Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Harper is healthy

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    There's talk of Harper getting a $400 million contract.
    Who is going to pay him that? Who can pay him that? I think that would nix at least 20 teams from signing him.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    Who is going to pay him that? Who can pay him that? I think that would nix at least 20 teams from signing him.
    I am surprised teams still consider issuing monster contracts after seeing what happened with Hamilton, Pujols, Fielder, Rodriguez, Howard, Soriano...
    2016 World Series Champions

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank View Post
    I am surprised teams still consider issuing monster contracts after seeing what happened with Hamilton, Pujols, Fielder, Rodriguez, Howard, Soriano...
    I think the reason why they still do it is because they can afford to do it. No team is going bankrupt from player contracts. They just have annoying expenditures that they would prefer not to have.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank View Post
    I am surprised teams still consider issuing monster contracts after seeing what happened with Hamilton, Pujols, Fielder, Rodriguez, Howard, Soriano...
    Arod's first contract was actually not a bad deal. He was worth it. The rest of those guys were much older than Harper, so it is hard to compare. If Harper is healthy over the next two seasons he will enter free agency as the best positioned FA since Arod. If he stays healthy my guess is he will be worth it. Trout hedged his bets, and I don't blame him for doing that, or he would be in line for a 400m deal. Someone who can play at an all-time great level and hits FA around age 25 or 26 is really the perfect storm, and worth it. It's contracts like Cabrera and Pujols, where you sign someone who is older and likely to decline, where teams get burned. Like I said, Arod was worth the money in his first deal. The second one was just stupid, I can understand signing someone who is 26 and looks like a first ballot HOF guy to a massive 10 year deal. I can't imagine doing that for someone who is 32, that makes no sense at all. I will ad the Red Sox signing of Manny to a huge deal as another one that worked out well for the team. Manny may have been bizarre, but he was worth the money.

    Obviously it is good for teams if they can sign these guys before they hit free agency, the way the Angels did with Trout and the Cardinals did with Pujols. Those type of deals usually work out well for the team. If someone is cautious with money, and I am in this boat myself, it works out well for the player too. The player gets financial stability, the first 100m is much more important than the second.
    Last edited by dl4060; 04-28-2017 at 02:53 PM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,083
    Quote Originally Posted by dl4060 View Post
    Arod's first contract was actually not a bad deal. He was worth it. The rest of those guys were much older than Harper, so it is hard to compare. If Harper is healthy over the next two seasons he will enter free agency as the best positioned FA since Arod. If he stays healthy my guess is he will be worth it. Trout hedged his bets, and I don't blame him for doing that, or he would be in line for a 400m deal. Someone who can play at an all-time great level and hits FA around age 25 or 26 is really the perfect storm, and worth it. It's contracts like Cabrera and Pujols, where you sign someone who is older and likely to decline, where teams get burned. Like I said, Arod was worth the money in his first deal. The second one was just stupid, I can understand signing someone who is 26 and looks like a first ballot HOF guy to a massive 10 year deal. I can't imagine doing that for someone who is 32, that makes no sense at all. I will ad the Red Sox signing of Manny to a huge deal as another one that worked out well for the team. Manny may have been bizarre, but he was worth the money.

    Obviously it is good for teams if they can sign these guys before they hit free agency, the way the Angels did with Trout and the Cardinals did with Pujols. Those type of deals usually work out well for the team. If someone is cautious with money, and I am in this boat myself, it works out well for the player too. The player gets financial stability, the first 100m is much more important than the second.
    A lot of people don't want to hear that they are worth it. They see a big number and can't fathom a baseball player being worth that much. They ignore all of the people in the stadium, all of the people wearing the jerseys, all of the ads everywhere and just see someone playing baseball. When in fact they are a key employee in a multi-billion dollar industry that is directly responsible for a ton of profits.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Afterglow View Post
    I have no idea. I know he's cocky and wants baseball to be fun. But, he seems to be public enemy number one for many fans I've seen post on social media. He could hit 80 homers and bat 500 and they'll say he sucks and nobody cares.
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg1dj View Post
    I remember him being cocky when he came up, but in the last couple of seasons I can't remember hearing a word from him.
    Forgot about this, I guess?

    https://youtu.be/jgEOoL-NWCU?t=68

    You don't see Trout doing stuff like that. Jeter? Never. Aaron? No way. Harper? Yep.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by riffwraith View Post
    Forgot about this, I guess?

    https://youtu.be/jgEOoL-NWCU?t=68

    You don't see Trout doing stuff like that. Jeter? Never. Aaron? No way. Harper? Yep.
    I don't really have an opinion about Harper either way but part of me liked watching him tell off that umpire. A big part, to be honest. The umpire was hearing it from the Nats bench and he decided to throw out Harper? Why Harper? I don't think there was reason for that. And to that point, I often hear Mike Trout being criticized for his lack of emotion. Then you have another superstar in Harper who gets criticism for being too emotional. It's like no third-party observer is ever satisfied.

