OT: Machado to the Padres 10 Yr/$300M

[Deepster]

Well I mean they have the number 1 farm system headlined by an almost sure fire star in tatis jr. And when you sign Machado to at least 5 years guaranteed, they’re not exactly rushing anyone.

How else would you expect a team to get good? Sign a bunch of mediocre free agents? That sure panned out well for the Mets and giants these past few years

I don't think there's one boilerplate method. I lived through Paul Wilson, Bill Pulsipher and Jason Isringhausen coming up through the Mets farm system as the next Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz. I do lean on proven players over prospects every single time though.

 

[storrsroars]

Maybe not top 5 locks, but absolutely top 10 and in consideration with the guys for top 5

Suggest reading the whole thread. Already compelling cases why Harper is at best only questionably top 10 and likely won't be so in future. Machado is in bottom five of top 10 and may slip out due to defense. Harper should hang up his glove and try and become the next Ortiz. He's become useless in OF.

Don't believe ESPN. If Trout had better hair and was more bro-friendly, nobody would still be pimping Harper.

 

[the Q]

Suggest reading the whole thread. Already compelling cases why Harper is at best only questionably top 10 and likely won't be so in future. Machado is in bottom five of top 10 and may slip out due to defense. Harper should hang up his glove and try and become the next Ortiz. He's become useless in OF.

Don't believe ESPN. If Trout had better hair and was more bro-friendly, nobody would still be pimping Harper.

Harper has been getting pimped since he was 17.

It would’ve been fun to see Washington keep him at catcher

 

[HooperScooper]

Harper has been getting pimped since he was 17.

16.

 

[intlzncster]

I don't think there's one boilerplate method. I lived through Paul Wilson, Bill Pulsipher and Jason Isringhausen coming up through the Mets farm system as the next Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz. I do lean on proven players over prospects every single time though.

Everybody falls in love with their prospects. Everybody*. More often than not, a guy doesn't pan out. So it's usually a win in a trade for an established player. Even if the prospect becomes the superior player, the other team still received a win now proven player who ostensibly helped them achieve their goals. That's also a win, because of the uncertainty of the prospect panning our when you made the deal.

*Except Dave Dombrowski lol

 

[navery12]

Suggest reading the whole thread. Already compelling cases why Harper is at best only questionably top 10 and likely won't be so in future. Machado is in bottom five of top 10 and may slip out due to defense. Harper should hang up his glove and try and become the next Ortiz. He's become useless in OF.

Don't believe ESPN. If Trout had better hair and was more bro-friendly, nobody would still be pimping Harper.

I've read the whole thread. I think the points about both players not being top 10 are crazy and don't agree at all. Especially about Machado's defense once he moves back to 3B

 

[Towney007]

That's not really true anymore, though.

Batted ball velocities, advanced metrics - it's far, far more accurate at predicting success then we were even 10 years ago. The result has been a much more direct way to success via farm systems. While we can cherry pick busts, the fact is that the Tampa Bay Rays, Giants, various versions of the Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers, Royals, Cubs, Indians... 100% the Astros - have almost been built exclusively from within and in consort with a few key outside investments. Even teams that got close and didn't quite get there (Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets) - were primarily home grown w/ measured investments here and there.

Acting like building from within is a lousy strategy or somehow inherently more risky is just not true. It's a lot less risky. If it wasn't true, everyone wouldn't be doing it. The Yankees have what - 9 home grown active roster position players on their roster? I mean jeez.

 

[huskysupporter]

I don't think there's one boilerplate method. I lived through Paul Wilson, Bill Pulsipher and Jason Isringhausen coming up through the Mets farm system as the next Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz. I do lean on proven players over prospects every single time though.

They have a solid mix of veterans, young players and prospects on their roster. Biggest issue is pitching right now. They have a ton of big arms in the minors but like you mentioned with the Mets future star pitchers, a lot could happen, so can’t count on them.

 

[Towney007]

I've read the whole thread. I think the points about both players not being top 10 are crazy and don't agree at all. Especially about Machado's defense once he moves back to 3B

Machado - with a clunker of a year factored in - in 2016.... is the 9th best player in the league according to fWAR over the past 5 years. He's clearly one of the top 10 guys in the game and his value is doubled because third base is slim pickings AND he can move to SS and he's basically entering his prime now.

 

[superjohn]

Which deals are you going to argue against?

Besides Ellsbury and the latter part of Arod part II (which nobody would have foresaw the steroid suspension). They were all very good to great deals.

I don't think Tex, Giambi, or Ellsbury were good to great deals. Also don't think ARod deal was good in the long run, he was great the year they won it all, every other year he choked in the playoffs, his teammates didn't like him, and the back end of the deal was an unmitigated disaster.

That's not really true anymore, though.

Batted ball velocities, advanced metrics - it's far, far more accurate at predicting success then we were even 10 years ago. The result has been a much more direct way to success via farm systems. While we can cherry pick busts, the fact is that the Tampa Bay Rays, Giants, various versions of the Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers, Royals, Cubs, Indians... 100% the Astros - have almost been built exclusively from within and in consort with a few key outside investments. Even teams that got close and didn't quite get there (Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets) - were primarily home grown w/ measured investments here and there.

Acting like building from within is a lousy strategy or somehow inherently more risky is just not true. It's a lot less risky. If it wasn't true, everyone wouldn't be doing it. The Yankees have what - 9 home grown active roster position players on their roster? I mean jeez.

They've all been built almost exclusively from within? Don' know about all those other teams but that's certainly not the case with the Red Sox.

 

[FlippinCrazy!]

Suggest reading the whole thread. Already compelling cases why Harper is at best only questionably top 10 and likely won't be so in future. Machado is in bottom five of top 10 and may slip out due to defense. Harper should hang up his glove and try and become the next Ortiz. He's become useless in OF.

Don't believe ESPN. If Trout had better hair and was more bro-friendly, nobody would still be pimping Harper.

Don’t know what you’re talking about, Machado is a top defender at 3b and above average at short. Harper is above average in right field. Maybe when he gets older he’ll shift to left or first, but he’s no David Ortiz.

Also you’re not comparing these guys to everybody in the mlb. It’s free agency, and these guys are 26 and already proven stars, something that’s extremely rare for free agency. Granted looking at the young players coming up, they’ll be a ton more age 26ish star players hitting free agency, a guy like Aaron judge won’t hit free agency until he’s like 30, and it’s not like he hit the majors super late, just that guys like Machado, Harper, Mookie, trout came up extremely early

Trout has the potential to be one of the best players ever, it’s hard to compare to a guy like that

 

[intlzncster]

in theory the value of a marginal win increases over the decade as well - but that may not be the case anymore since anyone past arb is required to retire it looks like

Or get $30 million per year It's definitely a tough decision.

 

[FlippinCrazy!]

That's not really true anymore, though.

Batted ball velocities, advanced metrics - it's far, far more accurate at predicting success then we were even 10 years ago. The result has been a much more direct way to success via farm systems. While we can cherry pick busts, the fact is that the Tampa Bay Rays, Giants, various versions of the Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers, Royals, Cubs, Indians... 100% the Astros - have almost been built exclusively from within and in consort with a few key outside investments. Even teams that got close and didn't quite get there (Blue Jays, Orioles, Mets) - were primarily home grown w/ measured investments here and there.

Acting like building from within is a lousy strategy or somehow inherently more risky is just not true. It's a lot less risky. If it wasn't true, everyone wouldn't be doing it. The Yankees have what - 9 home grown active roster position players on their roster? I mean jeez.

Agreed, world championship teams are always full of homegrown/young talent combined with big free agent or big trade acquisitions. It’s the winning formula, and was why the top 3 suitors for Machado and Harper were the Phillies, white Sox and Padres. Young players are cheap as they’re all in their arbitration / rookie contract years, which leaves lots of money and assets to get top established free agents / trades. People don’t understand this enough, but all mlb teams are now following this mentality.

Think past winners in Red Sox, Astros, and cubs, all did the same thing to eventually have the perfect blend to maximize talent. Yankees are doing the same thing right now and are where the Sox were like 2 years ago.

Somewhat unrelated, but I think it’s hilarious the Yankees fans hating on Sox for having a higher payroll than them last year. Yankees in a couple years will have a huge payroll when they have all their young players hitting their big arbitration / contract years. Sox are just further along in their cycle with all their players already there

 

[intlzncster]

They've all been built almost exclusively from within? Don' know about all those other teams but that's certainly not the case with the Red Sox.

The Sox were built with home grown on the hitting side. Not so much on the pitching.

Probably the most homegrown team of any of their championships. But still towards the middle of the rest of the playoff teams last year.

 

[superjohn]

Agreed, world championship teams are always full of homegrown/young talent combined with big free agent or big trade acquisitions. It’s the winning formula, and was why the top 3 suitors for Machado and Harper were the Phillies, white Sox and Padres. Young players are cheap as they’re all in their arbitration / rookie contract years, which leaves lots of money and assets to get top established free agents / trades. People don’t understand this enough, but all mlb teams are now following this mentality.

Think past winners in Red Sox, Astros, and cubs, all did the same thing to eventually have the perfect blend to maximize talent. Yankees are doing the same thing right now and are where the Sox were like 2 years ago.

Somewhat unrelated, but I think it’s hilarious the Yankees fans hating on Sox for having a higher payroll than them last year. Yankees in a couple years will have a huge payroll when they have all their young players hitting their big arbitration / contract years. Sox are just further along in their cycle with all their players already there

Yankees fans could care less how much the Red Sox or any other teams spends, what they will do is call out the hypocrisy. The Red Sox always had one of the highest payrolls while at the same time calling the Yankees the evil empire because they buy championships. Ownership was selling the fans a hot plate of horses^>t and some Sox fans were eating it up. Don't pretend you're the little engine that could when you're always one of the highest payrolls, your not small market and never have been. The Cubs always used to play that same game too.

