|
Post by thomasj13 on Jan 24, 2019 19:22:13 GMT -6
You know it is intentional, no one can be that bad all the time.
|
|
|
Post by nathangarza29 on Jan 24, 2019 19:28:37 GMT -6
Why haven't the Astros made an offer for Nicholas Castellanos? He is young, he hits and he can play a lot of positions. Although not the best at any he still does the job well enough. At DH he would be key and could re-sign just to be on a winning club since the Tigers haven't been very good at all in the years he has been in the big leagues. -- Nathan G., San Leon, Texas
Well, we don't know they haven't made an offer to Castellanos. The fact is most offers to players go unreported. At first blush, he would be a nice fit at DH for the Astros. I don't argue that. Their infield and outfield are pretty full, though, so perhaps he's looking for a starting job in which he can play the field full time? Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by thomasj13 on Jan 24, 2019 19:43:54 GMT -6
Why haven't the Astros made an offer for Nicholas Castellanos? He is young, he hits and he can play a lot of positions. Although not the best at any he still does the job well enough. At DH he would be key and could re-sign just to be on a winning club since the Tigers haven't been very good at all in the years he has been in the big leagues. -- Nathan G., San Leon, Texas Well, we don't know they haven't made an offer to Castellanos. The fact is most offers to players go unreported. At first blush, he would be a nice fit at DH for the Astros. I don't argue that. Their infield and outfield are pretty full, though, so perhaps he's looking for a starting job in which he can play the field full time? Time will tell. 1 year rental
|
|
|
Post by abregmanfan on Jan 24, 2019 19:55:58 GMT -6
<iframe width="29.860000000000127" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 29.860000000000127px; height: 4.840000000000003px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_92733327" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29.860000000000127" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 29.86px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1427px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_65477564" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29.860000000000127" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 29.86px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 181px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_78721052" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29.860000000000127" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 29.86px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1427px; top: 181px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1193993" scrolling="no"></iframe> Yes. How ironic.
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on Jan 24, 2019 20:06:08 GMT -6
I really did laugh out loud.
|
|
|
Post by astrosdoug on Jan 24, 2019 21:08:52 GMT -6
Brach at $4.3M to Cubs was a solid deal. Wish Luhnow had offered him 5.
|
|
|
Post by paastrosfan on Jan 24, 2019 21:10:32 GMT -6
This article can finally end these manufactured bedroom theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 21:20:27 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see how the arbiter sees Carlos' value in lieu of injury history /injury potential versus star-power value (percieved or not). I have noticed that there have been many players who have suffered "drop offs" in performace that saw the lower end of arbitration dispute. Just hope there is no bad blood. IF we can get him back to 2017ish numbers, our chances of success grow accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 21:22:12 GMT -6
This article can finally end these manufactured bedroom theories. You mean coach's broken stick theories?
|
|
|
Post by paastrosfan on Jan 24, 2019 21:26:27 GMT -6
This article can finally end these manufactured bedroom theories. You mean coach's broken stick theories? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 24, 2019 21:55:59 GMT -6
Agreed, but we have been backed into a corner where we might have to overpay a tad, for mid level rotation support. He turned down the $18M QO. Does Luhnow grit is teeth, and offer a $20M/Yr. 1 or 2 year deal? I sure as hell wouldn't pay any more than that. Things have changed since he turned down the QO. He's now seeing teams are not going to pay him like PT Barnum uhg.. Boras said they would. I'd make sure the offer for a single year is under the QO since we lose the draft pick and any offer beyond 2019 averages less, even if it's front loaded. should be some penalty for turning down the QO earlier.Ummm ... no. That sounds like some sort of weird emotional issue that has absolutely no place in a business negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 24, 2019 21:56:12 GMT -6
I think Dallas Agent Mr Boras. Has a high price on him and wants a long contract. That's what's scary about signing him I would sign him sure but 1 10m 2 10m 3 25m Team buyout 500k 4 18m Team buyout 250k 5 $2.45 player option Any player or agent in his right mind would respond to that offer with two words. "Pound sand."
