Master Index of Archived Threads


Harper and Machado

Gwreck Feb 12 2019 04:53 PM

So, spring training's started and no other team has yet capitalized on the Mets' failure to sign one of the two 26 year old free agent superstars available for nothing else other than a big pile of cash. The good news is there's still a chance to right this error. And perhaps even with some negotiating leverage. Let's offer both of them a 4 year deal, with opt-outs after year 2 and year 3, at, say, $40M a year. Hurry, Brody.

MFS62 Feb 12 2019 05:36 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Harper's agent has said he won't take a "short term" deal. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/bryce-harper-rumors-free-agent-slugger-wont-consider-short-term-contract-offers-from-suitors/ But its Boras, so maybe that's posturing. Of course, he has also had one of his clients sit out a year, so who knows? Later

Frayed Knot Feb 12 2019 07:04 PM Re: Harper and Machado

So Harper/Boras have rejected (at least one) long-term deal and say they won't accept a short-term one? Tough to claim collusion with that mind-set.

Edgy MD Feb 12 2019 08:59 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money.

nymr83 Feb 12 2019 10:58 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie?

Edgy MD Feb 13 2019 06:19 AM Re: Harper and Machado

1) There's a much bigger pie than we know about. 2) If Bryce Harper costs $40 million for 6-7.5 wins and Brandon Nimmo costs $1.5 million for 4-5.5 wins, most sensible GMs are going to go with Nimmo and try to use the huge among of savings to make up the difference at other positions. If Brandon Nimmo costs $20 million (or whatever the free market says he's worth, after all those sensible GMs bid him up), the calculation is very different. A bunch of those teams are going to be more interested in Harper.

86dreamer Feb 13 2019 06:57 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: 1) There's a much bigger pie than we know about. 2) If Bryce Harper costs $40 million for 6-7.5 wins and Brandon Nimmo costs $1.5 million for 4-5.5 wins, most sensible GMs are going to go with Nimmo and try to use the huge among of savings to make up the difference at other positions. If Brandon Nimmo costs $20 million (or whatever the free market says he's worth, after all those sensible GMs bid him up), the calculation is very different. A bunch of those teams are going to be more interested in Harper. that is an insightful observation.

Centerfield Feb 13 2019 08:33 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Frayed Knot wrote: So Harper/Boras have rejected (at least one) long-term deal and say they won't accept a short-term one? Tough to claim collusion with that mind-set. I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Bryce Harper is one of the elite players in the game. For his entire career, his salary has been artificially suppressed and he's been under team control. Now that he's a free agent, he should be getting long term offers from every team, with the exception of those that already have an outfield full of elite players. (Maybe 2-3 teams tops) We all kinda laughed when Fred talked about "meaningful games in September". But really, that's all owners want now. Before the wild card, if you wanted to make the post-season, your goal had to be the mid 90's in wins. In the 10 years before the '94 strike, the NL East Champion won 95+ games in 9 of 10 years. They went 100+ 3 times. An 86 win team was going to get you nowhere. But now with the Wild Card (and certainly with 2 Wild Cards) an 86 win team can conceivably stay in the race until the end, and even sneak in from time to time. There is little incentive for owners to go beyond this. And with the revenue sharing and TV money contracts making ticket sales less and less relevant...well that's how we end up here. The only thing working to keep owners in check was that they somehow had to save face. It's hard to stand in front of fans and say "Well, we've crunched the numbers and frankly winning isn't worth it so, um. (shrug)" Which is where the efforts at salary suppression come into play in the form of several well accepted lies. 1. "We can't afford them! Only big market teams can afford to pay these big salaries!" Bullshit has been called on that. There are articles about the incredible spike in revenues seen by MLB. The owners are raking in more than they ever have and are spending less and less, percentage-wise, on player salaries. Player salaries are splashed all over the news, but the boatloads of profits owners pocket are kept far away from the eyes of the public. Remember, every team got a $50 million revenue sharing check for doing nothing last year. 2. Analytics. Sure. Generally players in their 30s aren't as valuable as players in their 20s. But that doesn't mean that they're not valuable. Certainly paying older players is better than putting that money in the owners' pocket. But somehow this is used as evidence that owners have gotten "smart". And worse, fans that buy into this think they're smart. It's idiotic. Keith Law tweeted the other day that "analytics" say you should sign Bryce Harper. And I get that there are some guys who hit free agency later, and the analytics say they're not worth it. I get that. But a system is broken if owners get to suppress salaries during a player's prime, then brush them aside when they finally hit the open market. Like Edgy says, get rid of team-controlled years and then a lot of this fixes itself. 3. "We're rebuilding." I've already addressed this myth in a separate thread. Bullshit. You can rebuild and still put a competitive team on the field. No need to tank and lose 100 games. If the union were smart, they'd take away this excuse to put a shit team on the field. 4. The bias of fans against highly paid players. This one isn't a lie so much as it is a pre-exisiting Joe Bloggs mentality to be jealous of highly paid ballplayers. But man do the owners take advantage of it. "Who wants to root for Bryce Moneybags, the spoiled rich superstar and his gold chains? Come root for our underdog team, with Scrappy McHustle and Jimmy PreArbitration!" You saw it last year. The insinuations that somehow Cespedes was dogging it while keeping his heel situation private. It's sickening.

dgwphotography Feb 13 2019 11:18 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Oh please. "the bonds of controlled salaries"? Maybe you can put out a late night ad like ASPCA - "for only $20 a month, you too can help these poor suffering, underpaid ballplayers..."

Frayed Knot Feb 13 2019 12:14 PM Re: Harper and Machado

I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. Harper, by announcing goals of $400 million ("and why stop there?") ahead of time, rejecting an offer of $300 right out of the gate, and now announcing that he won't accept short(er) offers, has effectively eliminated potential employers. Machado, according to his father, has "four or five" firm offers and that statement goes back at least a month now. But he too is holding out for something different than what he's already heard. In fact I suspect that each one is, in effect, in competition with the other so as to "win" the FA season meaning the waiting has as much to do with the other player as it does with the various teams. All perfectly within each of their rights of course, but the definition of collusion doesn't involve a situation where you don't get everything you want, when you want it, and in your choice of colors. Bottom line is, it's tough to make the case that the top two FAs being unsigned at this late date points to a "broken" system (acc to Justin Verlander) when each has either rejected, or is currently sitting on, multiple options. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. The rest is essentially explaining why the system should be different going forward than it is now, something that's fine with me but that doesn't have any bearing on this particular off-season.

Frayed Knot Feb 13 2019 12:14 PM Re: Harper and Machado

I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. Harper, by announcing goals of $400 million ("and why stop there?") ahead of time, rejecting an offer of $300 right out of the gate, and now announcing that you won't accept short(er) offers, has effectively eliminated potential employers. Machado, according to his father, has "four or five" firm offers and that statement goes back at least a month now. But he too is holding out for something different than what he's already heard. In fact I suspect that each one is, in effect, in competition with the other so as to "win" the FA season meaning the waiting has as much to do with the other player as it does with the various teams. All perfectly within each of their rights of course, but the definition of collusion doesn't involve a situation where you don't get everything you want, when you want it, and in your choice of colors. Bottom line is, it's tough to make the case that the top two FAs being unsigned at this late date points to a "broken" system (acc to Justin Verlander) when each has either rejected, or is currently sitting on, multiple options. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. The rest is essentially explaining why the system should be different going forward than it is now, something that's fine with me but that doesn't have any bearing on this particular off-season.

Centerfield Feb 13 2019 01:04 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. Harper, by announcing goals of $400 million ("and why stop there?") ahead of time, rejecting an offer of $300 right out of the gate, and now announcing that he won't accept short(er) offers, has effectively eliminated potential employers. Machado, according to his father, has "four or five" firm offers and that statement goes back at least a month now. But he too is holding out for something different than what he's already heard. In fact I suspect that each one is, in effect, in competition with the other so as to "win" the FA season meaning the waiting has as much to do with the other player as it does with the various teams. All perfectly within each of their rights of course, but the definition of collusion doesn't involve a situation where you don't get everything you want, when you want it, and in your choice of colors. Bottom line is, it's tough to make the case that the top two FAs being unsigned at this late date points to a "broken" system (acc to Justin Verlander) when each has either rejected, or is currently sitting on, multiple options. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. The rest is essentially explaining why the system should be different going forward than it is now, something that's fine with me but that doesn't have any bearing on this particular off-season. Your points, in order: Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. I specifically said I don't think there was a secret meeting about Harper. I guess I didn't mention it specifically, but to clarify, I don't think there have been any meetings about Machado either. I have no idea if there is any truth to these rumored offers or where things stand with either of these two. So I have no idea if the general trend I was speaking of has manifested itself with these two or not. But a general trend doesn't have to manifest itself in any one instance. (Like the way individual cold days don't mean there hasn't been a general warming trend). But there is, unquestionably, a smaller market for free agents in recent years. And the reasons that I state above are why I think it's happening. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. I don't think teams, or specifically owners, are dumb. In fact, I said they have made a series of shrewd moves to put themselves in this situation. This situation where their revenues are soaring but players' salaries are not growing proportionately. And I don't know if looking to maximize profits qualifies as "evil". I think that's just business. But it's important for fans to understand that owners are not on their side. The only thing that I guess comes close to evil is when the Mets publicly assailed Cespedes' dedication when they knew he was dealing with a crippling heel condition. And that gutless move was limited to our owners. I don't know if other owners similarly throw their players under the bus to sway public opinion.

smg58 Feb 13 2019 01:54 PM Re: Harper and Machado

There are a lot of unsigned players. Harper and Machado are obviously getting the most attention, but the list is actually pretty long.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2019 02:38 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Oh please. "the bonds of controlled salaries"? Maybe you can put out a late night ad like ASPCA - "for only $20 a month, you too can help these poor suffering, underpaid ballplayers..." I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. Artificial controls on the market screw everything up. That's a conservative principle, or at least it used to be. Disallowing players from selling their skills on the open market, thereby restricting them to a nickel on the dollar for what they're worth, is wrong, and billionaires exploit it every day. Apart from that, the salaries of minor league players is nothing short of criminal. It led Ty Kelly and Matt Paré, along with Hunter Pence, to create just such a commercial. [YOUTUBE]xx6Zj7gVSR0[/YOUTUBE] It damages baseball top to bottom.

Centerfield Feb 13 2019 02:40 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Oh please. "the bonds of controlled salaries"? Maybe you can put out a late night ad like ASPCA - "for only $20 a month, you too can help these poor suffering, underpaid ballplayers..." Nobody is saying the ballplayers need a fundraiser. Or any money from the general public. The argument is that young MLB ballplayers should get more of the profits generated by their sport and billionaire owners should get less. MLB is comprised of the top 750 players in the world. They are the elite of the elite. Imagine telling anyone from another field "Hey I know you're the greatest X in the whole world, but for 6 years, you have to work for this company, in this city and you'll be paid a fraction of what you'd make on the open market." Everyone always says "I can't believe these ballplayers. Making $20 million a year and they're still not happy. I'd play for half of that." And while that may be true, no one ever says "I can't believe these owners. Making $100 million a year and they're still not happy. I'd own a team for half of that."

Frayed Knot Feb 13 2019 03:08 PM Re: Harper and Machado Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 13 2019 05:18 PM

