|
Post by hoobs on Oct 25, 2019 14:22:56 GMT -8
Laughable because of the extremely low likelihood that the Padres organization would have any ability or chance to pull that off. I'd have agreed with you prior to the Machado deal. That showed me this group is different. Yet... 70-92, bottom of a weak NL West. Payroll still at the bottom of the league. Not sure I really see much indication this group is any different. Also, what makes the Machado deal... actually a good deal? Average of $30m per season for 10 seasons... yikes.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Oct 25, 2019 16:11:06 GMT -8
I'd have agreed with you prior to the Machado deal. That showed me this group is different. Yet... 70-92, bottom of a weak NL West. Payroll still at the bottom of the league. Not sure I really see much indication this group is any different. Also, what makes the Machado deal... actually a good deal? Average of $30m per season for 10 seasons... yikes. Yes, they under-achieved this year, but so what? Because Manny got 30M he's supposed to single-handedly get the Pads to the playoffs this year? No one realistically thought that and even ownership targeted 2020 to the fans. And if you don't realize how much of an impact Tatis' injuries played in their final record, I don't know what to tell you. Oh, and guess what the Astros record was in '14 before they started their winning run? Exactly the same. Padre Ownership showed it was not only willing to spend $$$, but also savvy enough not to give away the farm-system, still widely regarded as #1 in MLB. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a taco-brown-colored glasses kind of guy. I've been a fan since the 70s and have had to suffer mostly losing seasons and horrid ownership and pretty much accepted nothing would ever change. This is the first time I've been truly excited since '84.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 25, 2019 17:07:50 GMT -8
Padres. Bwa ha ha … Well, they certainly aren't spending any serious money for a new manager. Jeebus. The GM is the one who really needs to go. But we'll just have to wait until next year…
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Oct 29, 2019 21:54:07 GMT -8
What can you say at this point? Pure brilliance!
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Oct 29, 2019 21:54:49 GMT -8
What can you say at this point? Pure brilliance! If Scherzer does his job tomorrow... it will finally be time to frame this bad boy and hang it on the wall!
|
|
|
Post by ragin'aztec on Oct 29, 2019 22:33:25 GMT -8
The new Mr OCTOBER
|
|
|
Post by ragin'aztec on Oct 29, 2019 22:35:12 GMT -8
In regards to the Pads I sure hope Tatis stays healthy.
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Nov 12, 2019 13:04:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Nov 12, 2019 14:01:10 GMT -8
The gd Padres. $180M/6 Years doesn’t even crack the Top 5 yearly salary for pitchers. What exactly did they think he was going to be asking for? I’d MUCH rather Strasburg get his than the Padres sign him under market value. Such BS. Sportrac says SD’s highest paid pitcher is at $8.5/yr - #40 overall in the MLB. No surprise these dummies throw up 62 wins a year.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Nov 12, 2019 14:07:33 GMT -8
You don't pay 30 million a year for a pitcher's age 32 to 37 seasons. That would be a far too risky and likely foolish investment; teams like the Yankees can afford those risks; the Padres less so (they have already hamstrung themselves with Myers, Hosmer and possibly Machado).
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Nov 12, 2019 14:10:25 GMT -8
Good, I'd hate to see his career cursed by having to play for the Padres.
