Blue Jays Discussion: Roy Halladay elected to 2019 Baseball Hall of Fame class

[Amadeus]

“I think it’s a very dangerous time for baseball right now,” says Sportsnet broadcaster Buck Martinez, who once served as vice president on the players union’s executive board.“Baseball as an industry has depersonalized its players, now the players are merely stats and numbers and his runs created is this and everything else. You know what? There are characters out there and that’s always been the appeal to the fans. I’m afraid that’s being lost because now it’s a matter of, ‘Hey, plug this guy in because he’s got a great OPS, plug that guy in because of his WAR.’ What about, ‘Plug that guy in because he plays his ass off and he’s our guy?’”

Source: Sportsnet

Pretty archaic thing to say from Buck. I think the outrageous free agency demands and projected return on investment is what's causing these free agents to remain unsigned.

 

[theaub]

I mean, in a lot of ways he's not wrong. Baseball does such a trash job of marketing players that if you don't watch a guy everyday basically all you know about him are stats.

As I saw someone say on twitter a couple days back, its impressive how MLB has done everything possible to make baseball completely ignored from the end of October until after the Super Bowl.

Then again an entire offseason of watching this organization trying to convince me that service time manipulation is good and signing good players is bad has left me pretty jaded.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I mean, in a lot of ways he's not wrong. Baseball does such a trash job of marketing players that if you don't watch a guy everyday basically all you know about him are stats.

As I saw someone say on twitter a couple days back, its impressive how MLB has done everything possible to make baseball completely ignored from the end of October until after the Super Bowl.

Then again an entire offseason of watching this organization trying to convince me that service time manipulation is good and signing good players is bad has left me pretty jaded.

I am left dumbfounded anytime a fan acts like service time manipulation is a Blue Jays thing lol. Every single team in baseball manipulates service time. Period. The players had a round of negotiating in the last CBA and got themselves bent over and really got nothing. I do completely agree with the first part of what you said in that the MLB off season is just far to spread out and boring compared to the other major leagues.

 

[Kurtz]

I mean, in a lot of ways he's not wrong. Baseball does such a trash job of marketing players that if you don't watch a guy everyday basically all you know about him are stats.

As I saw someone say on twitter a couple days back, its impressive how MLB has done everything possible to make baseball completely ignored from the end of October until after the Super Bowl.

Then again an entire offseason of watching this organization trying to convince me that service time manipulation is good and signing good players is bad has left me pretty jaded.

Great point. I think they got worse at it over time. When I was growing up it was Ken Griffey Junior! Mark Mcguire! Bonds! Sosa! Clemens! Randy "bird demolition man" Johnson!

Today, I don't think I could pick Goldschmidt out of a police lineup.

 

[theaub]

I am left dumbfounded anytime a fan acts like service time manipulation is a Blue Jays thing lol. Every single team in baseball manipulates service time. Period. The players had a round of negotiating in the last CBA and got themselves bent over and really got nothing. I do completely agree with the first part of what you said in that the MLB off season is just far to spread out and boring compared to the other major leagues.

I understand that every team has the same issue. I also understand that with how this team is constructed, Vlad Jr being up on opening day vs April 23rd or whatever won't have an impact.

However, the two ideas of 'we are going to start the year with our best hitter in the minors so we don't have to pay him market value for an extra year' with 'we have no interest in paying market WAR value for elite free agents in their prime' is pretty sad. The fact that all other 29 teams agree with the first one (and pretty close to all of them agree with the second one) doesn't change that. Just makes it even more sad.

 

[canucksfan]

I could be wrong, but for the most part, teams don't have a problem paying high end free agents big money. The problem is the term. Paying someone like Machado 30 million a year for ten years is ridiculous. He will be 36 in his final year. As we have seen with recent big money long term contracts majority of them turn really bad because players are declining.

