 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » VOTTO!
tworoosters
How so ?
Votto's 28 years old and has already won an MVP, he hits for average, he hits for power, he gets on base like a machine and is above average defensively at 1B.
Contracts taking 1B up to the age of 40 seem to be the norm these days, and Votto took less money through 2015 to allow the Reds some flexibility to sign Brandon Phillips and keep payroll relatively stable until Jay Bruce's extension nears its' end.
April 11, 2012 at 11:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by cowboymatt43
LOL. What a joke.
How so ?
Votto's 28 years old and has already won an MVP, he hits for average, he hits for power, he gets on base like a machine and is above average defensively at 1B.
Contracts taking 1B up to the age of 40 seem to be the norm these days, and Votto took less money through 2015 to allow the Reds some flexibility to sign Brandon Phillips and keep payroll relatively stable until Jay Bruce's extension nears its' end.
tm4559
April 12, 2012 at 01:46PM View BBCode
it has become quite stylish to poo poo any long contract. the talking heads would run down a 10 year deal for Jesus.
tm4559
(the Vatacin City team does eat the body though.)
[Edited on 4-12-2012 by tm4559]
April 12, 2012 at 02:46PM View BBCode
no, some really smart guy is worried about a career ending cruxifiction. it isn't exactly likely, but, if it happens, the insurance won't pay off, and you have to eat the salary.(the Vatacin City team does eat the body though.)
[Edited on 4-12-2012 by tm4559]
tm4559
April 12, 2012 at 02:50PM View BBCode
((but truly, i think the whole point of the objection, really, is why pay votto all this coin for so long, when you can get carlos pena for one year at a time, and it will give you more strikeouts in one season than votto can for the whole contract. i mean, that's a bargain right there. and there is no risk.))
cowboymatt43
April 18, 2012 at 07:09AM View BBCode
It's a joke because the deal is too long and there are guys out there that can give you production for not nearly as much. The Angels, Tigers, and Reds are going to regret these deals toward the end of them...guaranteed.
dirtdevil
don't get me wrong, i think 10 years is way too long a contract, competitively. but that doesn't meant here aren't reasons that it makes good business sense to do them.
April 18, 2012 at 01:38PM View BBCode
maybe they will. what's better though? sign the deal and maybe regret it later or watch the players go somewhere else and regret it now? all three of those teams are in a better position to win with those players than without them. ther angels, particularly, are also taking off-field factors into account. with the dodgers in disarray the angels have what is probably their last opportunity to capture the metro LA market before competent ownership rights the dodger ship. if they can play in a few post seasons in teh next few years, maybe grab a title, the increased value to the franchise may well be greater than the dead weight at the end of the contract. cinci has now locked up their core to long-term deals. in a small market cost-certainty is important and with the bengals much improved i'd imagine the competition for luxury boxeas is that much more intense. it has to be easier to sell long-term leases on them with the knowledge that a pretty good core is going to be there the whole time.don't get me wrong, i think 10 years is way too long a contract, competitively. but that doesn't meant here aren't reasons that it makes good business sense to do them.
cowboymatt43
April 18, 2012 at 04:47PM View BBCode
That's just it -- business. I'm not stupid or naive, but I sure do wish baseball could be more about baseball and less about money.
dirtdevil
organize a decade-long continent-wide boycott of game attendance and television viewership? if the fans won't pay or watch, the money will dry up accordingly. of course the sport likely dies along with it but no plan is perfect.
the thing is though, it was always about the money. all those legends about charlie comiskey? they're true. the only difference now is that the players get a (more or less) fair share of it.
April 18, 2012 at 05:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
How would that even be possible, nowadays?
organize a decade-long continent-wide boycott of game attendance and television viewership? if the fans won't pay or watch, the money will dry up accordingly. of course the sport likely dies along with it but no plan is perfect.
the thing is though, it was always about the money. all those legends about charlie comiskey? they're true. the only difference now is that the players get a (more or less) fair share of it.
tworoosters
The Black Sox scandal was about money, Babe Ruth was criticized for making more than the president, the reserve clause existed so the owners could control the money, free agency came about so the players could get the money.It's absurd to think that it's not about the money but it's the baseball that generates the money.
Votto's a 28 year old MVP who has structured his contract in a manner that benefits the team now and gets Votto his due at the end. Votto won't be worth $20M at age 38 but at the same time he's a relative bargain over the next 5 years, his prime, at an average of $15M, some $40M less than Fielder or Pujols will earn over the same period.
April 18, 2012 at 05:35PM View BBCode
It's always been about the money, at least ever since they started paying players and charging for tickets.The Black Sox scandal was about money, Babe Ruth was criticized for making more than the president, the reserve clause existed so the owners could control the money, free agency came about so the players could get the money.It's absurd to think that it's not about the money but it's the baseball that generates the money.
Votto's a 28 year old MVP who has structured his contract in a manner that benefits the team now and gets Votto his due at the end. Votto won't be worth $20M at age 38 but at the same time he's a relative bargain over the next 5 years, his prime, at an average of $15M, some $40M less than Fielder or Pujols will earn over the same period.
cowboymatt43
And tr what you say about Votto's contract is true...but I'm sure that Cinci fans won't be loving the scratch he saved them during his prime when he's weighing the entire team down when he's in his mid-30's and beyond...unless, of course, he juices. Then his production might be worth it; maybe.
But let's be honest here: in 2010 Votto was worth 5.9 wins more than a replacement player at 1B. Are six wins really worth 14+ million bucks? The answer is obviously, no. And if the Reds found a 1B that was an average major leaguer they would probably only lose something like 3-4 wins by having that guy instead of Votto. In a sport where there are 15-18 real contributors on each team, owners really tend to over-value superstars.
But, since it's a "business" they'll spend on players like this just so they fill seats and don't have their games blacked out. So signing a guy like Votto makes sense to the Reds bottom line (at least for a while) but it doesn't make nearly as much baseball sense.
April 18, 2012 at 06:54PM View BBCode
I am fully aware of the economics of baseball. That's why I used the word "wish" in my last post.And tr what you say about Votto's contract is true...but I'm sure that Cinci fans won't be loving the scratch he saved them during his prime when he's weighing the entire team down when he's in his mid-30's and beyond...unless, of course, he juices. Then his production might be worth it; maybe.
But let's be honest here: in 2010 Votto was worth 5.9 wins more than a replacement player at 1B. Are six wins really worth 14+ million bucks? The answer is obviously, no. And if the Reds found a 1B that was an average major leaguer they would probably only lose something like 3-4 wins by having that guy instead of Votto. In a sport where there are 15-18 real contributors on each team, owners really tend to over-value superstars.
But, since it's a "business" they'll spend on players like this just so they fill seats and don't have their games blacked out. So signing a guy like Votto makes sense to the Reds bottom line (at least for a while) but it doesn't make nearly as much baseball sense.
dirtdevil
even you are mixing business sense with abseball sense though. it makes great baseball sense to have joey votto under contract for 10 years. the only thing you're objecting to is the dollar amounts he'll be earning at the end of those 10 years. that's a business objection, not a baseball one.
i also have to say that replacement wins analysis in general tends to make me mad. leaving aside for the moment that 3-4 wins can often be the difference between making the postseason and watching it on tv (ask the braves and red sox or even the giants if they'd have liked another 3-4 wins last year), applying replacement value logic to multiple positions would soon leave you 3-4 wins (or whatever the number actually is) behind at every one of them. if you're 3-4 wins behind at 7 or 8 positions you may save yourself a lot of money in salary but you aren't going to have much of a ball team. you have to have above replacement players somewhere if you want to win. the only real way for a mid-market like cinci to get them is to develop them and sign them long-term before the yankees do.
April 18, 2012 at 07:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by cowboymatt43
I am fully aware of the economics of baseball. That's why I used the word "wish" in my last post.
And tr what you say about Votto's contract is true...but I'm sure that Cinci fans won't be loving the scratch he saved them during his prime when he's weighing the entire team down when he's in his mid-30's and beyond...unless, of course, he juices. Then his production might be worth it; maybe.
But let's be honest here: in 2010 Votto was worth 5.9 wins more than a replacement player at 1B. Are six wins really worth 14+ million bucks? The answer is obviously, no. And if the Reds found a 1B that was an average major leaguer they would probably only lose something like 3-4 wins by having that guy instead of Votto. In a sport where there are 15-18 real contributors on each team, owners really tend to over-value superstars.
But, since it's a "business" they'll spend on players like this just so they fill seats and don't have their games blacked out. So signing a guy like Votto makes sense to the Reds bottom line (at least for a while) but it doesn't make nearly as much baseball sense.
even you are mixing business sense with abseball sense though. it makes great baseball sense to have joey votto under contract for 10 years. the only thing you're objecting to is the dollar amounts he'll be earning at the end of those 10 years. that's a business objection, not a baseball one.
i also have to say that replacement wins analysis in general tends to make me mad. leaving aside for the moment that 3-4 wins can often be the difference between making the postseason and watching it on tv (ask the braves and red sox or even the giants if they'd have liked another 3-4 wins last year), applying replacement value logic to multiple positions would soon leave you 3-4 wins (or whatever the number actually is) behind at every one of them. if you're 3-4 wins behind at 7 or 8 positions you may save yourself a lot of money in salary but you aren't going to have much of a ball team. you have to have above replacement players somewhere if you want to win. the only real way for a mid-market like cinci to get them is to develop them and sign them long-term before the yankees do.
cowboymatt43
April 18, 2012 at 11:45PM View BBCode
I'm not arguing for signing all replacement players...but I am suggesting that investing 10 years in a 28 year old is a bit steep for 3-6 extra wins a season...and that's only at the beginning of the contract. So, form a baseball standpoint, a team is handcuffed with a player's massive contract that no one will take off their hands at the end of these long contracts and he's not worth anywhere close to what he's making. But it's not just the end of the contract that doesn't make sense -- it's the first half too. Let's just pretend that Votto will continue to tear it up through the first 5 years of the contract. That's 15 millions a year (or so) for 3-6 wins in each season. That's just not worth it. Go young or go effective -- Billy Bean style.
tworoosters
Thank you, if I hear one more "MoneyBall" a-hole I'm gonna scream. Beane has won absolutely nothing except the MVP for self promotion.
The A's are a mess and Moneyball was a good book and a movie I'll wait to see on TV.
April 19, 2012 at 06:50AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
and billy beane has won what, exactly?
Thank you, if I hear one more "MoneyBall" a-hole I'm gonna scream. Beane has won absolutely nothing except the MVP for self promotion.
The A's are a mess and Moneyball was a good book and a movie I'll wait to see on TV.
cowboymatt43
How about the 2002 Angels then? Top paid players? Tim Salmon and Kevin Appier! They had several regular contributors on that team making less that 1M (like Kennedy, Spiezio, Lackey, Ortiz, and Eckstein). Small(-ish) ball is completely doable and a team doesn't have to lock up player like Pujols, Fielder, and Votto to do it. You can get by with Erstad, Anderson, Salmon, and Glaus and win it all!
I think the Yankee model (which is really what this is...better, the Redskins model) is inefficient and unless the team's owner is crazy, crazy, crazy rich, it a franchise killer.
April 19, 2012 at 07:15AM View BBCode
Okay, okay.How about the 2002 Angels then? Top paid players? Tim Salmon and Kevin Appier! They had several regular contributors on that team making less that 1M (like Kennedy, Spiezio, Lackey, Ortiz, and Eckstein). Small(-ish) ball is completely doable and a team doesn't have to lock up player like Pujols, Fielder, and Votto to do it. You can get by with Erstad, Anderson, Salmon, and Glaus and win it all!
I think the Yankee model (which is really what this is...better, the Redskins model) is inefficient and unless the team's owner is crazy, crazy, crazy rich, it a franchise killer.
thatrogue
It is funny that the team you referenced, the Angels, signed the oldest free agent available to a ten year deal.
