|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2013 19:04:28 GMT -5
Allen -- Here's another example. Robinson Cano supposedly has a $170 million offer from the Yankees. So he goes to meet with Seattle, who offers him $230 million. Stupid. Why not offer $175 million? Rog -- You mentioned the word "supposedly." That might have something to do with the $230 million offer, might it not? Incidentally, $175 million isn't likely to get it done with Cano. If it were over five years, quite possibly. If over a period of six seasons, possibly. But any more years than that seems very unlikely to get the job done. Also, how are the teams supposed to know how much another team has bid? I believe their sharing that information would be collusion. Even if it's not collusion, why would you want to let another team know your bid so they would have an informed opportunity to beat it? I realize there are often leaks. But how does one know how accurate they are? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=1#ixzz2me9O9ewG
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2013 19:14:27 GMT -5
Allen -- Just because someone is stupid enough to throw away a ridiculous amount of money on someone doesn't mean that's what the market place is. Rog -- That's what DEFINES the market for services, Allen. Let's suppose someone offers to pay you $250,000 a year even though your present rate of pay is $100,000. (Maybe they don't know your pay rate and are simply bidding what they perceive the value of your services to be). That then becomes your market value, or what might be called your value in the market place. By the way, Scott Feldman is said to be looking for 3/$30, and the Orioles I believe it is are signing Francisco Peguero. The going price for a below-average but somewhat acceptable starting pitcher seems to be about $8 million per season. Scott has been a below-average pitcher over his career, but he his coming off a good season. Perhaps he'll get his $10 million per. My guess would be slightly less. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2112&page=1#ixzz2meGv5E3o
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 5, 2013 19:20:21 GMT -5
Well MLB Trade Rumors is the one who wrote of the offer. I would assume it's accurate.
Whether $175 million will "get it done" or not depends on how stupid the other teams are. If they simply exercised good sense, quite a bit less would probably get it done.
How would others know what the other team bid? In this case, it's published. They could state it if they want to. I don't think sharing information would be collusion. Acting in concert not to go above a certain price would be collusion. It'll be interesting to see what Cano does. He definitely has an ego, and I don't know if toiling unsuccessfully in the relative anonymity of Seattle will sufficiently feed it. Once you get to that point, the money doesn't matter. I doubt that his lifestyle wil change much whether he makes $170 or $230 million.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 5, 2013 19:39:01 GMT -5
Nope. If someone walks in and wants to pay $50 for a Big Mac, that doesn't set the market. It's just a stupid person wanting to throw away money.
I wouldn't give Feldman three years.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 5, 2013 19:40:48 GMT -5
BTW, we've discussed the merits of Phil Hughes' 2013 season. Hughes himself terms the season "a disaster".
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2013 19:46:16 GMT -5
Allen -- Nope. If someone walks in and wants to pay $50 for a Big Mac, that doesn't set the market. It's just a stupid person wanting to throw away money. Rog -- You make a good point, but I want to clarify something important. You are absolutely correct that someone paying $50 for a Big Mac doesn't set the market, doesn't change the price for a Big Mac. But it does set the market for THAT particular Big Mac. Each player is a separate "Big Mac." What he signs for defines the market for HIM. And is likely fairly close to the market for other similar players -- or at least players who are perceived similarly by at least one bidder. There is only one Cano on the market. The highest bid he receives will determine the market for HIM. Now, it is possible he'll sign for LESS than market. Other factors such as location may enter into his decision. But the highest bid is his MARKET. I wouldn't give Feldman three years. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=2#17363#ixzz2mePVz3gn
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 5, 2013 19:48:33 GMT -5
Rog -- I just read at MLB Trade Rumors that Seattle offered Ellsbury a 9-year pact, but he didn't want to play in Seattle.
Allen- Maybe he idolizes Johnny Damon. Vogey said on TV last night he could have done better elsewhere, but his wife loved SF and he enjoyed pitching for the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2013 19:49:19 GMT -5
Allen -- I wouldn't give Feldman three years.
Rog -- And perhaps he won't get them either. But one thing I have noticed about you, Allen. You are seldom willing to pay the market rate for good free agents, which means your team wouldn't be signing any. You might be able to improve your team with bargain basement free agents, but that's a very risky to go.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 5, 2013 21:14:10 GMT -5
I would say signing big name FAs is even more risky. The teams that sustain success (with the possible exception of the Yankees) don't get caught up in these ten year contracts. Financially, the Yankees are playing in a different league from most teams. You brought up something interesting previously. You noted that there is only one Cano. Can there really be a "market" for a one off item? Is there a market rate when every item on the market is different? With me, in many cases, I think the length of the contract is more disconcerting than the money. I think that's where teams get into trouble. But overall, I haven't noticed alot of these long, expensive contracts paying off. At least not recently.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 6, 2013 0:07:46 GMT -5
You mentioned that Seattle should bid 175 million because the Yankees bid 170. That makes no sense. Robinson Cano has been a Yankee his whole career and isn't leaving them over a couple of dollars. It would have to be a massive overpay. He's also looking at years and supposedly wants a ten year deal. Cano is one of the best players in the game, but isn't worth those kinds of dollars and years. I still think the Yankees will cave at the last minute and give him close to the Mariners offer and keep him.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2013 11:03:11 GMT -5
Allen -- I would say signing big name FAs is even more risky. Rog -- Very good point. There are two different types of risk. The immediate is that the team won't be able to sign a free agent or agents to make a significant difference in their performance. The closer to the bargain basement a team shops, the greater their risk of this happening. The other risk, as you point out, is that the player will diminish over the course of his longer contract or in a worst-case scenario, won't perform at all, saddling the team with a big salary drain for quite a while. Remember, free agency is artificial. Only a small percentage of players each winter become eligible for free agency. An even smaller percentage -- especially of the top players -- actually become one. Thus one finds a lot of teams needing to improve chasing a small supply of likely difference-makers. The cost of a win is now around $7 million. I believe with each added win from a single player, the cost per win rises. One-win players are still reasonably available, so their price remains somewhat reasonable. Three or four win players are unusual, so their prices skyrocket. And those added wins per player probably should have a premium. A team has only so many holes. In order to maximize the wins they add by filling those holes, they try to fill the most glaring holes (such as pitching and the outfield for the Giants) and add the biggest win players they can afford to fill those holes. Here is the five-year average of wins of the four players the Giants have signed or re-signed: Pence 3.6, Tim Lincecum 2.6, Tim Hudson 2.4 and Javier Lopez 0.8. Based on those numbers, we can see why Lopez received by far the least of the four players. Hudson looks like the best value, but he appears that way in part because he's coming off a serious injury and is 38 years old. Lincecum looks like the worst value, but the Giants are gambling on his perceived upside. Pence is being paid the most and has by far the longest contract, but he also has provided the most value over the past half decade. The Giants are spending a little over $50 million per season on those players, who have provided an average of 9 or 10 wins over each of the past five seasons. If the four players play to their past, the Giants will have received nice value. The biggest issue though is that players are usually leaving their prime when they become free agents. They may well be unable to provide their former level of performance. That is a big part of what makes them so risky. The past two seasons the Giants have won 170 games. Let's suppose that makes them an 85-win team. We're giving them on credit here for winning two World Series in the past four years, so let's suppose they're an 88-win team. Lest one think that is too low, let's not forget that the Giants would need to improve a full dozen games from last year's record to reach that level. Assuming the team overall plays as it has the past couple of seasons and the four free agents perform as they have over the past five seasons. The addition of Hudson could make them a 90-win team. That's a contending team. It could have a decent chance of winning between say 85 and 95 games. Without the four players mentioned here, the Giants might be more like a .500 team. I forgot to mention Ryan Vogelsong, so without the five players, they would likely be a sub-.500 team. Possibly even a SUB-.500 team. Including Vogelsong, the Giants are spending about $55 million per season on their five free agents. How much is it worth to remain competitive -- hopefully more competitive -- than to be a sub-.500 team and risk losing sellout after sellout, not to mention the substantial postseason money. Did the Giants overpay for their five free agents? Yes -- and no. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=2#17369#ixzz2mi1e9DmT
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 6, 2013 11:18:34 GMT -5
You make a good point here, Mark. But I don't know that they need to come in $60 million over the previous bid.
