HarryDemeanor
Member
Maeda.
Kershaw, Ryu, Iwakuma, Maeda, Anderson.
It's aight.
I hope Ryu has a lot of hadoukens this year.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MLB Off-season Thread 2015-2016 IOTI Back to the Future was a lie
- Thread starter CreeperBlocks
- Start date
Kershaw, Ryu, Iwakuma, Maeda, Anderson.
It's aight.
I hope Ryu has a lot of hadoukens this year.
Corran Horn
May the Schwartz be with you
Matt Cain is our number 5 starter. I can get behind that.
Frozenprince
Banned
Yep, it's La Russa's team Stewart is basically there to take the blame for shit and be his mouthpiece.
It's better than aight. McCarthy comes back mid-way through next year, rotation doesn't have two aces but the back-end is like, lightyears ahead of where it was.
Corran Horn
May the Schwartz be with you
Can three teams be in a world series? Sorry I'm new to baseball, lifelong giants fan though.
Maybe we can switch the Cubs and White Sox temporarily out of their conferences next season. Then they'd be able to move Schwarber to DH, his natural position.
HarryDemeanor
Member
True. Dodgers just really need bullpen help and ability to score more runs than anyone can imagine. Two biggest killers for the team even with two highly talented aces last year, and the year before that, and the year before that...
Dominican Power
Member
Astros and Chris Davis are a match made in heaven. Get it done, stros.
Little Green Yoda
Member
Those 100 wins were a byproduct of historically clutch pitching though. We saw how quickly those context dependent stats can change (see 2013 vs 2014 RISP batting numbers). We've lost ~400 innings of good pitching and we're banking on Waino to bounce back from the Achilles tear to fill about half of those. Never mind the 2016 effects of increased workloads for Wacha/CMart.
I've heard from inside sources that baseball's next big innovation is going to be a 4-team World Series. They're projecting huge revenue potentia--uh, uh I mean a great improvement in the excitement of the game and a chance for more fans to feel interested in the playoffs.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
There's definitely cause for concern because of pitching (and I'd feel more confident if the Cardinals signed Mark Buehrle or something - or fuck it, sign Cliff Lee and hope he's got one season left), but I think there's still enough there to compete
If his shoulder is all right and was just work overload last year, I think CMart will take a big step forward next year. I'd use all this "payroll muscle" Mo talks about to sign him to an extension until he's 30, IMO (same with Wong before/if he breaks out - could easily see him as a 20/20 guy with plus 2B defense if it all clicks)
if shark and cueto can remember how to pitch maybe
to be fair I like the white sox top 3
Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, and Carlos Rodon much better than I enjoyed Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, and shark last year
(and I wouldn't trade the white sox starting 3 for Bumgarner, Cueto, and Shark as I would like to win playoff games which while madbum is well a madbum in the playoffs I sure wouldn't trust cueto or shark in the playoffs lol.to be fair shark reminds me a ton of Edwin Jackson. Someone who figured it out long enough to give people hope, and has a good arm, but isn't consistent enough to get real long term sucess. at least cueto is actually a good pitcher when it doesn't matter
I completely agree he would fit in with a high strike out all or nothing line up.
I am personally much happier without my team's line up that way as the slumps are horrible and it's almost impossible to have postseason success with a line up like that as it's way to easy for an all or nothing team to fall in a couple game funk and boom you are done.
Mr. Enigma
Member
Opt out is the new no-trade clause.
The opt-out is pretty great for the Giants I think. If he's bad or hurt, well, you're locked in for 6 years anyways. But I'd much rather have him be good for 2 years then peace out to another team than be on the hook for years 3-6 of the deal. Plus they probably got a discount on the AAV by including it.
It's just funny how early these opt outs are becoming. Next thing you know someone will get an opt out after the first season.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I don't understand why people think opt-outs are good things for clubs. They aren't. The player only exercises it if he can get a better deal. Cueto only leaves his $21.6 mil per year on the table if he can do better than that in the free agent market. And if he performs extremely well and opts out, then the club isn't getting the benefit of having locked him up long-term at that reasonable price.
Look at it this way, if Cueto goes back to being what he was for the Reds for the next two seasons, then practically every MLB club would take a run at him for 4 years at $87 mil, the remainder of his San Fran contract. So why would it be a good thing for San Fran to have Cueto opt out after two seasons?
San Fran only wants Cueto to opt out if he sucks, and he ain't gonna do that.
That already happens in the NBA, so I'm sure it'll come to MLB before long. Players and their agents have finally caught on to the fact that sports are booming in this DVR generation, and opt-outs are a good way to secure long-term stability with the possibility of chasing an even greater reward when appropriate.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Bryce Harper's going to get $500m with an opt out after every year :lol
Yeah, LBJ had an opt out after the first year of his two year deal.
Ninja Scooter
Member
The opt out is never good for the team. If he pitches well enough to opt out, then you lose a potential asset for nothing. Think about it in terms of the Dodgers this year. Do you think Grienke opting out was good for them, or would they rather have him for the last 3 years of his original deal?
Dominican Power
Member
Y'all need a left handed bat.
Frozenprince
Banned
If they do they are determined to break that SO record.
Dominican Power
Member
Meh.
My thoughts on this are basically that a free agent is likely going to be better at the start of a contract then at the end, and that the escalating health and performance risks of players in their 30s make them bad bets to give guaranteed multi-year contracts to. Just because a star player might be good in the first 2-3 years of his big contract, it doesn't guarantee what kind of performance or playing time the team will get from that player over the rest of the contract.
For instance, with Cueto, he has red flags with his health and consistency that make him a much better bet for 2 years than for 6 years. If he's good for two years, the Giants should be happy to say goodbye and let him walk, knowing that they can potentially reinvest the money they had previously guaranteed towards his age 32-36 seasons into a younger and/or less risky player.
With Greinke, I don't think the question for the Dodgers is "Is it better to have Greinke locked in for his age 32-34 seasons at $71 million or lose him for nothing?" The better question is, "Was it good for them to have him locked in for his age 29-31 years at only $76 million and either re-sign him for more money and years or have the option of going in a different direction?" Greinke might stay at the level of a high-end pitcher for the next 3 years, but I wouldn't want to gamble $76 million on a 32-34 year old pitcher. He's one shoulder injury away from becoming an albatross.
I know at least one counterargument is, OK, if you don't want to risk the back-end of the contract, you can always trade the player to another team when you feel the risk factors are getting too high. That way you can get some value in return. And I think that's a fair point, but there's risks there too. If that becomes your SOP, you might start to lose credibility with FAs and have to either include no-trade options or higher AAVs in future contract offers to new players. Plus it'd be a PR nightmare with the fanbase if their team traded away a star player who's locked up for years when they're seemingly still productive.
The bottom line for me is that you want to get the player's most-likely peak years in their late 20s, but you probably don't want to guarantee a bunch of years and dollars past that.
I doubt the Giants see this as anything other than a 2 year contract from their perspective, and it makes sense in a way.
The Giants are banking on a highly motivated Cueto coming to AT&T park and pitching his ass off for that next contract. If he regains his old form, which I think is entirely possible in that ballpark where his career era is 1.69, then he is a total bargain at 23m/y for the 2 years, and they have a fantastic rotation for 2 title runs while he's still in his prime.
At that point, if he opts out, he's 32 and possibly fatter than Pablo Sandoval, statistically probably beginning to decline and more likely to be injured, and at least one of the Giants pitching prospects should be more than ready to be called up.
Unless he has been completely dominant and shown no sign of regression, or is willing to sign a team friendly contract, just let him walk. He gets a fat contract that he earned, and the Giants enjoyed 2 years of excellent pitching for 10 million less per year than Greinke and aren't on the hook for a long term deal with a pitcher who may age very badly. Win Win imo.
