Matt Garza Extension

[KBisBack!]

I agree that there is a lot that can happen. And if you read what I have said you would realize that I stated that the trade with the Royals boils down to them being able to sign an extension with Sheilds.

I have read what you have said and have repeatedly told you that it is wrong.

The trade boils down to how Myers develops. End of story.

If Myers ends up being a bust or below average major league player, the Royals will 'win' the trade as the two years of Shields will provide greater value even without being signed to an extension.

Actually the ONLY way the Royals lose the trade is if Shields stays just for the two years, they get nothing of value in compensation for him AND Myers develops into a consistent .280+/30+ HR guy.

Almost every other scenario will involve the Royals getting the better of the deal including Shields being well above average for two years and Myers being an average major league player for six.

Based upon Garza's production to date with the Cubs, that trade is going to be defined as a rental if he isn't extended; and could even be labeled a bust if he isn't extended and they don't get a player of value in exchange for him in trade or through arbitration.

And based on the production to date of the players traded to Tampa, a rental is much, much, much more productive than the players traded away.

Strawman some more though.

And, I specifically noted that he has performed well as a reliever.

Of course you did. That is your strawman way.

Like somehow his 16.1 IP's as a reliever totally overshadows his 770ish IP's as a starter when he was one of the worst starting pitchers in the history of baseball.

In regards to him being a productive relief pitcher, does it really matter where he was drafted? Nope.

Yes, 100% matters.

If Jim Hendry drafted a guy #1 overall who spent 5 seasons as one of the worst starting pitchers in the history of baseball and ended up in the bullpen you would be throwing a non stop shit fit.

But that doesn't fit your agenda here to argue anything and everything I say.

Dumb.

And yet they waited until they had more than Butler and Gordon as core players before they spent to supplement their core with proven major league talent via trade and FA. Would it have been better for them to have spent 4-5 years ago when Gordon looked like a bust and only had Butler and Greinke? I don't think so, and apparently neither did they.

But they did spend 4-5 years ago.

Their payroll jumped from $58M in 2008 to $70.5M in 2009 and $71.4 in 2010 while they conned Kansas City into dumping like $200M into fixing up Kaufmann Stadium. The place is great and I love it, but the Glass family just toyed with Kansas City to get the taxpayers to fix up the ball park.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[The Bandit]

Huh?

As usual, everything you say makes no sense at all.

It actually makes perfect sense if you could read. Jason Bay was a spec for Pit, they played him he became an All-Star they traded him for specs, the Cubs traded specs for Garza and now may flip Garza for specs... see the extra step there?

 

[DewsSox79]

It actually makes perfect sense if you could read. Jason Bay was a spec for Pit, they played him he became an All-Star they traded him for specs, the Cubs traded specs for Garza and now may flip Garza for specs... see the extra step there?

you wont net the same return.

 

[The Bandit]

you wont net the same return.

I never said we would, he say's it's the exact same thing as when the Pirates traded Jason Bay so I said it kind of is with an extra step.

 

[Willrust]

The trade boils down to how Myers develops. End of story.

And believing this means you know nothing about what the Rays have done time and time again for the past dozen years. They get as much value as they can out of players and then trade them away when they get too expensive. If they get a decent player in return it is a bonus, as the main objective is to dump salary. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't true and isn't happening.

And based on the production to date of the players traded to Tampa, a rental is much, much, much more productive than the players traded away.

Strawman some more though.

Not a strawman at all. It is just another example to prove the Rays track record of trading away players with increasing salaries for prospects. If the prospects pan out, great, but the main point of the trades with the Rays is dumping salary!

Like somehow his 16.1 IP's as a reliever totally overshadows his 770ish IP's as a starter when he was one of the worst starting pitchers in the history of baseball.

Doesn't overshadow shit. Just goes to prove that he has been a more valuable relief pitcher than SP. It happens.

Yes, 100% matters.

If Jim Hendry drafted a guy #1 overall who spent 5 seasons as one of the worst starting pitchers in the history of baseball and ended up in the bullpen you would be throwing a non stop shit fit.

And that is complete speculation. Casey Coleman has been an abysmal SP for the Cubs. Granted, he wasn't drafted #1 overall; but if he is an effective RP, I could care less where he was drafted. If Mark Prior came back to the Cubs today and proved to be an effective RP, I couldn't care less where he was drafted. But you go ahead and try to tell me what I would think, or what other people on this board would think.

Their payroll jumped from $58M in 2008 to $70.5M in 2009 and $71.4 in 2010 while they conned Kansas City into dumping like $200M into fixing up Kaufmann Stadium. The place is great and I love it, but the Glass family just toyed with Kansas City to get the taxpayers to fix up the ball park.

Their payroll in that time period increased by Gil Meche. That's it. But this could explain why the Royals payroll went from 59M in 2008 to over 70M in 2009:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/season-preview/2010/269597.html

Revenue-sharing money comes from two pools. One is central fund revenue, which comes from national television and radio deals, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, merchandise sales and the newly formed MLB Network. Each of the 30 clubs got a check for about $30 million in 2009 through this arrangement.

The other pool is the one that has created tension between small- and large-revenue clubs, as it is the one that transfers money between franchises. This pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31 percent, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs. (The only exception comes if a club happens to be in the midst of stadium construction, which temporarily relieves a portion of its local-revenue obligation.)

So, the Royals got a revenue sharing check for 30M in 2009 and increased their payroll by nearly 20M. Go figure. If you want to check the payroll:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/attend.shtml

I know exactly what I am talking about, sorry if it contradicts your opinions; but I am pretty sure that we can both say that neither of us is going to convince the other to change our preset opinions.

I can agree with you that the Royals appear to have been parasites when it comes to hoarding money from their fans for several years. I also hope that you can agree that the Cubs, although having greater revenue streams while also having greater expenditures between payroll, stadium upkeep and revenue sharing dollars lost, have not fleeced it's fans quite the same way the Royals have.

 

[mountsalami]

And believing this means you know nothing about what the Rays have done time and time again for the past dozen years. They get as much value as they can out of players and then trade them away when they get too expensive. If they get a decent player in return it is a bonus, as the main objective is to dump salary. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't true and isn't happening.



Not a strawman at all. It is just another example to prove the Rays track record of trading away players with increasing salaries for prospects. If the prospects pan out, great, but the main point of the trades with the Rays is dumping salary!



Doesn't overshadow shit. Just goes to prove that he has been a more valuable relief pitcher than SP. It happens.



And that is complete speculation. Casey Coleman has been an abysmal SP for the Cubs. Granted, he wasn't drafted #1 overall; but if he is an effective RP, I could care less where he was drafted. If Mark Prior came back to the Cubs today and proved to be an effective RP, I couldn't care less where he was drafted. But you go ahead and try to tell me what I would think, or what other people on this board would think.



Their payroll in that time period increased by Gil Meche. That's it. But this could explain why the Royals payroll went from 59M in 2008 to over 70M in 2009:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/season-preview/2010/269597.html

Revenue-sharing money comes from two pools. One is central fund revenue, which comes from national television and radio deals, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, merchandise sales and the newly formed MLB Network. Each of the 30 clubs got a check for about $30 million in 2009 through this arrangement.

The other pool is the one that has created tension between small- and large-revenue clubs, as it is the one that transfers money between franchises. This pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31 percent, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs. (The only exception comes if a club happens to be in the midst of stadium construction, which temporarily relieves a portion of its local-revenue obligation.)

So, the Royals got a revenue sharing check for 30M in 2009 and increased their payroll by nearly 20M. Go figure. If you want to check the payroll:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/attend.shtml

I know exactly what I am talking about, sorry if it contradicts your opinions; but I am pretty sure that we can both say that neither of us is going to convince the other to change our preset opinions.

I can agree with you that the Royals appear to have been parasites when it comes to hoarding money from their fans for several years. I also hope that you can agree that the Cubs, although having greater revenue streams while also having greater expenditures between payroll, stadium upkeep and revenue sharing dollars lost, have not fleeced it's fans quite the same way the Royals have.

Dumb.

 

[patg006]

Doesn't overshadow shit. Just goes to prove that he has been a more valuable relief pitcher than SP.

Sorry Will, cant buy this. I can think of a sample size of 16.1 innings that Carlos Marmol wasnt a complete and utter piece of shit. If Hochevar did this for 2-3 years thats one thing, but a sample size this small is far too inconclusive......

 

[Boobaby1]

And that is complete speculation. Casey Coleman has been an abysmal SP for the Cubs. Granted, he wasn't drafted #1 overall; but if he is an effective RP, I could care less where he was drafted. If Mark Prior came back to the Cubs today and proved to be an effective RP, I couldn't care less where he was drafted. But you go ahead and try to tell me what I would think, or what other people on this board would think.

I don't know if I am reading what you are saying Will, but I am going to be damned pissed if Appel/Gray get drafted and signed by the Cubs and they don't pan out and suddenly become an effective reliever because they failed as a starter.

The Cubs endured 101 loss season to net that pick. I don't want an effective reliever for that nightmare of a year.

I don't care what sport it is, when you draft high on the charts and that said player doesn't work out for whatever reason, there is nothing more frustrating than that.

 

[Willrust]

I don't know if I am reading what you are saying Will, but I am going to be damned pissed if Appel/Gray get drafted and signed by the Cubs and they don't pan out and suddenly become an effective reliever because they failed as a starter.

The Cubs endured 101 loss season to net that pick. I don't want an effective reliever for that nightmare of a year.

I don't care what sport it is, when you draft high on the charts and that said player doesn't work out for whatever reason, there is nothing more frustrating than that.

I would much rather a drafted player supply some value out of the pen rather than keep them as a SP where they have continuously failed.

 

[Willrust]

Rick Ankiel was a failed pitcher. The Cardinals, rather than just writing him off completely, moved him to OF and he was able to eventually provide some value to their team.

 

[Boobaby1]

Rick Ankiel was a failed pitcher. The Cardinals, rather than just writing him off completely, moved him to OF and he was able to eventually provide some value to their team.

Sure, there are exceptions to everything. Let's go back 40 years and see who was drafted #1.

I don't know who the #2 draft choices were, but if I look down the list, once again I am ticked off at what I could have/should have had in a high draft choice like the Cubs will receive this year if he becomes a bust, or is even serviceable.

1973
David Clyde
Texas Rangers
1974
Bill Almon
San Diego Padres
1975
Danny Goodwin [a]
California Angels
1976
Floyd Bannister ***
Houston Astros
1977
Harold Baines ***
Chicago White Sox
1978
Bob Horner *** ##
Atlanta Braves
1979
Al Chambers
Seattle Mariners
1980
Darryl Strawberry *** ##
New York Mets
1981
Mike Moore ***
Seattle Mariners
1982
Shawon Dunston ***
Chicago Cubs
1983
Tim Belcher
Minnesota Twins
1984
Shawn Abner
New York Mets
1985
B.J. Surhoff ***
Milwaukee Brewers
1986
Jeff King
Pittsburgh Pirates
1987
Ken Griffey, Jr. ***
Seattle Mariners
1988
Andy Benes ***
San Diego
1989
Ben McDonald
Baltimore Orioles
1990
Chipper Jones
Atlanta Braves
1991
Brien Taylor #
New York Yankees
1992
Phil Nevin ***
Houston Astros
1993
Alex Rodriguez ***
Seattle Mariners
1994
Paul Wilson
New York Mets
1995
Darin Erstad ***
California Angels
1996
Kris Benson
Pittsburgh Pirates
1997
Matt Anderson
Detroit Tigers
1998
Pat Burrell
Philadelphia Phillies
1999
Josh Hamilton ***
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2000
Adrian Gonzalez ***
Florida Marlins
2001
Joe Mauer ***
Minnesota Twins
2002
Bryan Bullington
Pittsburgh Pirates
2003
Delmon Young
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2004
Matt Bush
San Diego Padres
2005
Justin Upton ***
Arizona Diamondbacks
2006
Luke Hochevar
Kansas City Royals
2007
David Price ***
Tampa Bay Rays
2008
Tim Beckham
Tampa Bay Rays
2009
Stephen Strasburg ***
Washington Nationals
2010
Bryce Harper៛ *** ##
Washington Nationals
2011
Gerrit Cole
Pittsburgh Pirates
2012
Carlos Correa ##
Houston Astros

# denotes player never played in the Majors
## denotes Rookie of the Year
*** denotes All-Star

 

[KBisBack!]

And believing this means you know nothing about what the Rays have done time and time again for the past dozen years. They get as much value as they can out of players and then trade them away when they get too expensive. If they get a decent player in return it is a bonus, as the main objective is to dump salary. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't true and isn't happening.