I heard Cano was upset over the Ellsbury deal. Who put him in charge of running the team? And again, how subtantially is your lifestyle going to change if you make $230 million vs. $170 million. Are you going to buy a bigger island? If I were Robbie, I would take the Yankees offer. Seattle isn't going to compete for awhile (longer if they have to pay Cano's contract) the ballpark is going to take away alot of his power, he has no real protection in that lineup, his legacy is as a Yankee. Other than to take more money that he probably won't use, why switch? All he's doing right now is setting fire to bridges (hasn't burned them yet) and antagonizing the fans. What's more, it's a monumentally stupid move by Seattle. It isn't as if they're one player away, and signing Cano will cripple their rebuilding effort. They're not going to be competitive in the short term, they have no real thump in their lineup. They're talking about trading their top pithing prospect (Taijuan Walker). Seattle would be better served by going after several mid-level guys and rebuilding that way, rather than putting all their eggs in one basket.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2013 12:32:26 GMT -5
Allen -- I heard Cano was upset over the Ellsbury deal. Who put him in charge of running the team? And again, how subtantially is your lifestyle going to change if you make $230 million vs. $170 million. Rog -- #1, we don't know if that is true. #2, that nine years at $17 million per year is pretty close to the 10 years at $17 million the Yankees are said to be offering Cano. Robinson is a FAR better (and healthier) player than Ellsbury, providing 30 wins over the past five seasons compared to Jacoby's 17. By the way, not very many players are able to achieve an added 30 wins in five seasons. A lot of pretty decent players don't achieve 30 wins in their CAREERS. Chris Speier had a nice 19-year career -- and reached just 30 wins over that period. So while I don't know if Cano was truly upset with Ellsbury's deal, when he compared it to the deal the Yankees were offering Cano himself, I can see why he would be upset. Cano could be the best player to enter the free agent market for several years. Allen -- If I were Robbie, I would take the Yankees offer. Rog -- I think Mark has the better idea when he states that he believes Robinson will re-up with the Yankees for close to the money being offered by the Mariners. I wouldn't be shocked if he even exceeded it by a bit. As you know from watching the Yankees a lot, Cano is REALLY good. I would think if he continues a normal decline over the course of a 10-year contract, we're easily talking Hall of Fame good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=2#17380#ixzz2miSYLqNj
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 6, 2013 14:53:30 GMT -5
The allegation that Cano was upset over the Ellsbury deal supposedly came from Cano's dad.
Cano is really good Really, really good. But he has flaws. His attitude is the main one, his ego is another. I just don't think this is going to work out for either party.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 8, 2013 10:15:29 GMT -5
Cano is getting killed by the fans and talk show idiot hosts here for rejecting the Yankees offer. I think it's unfair, and a lot of it bothers me. People that would change jobs for a ten dollar raise are coming down on him for taking 70 million more with the security of a ten year deal. He'd have to be crazy to turn that down. And I love NYC and have been here my whole life, but a lot of it is knocking him for leaving the "greatest city in the world," like Seattle is the worst place in the world. I've been there, it's a beautiful city, and he'll love it.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 8, 2013 12:57:06 GMT -5
Seattle's fine, but I don't think Robbie will like it as much as he liked NYC. First of all Robbie's Dominican. Not a big Dominican population in Seattle, I'm guessing, at least not like NYC. Second, I'm sure he built some friendships in NY, and I doubt those fans will travel cross country to be with him. Biggest of all, I don't think he'll enjoy playing in Seattle as much as he did on the big stage in the Bronx. When it's June and the M's are hopelessly out of it. there's 20,000 people in the stands, and he isn't seeing any strikes because the rest of the lineup can't protect him, he'll regret signing that contract. I'm not blaming him, mind you, I'm just saying that I think he'll regret it. BTW, you think if Lincecum had left, he wouldn't be getting roasted here? Relatively speaking, of course. The Bay Area press is notoriously docile.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 8, 2013 17:25:45 GMT -5
Allen, In April the Mariners signed a $2 billion TV contract. I don't think you will see them roll over like we have in the past. I can't predict who they will also look to add this off season but I get the feeling they aren't done. During Cano's next 10 years I would expect them to be among the big boys. Perhaps more successful than the Yankees who still owe Alex Rodriguez $80 mil.