 

[kb]

Great point. I think they got worse at it over time. When I was growing up it was Ken Griffey Junior! Mark Mcguire! Bonds! Sosa! Clemens! Randy "bird demolition man" Johnson!

Today, I don't think I could pick Goldschmidt out of a police lineup.

Only if he stole your wallet.

 

[metafour]

The problem is the term. Paying someone like Machado 30 million a year for ten years is ridiculous. He will be 36 in his final year.

It really isn't that ridiculous at all. First off, both Harper and Machado are very likely to grossly outproduce their AAV for at least the first half of their contracts, which is the time frame within which you want their production in the first place (ie: no one is signing Harper under the pretense that they hope to be a WS contender in the 8th year of his contract). That accumulating surplus value is very likely to mitigate whatever happens in the 34/35/36 year seasons of that contract, and even then, those two won't even be THAT old in the tail-ends of a speculated 10 year deal in the first place. Secondly, who even knows what $30 million is going to be worth 10 years from now, and even more so, if your team actually wins with the acquisition of an MVP caliber player like Harper or Machado, how much are you really going to care about "losing" some money at the end of the deal?

I think that some of you are taking this a bit too far. The vast majority of terrible "mega-deals" come in the form of guys hitting free agency at 31/32 years old, which is the norm. Very rarely do you see a 26 year old superstar player in free agency. Yes, signing a 31/32 year old to an 8 year deal that goes to 39/40 years of age is likely to be terrible because that player is only a few seasons away from significant decline, and they probably passed their peak already on top of that which means that you are paying them a premium to compensate for elite production that they gave their prior team. The case of an elite 26 year old signing a 10 year deal is NOT the same thing.

 

[Brown Dog]

Great point. I think they got worse at it over time. When I was growing up it was Ken Griffey Junior! Mark Mcguire! Bonds! Sosa! Clemens! Randy "bird demolition man" Johnson!

Today, I don't think I could pick Goldschmidt out of a police lineup.

Yeah, I've gotta agree with Buck on this too. Baseball has a rich history of great, iconic personalities. People who transcended the sport unlike any other. I don't know if advanced stats are to blame, but that does seem to be falling off.

 

[canucksfan]

It really isn't that ridiculous at all. First off, both Harper and Machado are very likely to grossly outproduce their AAV for at least the first half of their contracts, which is the time frame within which you want their production in the first place (ie: no one is signing Harper under the pretense that they hope to be a WS contender in the 8th year of his contract). That accumulating surplus value is very likely to mitigate whatever happens in the 34/35/36 year seasons of that contract, and even then, those two won't even be THAT old in the tail-ends of a speculated 10 year deal in the first place. Secondly, who even knows what $30 million is going to be worth 10 years from now, and even more so, if your team actually wins with the acquisition of an MVP caliber player like Harper or Machado, how much are you really going to care about "losing" some money at the end of the deal?

I think that some of you are taking this a bit too far. The vast majority of terrible "mega-deals" come in the form of guys hitting free agency at 31/32 years old, which is the norm. Very rarely do you see a 26 year old superstar player in free agency. Yes, signing a 31/32 year old to an 8 year deal that goes to 39/40 years of age is likely to be terrible because that player is only a few seasons away from significant decline, and they probably passed their peak already on top of that which means that you are paying them a premium to compensate for elite production that they gave their prior team. The case of an elite 26 year old signing a 10 year deal is NOT the same thing.

You raise some good points. In hindsight ridiculous is too harsh of a word. Maybe it's an over-correction to the stupid contracts that were handed out in the previous years?

 

[Discoverer]

The case of an elite 26 year old signing a 10 year deal is NOT the same thing.

Exactly. I don't understand why people keep bringing up contracts like Pujols and Cabrera as evidence that you shouldn't give Machado and Harper 10 years.

A ten-year deal for a 30-year-old likely breaks down as 2-3 years of prime(ish) production, 3-4 years of gradual decline, and a few years as a complete write-off.