And none of this means anything towards who ends up getting the better of the deal.

You keep saying it boils down to if the Royals can extend Shield and then go off rambling about the Rays dumping salary.

You are grasping at straws and coming up with nothing.

Not a strawman at all. It is just another example to prove the Rays track record of trading away players with increasing salaries for prospects. If the prospects pan out, great, but the main point of the trades with the Rays is dumping salary!

Sure they are trying to dump salary but they also need to get some return on the trade as well.

They could have traded Shields to many, many teams, so the goal was also to get productive players in return also.

Doesn't overshadow shit. Just goes to prove that he has been a more valuable relief pitcher than SP. It happens.

Dumb

And that is complete speculation. Casey Coleman has been an abysmal SP for the Cubs. Granted, he wasn't drafted #1 overall; but if he is an effective RP, I could care less where he was drafted. If Mark Prior came back to the Cubs today and proved to be an effective RP, I couldn't care less where he was drafted. But you go ahead and try to tell me what I would think, or what other people on this board would think.

Most smart baseball people see Hochevar as a complete bust as the #1 overall pick.

Doesn't matter that he seems to be finding some success as a middle reliever, it is a tremendously bad pick. End of story.

Their payroll in that time period increased by Gil Meche. That's it. But this could explain why the Royals payroll went from 59M in 2008 to over 70M in 2009:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/season-preview/2010/269597.html

Revenue-sharing money comes from two pools. One is central fund revenue, which comes from national television and radio deals, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, merchandise sales and the newly formed MLB Network. Each of the 30 clubs got a check for about $30 million in 2009 through this arrangement.

The other pool is the one that has created tension between small- and large-revenue clubs, as it is the one that transfers money between franchises. This pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31 percent, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs. (The only exception comes if a club happens to be in the midst of stadium construction, which temporarily relieves a portion of its local-revenue obligation.)

So, the Royals got a revenue sharing check for 30M in 2009 and increased their payroll by nearly 20M. Go figure. If you want to check the payroll:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/attend.shtml

I know exactly what I am talking about, sorry if it contradicts your opinions; but I am pretty sure that we can both say that neither of us is going to convince the other to change our preset opinions.

Doesn't matter who they increased the payroll with or why they increased payroll.

Strawman away, but the fact remains you claimed they hadn't increased payroll in that time frame and I corrected you with the facts that they did increase payroll at the exact time you were saying they hadn't.

I can agree with you that the Royals appear to have been parasites when it comes to hoarding money from their fans for several years. I also hope that you can agree that the Cubs, although having greater revenue streams while also having greater expenditures between payroll, stadium upkeep and revenue sharing dollars lost, have not fleeced it's fans quite the same way the Royals have.

No.

I would say the Cubs right now are fleecing it's fans in an even worse way than the Royals have.

The Royals have made no such claims as to how precious every season is.

They didn't preface every move they made or the Stadium renovation promising that this would result in a World Series Championship.

They haven't consistently had one of the top five ticket prices while fielding a shit product on the field. Yeah Royals fans know the team is going to suck, but at least they pay below average tickets prices to see a bad team. Not top 3 ticket prices like the Cubs are still charging while cutting the payroll by a third.

The Ricketts are making far more money than the Glass family is.

 

[KBisBack!]

I would much rather a drafted player supply some value out of the pen rather than keep them as a SP where they have continuously failed.

Of course you would rather still get some value out of the pick.

That doesn't make the pick a good one though.

That is like saying that the Chargers would have done OK in drafting Ryan Leaf #2 overall cause he ended up being the placeholder on FG's and XP's.

Dumb.

 

[KBisBack!]

Rick Ankiel was a failed pitcher. The Cardinals, rather than just writing him off completely, moved him to OF and he was able to eventually provide some value to their team.

Great.

But I am sure if you asked the Cardinals organization or any Cardinals fan and they would tell you that it ended up being a bad second round pick.

 

[Boobaby1]

Of course you would rather still get some value out of the pick.

That doesn't make the pick a good one though.

That is like saying that the Chargers would have done OK in drafting Ryan Leaf #2 overall cause he ended up being the placeholder on FG's and XP's.

Dumb.

Ryan Leaf......Good one!

Every time I hear that name I laugh, but of course I do the same thing when I hear the name Ian Stewart too. :lmao: