Red Mosquito

So... are teams still cheap and not willing to pay to win, or was everyone just super impatient?

philpritchard wrote:So... are teams still cheap and not willing to pay to win, or was everyone just super impatient?

San Diego isn't paying to win, it's paying to get a few more people to pay attention.

supposedly the padres’ farm system is great so may not be a bad decision

the padres were so far below the luxury tax threshold that they could have easily signed both machado and harper and still had a shitload left over.

by the way, if this deal closes, and the reason he chose the padres over the white sox is because it was the most money, i would be apoplectic if i was a white sox fan. there would be simply no excuse for the padres paying him more aav.

Chris_H_2 wrote:the padres were so far below the luxury tax threshold that they could have easily signed both machado and harper and still had a shitload left over.

Looks like it's going to bump them from 26th in payroll up to a whopping 21st, still about $20m below league average: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

I don't know if we'll ever get the full picture, but I wonder if larger-market teams were just offering him less money and fewer years (wasn't there a rumored 7-year deal from the Yankees w/ the same yearly average? I think I posted about it in here, actually).

I can't hang around payroll tables for long, because I get reminded that the Red Sox are paying Pablo Sandoval $18m this year to hit 9 HRs for the Giants.

god bless pablo sandoval

Simple Torture wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:the padres were so far below the luxury tax threshold that they could have easily signed both machado and harper and still had a shitload left over.

Looks like it's going to bump them from 26th in payroll up to a whopping 21st, still about $20m below league average: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

I don't know if we'll ever get the full picture, but I wonder if larger-market teams were just offering him less money and fewer years (wasn't there a rumored 7-year deal from the Yankees w/ the same yearly average? I think I posted about it in here, actually).

i would assume that's the case. or there are/were some options involved.

Chris_H_2 wrote:by the way, if this deal closes, and the reason he chose the padres over the white sox is because it was the most money, i would be apoplectic if i was a white sox fan. there would be simply no excuse for the padres paying him more aav.

The Bulls even took back the max amount of cash in trades this season (5 mill) to help make this happen. Suck it Reinsdorf.

he just went to nowhere land - never to be seen or heard from again

Chris_H_2 wrote:the padres were so far below the luxury tax threshold that they could have easily signed both machado and harper and still had a shitload left over.

maybe they will sign harper

manny doesn't even run out ground balls..fuck him..

philpritchard wrote:So... are teams still cheap and not willing to pay to win, or was everyone just super impatient?

Bryce Harper and a shitton of guys are still unsigned.

I'm still mad 26 year old Andrelton Simmons was traded for Sean fing Newcomb, and now I have to watch Dansby Swanson futilely attempt to hit a baseball nightly. It's possible that he's a worse offensive player than Jeff Francouer.

Everytime I see Newcomb out there dripping gallons of sweat, I'm disappointed for the actually interesting baseball I could see from Simmons, who almost no one sees anymore because he's languishing in Anaheim with Mike Trout.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:So... are teams still cheap and not willing to pay to win, or was everyone just super impatient?

Bryce Harper and a shitton of guys are still unsigned.

Yeah, and eventually they'll all sign and get close to what everyone expected them to get.

Electromatic wrote:

philpritchard wrote:So... are teams still cheap and not willing to pay to win, or was everyone just super impatient?

San Diego isn't paying to win, it's paying to get a few more people to pay attention.

This move is definitely about winning. They may not win a ton this year, but they just added a young established star player to the best farm system in baseball.

The numbers in this 538 piece about foul balls are ridiculous: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fo ... ing-about/

The number of foul balls has increased by 11.98 percent from 1998, when baseball expanded to 30 teams, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of Baseball-Reference.com data. There were almost 14,000 more foul balls last season than there were 20 seasons earlier. In 1998, 26.5 percent of all strikes were foul balls. That share increased to a record 27.9 percent of strikes in 2017 and 27.8 percent last season, the top rates since pitch-level data was first recorded in 1988.

The movement away from those football/baseball stadiums has contributed to this, probably:

While fans have a better chance than ever at grabbing a free souvenir, fielders do not. In 2003, there were 4,372 foul outs. That number has fallen off dramatically, reaching a record low 3,262 in 2016 and hitting 3,450 last season.

An increase in foul balls and a decline in foul outs may seem paradoxical, but the reason is simple: Playing surfaces are shrinking. In comparing 21 current stadiums with their immediate predecessor, FanGraphs found that fair territory had decreased by 1.4 percent, but foul territory decreased by 20.5 percent, or about 5,500 square feet on average.

Simple Torture wrote:The numbers in this 538 piece about foul balls are ridiculous: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fo ... ing-about/

The number of foul balls has increased by 11.98 percent from 1998, when baseball expanded to 30 teams, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of Baseball-Reference.com data. There were almost 14,000 more foul balls last season than there were 20 seasons earlier. In 1998, 26.5 percent of all strikes were foul balls. That share increased to a record 27.9 percent of strikes in 2017 and 27.8 percent last season, the top rates since pitch-level data was first recorded in 1988.

The movement away from those football/baseball stadiums has contributed to this, probably:

While fans have a better chance than ever at grabbing a free souvenir, fielders do not. In 2003, there were 4,372 foul outs. That number has fallen off dramatically, reaching a record low 3,262 in 2016 and hitting 3,450 last season.

An increase in foul balls and a decline in foul outs may seem paradoxical, but the reason is simple: Playing surfaces are shrinking. In comparing 21 current stadiums with their immediate predecessor, FanGraphs found that fair territory had decreased by 1.4 percent, but foul territory decreased by 20.5 percent, or about 5,500 square feet on average.

I like to bet people I'm with at games that any given ball will go less than 6 pitches before being fouled off or swapped out. Works every time.

More batters swinging for the fences rather than just making solid contact and going with the pitch also contributes to more foul balls.

This doesn't appear to be changing any time soon. It seems most coaches in their 30's and 40's are teaching their hitters to "swing big or go home".