Red Mosquito

I'd say Ellsbury could get close to 200M the way this offseason is going.

Outside of the initial excitement of the deal, is there any free agent signing anymore that's actually a GOOD signing beyond the first 3 years of a deal?

@SkitchP wrote:Outside of the initial excitement of the deal, is there any free agent signing anymore that's actually a GOOD signing beyond the first 3 years of a deal?

Those Tampa Bay style deals where you buy out the last few years of a young player's contract in exchange for an extra year. That's about it.

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Outside of the initial excitement of the deal, is there any free agent signing anymore that's actually a GOOD signing beyond the first 3 years of a deal?

Those Tampa Bay style deals where you buy out the last few years of a young player's contract in exchange for an extra year. That's about it.

Im counting those more as extensions than free agent deals.

I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

really, nothing past a 3 year deal is a good deal because anyone that 4+ is reasonable for gets extended before they hit the market.

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

Another odd one, this time for a starter.....The five-year Sox deal for Lackey got off to a really rough start, but last year the Sox don't win without him, and now he's a valuable trade chip for 2014 (I'd prefer to hang onto him).

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

I think if he continued to pitch well in a set up role it would have been fine. and if he imploded a couple times early on as the closer, they just would have moved him back.

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

I think if he continued to pitch well in a set up role it would have been fine. and if he imploded a couple times early on as the closer, they just would have moved him back.

He definitely wasn't pitching as well as he was in his last year at Tampa, which is the pitcher they thought they were signing (which is the inherent problem with signing relief pitchers).

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

I think if he continued to pitch well in a set up role it would have been fine. and if he imploded a couple times early on as the closer, they just would have moved him back.

He definitely wasn't pitching as well as he was in his last year at Tampa, which is the pitcher they thought they were signing (which is the inherent problem with signing relief pitchers).

I think Dombrowski knew that he wasn't going to be THAT dominant. He got a very good reliever for 3 years. He did well

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

I think if he continued to pitch well in a set up role it would have been fine. and if he imploded a couple times early on as the closer, they just would have moved him back.

He definitely wasn't pitching as well as he was in his last year at Tampa, which is the pitcher they thought they were signing (which is the inherent problem with signing relief pitchers).

I think Dombrowski knew that he wasn't going to be THAT dominant. He got a very good reliever for 3 years. He did well

I'm definitely not complaining. I just think too often GMs think it's OK to give a third year, and way more often than not, it doesn't work out.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I always laugh at 3+ year deals for relievers.

Oddly, the Benoit 3 year deal that everyone hated was one of the exceptions that worked out.

But I think it would have been considered a failure had he not been able to seamlessly slide into the closer's role this year, which is a role he was not signed to fill.

I think if he continued to pitch well in a set up role it would have been fine. and if he imploded a couple times early on as the closer, they just would have moved him back.

He definitely wasn't pitching as well as he was in his last year at Tampa, which is the pitcher they thought they were signing (which is the inherent problem with signing relief pitchers).

I think Dombrowski knew that he wasn't going to be THAT dominant. He got a very good reliever for 3 years. He did well

I'm definitely not complaining. I just think too often GMs think it's OK to give a third year, and way more often than not, it doesn't work out.

agreed, but that's why I said Benoit was the exception

If players, who test positive for banned substances, receive the standard 50/100/lifetime suspensions, but, also are ineligible for the playoffs for the next 2 seasons after a suspension, would this greatly reduce the $$$ teams are tossing at guys like Milky last year, and Peralta this year? I would think a team like the Cards that were THAT close to the WS and wanted an upgrade, would not have been interested in a player that is ineligible for the playoffs at least. If the "clean" players really want the roids out of the game, this might be a way to go about it.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:If players, who test positive for banned substances, receive the standard 50/100/lifetime suspensions, but, also are ineligible for the playoffs for the next 2 seasons after a suspension, would this greatly reduce the $$$ teams are tossing at guys like Milky last year, and Peralta this year? I would think a team like the Cards that were THAT close to the WS and wanted an upgrade, would not have been interested in a player that is ineligible for the playoffs at least. If the "clean" players really want the roids out of the game, this might be a way to go about it.

you're an idiot.