April 19, 2012 at 08:55AM View BBCode
Or unless it helps you generate new revenue streams, like the Pujols contract helping the Angels finalize their new TV deal, or the Reds locking in their "stars" in order to complete their RSN deal. The Yankees set the tone with the YES Network, and the other teams are playing catch up.It is funny that the team you referenced, the Angels, signed the oldest free agent available to a ten year deal.
thatrogue
Additionally, the stadium deal never came through and management continues to paralyze him financially. Those financial limitations tend to impact even the good deals they make. The A's flipped Haren to get C.Gonzalez and B.Anderson (good deal) from the D-backs, then flipped Gonzalez and H.Street to get Holliday from the Rox (okay deal if you want to compete now), but, thus far, they've gotten very little from trading Holliday to St. Louis (after three seasons, that deal looks like a failure). At some point, you have to make a decision to keep the talent you acquire and build a team around them...not keep flipping them for younger things that you'll trade again as soon as they get good/more expensive.
April 19, 2012 at 09:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoostersI think Beane did a good job trying to leverage statistical analysis and targeting undervalued players. But, when everyone starts looking more closely at undervalued players and are possessive of their own young talent, those players no longer remain undervalued, and the bargains keep getting harder to find.
Originally posted by dirtdevil
and billy beane has won what, exactly?
Thank you, if I hear one more "MoneyBall" a-hole I'm gonna scream. Beane has won absolutely nothing except the MVP for self promotion.
The A's are a mess and Moneyball was a good book and a movie I'll wait to see on TV.
Additionally, the stadium deal never came through and management continues to paralyze him financially. Those financial limitations tend to impact even the good deals they make. The A's flipped Haren to get C.Gonzalez and B.Anderson (good deal) from the D-backs, then flipped Gonzalez and H.Street to get Holliday from the Rox (okay deal if you want to compete now), but, thus far, they've gotten very little from trading Holliday to St. Louis (after three seasons, that deal looks like a failure). At some point, you have to make a decision to keep the talent you acquire and build a team around them...not keep flipping them for younger things that you'll trade again as soon as they get good/more expensive.
tm4559
((listen, moneyball works. not only did the A's get everybody crazy for obp, they turned those players into overvalued things for the folks that started chasing walks and overpaying for them the same way teams used to overpay for chasing RBI. ask the Seattle Mariners.))
April 19, 2012 at 01:36PM View BBCode
(the money they pay votto is not for the 20 milliion or whatever when he is 40. they are paying out big money for all he can do, with the bat, during his prime and almost prime years, and they want to win. A TITLE. and his prime years are worth what they're paying. folks in cincy want to see votto, in a Red's uniform, for however long it takes. they buy tickets and they come to the ball park. the same with the yankees. who the hell cares about how much money they get when they're forty other than the talking heads and their clever analysis?)((listen, moneyball works. not only did the A's get everybody crazy for obp, they turned those players into overvalued things for the folks that started chasing walks and overpaying for them the same way teams used to overpay for chasing RBI. ask the Seattle Mariners.))
cowboymatt43
No, no. I referenced the 2002 Angels, not the 2012 Angels. BIG difference! (And though there's not enough data yet, it looks like the 2002 Angels had it right!)
April 19, 2012 at 03:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
It is funny that the team you referenced, the Angels, signed the oldest free agent available to a ten year deal.
No, no. I referenced the 2002 Angels, not the 2012 Angels. BIG difference! (And though there's not enough data yet, it looks like the 2002 Angels had it right!)
tm4559
(they got lucky ok? they won the title. and then their turds you talked about went right back to doing what turds do, which is just muddle along without winning anything. they were not the first high mediocre team to get lucky and win the world series and they won't be the last. the playoffs are a tournament. not great teams are going to win the occasional tournament.)
April 19, 2012 at 03:21PM View BBCode
yes, they have absolutely dominated every year since then.(they got lucky ok? they won the title. and then their turds you talked about went right back to doing what turds do, which is just muddle along without winning anything. they were not the first high mediocre team to get lucky and win the world series and they won't be the last. the playoffs are a tournament. not great teams are going to win the occasional tournament.)