I understand that it is 100% insurance for the player But that same player got paid peanuts (relative to veterans) for 6 years in order to earn his way to a point where he could command such a deal. It's not fair for owners to take their first 6 years completely under paying them and then say "you are not worth the risk" to get a contract that could possibly benefit you over the team when they get to a point where they have some say in their own careers. Why does it always have to benefit the owners and teams and never be risk averse in the players favor? 2 years is nothing in the big picture of running an MLB team. It's not like this is negotiating a buyout of Bobby Bonilla
If a player wants security. sign a long term deal at a rate which reflects his Pre Arb, Arb and FA years. Just like Bregman, Altuve, McCullers and Alvarez. If they don't want security, play it like Cole, Springer, Correa and probably Tucker. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't.
In his last 2 postseasons he's had a 4.88 ERA compared to a regular season ERA of 2.23 over that time frame. A WHIP of 0.812 in the 2019-2022 regular season then a 1.361 WHIP in the postseason during that time. It's abundantly clear that since at least 2019, Verlander has had nothing left by the time he got to the playoffs. Talking about his career playoff numbers is irrelevant to a discussion about who he is now. It's awesome that
The owners have to recover their cost of the farm and operations. There used to be no Free Agency at all. They struck a balance at 6 years and then they went further with arbitration. Now the whole model requires recovery of sunk costs by the end of the 6th year. Remember, baseball players aren't paying back "Student Loans" for 30 years. They walk away free of debt.
Exactly, owners will pay what a player is currently worth with added potential. If a player is offered an extension of 5 years $125 mil and that player thinks he can be worth more in free agency then he'll gamble injuries and slumps to try and make it happen (Judge gambled and payed off to $360 mil) If a player decides he likes the security, takes it and has a monster year well it payed off for the owners as they took the risk. If players were paid what they were worth each time then there would never be more than 1 year contracts.
2-2 4.46 ERA since 2019 in the playoffs outside of the world series. Minus the one bad outing against Seattle and he has a 3.26 ERA in 5 starts. That's not exactly flopping. Is it $43 mil worthy? Don't think so, but he isn't garbage
When you have to keep saying "minus this, minus this, minus this", you are basically just saying "yes". It's undeniable that his ERA and WHIP has exploded in the playoffs the past 2 postseasons, the most likely reason for that is that due to his age, the wear and tear of a season takes it's toll on him. I'm not concerned about excuses, but 43 mil for the pitcher with the worst WHIP on the roster in the postseason is absurd.
Yeah this thread sounds like we desperately need a trade to get over the hump and that we have not done anything to upgrade.
I just cited his ENTIRE postseason numbers for both 2019 and 2022, it wasn't just the World Series where he was bad.....and even if that's the cope, you don't pay 43 million dollars for a pitcher who can't perform in the World Series if that's where your team wants to go.
Is the World Series not part of the playoffs? I always find it weird when people say how dominant he has been "if you don't count one of the rounds"
Interesting tidbit. MLB.com is listing the depth chart Rotation based on oldest first and not likely an actual ranking. The position players list last year's starter and then by Innings Played.
The system is loads better than it was 50 years ago. It is still swayed in favor of ownership though. If you are going to say young players salaries are reduced to help ownership recoup expenses associated with them getting experience and moving up, I respect that argument. But when the next step is "OK you paid your dues, now you can finally make your own choices and decide where you play and try to get a higher salary- oh you are old now and a risk. I will go back to paying a young guy peanuts" That's the system that I don't care for as a human.
No, but to suggest he's garbage in the playoffs? You have to figure that player helped get your team to the World series in the first place. We are not talking rather JV is worth the $43 mil as we all agree he isn't, but let's be real on his achievements.
I think he is worth it but not the best use of payroll for a team with half a dozen or more all star level players. 43 mil is 18.5% of the 1st CBT. That's the level I would expect the Astros to live. Not higher not lower.
If they brought him back at $43 mil for 1 or 2 years I wouldn't be sore, mainly because I don't know if they will spend that money on any upgrades anyhow. But since he left, all I care about is keeping this team intact and manageable for the future.