    Now, in response to your comment, I'm trying to figure out what Jeter and Aaron have to do with anything. Are you trying to make the argument that past superstars have never taken any classless actions on the field and that when you play at that level you are to remain level-headed at all times? I mean, yeah, Jeter and Aaron are two examples of players who were mild-mannered. They aren't representative of the whole, though. It would probably be easier to name high-profile players who lost their cool at some point on the field. So, if by "stuff like that" you mean players who engaged in controversial actions then off the top of my head there's Robby Alomar, Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, Carl Everett, Albert Belle, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Jeff Kent, John Rocker, Carlos Zambrano, Aroldis Chapman...I could go on, but I probably made my point.
    2016 World Series Champions

  8. #48
    The teams are spending a lower percentage of their revenue on salaries than 15 years ago. The Money is there.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    The teams are spending a lower percentage of their revenue on salaries than 15 years ago. The Money is there.
    You know, it's funny. In the early 00s I made a joke thread predicting when the Yankees payroll would reach $1 billion. At the time they were at about $200 million. Like I said, it wasn't a serious thread and I didn't really do any math. I just kept increasing the amount at an accelerating rate and added on a bit extra. The funny part is that over the next three seasons the team actually exceeded my "predictions", which made it all the more fun to bump considering each reply in the thread criticised me for even thinking that the Yankees could burn that much on payroll.

    Now, I know there's little correlation to this thread here. No, nobody's going to reach a billion dollar payroll. After a few more years the spending levelled off and my "predictions" finally exceeded reality. I was even told that the day a team has a ten-figure payroll it would come at the collapse of the economy. It really seems less far-fetched fifteen years later, however. Or maybe not. Half a billion seems like it's not too far off. The Dodgers have been around $300 million for the last couple years anyway.

    But like I said, there's little correlation to this thread. I'm just remembering a very old discussion we once had here.
    2016 World Series Champions

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank View Post
    I don't really have an opinion about Harper either way but part of me liked watching him tell off that umpire. A big part, to be honest. The umpire was hearing it from the Nats bench and he decided to throw out Harper? Why Harper? I don't think there was reason for that. And to that point, I often hear Mike Trout being criticized for his lack of emotion. Then you have another superstar in Harper who gets criticism for being too emotional. It's like no third-party observer is ever satisfied.

    Now, in response to your comment, I'm trying to figure out what Jeter and Aaron have to do with anything. Are you trying to make the argument that past superstars have never taken any classless actions on the field and that when you play at that level you are to remain level-headed at all times? I mean, yeah, Jeter and Aaron are two examples of players who were mild-mannered. They aren't representative of the whole, though. It would probably be easier to name high-profile players who lost their cool at some point on the field. So, if by "stuff like that" you mean players who engaged in controversial actions then off the top of my head there's Robby Alomar, Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, Carl Everett, Albert Belle, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Jeff Kent, John Rocker, Carlos Zambrano, Aroldis Chapman...I could go on, but I probably made my point.

    Right,

    I mean Babe Ruth anyone?
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

  11. #51
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    785
    He has an attitude. He plays with said attitude. It's a good thing. Not a bad thing.

  12. #52
    There's room in the game for all kinds. I like Trout and his blandness, but I have no problem with guys like Harper who wear their emotions on their sleeves. If he got into off-field problems, like DUI or domestic abuse, I'd complain, but yelling at the ump? Actually, a better example might be the fight with Papelbon a couple of years ago, though I think Pap was more to blame for that than Bryce.

    And by the way, Trout is not above and beyond displays of emotion. He got into it with the late Yordano Ventura a few years ago, though at that time the Royals were practically a traveling WWE circus.
    Last edited by Stolensingle; 04-29-2017 at 04:37 PM.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank View Post
    I mean, yeah, Jeter and Aaron are two examples of players who were mild-mannered. They aren't representative of the whole, though.
    Right - and that's exactly my point. They aren't. They were special players who handled themselves in a certain manner. Unlike Alomar, Rocker, et al. Someone asked about why Haprer gets grief, and someone else said that in the past couple of seasons that we haven't heard anything from him. I was responding to that.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by riffwraith View Post
    Right - and that's exactly my point. They aren't. They were special players who handled themselves in a certain manner. Unlike Alomar, Rocker, et al. Someone asked about why Haprer gets grief, and someone else said that in the past couple of seasons that we haven't heard anything from him. I was responding to that.
    Oh I see. Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I guess I was trying to make the same point as you but by naming guys on the opposite side of the spectrum then.
    2016 World Series Champions

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    10,101
    32 runs in April -- new MLB record (29, Larry Walker in 1997)
    2016 World Series Champions

  16. #56
    Here we go again?

    Harper injured his groin making a diving catch, and was removed from Thursday's game. He did not play Friday. Not certain at this point whether he will play tomorrow. Would hate to see him out for an extended period of time after his red-hot start, and even more would hate to see playing hurt impact his hitting, as may have been the case last year.
    Last edited by Stolensingle; 05-06-2017 at 01:36 AM.

  17. #57
    Nats just gave Harper nearly $22 million for next year. That is apparently a record one year deal for a player in arbitration years. Plus another $1 million if he's MVP.
    For comparison, Trout I think is getting around $14-16 million per year in his arb years, though that is part of a six year contract that includes 3 FA years.

    If the Nats are willing to give Harper that much for an arb year, based mostly on his 2015 season and what he's done so far this year, what will he get when he hits FA, if he has two more great seasons, this year and next? I'd say $40 million a year minimum, which could mean a half billion or more if the contract is more than 10 years. A contract at that point would begin with his age 26 season, so he would be expected to be at or near his peak for at least the first five years. And what will Machado get, who is almost as good a hitter ( a lower ceiling, but so far, more consistent), and a much better defensive player?

    One thing for sure: both Harper and Machado won't end up on the Yankees, as some have speculated. There is no team in baseball that's going to be able to afford both of those players.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/news/bryce-...190741605.html
    Last edited by Stolensingle; 05-13-2017 at 03:30 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •