Look at Ray Ray Run

Jack, again what is this based on? The Twins haven't even made the guy a formal offer yet - or hadn't as of Thanksgiving - yet you think he would have made his decision already if it was 5/100 million. As of now, we have no idea who has bid on Wheeler and everything regarding his market is pure speculation. He is not a borderline top of the market arm, either. I agree SP's get overpaid more than any position in FA - especially those with ++ stuff - but that doesn't mean he's going to get some absurd 6/130 contract unless his agent pulls a fast one and some team gets real dumb.

Neither could throw strikes back then, and neither throw strikes now.

For luxury tax purposes, his 5 million is on this year. For their budgetary purposes internally, they put it on 2019.

I just don't think they thought anyone would claim him with the injury. He will likely end up accepting an assignment, but who knows? Edit: thought this said Burr. Ignore.

First of all, who is "everyone?" Second of all, the only reason more teams are interested is because he's "more affordable" not because he's better. You don't attempt to sign the more affordable arm for an unaffordable number just to avoid paying the big guns. The higher you go, the more reasonable it gets to just offer the money to Cole. He's got a market because he's not at the top of the market; once he enters that realm, his suitors decrease significantly.

Jack, you are speculating based on your personal bias. There's nothing out there saying the market is anywhere near 6/130. The market predictors, who have been far from perfect, believe he's going to get less than 100 million. Saying you think he would sign if that was his price is an assumption based on nothing. Maybe his offers are 4/80 and he wants 5/100. That's a pretty big difference. Almost no one signed by this time last year, so assuming he would have signed by now is a leap of faith I'm not willing to take.

No way - I actually argued pretty extensively that he would be a hell of a lot closer to Corbin than projections had him at; at FG's and other outlets, so I don't disagree with the basis of your argument. Their valuation of Wheeler was laughably low, but he's not going to get Corbin money I don't think. Corbin just had more advantages and more going for him than Wheeler. I'd be shocked if he got more than 110 and even more shocked if he got 6 years.

I mean, I think they should certainly have a ceiling and if someone greatly overspends what they valued the ceiling to be, they should move on. They shouldn't spend recklessly just to spend, but their valuations better not be significantly lower than everyone else also.... I wouldn't give Wheeler 6 years, 135 million for example - that would be reckless and you'd be better off playing in the big boy pool if you were going to invest that much. They certainly have to have ceilings, but they better be reasonable and built on the premise that FA = Overpay.

I agree with your take, but what is the Twins largest contract ever given to a pitcher? The Sox gave John Danks 63 million at least.

I get it, but Fred didn't really have a system. There was nothing unique about his offense. He ran a bunch of drags with limited shooters (terrible) and he cleared the paint for penetrating guards that didn't really exist. His sets had no fluidity to them - his offense involved perimeter rotations with false pass throughs in the paint constantly. With Rose, MAYBE you could run a spread offense fueled by drags because he could get out on the break so fast.... but the Bulls weren't even "great" in transition when their entire offense was predicated on transitions and drags. That's one broken system. His offense was reliant on constant switching - which does not happen nearly as frequently in the NBA as you'll see in college - to create mismatches off his high screens for Rose or whoever was running PG. Running a bunch of wing weaves with no great shooters just allows defenders to sag down low and double down on the penetrating guard. You didn't even need to shut off both corners because the Bulls didn't have the shooters there to keep the spacing as you'd like in that offensive set. Hoiberg was awful. I was critical of his offenses in college whenever he ran into a team that had two wings athletic enough to guard inside and out - every team in the NBA has that athleticism, and it made Hoibergs offense look like a kid drew it up.

Yes, they're "developing" players in a system that does not fit them. It's a great strategy. Boylen isn't going anywhere though. Amazing the coaches this team has thrown out there recently; Vinnie, Boylen and Hoiberg are just embarrassingly bad - to a level most don't understand. Hoiberg wasn't even a candidate for any other team - he wasn't one of the 10 best coaches in the college game, but he was friends with Gar so he got the job. Vinnie was about as ready as a 12 year old making his first move on a chick. Boylen... he's not even the best Jim Boylen coaching basketball for god sakes.

Based on what exactly? What have the Twins ever done to lead you to believe that they would be the organization to bid high enough to make the Sox uncomfortable?

Man, he must have had a hell of a second half because he wasn't very good in the first half. That's a nice season despite the k rate increase. If he duplicates that, you are correct - he doesn't need to get any better. Had no idea he had that big of a second half.

He made a swing change in the minor leagues right before the season started. There wasn't much that was flukey about his two months - his MiLB production had soared as well. His power may be very real. He hit 47 homers in 134 games. That's pretty good regardless of level and etc. I tend to side with you, but I do think he's an MLB regular with that power and I do think the power is real. The question is, can he find consistency.

Depends what you think of Senzel and Aquino. If you think their bonafide stars, that's not a bad lineup if they add another piece to it. Suraez and Votto could use a rejuvenated year though.

Yeah, but Grandal had a 3 year period with wRC+ of 121, 102, 125. A catcher ages even faster too. It's bizarre all around, but I understand the owners plan and goal.

Yeah, minimize salary growth over a few year period in the middle of the CBA, and then give them a slight escalation before negotiations to argue you haven't been doing that; hoping that recency bias overcomes the fact that they allowed salaries to stagnate for 3 years while revenues continued to grow. I don't see it working as a negotiating strategy, but I imagine the FA"s this year are happy. How can one argue that Mous and Grandal are worth MORE this off-season than last? You can't, so the only explanation is the above imo.

Wow, this is a lot more than I figured. This is a bad contract by the Reds, but good on Mous. MLB teams seem to be handling this off-season a little differently... with the CBA coming to a close. Seems like ownership may be looking to reverse the salary suppression belief.

Good for Mous.

I don't want to take this too far off topic, but the difference between 8 WAR from one player and 2-3 WAR is incredible. Trout is likely worth about 60-70 million a year, because replacing him is impossible.

Agree to disagree. Trout could be worth 50% of what he was worth in his first 9 years and he'd be worth his contract. I don't think people realize how historically good Trout is and people like him have aged really gracefully. Trout isn't going to fall off the face of the earth, for example.

If Robert ends up being worth 1/5th of what Trout was worth through his age 28 season, I think Sox fans would be happy. 1/5th! I love Robert; I am super excited for his arrival. Saying you wouldn't trade Luis Robert for Mike Trout is just crazy talk though. 400 million for Trout is a bargain.

You wouldn't trade Luis Robert for Mike Trout straight up? Say what? "Just spend it on Betts?" Betts is very good; he's still significantly worse than Mike Trout. If the Angels called and offered the Sox Trout for Robert today, and the Sox rejected, it that would be worthy of changing fanhoods. Trout might end up as the greatest of all-time - if not that, then in the top 5. I'd trade Madrigal and Robert for Trout.

I'd trade him for this guy:

Preller would still be trading for OF'er. You can never have too many!