The only way it doesn't work out is if he gets hurt or just completely forgets how to pitch and decides not to opt out, in which case the Giants are on the hook a la Barry Zito. As bad as that contract was, they still won 3 titles during its duration, so it's not the end of the world. I seriously doubt Cueto falls off like Barry did. Barring injury, he should be pretty dominant at AT&T, and if he is, then he will opt out for a big payday and I think both parties would be totally fine with it.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
But you are guaranteeing those years. You're acting as though the player is definitely going to opt out, but he only does that if he can exceed the value of the remainder of the contract.
I get what you're saying about prefering younger players, there's no doubt that's beneficial. But it almost seems as if you're assuming the player opts out, with no risk to the club. You're also assuming all pitchers break down at some point, which seems counterintuitive to your previous point.
And the other thing you're missing is that, although personally you don't like signing aging pitchers, teams are clearly willing to do it. The fair market value for Greinke far exceeded what was remaining on his Dodgers contract. Therefore, without that opt-out clause, the remainder of the Greinke contract is an asset to the Dodgers.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Fuck the MLB, fuck Manfred, fuck everything. The Reds are going to be awful for the foreseeable future and the MLB can't even throw the bone of letting Pete back in baseball.
Why can't people get the fuck over it? I could sit here and name many different MLB players that have done considerably worse than betting on baseball and they aren't and won't be banished from the league.
Fuck baseball.
edit: Oh, and why don't we just not fucking trade Chapman. Obviously we aren't even going to be able to get a year old hot dog covered in ketchup (pukes) for him.
Why can't people get the fuck over it? I could sit here and name many different MLB players that have done considerably worse than betting on baseball and they aren't and won't be banished from the league.
Fuck baseball.
edit: Oh, and why don't we just not fucking trade Chapman. Obviously we aren't even going to be able to get a year old hot dog covered in ketchup (pukes) for him.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Yes but if the opt out didn't exist in your scenario, they have a 32 year old ace pitcher who may or may not be headed to a decline on a friendly as fuck 4 year/$85 million contract, which will be a very valuable asset to trade for a haul if they decide they want sell high on Cueto. With the opt out they get no such option. Again, look at the Dodgers with Grienke, almost your exact hypothetical situation, don't you think the Dodgers would rather just have 3 more years of Grienke at his old contract than to have to offer him a bigger contract for his services, or see him walk away to a division rival for nothing? There is no scenario where a player option is a good thing for a team, it's not like a team would ever request to have one inserted into a contract, they always come from the player/agent. If the Giants had their way, the contract would be a 5 year deal with no opt out unless it's a team option.
You are completely discounting the fact that having an elite player under contract, even if he's 32, is an extremely valuable asset. Look at what the Phillies were able to do with Hamels when they decided he didn't fit into their plans anymore. If Grienke had no opt out, and the Dodgers decided they were too scared his elbow was going to explode, they could have traded him for a haul this offseason.
Corran Horn
May the Schwartz be with you
Baseball has a pretty simple dont fucking gamble rule.
TheGamingBox
Banned
maybe if pete wasnt a huge liar, they might have reinstated him
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Betting on baseball is definitely worse than jacking up on roids and ruining the integrity of the game. For suuuuuure.
Get the fuck over it.
Why?
Ninja Scooter
Member
I have no problem with Manfred's decision. People are all hung up on the Hall of Fame thing, when that's not really his priority. Pete Rose gambled on baseball, on his own teams, he should not in anyway have the possibility of being involved with the sport or a team again in any sort of front office/managerial capacity. This is what the ban is for. That he is not in the Hall of Fame is a side effect of that. If it irks you that much then people should petition the Hall of Fame to change their rules to allow someone who is banned from baseball to still be enshrined/recognized in the Hall of Fame. I don't see why Pete can't be inducted, and have his plaque read that he was banned from active participation in baseball.