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Nov 12, 2019 14:13:53 GMT -8
You don't pay 30 million a year for a pitcher's age 32 to 37 seasons. That would be a far too risky and likely foolish investment; teams like the Yankees can afford those risks; the Padres less so (they have already hamstrung themselves with Myers, Hosmer and possibly Machado). This is both correct and wildly inaccurate depending on the context for the conversation. Within the rules of the CBA and with luxury tax considerations, yes it’d be a risky contract. Potentially worthwhile, and there are examples of such contracts working out (Scherzer, Greinke, Verlander). Can the Padres, as a billion plus dollar asset owned by extremely wealthy individuals who will cash in on an absurd ROI afford to sign Strasburg, Cole, and trade for Betts? Of course they can. I defend the Padres a lot more than most of the residents of this board would, but MLB owners crying poor is one of the biggest PR accomplishments this millennia.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Nov 12, 2019 15:42:47 GMT -8
This is both correct and wildly inaccurate depending on the context for the conversation. Within the rules of the CBA and with luxury tax considerations, yes it’d be a risky contract. Potentially worthwhile, and there are examples of such contracts working out (Scherzer, Greinke, Verlander). Can the Padres, as a billion plus dollar asset owned by extremely wealthy individuals who will cash in on an absurd ROI afford to sign Strasburg, Cole, and trade for Betts? Of course they can. I defend the Padres a lot more than most of the residents of this board would, but MLB owners crying poor is one of the biggest PR accomplishments this millennia. Greinke's contract is bad. He performed to contract levels 2 of 4 years so far (2017 and 2019), and his team (currently Astros) is on the hook for 31 million each as Greinke pitches his age 37 and 38 seasons. There are huge red flags for Greinke has well, his stuff has declined rapidly and he was getting pulled very early from postseason starts. Scherzer is a unicorn. Nothing against Cole or Strasburg, but they didn't have Scherzer's track record going into FA. Unfortunately, there are some yellow/red flags about Scherzer's health. Verlander is a unicorn as well, similar performance profile to Scherzer, but his big contract was signed when he was 30, two years before Strasburg. He signed a two year extension. On MLB ownership, no team has EVER operated as if they fund their current payrolls from out of their expected future ROI when they sell the team. There are occasional cash calls from wealthy owners - that is what Moores did when building the 1998 NL champion. It is possible that Seidler is doing that now. The Padres are in fact poorer operations wise than both the Dodgers and the Giants; they are comparable to the Rockies and Diamondbacks, but could fall behind Colorado as that regional TV contract is updated. The Padres will win, if at all, by outdrafting, outsigning and outdeveloping their young talent vis-a-vis their competition. Nice that they have the #1 farm system in baseball. Remains to be see if it will bear fruit.
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Nov 12, 2019 15:57:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Nov 12, 2019 17:42:31 GMT -8
This is both correct and wildly inaccurate depending on the context for the conversation. Within the rules of the CBA and with luxury tax considerations, yes it’d be a risky contract. Potentially worthwhile, and there are examples of such contracts working out (Scherzer, Greinke, Verlander). Can the Padres, as a billion plus dollar asset owned by extremely wealthy individuals who will cash in on an absurd ROI afford to sign Strasburg, Cole, and trade for Betts? Of course they can. I defend the Padres a lot more than most of the residents of this board would, but MLB owners crying poor is one of the biggest PR accomplishments this millennia. Greinke's contract is bad. He performed to contract levels 2 of 4 years so far (2017 and 2019), and his team (currently Astros) is on the hook for 31 million each as Greinke pitches his age 37 and 38 seasons. There are huge red flags for Greinke has well, his stuff has declined rapidly and he was getting pulled very early from postseason starts. Scherzer is a unicorn. Nothing against Cole or Strasburg, but they didn't have Scherzer's track record going into FA. Unfortunately, there are some yellow/red flags about Scherzer's health. Verlander is a unicorn as well, similar performance profile to Scherzer, but his big contract was signed when he was 30, two years before Strasburg. He signed a two year extension. On MLB ownership, no team has EVER operated as if they fund their current payrolls from out of their expected future ROI when they sell the team. There are occasional cash calls from wealthy owners - that is what Moores did when building the 1998 NL champion. It is possible that Seidler is doing that now. The Padres are in fact poorer operations wise than both the Dodgers and the Giants; they are comparable to the Rockies and Diamondbacks, but could fall behind Colorado as that regional TV contract is updated. The Padres will win, if at all, by outdrafting, outsigning and outdeveloping their young talent vis-a-vis their competition. Nice that they have the #1 farm system in baseball. Remains to be see if it will bear fruit. I don’t disagree with much of your point about baseball ops, I just don’t think informed individuals need to defend the idea that the padres would be taking a risk on a long term contract for Strasburg, Cole, etc. They can afford to spend as much or more than any other team. There are disincentives (created by the collective group of owners LOL) to doing so, but they’re completely insignificant and have nothing to do with the Padres not spending another $180M over the next six years.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Nov 13, 2019 13:19:15 GMT -8
Yet... 70-92, bottom of a weak NL West. Payroll still at the bottom of the league. Not sure I really see much indication this group is any different. Also, what makes the Machado deal... actually a good deal? Average of $30m per season for 10 seasons... yikes. Yes, they under-achieved this year, but so what? Because Manny got 30M he's supposed to single-handedly get the Pads to the playoffs this year? No one realistically thought that and even ownership targeted 2020 to the fans. And if you don't realize how much of an impact Tatis' injuries played in their final record, I don't know what to tell you. Oh, and guess what the Astros record was in '14 before they started their winning run? Exactly the same. Padre Ownership showed it was not only willing to spend $$$, but also savvy enough not to give away the farm-system, still widely regarded as #1 in MLB. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a taco-brown-colored glasses kind of guy. I've been a fan since the 70s and have had to suffer mostly losing seasons and horrid ownership and pretty much accepted nothing would ever change. This is the first time I've been truly excited since '84. Losing Tatis really hurt us. The kid is one of the most exciting players in the league (if not the most) and his offensive numbers were quite impressive. We need him healthy and then have to hope Urias can develop into the player we hope him to be at 2nd base. We do need more offensive production in the outfield, however. And, we relied on a very young starting lineup in pitching and some of those players, like Paddock, were limited in how many pitches they could go. Strasburg wants a lot of money ($30M/year) and a 6 year deal. Would be nice if he took a discount to come home but I don't begrudge him looking for a big deal for the last contract of his career. Unfortunately we are still paying Myres. Would still like to get one veteran starting pitcher in FA.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 13, 2019 13:25:10 GMT -8
I think the Padres have been "priced out" of the Major Leagues. For TEN years, they've been running a Triple A team, in a major league park.
