Chris Davis 2019 and beyond

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

15 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Over his last 21 at bats, .316/.381/.474 for an .855 OPS.

Of course the BABIP is at .500 so this is a mirage.  

Slugging percentage is still low for a hot streak. 

[Moose Milligan]

35 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Slugging percentage is still low for a hot streak. 

Picky one, aren't you?

[makoman]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because of the time value of money deferring some to points far in the future makes the present value less.  I remember doing some math when the Davis deal was signed, and because of the deferred money its value was the equivalent of a straight seven-year deal worth $130M instead of $160M, or something like that.  I'm sure that was part of the appeal of the Bobby Bonilla deal, too. People are all "haha the Mets are still paying a guy who retired 20 years ago, suckers!" When it's really "haha, the Mets could have paid Bonilla all the money up front, but they saved probably tens of millions by keeping most of it and doling it out a (relative) little at a time forever."

I think the Bobby Bo deal gives him 8% interest. Not too shabby. Davis is just straight deferral with no interest. 

[Frobby]

56 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Over his last 21 at bats, .316/.381/.474 for an .855 OPS.

Of course the BABIP is at .500 so this is a mirage.  

I have mixed feelings about Davis showing any sign of a pulse.   He still struck out 8 times in those 21 PA.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I have mixed feelings about Davis showing any sign of a pulse.   He still struck out 8 times in those 21 PA.

Yeah he might have just bought himself another month or whatever. 

I think any small hope that he could be released during the ASB was just erased.  

[Maverick Hiker]

7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'll tell you what I tell my kids... if you're bored, we'll find you some work to do.

LOL. Also  if he finds it so boring he is free to go elsewhere. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yeah he might have just bought himself another month or whatever. 

I think any small hope that he could be released during the ASB was just erased.  

Oh, I don’t think this “streak” has moved the needle on that score.   They’ll either release him or they won’t, but this shouldn’t matter.   

[Maverick Hiker]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There are pluses and minuses to making MLB more like other North American sports.  There's an argument that the lower percentage of revenues is because of MLB's vast minor league systems, which leads me to wonder if having vast minor league systems make sense.  The shared TV revenue seems like a good idea, but many teams have established long-term agreements that are of great benefit to them; you would have to convince them to give up massive amounts of revenue, with a hit to their bottom line and franchise values.  A hard cap and a floor sometimes sounds good, but the cap would probably be high enough so that it only impacts a few teams, and a floor keeps the O's from really doing an accelerated rebuild.  A floor basically forces them to an atomic-style rebuild, where they sign Kevin Millars and Jay Paytons every offseason to meet the floor number. 

I'm not against earlier free agency.  What I really like is how I understand the NHL does it - you're a free agent at 28.  Or 27 or something.  None of this stuff where a guy doesn't get established until he's in his late 20s and is basically retired before he hits free agency.

I really don't get the appeal of eliminating long contracts.  Contracts will be loosely based on market value.  If you say that no contract can be more than five years you're basically telling everyone the average annual value has to go up.  Instead of Harper signing a 10-330 deal, he'd sign a 5/250 deal.  And this might eliminate the deferred money that helps smaller market teams afford big deals.  Capping contract lengths is just a way to keep owners from going overboard. An alternate solution would be to have owners and management make better decisions.

Ideally MLB should just go back to a 1960's- early 70's type of structure. NO free agency at all would , solve a lot of these problems.

The Orioles of 1968 would not have given a player like Chris Davis a contract that would pay him over a million dollars a year into his 50's.  They would not have had to worry about him walking out the door and signing with another team.

 The 1968 Orioles would've offered him a fair  but not a ridiculous contract, and if Davis didn't like it he has the option of holding out for more money (Like Koufax and Drysdale did one year, it worked for them as I recall).  Or he could always walk out of MLB.  But players wouldn't quit t because they made far more in MLB even in the 60's than they could have made elsewhere.

Free agency is the root of the cause of so many problems in MLB.  

*Contracts like Davis' are unfair to the teams, the owners,  and especially  to the fans who end up paying for it. Also free agency favors the big market teams who can afford free agents and who. can afford to keep their home gown talent.  

*Free agency means players can walk out on hometown fans, in the old days there was much more affection for players who stayed their whole career and the fans would know their strengths, weaknesses, even their gait. 

*Outrageous contracts have raised the ante for players to succeed at all costs, and if that includes going on the juice (steroids or HGH) the richest players can afford to get the best stuff which can't be detected.  

All these and more  problems can be traced to free agency.  If the MLBPA won't budge then the owners could sit out a strike until they do.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Ideally MLB should just go back to a 1960's- early 70's type of structure. NO free agency at all would , solve a lot of these problems.

The Orioles of 1968 would not have given a player like Chris Davis a contract that would pay him over a million dollars a year into his 50's.  They would not have had to worry about him walking out the door and signing with another team.

 The 1968 Orioles would've offered him a fair  but not a ridiculous contract, and if Davis didn't like it he has the option of holding out for more money (Like Koufax and Drysdale did one year, it worked for them as I recall).  Or he could always walk out of MLB.  But players wouldn't quit t because they made far more in MLB even in the 60's than they could have made elsewhere.

Free agency is the root of the cause of so many problems in MLB.  

*Contracts like Davis' are unfair to the teams, the owners,  and especially  to the fans who end up paying for it. Also free agency favors the big market teams who can afford free agents and who. can afford to keep their home gown talent.  

*Free agency means players can walk out on hometown fans, in the old days there was much more affection for players who stayed their whole career and the fans would know their strengths, weaknesses, even their gait. 

*Outrageous contracts have raised the ante for players to succeed at all costs, and if that includes going on the juice (steroids or HGH) the richest players can afford to get the best stuff which can't be detected.  

All these and more  problems can be traced to free agency.  If the MLBPA won't budge then the owners could sit out a strike until they do.  

 

So you want to increase the profits the Yankees make by 200M a year?

How about you quarter every teams draft pool while you are at it?  If Adley doesn't like a 2M signing bonus he can go play in Japan.

[OFFNY]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Yes, it's vastly easier to keep a group of guys together when management has complete and total say over how long a player is on the team. Owners usually had no qualms over giving a player a significant pay cut for perceived lack of production, or releasing or trading him after many years on the team.  Did anyone ask Frank if he wanted to go to Baltimore after 13 years in the Reds' organization? Of course not, he's a ballplayer, he does what he's told or he can go dig ditches. Never mind that he and his family were long-established in the Cincinnati community and his excellent play sold hundreds of thousands if not millions of tickets.  He should take his $57,000 a year and like it.

 

o

 

The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems.

 

Billy Joel, 1983

 

o

[foxfield]

58 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems.

 

Billy Joel, 1983

 

o

So we're just keeping the faith!

[ThomasTomasz]

3 hours ago, makoman said:

I think the Bobby Bo deal gives him 8% interest. Not too shabby. Davis is just straight deferral with no interest. 

Thats what all of the deferred money is now.  The Nationals deferred money to Scherzer, Strasburg and Corbin is all no interest, as was their second offer to Harper.  

[OFFNY]

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Yes, it's vastly easier to keep a group of guys together when management has complete and total say over how long a player is on the team. Owners usually had no qualms over giving a player a significant pay cut for perceived lack of production, or releasing or trading him after many years on the team. Did anyone ask Frank if he wanted to go to Baltimore after 13 years in the Reds' organization? Of course not, he's a ballplayer, he does what he's told or he can go dig ditches. Never mind that he and his family were long-established in the Cincinnati community and his excellent play sold hundreds of thousands if not millions of tickets. He should take his $57,000 a year and like it.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems.

 

Billy Joel, 1983

 

o

o

 

Joe DiMaggio had several salary holdouts when he played for the Yankees. In the first of these disputes, not only did the Yankees not give him a dime more than their original $25,000 offer, but they fined him $100 per day for each day that he held out in Spring Training.

DiMaggio eventually cracked, and reported to Spring Training for the Yankees' original offer (minus the several hundred dollars that Yankee management fined him for the missed days.)

 

o

[LA2]

11 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because of the time value of money deferring some to points far in the future makes the present value less.  I remember doing some math when the Davis deal was signed, and because of the deferred money its value was the equivalent of a straight seven-year deal worth $130M instead of $160M, or something like that.  I'm sure that was part of the appeal of the Bobby Bonilla deal, too. People are all "haha the Mets are still paying a guy who retired 20 years ago, suckers!" When it's really "haha, the Mets could have paid Bonilla all the money up front, but they saved probably tens of millions by keeping most of it and doling it out a (relative) little at a time forever."

I recall and agree. But my point was merely this (and hardly worth stating): the O's weren't pressured by time or competing offers to rush into the contract. The details they worked out, such as the one you explain above, show it was a fully conscious, careful consideration that also shows just how misguided, imperceptive and foolish the O's were. It just should not have happened at all, as we all here already know, and they don't seem to have entertained that obvious thought at all.

[LA2]

11 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because of the time value of money deferring some to points far in the future makes the present value less.  I remember doing some math when the Davis deal was signed, and because of the deferred money its value was the equivalent of a straight seven-year deal worth $130M instead of $160M, or something like that.  I'm sure that was part of the appeal of the Bobby Bonilla deal, too. People are all "haha the Mets are still paying a guy who retired 20 years ago, suckers!" When it's really "haha, the Mets could have paid Bonilla all the money up front, but they saved probably tens of millions by keeping most of it and doling it out a (relative) little at a time forever."

I recall and agree. But my point was merely this (and hardly worth stating): the O's weren't pressured by time or competing offers to rush into the contract. The details they worked out, such as the one you explain above, show it was a fully conscious, careful consideration that also shows just how misguided, imperceptive and foolish the O's were. It just should not have happened at all, as we all here already know, and they don't seem to have entertained that obvious thought at all. And they had already signed up Trumbo: What the H were they thinking? And yet they were thinking.