Poll

Updated - who does Harper sign with?

Nationals
25 (47.2%)
Phillies
22 (41.5%)
Padres
2 (3.8%)
D'backs
1 (1.9%)
White Sox
3 (5.7%)

Total Members Voted: 53

Author Topic: POLL: UPDATED: Bryce's team in 2019 will be.....  (Read 65857 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 15095
  • babble on
What's the maximum marginal diva tax?

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 7689
This wait has been all on Boras and Harper. This could have been done in like 2 weeks. It’s a combo or Boaras wanting to beat Dan Lozano and using his strategy of just waiting and Bryce’s desire to be fellated by the teams and media for as long as possible.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 4329
Maybe I'm being too practical but I don't understand why Harp would give up his apartment in Rosslyn and have to start over apartment hunting if he re-signs with the Nats. With his money what would be the big deal to hold onto it for 5-6 months and not have to hassle with movers and packing and address changes. Yes he could hire firms to do that but it still is a pain.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 28652
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Maybe I'm being too practical but I don't understand why Harp would give up his apartment in Rosslyn and have to start over apartment hunting if he re-signs with the Nats. With his money what would be the big deal to hold onto it for 5-6 months and not have to hassle with movers and packing and address changes. Yes he could hire firms to do that but it still is a pain.

otoh, suppose his lease ended in December.  Why would he renew it not knowing if he'd be back?

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 7689
I assume if he signs here long term, he’ll buy a house. If he doesn’t he’s moving. Either way he doesn’t need that apartment.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 61930
  • We had 'em all the way.
Maybe I'm being too practical but I don't understand why Harp would give up his apartment in Rosslyn and have to start over apartment hunting if he re-signs with the Nats. With his money what would be the big deal to hold onto it for 5-6 months and not have to hassle with movers and packing and address changes. Yes he could hire firms to do that but it still is a pain.

$300,000,000   ...   maybe he wants a bigger place.     :)

Offline Trea Burner

  • Posts: 388
Another day in the as the diva turns?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49330
Another day in the as the diva turns?
Yep. I assume that someone will make a Bryce Harper thread when he goes to another team. Should be fun to watch.

Offline aBaltoNat

  • Posts: 1846
Yeah, this is getting really old.

Offline Squab

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 4513
  • me lookin at the bullpen
I bet it is getting old for him too waiting out a bunch of rich baseball teams that won't cough up the money he's worth. I hope he doesn't sign at all and waits until someone offers him what he deserves. Maybe it can drag out until the all-star break and dominate the conversation all year long.

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 2002
It's been a pretty brutal offseason for people who post about baseball on the internet. There's basically no reliable information on the Harper and Machado sweepstakes (or rather, we have lots of conflicting information, and no way to tell which is reliable) so all people can do is either overanalyze individual tweets or get really huffed up about largely irrelevant side issues.

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3392
I bet it is getting old for him too waiting out a bunch of rich baseball teams that won't cough up the money he's worth. I hope he doesn't sign at all and waits until someone offers him what he deserves. Maybe it can drag out until the all-star break and dominate the conversation all year long.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-alex-rodriguezs-contract-would-look-like-today/

I kind of agree with this, but on the other hand I also agree with teams not wanting to pay a guy into his mid-30s when he's likely to be utterly replaceable several years before that.

I think the big problem here isn't the fact that stars are severely underpaid, but that young players are. In other words, I don't think the problem is 26-year old Bryce Harper not getting $300 million, it's really that 21-year old Bryce Harper didn't get $300 million.

There were as many 3.5 WAR players 22 and under as 33 and over. The former all got paid $500K on one-year deals, the latter got paid an average of $16 million on multi-year deals.

If you were drawing it up from scratch, shouldn't it be the opposite? The young guys with their careers in front of them get the long deals, and the old guys get 1 or 2 year deals?

Offline Squab

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 4513
  • me lookin at the bullpen
I kind of agree with this, but on the other hand I also agree with teams not wanting to pay a guy into his mid-30s when he's likely to be utterly replaceable several years before that.

I think the big problem here isn't the fact that stars are severely underpaid, but that young players are. In other words, I don't think the problem is 26-year old Bryce Harper not getting $300 million, it's really that 21-year old Bryce Harper didn't get $300 million.

There were as many 3.5 WAR players 22 and under as 33 and over. The former all got paid $500K on one-year deals, the latter got paid an average of $16 million on multi-year deals.

If you were drawing it up from scratch, shouldn't it be the opposite? The young guys with their careers in front of them get the long deals, and the old guys get 1 or 2 year deals?

I agree with all of that. But 30 million for Bryce at 35 will be a lot less money than it is today, because of inflation and as a percentage of overall payroll. Inflation since 2009 was about 20%, and that is conservative. Payrolls have nearly doubled, and that's with % of revenue used toward payrolls way down.

16 million for the type of player worth 3.5 WAR still seems like a bargain to me, but not all players with those contracts perform that way into their mid 30s of course.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 28652
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
i don't see someone swooping in at the last minute to give Harper a mega deal.  My guess is that he's gotten all the offers he's going to get other than maybe a few tweaks.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 2700
  • Juan Soto aka Human Wildcat
I kind of agree with this, but on the other hand I also agree with teams not wanting to pay a guy into his mid-30s when he's likely to be utterly replaceable several years before that.

