Heyman: Manny walked away from an 8/$64 mm deal with the O’s over a $1-2 mm difference early in his career

[weams]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So he's gone either way, no reason to get upset.

He would have been gone anyway. We traded Gausman. 

[DirtyBird]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

He would have been gone anyway. We traded Gausman. 

But we would have gotten a ton more for him if he had 3 or 4 years left at $8 million per

[Hallas]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And he's not a once in a generation talent.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/arenano01.shtml

Assuming health, I would bet that Machado ends up with substantially better career stats.  Arenado is handicapped by having started his career when he was 2.5 years older than Manny was when he started his.  Arenado is definitely in the discussion, but to me there is a big enough gap between the that I would consider Machado to be in a tier of his own.

[Tx Oriole]

26 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

If true this team is too cheap.  

Not even that actually, you empty the vault for Davis and get hung up over the amount of money that would have been wasted on a mediocre starter.  

I really don't blame Angelos on this one. Just how many millions does one player need? 

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

But we would have gotten a ton more for him if he had 3 or 4 years left at $8 million per

It would not have been broken down at 8 a year.

It would be undermarket but not that undermarket.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

Assuming health, I would bet that Machado ends up with substantially better career stats.  Arenado is handicapped by having started his career when he was 2.5 years older than Manny was when he started his.  Arenado is definitely in the discussion, but to me there is a big enough gap between the that I would consider Machado to be in a tier of his own.

I think Manny has peers and Arenado is one of them.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

I really don't blame Angelos on this one. Just how many millions does one player need? 

 

I think 8/64 looks pretty reasonable given the circumstances when the deal was discussed.

[TradeAngelos]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And he's not a once in a generation talent.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/arenano01.shtml

Oh **twice** in a generation talent 6-8 win player. We know those guys grow on trees and come around all the time. We'll just wait for the next one to come along and we will be fine. Who was the last one the Orioles found before Manny? Refresh our memories Mr I have to argue with every single thing posted on the site with semantics. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Oh **twice** in a generation talent 6-8 win player. We know those guys grow on trees and come around all the time. We'll just wait for the next one to come along and we will be fine. Who was the last one the Orioles found before Manny? Refresh our memories Mr I have to argue with every single thing posted on the site with semantics. 

I used Arenado as an example.

To me a once in a generation player is more like Trout than someone like Manny.  Manny is an exceptional player but there are other at his level.

And I will ask you what I asked earlier, if you have Manny under contract until 2021 do you keep him or trade him?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

And he's not a once in a generation talent.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/arenano01.shtml

To me the phrase once in a generation talent means once in a generation for a team, not for all of MLB.    Otherwise, it’s Trout and we can start looking for someone else in 2030 or so.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To me the phrase once in a generation talent means once in a generation for a team, not for all of MLB.    Otherwise, it’s Trout and we can start looking for someone else in 2030 or so.

Yea, I don't see their being 20-30 generation talents in the game at any point and time.

But whatever floats your boat.

[Hallas]

50 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To me the phrase once in a generation talent means once in a generation for a team, not for all of MLB.    Otherwise, it’s Trout and we can start looking for someone else in 2030 or so.

 

47 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yea, I don't see their being 20-30 generation talents in the game at any point and time.

But whatever floats your boat.

I think it's more like 1-2 per position + one or two pitchers.

That means there would be anywhere from 10-20 at any given time, +/- a few since sometimes they don't come around in regular intervals.

That would imply that there are between 60-120 "once-in-a-generation" players in the past 120 years of major league baseball.  That is about the top 1/3 to 1/6 of the hall of fame, and I think most people would agree that this subset of hall of famers all qualify as all-time greats.

[theocean]

4 hours ago, weams said:

He would have been gone anyway. We traded Gausman. 

Good point. Whether they extended Machado or not - I can't see the course of events since then being very different. He would have been traded somewhere along the line.

[theocean]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yea, I don't see their being 20-30 generation talents in the game at any point and time.

But whatever floats your boat.

Generational Talent: the "Is he an elite quarterback?" of baseball.

[Rene88]

Give it up...