late-career players of all time. Even Hank Aaron, who was ridiculously good in his late 30s was worth $161M (at $7M per win) from 36 to 41. Pujols needs to be more productive than Hank Aaron to be worth his salary.

For those six years, but if he accumulates a surplus of $25+ in the first six years, then he doesn't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WNY Orioles Fan]

You think locking up Schoop would get a discount on Manny? Being that they are best friends?

(I just really want Manny and Schoop to be career O's)

Not a chance.

[DrungoHazewood]

For those six years, but if he accumulates a surplus of $25+ in the first six years, then he doesn't.

If you buy into the idea that it's okay to carry an underperforming player for six years because he was a little better than he was paid a long time ago. You really think Angels fans will be fondly remembering '12, when Pujols was racking up surplus value with his worst season to date while the Angels finished 3rd?

[backwardsk]

If you buy into the idea that it's okay to carry an underperforming player for six years because he was a little better than he was paid a long time ago.

Who says he's going to underperform over the next few seasons? He's in a good position to outperform his year 4 by over $10M. Which would give him a surplus value of $30M+ for the first 40% of his contract.

He doesn't need to be Hank Aaron, he just needs to be David Ortiz in years 36-38 and then replicate his injury plagued 2013 season for years 39-41 to have his contract be in the break even ballpark.

If he's Edgar Martinez in his 36-41 seasons, he's providing a lot of surplus.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aristotelian]

I just want to say that this whole thread vindicates DD's strategy this offseason. If we have Cruz and/or Miller for 4 years, we are probably not having this conversation. With all the free agents expiring, we actually have the flexibility to offer Manny a superstar deal. He would still need to accept, but at least it's an option.

[backwardsk]

I just want to say that this whole thread vindicates DD's strategy this offseason. If we have Cruz and/or Miller for 4 years, we are probably not having this conversation. With all the free agents expiring, we actually have the flexibility to offer Manny a superstar deal. He would still need to accept, but at least it's an option.

I'm not sure if I agree with that because if Manny were to sign an extension, the first three years wouldn't be all that much relatively speaking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

Who says he's going to underperform over the next few seasons? He's in a good position to outperform his year 4 by over $10M. Which would give him a surplus value of $30M+ for the first 40% of his contract.

He doesn't need to be Hank Aaron, he just needs to be David Ortiz in years 36-38 and then replicate his injury plagued 2013 season for years 39-41 to have his contract be in the break even ballpark.

If he's Edgar Martinez in his 36-41 seasons, he's providing a lot of surplus.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rWAR says Pujols has been worth 12.7 WAR as an Angel, fWAR says 9.4. That's a surprisingly large discrepancy. By rWAR there's been a large surplus, by fWAR it's been break even. I think it's pretty easy to see that by fWAR the remaining years are likely to be a pretty big loser. By rWAR it is not so clear. However, given the backloaded nature of the deal and the inevitable effects of aging, I'd still unload the contract at the end of this season if that option were available. The question wasn't whether his overall ten year contact was worth it, but whether the remaining six years will be worth it. I'm a pretty big believer that age slows even great players, at the ages we're talking about (36-41).

[Roll Tide]

If you buy into the idea that it's okay to carry an underperforming player for six years because he was a little better than he was paid a long time ago. You really think Angels fans will be fondly remembering '12, when Pujols was racking up surplus value with his worst season to date while the Angels finished 3rd?

I'm worried about Manny's long term health due to the knees. Even after repair bad knees only get worse over time. I'd be okay with a contract into his late 20s. But I'd avoid anything longer.

[backwardsk]

rWAR says Pujols has been worth 12.7 WAR as an Angel, fWAR says 9.4. That's a surprisingly large discrepancy. By rWAR there's been a large surplus, by fWAR it's been break even. I think it's pretty easy to see that by fWAR the remaining years are likely to be a pretty big loser. By rWAR it is not so clear. However, given the backloaded nature of the deal and the inevitable effects of aging, I'd still unload the contract at the end of this season if that option were available. The question wasn't whether his overall ten year contact was worth it, but whether the remaining six years will be worth it. I'm a pretty big believer that age slows even great players, at the ages we're talking about (36-41).

The question may have evolved to whether or not the last six years of his contract will be worth it, but it started as "is the Pujols contract an albatross?" Well, it hasn't prevented to Angels from making additional commitments such as the 9 figure deals to Trout and Hamilton. And that question started from the assertion that Manny Machado would be in "no man's land" if he were to sign an 8-10 extension this offseason. My claim was that there have been a handful of examples of guys who have commanded nine figure salaries in their thirties. Then it was said that owners would stop giving out those contracts because they are utter failures. Well, there's a reasonable chance that Pujols outperforms his $240M contract he signed at 32. Machado could sign this offseason for $200M and still end up with cumulative earnings of $400M+.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

Thanks for putting the discussion back into context. I agree that if Manny was performing at an excellent level at age 32 coming off a 10-year deal, he'll still get a major payday the next time around.

[backwardsk]

I'm worried about Manny's long term health due to the knees. Even after repair bad knees only get worse over time. I'd be okay with a contract into his late 20s. But I'd avoid anything longer.

Hopefully he'll go into the HOF with an O's cap instead of the team that signs him through his 30s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TINSTAAPP]

$7 million per WAR is a ridiculous overvaluation. Are you telling me Mike Trout is worth $70 million per year? And if players are worth $7 million per WAR, it should have been a no-brainer to re-sign Markakis. He shouldn't have much problems putting up 1.5 WAR for the next four years unless his defense completely falls apart. A more accurate valuation would be something like $4 million per WAR.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm worried about Manny's long term health due to the knees. Even after repair bad knees only get worse over time. I'd be okay with a contract into his late 20s. But I'd avoid anything longer.

I guess we'll see. Barely relevant, but I'll share anyway: I had two ACL surgerys in my late 20s, one on each knee. I'm 44 and my knees have given me no problems at all since, and I'm a heck of a mediocre rec league athlete.

[DrungoHazewood]

$7 million per WAR is a ridiculous overvaluation. Are you telling me Mike Trout is worth $70 million per year? And if players are worth $7 million per WAR, it should have been a no-brainer to re-sign Markakis. He shouldn't have much problems putting up 1.5 WAR for the next four years unless his defense completely falls apart. A more accurate valuation would be something like $4 million per WAR.

$7M per WAR is what teams pay on average. If you take the salaries of all the free agents from the '13-14 offseason and divide bytheir WAR in '14 you get about $7M.

[Can_of_corn]

$7 million per WAR is a ridiculous overvaluation. Are you telling me Mike Trout is worth $70 million per year? And if players are worth $7 million per WAR, it should have been a no-brainer to re-sign Markakis. He shouldn't have much problems putting up 1.5 WAR for the next four years unless his defense completely falls apart. A more accurate valuation would be something like $4 million per WAR.

A number of projections showed Markakis declining from 2 WAR to replacement over the length of his new contract.