I was gonna vote yes just because I'd love to see Mauer playing catcher for the Red Sox. :)
Printable View
I was gonna vote yes just because I'd love to see Mauer playing catcher for the Red Sox. :)
clearly:cool::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I think they key in the poll is this:All you guys who say it's crazy to trade Mauer because the Twins are a contender, etc,etc.. What do you do then if Minnesota is ten games out at the deadline and it looks like Mauer won't resign? Would you trade him then? What if they're 15 games out? How about games 20 out? Would you trade him then? The whole question is hypothetical so I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a wad about this. Would it be a good idea to trade him right now? No I don't think it would be. But thats not what the poll asks. I must vote yes because their are situations that could happen this year where they may be better off trading him.Quote:
Should the Twins trade Mauer at some point this year?
Most of those questions are answered if you read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
Dickay is arguing that the Twins should trade Mauer regardless of their contention status. He's not saying "There are some situations that could occur that would make it so that the Twins should trade Mauer," like you are, in which case, yes, obviously. He's saying they should trade him no matter what (unless he would agree to a shorter than 7 year contract).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah I kinda skimmed over it since it's 7 pages long...So you shoulda voted yes in the poll then. Since it's asking if Minnesota should trade Mauer at some point this year. It's not asking if you would trade him right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If the question said, "Are there some scenarios in which the Twins should trade Joe Mauer?", I'd vote yes. However, since I believe the most likely scenario is that the Twins contend, I don't think that they should trade Mauer at some point this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
I do think I should have posted the hypothetical contract that has been rumored, which is 10 years at an average of around 20 mil per. Given that contract to chew on, should they trade him "at some point this year".
To me, thats a no brainer regardless of midseason contention or not, however we don't need to relive that discussion. But I do agree with Michelle, that people could get the impression from the title that its "should they trade Mauer now?" and doesn't give much insight on the contractual obligations they have to incur if they do not trade him and end up resigning him.
I see no indication as to the 10 year/20 million thing being anything more than a rumor. As I've said, I'd try my best to sign him to 5-7 year deal, AAV somewhere around $20 million...the longer the deal, the more front-loaded I'd make the salaries. If no agreement can be reached, I'd play out the season, and would only try to trade him if midseason was reached and my team was out of contention.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
see above. Lets say 8 years 165 million ok... jus for the hell of it... thats not THAT far off, and its easy #'s... front load the contract...Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
2011 25
2012 25
2013 23
2014 23
2015 19
2016 18
2017 16
2018 16
if they were not goting to contend for 3+ years there is absolutly NO reason to keep him as he would be peaking and about to start comming down as soon as they were going up... Wasted years. Yes you lose fannies in the seats maybe but in the long run, better option is to trade him... If you are good now... yuo play to win NOW... and that means having one of the greatest offensive players at 1 position EVER in years (maybe even comparable with Gibson.) You CANT trade him even if you are slipping in the middle of the season, as others said unless you are really wowed. I mean if the Offer is Bucholtz, Lester, and Pedroia of course but its not, nor would it be. You CANT take a bunch of unknows for the greatest player in the history of baseball at Catcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Okay, I think you're overrating Mauer a bit here.
just curious, how many of these long term large dollar contracts have been front loaded???? Not Manny, not Jeter, not AROD1, not Zito? AROD2 is front loaded but its still a rediculous 20 mil per the last 3 or 4 seasons lol. Even the lesser contracts are backloaded, most notably Bays newest one. Hollidays recent deal is neutral and not front or backloaded. In fact, MOST of these large contracts i've looked at are backloaded.
while i agree your 8yr 165 probably isn't far off, i don't know why he'd front load it like this personally. And i think it important to realize that they've averaged less than 65mil per in payroll over the last 5-7 years. Lets just say for hahas with their new deal they average 85-90 mil over the next 3-5 years. You're paying one guy more about 30% of your entire payroll.Quote:
see above. Lets say 8 years 165 million ok... jus for the hell of it... thats not THAT far off, and its easy #'s... front load the contract...
2011 25
2012 25
2013 23
2014 23
2015 19
2016 18
2017 16
2018 16
Plus you've got;
Morneau making 15 mil per thru what 2013?
