Don't think we are actually saying different things. Schwarber was my go to example for a low average, high walks, good power guy. Joey Gallo is another example. And I don't think that formula works if you remove the power.
I agree that we want pretty much the same thing and this is all semantics. Strikeouts though show up dramatically in the post season, while a ground out can still extend an inning if put in the proper spot forcing the defense to make a play. If the Astros are facing a team like the Phillies again, I want their defense to be poor and a contact hitter batting than a guy that most likely will get overpowered and strike out. Astros are good enough to skate through the regular season. They need the bottom of the order guys that can turn the lineup over in the post season.
…There is no answer, at least not yet. MLB, according to a spokesman, reviews contracts on a case-by-case basis. The Turner, Bogaerts and Correa agreements, expiring after their respective age 40 seasons, all fall within the current line of reason. If teams start to push deals into players’ mid-40s, it might be a different story. Or maybe not. …With the long deals that reduce AAVs, clubs have identified an edge when it comes to the luxury tax. But the league is not necessarily inclined to do anything about it, because nothing terribly egregious has occurred. Yet. …Baseball’s collective-bargaining agreement states neither players nor clubs shall enter into any agreement “designed to defeat or circumvent the intention” of the luxury tax. The language is vague, subject to interpretation. But if the league determined a circumvention occurred, it conceivably could ask the parties to restructure the contract, most likely by agreeing to a shorter term, or reject the deal entirely. To this point, neither has happened. And if the league acted, it would face a fight. The Players Association almost certainly would file a grievance if MLB disapproved a deal on the basis of its length, according to a source with knowledge of the union’s thinking. The players also would object if the league sought to limit the lengths of contracts in bargaining, viewing it as a restriction on the market. Two leagues with salary caps, the NBA and NHL, operate with such limits. The NBA’s maximum contract length is five years. The NHL’s maximum is eight years for teams that re-sign their own players, and seven for players signing a free-agent deal with a new team. The NFL has no maximum. Donovan McNabb’s 12-year extension in 2002 is the longest deal in league history, but only $20 million of his potential $115 million was guaranteed. The NFL, unlike the three other major North American sports leagues, does not typically guarantee multi-year contracts for veteran players. …But at some point, some club figures to push the envelope, and attempt to sign a player long-term through age 42, 43, 44. The motivation would be obvious. The longer deals not only reduce AAVs, but also act as a new form of deferrals, helping teams spread out payments. Correa, Turner and Bogaerts received three of the 13 highest guarantees in major-league history. But their respective AAVs for luxury-tax purposes rank between 28th and 37th. Harper is 38th. Where will the league draw the line? Stay tuned. When a trend starts in a copycat league, it’s difficult to stop.
What is the problem exactly with the longer contracts? Team is happy with a cost controlled asset whose dead money at the end of the contract will be less impactful due to inflation and increasing league revenues Player is happy with long term financial security and stable work environment Fans are happy with a long term relationship with a face to the franchise Not seeing the downside here.
Long term, younger players will not have opportunities because of the remnants of the older long term contracts eating up the budget. But it's like trying to explain the downside of borrowing from a loan shark. Some people listen and others just expect to be bailed out.
Less tax penalties… which some lower revenue teams are “relying” upon to secure their budget. It’s not that big of a problem and if it forces those lower revenue teams to actually try and compete to make money, even better…. But it also would allow more big market teams a loophole to avoid paying tax penalties and the CBT would no longer act as a defacto salary cap.
I don’t see any issue with it. I imagine if they were to tweak rule to prevent circumvention of luxury tax you could basically say any $ post 40 is added to CBT calculation for pre-40 years on contracts longer than 8 years or something.
That's similar to what basketball and hockey did to curb cap manipulation re contracts for older players.
Head and shoulders better over all. Contreras is a slightly better hitter but one of the worst defensive catchers in the game. Murphy is above average offensively but also one of the best defensive catchers in the game. Overall, Murphy was the 3rd most valuable catcher in the game by fWAR (5.1) vs Contreras being ninth (3.3). That's a substantial difference.
Okay, I figured he was better defensively but didn’t realize how much better. Still think it’s a weird trade
Well the tax is still there, so it’s not like you can hand out an unlimited number of these contracts. I mean you can, but the tax number is still real. Then there are some teams that just dgaf about the repeat tax penalties. I think it’s fine. The tax being part of the equation has helped bridge the gap somewhat, and there are examples of small budget teams that find a way to be competitive year in and year out anyway.
Hosmer is actually an above average MLB player. He has had an OPS+ under 100 only once (94 in 2019) since 2014. He got a bad rap because he was paid like a star by SD, but is not a bad 7th or 8th best hitter in a lineup. Left handed, low strikeouts, solid defense at 1B if Abreu is hurt or gets ABs at DH. Would be extremely cheap now that he's been DFAd
I would take a flyer on him... but then that would definitely put the nail in the coffin for Yuli. Not saying that's a bad thing
