southsider2k5 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 It could be a 12 year deal. MLBRosterMoves @MLBRosterMoves 18m The @tigers and @MiguelCabrera agree to 8-year contract extension through the 2023 season with two vesting options for 2024 and 2025. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) It could be a 12 year deal. MLBRosterMoves @MLBRosterMoves 18m The @tigers and @MiguelCabrera agree to 8-year contract extension through the 2023 season with two vesting options for 2024 and 2025. Has anyone written what the vesting options are? If I had to guess I'd imagine they were written such that the Tigers would be happy if they vested (i.e. he's still performing well in years 9 and 10). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) Has anyone written what the vesting options are? If I had to guess I'd imagine they were written such that the Tigers would be happy if they vested (i.e. he's still performing well in years 9 and 10). Most vesting options are based on appearances, games, ABs, IP, etc. I haven't seen them yet, but I would bet if gets X number of ABs in the last two years, or something similar, is how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Most vesting options are based on appearances, games, ABs, IP, etc. I haven't seen them yet, but I would bet if gets X number of ABs in the last two years, or something similar, is how it works. And like I said...if he's meeting those, I think the Tigers are happy, not sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 @jaysonst: Dave Dombrowski says Cabrera's vesting options become guaranteed if he finishes in top 10 of MVP voting the previous year. No other triggers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Hilari-bad? ROFL-copter? LOL-osovich? Worst deal in sports history? I would like to thank the suburbs of Detroit for making this possible. Edited March 28, 2014 by TaylorStSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I wonder if Miggy is still drinking? That contract is even worse in view of his past problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 12:17 PM) I wonder if Miggy is still drinking? That contract is even worse in view of his past problems. Overweight DH heading into his mid to late 30's. Sounds like a safe bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 This deal makes DET look much worse in the Scherzer situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) This deal makes DET look much worse in the Scherzer situation. I think a lot of it has to do with Verlander being the home-grown player who has spent his entire career with the Tigers, and the "franchise" along with Cabrera... From Illitch's point of view, he's not going to give equal value or higher (to the Verlander deal) to keep Scherzer, partially out of respect to Verlander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) This deal makes DET look much worse in the Scherzer situation. Honestly I don't get either contract. The whole point of signing a deal years early is for the team to get some concessions from the player in exchange for signing early. Does that Cabrera deal strike anyone as some sort of a discount? That is a worst case scenario contract. The offer Scherzer turned down at least was a little bit of a discount from the current market, but still, not even that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Holy macaroni. Chicago White Sox - AL Central Champs 2019-2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10690274...abrera-megadeal Dombrowski responds to the criticism. Edited March 29, 2014 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) I just don't understand baseball's need to give a contract like this. 10 years is just flat out stupid. I mean in 4 years (which is a long time) he might have a bad back or something and be DONE. It's just unnecessary to pay this kind of money to a fricking baseball player. Baseball players would play for a million a year if they had to. For the most part, they are not rocket scientists. Baseball owners slay me. Some of you don't remember the day you could actually go to a baseball game and park for a couple of bucks instead of 25-50 bucks and didn't need to shell out 59 bucks for a halfway decent seat for a meaningless April game. Baseball was never meant to be an elitist sport as it has become. Ridiculous. I guess the team gets to purchase insurance in case he can't ever play again after a serious injury; I'm assuming they at least will do that. Edited March 29, 2014 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 10:55 PM) I just don't understand baseball's need to give a contract like this. 10 years is just flat out stupid. I mean in 4 years (which is a long time) he might have a bad back or something and be DONE. It's just unnecessary to pay this kind of money to a fricking baseball player. Baseball players would play for a million a year if they had to. For the most part, they are not rocket scientists. Baseball owners slay me. Some of you don't remember the day you could actually go to a baseball game and park for a couple of bucks instead of 25-50 bucks and didn't need to shell out 59 bucks for a halfway decent seat for a meaningless April game. Baseball was never meant to be an elitist sport as it has become. Ridiculous. I guess the team gets to purchase insurance in case he can't ever play again after a serious injury; I'm assuming they at least will do that. Yes, but those policies are also getting more and more expensive with each megacontract, as the risks to insure them for companies like Lloyd's of London escalate. It used to be you could recover about 35-40% if a player was injured. I would guess these contracts are probably adding another 10-15% in insurance premium payments, above and beyond the actual value of the contract itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 11:55 PM) I just don't understand baseball's need to give a contract like this. 10 years is just flat out stupid. I mean in 4 years (which is a long time) he might have a bad back or something and be DONE. It's just unnecessary to pay this kind of money to a fricking baseball player. Baseball players would play for a million a year if they had to. For the most part, they are not rocket scientists. Baseball owners slay me. Some of you don't remember the day you could actually go to a baseball game and park for a couple of bucks instead of 25-50 bucks and didn't need to shell out 59 bucks for a halfway decent seat for a meaningless April game. Baseball was never meant to be an elitist sport as it has become. Ridiculous. I guess the team gets to purchase insurance in case he can't ever play again after a serious