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

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,029
6,889
I don't think I have ever heard the Pujols signing being linked to Trout until you posted it.

I'm sure you can appreciate the similarity, though. A sub-500 team full of holes signs Pujols to a monster deal to compliment their superstar prospect who's just getting his feet wet. And the Angels didn't have Yankees, Sox and TB at their apex to compete against either.

How about we let our prospects come along for the next 2 years and actually build a semblance of a pitching rotation for the future instead of blowing our load on free agents who will turn into liabilities by the time the likes of Vlad and Bo are starting to hit their prime...
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
I don't buy it for a number of reasons

1) Signing a 26 year old athletic outfielder (or a 26 year old shortstop) is extremely different than signing a "31" year old first baseman. I would never, ever, endorse signing Machado or Harper to a 10 year deal if they were 31 (and definitely not if they were actually 33). That Pujols contract was always going to be 100% downside.

2) A lot of the Angels issues revolved around the fact that they compounded that contract with an absolute ton of terrible large contracts either before or after (trading for Wells, signing Josh Hamilton etc). Assuming that the Jays accounting is consistent with what it was from the BJ Ryan/Frank Thomas days they currently have $9M committed for 2020. There is absolutely no way a Harper contract alone could cripple this team's ability to spend money in either the short or long term.

3) Waiting for Vlad/Bo to "hit their prime" before signing players implies that there are free agents of the age/level of Machado and Harper that are available every year, which historically is not true. Instead the more likely scenario is the Jays have to trade assets to acquire players or they end up signing inferior free agents. And as noted above, the age curve indicates that Harper is far more likely to be his current self than a liability in 3-4 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diamond Joe Quimby

canucksfan

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
43,748
9,404
British Columbia
Visit site
I really don't think the Jays management sees the rebuild as a one-year deal, especially given how strong Boston, NY and even TB are going to be in the next few years. We'd be wasting 2-3 years of Keuchel, and by the time we're ready to compete again he'd be a liability.

Plus we'd have to pay a premium to attract a name free agent pitcher to a rebuilding team in the same division as the Yanks and Red Sox.

I disagree. The 2019 should be a rebuild/development year but after 2019 the Jays should be trying to contend. See what they have this year and then fill holes either via trade of FA. Signing a Haper or Keuchl this year makes sense, of course if they want to come to Toronto, and it isn't overpriced or too long of a term.
 

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
They aren’t necessarily bad though because he bought on potential for a rebuilding team. Hosmer might produce every other year but in those seasons there aren’t very many 1B as good as him.

Again the fact that you can get a similar producing player for much less term and money makes it a terrible deal. And this can snowball on future opportunity costs down the road, it was a risk that didn’t need to be taken. We have seen what tying up future monies on players in their mid 30s can do with Tulo and Martin. Only difference is the Jays were in the middle of contention or at their window, the risks were worth it.

The Myers deal I can somewhat understand has he was an extension and your own guy, still not a good deal as without the deal he would still be under team control for 2 more seasons (both non guaranteed) at less than what he is being paid now.

Hosmer wasn’t even that good and he played a non premium position.

The verdict can potentially be out on Machado too, it likely isn’t a deal that would age well but we will see what kind of impact he will have on their locker room. I thought Machado the player was a great fit for any team but Machado the person was only a fit for few teams that could weather his potential on and off field issues.

Preller has really tied his can to the Hosmer, Machado and to a lesser extent the Myers deals.
 
Last edited:

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
There's no such thing as perfection. Preller is showing that you can take risks in FA and do enough elsewhere to not bury yourself instead of waiting for the perfect contention window.

No one is, GMs can make mistakes. GMs can make many mistakes and weather the storm. But if you make one or two 100M+ mistakes on a franchise that has hit 100M OD payroll in a given year once is not a good investment nor a worthwhile risk. Especially when 3 players will cost you under 60M this season and 73M for the next 3 and another 50M for the 3 following that. Unless the payroll is going to be 120-150M consistently during this window these types of signings are big risks to teams that have small payrolls. And frankly a risk I personally wouldn’t take.
 
Last edited:

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,029
6,889
I don't buy it for a number of reasons

1) Signing a 26 year old athletic outfielder (or a 26 year old shortstop) is extremely different than signing a "31" year old first baseman. I would never, ever, endorse signing Machado or Harper to a 10 year deal if they were 31 (and definitely not if they were actually 33). That Pujols contract was always going to be 100% downside.

2) A lot of the Angels issues revolved around the fact that they compounded that contract with an absolute ton of terrible large contracts either before or after (trading for Wells, signing Josh Hamilton etc). Assuming that the Jays accounting is consistent with what it was from the BJ Ryan/Frank Thomas days they currently have $9M committed for 2020. There is absolutely no way a Harper contract alone could cripple this team's ability to spend money in either the short or long term.

3) Waiting for Vlad/Bo to "hit their prime" before signing players implies that there are free agents of the age/level of Machado and Harper that are available every year, which historically is not true. Instead the more likely scenario is the Jays have to trade assets to acquire players or they end up signing inferior free agents. And as noted above, the age curve indicates that Harper is far more likely to be his current self than a liability in 3-4 years.



1) If anything, I would assume that a 26 year old athletic outfielder or shortstop will begin to lose his value faster than a 31 year old gold-glove 1B (and a sure hall of famer to boot.)

2) & 3) Were you talking about Harper or Machado this whole time? Neither was ever coming to Canada to play in a rebuild. I'd assumed you were talking about signing the likes of Keuchel. Certainly if we could trick Harper into signing here I'd be all for it.
 

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
The Padres Are Actually Signing Manny Machado

The one tricky thing is that Machado’s contract doesn’t exist in isolation. It exists alongside Eric Hosmer’s $144-million contract. It also exists alongside Wil Myers‘ $83-million contract. Machado is going to make $30 million per season. Hosmer makes $21 million each year until 2023. Myers is a year away from costing $22.5 million. In 2020, 2021, and 2022, Hosmer, Myers, and Machado will make more than $70 million combined. Just a couple seasons ago, the Padres’ opening-day payroll was about $70 million, total.
You can see how things might end up getting tight. The Padres will get a steady infusion of young talent, but good young talent becomes increasingly expensive, and the Padres already have a large three-player commitment. It’s relatively uncommon to see such giant contracts on smaller spenders. One might be reminded of Joey Votto‘s contract with the Reds. Or Giancarlo Stanton‘s contract with the Marlins, or Joe Mauer’s contract with the Twins. There exists the distinct possibility that, in the future, the Padres won’t be so flexible to make other necessary improvements. It’ll be up to ownership to prove it’s willing to invest what it has to. I’d consider it a good sign they were willing to make a strong play for Machado in the first place. I’d also imagine the Padres have become increasingly desperate to send Myers to somebody else. It would help the team’s future, presumably, to remove him from the books, and he’s still young enough to hold certain appeal.

These are my thoughts exactly. Strategy is fine, not perfect but fine... the timing, the player and amount of money this takes up of their resources is the what I don’t like.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
I do agree that with a $100M payroll it is very risky and requires you to be virtually flawless with controllable guys. Although I would also say that the fact that a team that gets $100M+ of TV revenue every year and owns 20% of their RSN only has exceeded that payroll mark once is more of a bug than a feature.

From the Jays perspective, as I see them as a perpetual $150M+ spender that type of commitment is less of an issue.
 

Eyedea

The Legend Continues
Jan 29, 2012
27,390
3,208
Toronto, Ontario
Padres have ~20m in dead money dropping after 2019 and another 8.5m in 2020. Even adding Harper at 30m per would take them to 13th in payroll this season. Considering they've been bringing in 26-30k fans per game during a rebuild I don't see why they can't spend into the 125-150m range.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
1) If anything, I would assume that a 26 year old athletic outfielder or shortstop will begin to lose his value faster than a 31 year old gold-glove 1B (and a sure hall of famer to boot.)

2) & 3) Were you talking about Harper or Machado this whole time? Neither was ever coming to Canada to play in a rebuild. I'd assumed you were talking about signing the likes of Keuchel. Certainly if we could trick Harper into signing here I'd be all for it.

1) Players with at least 2 prime years left and 5 years until the aging curve starts to hit certainly won't age faster than a hit tool only guy being signed right at the time when the hit tool starts to deteriorate.

