The Shapiro & Rogers Megathread

[The_Hater]

Im quite disappointed they didnt even make an offer to Price. Rogers said when the fans come out theyd increase salary. Fans came in droves, but they didnt even make Price an offer and payroll is the same.

Now theyre going to lose Jose/EE in 12 months and wont pre-emptively trade them.

Its quite frustrating.

I actually like Shapiro's long-term plan and was not a fan of AA, but Rogers gonna Rogers.

I'm not sure how failing to make Price an offer that clearly didn't fit into the payroll budget had anything to do with not extending EE or JB going forward?

Far too many people have concluded that because they didn't spend on one player that's some sort of sign that they won't spend on any high priced player (which ignores all the large contracts currently on the roster) They're still a top 10 payroll with $140 million to spend. Maybe they'll have more to spend next year too. If they don't spend the $$$ on extending their sluggers I can guarantee that they will still spend it elsewhere.

[The_Hater]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

Somebody should make a list of every 6+ year contract handed out in the past 20 years so we can examine the list. I'm willing to guess that 90% of them ranged from bad to disasterous deals.

[The Duke]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

I actually do agree with it as well, especially when you're talking about players around the 30 years of age mark.

[C Court]

I've never understood the complaint that a formal offer was never made to Price by the Blue Jays. Price was asking for 7/$200+, which was beyond what the Jays were prepared to pay.

In fact, Price's agent likely told inquiring teams something like, "we are not going to entertain offers below X dollars and Y years". So why bother?

Would Toronto fans have felt any better if the Shapiro had made a 5 year/ $110 million offer which was turned down in a nano-second by Price and his agent?

[The Duke]

I still stand by that Price's pitch arsenal, its not hugely great, and his pitch arsenal is more prone to detriate faster then other "aces". He is a good an effective regular season pitcher right now though. At the end of the day, an ace is paid for potential playoff success in short series, just as much as regular season starts, and I could see hesitation to dole out the money, and when you factor in 7 year contract, it was a non-starter, rightfully so. But power to Price, for cashing in when the iron was hot..

[C Court]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

Somebody should make a list of every 6+ year contract handed out in the past 20 years so we can examine the list. I'm willing to guess that 90% of them ranged from bad to disasterous deals.

A couple of years ago there was a review of mega-dollar long term baseball contracts. Most turned sour by year 3 or 4.

Look no further than Justin Verlander with 5 years and $134 million remaining ($26.8 mil/yr) or Prince Fielder with 5 years and $120 million remaining ($24 million).

[The_Hater]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

Somebody should make a list of every 6+ year contract handed out in the past 20 years so we can examine the list. I'm willing to guess that 90% of them ranged from bad to disasterous deals.

A couple of years ago there was a review of mega-dollar long term baseball contracts. Most turned sour by year 3 or 4.

Look no further than Justin Verlander with 5 years and $134 million remaining ($26.8 mil/yr) or Prince Fielder with 5 years and $120 million remaining ($24 million).

Ryan Howard. ARod. Zito. Pujols. Mauer. Some of the contracts that just started like Fernandez and Kershaw still look ok but it's early. Most of them look ok the first couple of seasons.

[OakleyDokely]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

It isn't really though. You need to be flexible. If LA and WASH had this policy, they won't be able to keep Trout and Harper beyond their current deals.

[Santoki]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

It isn't really though. You need to be flexible. If LA and WASH had this policy, they won't be able to keep Trout and Harper beyond their current deals.

This I would agree with and having a firm policy for anything is a bad idea, but I think there is an exception to be made when extending young, MVP-type players versus giving those same deals to 30+ year-old free agents. Even someone like Beeston would likely make an exception in those cases.

[C Court]

Like I've said before, Beeston's five year contract limit is a solid and sensible policy.

It isn't really though. You need to be flexible. If LA and WASH had this policy, they won't be able to keep Trout and Harper beyond their current deals.

Agreed on extending a player in his mid-20's. But what we are generally referring to is free agent deals on 30 y/o players whose skills are beginning to decline.

Many on the board and in the media (I think Blair was one) were clamouring for the Jays to sign Prince Fielder for whatever it took. Fortunately, Beeston stayed far away. Going in to 2016, Fie3lder is still owed $24 million per season for 5 more years. Ugh.

[cram]

It's probably a stupid concept, but if the Jays offered Price 150 over 4 yrs with a player opt-out option after 2.......who blinks?

[The_Hater]

It's probably a stupid concept, but if the Jays offered Price 150 over 4 yrs with a player opt-out option after 2.......who blinks?

The Jays didn't have the funds to offer that contract so it's a moot point.

[The Duke]

Players in the 24 range who are worth 7-year mega deals, are not available on the open market.
Players in the 30 range who are not worth the 7-year mega deals, are available on the open market.

