Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 I see him getting traded to the Rangers in two years. Oh wait, that's the other guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 yea that guy, who failed 2 years in a row in the playoffs for us ... he was also a temporary replacement for victor martinez when we lost him for the year... damn near won the pennant but i don't think we ever signed him thinking we'd keep him all those years... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bronson 702 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 "AL central champs 3 years in a row" That's not much of a accomplishment 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 wow, you sure know your stuff, you should run a baseball team ... seriously, for teams like the tigers, money isn't an issue... we can afford to spend money on a player like that... and last i checked, you can still win championships by spending money... and my team does get great value out of it's pieces... AL central champs 3 years in a row, back to back cy young winners, the last 3 MVP's, and a slew of other accomplishments including a couple of recent world series appearances... didn't win the big one but either way, the deal is done and my team has the best hitter in baseball locked up for the duration of his career... that's all i see when i look at the deal... i see cabrera wearing the old english D for many many years to come... i want to see him break milestones and records wearing the old english D, it's awesome to have a player of his caliber representing my team... i don't care how much the deal is for... like i said, it's not my money... obviously it's affordable to my owner... No one said it wasn't affordable to your team or anything like that, I'm a newbie to guitar and I can afford to buy a good one. Does that mean I should spend my money on a custom guitar, all modded out. It'll cost $18,000 but what the hell, I can afford it! Now, imagine that principle applied to recurring payments over 10 years, and significantly higher increments. I realize the Tigers can spend, and that money can be the answer to your problems. It doesn't make the contract not a bad one. It's like saying that because the government can spend our money, that it's good for us and totally justified. I remember that one time when the Tigers first tried to start spending, after they were initially successful. They had that big offseason where they got Cabrera and Willis, and then they had an awful year. I think they lost 80+ games. They could have used the resources on other things that aren't going to become a DH in a few years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 At the end of the day, whilst 10-year contracts are terrible, Cabrera's contract is the most valuable of those that have been doled out recently. These contracts aren't being offered for 10 years, they're being offered for 4-5 years. Owners know they're not going to get $33m worth of production from a 40-year-old. They want the best player in the game for the current championship window (well, except Seattle) and they're prepared to pay dead money for it. Regardless of whether Detroit should or shouldn't have paid it, someone else was going to. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 "AL central champs 3 years in a row" That's not much of a accomplishment hey, it's what you play the regular season for ... to win your division... They could have used the resources on other things that aren't going to become a DH in a few years. we play in the AL, what's wrong with having him play DH in a few years?? Regardless of whether Detroit should or shouldn't have paid it, someone else was going to. exactly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 They could have used the resources on other things that aren't going to become a DH in a few years. we play in the AL, what's wrong with having him play DH in a few years?? This is why there will be a DH in the NL within 20 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 30, 2014 it really should... i love small ball, but i hate how both leagues play different rules... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bronson 702 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 Having the pitcher hit is completely pointless. It's like having a partially retarded kid up there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 At the end of the day, whilst 10-year contracts are terrible, Cabrera's contract is the most valuable of those that have been doled out recently. These contracts aren't being offered for 10 years, they're being offered for 4-5 years. Owners know they're not going to get $33m worth of production from a 40-year-old. They want the best player in the game for the current championship window (well, except Seattle) and they're prepared to pay dead money for it. Regardless of whether Detroit should or shouldn't have paid it, someone else was going to. So are you saying that because someone else was going to overpay for a top-shelf 1st baseman, that the Tigers should have? I really don't understand that logic. No team is beyond a budget. Even the Yankees, the most marketable, successful, and highest grossing franchise in American sports, are not above budgeting themselves. Moneyball is the future of all sports, and pretty soon these teams that are paying through the nose to keep aging one-dimensional talent are going to be left in the dust in terms of the consistent value they're getting out of their teams. There's nothing that says big market teams can't play the moneyball game. In fact, they're at a significant advantage with the resources they have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bronson 702 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 I remember when a 6 year 120 million dollar contract was a HUGE contract..... That's child's play now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 You're both right and wrong in the one statement. Moneyball is the future and teams like the Rays and A's have shown that winning teams can be put together with shrewd management. However, the best players are going to seek the biggest pay day and agents for these players are very clever at initiating a bidding war between major-market teams who are in win-now mode. Yes, the Yankees are working on reducing their budget but they were still prepared to offer Cano 7 years/$160m+. I remember when a 6 year 120 million dollar contract was a HUGE contract..... That's child's play now. I think it was Bones who mentioned Trout being in line for a 10-year/$350m contract at the completion of this one. Unfortunately, given inflation and natural market forces, I think he's in line for at least $400-450m at the end of this current contract... and even that's being conservative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 You're both right and wrong in the one statement. Moneyball is the future and teams like the Rays and A's have shown that winning teams can be put together with shrewd management. However, the best players are going to seek the biggest pay day and agents for these players are very clever at initiating a bidding war between major-market teams who are in win-now mode. Yes, the Yankees are working on reducing their budget but they were still prepared to offer Cano 7 years/$160m+. 