Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zombies

Kris Bryant - 3B CHC

Recommended Posts

I agree the double standard sucks, but it's not going to affect Bryant. David Price set the arbitration record this year at 19.75M in his 4th arbitration. In order to get to 6/70 Kris Bryant would have to break that arbitration record in every single year consecutively for 3 straight years. You could not offer him a 6 year contract and just go year to year and pay him much less money.

Fair argument.

Let's make it 7 for 70 buying out one year of free agency.

Does Bryant turn it down?

No chance he turns it down, because as things stand right now the cubs are going to hold Rizzo for 6.95 or so years if they keep him down for 3 weeks. In order to do 70 or 7 years you'd have to do it something like this.

year 1: 500k

year 2: 750K

year 3: 1.5M

Arb 1:12M

Arb 2: 15M

Arb 3: 19M

Arb 4: 21M

So you're giving him record breaking aribtration buyouts without him having a single at bat. This isn't like Price who had 2 Cy Youngs or Trout who had put up consecutive 10+fWAR seasons. You'd be giving him MVP money based on blind faith.

But if Bryant were Cuban, he'd have already gotten MVP money. Teams put blind faith in the international players, but Americans are like second class citizens in a sport that they invented! They have to actually earn their big paydays by establishing themselves. If you're an international player, all you have to do is dominate bad competition and have a few tools that stand out. A large portion of those professional players in Cuba and Japan wouldn't be good enough to play in the minors here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know it's a double standard, but it's not going to change the going rate for locking up a player whose rights are already owned by a team. Draft kids get to negotiate with 1 team, international players get to negotiate with every team. In the future there will almost definitely be an international draft for players 23 and younger, maybe even as early as 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit it out of the park? The center fielder almost caught that. You can see how close he got at the 33 second mark.

ummm really ? why does the crowd all look back behind them to see where ball landed then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the double standard sucks, but it's not going to affect Bryant. David Price set the arbitration record this year at 19.75M in his 4th arbitration. In order to get to 6/70 Kris Bryant would have to break that arbitration record in every single year consecutively for 3 straight years. You could not offer him a 6 year contract and just go year to year and pay him much less money.

Fair argument.

Let's make it 7 for 70 buying out one year of free agency.

Does Bryant turn it down?

No chance he turns it down, because as things stand right now the cubs are going to hold Rizzo for 6.95 or so years if they keep him down for 3 weeks. In order to do 70 or 7 years you'd have to do it something like this.

year 1: 500k

year 2: 750K

year 3: 1.5M

Arb 1:12M

Arb 2: 15M

Arb 3: 19M

Arb 4: 21M

So you're giving him record breaking aribtration buyouts without him having a single at bat. This isn't like Price who had 2 Cy Youngs or Trout who had put up consecutive 10+fWAR seasons. You'd be giving him MVP money based on blind faith.

But if Bryant were Cuban, he'd have already gotten MVP money. Teams put blind faith in the international players, but Americans are like second class citizens in a sport that they invented! They have to actually earn their big paydays by establishing themselves. If you're an international player, all you have to do is dominate bad competition and have a few tools that stand out. A large portion of those professional players in Cuba and Japan wouldn't be good enough to play in the minors here.

Yes, we all understand that. Posting about how unfair it is over and over again isn't going to change anything though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unheard of. The Astros offered George Springer $23/7 yr before he made his major league debut, and Jon Singleton accepted their offer of $10/5 yr with three option years that could bring it to $30 / 8yr.

Bryant would command more. If he wants to be set for life *and* have a future chance at a $200 MM deal, he could probably sign for $40 / 7 yr. now and still become a free agent at age 30.

If it were me, I'd take it. Bad memories of Ruben Rivera and Ben Grieve would make it very hard for me to turn down a guaranteed $40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unheard of. The Astros offered George Springer $23/7 yr before he made his major league debut, and Jon Singleton accepted their offer of $10/5 yr with three option years that could bring it to $30 / 8yr.

Bryant would command more. If he wants to be set for life *and* have a future chance at a $200 MM deal, he could probably sign for $40 / 7 yr. now and still become a free agent at age 30.

If it were me, I'd take it. Bad memories of Ruben Rivera and Ben Grieve would make it very hard for me to turn down a guaranteed $40.

The more I think about it the more I think that's the type of deal he'd have to take, 7/40 7/45 for the Cubs to offer that kind of contract without any history of MLB performance. I could also see Bryant saying no to that, which is why I wouldn't expect an extendsion until Bryant has probably 2 years under his belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unheard of. The Astros offered George Springer $23/7 yr before he made his major league debut, and Jon Singleton accepted their offer of $10/5 yr with three option years that could bring it to $30 / 8yr.

Bryant would command more. If he wants to be set for life *and* have a future chance at a $200 MM deal, he could probably sign for $40 / 7 yr. now and still become a free agent at age 30.

If it were me, I'd take it. Bad memories of Ruben Rivera and Ben Grieve would make it very hard for me to turn down a guaranteed $40.