@SkitchP wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:If players, who test positive for banned substances, receive the standard 50/100/lifetime suspensions, but, also are ineligible for the playoffs for the next 2 seasons after a suspension, would this greatly reduce the $$$ teams are tossing at guys like Milky last year, and Peralta this year? I would think a team like the Cards that were THAT close to the WS and wanted an upgrade, would not have been interested in a player that is ineligible for the playoffs at least. If the "clean" players really want the roids out of the game, this might be a way to go about it.

you're an idiot.

I'll respond to that with your a first rate kinda... guy, you can choose your own derogatory adjective to fill in the ... with


I really like that idea (which wasnt even mine, heard a guy on sports radio talking about it)
a guy like Carlos Beltran has made his money on his post season play, if he tests positive and is now barred from post season competition? what good is he? Sure, he can help you GET there, but youd have a backup outfielder playing in the world series.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:If players, who test positive for banned substances, receive the standard 50/100/lifetime suspensions, but, also are ineligible for the playoffs for the next 2 seasons after a suspension, would this greatly reduce the $$$ teams are tossing at guys like Milky last year, and Peralta this year? I would think a team like the Cards that were THAT close to the WS and wanted an upgrade, would not have been interested in a player that is ineligible for the playoffs at least. If the "clean" players really want the roids out of the game, this might be a way to go about it.

you're an idiot.

I'll respond to that with your a first rate kinda... guy, you can choose your own derogatory adjective to fill in the ... with


I really like that idea (which wasnt even mine, heard a guy on sports radio talking about it)
a guy like Carlos Beltran has made his money on his post season play, if he tests positive and is now barred from post season competition? what good is he? Sure, he can help you GET there, but youd have a backup outfielder playing in the world series.

The league and union agreed upon a punishment. With those rules you have basically made it impossible for a player with any sort of PED suspension to sign with a good team for 2 full years. You have essentially colluded against that player, and expect the players union to agree to that?? At that point you might as well kick the player out of the league.

the players that arnt cheating have been pretty vocal about the Peralta signing, and that hes basically being rewarded for cheating.

“Apparently getting suspended for PED’s means you get a raise. What’s stopping anyone from doing it? #weneedtomakeachange,” tweeted former Met pitcher David Aardsma.

Diamondbackscloser Brad Ziegler posted on Twitter: “It pays to cheat...Thanks, owners, for encouraging PED use.”

And then the player rep followed that with the suggestion the union needs to find a way to make PED use more of a risk:
“People really don’t understand how this works. We thought 50 games would be a deterrent. Obviously it’s not. So we are working on it again.”

the players might be more likely to sign a playoff ban, than the owners at this point.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:the players that arnt cheating have been pretty vocal about the Peralta signing, and that hes basically being rewarded for cheating.

“Apparently getting suspended for PED’s means you get a raise. What’s stopping anyone from doing it? #weneedtomakeachange,” tweeted former Met pitcher David Aardsma.

Diamondbackscloser Brad Ziegler posted on Twitter: “It pays to cheat...Thanks, owners, for encouraging PED use.”

And then the player rep followed that with the suggestion the union needs to find a way to make PED use more of a risk:
“People really don’t understand how this works. We thought 50 games would be a deterrent. Obviously it’s not. So we are working on it again.”

the players might be more likely to sign a playoff ban, than the owners at this point.

That's 2 upset players, one of whom may not even be in the league next year. Of course there are going to be individuals upset. Im not a fan of PED users either, and I imagine that the rules will get stricter with the next JDA/CBA.

But your essentially talking about a 3 year ban (the year with the test, and the subsequent 2 years) when you wont allow that player to play. Also, how would the owners handle that? You sign a player with no PED history to a five year contract. He then gets caught a year into it.. so now the owners are paying that player for 3 years in the regular season but he can't play in the postseason? It doesn't make any sense.

Another factor here... Peraltas name appeared on a list for before the 2012 season. He never had a positive test, but has admitted his usage... And 2012 was his worst season of the past 4, by a long shot. This "rewarding" a person for cheating notion is silly. His contract he got is a result of his overall performance, not "rewarding" his PED use- he's just not having it held against him as much as some think he should.