But there is, unquestionably, a smaller market for free agents in recent years. And the reasons that I state above are why I think it's happening. But you also used the term "collective effort" which to me implies a degree of planning/tacit agreements/collusion which I don't believe exists. The problem with pacts like that is if just a few members refuse to go along it all falls apart and here there are clearly teams in the mix for both these guys making this FA period not even close to that of the late '80s when everyone was in lock-step. And the one reason you didn't state is simply that some clubs just don't think it's a very good idea to sign players, no matter what their age, to such long-term/big-money deals. MOST such deals in recent years (even among top players: Pujols, Cabrera) have wound up with the signing club regretting it and even the ones signed to players in their 20's (ARod, Stanton) resulted in the team wanting out from under it before the contract was 1/3 over. Not that every deal HAS to wind up that way but I think clubs opting to either tread lightly (the Yanquis are "monitoring" the Machado situation) or stay away completely can be justified in their own minds. And, yeah, if they opt to spend their money not on the high-ticket player but rather spread that same cash around more the result is likely to be a rise in total salaries that's less steep as compared to recent years. But that's happened before without it being a crisis as not every trend moves in a straight or predictable line. Back when ARod first signed his Texas deal I thought there was no way he'd actually invoke his (then novel) opt-out clause because he was so far ahead of the market that even several years into the deal no other contract had come close to matching his. But by years 5 & 6 the market started to do just that and he DID wind up opting out and was able to essentially duplicate the deal seven years later. Not surprisingly, the team that signed him to that one came to regret it as well - although there were a whole host of reasons for that one (as there always are). I don't think teams, or specifically owners, are dumb. In fact, I said they have made a series of shrewd moves to put themselves in this situation. This situation where their revenues are soaring but players' salaries are not growing proportionately. And I don't know if looking to maximize profits qualifies as "evil". I think that's just business. But it's important for fans to understand that owners are not on their side. Well the 'dumb' part comes from the idea that signing these players is a known 'Win-Win' for the owners but that they're too stupid to realize it. And the 'evil' part is the idea that they can all well afford it but simply choose not to because they'd rather lose (or be mediocre) and make $50 million than win and only make $30 (not that I believe those are actual numbers but am just illustrating a point). You're free to argue that they're wrong in their thinking, and they well may be, but I don't think there's the degree of malice in their decisions (we'll take 'dumb' and 'evil' and combine them into 'malice') that you seem to believe. Bottom line: not every short-term trend is the result of a long-term problem. In addition to Verlander calling the system "broken" the other day, one player (Neshak, I think) was recently quoted as saying "we signed a bad CBA last time". Well it was the same CBA they were happy with until right around this time last year. They're upset with FA compensation rules but those were actually lessened in the current agreement as compared to the previous. Draft rules were skewed more towards the owners at the expense of amateurs but the union has never shown any interest towards non-dues-paying players anyway so they've got no quarrel there. FA and arbitration rules have remained virtually unchanged for years now and the players weren't complaining until now. What's changed in the last year or two is the owners' evaluation of some of these topics. So if this cautiousness over older and/or big ticket FAs continues then it seems to me that the players are going to need to focus their attention more on adjusting the early career restrictions rather than judging their success solely by how high the ceiling got jacked up each year and hoping that the rising tide lifted the rest of the boats. And that's what CBA negotiations are all about. It could be worse. They could be the football union which signs shitty deals that they know are shitty when they sign them and yet do so in Ten-Year agreements that they are then stuck hating. As it is, the MLBPA will survive quite nicely during the next (two?) seasons under this deal which they didn't seem to hate until it was half over and then be part of the process which tries to correct what they don't like.

nymr83 Feb 13 2019 03:38 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: 1) There's a much bigger pie than we know about. 2) If Bryce Harper costs $40 million for 6-7.5 wins and Brandon Nimmo costs $1.5 million for 4-5.5 wins, most sensible GMs are going to go with Nimmo and try to use the huge among of savings to make up the difference at other positions. If Brandon Nimmo costs $20 million (or whatever the free market says he's worth, after all those sensible GMs bid him up), the calculation is very different. A bunch of those teams are going to be more interested in Harper. I completely disagree that it would work this way. yes, there are likely far greater profits than the owners are admitting to - a great potential pie. But each team decides how much of that revenue they want to spend and that calculation isnt going to magically change because you want it to. an owner who brings in 500 million with non-salary expenses of 200 million who wants to spend 150 million and profit 150 million is going to continue to do so.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2019 04:54 PM Re: Harper and Machado

=nymr83 post_id=2862 time=1550097506 user_id=54]I completely disagree that it would work this way.

Oh, completely? OK.


=nymr83 post_id=2862 time=1550097506 user_id=54]But each team decides how much of that revenue they want to spend and that calculation isnt going to magically change because you want it to.
Listen, I'm really sorry about peeing on your lawn. I was young, I was drunk and I wasn't even aware of where I was. That's on me, and I regret it. But it's been years now.

RealityChuck Feb 14 2019 07:08 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. When Charles Finley suggested this to the owners when free agency first came up, Marvin Miller of the Player's Association got nightmares. Luckily for the players, the owners didn't grasp that it would save them money. The other issue is that it would mean the end of the minor leagues. What team is going to sign a high school or college player to a contract when they don't get any benefit from it? The player always could be a bust, but now you risk losing him as soon as he shows sign of success. Most minor league teams need MLB support to stay in business and it's very likely that will be reduced.

nymr83 Feb 14 2019 09:40 AM Re: Harper and Machado

There are definitely larger issues with the CBA and amateurs. Any union, be it the MLBPA, the NFLPA, or United Auto Workers (UAW) negotiates with management not just on behalf of current employees, but on behalf of potential future employees as well. There is some, but very little, conflict of interest when the UAW negotiates with Ford a deal that says "all new workers get $15/hour next year" because presumably everyone hired subject to those terms will immediately become union members and can vote union leadership out if they feel they have been fucked over. The same is basically true in the NFL. Baseball is a whole different story - the MLBPA agrees to things on behalf of a class of future employees - minor leaguers - who will never actually become members of their union! those that do (future major leaguers) will be incentivized to continue voting for leadership to screw the 85% who never make it out of the minors.

Centerfield Feb 14 2019 09:44 AM Re: Harper and Machado

This article is about the Braves, who, thankfully, have spent even less than the Mets. But a lot of the same principles apply and better illustrates some of the thoughts I'm trying to convey. https://sports.yahoo.com/braves-think-fans-idiots-150337296.html

nymr83 Feb 14 2019 10:36 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Of course if the braves spent more, and the mets spent more and everyone else spent more - every team would be exactly where they are now in terms of wins and talent. But the ticket prices would be higher. The argument for the Mets is that its NY and there shoyld be enough revenue to outspend these other teams, not spend more with them

Centerfield Feb 14 2019 11:01 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Yes, agreed on that. The Mets should be able to outspend Atlanta and really, every other city. But the article touches on my feelings on how owners collectively view things. That they're a business first and that it's better to make money while losing baseball games than to lose money under any circumstances. Books have been written about that and the business of baseball is best understood if you view it through that lens as well. There have been some crazy, loose cannon owners who seem to not care about how much money a team makes as long as the team wins — the Braves, actually, used to have one (link to Ted Turner) — but they are exceptions to the rule, historically, and as of now none seem to exist.

metsmarathon Feb 14 2019 11:04 AM Re: Harper and Machado

=nymr83 post_id=2900 time=1550165819 user_id=54] Of course if the braves spent more, and the mets spent more and everyone else spent more - every team would be exactly where they are now in terms of wins and talent. But the ticket prices would be higher. The argument for the Mets is that its NY and there shoyld be enough revenue to outspend these other teams, not spend more with them

higher ticket prices aren't driven by player salaries. they are driven by our collective willingness to pay them.

seawolf17 Feb 14 2019 11:08 AM Re: Harper and Machado

=metsmarathon post_id=2908 time=1550167458 user_id=83]higher ticket prices aren't driven by player salaries. they are driven by our collective willingness to pay them.