Nathan making 12 mil per thru 2011.
Thats 52 mil, about 55-60% of your payroll for three players. Thank god I think Cuddyers 10 mil or so comes off the books next year!
They have a bunch of young talents in arbitration years who will be getting raises, most notably Crain, Liriano, and Young. Speculations is that they will add 5-7 mil just in arbitration cases..although its hard to speculate on that at this point, not knowing the years they are going to have or who they will keep. They've also got a ton of guys with 2011 club options they will likely have to let go to field a team.
It will be hard to remain competitive with that type of salary restraints.
something sadly I fear many are doing seeing he's coming off a monster career year. Great player prior....but even you will admit i think that you can't value him off of this last year alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Mauer would probably appreciate a front loaded contract...I probably would.
He can earn value on that money over the years.
If he makes 25 million in his first year, and let's say he spends like 5 million of it, and invests what's left after taxes....he can ensure himself a lot of interest for a very long time....time value vs money value.
and by the end of the contract the Twins would still be able to have money for other players....
It could be a win-win, assuming the Twins plan to add to their payroll over the next decade....and they don't mind spending against time value of their cash.
It would be in Mauer's better interest, over the clubs.
I don't necessarily agree. The club, yes its in their best interest. I don't think know many people who want to have their salary reduced year after year and feeling they are underpaid. I could see him agreeing to a front loaded deal if he's given an opt-out or two near the end (last 3 years or so) of this ficticious contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
But if both parties get opt-out clauses, I would have a much easier time signing a player to this type of contract in minn.
If he gets a front loaded contract, doubt there will be an early opt out clause....he would almost certainly do it so long as he is still a viable ball player.
I didnt say the greatest ever for a reason... Maybe I should have said top 5 all time at Catcher... that may have been a better idea. This is of course assuming he could keep up these crazy #'sQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The contract is more valuable to the player front loaded, rather than back loaded.
teams rarely if ever give front loaded deals for a couple of reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
1- Teams based it on the same economics of all of industrial society on the basis of exponential growth meaning the pay can grow over the year because everything else will.
2- by back loading it, you get the benefit now at the expense of later monetary issues (another economic staple); along with the possibility of having a way out if later.
oh I fully agree. I was saying why Mauer would want a front loaded deal, not necessarily the Twins.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
perfectly said. i just don't know why so many are talking of frontloading like it happens so frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Yeah...i gotta say I agree with this.Quote:
The contract is more valuable to the player front loaded, rather than back loaded.
You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
The contract is more valuable to the player front loaded, rather than back loaded.
Of course you can't value based off last year alone. However, he is undoubtedly the best catcher in the game, and easily one of the top 5 players in the game, even though he's unlikely to repeat his 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
You actually DID say the greatest ever:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Quote:
You CANT take a bunch of unknows for the greatest player in the history of baseball at Catcher.
I don't know anybody who is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Cause front loading is better for the player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
The reason hardly any contracts are front loaded is because franchises usually don't want to front load.
hgm
figures I slipped lol
he will come back. i guarantee
The financial structure of the deal is almost irrelevant - teams structure those in all kinds of different ways - including front-loaded contracts (which is not very different from a signing bonus) and contracts that defer salary to 20 years in the future. Those details depend on the specific interests of Mauer and the Twins. It is reasonable for people debate the value of signing Mauer for 5 or 8 years, or the total value of the contract - it makes no sense to debate the optimal structure of that contract because we have none of the relevant information.
Honestly, the only reason I was talking about front-loading it was because Dickay was stuck on tying up a third of the payroll in Mauer's mid-30's to him when hes not likely to be worth that anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
and what i was "stuck" on is far more relevant to the conversation. We do know that a good estimate puts his average salary at around a quarter or more of their average payroll. Thats assuming they raise their average payroll by 15 million from 65 (where its been the past 5-7 years) to 80 and keep it there. Thats a big assumption, but with them getting a new stadium its a fair one. Two others they have locked up to contracts already put them with three players at over 50% of that higher assumed average payroll. I don't see why those aren't relevant talking points and concerns or how bringing something you apparently agree is irrelevant to the table helps improve the discussion.Quote:
Honestly, the only reason I was talking about front-loading it was because Dickay was stuck on tying up a third of the payroll in Mauer's mid-30's to him when hes not likely to be worth that anymore.
