Discussion in 'MLB' started by NLSISC, Aug 16, 2010.
I doubt that the Marlins franchise is even worth $325 million.
Maybe the franchise isnt, but Stanton is a guy that you have to commit to
I don't have issues with them giving him all that cash. But did it need to be 13 years? I cannot imagine other teams were going to offer that many years. He is worth the $25 mil/yr IMO. But 10 years at $250 would have been better for the Marlins.
They probably are. That ball park alone drives up the value. Plus, their payroll last year was under $325M.
It's insane. If you're NY or LA, and the guy is your centerpiece, fine. But in Florida?
If I was trying to win a World Series, I'd trade Stanton for prospects and focus my efforts on keeping Jose Fernandez locked up. Stanton is one of the very best out there, but he's no Barry Bonds. He's not a once-in-a-generation player. He's no Mike-frickin'-Trout. :lol:
If was the Florida GM, I'd keep the youth movement going and strike when it makes the most sense. I'm not someone who likes to gamble, but I'd bet against this move.
I think it's an attempt to save their brand. Marlins tickets sales are abysmal, and Stanton is pretty much the only reason to tune in. I see the logic, even though it's pretty shortsighted.
You make a good point. I can't exactly argue that winning World Championships is the better way to protect the brand... they did, after all, win two. The fire sales afterward didn't help.
For whatever reason, I don't think Stanton is the superstar you need to define your brand. He's not Trout. He's no ARod. He's no Pujols. He's no Bonds. He's a special player, but does he really sell tickets? I guess he must.
Personally, I'd trade him and continue amassing talent. I think when it's all said and done Fernandez will be their best player.
I don't think you can build a brand by winning championships if you don't keep that team together. Its like hiring mercenaries, even if their second championship wasn't bought like the first one. People can't feel a connection to the team if their guys are leaving. The Giants have turned the San Francisco into a baseball city. The championships are a big part of that, but the roster continuity is huge as well. Stanton will be the guy that fans connect with for years, but I don't know if it justifies the contract, though I say that for every big contract and they keep getting bigger and bigger.
So Johnny Cueto went to Kansas City, Cole Hamels went to Texas and David Price went to the Toronto.
Best part, the Dodgers got no one! :lol:
In other news, Klay's younger brother Trayce gets called up to play for the White Sox.
Man, I wish I could have gotten some of that gene pool!
This is an awesome story.
I've read some comment dismissing the story because they disagreed with what they felt was a conclusion by the author, which is sad. This story isn't about collusion, or a specific franchise. It's about the economics of baseball, and definitely worth a read by anyone who cares to educate themselves in what's going on in baseball right now.
Some of my favorite quotes:
This jumped off the page. Maintaining 6 years of control of a player--especially when the organization gets to decide when the clock starts--sets the stage for robbing a player of earning what he's worth during his prime years. When a rookie comes up at 24, he can expect to hit the FA market at 29... in most cases, he's already started his decline. In almost all cases, the decline will begin and continue rapidly long before that 4-6 year deal is complete. If he comes up at 25 or 26, the situation just gets worse.
And really, organizations make it even worse by...
By dangling millions to a youngster who needs to survive 4 more years to get that big contract, teams can persuade future stud FAs (like Madison Bumgarner) to delay the huge contract by accepting for-sure money now and extending organizational control by a year or two. Which basically means a talented youngster is under control for 8 years instead of just 6, greatly reducing their opportunity to ever land the huge deal.
This has made rebuilding via free agency a fool's errand. So, why do it? And we're seeing that many teams are not. Check this out:
So what happens? Well, the players who have survived organizational control, and are looking for that one major deal to end their career, have less options. Most won't make nearly as much money because of it.
So, why do the fans put up with it? Because young talent is king. See Astros vs. Dodgers in the last World Series--teams full of young stars that haven't yet escaped organizational control. That's the blueprint, and many fans know it.
Blow it up! Rebuild! Be the next Astros!
I've put in some of my favorite quotes, but I really suggest anyone who cares about baseball to give this a read. It's very well done.
I'll take a look at it.. but the free agency in baseball, and the amount of years of team control has been on my mind lately. Specifically, because the Giants don't have a farm system and are trying to rebuild through trades and free agency. Fans are complaining, the Giants are just signing old guys... well.. what free agents can you get that aren't near or in their 30's? In order for free agency to be valuable across the board is to bring back the steroid era. Guys producing into their late 30's, where they can warrant the big dollars spent.
The fact that players can go to college, come out at 21 or 22.. and then head through the minor league system.. they get up to the big leagues around 24 or 25.. and are under team control until they are 30. It just doesn't make a lot of sense for the players.
You've hit the nail on the head, yet most fans don't see it. The story really pulls together the larger issue.