Absolutely. The only way to drop ticket prices is if nobody buys tickets. That's why there are have been so many deals in August and September the last few years at Citi Field.

nymr83 Feb 14 2019 11:44 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Face value would be higher for those 10% of games where they dont end up on sale. But that wasnt my main point. My main point was if ALL the teams heeded the call for "more spending" the Mets wouldn'f get any better

Vic Sage Feb 16 2019 03:33 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Face value would be higher for those 10% of games where they dont end up on sale. But that wasnt my main point. My main point was if ALL the teams heeded the call for "more spending" the Mets wouldn'f get any better I realize it isn't your main point ,but your secondary point is still incorrect. Price is determined by demand and elasticity of the market, not by an incremental increase in payroll. If they could charge more for tickets without reducing overall demand, they would do so, regardless of payroll costs. In fact, if they found a way to cut payroll in half, do you really think ticket prices would then go DOWN? Its not like they're operating with a small margin. media money and revenue sharing has made payroll a non-issue.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2019 05:19 AM Re: Harper and Machado

Reports are that Harper is pretty unenthusiastic about the idea of being a Phillie. Doesn't mean he won't sign there (Beltran didn't really want to be a Met, as I recall) but it keeps hope alive for the Giants, Padres, and White Sox.

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2019 05:53 AM Re: Harper and Machado

The Giants are reportedly in it for the short-term - although as a rebuilding team under a lame-duck manager you wonder what the appeal would be to the player. I wonder if Harper/Boras would take, say, a two year deal and then try doing this dance all over again under a maybe more player-friendly CBA And then there's always the Nationals. Supposedly their initial 10/300 deal, one they made before the FA period even started, is no longer on the table. But Boras has done a ton of deals with Washington over the years and it's often been over the head of the GM and directly with the owners which means there's always the possibility of going back to the Lerner family and saying: 'Look, just make it [20 mil, 10 mil, hell, one dollar] more than the Machado/SD deal and we'll be in camp tomorrow'.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2019 06:07 AM Re: Harper and Machado

There's little in baseball more entertaining than an under-enthusiastic Bryce Harper, his manager going through a week-long slow burn, infuriated but restrained by the reality that the team has far more invested in Harper than they have in him.

kcmets Feb 28 2019 12:58 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Multiple sources per MLB channel ticker that it's Harper to Phillies.

dgwphotography Feb 28 2019 01:00 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Well, I posted in the wrong thread...

kcmets Feb 28 2019 01:04 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Lol, you musta posted that while I was digging up this thread from page 3.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 28 2019 01:11 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Wild. 13 years/$330M, no opt-outs. Signed through age 38 season.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 28 2019 01:19 PM Re: Harper and Machado

That's an average value of $25.385 million. I guess we have to hope that he turns out to be what Jason Bay was for the Mets.

Lefty Specialist Feb 28 2019 01:24 PM Re: Harper and Machado

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Wild. 13 years/$330M, no opt-outs. Signed through age 38 season. Oof. Trapped in Philly for 13 years. That's like a prison sentence. A luxurious prison, no doubt, but still. If healthy, he'll hit 40 homers a year indefinitely.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 28 2019 01:28 PM Re: Harper and Machado

that $25M per year is not so outrageous in the end. Phils obv have to pay him 4 or 5 years when he's decidedly post-prime, but what is $25M in 2030 gonna be anyway? Seems a good deal for both.

Frayed Knot Feb 28 2019 01:31 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Weird that, after all that waiting, he opts for a longer deal -- one where I guess both he and Boras can [CROSSOUT]claim[/CROSSOUT] brag is the biggest deal ever in terms of total dollars -- but for an AAV that's lower than several existing contracts such as Machado, Arenado, Scherzer, Cabrera (just off the top of my head). Not sure I'd see going from 10/$300 (the Nats initial offer) to 13/$330 as worth five months of dillying, haggling, and flying coast to coast for meetings in the end, but if that's what he wanted then muzzle tuff.

Edgy MD Feb 28 2019 01:42 PM Re: Harper and Machado

And the Nats claimed (for whatever that's worth) that they upped the 10-$300 offer substantially.

41Forever Feb 28 2019 01:53 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Frayed Knot wrote: Not sure I'd see going from 10/$300 (the Nats initial offer) to 13/$330 as worth five months of dillying, haggling, and flying coast to coast for meetings in the end, but if that's what he wanted then muzzle tuff. And the threats of labor unrest.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 28 2019 02:12 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Thirteen years from now, $25M will very likely be worth less than $10M in today's dollars. Plus, owners are counting on an ever increasing revenue stream. So 13 years from now, a player who's the equivalent of Steven Matz will probably be making $25M a year in MLB.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 28 2019 02:59 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Internet abuzz with reports that Bryce turned down a shorter deal with a $45M AAV. That's insane. Would Harper have been leery to re-enter the market in, say 4 years, at 30 years old after bagging $180M? That he wanted security for 13 years instead sez to me that even the upper echelon players are wary of hitting free agency anywhere near 30 years old and up.

Willets Point Feb 28 2019 03:01 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Reminds me of the W.C. Fields quip: "First prize was a week in Philadelphia. Second prize was two weeks." This must be like 676th prize.

metsmarathon Feb 28 2019 03:13 PM Re: Harper and Machado

I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies. Also should take them out of the mike trout sweepstakes

batmagadanleadoff Feb 28 2019 03:30 PM Re: Harper and Machado

=metsmarathon post_id=3589 time=1551392026 user_id=83] I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies. Also should take them out of the mike trout sweepstakes

At least the Phillies won't have to worry about the Mets signing Mike Trout.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 28 2019 03:47 PM Re: Harper and Machado

I don't know. That $25M won't be outrageously restrictive. I read somewhere that as of now, they're still $70-something million under the luxury tax.

Centerfield Feb 28 2019 05:59 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Philly has Nola and Harper locked up long term. Anything can happen, but they have a good chance to be good for a long time. This is shitty.

MFS62 Feb 28 2019 06:47 PM Re: Harper and Machado

And when this contract expires, Bobby Bonilla will still have 4 years to go on his. If I'm still around then, I'll be grousing about that.(although it will be player's pocket change by then) "Kiddies, I remember when .... " Later

Frayed Knot Feb 28 2019 06:52 PM Re: Harper and Machado

I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments

Fman99 Feb 28 2019 09:03 PM Re: Harper and Machado

=metsmarathon post_id=3589 time=1551392026 user_id=83] I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies.

This is more or less how I'm going with it. I prefer to imagine Mike Trout in a Mets uni, personally.

nymr83 Feb 28 2019 09:39 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments its a Madoff thing.

kcmets Mar 01 2019 06:05 AM Re: Harper and Machado

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3585 time=1551388374 user_id=68]Thirteen years from now, $25M will very likely be worth less than $10M in today's dollars.

I dunno, I think the annual average rate of inflation over the past fifteen years

or so is like 2.25% but I always have had trouble with the time value of money

and all that stuff.

41Forever Mar 02 2019 09:46 AM Re: Harper and Machado

My buddy is convinced that Machado will be an MFY in a couple years, when they're done with Tulo and the Padres are looking to get out from under that contract.

smg58 Mar 02 2019 01:31 PM Re: Harper and Machado

The Yankees are welcome to have Machado's down years. The Padres may have a tough time affording Machado and the escalating arbitrated contracts their top prospects will likely eventually get, but it's five years before that is even a concern. It's certainly true that if revenues keep going up, $25M won't look even a little bit prohibitive in a decade for a high-end player. Even if Harper plays more like the last three seasons than like 2015, it's not going to be an albatross. An injury that compromises his play long-term would render all bets off, though.

Edgy MD Mar 02 2019 01:34 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments its a Madoff thing. How so?

nymr83 Mar 02 2019 08:50 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments its a Madoff thing. How so? The Wilpons would never have given out such a generous deferment if they didn't believe they would continue receiving an even greater return on their durty Madoff money. [url]http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/16650867/why-mets-pay-bobby-bonilla-119-million-today-every-july-1-2035 The Mets have never really talked about the deal, but it is well known that their owners, the Wilpons, had many accounts with investor Bernie Madoff. Madoff was returning 12 to 15 percent a year in what we now know were fictional returns. So deferring deals wasn't a problem because the payout would occur years later and the interest rate would be lower than the money they were (fictionally) getting back from Madoff. To see the deal as the Mets would have seen it, let's say the Wilpons put $5.9 million into a Madoff account in 2000 and got a conservative (by Madoff standards) 10 percent annual return. By 2011, when they would have to pay Bonilla for the first time, they would have already grown their pot to $16.83 million. Even with paying off Bonilla every year, they would wind up with a $49 million profit on the deal. Of course, the Madoff returns weren't real, which complicates this hindsight.