injury; I'm assuming they at least will do that. God I hate when people complain about ticket prices. I saw Chris Sale pitch 13 rows behind home plate last year and it cost me $18. Use the secondary market for tickets. Also, as bad as baseball contracts seem, baseball players still get a smaller portion of the overall revenue than football, basketball, or hockey players. It doesn't even matter. Detroit's tv deal is up in two years and then they sign a new one and Cabrera's deal won't even matter. That's how much revenue these teams are making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 11:45 PM) God I hate when people complain about ticket prices. I saw Chris Sale pitch 13 rows behind home plate last year and it cost me $18. Use the secondary market for tickets. Also, as bad as baseball contracts seem, baseball players still get a smaller portion of the overall revenue than football, basketball, or hockey players. It doesn't even matter. Detroit's tv deal is up in two years and then they sign a new one and Cabrera's deal won't even matter. That's how much revenue these teams are making. If the Tigers are worth less than the White Sox, have the withering Detroit economic downturn to deal with...and can still afford to pay Fielder, Verlander, Cabrera, Scherzer $650 million or whatever, well, there's money there if teams really want to spend it. It's not JUST about Mike Illitch's personal fortune at play here. The main point, though, is that they're not willing to spend it on 2nd tier players like Santana, Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales...especially when draft pick compensation is attached. But almost every team can sign a $15-20-25 million per year player...if they really want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 29, 2014 -> 12:55 AM) If the Tigers are worth less than the White Sox, have the withering Detroit economic downturn to deal with...and can still afford to pay Fielder, Verlander, Cabrera, Scherzer $650 million or whatever, well, there's money there if teams really want to spend it. It's not JUST about Mike Illitch's personal fortune at play here. The main point, though, is that they're not willing to spend it on 2nd tier players like Santana, Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales...especially when draft pick compensation is attached. But almost every team can sign a $15-20-25 million per year player...if they really want to. I never understood why you always use this format. The middle number is unnecessary. You're giving a range from a low end to a high end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 11:55 PM) I just don't understand baseball's need to give a contract like this. 10 years is just flat out stupid. I mean in 4 years (which is a long time) he might have a bad back or something and be DONE. It's just unnecessary to pay this kind of money to a fricking baseball player. Baseball players would play for a million a year if they had to. For the most part, they are not rocket scientists. Baseball owners slay me. Some of you don't remember the day you could actually go to a baseball game and park for a couple of bucks instead of 25-50 bucks and didn't need to shell out 59 bucks for a halfway decent seat for a meaningless April game. Baseball was never meant to be an elitist sport as it has become. Ridiculous. I guess the team gets to purchase insurance in case he can't ever play again after a serious injury; I'm assuming they at least will do that. You can take the train to a Sox game and buy a ticket for maybe ten bucks. If you spend five minutes on an online survey, the Sox will give you free tickets. You complain that the Sox should spend more money, yet criticize every team that signs a big FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 29, 2014 -> 05:45 AM) God I hate when people complain about ticket prices. I saw Chris Sale pitch 13 rows behind home plate last year and it cost me $18. Use the secondary market for tickets. Also, as bad as baseball contracts seem, baseball players still get a smaller portion of the overall revenue than football, basketball, or hockey players. It doesn't even matter. Detroit's tv deal is up in two years and then they sign a new one and Cabrera's deal won't even matter. That's how much revenue these teams are making. Look, I'm just saying baseball wasn't designed to be an elitist sport. You disagree? I don't and won't sit in upper tank. I'm a box seat guy. So what will a game cost me on the secondary market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2014 -> 12:44 AM) Look, I'm just saying baseball wasn't designed to be an elitist sport. You disagree? I don't and won't sit in upper tank. I'm a box seat guy. So what will a game cost me on the secondary market? It wasn't designed to be a commercial sport, period. It was designed for the enjoyment of the soldiers around the time of the Civil War, by Doubleday or Cartwright depending on which origin story you choose to go with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2014 -> 01:44 AM) Look, I'm just saying baseball wasn't designed to be an elitist sport. You disagree? I don't and won't sit in upper tank. I'm a box seat guy. So what will a game cost me on the secondary market? I don't know, Greg. You could probably go and sit in the lower bowl for $30. It is hilarious that you say baseball wasn't supposed to be elitist but you are too elite to sit in the upper deck though. The UD at the Cell a few rows back behind home plate are some of the best seats in the house in my opinion. Nobody is forcing you to go to games though. That's why I hate the argument. If it's too expensive, don't go. The games are on television. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 29, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) I don't know, Greg. You could probably go and sit in the lower bowl for $30. It is hilarious that you say baseball wasn't supposed to be elitist but you are too elite to sit in the upper deck though. The UD at the Cell a few rows back behind home plate are some of the best seats in the house in my opinion. Nobody is forcing you to go to games though. That's why I hate the argument. If it's too expensive, don't go. The games are on television. But I like to go. I just don't like the elitist hit on the wallet. Last year I paid 48 bucks for a ticket and 10 for parking (Royals have cheap parking) to see the Sox-Royals and Paulie didn't even play. That sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 09:00 PM) They're also going to have to pay Austin Jackson at some point. Don't worry...the Red Sox will pay him handsomely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.