|
|
|
Post by docmm on Nov 13, 2019 15:11:16 GMT -8
I know he’s an Aztec but giving $180 million to a pitcher over 30 with injury history is crazy, even if you do get a couple very good years at the beginning of the contract. That said, I hope he gets that much or more, but from someone else.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Nov 13, 2019 15:19:25 GMT -8
I don’t disagree with much of your point about baseball ops, I just don’t think informed individuals need to defend the idea that the padres would be taking a risk on a long term contract for Strasburg, Cole, etc. They can afford to spend as much or more than any other team. There are disincentives (created by the collective group of owners LOL) to doing so, but they’re completely insignificant and have nothing to do with the Padres not spending another $180M over the next six years. Yes, the Padres would be taking on a risk for a long term contract signing of Strasburg, Cole, etc. In my marginally informed opinion, it would be a bad risk for Strasburg, less so for Cole (provided they could trade him easily after a few years). The Padres took risks when they extended Myers (so far, fail), signed Hosmer (turning out terrible), and signed Machado (poor year by his standards but youngish and expect him to bounce back). Generally speaking, long term free agent contracts for players passing their playing prime is a bad investment for teams like the Padres. No, the Padres do not have as much money as other teams. That's not how baseball works, unlike the NFL. The Padres have less money than the Dodgers and Giants and most other perennial NL playoff contenders. They have about as much revenue as the Rockies and Diamondbacks, but will fall behind the Rockies once they get a new TV contract. People don't want to admit it, but the Padres are in a small media market. That seems counterintuitive, given that San Diego is a large city, but all metrics acknowledge it. Media market does not equal city size. The Padres expect to spend closer to median over time, but generally have to spend smarter than their rivals, and hope their rivals miss on a lot of players. ps - I also hope Strasburg gets a huge contract. Good guy, great Aztec, hope he makes a killing.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Nov 13, 2019 20:05:44 GMT -8
I don’t disagree with much of your point about baseball ops, I just don’t think informed individuals need to defend the idea that the padres would be taking a risk on a long term contract for Strasburg, Cole, etc. They can afford to spend as much or more than any other team. There are disincentives (created by the collective group of owners LOL) to doing so, but they’re completely insignificant and have nothing to do with the Padres not spending another $180M over the next six years. Yes, the Padres would be taking on a risk for a long term contract signing of Strasburg, Cole, etc. In my marginally informed opinion, it would be a bad risk for Strasburg, less so for Cole (provided they could trade him easily after a few years). The Padres took risks when they extended Myers (so far, fail), signed Hosmer (turning out terrible), and signed Machado (poor year by his standards but youngish and expect him to bounce back). Generally speaking, long term free agent contracts for players passing their playing prime is a bad investment for teams like the Padres. No, the Padres do not have as much money as other teams. That's not how baseball works, unlike the NFL. The Padres have less money than the Dodgers and Giants and most other perennial NL playoff contenders. They have about as much revenue as the Rockies and Diamondbacks, but will fall behind the Rockies once they get a new TV contract. People don't want to admit it, but the Padres are in a small media market. That seems counterintuitive, given that San Diego is a large city, but all metrics acknowledge it. Media market does not equal city size. The Padres expect to spend closer to median over time, but generally have to spend smarter than their rivals, and hope their rivals miss on a lot of players. ps - I also hope Strasburg gets a huge contract. Good guy, great Aztec, hope he makes a killing. Yes, we are not a big market. Ocean to the West, Desert to the East, Mexico to the South and LA (with two MLB teams) to the North. I remember, some many years ago, when I read about local TV contracts. San Diego was getting something like $7M/ year (not much unlike Seattle) while the Yankees were pulling in over $50M/year. That was back when George Steinbrenner was still alive.
|
|