White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 08-20-2013, 04:15 PM
Ex-Chicagoan Ex-Chicagoan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shes View Post
Surely he can wear a StL hat at the HOF, no?
I believe that's up to the HOF to decide, not the player or his contract. Wade Boggs had it in his contract to go in as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray, and they ignored that.
__________________
No one has ever bet enough on the winning horse.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:40 PM
amsteel amsteel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,320
Default

The fact the Angels have 105$M committed to 5 players in 2016 makes me think we're closer to a lockout than anyone thinks.

Even with the 234523456234663$ TV contract the Angels signed, that's just stupid spending.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:10 PM
shes shes is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
Apparently not. He sold his soul to the Devil 100%.
Wow, and I just looked it up and it's only $10M for 10 years after this contract ends. I just can't understand that at all.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:15 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is online now
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amsteel View Post
The fact the Angels have 105$M committed to 5 players in 2016 makes me think we're closer to a lockout than anyone thinks.

Even with the 234523456234663$ TV contract the Angels signed, that's just stupid spending.
The Dodgers have plenty of crazy contracts, too, the difference is that their players are both good and not all on the wrong side of 30.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2013, 09:27 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,334
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-Chicagoan View Post
I believe that's up to the HOF to decide, not the player or his contract. Wade Boggs had it in his contract to go in as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray, and they ignored that.
The hat his plaque has is ultimately up to the HOF (the player, from what I understand, can ask for a certain team, but the HOF has the final decision). Albert just can't wear a Cardinals hat at his HOF induction himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:08 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,528
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadMoney View Post
And to think these were the two least expensive years...
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M
Wow!

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
Don't forget, this is only one of two contracts Pujols signed with the Angels. The second one is a ten year Personal Services Contract which kicks in for ten years after his current player contract ends. It states that he cannot be seen in public, in pictures, video, etc. wearing any logos or other identifying "marks" from any other MLB team. This means it will as if he never played for the Cardinals. It, too, is a very lucrative contract to ensure his compliance (if he wears a Cubs hat in public, the contract is immediately voided).
Incredible. The Angels are paying $10M a year for 10 years for this? Why would they care if a 50 year old Pujols walks around with a Cardinals hat? Is it worth that much to them to make sure that doesn't happen?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:14 PM
Noneck Noneck is online now
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post


I must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.


Thats why it annoys me when people talk about saving a couple million here and there. Its all chump change to these owners, they have to be raking it in hand over fist.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:46 PM
DeadMoney DeadMoney is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
Wow!

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.
It gets even better when you look at their distributions to only six players (those 2015-2016 years will be fun; especially since it's AFTER Trout hits Arbitration)...

Yr(dwn)-1----2-----3----4-----5-----6---
2012: $12M------$14M $10M $4.5M-------
2013: $16M $15M $16M $11M $8.7M $8.5M
2014: $23M $15M $16M $16M $9.4M $8.5M
2015: $24M $23M $18M $18M $9.5M $8.5M
2016: $25M $30M $20M $20M-------$8.5M
2017: $26M $30M
2018: $27M
2019: $28M
2020: $29M
2021: $30M
1. Pujols
2. Hamilton
3. Weaver
4. Wilson
5. Kendrick
6. Aybar
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:00 PM
SouthSideMike SouthSideMike is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 249
Default

Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:48 PM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideMike View Post
Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.
I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.
__________________
Obligatory Attendance Record:
3-3
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:52 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideMike View Post
Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.
Really?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2013, 03:40 PM
SouthSideMike SouthSideMike is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzh View Post
I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.
That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Really?

Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2013, 04:07 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideMike View Post
That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.






Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?
I fail to see the correlation between Hawk's view of baseball and LAAAAA's signing of Pujols. Even if advanced metrics were not utilized in their analysis (a far-fetched assumption, I think), there is very little in the way of traditional scouting that would lead anyone to believe LAAAAA will get even close to their money's worth with that contract.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2013, 06:21 PM
WLL1855 WLL1855 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideMike View Post
Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?
You go make love to your numbers. I'll be over here trusting what my eyes can see.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2013, 07:08 PM
soxnut1018 soxnut1018 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WLL1855 View Post
You go make love to your numbers. I'll be over here trusting what my eyes can see.
You know you can use both, right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.