What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
adding a 5/135 to his existing 2 year remaining deal. I hate the idea of a 7 year deal for a pitcher but if you're going to give one he's as good a bet as any one.
Which means people should stop doing trade scenarios involving Felix. No more, please.
Right on Tank. Sick of hearing people say trade for King Felix when there was no way Seattle was going to trade a picture of his caliber that would have been pitching against them for the next 6 or 7 years. Finally another one we can move on from.
Mariners: "Okay, Felix, we're going to write a 1, and then you just tell us when to stop writing zeros......."'
Don't get me wrong, Hernandez is a top notch pitcher (and I wish we could have him) but that is a serious overpay. Even using Grienke's contract as a base it is way too much. The M's finally dole out the cash, and I can't help but wonder if that was a very smart move. You could have traded him for the world in prospects and used that money in so many more ways than a single player... Maybe I'm missing something, but the only winner I see is King Felix rolling on him enormous piles of money...
The losers are the Tigers and Dodgers. They are flipping off the Mariners as we speak.
They should have used that money to sign me
Theyve raised the standard a bit since you were relevant. You actually have to spell your name right to get a big contract.
I think it's possible this isn't an overpay. It will take at least 5 years to see, but he could make good on this contract.
I think he's worth the money. Plus, this is a huge marketing move, locking up the franchise player for $25 million AAV. That's basically a 5.0 FIP-wins/year pitcher, which he's clearly demonstrated himself as over the past several years. As the contract ages a bit, the value of each win will rise into the $6-$7 million territory, and the amount of FIP-wins he'll need to generate will lessen.
Like someone said, Justin Verlander and Clayton Kershaw are extremely happy to hear this news.
I really think the Mariners would have been better served by trading Felix and pillaging someones farm system.
But Felix deserves the big money. And i admire him for his loyalty to Seattle and not being afraid of pitching in the American Hitters League.I admire the club for not lowballing him.I'm glad he wont be going to LA, New York or Detroit.
Why didnt the mariners trade King Felix? Attendance. The fact that Felix is one of te greatest pitchers to ever to put on a Seattle mariners uniform. The fact that he is the only mariner to ever throw a perfect game. The fact that as long as the mariners have sucked, he has been their constant ala Lebron James. The Ms trade King Felix, and that tells their fans they aren't interested in winning, and the city loses a gigantic icon. Even if Felix doesn't live up to his contract, this had to be done from the Ms perspective. Also considering that he is only 26 and he has put up constant results, There is a chance this could work out well. But to call it a "bad" decision is idiotic at best.
I think this may actually make David Price more available for the Rangers. TB can't pay that
I doubt it really changes anything on price. I'm pretty sure tb already knows they have no chance at keeping price.
The Rays can't afford David Price either way. He's making $10 million in his first arbitration year. If Tampa Bay is out of it by trade deadline time (which I have no reason to believe), Price is as good as gone. He will have to be traded somewhere before the 2014 season gets underway.
This gives credence to the Rangers being so unwilling to part ways with some of their top-tier prospect talent. There's no doubt in my mind that Texas will be all in when the Rays look to move him. Truth be told, I'm sure the two teams have already had preliminary discussions.
Two (+) years of David Price is easily worth some collection of Holland, Perez, Olt, Buckel, Sardinas, Jackson, Brinson, Mazara or Guzman. I'm sure the Rangers have already targeted some of their own guys as "untouchables," so no one really knows.
I think it definitely makes him less available. The Rangers have pretty much made it clear they won't offer 7 years to any player and Price is most likely going to want something similar. I have serious doubts that the Rangers will be able to sign any elite player that comes available on the FA market, including their own players, Elvis being the next one to lose. There will always be at least one team that wants those players more than the Rangers.
They offered 7 years to lee.
Get your facts straight Romro.
If i remember correctly, they didn't want to go to 5, someone talked them into it, Lee said he wanted six, and then he walked for Philly. I agree, it's hard to see them go 7 years on anybody, but if you had to pick someone, I think Price would be a pretty good candidate.
I don't think the idea is to get Price and give him 7 years. The idea is to capitalize on his value while he's still affordable, perhaps win a World Series, and watch him leave.
They don't want to go 7 on pitchers because the pitchers that have wanted 7 have been in their 30's. I think David Price is young and good enough that the FO would not mind that commitment.
That's not how I remember it. I thought Chuck Greenberg offered an additional year, making it 5 years with an option (totaling 6 years). Greenberg is also gone, in part because of that offer.
With the direction this FO seems to be heading, I find it difficult to believe they would trade some collection of Holland, Perez, Olt, Buckel, Sardinas, Jackson, Brinson, Mazara or Guzman for two years of Price. Not that I'm disagreeing with you as to value, I just think the FO wouldn't make that trade because they seem to place more value on their own prospects than other GMs seem to.
You guys are probably right. I think I got confused on that.
Just so we're clear, I'm not saying they will trade all those players. Just some of them. Listen, David Price is going to be expensive on the free agent market, but also through a trade. I think the Rangers are prepared to break the bank for either Price or Stanton.
@eric reiningI didn't think you meant all of them which is why I included the "some collection of" portion of your post. I'm by no means an expert at evaluating players but I think what you were suggesting is reasonable, I just don't think this FO would.
The point I was trying to make was that I just can't see the Rangers offering what the Rays will want for Price and I think the Shields trade is a good example of that. Though I can't vouch for accuracy, the Rangers offer fell well short of what KC offered. In fact, to sum up how I see the FO handling of FAs, is that for better or for worse, they will never over pay and thus will fail to sign or trade for any FA unless no other club will over pay. Unfortunately, there almost always seems to be at least one club that will over pay for any given elite FA.
Is the trade market in transition with the new rules? Were prospects over-valued, or under-valued? It will take time to know. Until we figure that out, it's hard to know if it will stay like this, or where the bargains were found.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.