Discussion in 'Sports and Fitness' started by Timby, Oct 29, 2018.
Well, he's had 2 TJ's.... his elbow is probably as strong as it gets.
Looking like St. Louis is the big player for Bryce Harper. I've been watching him since little league, he's the real deal.
And they want, what, a 10 year deal? Whoever signs him better pray he doesn't get seriously injured 2 or 3 years in.
Bryce Harper is 26, anyone who would give him a 10 year deal is crazy. However a 7 year deal would be perfect, getting him to 33. He's about to enter what is usually the most productive age period for hitters, 27-32. With contracts you alway over pay at the end for the first few years. Considering you are getting the first several years on the cheap.
There are just indications out there that he isn't a good "team" guy. If I'm spending $300-$400 million dollars for a player, I want him to have a good clubhouse presence and he has to be a leader. Because I'm essentially stuck with him once he signs the contract.
Eh. I guess I'd structure it like ... I don't know, 10 / 250, player opt-out at year 3, mutual option at year 5 or 6. Harper isn't a generational talent like Trout but he's pretty close.
$250 isn't going to get it done as the Nationals offered him 10/$300 before the end of the season. I'm also wondering if Boras/Harper will accept any scenario where the team can opt out of the deal?
It'll be interesting to see where it goes.
Yeah, you’re only off by 100-150 million dollars.
Generally speaking, any news that a player rejected a deal of a certain amount is the front office negotiating through the media.
Whatever its purpose, it was apparently a real offer...
The Dodgers say they intend to stay under the luxury tax threshold for at least the next four years.
Between that and teams like the Yankees and Cubs saying they have payroll constraints, they're laying the groundwork to significantly underpay players again this offseason.
God, the MLBPA is fucking worthless. They let the owners have a de facto soft salary cap in exchange for players getting two seats on the bus instead of one.
I think one of the big side effects for players will be the lack of revenue shifting from big market to small market teams. Essentially it will strangle what's left of the middle class.
Personally, I think the owners did right last year by not paying stupid money for the leftovers.
I still can't fathom why anyone would consider paying someone stupid money for that long a period. Guaranteed to boot!! (I'm not excluding the Yankees here)
I say they shorten the time teams control the young ones and add a LOWER hard cap. Then these small market teams will be back in the game.
How low are you going to lower it? Without significant revenue sharing, everyone would have to settle in at around $100 million in payroll, leaving everything else going to the owners.
It's really hard to feel any sympathy whatsoever when a player gets say, a 15 mil a year contract and yet someone says he's underpayed. I'm cryin' over here.
Actually, it's not the money so much as the years. I'd rather see a player make more money over fewer years. Giving almost any player a 10 year deal seems quite foolish.
Cap ticket prices at $10 a seat!! ....
The Cubs are open to trading Kris Bryant.
The gist of the story is that nobody is untouchable.
That's just pure clickbait. Theo said nothing is off the table, because of course there is no such thing as an untouchable player. If you offered Trout for Bryant straight-up, every GM in the league would take that. But that's likely never going to happen so "it's hard to envision a deal that would move Bryant/Rizzo."
Separate names with a comma.