I never said that the percentage of the payroll he takes up is irrelevant. You kept bringing up how it's going to really hurt them towards the back end of the deal, and the "front-loading" was brought up as a way to alleviate that concern if you're that concerned about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Morneau's the expendable guy, not Mauer. If they can't afford both, they should keep Mauer and trade Morneau. But, my guess is that they can afford both.
Dickay, the twins are not a small market franchise, I doubt it will hurt them regardless of what they sign him for, they might lose more revenue by not signing him, as what Kenny said, it doesn't matter the structure of the deal.
I think that Dickay is half-right with regard to the issue of tying up payroll. First, the Twins are not a really small-market team - but they aren't in a huge market either. That said, it is a risky strategy to tie up resources in one particular player, but any team other than the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets, that wants to win the World Series (this year or in the future) is going to take some risks.
I guess it comes down to two choices for small-mid market teams. Try and collect a large group of prospects and then hope they all come together at the same time (Rays), or spend a lot of money on a few key players, surround them with a mediocre supporting cast and then hope they don't get hurt.. Both are risky, and I can't see either strategy as wrong. My personal belief is that if you think you can make the playoffs, you don't trade away anything that would prevent that - because if you can get into the playoffs, you have a decent shot at winning the World Series.
thats just the crux for me. considering the risks, i'd rather keep morneau at 15 mil per for not a lengthy period (thru 2012 i believe). He's the picture of consistency, great OBP, good power, and plays everyday. I don't buy that Mauer is the power hitter we saw last year, he's great obp and ba but also has had some scary injuries for a catcher. Plus the return i could get for him and not add the lengthy contract risk, i'd rather keep morneau.Quote:
Morneau's the expendable guy, not Mauer. If they can't afford both, they should keep Mauer and trade Morneau. But, my guess is that they can afford both.
I just look at the Sox giving Hanley plus away for Beckett and a contract and can't fathom letting mauer walk for two unknown future draft picks.
That I think was a different situation tho... Florida doew not do things the way everyone else does.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
in reguards to the 1st point... you can go get a 1B... how many catchers hit .320+, have an OBP .400+ with 15+ HR and have EXCELENT defense? Not many... How many 1B are out there that can hit 30 HR?
For all this talk about Mauer's durability, the guy has played 130+ games in 4 out of the last 5 seasons, which is very good for a catcher (yes, some of that is at DH, but that's necessary to keep him rested). I'd rather pay $18-20 mil for a 130 OPS+ from my catcher than $15 mil for a 130 OPS+ from my first basemen. Morneau is overrated. He's a middle of the pack first basemen - the position is loaded with talent. Joe Mauer is undoubtedly the best catcher in the game and it isn't close. Morneau's a 3-4 win player. Mauer's a 7-8 win player. The cost of a win is roughly $3.5 mil on the open market - meaning Mauer's value is somewhere about $12 million above Morneau's. If I can get Mauer for $5 million more than Morneau, that's an absolute steal. Yes, long term is a risk, but one of the top players in the game is worth that risk. Plus, I think you're really overemphasizing the injury concerns. They're legitimate, but not this death knell that you're making them out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I can't fathom trading away one of the top 5 players in the game in the middle of the season while my team has a good shot at the playoffs. Has anything remotely similar to that EVER happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Really, my main disagreement with you isn't that you wouldn't sign Mauer to a long-term deal. Even though I would, it's reasonable to think you're better off not signing him long-term. It's your thought that the Twins should trade him mid-season regardless of they're contention status that is outrageous to me.
sounds like a deal might be finalized today.
8 year 170 million...with two option years at around 23-25 a year each.
I like HGM's metrics.
But, for me, it's simpler:
What does it cost to build a new stadium?
Because if the Twins ever traded away Mauer, the fans would likely burn the place to the ground, anyway. :p
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by StreetMedic