Around Baseball Offseason Edition - Derek Jeter will retire at seasons end

[thewupk]

I would counter that most players aren't 'great' in their late 30s, no matter which position they play.

But I agree with the latter half of your post, by and large, although to me Trout represents a special case.

All-time greats usually are. Unless they play certain positions. 1B, center, and catcher are the main ones. Center and catcher because of how demanding those positions are and 1B because the general body type of most 1B isn't going to age well. I agree with Zito. Trout should be moved to right if they want to increase his chances of being a really long career and still be good.

[Hawk]

Not sure what the argument that's going on is.

But if it's Trout and CF, he should be moved to RF ASAP. But guys don't age well in CF. Guys you listed who played late into their career were smaller and lighter than Trout.

I don't buy that CF is a high-risk position, at all. Especially in contrast to SS/2B/C. All of the evidence that has been presented is anecdotal.

[Hawk]

All-time greats usually are. Unless they play certain positions. 1B, center, and catcher are the main ones. Center and catcher because of how demanding those positions are and 1B because the general body type of most 1B isn't going to age well. I agree with Zito. Trout should be moved to right if they want to increase his chances of being a really long career and still be good.

Even when you are talking about 'greats' like Chipper, Jeter, their production post-35 is nowhere near the numbers they put up earlier in their careers.

[GovClintonTyree]

No quiero Senor Creek.

Señor Ditch.

[GovClintonTyree]

Even when you are talking about 'greats' like Chipper, Jeter, their production post-35 is nowhere near the numbers they put up earlier in their careers.

Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds

[GovClintonTyree]

I don't buy that CF is a high-risk position, at all. Especially in contrast to SS/2B/C. All of the evidence that has been presented is anecdotal.

Right. C-2B-SS. You should be able to play CF forever.

[The Chosen One]

There's just something about Spring Training that's very relaxing to watch no matter what team.

[thewupk]

I don't buy that CF is a high-risk position, at all. Especially in contrast to SS/2B/C. All of the evidence that has been presented is anecdotal.

Provide evidence that star centerfielders can continue to play at that level through their 30s. There are only a few here and there that have done it. If Trout were to do that then it would be against the norm.

[zitothebrave]

I don't buy that CF is a high-risk position, at all. Especially in contrast to SS/2B/C. All of the evidence that has been presented is anecdotal.

Every time a flyball is hit a CF is on the move. He doesn't get plays off.

Lots of running and the knees and back take a beating. Think about NBA players.

[Hawk]

Every time a flyball is hit a CF is on the move. He doesn't get plays off.

Lots of running and the knees and back take a beating. Think about NBA players.

CF is more taxing than LF/RF, but not SS/2B -- those guys are constantly diving, being upended, and have to be on the ball EVERY play.

My order (from most to least dangerous):
- C
- 2B
- SS
- CF
- 1B
- 3B
- LF

[thewupk]

CF is more taxing than LF/RF, but not SS/2B -- those guys are constantly diving, being upended, and have to be on the ball EVERY play.

My order (from most to least dangerous):
- C
- 2B
- SS
- CF
- 1B
- 3B
- LF

I don't think anybody says that they are. But you rarely see big middle infielders either. And those that you do usually get moved off the position in their 30s like Arod and Ripken.

[Hawk]

Provide evidence that star centerfielders can continue to play at that level through their 30s. There are only a few here and there that have done it. If Trout were to do that then it would be against the norm.

There are only a few players, period, that have performed at a 'star' level into their late 30s, irrespective of position. Would you not agree?

[Hawk]

I don't think anybody says that they are. But you rarely see big middle infielders either. And those that you do usually get moved off the position in their 30s like Arod and Ripken.

What caused me to wade into this discussion to begin with was the assertion earlier in the thread that CF was the second or third most dangerous position on the diamond.

And then, the notion that Trout was an abnormally risky sign because he plays center.

The logic behind both of those ideas is rather flawed.

[thewupk]

There are only a few players, period, that have performed at a 'star' level into their late 30s, irrespective of position. Would you not agree?

The greats of the greats did. That's why they are as good as they are. But the point is most of the ones that did play well late into their careers were moved off of the premium positions as they got older. Which means they aren't as valuable as they one were in their prime. Which is why signing Trout to a super long deal would not be smart.

[thewupk]

What caused me to wade into this discussion to begin with was the assertion earlier in the thread that CF was the second or third most dangerous position on the diamond.

And then, the notion that Trout was an abnormally risky sign because he plays center.

The logic behind both of those ideas is rather flawed.

Most dangeorus position? Not really. One of the most taxing? Yeah I would think so. For most SS and 2B the position isn't that taxing because you don't have 230 pound players out there. You have smaller more agile players. In center you run a lot more and if you are a bigger guy then that is going to wear down on you a lot when you get around 30. Which can lead to injury and poor performance. Trout is a risky sign if you go on a super long contract which some here have suggested. The smart move would be to sign him until he is around 30 and let someone else pay for his decline.

[zitothebrave]

CF is more taxing than LF/RF, but not SS/2B -- those guys are constantly diving, being upended, and have to be on the ball EVERY play.

I'm not gonna do too much research here because I don't want to. But bigger players age harsher, and bigger players playing demanding defensive positions age harshest. Trout is a big player.

[Hawk]

The greats of the greats did. That's why they are as good as they are. But the point is most of the ones that did play well late into their careers were moved off of the premium positions as they got older. Which means they aren't as valuable as they one were in their prime. Which is why signing Trout to a super long deal would not be smart.

This study at FanGraphs is interesting: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-do-star-hitters-age/



Signing Trout to a mega-deal might not be ideal for the full term, but when you factor in his ZiPS projection (9.5 WAR) for 2019 (when he is a FA again) his production would be worth $60MM per season ... taking that into account, a long term pact at today's dollars might be the safest route.

[Hawk]

I'm not gonna do too much research here because I don't want to. But bigger players age harsher, and bigger players playing demanding defensive positions age harshest. Trout is a big player.

It's okay, I did it for you -- while pooping, actually.

[AUTiger7222]

Trout is young enough that giving him a 10 year deal for whatever would be a great deal.

[Heyward]

What about a 15-year deal, only takes him to age 36 or 37.

Yes, risky, but i'll take that chance.