41Forever Mar 03 2019 10:37 AM Re: Harper and Machado

[url]https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/see-it-noah-syndergaard-pokes-fun-at-bryce-harpers-bring-a-title-back-to-dc-slip-up/304692022 Oops. Bryce having a little trouble with the transition to Philly.

Edgy MD Mar 03 2019 01:55 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. I'm not sure when or how 10 or 20 elite players became or would become simultaneously available, but this isn't how supply and demand work. If it was, teams wouldn't be forcing players to stay in reserve, available to one team until they've completed six major league seasons.

nymr83 Mar 03 2019 04:51 PM Re: Harper and Machado

If each team thought THEIR amateur talent evaluation was exactly average then it would be a wash to them. I'm guessing each team thinks they can do better over the long run.

RealityChuck Mar 03 2019 06:01 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Edgy MD wrote: Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. I'm not sure when or how 10 or 20 elite players became or would become simultaneously available, but this isn't how supply and demand work. It's exactly how supply and demand works. If there is one item and multiple people wanting it, it drives the price up due to scarcity (small supply, big demand). Think of deBeers, which limits the supply to keep the price of diamonds up. The current rules and practices make it unlikely that multiple impact players are available. But if you granted free agency to the younger players, the supply would increase. Look at Harper. Several teams fought to get him, raising his price. He could say, "You're only giving me $100 million; Team B wants to give me $150 million. You've got to do better." And the team has to decide to match or beat the other bid. Now if there were four players the equivalent of Harper, then the teams have the whip hand. "$100 million? We can get player B for $85 million."

Edgy MD Mar 03 2019 06:17 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Maybe it isn't clear what I've tried to write. I DID NOT propose putting 11 elite players (if there even can be said to be 11 elite players) on the market at once. I DID propose freeing young players from the artificial and anti-competitive restraints of the reserve clause. The idea that the total amount of money spent on Brandon Nimmo and Bryce Harper would go down if Brandon Nimmo was free to negotiate with any team doesn't hold. Of course the total would go up. Maybe Harper gets 10-15% less because one fewer team is pursuing him. Maybe. But Nimmo's goes up by several hundred percent. Supply relative to demand doesn't change. The market may be flooded in the first year, but even then, all those newly free guys will have created a void on their team — a commensurate surge in demand. And that first year is only the first year. The only thing that changes is freedom. Look what rookies get paid out of school in other sports. If players could get that sort of scratch out of baseball, they'd pick it over football every time. So now, they're proposing changing the rules to allow two-sport players to get MLB contracts, and make much more money. Just allow everybody to.

nymr83 Mar 03 2019 07:30 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Nimmo would get more money in your scenario, but that money would come from somewhere. Maybe Harper, maybe amateur signing bonuses - no reason to give a 16 year old in Venezuela a million dollars if you lose control of him at 19 or 21. I believe that 'somewhere' is ultimately going to be other baseball players because I believe each team/owner has a budget that they arent raising if the rules change. And none of that means I favor the current system, I just disagree over the likely effects of ending it.

Edgy MD Mar 03 2019 07:45 PM Re: Harper and Machado

=nymr83 post_id=3742 time=1551666600 user_id=54] Nimmo would get more money in your scenario, but that money would come from somewhere. Maybe Harper, maybe amateur signing bonuses - no reason to give a 16 year old in Venezuela a million dollars if you lose control of him at 19 or 21.

Then you either (a) sign him to a longer-term deal, or (b) give more money to a 19-21 year old amateur that is closer to ready.



But if everybody else has a chance to sign him, he gets leverage to negotiate how much he gets.



Beyond that, it's important to stress that it's not a zero-sum game, though the employers may insist it is.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 15 2019 04:01 PM Re: Harper and Machado

Harper has a foot contusion and has yet to get a hit this spring, waiting so long to sign has put him behind schedule, and he may not be ready for opening day