A ten-year deal for a 26-year-old, meanwhile, likely breaks down as 5-6 years of prime production, 3-4 years of gradual decline, and maybe an ugly year or two at the end.

Why are people talking about them as if they're equally risky?

 

[le_sean]

Exactly. I don't understand why people keep bringing up contracts like Pujols and Cabrera as evidence that you shouldn't give Machado and Harper 10 years.

A ten-year deal for a 30-year-old likely breaks down as 2-3 years of prime(ish) production, 3-4 years of gradual decline, and a few years as a complete write-off.

A ten-year deal for a 26-year-old, meanwhile, likely breaks down as 5-6 years of prime production, 3-4 years of gradual decline, and maybe an ugly year or two at the end.

Why are people talking about them as if they're equally risky?

At the time Pujols signed with the LAA, he had 1,700 GP, Cabrera re-upped for 10 years at around 1,600 GP. Machado and Harper have around 900 GP each. It’s really not the same at all, not even close to the same mileage.

 

[Eyedea]

At the time Pujols signed with the LAA, he had 1,700 GP, Cabrera re-upped for 10 years at around 1,600 GP. Machado and Harper have around 900 GP each. It’s really not the same at all, not even close to the same mileage.

Not to mention bad vs athletic bodies.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

It really isn't that ridiculous at all. First off, both Harper and Machado are very likely to grossly outproduce their AAV for at least the first half of their contracts, which is the time frame within which you want their production in the first place (ie: no one is signing Harper under the pretense that they hope to be a WS contender in the 8th year of his contract). That accumulating surplus value is very likely to mitigate whatever happens in the 34/35/36 year seasons of that contract, and even then, those two won't even be THAT old in the tail-ends of a speculated 10 year deal in the first place. Secondly, who even knows what $30 million is going to be worth 10 years from now, and even more so, if your team actually wins with the acquisition of an MVP caliber player like Harper or Machado, how much are you really going to care about "losing" some money at the end of the deal?

I think that some of you are taking this a bit too far. The vast majority of terrible "mega-deals" come in the form of guys hitting free agency at 31/32 years old, which is the norm. Very rarely do you see a 26 year old superstar player in free agency. Yes, signing a 31/32 year old to an 8 year deal that goes to 39/40 years of age is likely to be terrible because that player is only a few seasons away from significant decline, and they probably passed their peak already on top of that which means that you are paying them a premium to compensate for elite production that they gave their prior team. The case of an elite 26 year old signing a 10 year deal is NOT the same thing.

This is a great post.

For me, even when it came to 31/32 year olds coming up for free agency, this is where I thought Beeston's self-imposed 5-year rule was ridiculous. Why would you preclude yourself from even being in the conversation of signing a free agent by not going an extra year or two? Deals can be structured where the money is front-loaded and tails off towards the end (essentially the opposite of the Martin deal).

As for Harper and Machado. Two superstars in the their prime who are available for nothing but money and most teams won't even sniff at it? The Jays may be in a rebuild, but if the thought is they can be contending again in two years, three tops, why wouldn't either of these guys be of interest to grow with the team? An 8-year deal for either wouldn't cripple the team (again, especially if it's front-loaded), and they'd still be 34/35 by the time the deal is done. And that's without even mentioning the potential windfall it could be for ownership in terms of potential jersey sales, ticket sales and viewership.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I mean, in a lot of ways he's not wrong. Baseball does such a trash job of marketing players that if you don't watch a guy everyday basically all you know about him are stats.

As I saw someone say on twitter a couple days back, its impressive how MLB has done everything possible to make baseball completely ignored from the end of October until after the Super Bowl.

Then again an entire offseason of watching this organization trying to convince me that service time manipulation is good and signing good players is bad has left me pretty jaded.

I love this post too.

 

[dredeye]

I understand that every team has the same issue. I also understand that with how this team is constructed, Vlad Jr being up on opening day vs April 23rd or whatever won't have an impact.

However, the two ideas of 'we are going to start the year with our best hitter in the minors so we don't have to pay him market value for an extra year' with 'we have no interest in paying market WAR value for elite free agents in their prime' is pretty sad. The fact that all other 29 teams agree with the first one (and pretty close to all of them agree with the second one) doesn't change that. Just makes it even more sad.

What’s sad about it? They extend the guaranteed time they can control and high end mlb talent which is very good asset management. They also want to pay players top dollars for the time they are good not and extra five in which they get progresssively worse. Also let’s remember these guys are already ridiculously rich as are the owners. Manny Bryce or whoever else can make huge money and will make huge money. They are just asking to be paid for a lot of years they won’t be good and owners don’t want to do that anymore. I have zero issue with that. What’s sad is that you feel bad for someone that turned down 300 million dollars. Think about that. Turned down 300 million dollars. Now no one is offering him that it seems. I assume maybe he goes back and signs something just above or that exact deal and returns home of that offer is still on the table

 

[dredeye]

Really odd that two former jays in Navarro and Laurie who haven’t played in the bigs for two years have both locked up mlb contracts. Lawries I’m not sure is an mlb deal as of yet

 

[Albert Iafrate]

Source: Sportsnet

Pretty archaic thing to say from Buck. I think the outrageous free agency demands and projected return on investment is what's causing these free agents to remain unsigned.

Regardless of how you feel about Gary V or ARod, the video below pretty much perfectly sums up the problem with modern baseball, and how it's going to die a slow death if someone doesn't change the culture. Buck is bang on here...

 

[Eyedea]

Really odd that two former jays in Navarro and Laurie who haven’t played in the bigs for two years have both locked up mlb contracts. Lawries I’m not sure is an mlb deal as of yet

Navarro’s is a minor league deal.

 

[nilan30]

Source: Sportsnet

Pretty archaic thing to say from Buck. I think the outrageous free agency demands and projected return on investment is what's causing these free agents to remain unsigned.

He's not really wrong though

 

[theaub]

What’s sad about it? They extend the guaranteed time they can control and high end mlb talent which is very good asset management. They also want to pay players top dollars for the time they are good not and extra five in which they get progresssively worse. Also let’s remember these guys are already ridiculously rich as are the owners. Manny Bryce or whoever else can make huge money and will make huge money. They are just asking to be paid for a lot of years they won’t be good and owners don’t want to do that anymore. I have zero issue with that. What’s sad is that you feel bad for someone that turned down 300 million dollars. Think about that. Turned down 300 million dollars. Now no one is offering him that it seems. I assume maybe he goes back and signs something just above or that exact deal and returns home of that offer is still on the table

I mean, none of this is true and/or good

- Defending playing an inferior roster for zero benefit other than 'good asset management' is bad
- No player is remotely close to as rich as the cheapest owner
- We now have owners suppressing player salaries during prime years yet refusing to pay even market WAR value for free agents

MLB payrolls have more or less stayed flat over the past three years even as league revenues have steadily increased (hell each team gets $57M per year now from national TV + MLBAM deals alone, plus their regional deals). That should not be commended.

 

[Skin Tape Session]

This is a great post.

For me, even when it came to 31/32 year olds coming up for free agency, this is where I thought Beeston's self-imposed 5-year rule was ridiculous. Why would you preclude yourself from even being in the conversation of signing a free agent by not going an extra year or two? Deals can be structured where the money is front-loaded and tails off towards the end (essentially the opposite of the Martin deal).

As for Harper and Machado. Two superstars in the their prime who are available for nothing but money and most teams won't even sniff at it? The Jays may be in a rebuild, but if the thought is they can be contending again in two years, three tops, why wouldn't either of these guys be of interest to grow with the team? An 8-year deal for either wouldn't cripple the team (again, especially if it's front-loaded), and they'd still be 34/35 by the time the deal is done. And that's without even mentioning the potential windfall it could be for ownership in terms of potential jersey sales, ticket sales and viewership.

