Balta1701

This is the exact opposite of what his velocity chart for the season shows, his velocity dropped with the Cubs.

If the White Sox are at 4/80 and he's asked for 5/100 and they haven't gotten this done somehow then someone in this org isn't doing this correctly.

Isn't $11.5 mil per WAR roughly what we calculated Rick Hahn had paid on average even when including the Abreu deal?

You can give me "The Cano trade is so awful" and i have nothing left to say. Aren't the M's covering at least a portion of Cano's deal?

If you're disappointed with 21 WAR on a $240 million deal then you don't understand the free agent market. It's not the best deal ever, but there's no way on Earth you should be furious about that level of performance. The last few years stink, but that's the cost you're paying to deal with the first few years. Be furious when your 71 win team signs that deal, not about the deal itself.

It shouldn't be. Pay them what they're worth and take advantage of the fact that there's no one over-bidding guys.

I wish people understood - it was not a bad contract at all. It was bad for the team that signed it, but it was not a bad contract. He has been worth 21 fWAR over the first 6 years of his deal - people would pay $200 million to get that performance on the free agent market. If you're a team right on the cusp of contending and you signed that deal, Robinson Cano could easily have put you into the playoffs in several of those seasons. That's exactly the kind of production you'd hope for, and you're signing a 10 year deal rather than a 6 year deal because the back few years allow you to spread out the cost, so that you're not paying him $50 million a year in the first 3 years of the deal when he's the most productive. The problem was not the contract. The steroids thing isn't nice, but aside from that. The problem was that the Mariners, the team signing him, did not have enough in the tank to get anywhere close to the playoffs when they added him. They weren't an 87 win team, they were a 71 win team that made a 16 win jump and it wasn't enough to make the playoffs. It was a bad contract for the Mariners, but a legitimate team signing him could have easily been content with their trophy even if they had to figure out what to do with the last few years of the deal.

The nice thing for the Brewers is - with 4 years of control on the guy, if they don't get an enormous return for him there's no reason to move him. They can wait until the deadline, then they can wait until next offseason, then they can wait til the deadline next year, and that's just in his first arbitration season.

If I were the Brewers, having seen what other players the truly elite relievers have returned in trades, I wouldn't send him to the White Sox for anything less than Robert. There's every reason to think that if they're patient some team will give up a top 20 or better player for him.

When you paste text, there is always for me an option that comes up at the bottom of the text box that says something like "Pasted as rich text. Use plain text instead?" Clicking the plain text option removes the copied formatting.

Yes. I don't see any other way that it makes sense to him to give up any of his prime-earning years unless you're buying out his whole career.

IMO - the only way to get this to reasonably happen is to get in the $200 million range.

We need bullpen help even with Colome on our roster, so sending Colome away to fill the RF spot and bringing in Treinen wouldn't leave us obviously better than just signing one of the cheap RF options. If you're trading for Treinen, seems reasonable to me - but keep him and Colome, we need the bullpen help. Worst case scenario - trade away Colome, both Herrera and Treinen have rotten 2020 years, and our bullpen is the worst part of our org and costs us a lot of close wins.

I don't know if this is where I'd spend my money but he'd make a really good 4th OF and he'd probably get a ton of playing time in that role. Sub in for Eloy or Robert late in games to rest both or improve defense if the game is close, covers CF for the first few weeks of the season, lots of injury replacement time was available last year, would be an excellent platoon partner for Pederson or Calhoun, would move Leury's job to mostly being backup IF.

The entire last offseason. Snitty is an understatement for the rants the President of Baseball Operations went on.

Long awkward pause. "We got another email here..."

He'd have left this offseason for nothing.

If those guys were all it took, we'd be paying Mancini something like $22 million over the next 3 years compared to what, $50 million over 4 years for Castellanos, and getting a 5th starter candidate out of it? So we'd effectively be turning Sheets, Rutherford, and Flores into $20+ million in savings and getting that 5th starter covered for $5 million?

Strasburg.

His record is comparable to that of the people everyone wants to hear more from right now.

????

IMO - you can never keep all of them (see Houston) but the best way to be able to afford some of them is the revenue associated with putting a winner on the field.

I would call that reasonable for that player. I still think the top 2 are likely to be better uses of money, but if we're ruling out those 2 then that's about where it should be.

Franchises should not want to be leaking like this.

Once both of these are done it will be at 38. That would give them the ability to either sign/trade for 2 players or to sign 1 player and then have a slot available to use during the rule 5 draft.