Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
You guys have me LMAO.
"Do you want to be humiliated?"
Also, I didn't know Choo's mom posted on RedsZone. Learn something new every day.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
Who SHOULD he have done it with? Just curious.
IMO, Homer was the PERFECT target. Latos & Cueto were both coming off injuries. Homer had just finished his 2013 season where we saw him improve in every season for .....
6 straight years in WHIP
3 straight years in FIP
3 straight years in HR/9
3 straight years in K/9
7 straight years in SO/K ratio
6 straight years in K's
4 straight years in IP
6 straight years in ERA
I certainly haven't seen anybody else doing that. He was the perfect target. Unfortunately, the injury bug hit him too.
I bet we'll see less megadeals for pitchers due to all the injuries that are popping up. It's not "safe" signing a position player to a lucrative LTC, but it seems to be a lot "safer" than inking a pitcher to a LTC.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
Who SHOULD he have done it with? Just curious.
IMO, Homer was the PERFECT target. Latos & Cueto were both coming off injuries. Homer had just finished his 2013 season where we saw him improve in every season for .....
6 straight years in WHIP
3 straight years in FIP
3 straight years in HR/9
3 straight years in K/9
7 straight years in SO/K ratio
6 straight years in K's
4 straight years in IP
6 straight years in ERA
I certainly haven't seen anybody else doing that. He was the perfect target. Unfortunately, the injury bug hit him too.
Well, obviously Walt should have known Homer was going to have injury problems after signing the extension. It is the job of the GM to be able to see into the future.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedTeamGo!
Well, obviously Walt should have known Homer was going to have injury problems after signing the extension. It is the job of the GM to be able to see into the future.
Actually, that is the reason why many argue to never sign a pitcher to a big long term contract. History tells us that pitchers get hurt often enough to make them unwise. Walt didn't need to be able to see into the future, he just needed to look back at the history of the health of MLB pitchers.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Actually, that is the reason why many argue to never sign a pitcher to a big long term contract. History tells us that pitchers get hurt often enough to make them unwise. Walt didn't need to be able to see into the future, he just needed to look back at the history of the health of MLB pitchers.
So you would have been happy if the Reds had not extended Bailey, Latos, or Cueto?
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Actually, that is the reason why many argue to never sign a pitcher to a big long term contract. History tells us that pitchers get hurt often enough to make them unwise. Walt didn't need to be able to see into the future, he just needed to look back at the history of the health of MLB pitchers.
Yes, I am against extending pitchers to LTC's, so I get that stance. It's not just because of injuries, it's also because pitchers become less effective as their arm gets more mileage on it. But that is not the same as raking a GM over the coals after a pitcher has an injury.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kbrake
So you would have been happy if the Reds had not extended Bailey, Latos, or Cueto?
I'm not in favor of guaranteeing big money to pitchers in their 30's.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
I bet we'll see less megadeals for pitchers due to all the injuries that are popping up. It's not "safe" signing a position player to a lucrative LTC, but it seems to be a lot "safer" than inking a pitcher to a LTC.
I'd take that bet. I think the Bailey and Porcello deals are signs of the new status quo to come. As long as player salaries as a percentage of league revenues keep declining, megadeals aren't going anywhere. Maybe they'll go fewer years, but I'd bet you would see the AAV on short term deals completely skyrocket if and when that happens.
When we're talking about injuries, which is better risk mitigation... $40M over two seasons or $30M over one? Extrapolate that same dilemma out how ever many years is appropriate. Injuries are a wild-card no matter what.
My point is I totally get the folks on here saying develop young arms and then jettison them as soon as they approach free agency. The Reds (in my view) didn't make an awful, soon-to-be-free-agent deal with Homer. They just made one, period.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
The problem with Homer was that the Reds gave him twice what the market rate was because they completely overestimated his true talent.
The problem with Choo's contract was that the Rangers paid for Choo's true talent and gambled he would be able to play enough to earn the money during the first several years. Life happens and the Rangers had life happen. That's just about every free agent contract-life happens on some and doesn't happen on others.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
The problem with Homer was that the Reds gave him twice what the market rate was because they completely overestimated his true talent..
This I just completely disagree with. The Porcello deal was an almost perfect comp. If your (not "you" specifically, the empirical "you") point of reference for evaluating what players are worth in financial terms is even three seasons old, it is woefully obsolete. Twice the market rate? No way, man.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Larkin88
This I just completely disagree with. The Porcello deal was an almost perfect comp. If your (not "you" specifically, the empirical "you") point of reference for evaluating what players are worth in financial terms is even three seasons old, it is woefully obsolete. Twice the market rate? No way, man.
Ya, way man. The Porcello contract is also a bad one, and an outlier.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I can live with overpaying for a good player. Obviously Homer's health issues now complicate if he can be a good player moving forward. But overpaying for someone who provides value is something you can live with, though obviously it ties your hands a bit in regards to payroll. It's the Ryan Howard contracts and production that kill you.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Actually, that is the reason why many argue to never sign a pitcher to a big long term contract. History tells us that pitchers get hurt often enough to make them unwise. Walt didn't need to be able to see into the future, he just needed to look back at the history of the health of MLB pitchers.
I certainly don't blame Walt for this. I agree that it would be better overall if pitcher contracts were shorter. However, Walt has to function in TODAY'S game. If he didn't sign Homer, someone else would've offered that many years or more.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Larkin88
I'd take that bet. I think the Bailey and Porcello deals are signs of the new status quo to come. As long as player salaries as a percentage of league revenues keep declining, megadeals aren't going anywhere. Maybe they'll go fewer years, but I'd bet you would see the AAV on short term deals completely skyrocket if and when that happens.
When we're talking about injuries, which is better risk mitigation... $40M over two seasons or $30M over one? Extrapolate that same dilemma out how ever many years is appropriate. Injuries are a wild-card no matter what.
My point is I totally get the folks on here saying develop young arms and then jettison them as soon as they approach free agency. The Reds (in my view) didn't make an awful, soon-to-be-free-agent deal with Homer. They just made one, period.
That's what I mean -- fewer years. I'm not saying the top pitchers won't make $25 million a year. They will. But I bet teams will do everything they can to give them a 3-or-4-year contract and not a 6-or-7-year contract. Tanaka, Bailey, McCarthy ... on and on and on.
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
The problem with Homer was that the Reds gave him twice what the market rate was because they completely overestimated his true talent.
The problem with Choo's contract was that the Rangers paid for Choo's true talent and gambled he would be able to play enough to earn the money during the first several years. Life happens and the Rangers had life happen. That's just about every free agent contract-life happens on some and doesn't happen on others.
The Reds will never admit it, but no way Bailey gets that contract without the two no-hitters. Those two games changed opinions about Bailey within the organization IMO.
If Bailey wanted to sign a lucrative long-term contract a full year before he was eligible to be a free agent, the Reds should have negotiated a better deal. The Reds had the leverage, yet they paid Bailey like he was a free agent and they were bidding against other teams. If Bailey wasn't willing to take somewhat of a hometown discount in exchange for long-term security, then the Reds should have let it play out. They still could have signed him during the 2014 season or after the 2014 season. Or they could have made him a QO and received a draft pick in exchange if he declined.
The worst thing they could have done was pay market value for Bailey when he wasn't even a free agent. Yet, that's exactly what they did. And I think it was mostly because of those two no-nos. JMO.
Reds need to pay close attention to what the Pirates have been doing. When they sign their own players before they are free agents, they ALWAYS get a hometown discount. Look at McCutchen's contract for an example.