 
|
Recent Posts
Answered above. Many teams are content to play out there current rosters. And as proof, take a look at what has been available via free agency and wasn't signed to start the season or well into the season.on the other hand, if Corbin and Lester are performing nearly the same, Lester would be more valuable in trade even though he's older because he helps for the playoffs without the albatross contract.
Come July 30th, a LH SP has value by default.
Based upon his 2021 output...can't see that he's gonna be a difference maker. His +/- is dreadful, though he was with Buffalo, so some of that can be dismissed.he is supposed to have one of the more absurdly bad shooting % this year, way out of line with his past. So yes, they are more or less ignoring the 2 goal output.
I think the best they can hope for is that he doesn't become a liability. His career has been in decline for the past three seasons, so this "rebirth" in Beantown could make or break his future...
I really don't see that they "needed" a left winger with just 2 goals in 37 games...
My man: if you're the GM of one of the 29 other teams and Rizzo waives Corbin tomorrow, do you claim him, knowing that you will immediately owe him $106 million for 4 years?
Verlander only had two and a half years on his contract and was a better pitcher. The Tigers also agreed to pay 8 million per year.my swag was about $45 million, which is a bit more.
Also, Verlander was a Cy Young and MVP winner. That season he was traded was probably the worst of his career and its what youre probably going to get out of Corbin if you're lucky
So the Nats would have to eat about a third of the contract to get anything of value.
My man...
Patrick Corbin is a 31 year old LH SP that came up big in the biggest situations. 67 regular season games (12 starts) since then.
If you as a GM hold a Patrick Corbin, you don't see him as negative value.
Realistically, off of the market, and crediting him with some likely reversion to 2019 form, to me it looks like there's about $45 million overpay in actual cash for the remainder of that contract.
I don't think it's that simple. If you send money and someone sends back something of value (prospects), is that negative? Like Did Verlander's contract have negative Value?Verlander only had two and a half years on his contract and was a better pitcher. The Tigers also agreed to pay 8 million per year.
But if you're starting with the principle that you need to pay, then it is. You're assuming you need to eat $X per year just to get nothing back. Sure, you can eat $X+Y to get Y value in prospects back, but that doesn't mean X disappears.
The question with the Verlander trade - where the Tigers ate $8m/year for 2 years but got back 3 very good prospects - is really what those prospects would sell for. If you could have sold those 3 prospects for more than $16 million, then the Tigers were just buying additional prospects. Basically: if the Tigers had offered Verlander for a pair of used batting gloves, would the Astros have taken it? And I think the answer there is of course. Detroit ate some salary to buy additional prospects, but Verlander had some value that went into purchasing those prospects too.
The AAV on the remaining term isn't constant, though, which is what you're asking someone to take on. The AAV over the whole length is irrelevant now because 2 years are already history.
Yes, it is common knowledge. But if you're eating more cash than the value of what you're getting back from the other team, that's negative value.
I think you and I are using AAV differently. I think AAV is usually used for CBT hit, which is how I'm using it. His CBT hit is based on his entire contract, not jus what remains to be paid. I think you are using it as the sum of remaining payments divided by the remaining length of the contract. The cash he's owed, divided by 4 years, is over $26MM a year, which is higher than the average for his whole contract (which I believe is how AAV is calculated).
