Exactly the contract MLBTR predicted, obviously not with the Cubs though. They have been pretty much spot on so far this offseason.Originally Posted by UNCBlue012
Exactly the contract MLBTR predicted, obviously not with the Cubs though. They have been pretty much spot on so far this offseason.
What are the odds that Zack is signed before this Sunday. I would imagine being the best available, he wanted to see what Price got to set his market.
But, but, but....all those rosterbation posts from all the super smart posters here made it seem like a sure thing.
I suppose we will have to wait for next offseason to see how the fools around here predict the Braves can sign the newest elite FA.
Price is 2 years younger.
But 5/150, 6/180 would seem about what it would cost for him.
yes, I don't think he is getting the 7th year. But from what I have read, he wants 6 years. I think the Dodgers are the only team willing to risk that.. Maybe the cubs as a sleeper..Giants are just playing games with the dodgers. I don't think they will give 6/180 to Zack..
Crazy. This only makes Miller and JT more appealing. Both pitchers are likely to be better over the next 5 years and will come at a fraction of that price.
Per Rosenthal: Greinke is likely to make his decision before the end of the week....between Giants and Dodgers
I don't think Price's contract is all that much of a market mover for guys like Miller and JT. They're both valuable, but Price's contract is pretty close to what folks who follow the market were expecting so it shouldn't change much. I think the reality that the front office is trying to deal with is the overall surplus in starting pitching this off-season.
Greinke will get 6 years, and I think 6/180 is the floor.
He is looking to beat Price's AAV, so I'm guessing 6/190 keeps him in LA.
I wonder if he gets another opt out, then in 3 years we are in the same boat lol
Very doubtful. Price is an actual TOR stud. Something Miller and JT are not.
And as far as the contract in general goes it was about what was expected. Just slightly more than what Kershaw got but considering all the factors (inflation, kershaw being better, price being in FA, age difference) it makes sense.
Baseball pays it's players. I see nothing wrong with it. I'd much rather the players get the money instead of the owners. Also unlike the NFL if you spend money in a stupid way then you are on the hook for all of it. There is risk/reward situation here.
#Braves keep trying for #DBacks’ Pollock, sources tell me and @jonmorosi. Initial offer was S. Miller for Pollock straight up. AZ said no.
#Braves came back with Miller and Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and Aaron Blair. AZ again said no.
I believe if a player just falls on his face and sucks he shouldn't be paid. That's what I like about the nfl, it keeps the players motivated. Look at Arod. He should have been able to be fired years ago instead of collecting a fat check. The players shouldn't have all the power.
Man they must really love Pollock.
I still side with the players. They are what drive fans to the ballpark.
Dbacks making a smart move here. Pollock is a better player.
If you owned a business and one of your employees became terrible at their job would you still wanna pay them the next 5 years regardless?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote