Williams Perez

[Enscheff]

Let say Justin is signed for 25M per year. Adding that to Freddie's contract you get the following for the two players by year:

2016 37
2017 45.5
2018 46
2019 46
2020 47
2022 48

Assuming payroll of 130M in 2017, that's 35% of payroll. And presumably that would be the peak with any sort of payroll growth.

We aren't even arguing any actual point. I agree the another impact $20M+ bat is needed if this team wants to truly contend for a WS. I agree that they could probably afford that bat, if the rest of the roster is managed correctly.

All I'm saying is Nick Markakis with his .377 OBP and $11M salary is not the reason preventing them from acquiring such a player. There would be several $11M players on any legit contender, and Markakis is just as good as any other reasonable option at that price.

 

[nsacpi]

Um, several teams win pretty consistently with mid-level payroll. The Braves were under $100M this year, but a lot of that money went into eating bad contracts like the Touki trade. The Braves should consistently have a ~$110M payroll, which puts them right alongside the Royals and Orioles...teams that have won pretty consistently lately. Other good teams in that payroll range or lower: Mets, Pirates, and Astros. Teams that are usually good despite minimal payrolls: A's, Rays.

Hell, the Cards are the model organization for the last decade with a payroll right around $120M.

Teams with huge payrolls that are terrible: Red Sox, Phillies, M's, Dodgers (compared to their enormous payroll).

Maybe you want to rethink your assertion?

I think the Cards are indeed the one organization that you could hold up as winning consistently with a payroll that's not huge. They had two players making 33% of opening day payroll for 2014. What I'm advocating with Justin and Freddie is similar to that.

 

[thewupk]

Um, several teams win pretty consistently with mid-level payroll. The Braves were under $100M this year, but a lot of that money went into eating bad contracts like the Touki trade. The Braves should consistently have a ~$110M payroll, which puts them right alongside the Royals and Orioles...teams that have won pretty consistently lately. Other good teams in that payroll range or lower: Mets, Pirates, and Astros. Teams that are usually good despite minimal payrolls: A's, Rays.

Hell, the Cards are the model organization for the last decade with a payroll right around $120M.

Teams with huge payrolls that are terrible: Red Sox, Phillies, M's, Dodgers (compared to their enormous payroll).

Maybe you want to rethink your assertion?

Only the Royals and Pirates have been over .500 the last 3 years of that group you mentioned. And that was after a decade plus of being horrible. So no I don't see a lot of consistant winners there.

 

[thewupk]

We aren't even arguing any actual point. I agree the another impact $20M+ bat is needed if this team wants to truly contend for a WS. I agree that they could probably afford that bat, if the rest of the roster is managed correctly.

All I'm saying is Nick Markakis with his .377 OBP and $11M salary is not the reason preventing them from acquiring such a player. There would be several $11M players on any legit contender, and Markakis is just as good as any other reasonable option at that price.

My point is mid market teams should not be paying free agent market value for 1.4 WAR as it's horrible value which mid market teams should be trying to maximize.

 

[nsacpi]

My point is mid market teams should not be paying free agent market value for 1.4 WAR as it's horrible value which mid market teams should be trying to maximize.

I would amend that slightly and say you should not give multi-year deals where you are paying market value for players of that caliber. I think on a short-term basis (2 years or less) you can justify it if you have a competitive team that has an area of need that you can't fill internally.

 

[thewupk]

I would amend that slightly and say you should not give multi-year deals where you are paying market value for players of that caliber. I think on a short-term basis (2 years or less) you can justify it if you have a competitive team that has an area of need that you can't fill internally.

Definitely. If Nick was on the team for 2 years I wouldn't mind it at all especially as we are in a rebuilding period. But 4 years is just too long imo. Chances are good he will be at replacement level by 2017 or 2018 and that 11 million could of been better used somewhere else.

 

[50PoundHead]

I think the Cards are indeed the one organization that you could hold up as winning consistently with a payroll that's not huge. They had two players making 33% of opening day payroll for 2014. What I'm advocating with Justin and Freddie is similar to that.

But again, the Cardinals have had a pipeline of in-house talent graduate their system into the big leagues and contribute. You can pay a few guys a lot if you have talent to slot in when support-level guys get too expensive. The Cardinals' drafting has been nothing short of astounding. Think Piscotty, Grichuk. and Wong. I'm not going to harp on Wren (Lord knows I have done that enough to last six lifetimes), while all of his trades looked good in isolation, the cumulative effect was an emptying of the system, especially in terms of position prospects. If you're a mid-market team, it is absolutely essential to have a pipeline of likely major league contributors. If you do, you can pay a couple of stars and fill in behind them.