2) I don't want to go all Masai here but if Machado can go to a team that lost 96 games last year and hasn't won a playoff series in 20 years I find it tough to believe he would have been anti-Toronto. I agree that there's minimal need for Kuechel.
 

Diamond Joe Quimby

A$AP Joffrey
Aug 14, 2010
13,547
2,996
Washington, DC
1) If anything, I would assume that a 26 year old athletic outfielder or shortstop will begin to lose his value faster than a 31 year old gold-glove 1B (and a sure hall of famer to boot.)

2) & 3) Were you talking about Harper or Machado this whole time? Neither was ever coming to Canada to play in a rebuild. I'd assumed you were talking about signing the likes of Keuchel. Certainly if we could trick Harper into signing here I'd be all for it.

For 1)....no sir.
WAR Grid | FanGraphs Baseball
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
Here's one from a Pujols article showing Pujols's decline, his decline if he's actually 2 years older than he says, and the decline of top 30 hitters (which implies he is more likely 4 years older than he says).

You can sort DJQ's by position, and I'd have to say the one thing it shows is that the only remotely close comparative for that type of precipitous dropoff is Mo Vaughn who had pretty big weight/injury issues.

Pujols-Aging-Curve.png
 

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,029
6,889
Here's one from a Pujols article showing Pujols's decline, his decline if he's actually 2 years older than he says, and the decline of top 30 hitters (which implies he is more likely 4 years older than he says).

Pujols-Aging-Curve.png

Is that chart looking at the modern era, or is it grabbing a piece of the steroid era? It seems odd that the peak years for the top 30 hitters stretch all the way into mid 30s.
 

Diamond Joe Quimby

A$AP Joffrey
Aug 14, 2010
13,547
2,996
Washington, DC
Is there a way to slice it by position? The chart seems to have a rather random distribution at a glance...with the only surprise being that many of those guys (at all positions) being quite effective into the early 30's (but then again, most guys on that list were powered by something stronger than Gatorade).

Yep, you can drill down by position. Its a tremendous tool.

And the heat map certainly reaches into the early thirties for some of the players. The common thread for each is ages 26-30 being quite clearly the center of the heat map (i.e. consistently a player's prime).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
How the Angels Could Get Out of Paying Albert Pujols

Pertinent quote

'Let me explain what we’re seeing here. Thanks to the great work of Jeff Zimmerman and Sean Dolinar, we see three aging curves. The first is Pujols’ aging curve based on his reported age. The second is his aging curve if he’s two years older than reported. The third is a projection built from Pujols’ historical peers using the delta method — a group of players who, due to Pujols’ incredible Cardinals run, are all pretty much elite hitters. Interestingly, the “Pujols Plus Two” curve much more closely mirrors his historical peers, which might mean a lot or a little. For our purposes, it means a lot.'

So yes, it is grabbing hitters from the steroid era. But I don't see the peak years going into the mid-30's - age 26-32 look like the peak as expected.
 

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,029
6,889
Yep, you can drill down by position. Its a tremendous tool.

And the heat map certainly reaches into the early thirties for some of the players. The common thread for each is ages 26-30 being quite clearly the center of the heat map (i.e. consistently a player's prime).

Appreciate it - In that case I'll play with the graph when I get home from work.
 

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,029
6,889
How the Angels Could Get Out of Paying Albert Pujols

Pertinent quote

'Let me explain what we’re seeing here. Thanks to the great work of Jeff Zimmerman and Sean Dolinar, we see three aging curves. The first is Pujols’ aging curve based on his reported age. The second is his aging curve if he’s two years older than reported. The third is a projection built from Pujols’ historical peers using the delta method — a group of players who, due to Pujols’ incredible Cardinals run, are all pretty much elite hitters. Interestingly, the “Pujols Plus Two” curve much more closely mirrors his historical peers, which might mean a lot or a little. For our purposes, it means a lot.'

So yes, it is grabbing hitters from the steroid era. But I don't see the peak years going into the mid-30's - age 26-32 look like the peak as expected.

The guy's argument falls apart there if he's looking at a steroid-fueled population and comparing it to a likely clean Pujols.