It's way worse. They aren't even in the same ballpark. People who use steroids don't cause people to question the legitimacy of the outcomes of games. Having a player or worse, manager betting on games does this. I don't care if you want to say Pete only bet on his own team (which I don't believe anyway, the dude is full of shit about everything else), the way he used his roster, decided who to play and who to sit, which pitchers to use, could have absolutely been affected by whether or not he had money on the game that day. Guys who use steroids, even if you think they are evil, are ultimately just trying to play better, which in turn helps their team. They aren't throwing games or rigging outcomes.
It's way worse. They aren't even in the same ballpark. People who use steroids don't cause people to question the legitimacy of the outcomes of games. Having a player or worse, manager betting on games does this. I don't care if you want to say Pete only bet on his own team (which I don't believe anyway, the dude is full of shit about everything else), the way he used his roster, decided who to play and who to sit, which pitchers to use, could have absolutely been affected by whether or not he had money on the game that day. Guys who use steroids, even if you think they are evil, are ultimately just trying to play better, which in turn helps their team. They aren't throwing games or rigging outcomes.
TheGamingBox
Banned
would you rather pete have faced prison over it? cause thats could have happened if he didnt admit to betting to the mlb
Imagine if the Giants had signed Pablo to a huge 7-8 year contract 3 years ago like he wanted, and he played great and was a post season hero just like he was for us, but it had an opt out clause after 3 years that Pablo decided to use and take his talents to Boston for a bigger contract. Red Sox sign him and he gets there and promptly shits the bed exactly like he did this year. Don't you think the Giants would be ecstatic that he opted out? Yes they couldn't predict that he would fall off immediately but they had a hunch. Same with CC Sabathia. Imagine if he had opted out a couple years ago for an even bigger deal when he was still pitching well.. The Yankees would be fucking thrilled that he was someone elses problem now. Those guys have one thing in common. They're both fat just like Cueto. If this was Greinke we were talking about then I would dislike the 2 year opt out much more. It's a gamble. The giants are willing to trade away cuetos cheap 3-5 year in the hopes that they get a stellar cheap 1-2 years before he falls apart.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
If he ever does get in it won't be until he's dead.
Look, I know he's not a great human being or awesome role model. I get that. I've actually met Rose a few times. Once at a bar we had a few drinks together it was the most fascinating conversation about baseball I've ever had. One thing is for certain he has an immense love for the game of Baseball and could be a great ambassador for the game. What irks me more is if his vice was beating his wife, being an alcoholic with multiple DUI's, or a drug addict baseball would be A-OK with him. That burns a bit.
Obviously I'm very biased but I figured most fans were willing to see past his huge mistake. Judging by the responses here I'm wrong.
Frozenprince
Banned
Steroids literally saved the sport.
Ninja Scooter
Member
But why do you like the opt out? Because you are afraid he'll turn into a pumpkin? If that is true then you are stuck with him for 6 years. If he balls out and pitches like an ace for 2 years then you either have to re-up and give him more money/years to keep him, or lose him for nothing. None of those scenarios are good for the team. I mean, in the super specific scenario that he plays like a Cy Young for 2 years, opts out, leaves and then signs with someone else and proceeds to turn immediately into Mike Hampton, I guess you could say "Whew we dodged a bullet", but again, if you still had him under contract you could just trade him for a haul if you really thought "This guy's been amazing but I get the feeling he's going to turn into a fat turd almost immediately".
