Discoverer
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2012
- 10,837
- 6,011
While I get why that's kind of funny, he's not wrong. The projected salary was the landmine... the actual salary wasn't.
While I get why that's kind of funny, he's not wrong. The projected salary was the landmine... the actual salary wasn't.
He had him projected as getting 1 more year at the same salary.
He had him getting an extra year at an additional $24 million. That's a pretty significant difference considering Edwin will be 37 for that season and likely projects as somewhere slightly over replacement level.
While I get why that's kind of funny, he's not wrong. The projected salary was the landmine... the actual salary wasn't.
uh huh.
Oh no, I wasn't laughing at that. What he said about Edwin is absolutely true.
I laughed at the cumulative WAR of the players listed.
Do you think he'll be worth $24 million when he's 37 or do you think maybe that would have made the contract worse?
Ahhhh that makes more sense. When I read the total of 0.8 fWAR my first thought was "Wait... wasn't Edwin close to 3 on his own?"
I guess I'm just used to the "Dave Cameron said something dumb" posts and assumed you were laughing at his justification for having included Edwin.
1 more year at the same price.
Actual contract: 3/$60 million
Cameron prediction: 4/$84 million
I'm not claiming to be great at math or anything, but please explain where you're getting "one more year at the same price".
Also, "one more year at the same price" almost always makes free agent contracts worse.
come on dude.
So you're just gonna stick with "An extra $24 million for his age-37 season wouldn't have made the contract significantly worse." Cool.
and you're gonna stick with the "one extra year makes it a disaster'.
Not at all. I'm gonna stick with "An additional commitment of $24 million for an extra year in which a player will likely be slightly above replacement level makes the contract significantly worse than it currently is."
yes, I know you're going to stick with the only phrasing that you can get away with and avoid admitting that one extra year turning a contract into a landmine is amusing.
Are there any pitchers being left unprotected in the rule 5 draft that can help us out. Preferably a left hander with heat. Can see us picking such a player up if the opportunity presents itself. Better yet any super utility players available preferably for second, short and corner OF spots?
I never referred to it as a landmine.
For 2017, Encarnacion will probably be fine, and help whatever team signs him. But the long-term cost of getting one or maybe two good years will be staggeringly high when all is said and done; it’s not just the $80 to $90 million in salary that we’re forecasting he’ll get, but the signing team will also have to pay an additional tax by surrendering a draft choice, potentially tacking another $5 to $10 million in price onto the cost of the deal. For Encarnacion to be worth something close to $100 million (once the draft pick tax is included), he’d have to essentially defy aging, and stay one of the game’s best sluggers for the next three or four years. That’s probably not going to happen, and instead, the team that winds up with Encarnacion will probably get a short boost that they regret down the line.
Indeed. That one commenter invalidates the whole venture.
No you did not (and I actually believe you, like many of us would have been fine at 4y/$80MM if it had been signed when it was offered). Cameron, however, justifies his point of view pretty clearly, and its hard to say he's wrong, even with a season providing a slight buffer of hindsight.