Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Isnt the highest AAV contract Greinke? Had he been 26 when he entered FA who knows what he would have gotten for years. The longest contracts have gone to hitters so far, but if youre talking per year, Greinke is tops. And in terms of AAV most are pitchers. Greinke's contract is for 7 years. No one is giving a pitcher a 10 year deal. Edited February 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said: Couldn't or chose not to? You either sign a FA or you dont. When you say you wont be outbid its pretty weak to go down to an extra year and about $20mil. https://thatballsouttahere.com/2018/12/04/phillies-rumors-outbid-corbin/ Quote Phils insist they will not be outbid for Corbin. Indeed, the other teams in the hunt for Corbin (Yankees and Nationals) are realizing that as well. With that in mind, how high will Philadelphia potentially have to go? Nightengale tweeted that Corbin will get at least a six-year, $125 million contract according to several executives. So at the end, he got 6 years $140mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Greinke's contract is for 7 years. No one is giving a pitcher a 10 year deal. But doesnt that defeat your entire argument as pitchers are getting the highest AAV per year? You said that hitters are more valuable because of usage. That would suggest that for a single season, a hitter should be paid more than any pitcher. Longest contract is just based on longevity, and has nothing to do with who is more valuable per season or usage. Edited February 2, 2019 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 33 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Position players are more valuable than pitchers because of raw usage. It's really that simple. Reliability and frequency matter a lot in long term contracts. It's why the longest and biggest contracts will always go to hitters before pitchers. Signing a bunch of pitchers under the premise of expected injury is not a good way to allocate funds to maximize return. You don't sign a guy for any decent wage to be a security blanket for a guy you signed for a bigger wage. Injuries should be reactionary, despite assumed likelihood. Otherwise it's a misallocation of funds. I would disagree with each one of these concepts. Pitchers are responsible for many more pitches per game than any hitter. This is the fundamental flaw in the usage discussion. I agree with the long term contract aspect but that neglects the drafting and development capital used for the staff. They need to use more capital overall to acquire deep staffs. You need to have enough pitchers to go 20 deep with quality to have a good season. I think it should be 8 deep for starters but the way the new philosophy goes you could go with more relievers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: But doesnt that defeat your entire argument as pitchers are getting the highest AAV per year? You said that hitters are more valuable because of usage. That would suggest that for a single season, a hitter should be paid more than any pitcher. Longest contract is just based on longevity, and has nothing to do with who is more valuable per season or usage. No, shorter term investments are to accommodate for the higher volatility. When assessing the risk of a large and long term investment that is very likely to not warrant its end year values, it's the total investment that matters - not the aav investment. Teams weren't paying Stanton or Cabrera for their age 37 seasons. These are the biggest investments given and I want to reiterate that it's the total investment that matters for investments that are likely to have no value in them at the end of it... 1. Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000 (2015-27) 2. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17) 3. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10) 4. Miguel Cabrera, $248,000,000 (2016-23) 5. Albert Pujols, $240,000,000 (2012-21) … Robinson Cano, $240,000,000 (2014-23) 7. Joey Votto, $225,000,000 (2014-23) 8. David Price, $217,000,000 (2016-22) 9. Clayton Kershaw, $215,000,000 (2014-20) 10. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 (2012-20) Edited February 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ptatc said: I would disagree with each one of these concepts. Pitchers are responsible for many more pitches per game than any hitter. This is the fundamental flaw in the usage discussion. I agree with the long term contract aspect but that neglects the drafting and development capital used for the staff. They need to use more capital overall to acquire deep staffs. You need to have enough pitchers to go 20 deep with quality to have a good season. I think it should be 8 deep for starters but the way the new philosophy goes you could go with more relievers. Its not a flaw. If you want to argue that a pitcher faces over 600 at bats in a full season I can understand that but it's a fallacy to say that is equal to a batter taking 600 at bats. The reason is this. A player can impact the outcome for all 162 games in a season - it's not just his 600 at bats. It's his time on the bases and in the field. The ability to impact the game daily is why an owner is more likely to invest heavily in a bat. Edited February 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: No, shorter term investments are to accommodate for the higher volatility. When assessing the risk of a large and long term investment that is very likely to not warrant its end year values, it's the total investment that matters - not the aav investment. Teams weren't paying Stanton or Cabrera for their age 37 seasons. These are the biggest investments given and I want to reiterate that it's the total investment that matters for investments that are likely to have no value in them at the end of it... 1. Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000 (2015-27) 2. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17) 3. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10) 4. Miguel Cabrera, $248,000,000 (2016-23) 5. Albert Pujols, $240,000,000 (2012-21) … Robinson Cano, $240,000,000 (2014-23) 7. Joey Votto, $225,000,000 (2014-23) 8. David Price, $217,000,000 (2016-22) 9. Clayton Kershaw, $215,000,000 (2014-20) 10. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 (2012-20) 7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Its not a flaw. If you want to argue that a pitcher faces over 600 at bats in a full season I can understand that but it's a fallacy to say that is equal to a batter taking 600 at bats. The reason is this. A player can impact the outcome for all 162 games in a season - it's not just his 600 at bats. It's his time on the bases and in the field. The ability to impact the game daily is why an owner is more likely to invest heavily in a bat. Okay again longevity has nothing to do with the value of a player in a single season. If you want to argue that hitters are likely to get longer contracts with higher totals than pitchers due to position players longevity and that pitchers may be less durable over time, that is a different argument then things like: Position players are more valuable than pitchers because of raw usage and your entire second post. If position players were more valuable per season and long term, then they would get both the highest AAV and the longest contract. You will likely see this with Mike Trout. But other than Trout, when you look at the top AAV it is all pitchers. You keep arguing about single seasons, which has nothing to do with longevity. 600 at bats, 162 games, are single game statistics. When teams give out a 10 year contract, there is a consideration as to what that player can offer in years 8-10. Pitchers have historically not lasted that long, so its not as good of an investment to give them 10 years. But that has nothing to do with impact in any given season. Its 2 entirely different calculations being made by teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Okay again longevity has nothing to do with the value of a player in a single season. If you want to argue that hitters are likely to get longer contracts with higher totals than pitchers due to position players longevity and that pitchers may be less durable over time, that is a different argument then things like: Position players are more valuable than pitchers because of raw usage and your entire second post. If position players were more valuable per season and long term, then they would get both the highest AAV and the longest contract. You will likely see this with Mike Trout. But other than Trout, when you look at the top AAV it is all pitchers. You keep arguing about single seasons, which has nothing to do with longevity. 600 at bats, 162 games, are single game statistics. When teams give out a 10 year contract, there is a consideration as to what that player can offer in years 8-10. Pitchers have historically not lasted that long, so its not as good of an investment to give them 10 years. But that has nothing to do with impact in any given season. Its 2 entirely different calculations being made by teams. It is raw usage. A player gets 600 at bats but he also plays 1400 innings. His usage is much higher than the 200 inning guy. Also, the position players sacrifice some aav for the years. 6 years additional at 25 million a year is more valuable than the 6 extra million a year over the first 6 years. Edited February 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: It is raw usage. A player gets 600 at bats but he also plays 1400 innings. His usage is much higher than the 200 inning guy. Right, so if we are talking about single seasons (not longevity), baseball teams are paying the highest AAV to pitchers. Which means that currently teams believe the best pitchers have more value in a single season than the best hitters. The reason for investing more long term in a hitter versus pitcher doesnt have to do with teams believing hitters have more impact in a single season, it has to do with the fact that hitters are more likely to have value at the end years of a contract. Its impossible to know, but Id guess if teams were bidding for 1 season for players, after Trout, the next few would be pitchers. Because while overall a hitter has more chances to have an impact in a season, a pitcher has the greatest chance of having the most impact on a single game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjusttyped Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Isn't the *exact* conversation that's playing out in this thread part of what makes WAR such a useful stat? I think Trout & Mookie have separated themselves from the rest of baseball, but once you get beyond them, I think the batter vs pitcher argument has more to do with the players individual talent than anything else. There's a large cluster of position players & aces that I think you would realistically expect to produce in the ~6 WAR range. here's the combined WAR leaderboard according to FG last season: https://www.fangraphs.com/warleaders.aspx?season=2018&team=all 32 of the top 50 players last season were position players, FWIW. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Its not a flaw. If you want to argue that a pitcher faces over 600 at bats in a full season I can understand that but it's a fallacy to say that is equal to a batter taking 600 at bats. The reason is this. A player can impact the outcome for all 162 games in a season - it's not just his 600 at bats. It's his time on the bases and in the field. The ability to impact the game daily is why an owner is more likely to invest heavily in a bat. The starting pitcher has an effect on 100 pitches per game for 30 or so starts that's 3000 plays. That's more than the 600 at bats plus his defensive plays or at least close. He has more impact on his 30 games than the hitter has spread out over the 150 or so games that most hitters play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiebs13 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 4 hours ago, fathom said: Just to make myself and some others nervous, but here's something that a pretty well-respected cubs insider posted tonight. No idea what it's about. In no way is this guy well respected lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Soxbadger said: Right, so if we are talking about single seasons (not longevity), baseball teams are paying the highest AAV to pitchers. Which means that currently teams believe the best pitchers have more value in a single season than the best hitters. The reason for investing more long term in a hitter versus pitcher doesnt have to do with teams believing hitters have more impact in a single season, it has to do with the fact that hitters are more likely to have value at the end years of a contract. Its impossible to know, but Id guess if teams were bidding for 1 season for players, after Trout, the next few would be pitchers. Because while overall a hitter has more chances to have an impact in a season, a pitcher has the greatest chance of having the most impact on a single game. There's another setup that could work here. If teams believe that pitchers are a greater long term risk, but they are absolutely needed in the short term, teams are willing to pay for that. Teams are also willing to pay for performance for players, but they also know there's a chance that the player could last until they're 37 or 38. So the team will toss them a few extra million in those last years, but extend the deal longer - so the AAV is lower, but the total value is higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Yes but the mlb teams pay higher aav to pitchers is going to end in a month so that argument doesn't really work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 13 hours ago, fathom said: Just to make myself and some others nervous, but here's something that a pretty well-respected cubs insider posted tonight. No idea what it's about. Dude that is straight up trash trolling. Stop posting Charles the cat bullshit 4 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaPG Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Dude that is straight up trash trolling. Stop posting Charles the cat bullshit that charles the cat account is entirely bias and never checks in with facts, easily the worst in cubs twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, IowaPG said: that charles the cat account is entirely bias and never checks in with facts, easily the worst in cubs twitter Mr inside info in my back pocket posts this in the middle of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Dude that is straight up trash trolling. Stop posting Charles the cat bullshit Well it ends up it was about the Cubs meeting with Harper yesterday https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/02/02/source-cubs-met-with-bryce-harper-friday-deal-not-believed-imminent/ Edited February 2, 2019 by fathom 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaPG Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, fathom said: Well it ends up it was about the Cubs meeting with Harper yesterday https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/02/02/source-cubs-met-with-bryce-harper-friday-deal-not-believed-imminent/ https://twitter.com/medwardcanter/status/1091662270927724544?s=21 Heres the thead. Guy in brewers FO sharing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hombre Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, fathom said: Well it ends up it was about the Cubs meeting with Harper yesterday https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/02/02/source-cubs-met-with-bryce-harper-friday-deal-not-believed-imminent/ Lol that article reads like fanfic 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Ah, another “insider” who has nothing to lose by posting anything and who qualifies their material with “it could be something, it could be nothing.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 15 minutes ago, fathom said: Well it ends up it was about the Cubs meeting with Harper yesterday https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/02/02/source-cubs-met-with-bryce-harper-friday-deal-not-believed-imminent/ Yea that Cubs insider guy, gotta be true right nothing says protecting a source quite like telling everyone he works at an agency and then spilling all of the details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 So the Cubs flew out yesterday and met with Harper the day after the entire media went nuts reporting he was meeting with the Padres and no one but this one rando knows about this? Color me skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: So the Cubs flew out yesterday and met with Harper the day after the entire media went nuts reporting he was meeting with the Padres and no one but this one rando knows about this? Color me skeptical. FWIW, and it’s very little, but Jed Hoyer was out west yesterday. Said he just got to Arizona around 5pm cst when he called in to do his super bowl pick with Mac and Parkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: So the Cubs flew out yesterday and met with Harper the day after the entire media went nuts reporting he was meeting with the Padres and no one but this one rando knows about this? Color me skeptical. Also there was a report that Harper met with other teams recently for a 2nd or 3rd time and the media didn’t report on those. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts