-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KronoRed
Did you trying turning it off and then on again?
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fipp
I can't tell if you're kidding or if you're really this stupid.
Hopefully this clown and people like him are taken care of rather quickly, because this post is ridiculous and insulting.
I only take smart ass comments from Raisor. And that's only because I know where he lives.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Fair warning, I may try and turn "Do you want to be humiliated?" into a thing around here.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fipp
How old are you? Do you want to be humiliated?
a/s/l?
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
Fair warning, I may try and turn "Do you want to be humiliated?" into a thing around here.
Mix it in with the dolphin, keep things fresh.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Servo
Fair warning, I may try and turn "Do you want to be humiliated?" into a thing around here.
I imagine Kevin Gregg asking Price if he can get in the game to get some work and Price screaming back at him "DO YOU WANT TO BE HUMILIATED??"
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
If there were a Redszone Hall of Fame, responses to the "do you want to be humiliated?" line could trigger dozens of entries all by itself. Gold, Jerry. Gold.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
RedsZone.com: Do You Want To Be Humiliated?
The site tagline has been long overdue for an update.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I still can't stop laughing.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
That's so many kinds of awesome...we don't even know how awesome it is yet.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus
If there were a Redszone Hall of Fame, responses to the "do you want to be humiliated?" line could trigger dozens of entries all by itself. Gold, Jerry. Gold.
Gotta keep the "how old are you" part.
It was integral to my pickup line at least.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
You just won the internet
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KronoRed
Mix it in with the dolphin, keep things fresh.
THAT WAS MY THING, DAMMIT
.....
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...04/617/d5b.jpg
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fipp
How old are you? Do you want to be humiliated?
http://replygif.net/i/163.gif
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I've been a Red's and Brown's fan for almost 50 years now. So yeah, I'm old. I'm also waaaay past the stage of humiliation, and have moved into my comatose phase. :p
I remember the days when OB% didn't translate into big money contracts. Organizations got wiser. They get it now (other then the Reds), and those days are long gone.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
Not sure I'm going to give Walt too much credit for this one.
1. No way the Reds were going to out-bid the Rangers or Yankees for Choo. The Yankees actually offered $10 million more over the life of the contract than the Rangers, but no income tax in Texas more than made up for that. Point is: The Reds were not going to compete with the Rangers' offer, even if they wanted to re-sign Choo.
2. The plan even when the Reds traded for Choo was to have Billy Hamilton (who was coming off a year in which he set the all-time minor league record for steals with 155) be the leadoff hitter/centerfielder beginning in 2014. Re-signing Choo was never really on the table for the Reds.
If you want to give Walt credit for not screwing something up, go ahead. But the reality is the Reds were never going to re-sign Choo and they knew it. He was a one-year rental, period.
THey were never going to resign Choo because that was "the plan"?
Who's plan?
I'm guessing "Walt's plan".
It was Walt who decided to go and get a 1-year stop gap. You make it sound like Choo came with a 1-year sticker expiration date on him.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Oldest GM motto: The best deals are the ones that are never made.
Yeah, if only he'd have done that with Homer...
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Yeah, if only he'd have done that with Homer...
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.
-
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.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Ya, way man. The Porcello contract is also a bad one, and an outlier.
With respect to your point, can you quantify how you arrived at the "two times his market rate" figure?
His AAV is $17.5 million. Qualifying offers are $15.3 million these days. In your view, Homer's contract should have paid him less than $9 million per season?
Or are you arguing that the guarantee of years was above and beyond... looking at "total contract value" or something like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckie
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.
Yep, this I agree with. It was ill-advised to pay market value on Homer when the Reds did, the way that the Reds did it. I just take issue with the people who claim he was insanely overpaid above and beyond what the market is currently bearing.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
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.
I think it is absolute nonsense the any team would make a 100 million dollar decision off of two starts. The Reds did what they did because if Homer went out and had the 2014 everyone expected him to have it would have cost them another 25 to 30 million. They took a gamble and obviously because of health it has backfired but based on what we knew at the time Redszone loved that extension. It is so funny to go back and read the thread about the extension and then read people talk about it now. All of a sudden half the board hated that contract even though it was pretty universally liked at the time.
As far as the Reds needing to adopt the Pirates model, the Reds have done some deals similar to the McCutchen deal that have really worked out. The Reds are paying Johnny Cueto 10 million this year.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
I totally disagree with the idea that he's overpaid according to the market.
Now if you want to discuss if ballplayers in general are overpaid...I'm right there with you on that one. I'd rather we see teachers making 6 and 7 figure salaries and not guys who play a game for a living.
Sorry, I digress. :O)
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuckie
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.
Worth noting that McCutchen had a 11.3 WAR in his first 3 seasons (09-11) with Pittsburgh, signed the extension before the 2012 season, and then put up a 21.4 WAR over the next three seasons (12-14). It was a great move by Pittsburgh to sign him when they did, but they weren't paying for an MVP candidate when they signed him.
-
Re: Choo and that albatross Rangers contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Larkin88
With respect to your point, can you quantify how you arrived at the "two times his market rate" figure?
His AAV is $17.5 million. Qualifying offers are $15.3 million these days. In your view, Homer's contract should have paid him less than $9 million per season?
Or are you arguing that the guarantee of years was above and beyond... looking at "total contract value" or something like that?
You clearly havent read the thread explaining the infallible free agency predicting toy.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ree+agent+tool
And they let you post in the ORG?
Do the mods know you haven't read that thread?