Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
I would agree. But it what they say
I'll be honest that I'm not sold on dansby. We will see this yr when he hits 2 if he can do enough damage with the bat
Braves Extend Inciarte
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
I would agree. But it what they say
I'll be honest that I'm not sold on dansby. We will see this yr when he hits 2 if he can do enough damage with the bat
I'm not sure why the saber inclined people are so hesitant to even consider this exists. Our understanding of the universe around us consistently changes. Its only natural to assume that what we will know in 10/20/30/100 years will be different than what we know now. Does that change a universal truth? That same truth, later to be discovered, still exists today. We just are not mentally capable enough to comprehend it.
I would say its much more likely that our tools in 50 years will capture events that we cannot today.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I don't want to bog this thread down in a Heyward debate, but it would take an epic failure as a defender for Heyward's contract to be one of the worst ever.
You don't even have to look too far back to see terrible contracts. Last year being Heyward's worst year as a pro by a long shot, he still was a net positive player. Compare that to Ryan Howard, who's spent the majority of the last 5 years sucking. Offensively and defensively. The only reason his WAR isn't "that" bad is he was hurt all the time. When you compare Heyward to Howard, Howard in his 5/135 contract accumulated a -2.2 fWAR. Heyward would have to try really hard to be in that realm of sucking.
Heyward isn't even remotely likely to be worst contract recently. See Sandoval.
Also. Remember Mike Hampton?
You don't even have to look too far back to see terrible contracts. Last year being Heyward's worst year as a pro by a long shot, he still was a net positive player. Compare that to Ryan Howard, who's spent the majority of the last 5 years sucking. Offensively and defensively. The only reason his WAR isn't "that" bad is he was hurt all the time. When you compare Heyward to Howard, Howard in his 5/135 contract accumulated a -2.2 fWAR. Heyward would have to try really hard to be in that realm of sucking.
Heyward isn't even remotely likely to be worst contract recently. See Sandoval.
Also. Remember Mike Hampton?
This is where the two sides will never agree in a nutshell IMO.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - they're simply different opinions.
There are always going to be things that don't show up in the boxscore that do make a difference - sometimes a huge one. Many of them don't show up in the long run, which is probably a big part of the reason they're so hard for the numbers-savvy crowd to quantify. To me, that's OK. I don't think it's wrong to have the numbers be a big part of the decision-making process at all. The thing is, there are endless instances where important games have turned on contributions from the unlikeliest players that were called on simply because their Manager or Coach "had this feeling".
Of course those situations aren't going to come up regularly (at all), but I don't see the harm in wanting to build around players who are good enough in all facets of the game that you're not "giving up" huge amounts of projected production. When you look over the best postseason hitters in history, you sure don't see the names of many players with the best career numbers (comparatively). Of course there are a smattering of them in there, but they don't fill up the list. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/Playoffs_batting.shtml)
Call that "clutch", "better than their numbers", or whatever - success on the biggest stage never seems to come as often for those with the best numbers as we'd all expect it to. I don't think you'll ever be able to measure it or correctly project it - that's just one of the things that makes the game so great, and the best stories always seem to be about those players someone just had that feeling about before they delivered.
Add $90 million to Sandoval's contract and you've got a point.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
You don't realize how **** Sandoval is. He sucked massively in 2015, As in he was the worst player in all of baseball. And didn't even play in 2016 aside from like 7 PA. Of course he has time to turn it around, but so does Heyward. And even if Heyward produces the same WAR he did last year every year for his whole contract, he still will not be as bad as Sandoval cause short of posting an MVP season, you can't deny the absolute massive negative value the first 2 years of Sandoval's deal provided.
That being said, I'm more than confident that Heyward will start hitting again.
Southcack77
Well-known member
You mean if Mallex just happens to develop power and become one of the best players in baseball?
Sure. That would be good.
Nobody's suggesting that it's the worst contract ever. However, there's still a segment here who will never admit that Heyward was not, is not and never will be superstar caliber. You can continue to declare WAR all you want. This fact will not change.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
You should perhaps see what's been said further upthread. My comment wasn't baseless it was based off a quote someone said.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Everyone does, but they don't just look at a spreadsheet of projections to make any trade. If they went by WAR and surplus value they would have traded Freeman and gave Heywood the money.
I'm quite aware of how bad Sandoval is.
What you're missing here is the exact thing so many people here like to point out. Missing as badly on a contract "just" the size of Sandoval's is enough to set the majority of franchises back years. Missing on one the size of Heyward's is enough to cripple all but the biggest market teams for a long time - see Pujols.
It hasn't shown up yet, but that overpay may even cripple the Cubs sooner than many think...
1.) Rizzo may be under control through 2021, but he'll make $13.5 million less than Freeman THIS season. How long do you think he can see all this money in the game and not want what's fair? His current contract will never pay him as much as Melvin Upton makes per season.
2.) Many love to point out that hoping players will sign at a discount is crazy. If that's the case, it's going to be much more painful in Chicago. Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber ALL will become free-agents at the same time. That also roughly lines up with the end of Rizzo's current deal. Heyward will still be on the books for $22 million per for 2 more seasons while the Cubs will be trying to re-sign some (if not all) of them.
You can massage the numbers whichever ways you want - this year was the "cheap" year of that contract. He didn't earn his money this season, and it only gets tougher for him to moving forward. Plus, it keeps on giving since they'll owe him $5 million per AFTER he's off the roster. It's a sell-out/win now contract. I don't personally have problems with those because I don't mind sacrificing a bit in the future when you have the chance to win in the present - I just think it's a little ridiculous when people try to defend them as something other than that. I'm also willing to bet that you'll have one *elluva time finding a single Cubs fan that will care when the contract starts to make things tough because they got their Title.
Zeets, btw, grabbed a bottle of Johnnie Walker Green yesterday!
I don't think Dansby will be a typical superstar if a superstar at all. I think his overall ceiling is what we got from Heyward in a way. Good or better in all aspects of the game but not necessarily great at any of them.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Well, break it down. He has 80 speed - stole 88 in '14. He has hit 21 triples the last three seasons. Hit .300 with average .375 OBP at every level. Scouts have said his CF defense is vastly improved/very good. Had 3 HR in 189 AB as a 22 year old.
The only thing I'm projecting that he hasn't done at a lower level is that he'll develop from a 10 HR guy to a 15-20 HR guy. If you use your big muscles/lower body - kind of the opposite of what Heyward does - a smaller man can hit for some power.
I heard an interview with Mallex last year when he was going good in which he addressed this, felt he could develop more power without sacrificing his basic skills, and expressed disgust that anyone would regard him as a "slap hitter" (his words). I was also impressed with his intelligence. I like smart players and think they stand a better chance of improving than dumb, toolsy players.
So I'm bullish on Smith. I'd rather trade Markakis, who could help somebody, and turn over one of the corners to Mallex for the season and see how it goes...either now or in July.
I think if anything we will able to identify certain traits that lead to certain performances. A recent example is the ideal launch angle, etc.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That won't be a problem for Chicago. For starters as long as any of them are willing they'll be signed soon to buy out thier arby seasons. THat's a big thing Epstein is into.
Second. Chicago has a ton of money, and owners willing to spend it. Rizzo's got team options for 2020 and 2021. When that's done they'll kick him to the curb, he'll be 32 and won't have more than a few if any productive seasons left. Rizzo isn't a factor. By the time that the other 3 are approaching FA, chicago will have only Heyward still on contract. Lester will be gone, Zobrist will be gone, Rizzo will be gone. Cubs will probably have a small rebuild around 2019 or 2020 to restock some prospects if they need to by trading some of their less important arb eligible players, but Cubs are in a fine situation. Heyward's contract was structured in a way that when their young stars now are older, he'll be a non-factor
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Also, Southcack, I was ok with trading Inciarte because I was pretty sure Mallex could handle CF. Now that we've committed to Ender, we need to decide whether Mallex can complement him. We'd need Big Power from somewhere else. 1B, LF, 3B would all need to be power spots. That's why I was thinking Frazier or Longoria might be a nice player for us.
And those traits that are not identifiable yet exist. We can't just discount the possibility that they do. It doesn't have to drive the whole conversation but it should be part of it.
Those two things don't really correlate. Not all teams do business this way. See: Diamondbacks. But the vast majority of them do. And of course each team will projects players differently so that will factor in it. But yes surplus value, aka contract value, plays a huge part in making deals. Julio would fetch more in a trade right now than if he signed a 3 year deal in FA at market value. I mean that's pretty obvious and getting a players surplus value can show us which trades are pretty fair and those that are lopsided.
Absolutely. I am 100% on board the make room for Mallex team.
Everyone knows my feelings towards Nick and he should be able to help some contender (maybe Toronto).