Yanks: 7 years/ $142+ million for Ellsbury
CNote
Posts: 2,070 ✭
in Sports Talk
Whew, M's dodged THAT bullet
0
Comments
#1- Your service in a Red Sox uniform and all the hard work he put in helping the Sox secure another World Series
#2- For signing a huge money contract with the Yankees
Im glad they spent all that cash and agree with Barndog 100%
<< <i> But, he got paid - that's all he was after. >>
What does this mean? It's not like he's going to some team with no chance of competing. He's going to a team that has as much history of winning as any in baseball, and he's getting paid to do so. You have to love the sour grapes of fans who expect players on their team to take a discount, as if they would do so if they switched places.
<< <i>
<< <i> But, he got paid - that's all he was after. >>
What does this mean? It's not like he's going to some team with no chance of competing. He's going to a team that has as much history of winning as any in baseball, and he's getting paid to do so. You have to love the sour grapes of fans who expect players on their team to take a discount, as if they would do so if they switched places. >>
I dont think its sour grapes at all, in fact its a sigh of relief to be 100% honest. Bottom line Ellsbury had a great career in Boston, winning multiple World Series Rings and any Red Sox fan is thankfull for that but also thankfull that we didnt spend almost 150 million on a guy who is made of glass.
<< <i>Worth every penny. I wish he would have signed in Seattle. >>
Since you'd rather have Romo than Wilson, and what you've said above, you obviously have something against the great state of Washington.
<< <i>
<< <i>Worth every penny. I wish he would have signed in Seattle. >>
Since you'd rather have Romo than Wilson, and what you've said above, you obviously have something against the great state of Washington. >>
I guess as a Mariners fan you're happier having signed Willie Bloomquist because he was cheaper. Winners take risks. The Mariners (as I know all too well) are losers because they don't take chances. Period.
I would have rather have seen that money go to a .280-.300 hitter with more pop, OBP and only average speed but has a history of HEALTH.
Yankees have learned nothing from Billy Beane's way of putting together a competitive team. They have the money to combine Beane's moneyball AND sign some of the best players for the position but they dont do it.
Doesnt seem to me that Yankees will be resigning Granderson. But again I wonder why all the more speedy players? All I can think of is that they have plans to trade Brett Gardner towards a big time pitcher or a big time power hitting OFer. There have been many teams over the past two years inquiring about Gardner.
He's won 2 World Series rings, so like a lot of guys in that spot, playing for a contender was not at the top of his priority list (and may not have even been in the top 3). Trust me, he was going to whomever gave him the most money. If the Minnesota Twins were offering 7 years, $180m, he'd be holding up a Twins jersey at his press conference today.
The Yankees spent $22m/season for a guy that had ONE season of production that was worth that kind of money. The Sox will spread that $22m over 2-3 players and be much better off.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Worth every penny. I wish he would have signed in Seattle. >>
Since you'd rather have Romo than Wilson, and what you've said above, you obviously have something against the great state of Washington. >>
I guess as a Mariners fan you're happier having signed Willie Bloomquist because he was cheaper. Winners take risks. The Mariners (as I know all too well) are losers because they don't take chances. Period. >>
Signing Ellsbury would have been like signing a lite version of Ichiro when Ichiro was declining. He has absolutely NO place on this roster with the rest of the punch and judy hitters. But, YOU, of course think it's a better idea just to overpay for a guy because he's there. Good idea, turkey.
Ellsbury would have been a great fit in safeco.
As far as money being his only concern it's EVERYONE'S prprimary concern. I love the people bashing a player for taking the max money as if they wouldn't have done exactly the same thing.
<< <i>Worth every penny. I wish he would have signed in Seattle. >>
This is the 34th contract in baseball history anyone has signed for over $100 million. How many of them has a team been able to look back and see that it was a good use of resources?
Pujols definitely, but that was $100 million to a 24-year-old. This one is $150 million to a 30-year-old. Cabrera was for the same money, but again a 25-year-old. Jeter is another one, but still to only a 27-year-old, by the time he was 34 he was overpaid. For anyone over 28, the best value was probably to Manny Ramirez. Despite a handful that are just beginning, the odds are not in the Yankees favor of it working out well for them
<< <i>For anyone over 28, the best value was probably to Manny Ramirez. >>
Thanks to PEDs.