I think some of it is their personalities. I just think gms dont want to break records for these two. I really think its apart of it, I mean 26 right? It has to be personality. Does 26 year old Nolan not get 10 years 30 mil? 26 year old Lindor or mookie?

 

[Marmoset]

Source: Sportsnet

Pretty archaic thing to say from Buck. I think the outrageous free agency demands and projected return on investment is what's causing these free agents to remain unsigned.

I also agree with Buck. More and more, players are becoming statistics.

In particular, I believe the trend towards starting pitchers throwing fewer and fewer innings is a very negative trend for the sport. When it comes to pitching, anyone besides the hard-core fan cares about the starters, and the closer. Nobody tunes into baseball to see a great middle reliever. The pitchers we remember in Jays' history are Stieb, Key, Clemens, Halladay, etc., and Henke and Ward and those guys. Those are the guys people wanted to see. Now most starters are basically gone halfway through the game, followed by a merry-go-round of relief pitchers the casual fan doesn't know or care about.

If the "opener" phenomenon the Rays started takes hold, it becomes that much worse. The whole concept of a starter basically disappears, and you have only relievers. From a marketing perspective, it's a handicap in trying to create interest in the game. The "bullpen day" was bad enough, this is taking it to the next level.

It might make sense for strategy and trying to win games, but it doesn't make sense if you're trying to sell tickets and make money. This is why if anything, I want MLB to shrink rosters, not expand them. (I realize that won't happen). Shrinking rosters forces you to use less pitchers, which forces them to pitch longer. It would also likely increase offence in the league. All of this is good for generating interest and ultimately making MLB more money. Instead, they're heading in the other direction.

Okay, rant over!

 

[Discoverer]

I also agree with Buck. More and more, players are becoming statistics.

In particular, I believe the trend towards starting pitchers throwing fewer and fewer innings is a very negative trend for the sport. When it comes to pitching, anyone besides the hard-core fan cares about the starters, and the closer. Nobody tunes into baseball to see a great middle reliever. The pitchers we remember in Jays' history are Stieb, Key, Clemens, Halladay, etc., and Henke and Ward and those guys. Those are the guys people wanted to see. Now most starters are basically gone halfway through the game, followed by a merry-go-round of relief pitchers the casual fan doesn't know or care about.

If the "opener" phenomenon the Rays started takes hold, it becomes that much worse. The whole concept of a starter basically disappears, and you have only relievers. From a marketing perspective, it's a handicap in trying to create interest in the game. The "bullpen day" was bad enough, this is taking it to the next level.

It might make sense for strategy and trying to win games, but it doesn't make sense if you're trying to sell tickets and make money. This is why if anything, I want MLB to shrink rosters, not expand them. (I realize that won't happen). Shrinking rosters forces you to use less pitchers, which forces them to pitch longer. It would also likely increase offence in the league. All of this is good for generating interest and ultimately making MLB more money. Instead, they're heading in the other direction.

Okay, rant over!

The simple fix to the lessened impact of individual pitchers is to ramp up the marketing of position player stars. Unfortunately, the league hasn't done that.

There are plenty of huge stars all around the league. There are endless options if those in charge chose to actually market the league.

 

[Amadeus]

I mean, in a lot of ways he's not wrong. Baseball does such a trash job of marketing players that if you don't watch a guy everyday basically all you know about him are stats.

As I saw someone say on twitter a couple days back, its impressive how MLB has done everything possible to make baseball completely ignored from the end of October until after the Super Bowl.

Then again an entire offseason of watching this organization trying to convince me that service time manipulation is good and signing good players is bad has left me pretty jaded.

If he's trying to make a point that baseball has depersonalized it's players, then the reasoning he's giving is flawed.

The game has gotten more intelligent with data and data driven decisions shouldn't be a cause for being disgruntled.

This is all due to 4 players still unsigned because they demanded contracts they're not worth.