The fact that you equate a players projected skill and confidence to a random act of chance (flipping a coin) is a completely ridiculous standpoint. If I was confident that I could flip the coin exactly how it should be, to get heads more often than not, then I’d be killing myself if I settled for #2. It’s clear that Altuve regretted the deal the very next season (evidenced by firing his agent). He got bad advice. It was a bad deal for any player... and regardless of his next deal, he has decreased his overall possible earning potential based on what would have now been his free agency years.
Three of your four scenarios on retaining elite players rely on either discounts or regression led discounts. Just a strange/peculiar outlook which like I said earlier, seems to be your MO. Seems more of an A’s or Rays like model. I agree I wouldn’t pay Altuve that much at that age. Hence why I’d pay him more now and get more years of control during prime years. I want them to sign players to deals that are both lucrative as well as worth it, without saddling past prime years. Yes, that costs more... but you very well get more.
...and yet you are advocating Altuve make the same mistake again except this time he has financial security and is more confident he's an elite player.
Getting 16 more million dollars now than he’d normally make, and 40 million/year (extrapolated) is a mistake? Yes, he has financial security... but he’s not being paid at an MVP/elite level, and won’t have the opportunity to do so (without an extension) for another 2 full years. He deserves to be paid that money now when he’s worth it. If he’s as sturdy and sustainable as you’re painting him to be, he’ll be able to sign for even more total $$$ at age 32. I could just as easily predict that if he regresses at any point over the next 2 years as he approaches age 30, he’ll be potentially losing even more earning potential on top of what he’s already sacrificed. Also, locking him into an 8 year deal then.... if you figure inflation... will have him making less overall in 2028 dollars over the life of that contract, vs. exorbitant money now... and possibly more money then.
Weak sauce... At least you’re on board with agreeing it was a mistake for him to sign that “win-win” extension. Not sure when we’ll see the next one of those agreed to.
Ouch, that stings. Altuve definitely made a mistake. It was a very understandable mistake. Why so angry today? It isn't like the Astros are sitting on their hands doing nothing. Kudos to the Astros if they can find a way to extend Altuve that benefits them and at the same time is agreeable to Altuve.
I’m antsy that there’s really nothing much of substance to debate regarding this team anymore. They’re currently tremendous. No more discussing whether or not Chris Carter should be given AB’s or Mike Fiers should be a starting pitcher. No more worrying about why they’re purposefully delaying a players clock when there’s nobody blocking him. No more accusing the front office of hoarding prospects while there are noticeable holes on the team... again, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them. So, if the only possible discussion of note is whether or not Altuve should/could/would be offered an extension now... so be it. This off-season has me believing there can be a shift in how contracts are given out in the future. Like I said earlier, I think if a player is in their prime... they should be paid for it... and not have to wait till they are on the cusp of being post-prime to get paid for past performance (and seeing this off-season, there’s a risk that if teams no longer give those contracts out... that players may miss their huge payday window altogether, given their age at free agency).
What are people's thoughts on Paulino this Spring? I haven't seen him pitch this Spring, but seen him getting mentioned a few times this week by the media/Hinch. Fastball velocity has been down when he's been up in the majors. Is he 92-93 topping out at 94 so far in spring? Is he still going with a slow curve that he has a hard time getting for strikes? I would prefer if he threw it a little harder so that it is harder to tell from his fastball.
I don't know if this has been posted somewhere, but this is the stupidest f**king thing I have seen in a while. Seriously, a group of baseball people actually decided to try this rock n jock gimmickry crap. I like the other stuff because I think speeding up much of the standing around will really help the game, but this is just beyond stupid.
It's a terrible idea, but as long as they're just keeping in the minors (as a test run) to cut down wear-and-tear and travel time, I'm ok with it. They start pulling this crap in the real games, then I have a massive problem. If you want to speed up the games in MLB, deal with the amount of time in-between pitches. Nobody needs to go Nomar and spend 30 seconds adjusting their batting gloves every ****ing pitch.
Everyone agrees on the real problem so I don’t understand why they don’t just address it. 5 second clock for the batter to be in the box after the ump calls the previous pitch; violation results in a strike. 10 second clock from when the batter steps in to when the pitcher must release the ball; violation results in a ball. No batter timeouts. 3 time-outs per team per game for pitching changes (pitching changes between innings don’t count); 1 time-out during extra innings. Additional pitching changes required after all timeouts used results in the 1st batter the next pitcher faces receiving a walk. Yes, those rules would change the game. The main risk would be pitcher injuries from being rushed. But they implement those 4 rules they’d get the games cut dramatically. Starting a man on 2B in extras not only looks/feels stupid, it only affect a very small fraction of games.
I have no opinions to express at the moment on the clock-based rules you propose, but I certainly agree that the "designated runner on second base" rule is dumb and really does not provide any recognizable benefits.
Pitch clock will be closer to 20 seconds. Batter must stay in box unless he had a swing or was avoiding a pitch is probably biggest thing, and it is already a rule. Sorry, Marwin.
I really don't see the benefit of MLB games going from a say 3:05 minute average to a 2:56 minute average. These measures to cut the games down a few minutes seem pointless to me. If I'm deciding to watch a game a handful of minutes isn't the deal breaker for me. Baseball just takes longer than basketball or soccer or hockey. "Well I was going to watch but the game takes three hours and 5 minutes... oh, now the game only takes 2 hours and 56 minutes? Count me in."
Yup. It would be one thing if games were (on average) 3:30 and they were going to 2:45. Not the case. On a separate note, I am TOTALLY against clocks of any kind. Anything that distracts the hitter or pitcher is bad (imo). Ruins timing and flow.
