So the Nationals made him a qualifying offer. He has the option to make 13.5 million for one year or elect for free agency. Is there any reason an above average, but not great player like Laroche would decline that offer? I understand why the Nats would make the offer considering the draft pick but won't this lead to a ton of backfires when the players accept these things?
Nationals are expanding payroll, they must have the budget to be able to afford him at that money for 1 year. If he takes it 1b or LF is taken care of, if he doesn't you get a decent draft pick for a good/not great player.Originally Posted by jhu1321
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
You don't make the offer unless you don't mind if the player accepts, same as arbitration, so, they must be willing to pay him that much to have him on a 1 year deal.
"Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons
You act like he hit .220 last year. He's a middle of the order hitter on a contending team. Why would they not want him back?
Why sign a one year deal off a career year without testing the market for equal pay over a longer life?
Sign a 3 year deal get hurt and get all the money, one year get hurt maybe on MLB tonight the following year.
I think people are going to be shocked by prices this year. Just look at last year. Look at the Dodgers selling for $2B. The TV contracts are going through the roof. $13MM ain't what it used to be.
Even then, 1 year deals are quite valuable since they're so low risk. With long term contracts, you often have to price in the guy's decline and injury risk. You don't have to do that really in a 1 year deal. Given previous FA prices of ~$5MM/win, $13MM equates to about 2.5 wins. LaRoche put up 3.8 WAR last year and has been about a 2.5 WAR player throughout his career. It's no bargain, but it's unlikely you'll get a better deal on somebody in FA.
The big implication is that they don't have 1B open which means Morse stays in the OF with Harper and Werth. Rumor was that the Nats are hot after Michael Bourn; this would seem to make that less likely -- or at least suggest they'd have to dump one of their corner OFs first.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote