Page 72 of 792
Re: MLB
Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 5:02 pm
by numbers
Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
Re: MLB
Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 9:23 pm
by Chris_H_2
numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
For a little perspective, 9 out of 15 teams in the NL had catchers who gave them 110+ games last year. None of those catchers was older than 32, and the average age was 28.
Re: MLB
Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 10:20 pm
by numbers
Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
For a little perspective, 9 out of 15 teams in the NL had catchers who gave them 110+ games last year. None of those catchers was older than 32, and the average age was 28.
How many of those 9 did it the year before?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 2:16 am
by elliseamos
Over/under 60 HR for Prince in Arlington?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 2:43 am
by Charlie
elliseamos wrote:Over/under 60 HR for Prince in Arlington?
under
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 2:58 am
by @SkitchP
Charlie wrote:elliseamos wrote:Over/under 60 HR for Prince in Arlington?
under
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 3:47 am
by MattA75
I'm amazed any team would take on that contract, especially after his postseason "performance"
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 3:47 am
by Chris_H_2
Now that Fielder is gone, the Tigers are guaranteed to win the WS next year, right Zeppe?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 3:50 am
by Chris_H_2
numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
For a little perspective, 9 out of 15 teams in the NL had catchers who gave them 110+ games last year. None of those catchers was older than 32, and the average age was 28.
How many of those 9 did it the year before?
Most of them. But you seem to be proving my point. Why do you pay the guy more money than most of the catchers that are younger and did give their teams 110+ games behind the plate?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 4:37 am
by MadTIGERmaN
Adrian Beltre next years MVP?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 2:03 pm
by numbers
Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
For a little perspective, 9 out of 15 teams in the NL had catchers who gave them 110+ games last year. None of those catchers was older than 32, and the average age was 28.
How many of those 9 did it the year before?
Most of them. But you seem to be proving my point. Why do you pay the guy more money than most of the catchers that are younger and did give their teams 110+ games behind the plate?
To me, catching is about game calling. As long as you can be a competent major league hitter(over .220) that's good enough. It's hard to judge catchers by their offensive numbers. The 3rd year for Ruiz was to ensure you'll get him for the first two of that contract.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 5:16 pm
by Chris_H_2
numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:Chris_H_2 wrote:numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
That's absolutely no reason to give three years and that much money to a catcher who won't give you more than 110 games 1/3 into the contract.
How many catchers in MLB give you 110+ games on a consistent basis?
For a little perspective, 9 out of 15 teams in the NL had catchers who gave them 110+ games last year. None of those catchers was older than 32, and the average age was 28.
How many of those 9 did it the year before?
Most of them. But you seem to be proving my point. Why do you pay the guy more money than most of the catchers that are younger and did give their teams 110+ games behind the plate?
To me, catching is about game calling. As long as you can be a competent major league hitter(over .220) that's good enough. It's hard to judge catchers by their offensive numbers. The 3rd year for Ruiz was to ensure you'll get him for the first two of that contract.
I think having a productive offensive catcher in the NL puts you at so much more of an advantage than other NL teams that don't because you're already dealing with a wasted spot in your lineup by having your pitcher bat. I know there are slim pickings for those catchers, but I'd be worried as a Phillies fan where this contract is going to get you in a year.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu November 21, 2013 6:41 pm
by Electromatic
so what's Brian McCann going to get?
Re: MLB
Posted: Sat November 23, 2013 3:30 pm
by matt reeder
numbers wrote:there are no good catchers in MLB right now, it's not that outrageous of a deal.
Re: MLB
Posted: Sat November 23, 2013 11:40 pm
by MattA75
5 and 85 for McCann? Good luck with that deal
Re: MLB
Posted: Sun November 24, 2013 1:29 pm
by @SkitchP
Jhonny Peralta is apparently worth 16.25 million?!!! a year?!!
4/65
Re: MLB
Posted: Sun November 24, 2013 3:19 pm
by MattA75
I think I'm at the point where I can't wait to see what some stupid team pays Ellsbury in the next couple of weeks
Re: MLB
Posted: Sun November 24, 2013 5:19 pm
by @SkitchP
@SkitchP wrote:Jhonny Peralta is apparently worth 16.25 million?!!! a year?!!
4/65
Now its being reported as 4/52. Which is still crazy but not as bad.
Re: MLB
Posted: Sun November 24, 2013 5:37 pm
by Chris_H_2
@SkitchP wrote:@SkitchP wrote:Jhonny Peralta is apparently worth 16.25 million?!!! a year?!!
4/65
Now its being reported as 4/52. Which is still crazy but not as bad.
But there are very few old, non-HR-hitting, terrible defensive shortstops coming off a PED suspension on the market . . .
Re: MLB
Posted: Sun November 24, 2013 5:40 pm
by Coach
MattA75 wrote:I think I'm at the point where I can't wait to see what some stupid team pays Ellsbury in the next couple of weeks
Yup. Ells will dial it back once he gets his money. Just a hunch.