That's an incredibly insulting offer. The team is only guaranteeing two years for a pittance more than the total of a one-year QO. The value offered after the first two years is meaningless because of the TEAM option and the puny buyouts. I sincerely doubt you'd find player who was so naive as to fall for a ploy like that. I can say with absolute certainty you won't find an agent who would.
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 24, 2019 21:57:30 GMT -6
So would I since that is what he is really worth. OTOH, I doubt Luhnow would risk insulting him for a Lower salary that was offered previously. Scumbag Bora$$ sure wouldn't let him do that. That wouldn't be an insult. There is substantial value in years of security. Three years at a lower rate, guaranteed regardless of health or performance is worth more than one year at a slightly higher rate. I dunno how long a term he'll be able to get or at what rate. But that deal is definitely worth more than a QO unless the player is trying to re-establish value during the year and try to get a long term deal at a higher rate a year from now. If he felt his value would almost certainly be perceived as being much greater after another year, he would roll the dice on a one-year deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 22:04:02 GMT -6
So would I since that is what he is really worth. OTOH, I doubt Luhnow would risk insulting him for a Lower salary that was offered previously. Scumbag Bora$$ sure wouldn't let him do that. That wouldn't be an insult. There is substantial value in years of security. Three years at a lower rate, guaranteed regardless of health or performance is worth more than one year at a slightly higher rate. I dunno how long a term he'll be able to get or at what rate. But that deal is definitely worth more than a QO unless the player is trying to re-establish value during the year and try to get a long term deal at a higher rate a year from now. If he felt his value would almost certainly be perceived as being much greater after another year, he would roll the dice on a one-year deal. I guess the Tiger's haven't had to deal too much with Borass. He'll view and advise Kuechel that any dollars off the QO will be a slap. Or tell him to only take the 3/$45M with incentive laden goodies. Many of us will never forget or forgive his '04 escapades with the Beltran bidding war with the mets. F Him.
|
|
|
Post by olpapa on Jan 24, 2019 22:08:50 GMT -6
I may be wrong, but I don’t think a team has to give up a draft pick when they re-sign a FA who played for them and rejected their qualifying offer. So I don’t think the Astros would No. They lose the competitive balance draft pick that they would pick up if he signs elsewhere. That would likely be between the second and third rounds.
The way I see it is that you can’t lose something that you never had. The Astros don’t have that pick unless and until they lose Keuchel when he signs with another team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 22:21:49 GMT -6
I may be wrong, but I don’t think a team has to give up a draft pick when they re-sign a FA who played for them and rejected their qualifying offer. So I don’t think the Astros would No. They lose the competitive balance draft pick that they would pick up if he signs elsewhere. That would likely be between the second and third rounds.
He's not worth 5 years for $100M, but he might be worth $65M for 5 seasons if he has to have a five year deal. I just don't see him as more than a middle of the rotation starter over the life of the contract. More likely, one above average, one below average and three average seasons. If we're lucky, he'd make a good fifth starter if we resign Verlander and/or Cole, get McCullers back and pitching well and the prospects perform as hoped.
James might be able to fill the McHugh role swinging between starting and relieving and doing admirably at both.
The future is bright if you think about things without always expecting the worst.
I thought all Free Agnet compensations picks were at the end of the First Round.
|
|
|
Post by olpapa on Jan 24, 2019 22:26:07 GMT -6
Kluber or Greinke. More money but less prospects. Gets us another ace for 2019 and then have at least a #2-#3 caliber pitcher (if not better) for two more years. Sign McHugh to a 3-year $30 million deal. 2019 Rotation: Verlander Kluber Cole McHugh Whitley/James 2020-2021 Rotation: Kluber Whitley McHugh James FA/Prospects I don’t think Whitley will be much help to the 2019 rotation. He only pitched 52 innings in 2018. What is the guideline they follow when developing young pitchers? Isn’t it something like they don’t add more than 30 IP +/- from one year to the next? If that is true, they will be limiting Whitley to 82 IP +/- in 2019. He won’t have that many innings to start with and if he starts out at AA or AAA, he won’t have a lot of innings remaining by the time he gets to Houston. I could see him being used in a opener role or in tandem with another pitcher where he would only pitch 4-5 innings per game. I could see him coming out of the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by olpapa on Jan 24, 2019 22:30:29 GMT -6
No. They lose the competitive balance draft pick that they would pick up if he signs elsewhere. That would likely be between the second and third rounds.
He's not worth 5 years for $100M, but he might be worth $65M for 5 seasons if he has to have a five year deal. I just don't see him as more than a middle of the rotation starter over the life of the contract. More likely, one above average, one below average and three average seasons. If we're lucky, he'd make a good fifth starter if we resign Verlander and/or Cole, get McCullers back and pitching well and the prospects perform as hoped.
James might be able to fill the McHugh role swinging between starting and relieving and doing admirably at both.
The future is bright if you think about things without always expecting the worst.
I thought all Free Agnet compensations picks were at the end of the First Round. It got a lot more complicated when the current CBA was signed. From MLB.com: “What kind of compensation pick will a club that loses such a player receive? It depends. Under the previous CBA, if a team made a qualifying offer to a player and he signed elsewhere, it would get a supplemental first-round Draft pick (right after the end of the first round). That all changed in the CBA that went into effect last year. Under the current rules, if the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2019 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round. The following 16 teams currently qualify for these picks: A's, Braves, Brewers, D-backs, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Padres, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins. If the team that loses the player does not receive revenue sharing and did not exceed the luxury-tax salary threshold the previous season, its compensatory pick will come after Competitive Balance Round B. The value of the player's contract doesn't matter in this case. The 12 clubs that fall into this category are the Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, White Sox and Yankees. If the team that loses the player went over the luxury-tax threshold, the compensation pick will be placed after the fourth round has been completed (as with the previous scenario, it doesn't matter how much the player signs for). The only two clubs that exceeded the threshold in 2018 are the Nationals and Red Sox. Keep in mind, these team designations can change every season (this year, the Astros and Tigers switched positions in the revenue-sharing payor/payee designations, and the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees all got under the luxury tax threshold). As a quick rule of thumb, Draft-pick compensation breaks down like this: * General rule: Compensation after Comp Round B (in pick 75-80 range) * Exception 1: Team paid luxury tax = Compensation after fourth round (mid-100s) * Exception 2: Team received revenue sharing AND free agent signed for more than $50 million = Compensation after the first round”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 22:36:53 GMT -6
I thought all Free Agnet compensations picks were at the end of the First Round. It got a lot more complicated when the current CBA was signed. From MLB.com: “What kind of compensation pick will a club that loses such a player receive? It depends. Under the previous CBA, if a team made a qualifying offer to a player and he signed elsewhere, it would get a supplemental first-round Draft pick (right after the end of the first round). That all changed in the CBA that went into effect last year. Under the current rules, if the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2019 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round. The following 16 teams currently qualify for these picks: A's, Braves, Brewers, D-backs, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Padres, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins. If the team that loses the player does not receive revenue sharing and did not exceed the luxury-tax salary threshold the previous season, its compensatory pick will come after Competitive Balance Round B. The value of the player's contract doesn't matter in this case. The 12 clubs that fall into this category are the Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, White Sox and Yankees. If the team that loses the player went over the luxury-tax threshold, the compensation pick will be placed after the fourth round has been completed (as with the previous scenario, it doesn't matter how much the player signs for). The only two clubs that exceeded the threshold in 2018 are the Nationals and Red Sox. Keep in mind, these team designations can change every season (this year, the Astros and Tigers switched positions in the revenue-sharing payor/payee designations, and the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees all got under the luxury tax threshold). As a quick rule of thumb, Draft-pick compensation breaks down like this: * General rule: Compensation after Comp Round B (in pick 75-80 range) * Exception 1: Team paid luxury tax = Compensation after fourth round (mid-100s) * Exception 2: Team received revenue sharing AND free agent signed for more than $50 million = Compensation after the first round” Crystal Clear Now.