But let's focus on the simple point that Can is now $240 million richer and you think he will have regrets? I wish my regrets were that profitable.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 8, 2013 18:41:11 GMT -5
He was going to make (I've heard) up to $200 million from the Yankees. Once you get to that kind of money, is there really that much difference? The money per year was going to be basically the same. just not for as long. So until he's about 38, there really wouldn't be any difference. The M's may add, but it's still going to take awhile, and will they be smart enough to get out of their own way? Alot of teams aren't. Take the Angels. They signed a huge TV deal just before they got Pujols. Spent a ton of money, but haven't really made much progress since.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 8, 2013 19:47:04 GMT -5
Read a blurb in MLBTR that said the Seattle front office was pretty dysfunctional. The GM's resume was mostly filled out by someone else, and he claimed he had skills he doesn't really posess, mainly being able to interpret statistical aanalysis and combine it with scouting input. Evidently ownership is getting pretty impatient and was badmouthing the younger players, calling the team's performance sickening and disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 8, 2013 20:50:08 GMT -5
Seattle is supposedly ready to spend even more money this week to get to the next level. I agree with what Boagie said. When the deal is that long, it really doesn't matter who is good and who stinks right now. I realize the Yankees will always spend the money to be good, but I'm thinking Cano will see some post season in the next decade with the Mariners.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 8, 2013 21:41:24 GMT -5
So what are they going to do? They have a great young pitching prospect in Taijuan Walker, so are they going to dump him for something? Who else do they have to trade? Are they going to sign another FA? Nelson Cruz, Shin Soo Choo? They play in a pitcher's park. How much is a power hitter going to help them, and like AT&T, who's going to want to come play there?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 9, 2013 2:21:50 GMT -5
Shin Soo Choo gets on base. That translates to just about any park. He has a career .363 OBP in Safeco.
Last season the Mariners' highest OBP was Kyle Seager at .338. Seager's OBP at Safeco was .316, meaning his overall OBP was 22 points higher. Apply that to Choo, and he would be at .385, which is nothing to sneeze at.
In fact, it would have ranked in a tie for 14th in the majors and been within 19 points of third place.
Sign Choo and Cano, then trade for Price, and the ticket price in Seattle could indeed be right.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 9, 2013 9:10:40 GMT -5
(Ah) Choo. Nothing to sneeze at. Good pun, Rog. Say they get Choo (though I haven't heard any significant rumors to that effect). They have a guy who gets on base, and one other guy. To me that doesn't stack up to what Texas, Anaheim, and even Oakland have. Cano's power will be diminished in Seattle as well. No short porch to aim at.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 10, 2013 7:58:45 GMT -5
They are in the running for Choo, and they are looking to deal for Price, I've heard plenty of rumors about that. They refuse to part with Walker at this point, although you never know if they'll get desperate. I can see them getting involved with one of the big FA pitchers if they fail on Price. I believe they're also talking about Matt Kemp. I really like Kemp as a player and person, and would love to see him go someplace where I can root for him! I still remember him openly rooting for the Giants in the 2012 playoffs because he likes the city, the players on the team, and wanted an NL west team to win it all.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 10, 2013 10:21:52 GMT -5
If they sign Choo, I will never believe another word from the mouth of Brian Sabean in the offseason. He has stated vehemently all offseason that the Giants would not sign ANY player that would cost a first round pick in the next draft.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 10, 2013 11:27:17 GMT -5
I'm hearing Detroit and Texas for Choo. Detroit signed Rajai Davis, so maybe someone else. I've heard AZ as well.
Waiting for the Yankees to sign Mark Ellis. He can hold down the position and hit enough. Makes a big play once in awhile.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 10, 2013 20:00:16 GMT -5
Randy -- If they sign Choo, I will never believe another word from the mouth of Brian Sabean in the offseason. He has stated vehemently all offseason that the Giants would not sign ANY player that would cost a first round pick in the next draft. Rog -- Why do you even mention it? It isn't going to happen. Obviously Brian would blow his credibility, and why would he want to do that? By the way, he didn't say he would never give up a first-rounder, but he did say he wouldn't do so this off-season. I think the only way he would do so in the future were if the perfect player to fill his needs were available cheaply, such as the price for Kyle Lohse a year ago. Even then he might not, and teams now seem more willing to give up their draft choice, raising the bidding. Essentially, we're talking about something that isn't likely to happen for at least a year -- if then. Back when the season was close to ending, we talked about the range of draft positions the Giants could wind up in -- with the positions perhaps being decided by a small number of wins. If the Giants had won a game or two less and wound up drafting in the top 10 where they wouldn't lose their first-rounder, the Giants might have more flexibility. To put this in perspective, Randy, think back to the Warriors at the end of the 2011-2012 season. Had they won one fewer game, they would have had the #8 (trade protected) draft choice without a coin flip. As it is, they won the coin flip, so that one extra win didn't wind up mattering. Had they won one more game though, they would have lost their pick and not been able to draft Harrison Barnes, who is now an important piece of the team. Let me ask you this, Randy. Has Brian Sabean given any indication he will forfeit the draft choice? Why not approach this from the positive and say that you're glad Sabean has given no indication he would yield the draft choice, since it might have a significant negative impact on the Giants' mid-term future? Why not at least try to be positive about something until it happens? ALL of us will be upset if Brian gives up the #14 pick, just as we were upset when he gave away picks in the mid-2000's. But I seriously doubt there is reason to worry right now. Do you honestly think the Giants will spend $20 million or so per year for Choo AND give up their draft pick? Have they given any indication of doing either? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=2#17506#ixzz2n7TRQwXn
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 10, 2013 20:00:54 GMT -5
Randy -- If they sign Choo, I will never believe another word from the mouth of Brian Sabean in the offseason. He has stated vehemently all offseason that the Giants would not sign ANY player that would cost a first round pick in the next draft. Rog -- Why do you even mention it? It isn't going to happen. Obviously Brian would blow his credibility, and why would he want to do that? By the way, he didn't say he would never give up a first-rounder, but he did say he wouldn't do so this off-season. I think the only way he would do so in the future were if the perfect player to fill his needs were available cheaply, such as the price for Kyle Lohse a year ago. Even then he might not, and teams now seem more willing to give up their draft choice, raising the bidding. Essentially, we're talking about something that isn't likely to happen for at least a year -- if then. Back when the season was close to ending, we talked about the range of draft positions the Giants could wind up in -- with the positions perhaps being decided by a small number of wins. If the Giants had won a game or two less and wound up drafting in the top 10 where they wouldn't lose their first-rounder, the Giants might have more flexibility. To put this in perspective, Randy, think back to the Warriors at the end of the 2011-2012 season. Had they won one fewer game, they would have had the #8 (trade protected) draft choice without a coin flip. As it is, they won the coin flip, so that one extra win didn't wind up mattering. Had they won one more game though, they would have lost their pick and not been able to draft Harrison Barnes, who is now an important piece of the team. Let me ask you this, Randy. Has Brian Sabean given any indication he will forfeit the draft choice? Why not approach this from the positive and say that you're glad Sabean has given no indication he would yield the draft choice, since it might have a significant negative impact on the Giants' mid-term future? Why not at least try to be positive about something until it happens? ALL of us will be upset if Brian gives up the #14 pick, just as we were upset when he gave away picks in the mid-2000's. But I seriously doubt there is reason to worry right now. Do you honestly think the Giants will spend $20 million or so per year for Choo AND give up their draft pick? Have they given any indication of doing either? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2112&page=2#17506#ixzz2n7TRQwXn
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 10, 2013 20:15:26 GMT -5
Allen, I heard the Yankees are more interested in Omar Infante than Mark Ellis.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 10, 2013 21:10:00 GMT -5
Infante's asking for alot of money. Frankly, I like Ellis better. BTW, I mentioned de Aza and Viciedo, and lo and behold I heard on the Baseball Channel that the Giants had inquired about de Aza. If I were the Yankees, I might be interested in Hector Sanchez as a backup, and the White Sox could use a catcher too.
|
|