7 years at 160M USD is significantly less than 10 years at 290M USD. Cabrera's contract is as follows: 1. For a 1st baseman. 2. Who is 30. 3. Until they are age 40. 4. For over 29M/yr. Cano's deal is for less, he's had a larger sample size of years where he's attained the value of the contract (4 such times according to FanGraphs), and would only have been until age 38. Letting other teams overpay is a part of every sport. Smart teams let go of older guys who want the big pay day and work towards rebuilding. You can't avoid rebuilding, because no matter how much money you spend, there's always going to be a cheaper, younger team that's on the rise and ready to pass you up. Watch and see, some kid making significantly less will crack the big leagues and dethrone Miggy. You'll get some perspective from it too, that he isn't worth that kind of money, and that he isn't that much better than anyone else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 Absolutely, smart teams will let someone else pay the big bucks. Problem is, you have the Tigers, Yankees, Red Sox (though they learned), Dodgers, Angels, Blue Jays and Seattle who have overpaid players by big margins, the Giants who could arguably be included in that group and the Rangers who have tried to overpay players and have now traded for one. That's 33% of the league who aren't playing Moneyball. Aside from Seattle and Toronto, they're also among the top 12-15 teams in the game. What the Rays and A's do is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. As for Cano, even if he signed with the Yankees, that would have been paying upwards of $23m for an aging everyday second baseman-come-part-time-DH. I'd still take Miggy's $30m over that deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 @panzer - so you're saying players who make a name for themselves don't deserve a payday? that teams like the tigers should avoid giving cabrera a big contract because there's the possibility of someone coming up from the farm system that will dethrone him?? ok, but what do you do when it's time to give that new face a big contract? turn away and hope there's another one on the farm?? come on man, these guys played hard and earned those contracts, as ridiculous as they are... and you talk of the A's and rays playing money ball... yet the only team i see that actually did it lately were the giants... but even that's debatable since there's some guys on their team making good money... look at this list and point me out the last champion who played moneyball... http://espn.go.com/m...history/winners the marlins? i see an awful lot of big spenders on that list... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 Absolutely, smart teams will let someone else pay the big bucks. Problem is, you have the Tigers, Yankees, Red Sox (though they learned), Dodgers, Angels, Blue Jays and Seattle who have overpaid players by big margins, the Giants who could arguably be included in that group and the Rangers who have tried to overpay players and have now traded for one. That's 33% of the league who aren't playing Moneyball. Aside from Seattle and Toronto, they're also among the top 12-15 teams in the game. What the Rays and A's do is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. As for Cano, even if he signed with the Yankees, that would have been paying upwards of $23m for an aging everyday second baseman-come-part-time-DH. I'd still take Miggy's $30m over that deal. Even some of the teams you've been listing have applied moneyball principles to their spending. For example Boston built their teams to compete in the AL East while consistently developing more of their prospects, and paying less for FA talent than the Yankees. As for the Cano contract that the Yankees offered, 7 years at 160M is a lot less time, for a player playing a more difficult position, more competently, who as I said had proven himself worth the money per year he was offered more than Cabrera. Miggy can barely play 1st base as it is, and it's only going to get worse as he gets older. Aside from DH (assuming you even consider DH a position), 1B is the least valuable position in baseball. Lots of teams have played the moneyball game to success. Tampa, Oakland, Arizona, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and regardless of their recent willingness to spend big Seattle was also a big moneyball franchise in the 2000s. Spending big on a few players doesn't make you not a moneyball team. In fact, the moneyball concept is based off of building through the farm and supplementing by getting value through FA. This deal with Miggy is a very bad deal because the Tigers are virtually guaranteed to lose value. I realize that you can't put a price on success, but it doesn't mean you should overpay for anything. But like what has been said, it isn't my money so I really don't care. I'm just saying that this is one of the worst contracts in the history of baseball. @panzer - so you're saying players who make a name for themselves don't deserve a payday? that teams like the tigers should avoid giving cabrera a big contract because there's the possibility of someone coming up from the farm system that will dethrone him?? ok, but what do you do when it's time to give that new face a big contract? turn away and hope there's another one on the farm?? come on man, these guys played hard and earned those contracts, as ridiculous as they are... and you talk of the A's and rays playing money ball... yet the only team i see that actually did it lately were the giants... but even that's debatable since there's some guys on their team making good money... look at this list and point me out