|
|
|
Post by astrosdoug on Jan 24, 2019 22:37:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by olpapa on Jan 24, 2019 22:38:42 GMT -6
It got a lot more complicated when the current CBA was signed. From MLB.com: “What kind of compensation pick will a club that loses such a player receive? It depends. Under the previous CBA, if a team made a qualifying offer to a player and he signed elsewhere, it would get a supplemental first-round Draft pick (right after the end of the first round). That all changed in the CBA that went into effect last year. Under the current rules, if the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2019 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round. The following 16 teams currently qualify for these picks: A's, Braves, Brewers, D-backs, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Padres, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins. If the team that loses the player does not receive revenue sharing and did not exceed the luxury-tax salary threshold the previous season, its compensatory pick will come after Competitive Balance Round B. The value of the player's contract doesn't matter in this case. The 12 clubs that fall into this category are the Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, White Sox and Yankees. If the team that loses the player went over the luxury-tax threshold, the compensation pick will be placed after the fourth round has been completed (as with the previous scenario, it doesn't matter how much the player signs for). The only two clubs that exceeded the threshold in 2018 are the Nationals and Red Sox. Keep in mind, these team designations can change every season (this year, the Astros and Tigers switched positions in the revenue-sharing payor/payee designations, and the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees all got under the luxury tax threshold). As a quick rule of thumb, Draft-pick compensation breaks down like this: * General rule: Compensation after Comp Round B (in pick 75-80 range) * Exception 1: Team paid luxury tax = Compensation after fourth round (mid-100s) * Exception 2: Team received revenue sharing AND free agent signed for more than $50 million = Compensation after the first round” Crystal Clear Now. Elementary Mr. Watson.
|
|
|
Post by blcoach8 on Jan 24, 2019 22:52:28 GMT -6
I am starting to think we should call Arizona and get Greinke. i have been thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by blcoach8 on Jan 24, 2019 22:55:09 GMT -6
Brach at $4.3M to Cubs was a solid deal. Wish Luhnow had offered him 5. Luhnow is "content" and is on vacation.
|
|
|
Post by blcoach8 on Jan 24, 2019 22:57:39 GMT -6
Dodgers sign AJ Pollock to a 4-year deal.The total value of the deal is $55 million and has a player option for a fifth year at $10 million, with a $5 million buyout, sources told ESPN's Buster Olney.
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 24, 2019 23:18:12 GMT -6
That wouldn't be an insult. There is substantial value in years of security. Three years at a lower rate, guaranteed regardless of health or performance is worth more than one year at a slightly higher rate. I dunno how long a term he'll be able to get or at what rate. But that deal is definitely worth more than a QO unless the player is trying to re-establish value during the year and try to get a long term deal at a higher rate a year from now. If he felt his value would almost certainly be perceived as being much greater after another year, he would roll the dice on a one-year deal. I guess the Tiger's haven't had to deal too much with Borass. He'll view and advise Kuechel that any dollars off the QO will be a slap. Or tell him to only take the 3/$45M with incentive laden goodies. Many of us will never forget or forgive his '04 escapades with the Beltran bidding war with the mets. F Him. That part gave me a giggle. I have two words for that: Prince Fielder. Thankfully we unloaded him on the Rangers before the wheels fell completely off. Still had to send some serious cash, but all things considered we were lucky to get rid of him when we did. $cott can 'advise' his clients however he sees fit. But that doesn't change the reality. More years at a slightly reduced rate isn't a 'slap'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 23:22:13 GMT -6
I guess the Tiger's haven't had to deal too much with Borass. He'll view and advise Kuechel that any dollars off the QO will be a slap. Or tell him to only take the 3/$45M with incentive laden goodies. Many of us will never forget or forgive his '04 escapades with the Beltran bidding war with the mets. F Him. That part gave me a giggle. I have two words for that: Prince Fielder. Thankfully we unloaded him on the Rangers before the wheels fell completely off. Still had to send some serious cash, but all things considered we were lucky to get rid of him when we did. $cott can 'advise' his clients however he sees fit. But that doesn't change the reality. More years at a slightly reduced rate isn't a 'slap'. Well neither one us have access to the Kuechel/Borass discussions, so we will see how this finally pans out. We'll go with the QO as a benchmark, and see how he decides.
|
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on Jan 25, 2019 0:53:23 GMT -6
Things have changed since he turned down the QO. He's now seeing teams are not going to pay him like PT Barnum uhg.. Boras said they would. I'd make sure the offer for a single year is under the QO since we lose the draft pick and any offer beyond 2019 averages less, even if it's front loaded. should be some penalty for turning down the QO earlier.Ummm ... no. That sounds like some sort of weird emotional issue that has absolutely no place in a business negotiation. Ummm ... yes. Overpaying has no place in a business negotiation. The QO included a premium for the sole purpose of getting a competitive balance pick. Now that premium should not be included in the new offer. QO minus that premium should be the new offer. That premium value should be the penalty. There's no emotional issue at all. It's strictly business.
Not discounting offer by that premium is like expecting the grocery store to honor last month's special price, which was offered based on a supplier volume discount, any time thereafter.
The value of the offer changes with the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 25, 2019 1:45:03 GMT -6
Ummm ... no. That sounds like some sort of weird emotional issue that has absolutely no place in a business negotiation. Ummm ... yes. Overpaying has no place in a business negotiation. The QO included a premium for the sole purpose of getting a competitive balance pick. Now that premium should not be included in the new offer. QO minus that premium should be the new offer. That premium value should be the penalty. There's no emotional issue at all. It's strictly business. Not discounting offer by that premium is like expecting the grocery store to honor last month's special price, which was offered based on a supplier volume discount, any time thereafter.
The value of the offer changes with the circumstances.
Who said anything about overpaying? I certainly did not.
The concept of a 'penalty' because he turned down the Qualifying Offer is a completely ridiculous notion. Yes, if you want to consider the contract the Astros will offer should be tempered because of the compensation they already have in-hand (but won't get if he signs with the Astros) since he turned down the QO, that makes sense. But characterizing that as a 'penalty' is laughable. Your grocery store analogy is complete nonsense. "Supplier volume discount"? Seriously, how on earth did you come up with that?
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jan 25, 2019 2:33:05 GMT -6
Oh, and I completely forgot to address the faulty math ... The QO included a premium for the sole purpose of getting a competitive balance pick. Now that premium should not be included in the new offer. QO minus that premium should be the new offer. That premium value should be the penalty. This is wrong on so many levels. The QO does NOT define the value of a player. It merely sets a threshold. If a team isn't willing to offer AT LEAST that amount, then they don't deserve compensation. It's that simple. More on this in a moment but first let's the other part that's just as faulty. IF he was worth the QO before (and the Astros would not be getting the 'premium' if he signed), why on earth would he be worth less NOW?
Now let's get back to a greater understanding why the QO is basically irrelevant in regards to the actual value of the player, other than a minimum threshold... Next year, Verlander and Cole will be FA at the end of the season. According to your math, if they don't accept the QO offered and later discuss a contract, the new offer for each of them should be QO minus some premium. Can you see how ridiculous that is? Of course each will be likely merit a greater salary than Keuchel. But the reason for using them in this example is to make it painfully obvious that using the QO in determining what their contract should be just doesn't work.
|
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on Jan 25, 2019 3:35:29 GMT -6
Oh, and I completely forgot to address the faulty math ... The QO included a premium for the sole purpose of getting a competitive balance pick. Now that premium should not be included in the new offer. QO minus that premium should be the new offer. That premium value should be the penalty. This is wrong on so many levels. The QO does NOT define the value of a player. It merely sets a threshold. If a team isn't willing to offer AT LEAST that amount, then they don't deserve compensation. It's that simple. More on this in a moment but first let's the other part that's just as faulty. IF he was worth the QO before (and the Astros would not be getting the 'premium' if he signed), why on earth would he be worth less NOW?
Now let's get back to a greater understanding why the QO is basically irrelevant in regards to the actual value of the player, other than a minimum threshold... Next year, Verlander and Cole will be FA at the end of the season. According to your math, if they don't accept the QO offered and later discuss a contract, the new offer for each of them should be QO minus some premium. Can you see how ridiculous that is? Of course each will be likely merit a greater salary than Keuchel. But the reason for using them in this example is to make it painfully obvious that using the QO in determining what their contract should be just doesn't work. Sorry. I do not appear to be good enough to explain finance or business to you. That's OK. You don't have to know everything to live a happy life.
|
|