And, really, the Giants aren't signing old guys right now. They're trading for them. That's a big distinction. Cutch is a rental, and Longoria is on a long-term deal with with 2015 dollars attached. He's still expensive, but not as expensive as what agents are likely asking for in 2018.
I hate the Longoria deal, but it makes more sense if you compare it to other deals.
For Longoria, you're getting a 32-year-old for 5 years, $86 million (if you add in the extra $5 million for the buyout). He has a very high profile name. He's on the downside of his career, but he's going to create a buzz and sell tickets.
JD Martinez, the toast of the 2018 FA class, is estimated to be worth closer to 6 years, $150 million. I doubt very much the Giants could even get him at that price, since I assume most power hitters would much rather end up in a hitter's park than show decline much faster at AT&T.
I think you'd rather get Martinez, but trading (rather than signing) does keep the cost way down.
yea, well, acquiring old guys really.. because teams aren't going to trade young talent on a team friendly contract that has proven the ability to play in the MLB. Teams would rather trade prospects that haven't shown it yet. Even then, to get a good haul of prospects, you're trading a big name.
The Giants don't have the prospects to pull off a big deal.. if they did, hell, i'd say let the farm develop. So i'm actually impressed with what they've traded for so far.
In examining recent history, there is precedent for rebuilding while adding some big names to keep the fans interested.
In late December 2006, the Giants signed Zito to a pretty big, bad contract. That signing--while mostly fruitless, except for some big starts (with average stuff) in future playoff runs--put the Giants in the news cycle and gave many fans some hope.
Looking back, that was a high profile distraction with little substance. What did have substance?
2002 - Giants draft Matt Cain out of high school (25th overall)
2006 - Giants draft Tim Lincecum out of college (10th overall)
2007 - Giants draft Madison Bumgarner out of high school (10th overall)
2008 - Giants draft Buster Posey out of college (5th overall)
Barry Zito was never the future--except, really, for the organization to entertain the fan base while the Giants weren't contending.
While the Giants were handing out bad deals to Barry Zito, they set the table for what was to come with: 1) top 10 draft picks; 2) picking the right guys.
I'm not 100% the Giants are just distracting the fan base with names like Longoria and Cutch, but I don't think it's a bad strategy. The biggest problem is that you have to draft well.
That's really been the problem--the draft picks haven't come up and energized the organization.
2012 - Chris Stratton (20th overall)
2013 - Christian Arroyo (25th overall) - traded
2014 - Tyler Beede (14th overall)
2015 - Phil Bickford (18th overall) - traded
2015- Chris Shaw (31st overall)
2016 - No Pick
2017 - Heliot Ramos (19th overall)
That list doesn't compare to the list up top--but they haven't had a single top 10 pick. Well, until 2018!
To me, this is going to be a long process. Out of all the pitching first rounders made in the past 6 years, none are going to be aces. Shaw and Ramos could be every day players, but not likely the caliber of a Buster Posey.
With the Dodgers as good as they are, I think the Giants will need to scrap together a decent team that will entertain 43k at AT&T Park while they build for better days.
I agree with that. As much as i want this team to win now.... they really need to build up the farm system, and it would be much better if they had some higher draft picks to work with. I do think they can build a team that has a shot to make the playoffs, even as a 1st or 2nd wildcard. Even then, with the way the team had success fighting from the wildcard, it gives the fans a feeling that they have a chance. It will be interesting to see how they go about rebuilding the system. They need to tap into that international pool as well. Then at the very least, when you have a couple of legitimate ball players come up, some of the role players can come up and fill out the roster without having to have a major role on the team.
The picks from 2012 on that you posted highlight the misses that they have had. Right now, the organization is high on Shaw and Ramos, but in a couple of years, who knows, they may become underachieving trade fodder.
Totally agree on Shaw and Ramos. It's very difficult to project youngsters, especially with all the misinformation out there. As a fan, you have to take anything you read with a grain of salt--unless you're looking at a Kris Bryant or a Ronald Acuna caliber prospect.
I remember reading stories on Gary Brown, projecting him as a stud lead-off hitter. He even broke the top 50 prospect lists.
Unfortunately for teams with tons of money to spend, it's hard to rebuild via the draft if you're fielding middle-of-the-pack teams each year. Meaning, if you're picking in the high teens, you're not picking from the same pedigree as you are when you pick in the top 10.
I mean, check out the 2006 draft:
Five of the top 11 picks were franchise players. No star jumps off the screen at you after that.
If you look at the other notables, there were plenty of great MLB players taken in later rounds. Zach Britton at 85. Chris Davis at 148. Justin Turner at 204. Daniel Murphy at 394. And many others.
So yeah, you can build in the draft without the high draft pick, but it's an easier task if you're picking in the top 10 every year for 4-5 years. And that's definitely NOT the Giants plan.
Separate names with a comma.