AA's 5-year Contract Limit is Good for the Franchise.

[Hamyltowne]

It's impossible to be a constant contender unless you pull a Yankees and have a 200M payroll. It is a cycle of contention, it's a phase just like rebuilding is.

Toward the end you sell the team--creative destruction--and do it all over again with a good farm.

I wonder if Philly has gotten the hint.

[Hamyltowne]

I think the 5-year limit has a good purpose until we need a big name FA to stretch that window of contention as wide as we can.

Even then I would have apprehension because that big name FA would doubtless be on the wrong side of the age-27 WAR curve and more than 5 years might not be worth it.

Then again, it just might.

We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

For now, AA has a good policy going and we'll all be celebrating it in the coming years.

[whysoserious]

Or we could calling for his head because of this policy costing us a shot at adding a piece and we still hadn't won anything.

Hardline policies like this are just not good. It's a good organizational philosophy, I'm not doubting that. But you need to be flexible to look beyond that when the opportunity presents itself and big long contracts are still the norm for the big FA's.

You point to the fact there were only two this past summer and that's trending down. I disagree, those were the two big names and the rest of the class were average. And guess what, they still got the standard big deal. It's not about how many are handed out, its the fit that it's still the baseline for a big time FA.

[Hamyltowne]

You point to the fact there were only two this past summer and that's trending down. I disagree, those were the two big names and the rest of the class were average. And guess what, they still got the standard big deal. It's not about how many are handed out, its the fit that it's still the baseline for a big time FA.

The RSN money will dry up soon and the lack of certainty in revenue will scare the market back into a quasi-rational state where 5 years is all most clubs will give.

The big-time FAs will slowly turn into 'old guys' and the the market will look to avoid repeating its mistakes.

That trend has already begun.

When it comes down it, whysoserious, I just have more faith in the market than you do. The market is rational. Scott Boras, and company, are not.

[whysoserious]

You seem to have some blind faith towards the market correcting itself.

You point to RSN money drying up, but revenues for baseball teams keeps climbing on the whole, valuations keep going up.

How are FA's getting older? Was there a change in the CBA to UFA status?

Prince Fielder is 27 years old and everyone last year was saying no one would offer him a lengthy deal (i Can't even believe that 27 has now become old in some peoples minds) and he waited it out and got a 9 year deal from a mid-level market in Detroit.

Nothing has changed. Once the big spenders like the Yankees and Red Sox clear some of these aging vets or are at the point of getting close to having them off their books, they'll go right back to spending. This was a year the big spenders decided to not spend for a variety of reasons, but one summer is an anomaly at this point.

I'm all for this supposed 5 year rule as long as AA is flexible enough to do the deal that's necessary to put us over the top and this hardline stance doesn't cost us getting that piece to add.

[flatjacket1]

(i Can't even believe that 27 has now become old in some peoples minds)

It is in baseball. Just look at WAR aging curves.



Combine this with the fact that "large" players like Fielder tend to peak even younger than average players, and the Fielder deal was almost as stupid as the Pujols one.

[Hamyltowne]

^ flatjacket's graph is spot-on.

Once the big spenders like the Yankees and Red Sox clear some of these aging vets or are at the point of getting close to having them off their books, they'll go right back to spending. This was a year the big spenders decided to not spend for a variety of reasons, but one summer is an anomaly at this point.

An anomaly that should last a few years in New York:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20065109&c_id=mlb

[whysoserious]

I'm no expert on WAR. BUt that's not the be al and end all stat. But your graph still shows a productive player for about 4-5 years, then semi-productive for a couple more before a sever drop in the WAR stat.

And if it takes a 9 year deal to get the guy that wins you a championship is it worth it? Or is it worth it so never know because you weren't wiling to commit a measly 4 years. It could def be crippling at the end but who cares. GM's are in it to win, not to think 9 years from now what that contract will do. If that one player helps the rest of this group even win one World Series it will be worth it. The attendance boost for that season and a couple beyond would be huge.

But hey, you stick to your five year hardline stance, if you're not able to sign anyone and you don't win, will you come back and say you should have gone out and got someone?

[flatjacket1]

I'm no expert on WAR. BUt that's not the be al and end all stat. But your graph still shows a productive player for about 4-5 years, then semi-productive for a couple more before a sever drop in the WAR stat.

WAR is the single best measure available that covers most of a players game. It is a darn good stat and yes, players are still decent a few years following their primes. The thing is, all FA's are on the decline.

And if it takes a 9 year deal to get the guy that wins you a championship is it worth it? Or is it worth it so never know because you weren't wiling to commit a measly 4 years. It could def be crippling at the end but who cares. GM's are in it to win, not to think 9 years from now what that contract will do. If that one player helps the rest of this group even win one World Series it will be worth it. The attendance boost for that season and a couple beyond would be huge.

To go from a playoff team to a contender I'd give a guy 9 years. To go from a .500 team to a playoff team, the FA route is a waste.

[whysoserious]

Agreed flatjacket but sometimes you have to sign a guy like Fielder a year before contending because that type of player may not be available the following year. This year we were expecting to be in contention for a playoff spot but not quite ready to be a serious WS contender probably. But a guy like Fielder (and trust me I'd be concerned about signing him too) was available, that could have helped this team this year and also during WS contending years in the coming years.

Some of you think it when you're ready to contend, that someone will be there for you but that just may not be the case. It all boils down to timing. And holding to a hardline 5 year rule could hurt you from getting that guy when the time comes or creates a lack of willingness to commit to winning, which can affect fans and FA's looking at the Blue Jays as being serious.

[flatjacket1]

Agreed flatjacket but sometimes you have to sign a guy like Fielder a year before contending because that type of player may not be available the following year. This year we were expecting to be in contention for a playoff spot but not quite ready to be a serious WS contender probably. But a guy like Fielder (and trust me I'd be concerned about signing him too) was available, that could have helped this team this year and also during WS contending years in the coming years.

Fielder will be good for another 3-4 years tops. We can't afford a 2nd Fielder. Jason Bay posted similar WAR before his FA season, and this year we have Garza, Shields, and Hamilton all hitting FA. There will always be Fielders/Pujols.

Texas never signed a big name FA until making the playoffs on homegrown talent. We must do something similar to build a true contender.

Some of you think it when you're ready to contend, that someone will be there for you but that just may not be the case. It all boils down to timing. And holding to a hardline 5 year rule could hurt you from getting that guy when the time comes or creates a lack of willingness to commit to winning, which can affect fans and FA's looking at the Blue Jays as being serious.

5 year rule is stupid but at this point it makes sense. 5+ year deals don't work out. You only give one of those out once you KNOW you are playing September baseball.

We pull the trigger too early what happens you ask? Well, once players hit around 30 (especially the big ones) become close to useless (e.x Wells). There was no warning signs for him. Big deals usually have a year where, uh oh, the players can't play.