2018 ATL Offseason Thread - Trout 12/$430 million

blazza18 · Post #481 » by **blazza18** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:12 pm

Large market clearing cap space is gross.

MikeIsGood · Post #482 » by **MikeIsGood** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:10 pm

Turk Nowitzki wrote:I'm not sure I really get this for the Reds at all. What am I missing here?

I'm not sure I do either. I don't know much about the prospects they're supposedly giving up, but maybe they see it as Alex Wood (long-term) being their ace plus some OFs for a few years? I mean I still don't get it because they're terrible, but I'm trying to look at it from their perspective.

trwi7 · Post #483 » by **trwi7** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:45 am

Turk Nowitzki wrote:I'm not sure I really get this for the Reds at all. What am I missing here?

If you come at it from the perspective of the Reds are stupid, which they are, it makes perfect sense.

Kerb Hohl · Post #484 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:47 pm

The Reds might be able to get 1 or 2 comp picks out of it by offering Puig and/or Wood the QO.

They're trying to play the team that is trying to appease fans that have sat through a bunch of losing by being the team that will take one-year big $ players for the bigger markets to clear their books a bit.

Of course it will probably culminate in 83 wins but it doesn't derail a longer-term build too much, though that may have been an issue anyways.

They basically got Wood, Puig, and Kemp for $7 million dollars for one season and may be able to offer them the QO if they so choose to Puig/Wood. Probably could go a better direction but that's probably the spin you can put on it for their side.

It didn't really clear that much for the Dodgers. They're still going over the luxury tax threshold if they bring in Harper as it currently stands.

Kerb Hohl · Post #485 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:13 pm

;tldr - the Reds bought 6 WAR or so in 3 players for $7 million and a prospect. Depending on what Jeter Downs does, that's likely a good deal. Plus, they can get comp picks. That all seems to work.

Timing of it? Ehhh.

Post #486 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:18 am

Read on Twitter

Post #487 » by **MickeyDavis** » Wed Jan 2, 2019 4:42 am

Read on Twitter

Kerb Hohl · Post #488 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Wed Jan 2, 2019 3:19 pm

I don't think Tulo is going to be anything special but as many have stated, annoying that NYY get another advantage. Of course, Tulo could've gone anywhere for the same price, but still annoying.

Ryan5UW · Post #489 » by **Ryan5UW** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:03 pm

LeMahieu to Yankees on a 2 year, $24 million deal.

Post #490 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:03 pm

Read on Twitter

I super don't get the bending over backwards to get Murray to Oakland.

trwi7 · Post #491 » by **trwi7** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:14 am

It's obvious for the A's. They just blew the 9th pick in the draft if they don't get Murray to play baseball.

jakecronus8 · Post #492 » by **jakecronus8** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:05 am

I have day dreams about Murray to the Packers so I'm more than fine with oakland bungling this.

Post #493 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:44 am

jakecronus8 wrote:I have day dreams about Murray to the Packers so I'm more than fine with oakland bungling this.

You can't be serious.

MikeIsGood · Post #494 » by **MikeIsGood** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:24 am

ReasonablySober wrote:

Read on Twitter

I super don't get the bending over backwards to get Murray to Oakland.

MLB has an issue with losing athletes to football and basketball. My guess is the league sees this as a potential win to get a Heisman trophy winner to actually play baseball.

As ridiculous as it may be...like him going straight to the majors.

trwi7 · Post #495 » by **trwi7** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:26 am

He's not going straight to the majors. They're just going to give him a **** ton more money and have him burn options immediately.

jakecronus8 · Post #496 » by **jakecronus8** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:41 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
jakecronus8 wrote:I have day dreams about Murray to the Packers so I'm more than fine with oakland bungling this.

You can't be serious.

As a heart attack. Has everything you would want in a franchise QB except height.

Post #497 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:47 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
jakecronus8 wrote:I have day dreams about Murray to the Packers so I'm more than fine with oakland bungling this.

You can't be serious.

As a heart attack. Has everything you would want in a franchise QB except height.

You forget that we have a franchise QB under contract through 2023? If you're interested in drafting his successor, maybe wait three or four years or so.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #498 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:37 pm

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/1/14/18181665/mlb-mlbpa-player-power-labor-strike-machado-harper-murray

Interesting topic. I understand players wanting their piece of the money coming in but I also completely get teams not wanting to give out terrible ridiculous contracts to older players. They basically have a system that for the players to get their fair % of the overall revenues teams need to give out bad contracts; and it's a system that really only benefited a small % of players. That doesn't seem like something that can be fixed with a small change.

Not sure I know of a perfect solution. Maybe they copy some of the other sports with more revenue sharing that would balance out teams ability to spend then setting a salary floor. They should also take some of that extra money teams are making and spread it around to younger players paying everyone in the minors more and increasing minimum salaries for pre-arbitration players.

Curious what you guys think would work best.

Post #499 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:00 pm

WeekapaugGroove wrote:https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/1/14/18181665/mlb-mlbpa-player-power-labor-strike-machado-harper-murray

Interesting topic. I understand players wanting their piece of the money coming in but I also completely get teams not wanting to give out terrible ridiculous contracts to older players. They basically have a system that for the players to get their fair % of the overall revenues teams need to give out bad contracts; and it's a system that really only benefited a small % of players. That doesn't seem like something that can be fixed with a small change.

Not sure I know of a perfect solution. Maybe they copy some of the other sports with more revenue sharing that would balance out teams ability to spend then setting a salary floor. They should also take some of that extra money teams are making and spread it around to younger players paying everyone in the minors more and increasing minimum salaries for pre-arbitration players.

Curious what you guys think would work best.

From this morning, this is the best thing I've read on the subject.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #500 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:18 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
WeekapaugGroove wrote:https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/1/14/18181665/mlb-mlbpa-player-power-labor-strike-machado-harper-murray

Interesting topic. I understand players wanting their piece of the money coming in but I also completely get teams not wanting to give out terrible ridiculous contracts to older players. They basically have a system that for the players to get their fair % of the overall revenues teams need to give out bad contracts; and it's a system that really only benefited a small % of players. That doesn't seem like something that can be fixed with a small change.

Not sure I know of a perfect solution. Maybe they copy some of the other sports with more revenue sharing that would balance out teams ability to spend then setting a salary floor. They should also take some of that extra money teams are making and spread it around to younger players paying everyone in the minors more and increasing minimum salaries for pre-arbitration players.

Curious what you guys think would work best.

From this morning, this is the best thing I've read on the subject.

Thanks that is an interesting read. They mention less revenue sharing and I understand where they are coming from as a motivator for teams to actually try and to prevent teams from just taking cash and keeping it while putting a **** product on the field. But maybe I'm just biased because I think that would hurt the Brewers but I feel that would penalize teams like them who are in a smaller market but have actually tried and create an even bigger competitive gap between the small and large market teams.