[Schad]

Agreed on extending a player in his mid-20's. But what we are generally referring to is free agent deals on 30 y/o players whose skills are beginning to decline.

Many on the board and in the media (I think Blair was one) were clamouring for the Jays to sign Prince Fielder for whatever it took. Fortunately, Beeston stayed far away. Going in to 2016, Fie3lder is still owed $24 million per season for 5 more years. Ugh.

Fielder's a good example, because typically the argument is that yes, the back end of the contract might be ugly, but it's worth it for the elite production over the first two-thirds or what have you. And sometimes, that's true; the real risk of the mega-deal however is that things go downhill earlier, which is always a possibility in baseball.

In the first four years of his contract, Fielder has been paid $94m for about $60m worth of production. The majority of that was in the first season (the Rangers have paid $48m for about $10m worth of Fielder), and his power has faded significantly. Now a second team is trying (and apparently failing) to dump his deal, and there's a decent chance that he becomes every bit the millstone that Ryan Howard has been.

Having Ricky Romero flame out at ~$5m a year was annoying; that deal crawled by, but it wasn't fatal. If we were stuck with Fielder, there'd be no working around it.

[Santoki]

It's probably a stupid concept, but if the Jays offered Price 150 over 4 yrs with a player opt-out option after 2.......who blinks?

Price does because if he gets hurt in that first year or his velocity falls off and he's not effective then he's given up an extra $67 million dollars - nearly 45% less than what the Sox offered him. That's substantial and no player no matter how much lip service they pay to the fans are going to risk that much money.

[C Court]

It's probably a stupid concept, but if the Jays offered Price 150 over 4 yrs with a player opt-out option after 2.......who blinks?

Price does because if he gets hurt in that first year or his velocity falls off and he's not effective then he's given up an extra $67 million dollars - nearly 45% less than what the Sox offered him. That's substantial and no player no matter how much lip service they pay to the fans are going to risk that much money.

Assuming Price took that deal and he remained healthy. Then Price would be 35 y/o when it's time for a new contract. No one is paying Price $67 million over 3 years, at that point in his career. So anyway you look at it, there is no way Price would have accepted a shorter term contract.

The other risk factor with Price is his pitching mechanics. Because he doesn't have a traditional, fluid follow through - there is some concern he may be more susceptible to arm/elbow problems in a few years due to pressure from his abrupt arm stop.

[The Duke]

It's probably a stupid concept, but if the Jays offered Price 150 over 4 yrs with a player opt-out option after 2.......who blinks?

Make it 185/4yrs for Price to consider it.

[tecumseh18]

Verlander was on a bit of an uptick this season, but the point remains, these FA contracts make no rational sense. Anyone note that we beat the team who signed Yu Darvish. While we all wanted Prince at the time, it was partly because we felt he might be available at a discount because the Yankees and Sox weren't on the market. When the price tag became known, I don't think anyone here would have expected the Jays to pay it. And how sentimental were the Cards about Pujols?

The vast chasm in AAV between good young prospects - like Stroman - and the proven guys - like the guy he beat out for #1 starter on the playoff Jays - is mindblowing. Is there anything comparable in professional sports?

AA's plan was originally to invest in the draft, groom the young prospects and - as Beeston said back in 2010 or so - to be contending year after year by around now. What screwed up the timeline was the emergence of Jose and EE as a Manny and Big Papi-esque dynamic duo. AA felt compelled to build the team around them. He wasn't wrong, but the economics of relying on quality FAs - especially FA pitching - seems to have dramatically changed. If I was a "Real GM", I would adopt the Rays model of holding onto my prospects, and trading players a year or two before they reached free agency. Of course, it helped that they were basically the Sixers of baseball for several seasons.

[fmradioguy]

Of course, it helped that they were basically the Sixers of baseball for several seasons.

More than helped. It was the main reason.

That strategy isn't implemented to help them make the playoffs. It's in place to save them money. You may get 1 team a year make the playoffs out of the bottom 10 payrolls with 2013 being an outlier. But not only is cheaping out an ineffective way of competing, but constantly trading players hurts your brand. As much as there are those that just want to see their team win, there are many fans who still need an emotional connection to players and hometown heroes.

[CrookedJ]

Fangraphs did a poll on MLB ownership, as viewed by fans.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-ownership-ratings-by-the-community/

Jays got the highest number of responses, and fans ranked rogers ownership as:

Very bad 19%
Pretty bad 34%
Average 32%
Pretty good 13%
Very good 2%

The average rating was 2.4, slightly close to "pretty bad" than to average.

Miami by far the worst. 89% of fans rate Loria very bad. Probably hard to 89% of Floridians to agree on anything else....