The peak years part is a bit subjective as well, as looking at it we can call truly apex years 29-31 (which seems damn late, intuitively, and against reeks of steroid effects), with the most precipitous early drops occurring first between 31-32 (weird) and then not until 37 to 38. Then we see a sudden spike from 38 -40 which I guess can be rationalized away by a small sample size and the hypothesis that it's mostly the elite of the elite who play into their 40s.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
To be clear though, I think we're all arguing the same thing here. Which is don't pay solely for anyone's 31+ seasons.

DJQ's grid does show that steroids or no steroids, you're going to get good value from... I'd say 24-32, with the peak falling in the 26-30 range. To link it back to Harper/Machado, the entire anomalous nature of their free agency is to be able to sign someone and still get a majority of their peak years instead of just getting the dropoff like Pujols (or the mid-tier FA's this year like Kuechel etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
I do agree that with a $100M payroll it is very risky and requires you to be virtually flawless with controllable guys. Although I would also say that the fact that a team that gets $100M+ of TV revenue every year and owns 20% of their RSN only has exceeded that payroll mark once is more of a bug than a feature.

From the Jays perspective, as I see them as a perpetual $150M+ spender that type of commitment is less of an issue.

That deal was signed in 2012. Its been 7 full seasons and it will be likely their 8th in 2019 where they got TV money and didnt spend more than 110M once let alone a "perpetual $150M+"

San Diego Padres | Cot's Baseball Contracts

Padres have ~20m in dead money dropping after 2019 and another 8.5m in 2020. Even adding Harper at 30m per would take them to 13th in payroll this season. Considering they've been bringing in 26-30k fans per game during a rebuild I don't see why they can't spend into the 125-150m range.

The discussion first started with how bad the Hosmer and Myers deals are and to a larger extent how long term deals can negatively affect a team's long term plans. I say there were risks that Preller should have not taken knowing his market size and payroll constraints not to mention that Hosmer and Myers deals are not good ones to begin with. If it were just Machado and no Hosmer and Myers to long term deals then it is easier to understand.

Now if you guys say you can see a 125-150M+ spender from the Pads then that is fine but isnt part of the discussion TODAY. We are going off what we know today and what we know is that the Padres are not big spenders hence why I think these are poor investments (Hosmer and Myers) and your room for error becomes less when you add Machado.

Now if by some miracle the Padres bump their payroll up into the top 10-15 (never been done since 2000 according to Cot's contract) and they do it then yes that changes my opinion. Cot's Contracts says the Padres have been in the bottom 20s in all their seasons since 2007 with the exception of 1 in 2015. But that is a ridiculous assumption to ask or assume they can or should do it year in and year out when they havent done it once. It is like me saying the Jays have the market, sales, owners and money to spend well past the luxury tax to sign Harper and Machado. Although true, it isnt something we know will happen nor expect to happen to justify long term expensive deals. So it shouldnt be a discussion or argument point when discussing the negative affects of the Hosmer and Myers deals.
 

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
fwiw I meant that I see the Jays as a perpetual $150M spender, not the Padres.

My mistake, i agree with that too as we seen them spend 160M+ in 2017 and 2018. They have been top 15 spending teams in each of the last 6 years. A strong farm of cheap controllable guys with a 150M+ (hoping it will be 160-170M if they need it by the time they contend) would be a great place to start.
 

phillipmike

Registered User
Oct 27, 2009
12,480
8,272
Team Top 30 Prospects schedule:
Mon., Feb. 18 - AL East
Tue., Feb. 19 - NL East
Wed., Feb. 20 - AL Central
Thu., Feb. 21 - NL Central
Fri., Feb. 22 - AL West
Mon., Feb. 25 - NL West
If a team's list is not posted on the dates above, that team will be in our ranking of MLB's Top 10 farm systems, which will come out according to this schedule:
Tue., Feb. 26 - Nos. 9 & 10
Wed., Feb. 27 - Nos. 7 & 8
Thu., Feb. 28 - Nos. 4-6
Fri., March 1 - Nos. 1-3

Based off this schedule we can assume the Jays, Rays, Braves, White Sox and Tigers will be in the top 10. I suspect the Padres, Astros, White Sox, Oakland and the Reds to round out the top 10.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->