I think the big problem here isn't the fact that stars are severely underpaid, but that young players are. In other words, I don't think the problem is 26-year old Bryce Harper not getting $300 million, it's really that 21-year old Bryce Harper didn't get $300 million.

There were as many 3.5 WAR players 22 and under as 33 and over. The former all got paid $500K on one-year deals, the latter got paid an average of $16 million on multi-year deals.

If you were drawing it up from scratch, shouldn't it be the opposite? The young guys with their careers in front of them get the long deals, and the old guys get 1 or 2 year deals?

I think hockey has the opposite problem.  They had out 8x8 or more like candy to every 22 year old who really hasn't proven that he's going to be a star for years to come.  Don't forget, Bryce was pretty well paid the last couple years and over 20 million/year.  A shade off what he'd get on the free market, but not that far off.   Teams seem willing to pay high annual salaries, they just are shying away from 10 year deals that never seem to work out.   

It also seems that MLB teams are preparing for the local tv deals aren't going to be the same in 10 years, and don't want to over commit.  The problem was giving out those mega long term deals earlier, not that they aren't willing to do it now.

I'm guessing Boras's strategy at this point is to get more teams bidding on short term contracts, and they've probably got the annual dollar figure where they want, and are trying to see if they can get anyone to bite by adding a couple more years on.


Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3392
16 million for the type of player worth 3.5 WAR still seems like a bargain to me, but not all players with those contracts perform that way into their mid 30s of course.

"Not all players" is a bit of an understatement. :) When I say the "same number" of players age 33 or over hit 3.5 WAR, that's only 4 players total, and 3 of those guys (Zobrist, Turner, and Lowrie) are hardly guy you would have said were franchise players at Bryce's age.

There is really very little chance that Bryce Harper is a productive player past the first 5 or so years of his deal, as I've pointed out in other posts looking at aging curves. Although he does share some traits with Joey Votto, who is the lone "franchise-type" player aging gracefully into his mid-30s.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49330
"Not all players" is a bit of an understatement. :) When I say the "same number" of players age 33 or over hit 3.5 WAR, that's only 4 players total, and 3 of those guys (Zobrist, Turner, and Lowrie) are hardly guy you would have said were franchise players at Bryce's age.

There is really very little chance that Bryce Harper is a productive player past the first 5 or so years of his deal, as I've pointed out in other posts looking at aging curves. Although he does share some traits with Joey Votto, who is the lone "franchise-type" player aging gracefully into his mid-30s.

Harper is 26. By the time his first 5 years are up, he will be 31. There have been over 100 players who have posted at least 3.5 WAR from ages 31 to 33  in the last ten seasons.

With modern workout and diet regimes,  it a naive to think someone like Harper cant be good after the age of 31. Beltre, Votto, ARod, Matt Holliday, Cano, Utley, Kinsler, and Bautisa all put together quality seasons at ages 32-35. You should expect Harper to do the same, which means you're going to get 7-8 years of good-to-great plate performance from him.

Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 859
otoh, suppose his lease ended in December.  Why would he renew it not knowing if he'd be back?
Guess he knows there are players who'd sublet it from him?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26627
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Perhaps the players union should agree to a length limit on contracts in exchange for earlier free agency and higher minimums. Something like 2 years to arb, 4 years to FA, and $1mm minimum in exchange for a 6 year cap on contract length.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 61930
  • We had 'em all the way.
Perhaps the players union should agree to a length limit on contracts in exchange for earlier free agency and higher minimums. Something like 2 years to arb, 4 years to FA, and $1mm minimum in exchange for a 6 year cap on contract length.

Do guys in the minors get to vote on MLB/player agreements?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26627
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Do guys in the minors get to vote on MLB/player agreements?
no

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7905
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Harper is 26. By the time his first 5 years are up, he will be 31. There have been over 100 players who have posted at least 3.5 WAR from ages 31 to 33  in the last ten seasons.

With modern workout and diet regimes,  it a naive to think someone like Harper cant be good after the age of 31. Beltre, Votto, ARod, Matt Holliday, Cano, Utley, Kinsler, and Bautisa all put together quality seasons at ages 32-35. You should expect Harper to do the same, which means you're going to get 7-8 years of good-to-great plate performance from him.

Agreed. There is a big difference between a guy getting a 8+ year deal at 29 or 30 than at Harper's age. Teams still have reason not to tie up tons of money on a guy that could bust. But that seems a lot more of a gamble on pitchers. Harper is an elite bat that remarkably has upside - probably more with consistency than anything else. Barring a catastrophic injury, knowing that bat is in the meat of your order to walk regularly and be a threat to go yard on any fastball in the zone is worth a lot of money for a good 7 years at least.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 15896
Do guys in the minors get to vote on MLB/player agreements?

No. They have essentially zero rights or voice in collective bargaining

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 61930
  • We had 'em all the way.
no

Thanks.    I was wondering where the votes were.   

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49330
Perhaps the players union should agree to a length limit on contracts in exchange for earlier free agency and higher minimums. Something like 2 years to arb, 4 years to FA, and $1mm minimum in exchange for a 6 year cap on contract length.

Owners would want a cap. And honestly, for the purposes of competitive balance, baseball would probably have to have one