Tatis suspended for 80 games!

[Gwreck]

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

“Working out” is doing a lot of work in that argument though. What is does it mean to “work out?”



There are plenty of long term contracts that could be recast as paying extra for prime years and zero for later years. If thought of in that fashion, they're quite a bit more palatable.

[Edgy MD]

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.

Well all I need to do to show you my point is to exaggerate the number of homers he'll hit, championships he will be the difference in, and dollars he'll earn for his employers, but then we're not talking about facts any more.

If I sign 24 year old Juan Soto to a top-dollar deal through age 40, that makes sense to you.

I didn't write that. I thought we were discussing long-term deals in general. You can make up this random not-yet-existent future and define all the outcomes that haven't happened yet that you want, but please let me represent my own positions.

Edgy MD wrote: I disagree that signing players to expensive longterm deals has no chance of working out, or practically none. “Working out” is doing a lot of work in that argument though. What is does it mean to “work out?”

Mr. roger_that made the "working out" argument. If he's willing, he can clarify his meaning. I know what the term means to me, but you are also welcome to define terms and see if others will bite.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: let me represent my own positions.

I wish you would.

[Edgy MD]

Well, you're the first person in a long time who wants me to write more, but which statement of mine would you like me to back up or clarify?

[Frayed Knot]

I remember doing a lengthy 'analysis' of long term deals ... probably going back to the MoFo days of the late '90s

I recall there being more bad than good with naturally some in between as well.

Randy Johnson (ARZ) was one of the best. More recently, the National's FA deal for Scherzer was great for the team and in both cases

the players were already in the back side of their careers when the contracts began.



As in trades and drafts and which prospects to keep and which to deal, you've got to pick the right ones. As the most important lesson

from Moneyball said, it's easier to recover from the players you fail to sign than it is from the ones you sign at the wrong price. This is

particularly so for Oakland and other smaller revenue teams but the idea remains true.







Then there are the pre-FA long-term contracts of which the Braves are big believers having already given long term deals to

- Ozzie Albies: 7 year deal signed in April '19 for $35 million when Albies was just 22 y/o and with about 1-1/4 yrs of ML service under his belt

- Ronald Acuna: 8 years/$100 also signed in April '19. Acuna was 21 and was not yet even one full season of ML service

- Austin Riley: 10 years/$212, signed just this month. Riley is a comparatively old man at 25 and with ~3 years ML time, hence the higher numbers.

He also could be the NL MVP this year.



Assuming all these work out (and they have so far) the Braves could have 20-something stars at three positions for well under market rates for

years to come.

They took the same strategy in the early 2010's although those deals turned out to be more a mixed bag at which point they quickly pivoted and

got out from under them as fast as they could.

[Edgy MD]

Teams get salary relief for suspended players, so in many ways (clearly not all) a PED suspension can be a win for them.

[Frayed Knot]

Except that Tatis is still in the (relative) chump change period of his deal.

2022 salary = $5mil of the $340mil total (1.4%) and whatever portion of '23 he misses is at a rate of $7mil, so not much savings for a guy who

they've already paid 2/3 of this year's salary to do nothing as a result of the motorcycle accident (unless that was ruled a breach of contract).

The $20+ and $30+ years don't start kicking in until 2025

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, you're the first person in a long time who wants me to write more, but which statement of mine would you like me to back up or clarify?

Oh, you can start anywhere you choose. If you're going to denounce the Soto deal, then do so, but you can't denounce it while defending the generic 15-year deal for a 24 year old superstar, or vice versa. If you want to go that path, then I don't particularly care to discuss baseball, or anything else, with you. That's just too casuistic for my debating skills.



As for me, I'll cite specific long term star signings that have blown up on the teams foolish enough to go for them: Albert Pujols, Jason Heyward, and then you've players like Adrian Gonzalex whose OPS+ nosedived 25 points as soon as the Dodgers signed him to his big payday. In previous generations, sure-thing young superstars like Tony Conigliaro and Tony Oliva and Orlando Cepeda missed seasons and huge chunks of their projected careers to injuries, and they certainly could have signed big long term contracts if such had been available to them.



You've got to be rich, lucky, and smart to sign anyone to a ten-year deal at top dollar, and it won't work out as often as paying and promoting your own players will. Fans mourn when their team fails to sign a major deal but often enough for me the team that succeeds in signing one of these regrets having done so, sometimes sooner than later.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, you're the first person in a long time who wants me to write more, but which statement of mine would you like me to back up or clarify? If you're going to denounce the Soto deal, then do so, but you can't denounce it while defending the generic 15-year deal for a 24 year old superstar, or vice versa.

I denounced the Soto deal? What Soto deal?



If you don't want to exchange with me, don't. I haven't been dishonest or unkind and I don't know what the problem is here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Teams get salary relief for suspended players, so in many ways (clearly not all) a PED suspension can be a win for them.

Not only that, but the Padres might be looking into whether they can now void Tatis' entire contract.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, you're the first person in a long time who wants me to write more, but which statement of mine would you like me to back up or clarify? That's just too casuistic for my debating skills.

What debating skills? Like when I thoroughly destroyed you after you twice ambushed and picked fights with me, so in a last ditch effort, you resorted to pulling out your "Do you know who I am?" card, further embarrassing yourself by bragging about once being published, as if that was supposed to earn you a victory in our brouhaha?



Or when I mocked your ridiculous question about who's the Mets 8th centerfielder, and you responded by asking the mods to red light that post?



Or when your silly idea to abolish the infield fly rule was so thoroughly debunked, you resorted to insulting the entire forum out of frustration by calling us all "hidebound"? And it was revealed that you didn't even have a solid understanding of how the rule even worked in the first place. Some debater.

[Edgy MD]

Hey, I believe the abolition movement was instigated by me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Hey, I believe the abolition movement was instigated by me.

Yeah, but you didnt embarrass yourself or insult everybody when your arguments failed to persuade.

[Edgy MD]

I'm so proud.