Something tells me that in 12 days after the minors start he will be moved up. Isn't it 11 days in minors and get protection on Bryant through 2021?
I find the players association's criticisms of these situations very hypocritical considering the rules making every pre-arb and arb year so valuable basically ensure that the guys running the players association (post-arb) get paid more money.
Yep.... the players association is ultimately happy with the system as is. What they don't want, however, is for all these guys taking pre-arb extensions (that are usually at the benefit of the team), which could have a downstream effect of lowering the free agency dollars.
I would say there is benefit for the team and the median MLB player. Yes, free agent dollars will be less, but great players who don't get banged up will still likely receive more than they are worth versus average pay per production.
Ideally.... but in the current system, the free agents are receiving a helluva lot more than they are worth (being paid essentially for past performance). If they don't get banged up, they all stand to make more money for the life of their career in the current system. That is what the players association fears will go down with early extensions and why guys like Springer and Correa will consistently be advised to stay away from a below market extension or a "sign and be promoted" extension.
I wouldn't say they are being paid for past performance, but that teams have limited ability to spend on cost efficient pre-arb and arb players. Once a team has paid all it can towards cost controlled players, it will spend the rest on post-arb. Teams are still paying for future performance just at inflated rates. Except in very limited situations, a team can't buy prospects. The Phillies could buy prospects by just offering to pay some of Hamels's salary. There has been a suspicion by some (me included) that the Astros may have signed guy(s) this offseason with the intention of trading them for prospects if they become redundant.
However you want to slice it... the current system has players making the most as free agents... at rates that are continuing to escalate. The second you have the majority of "great" players signing long-term "affordable" early deals that likely set them up for a second "affordable" deal by the same team that wants to keep them for life, you have a mechanism whereby salaries not only stop increasing but very likely start decreasing. I also don't foresee a lot of cheaper extensions for the bigger-name pre-arb players... they will be closer to fair-market value as evidenced by Trout and Stanton's numbers. And as far as paying for past performance, it refers to the fact that these free agents signing "long-term" deals are likely never going to live up to said deal, and wouldn't be getting the large deal if they hadn't played at a very high level to that point.
I agree with all except never living up to their deals based on free agent $/WAR rates and not average $/WAR rates for all MLB players. Most long term deals have a year or two with team getting great value, a year or two getting fair value, and followed by getting a Carlos Lee'd for a couple of years. I see the Carlos Lee years like a loan the team is paying back after getting some great years early on a discount.
I wonder why Gammons isn't tweeting about Appel's 3 scoreless innings against Yankees starters... but I guess Bryant's 2 HR's off King Felix, who's probably throwing at 80%, is more newsworthy.
Man, hindsight is 20/20. IMO Lunhow made a mistake on not taking Bryant. Even if Appel tops out and becomes a solid #2/3, I still think Bryant would be the better pick. I dont know why Lunhow passed up on him, be it sign-ability or whatever, so far he has been the clear cut best player. He is going to be a stud.
Thanks, dick, I wasnt trying to be some woeful insider. It's just that some people still have a hard time admitting that Appel was the wrong choice and still defend lunhow on the matter.
Because when it's all said and done somebody's ability as a prospect is what matters Neither guy has done anything in the show. It looks bad now, but Bryant could flame out. Nobody has to admit anything yet.
Although this is true...Bryant is not going to be a 0.227 hitter with 12 HR and 58 RBI. The guy will be a solid 30/100 guy and anything less than that would be pretty surprising. On the other hand, Appel can go in any direction. He has just as high of a likelihood of being terrible as being good. So yes, it is premature to make any statements, but it's pretty easy to say that Bryant is most definitely the safer bet moving forward.
You're absolutely right about both of them being prospects, but if we were betting men, and lets say that both me and you had the last $100, who'd you put it on to hit it big in the show?
Right now Bryant would be the answer. The answer at the draft was Appel. Heck, it was Gray who was the big debate at the time with a small minority for Bryant. Appel does not appear to be a bad pick.
I just think it's funny that you begin your post saying hindsight is 20-20 and then proceed to make an argument criticizing the Astros based solely on hindsight.
I wanted Bryant, a lot of us did. And most weren't happy with the pick when it was made. Having said that it's equally ridiculous for people to reach a verdict when neither player has played yet. I think Appel could still end up being a TOR starter, and Bryant could disappoint, Appel could easily end up the better player in the long run.
Oh, no doubt on both counts. I personally, with my limited knowledge, was OK with any of Bryant/Appel/Gray. Ask again in 10 years; if say Bryant turns out to be Adam Dunn-ish and Appel has a career like Schilling or someone comparable, who was the right choice? I dunno. I just want Appel to be a solid pitcher and the Cubs to flame out as usual. I feel pretty good about both of those things happening.