the last champion who played moneyball... http://espn.go.com/m...history/winners the marlins? i see an awful lot of big spenders on that list... No, I didn't say that at all. He doesn't deserve the payday that he's going to be getting now is what I said. 30M a year for 10 years is too much for anyone who's in their 30s. I've laid out the reasons for this. If you can't grasp my entire argument at this point, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Whether or not a kid will dethrone him (and he will be dethroned, if he hasn't already been dethroned by Trout) soon or not isn't consequential to my argument. I just said that it will give you perspective on why his contract isn't worth it. Trout's making less and is worth significantly more wins than Cabrera, and is significantly younger. I'm not trying to tell you that the Tigers aren't going to be successful or anything, just that the money is kind of poorly spent. I expect him to give the Tigers are least 4-5 really good years. Heck, I'm not even saying he couldn't end up making his money dude. He could be one of those guys who's still good when he's 40. As I've said previously, you don't necessarily need to spend low to be a moneyball team. Moneyball, in a nutshell, is getting the most value out of a budget to maximize your chances of winning with said budget. It's math driven, and the amount of money you actually spend doesn't really factor into it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 I think any contract longer than five years is a bad contract with the exception of maybe Trout and Kershaw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 I think any contract longer than five years is a bad contract with the exception of maybe Trout and Kershaw. I could definitely justify Trout/Kershaw getting 10 year deals. You can't factor in the chance that they get injured, because that's really just random. Elite talents 27 or younger definitely have a good shot at earning their money, especially when they're like Trout. Have you seen some of the values this guy has been getting? He blows Cabrera out of the water. I think he was worth around $100M the last 2 years combined, because he plays a premium position, is an elite defender and an elite offensive talent. I wouldn't write off 10 year deals for generational talent like that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 @panzer - well then it sounds like my tigers play a version of money ball then if that is how you described it... our farm system is rich and full of players with great value... it's the reason why we've been able to pull off these crazy trades like going for a doug fister or jose inglesis or anibal sanchez... it's because we've built that part of our team up, so we can go out and get the kinds of players our team needs... we just don't mind spending a little... if i recall, in the yankees heyday, they too also had a rich farm system... and they depleted it trying to win all those championships... i bet they don't regret it for a second... it's what you play the game for... i understand your point of view, and yea, it is a bad deal, but it's the state of baseball, as i've stated a hundred times... if it's not us, it's someone else that would pay him like that... it's simple logic, to keep the good players, you have to pay for them or let them walk, regardless of what you think the contract should be... sorry man, i see your point, but baseball just doesn't care... therefor i don't care... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrybran 851 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 Baseball doesn't care. I like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bronson 702 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 Opening Day!!!! Me so excited. Angels playing onESPN2. Today is a good day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 i bought the MLB radio package today for $20... best money i ever spent... i don't have ESPN or our local FSN channel, but now i can at least listen to the games while i'm at work ... up 1-0 with a bomber by the forgotten big man, v-mart!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bronson 702 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 I'm thinking of getting MLB.TV. It's only 110 dollars. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaPn bOnEs 8527 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 yea, that's too rich for my blood, plus i wouldn't get a lot of value out of it since it's hard to catch games for me anyways... the radio works the best since i would probably get in trouble for watching baseball at work ... the night games would be nice to see but again, i wouldn't be getting nearly the use out of it that the radio provides for me... plus it was only $20... that's not a lot at all... plus i can listen to any game in the league, home and away radio... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panzerbear171 13 Report post Posted March 31, 2014 @panzer - well then it sounds like my tigers play a version of money ball then if that is how you described it... our farm system is rich and full of players with great value... it's the reason why we've been able to pull off these crazy trades like going for a doug fister or jose inglesis or anibal sanchez... it's because we've built that part of our team up, so we can go out and get the kinds of players our team needs... we just don't mind spending a little... if i recall, in the yankees heyday, they too also had a rich farm system... and they depleted it trying to win all those championships... i bet they don't regret it for a second... it's what you play the game for... i understand your point of view, and yea, it is a bad deal, but it's the state of baseball, as i've stated a hundred times... if it's not us, it's someone else that would pay him like that... it's simple logic, to keep the good players, you have to pay for them or let them walk, regardless of what you think the contract should be... sorry man, i see your point, but baseball just doesn't care... therefor i don't care... It's a business man. You can stick your head in the sand about the contract all you want. Detroit probably does play the moneyball game. I think Justin Verlander's deal is a pretty decent one, but like I said about the Red Sox earlier. Their FO plays the moneyball game as well, but that doesn't mean that Carl Crawford's contract wasn't absolutely terrible from the beginning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