Beltran was 27(?) when the Mets signed him for $100MM+
My thoughts are is that his numbers will outperform his contract in the first half of the deal then in the second half he'll be overpaid for his performance, essentially balancing out. Yes, in the last couple of years, he'll likely be overpaid, but it's not like he'll be a burden the Yankees won't be able to afford to replace.
<< <i>
<< <i>Worth every penny. I wish he would have signed in Seattle. >>
This is the 34th contract in baseball history anyone has signed for over $100 million. How many of them has a team been able to look back and see that it was a good use of resources?
Pujols definitely, but that was $100 million to a 24-year-old. This one is $150 million to a 30-year-old. Cabrera was for the same money, but again a 25-year-old. Jeter is another one, but still to only a 27-year-old, by the time he was 34 he was overpaid. For anyone over 28, the best value was probably to Manny Ramirez. Despite a handful that are just beginning, the odds are not in the Yankees favor of it working out well for them >>
The few years that A-Rod played under his original $252m contract, he certainly lived up to the money. The contract he re-negotiated with The Yankees? Not so much.
I just don't understand all the fawning over Ellsbury. We're talking about a career 108 OPS+ guy that gets hurt all the freaking time. He'd have to put up his 2011 numbers multiple times to even approach being worth the contract - and he hasn't shown he can do that even a second time, let alone multiple more times. He's 30 years old and relies on speed and mobility for his game - two things that disappear quickly with age.
I just can't see paying megastar money to a barely-a-star talent.
<< <i>The Yankees, like the Red Sox and Dodgers, with their absurd TV money, literally have no ceiling in what they can pay in player salary. >>
I think you mean figuratively, not literally. For if the Yankees literally had no ceiling on payroll, they could have a roster of the 25 best players every year and still be under budget
In a figurative sense how can we possibly know if it is true that they have no ceiling? And if they did, why has their payroll increased far less than other teams over recent years?
<< <i>My thoughts are is that his numbers will outperform his contract in the first half of the deal then in the second half he'll be overpaid for his performance, essentially balancing out. Yes, in the last couple of years, he'll likely be overpaid, but it's not like he'll be a burden the Yankees won't be able to afford to replace. >>
You mean like paying AJ Burnett $70 million for an ERA over 5.00 wasn't a burden. Or how still owing Sabathia, Teixeira and Rodrriguez $250 million isn't a burden to them? All four of them had years where they did well, were even a good use of budget. Yet they also had years like 2012, when they combined for $80 million in payroll and contributed 209 at bats with a .725 ops and 211 innings with a 4.78 ERA. Having that much money tied up in that little production is what kept the team out of the playoffs last year
For contracts over $100 million teams almost always see a mix of good and bad years (Pujols and Zito being the two exceptions I can think of). Yet it almost never "balances out." The poor years end up being far more of a negative than any positive the team sees from the good years.
Granted these huge contracts are a relatively new thing in sports, so there is only a small sample of them to look at. As we see more and more of them, eventually one will be given to a 30-year-old that works out. Again, the chance that it will be this one isn't too good
<< <i>If any of those contracts were a burden they wouldn't have dropped 142 million on Ellsbury. >>
If they weren't burdened by them, they could have also signed David Ortiz and Anibal Sanchez last year. Instead they went with Travis Hafner and Phil Hughes. They could have had Prince Fielder and Cliff Lee in recent years. They could have paid those free-agents double what they signed for and still not reached their ceiling for player salaries.
We'll see if they have enough in their budget for Cano
If somebody was offering you $142m guaranteed for 7 years for playing baseball...which, BTW, comes to approximately $125k + per game, we'd jump on that in a flash. Assuming each game is 3 hours long, Ellsbury will be making $41.7k per hour...half of that time. (in theory), he'll be sitting in the dugout.
Like those before him who have gone to the "dark side", we'll get over it.
I wish him well.