Nope, their all talking lower (even half of that price). I intentionally increased the amount.
A .300/.400/.500 player certainly seems worth the money, to me, though.
Printable View
Nope, their all talking lower (even half of that price). I intentionally increased the amount.
A .300/.400/.500 player certainly seems worth the money, to me, though.
According to this analysis, Ramirez has been overpaid since 2005. And he's not getting younger.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
This analysis shows Manny as worth $17.55 million per year on the open market as a left fielder, and $18.5 million as a designated hitter. But, of course, that worth is different dependent on the team situation. For a team in the Nationals situation, I think that's overpaying.
So, Milledge, Dukes, and Manny for two years. That gives the Nats a very solid outfield for a couple of seasons, allowing them to keep Kearns, Pena, Willingham, and Harris in the minors and/or as part time MLB players, lengthening their arbitration clocks... It may even allow them to trade off one or even two of them for a solid young middle infielder, pitcher, or catcher.
I don't see any cost there.
He's a vet. Par for the course.Quote:
According to this analysis, Ramirez has been overpaid since 2005. And he's not getting younger.
With marquee names (even the "infamous" ones), you pay for much more then their on field performance anyway.
Kearns and Pena have zero trade value right now. Those final 4 players are also all not going to go to the minor leagues easily, as they've got enough service time to deny assignment and become free agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I'm just not seeing what spending this huge amount of money on Manny does for them. Sure, it makes them a couple wins better, but, a couple wins better than suck is still suck.
I think at least a couple of those players are out of options and/or would refuse an assignment to the minor leagues... Kearns and Pena especially (Pena signed that Major League contract when the Yankees drafted him).
True. And for a crappy team without any hope of contending in the near future, that extra payment isn't worth it!Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
LOLOL, nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
ah... well. *shrug*Quote:
as they've got enough service time to deny assignment and become free agents.
Like I said, I don't generally follow NL teams.
LOLQuote:
a couple wins better than suck is still suck.
Certainly true, but baseball is a business. There is much more to it then simply winning on the field.
Even if he can bring in as much, if not more, then his contract value in residuals? Including indirect ones?Quote:
True. And for a crappy team without any hope of contending in the near future, that extra payment isn't worth it!
There seems to be way too narrow of a viewpoint being expressed here.
The question is, can he?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Manny isn't a well-liked superstar that's going to bring in tons of fans just to see him, sell tons of jerseys, etc. He's not an Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Greg Maddux, for example.
Like I said, I can definitely see him having such an effect, but I can also just as easily see him as having the same amount of an effect, just in the negative direction. I don't think the risk of finding out is worth it for a team in the Nationals situation.
Isn't he, though? He's known. On a team such as the Nats, who are very likely not going to have anyone else for at least the next couple of seasons, why wouldn't the fans be purchasing "Manny merchandise"? Don't forget about the advertising and everything else as well.Quote:
Manny isn't a well-liked superstar that's going to bring in tons of fans just to see him, sell tons of jerseys, etc. He's not an Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Greg Maddux, for example.
Look, I'm not saying that he'll bring in 1.5 times his contract. I don't know. But no one else here knows that the opposite is true either, and barring any evidence to the contrary it's a safer assumption to make that the player will bring back more then his contract value then not.
From what I've read, it's very rare that a player brings back negative value. Diamond Dollars researched this, and they couldn't find any players that did over the (limited) time frame available for real study.
I can't remember which team ohm's roots for, but I'm begininning to think he wants the Nats to sign Manny just so that his team can't.
Angels. I'd love for them to sign him...
And I think it would be a GOOD signing for the Angels.
Really, Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, I wouldn't blame one little bit. I just don't think it's the right move for the Nats (or the Royals, Pirates, etc.). It just doesn't work in those kind of cases, IMO.
Plus, I'd bet in LA (with the Angels), Manny would be happy. He seemed to like LA (the city) last year (from what I heard). I dunno, I think it would be a good signing for the Angels. God knows, maybe an ex-Red Sox would help with their weird playoff exasperation with the Sox. I still say the Angels were the better team in that series last year, but I know I'll get arguments over that. As well I should. The Red Sox did win, after all.
The payoff would certainly be greater for the Angels, as well as for all of the other more competitive teams. That doesn't mean that it would be a mistake for a less competitive team to sign him, though...
The Angels need Manny more than any other team save the Dodgers, in my opinion.