There is no way you don't understand this.

 

[ucp990411]

So what kind of influence do you think a player with a $300 miilion contract who admits he does not hustle have on a clubhouse full of young players. Good luck Padres, the next team turmoil. Go Dodgers.

 

[navery12]

So what kind of influence do you think a player with a $300 miilion contract who admits he does not hustle have on a clubhouse full of young players. Good luck Padres, the next team turmoil. Go Dodgers.

None

 

[intlzncster]

Yankees fans could care less how much the Red Sox or any other teams spends, what they will do is call out the hypocrisy. The Red Sox always had one of the highest payrolls while at the same time calling the Yankees the evil empire because they buy championships. Ownership was selling the fans a hot plate of horses^>t and some Sox fans were eating it up. Don't pretend you're the little engine that could when you're always one of the highest payrolls, your not small market and never have been. The Cubs always used to play that same game too.

There is no way you don't understand this.

Sox were never Little Sisters of the Poor. Usually Top 5. But the 'Evil Empire' thing came from the time when the Yankees blew the top off the budget and were crushing everybody in spending.

The difference was stark. Yanks spent about 30% more than the Sox over this period.

Yanks Sox
2014 204m 163m
2013 229m 151m
2012 198m 173m
2011 202m 162m
2010 206m 163m
2009 202m 123m
2008 209m 134m
2007 190m 143m
2006 195m 120m
2005 206m 121m
2004 183m 125m
2003 153m 100m

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I don't think Tex, Giambi, or Ellsbury were good to great deals. Also don't think ARod deal was good in the long run, he was great the year they won it all, every other year he choked in the playoffs, his teammates didn't like him, and the back end of the deal was an unmitigated disaster.

Giambi (2002-2008) 7/$120M~21 fWAR 22 bWAR = $5.5M per WAR.
Teixeira (2009-2016 8/$180M ~18 fWAR 19 bWAR = $10 per WAR.

Both of which are very reasonable over the lifetime of the contract, and considering teams usually get a surplus in the early years, and then eat the later years of the deal.

 

[intlzncster]

None

Fortunately you're not a GM.

 

[navery12]

Fortunately you're not a GM.

Not signing a superstar because he doesn't hustle every once in a while is so dumb I don't even know where to start

 

[intlzncster]

Not signing a superstar because he doesn't hustle every once in a while is so dumb I don't even know where to start

When you're highest paid player doesn't give some of the time, and you even come out and say it, why should everyone else?

Not sure I've heard a legit star/leader say these sorts of things before. Can you imagine Jeter saying this? The way he played and carried himself is exactly opposite of that.

And I never said I wouldn't sign him. But I think you need a damn good/strong culture already in place. Showalter had an old school established culture, and I'm sure that helped. We'll see.

Pretending that club house dynamics and a myriad other non-statistical factors don't matter always cracks me up when it comes to pure stat guys.

Players aren't chess pieces. You can't just plug everything into a computer and expect it to give you the most optimal results.

 

[navery12]

When you're highest paid player doesn't give some of the time, and you even come out and say it, why should everyone else?

Not sure I've heard a legit star/leader say these sorts of things before. Can you imagine Jeter saying this? The way he played and carried himself is exactly opposite of that.

It's pretty simple, because those players aren't as good as Machado. And to be honest I wouldn't care if those guys didn't hustle either. It was stupid for teams not to want Machado because he doesn't hustle the same way it was stupid the Mets cut Justin Turner as their utility guy for not hustling

 

[whaler11]

When you're highest paid player doesn't give some of the time, and you even come out and say it, why should everyone else?

Not sure I've heard a legit star/leader say these sorts of things before. Can you imagine Jeter saying this? The way he played and carried himself is exactly opposite of that.

And I never said I wouldn't sign him. But I think you need a damn good/strong culture already in place. Showalter had an old school established culture, and I'm sure that helped. We'll see.

Pretending that club house dynamics and a myriad other non-statistical factors don't matter always cracks me up when it comes to pure stat guys.

Players aren't chess pieces. You can't just plug everything into a computer and expect it to give you the most optimal results.

funny that the general managers seem to believe the opposite at this point.

 

[intlzncster]

funny that the general managers seem to believe the opposite at this point.

Do they use a significant stats component? Absolutely. So would I. But with razor thin margins, attitude, mental makeup, clubhouse culture concerns etc. can make a huge difference.

There's a reason some guys 'can't play in NY or Boston'. Because those intangibles matter. Plenty of guys can't hack it there. Because none of this production happens in a vacuum. And these are human beings naturally ruled by mercurial minds.

I've no idea who's stats are better, but I'd sign Jeter over Machado in an instant, given what I know about the guys (which isn't everything to be sure).