I just don't like changing the rule or making an exception just because Pete was a great player. If we were talking about some journeyman player who was caught betting on baseball, would anyone be lobbying to get him reinstated if he wanted to get into coaching or managing or something? Nobody would care. People only want to reinstate Pete to get him into the Hall, which to me, is not a good enough reason. If you want it that bad, again, people should be urging the Hall of Fame to change their rules, not telling the Commissioner of baseball to make an exception for a guy who by all accounts is a lying sack of shit just because he hit the ball good.
thoughts
illegal gambling brings in dangerous people. people who will exercise leverage on players if they owe money. sports leagues don't want anything to do with that, it's pretty simple.
pete rose was and is a dick, so, not many people rallying for him, not many crying tears for him.
yes, MLB has little morality other than pursuit of $. yes, there are things worse than gambling. probability that "but you let this guy get away with X meanwhile I only did Y" will work as a defense in anything approaches 0.
if you're worried about "the integrity of the hall when the best aren't there," well, buckle up. some of the best players of all time will not be there when their eligibility is up in a few years.
illegal gambling brings in dangerous people. people who will exercise leverage on players if they owe money. sports leagues don't want anything to do with that, it's pretty simple.
pete rose was and is a dick, so, not many people rallying for him, not many crying tears for him.
yes, MLB has little morality other than pursuit of $. yes, there are things worse than gambling. probability that "but you let this guy get away with X meanwhile I only did Y" will work as a defense in anything approaches 0.
if you're worried about "the integrity of the hall when the best aren't there," well, buckle up. some of the best players of all time will not be there when their eligibility is up in a few years.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
uh.... ok. whatever you say.
just like amphetamines before roids.
wonder why baseball is suspending these roid users...
so weird.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Because of public outcry from people who don't really understand what PEDs are or what they do.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
I think I might OK with Pete being banned for life if domestic abusers were also banned for life. To me the lifetime banishment seems excessive when you consider what other players were able to serve a reasonable suspension for.
For me I don't just want him in the hall of fame. I'd love to see him back in the dugout for the Reds as a manager or hell even a hitting coach. It's not just about the hall for me. He's not a mediocre journeyman. He's one of the best if not the best contact hitter to have played the game.
edit: Wait, Tony Gwynn is also in that best hitter of all time conversation.
For me I don't just want him in the hall of fame. I'd love to see him back in the dugout for the Reds as a manager or hell even a hitting coach. It's not just about the hall for me. He's not a mediocre journeyman. He's one of the best if not the best contact hitter to have played the game.
edit: Wait, Tony Gwynn is also in that best hitter of all time conversation.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Watching those last 4-5 years of Bonds was something I'll tell my grandkids about. I don't care if he juiced his balls off the guy literally could not be pitched to. His OBP was .600 one year. SIX FUCKING HUNDRED! And he was 39 years old!
Which is exactly why he is not being reinstated, because Manfred has to think about more than just the Hall, and can't allow a degenerate gambler who already bet on games once anywhere near a major league clubhouse. And I agree with him 100%. Maybe Pete is reformed (lol) but you are still taking a chance, because if he hasn't, it could be disastrous for the league, yes much worse than guys being busted for PEDs.
You are basically saying you are willing to bend the rules based on how good a guy is, which is a shitty precedent for the league to set and one I'm glad Manfred is not setting. If Mike Trout fails a drug test tomorrow should he be exempt from a suspension because he's so good?
CosmicQueso
Member
Like you said most people haven't read any analysis of what PEDs actually do so in their minds he'd "maybe have an OBP of .300, we don't know!"
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
It's a mistake to legally bet on baseball while being banished from the league?
Or are you talking about other mistakes?
And Ninja I agree about Bonds.. don't care if he was juiced up. Being 'juiced' doesn't automatically make you an unstoppable hitter. It was a true sight to behold. And yea he should be in the hall too. Watching him play in San Fran those last few years is something I'll never forget.
Nah, I don't feel like I'm asking to bend the rules. What I'm saying is the 'rule' to ban someone for life for betting and not what could be considered more egregious crimes is stupid and shouldn't happen. I don't want the rule bent I'd rather see a more sensible punishment for the crime. I can't think of any other offenses that earn you a lifetime ban in baseball. I'm not even sure there are any other perma-ban instances.
edit: I don't want to derail the thread with my ranting/whining anymore so sorry about that.
Similar threads
- Locked