Tatis suspended for 80 games!

[Benjamin Grimm]

PEDs.

[soupcan]

That's quite a gut-punch for the Padres.

[Frayed Knot]

At least this doesn't come on the heels of something stupid like crashing a motorcycle.

Oh wait ...





So how's that $325mil decision looking now?

[metsmarathon]

Holy shit.

[Fman99]

Good thing they picked up Soto, then, I guess.

[seawolf17]

Holy shit indeed. Wow.

[Edgy MD]

Had he been activated?

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Had he been activated?

No, but he was on the verge of doing so.

[TransMonk]

#lolpods

[Frayed Knot]

So this will peg his return to about a month into next year [50-ish remaining + the first 30 next year] meaning that stupidity [motorcycles + drugs] is going cause him to miss just shy of 200 consecutive games.



Way to make your team regret making you their face and their highest paid player before you even had 100 ML games under your belt; making MLB regret making you the face of the game, and embarrassing your father while we're at it.

[The Hot Corner]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[G-Fafif]

Cano's stay in San Diego was brief, but his influence endures.

[Frayed Knot]

Cano, Tatis, Bonds, Boone (Bret at least): steroid using second (and third) generation players.

[soupcan]

=G-Fafif post_id=103653 time=1660354343 user_id=55]
Cano's stay in San Diego was brief, but his influence endures.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Guest

[kcmets]

I don't know why at this point, but it always amazes me they think they can

beat the system somehow to get an edge and it blows up in their face.

[Frayed Knot]

So I'm guessing that that those Dairy Queen commercials with Tatis & Bryce Harper are now out of circulation for a while.

[roger_that]

This only reinforces my position against signing long term contracts with anyone, no matter how young and stellar. if you're going to get burned on a deal, better to get burned on a Scherzer style deal, a ton of money with no long term commitment, and preferably for a pitcher rather than a position player. I was prepared to walk away from Soto and a lifetime contract, and now I think the Mets did a smart thing in doing so.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Mets didn't "walk away from Soto and a lifetime contract". They opted not to trade for a player who has two and a half years before free agency. It's not like there was a contract on the table with Soto, a player they never even had a right to talk to, and they withdrew it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=103723 time=1660407451 user_id=128] I was prepared to walk away from Soto and a lifetime contract, and now I think the Mets did a smart thing in doing so.

[Edgy MD]

The only things that's worse than long-term contracts are short-term ones.



But that's the game. Risk is everywhere.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Cano, Tatis, Bonds, Boone (Bret at least): steroid using second (and third) generation players.

Forgot that Robinson Cano's dad was (briefly) a major league pitcher.

Dale Berra was caught using drugs, but that was for cocaine.



Later

[Edgy MD]

Todd Hundley, too. And Garry Matthews, Jr.

[metsmarathon]

=roger_that post_id=103723 time=1660407451 user_id=128]
This only reinforces my position against signing long term contracts with anyone, no matter how young and stellar.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

How did he get ringworm? And why not just go to the team doctor for a prescription? His story is goofy.

[roger_that]

We need to be sparing in signing long-term deals. You get burned on most of them, and burned badly on some. Pitchers especially, but I'm very leery about them in general.



Of course the Mets walked away from Soto, when they dropped out of the bidding. I soured on the deal when it was apparent that most of the top prospects would be going to Washington, and then the matter of his contract needs would have to be addressed sooner rather than later. The smart thing might have been to trade the prospects, let him walk when he hit free agency, and hope you got a championship or two out of it, but signing him to a 15 year contract was always going to be a big mistake.

[Edgy MD]

Risk aversion is natural. But risk cannot be avoided, only managed. Some degree must be accepted. It's all in the game.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: Risk aversion is natural. But risk cannot be avoided, only managed. Some degree must be accepted. It's all in the game.

Agreed. But some risks that people take are foolish. They have no chance of working out, or practically none, and people take them anyway.



Signing players to expensive longterm deals is one of those.



They're foolish deals for teams, if relatively safe for the men to make those deals, GMs. GMs understand that when such deals turn sour, as most will, they're going to be GMing another team by then, or selling cars, or retired or dead, so for them it's a relatively safe prospect, signing a healthy 25-year star player to a 15-year contract for a bazillion bucks of someone else's money.



But for the teams, for the fans, for the organizations it's a formula for categorical disaster.

[Edgy MD]

I disagree that signing players to expensive longterm deals has no chance of working out, or practically none.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Risk aversion is natural. But risk cannot be avoided, only managed. Some degree must be accepted. It's all in the game.

This. There's risk in everything. But to say that the Mets were right in not getting Soto or that the Soto acquisition would have been awful because after the Soto trade, Tatis was just suspended is ludicrous. The Yankees have been signing players to long term contracts for decades now, including just past their prime players who'd no doubt be greatly diminished by the end of the contract and they're doing about as well as any team in baseball over the last 30 years, probably better than every other team.



If the Mets signed Soto, Cohen's annual liquid net worth would only be $11.970 billion instead of $12 billion.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: I disagree that signing players to expensive longterm deals has no chance of working out, or practically none.

Well, all I need do to show you my point is to exaggerate the length of a long-term contract. If I sign 24 year old Juan Soto to a top-dollar deal through age 40, that makes sense to you. How about if it's through age 41, though? Still good? 42? 45? After some point (and I'll suggest that may that point is more like early 30s than 40s) it becomes a disaster, just speaking logically. After that point you're willing, I think, to concede that, yeah, there is very little value in the contract for you. We're just disagreeing about where that cutoff point is, and I'll remind you that the owner may be saying , "It's ok, I can afford it," and the GM is saying "I'm going to be long gone by the time this deal blows up," but the team is going to be taking it in the nuts.



It's a little different if the team were willing to reduce the player to a role player when his talents diminish, but most teams are going to insist that the star salary warrants star playing time for at least three years of that player's often sharp decline.