LOL. Who are we kidding? Bryant would be set for life with $10 million. He'd make $200,000 a year on 2% interest alone. The enormity of these contracts is so far beyond what mopes like us can even fathom needing to spend in a lifetime.

The irony is that the owners are recklessly shelling out all this cash in the first place, and then they're going to have anxiety over "years of control"? It's just buffoonery at this point. Put him on the Opening Day roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes, we all understand that. Posting about how unfair it is over and over again isn't going to change anything though."

Sometimes, you just need to vent and get on your soapbox. I thought it was worth pointing out the glaring double standard. No one in the media seems to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit it out of the park? The center fielder almost caught that. You can see how close he got at the 33 second mark.

ummm really ? why does the crowd all look back behind them to see where ball landed then ?

You miss the reach that outfielder has at the 33 second mark? He makes Anthony Davis look like Altuve. Monsters in the outfield, #19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit it out of the park? The center fielder almost caught that. You can see how close he got at the 33 second mark.

ummm really ? why does the crowd all look back behind them to see where ball landed then ?

You miss the reach that outfielder has at the 33 second mark? He makes Anthony Davis look like Altuve. Monsters in the outfield, #19.

lol thats probably the tallest CF ever. Didn't realize Will was so tall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cubs should probably realize this guy is probably going to be worth giving a big contract and extension to in 2 years. Maybe something like Trout got - 6/$144 I doubt theyre just going to expect to pay Bryant the minimum if and when hes way over performing.

I really think holding on to players for an extra years control is a small market team move where every penny counts and youre resigned to pretty much lose the player as you cant afford to pay them once the minimum contract is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by phatrat, March 13, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by phatrat, March 13, 2015 - No reason given

.

Share this post


Link to post

I really think holding on to players for an extra years control is a small market team move where every penny counts and youre resigned to pretty much lose the player as you cant afford to pay them once the minimum contract is up.

No, it's a smart business move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but sports isnt strictly business, if they miss the playoffs this year but save $15m on Bryant in 5 years or whatever then is it still a good idea ? As I said, I dont think theres any chance they keep him at the minimum amount until he hits free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but sports isnt strictly business, if they miss the playoffs this year but save $15m on Bryant in 5 years or whatever then is it still a good idea ? As I said, I dont think theres any chance they keep him at the minimum amount until he hits free agency.

Actually to the owners and management, it's primarily a business, whether fans (short for fanataics) realize that or not.

Sure if the Cubs miss the wild card by one game (even though that's only a one game guarantee) it would suck, and having brought up Bryant earlier might have changes that. The chances of that scenario happening are incredibly small relatively speaking. I'm not saying it can't happen just that it's very unlikely. If you're guaranteed a playoff spot with Bryant, then you do it... but guess what? You're not.

Was listening to Buster Olney on the podcast earlier today and they talked about this issue. Consensus? It's a non issue. It would be dumb to start Bryant 3 weeks earlier for one year less of control. Really, really dumb.

You're not calling for 10% of your chips on the river when all you have is a gutshot straight. If you do and hit, you're still an idiot.

As far as fantasy goes. If you like Bryant a lot, this only depresses his price. It's only 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a second wildcard now. If three weeks is really all it is there's reason to wait. You can easily make up ground with it being that early in the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a second wildcard now. If three weeks is really all it is there's reason to wait. You can easily make up ground with it being that early in the season.

No, that argument makes no sense. Real life baseball is like Roto, not H2H. A game in April counts just as much as a game in September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just making an argument from the money standpoint. How many wins difference can we be talking for three weeks? Of course he's their best option at 3b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just making an argument from the money standpoint. How many wins difference can we be talking for three weeks? Of course he's their best option at 3b.

The people rationalizing the move and the Cubs apologists will say it may only affect one game with some sort of cryptic formula determining WAR as evidence, but anyone who really understands baseball will tell you that not having one of your best hitters in the lineup could adversely affect multiple outcomes in a 3-week span.

No one is expecting the Cubs to run away with the NL Central, so it should be a tight race. It's not like they can afford to just throw away games if they want to play in October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just making an argument from the money standpoint. How many wins difference can we be talking for three weeks? Of course he's their best option at 3b.

I think Kris Bryant is looking to be a 5 win player maybe this season WAR wise, most likely less. 3 weeks isn't a 5th of a season #math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by phatrat, March 14, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by phatrat, March 14, 2015 - No reason given

I'm just making an argument from the money standpoint. How many wins difference can we be talking for three weeks? Of course he's their best option at 3b.

I think Kris Bryant is looking to be a 5 win player maybe this season WAR wise, most likely less. 3 weeks isn't a 5th of a season #math.

go home Brock, you're drunk.

Share this post


Link to post

yes but sports isnt strictly business, if they miss the playoffs this year but save $15m on Bryant in 5 years or whatever then is it still a good idea ? As I said, I dont think theres any chance they keep him at the minimum amount until he hits free agency.

Actually to the owners and management, it's primarily a business, whether fans (short for fanataics) realize that or not.

Sure if the Cubs miss the wild card by one game (even though that's only a one game guarantee) it would suck, and having brought up Bryant earlier might have changes that. The chances of that scenario happening are incredibly small relatively speaking. I'm not saying it can't happen just that it's very unlikely. If you're guaranteed a playoff spot with Bryant, then you do it... but guess what? You're not.

Was listening to Buster Olney on the podcast earlier today and they talked about this issue. Consensus? It's a non issue. It would be dumb to start Bryant 3 weeks earlier for one year less of control. Really, really dumb.

You're not calling for 10% of your chips on the river when all you have is a gutshot straight. If you do and hit, you're still an idiot.

As far as fantasy goes. If you like Bryant a lot, this only depresses his price. It's only 3 weeks.

Actually, if you have $1000 in chips and the pot is greater than $1300 you call a bet of $100 in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but sports isnt strictly business, if they miss the playoffs this year but save $15m on Bryant in 5 years or whatever then is it still a good idea ? As I said, I dont think theres any chance they keep him at the minimum amount until he hits free agency.

Actually to the owners and management, it's primarily a business, whether fans (short for fanataics) realize that or not.

Sure if the Cubs miss the wild card by one game (even though that's only a one game guarantee) it would suck, and having brought up Bryant earlier might have changes that. The chances of that scenario happening are incredibly small relatively speaking. I'm not saying it can't happen just that it's very unlikely. If you're guaranteed a playoff spot with Bryant, then you do it... but guess what? You're not.

Was listening to Buster Olney on the podcast earlier today and they talked about this issue. Consensus? It's a non issue. It would be dumb to start Bryant 3 weeks earlier for one year less of control. Really, really dumb.

You're not calling for 10% of your chips on the river when all you have is a gutshot straight. If you do and hit, you're still an idiot.

As far as fantasy goes. If you like Bryant a lot, this only depresses his price. It's only 3 weeks.

I think you do talk a lot of sense, however listening to the podcast all i hear is "the idea is a non starter" or a "no brainer - wait 3 weeks". Sometimes I think you have to look outside of the box and realize that sometimes the perception of saving money isnt always the optimum strategy.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/04/rays-chris-archer-agree-to-six-year-extension.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/pirates-to-extend-starling-marte.html

To me these are examples of what a "smart" team does, recognize they have talent and get the best deal early, not try and be cheap which more than likely will end up backfiring when trying to resign the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but sports isnt strictly business, if they miss the playoffs this year but save $15m on Bryant in 5 years or whatever then is it still a good idea ? As I said, I dont think theres any chance they keep him at the minimum amount until he hits free agency.

Actually to the owners and management, it's primarily a business, whether fans (short for fanataics) realize that or not.

Sure if the Cubs miss the wild card by one game (even though that's only a one game guarantee) it would suck, and having brought up Bryant earlier might have changes that. The chances of that scenario happening are incredibly small relatively speaking. I'm not saying it can't happen just that it's very unlikely. If you're guaranteed a playoff spot with Bryant, then you do it... but guess what? You're not.

Was listening to Buster Olney on the podcast earlier today and they talked about this issue. Consensus? It's a non issue. It would be dumb to start Bryant 3 weeks earlier for one year less of control. Really, really dumb.

You're not calling for 10% of your chips on the river when all you have is a gutshot straight. If you do and hit, you're still an idiot.

As far as fantasy goes. If you like Bryant a lot, this only depresses his price. It's only 3 weeks.

I think you do talk a lot of sense, however listening to the podcast all i hear is "the idea is a non starter" or a "no brainer - wait 3 weeks". Sometimes I think you have to look outside of the box and realize that sometimes the perception of saving money isnt always the optimum strategy.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/04/rays-chris-archer-agree-to-six-year-extension.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/pirates-to-extend-starling-marte.html

To me these are examples of what a "smart" team does, recognize they have talent and get the best deal early, not try and be cheap which more than likely will end up backfiring when trying to resign the player.

If they can get him to sign a team friendly deal for all those years (including the extra one they would gain) that's fine. Boras clients tends to try to get his clients to FA as quick as possible and max out. They might not be interested in that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just making an argument from the money standpoint. How many wins difference can we be talking for three weeks? Of course he's their best option at 3b.

The people rationalizing the move and the Cubs apologists will say it may only affect one game with some sort of cryptic formula determining WAR as evidence, but anyone who really understands baseball will tell you that not having one of your best hitters in the lineup could adversely affect multiple outcomes in a 3-week span.

No one is expecting the Cubs to run away with the NL Central, so it should be a tight race. It's not like they can afford to just throw away games if they want to play in October.

In the grand scheme of things, 3 weeks is very little to wait to gain an extra year of control. He is their best option at 3B, but going 3 weeks without him isn't going to make THAT big of a difference. The pros outweigh the cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.