07-16-2010, 09:11 AM
<!--quoteo(post=105742:date=Jul 16 2010, 01:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jul 16 2010, 01:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm going to have to disagree with that.
If you're taking the tact of saying that ballplayers have no right to claim to be "worth" $18,000,000 per annum for playing a child's game, while nurses who are actually saving people's lives would take <i>500 years</i> to make that much, then yes, I agree with you.
But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs. When A-Rod signed, it was a shocking amount of cash, but a 26 year-old Gold Glove SS who runs really well and hits 50+ HR a year? I'd say that there is some value there (although I'm sure you'd <i>agree</i>, so we may be disagreeing along semantical lines.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's saying over the course of the contract. A-Rod for instance is eventually going to stop producing. When we look back at the end of his contract, we all know he will not have earned his contract. BT was speaking of Pujols in terms of his next contract. We all know Pujols is going to get paid. By the end of his next contract though, I would put money on him not living up to the amount he signs for. But, that's what the market dictates.
The Cubs didn't look at Fukudome and think "This guy will produce ABC, so he deserves to get paid $XYX." The Cubs looked at Fukudome, got a feel for what other teams might try to pay him, and tried to present the most attractive offer to him. If you don't present a worthy offer, you don't get the free agent. If you disagreed with getting Fukudome in the first place, that's a different argument. If you disagree with the amount, BT is saying if the Cubs didn't pay what they paid, there's a good chance they would not have landed him.
If you're taking the tact of saying that ballplayers have no right to claim to be "worth" $18,000,000 per annum for playing a child's game, while nurses who are actually saving people's lives would take <i>500 years</i> to make that much, then yes, I agree with you.
But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs. When A-Rod signed, it was a shocking amount of cash, but a 26 year-old Gold Glove SS who runs really well and hits 50+ HR a year? I'd say that there is some value there (although I'm sure you'd <i>agree</i>, so we may be disagreeing along semantical lines.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's saying over the course of the contract. A-Rod for instance is eventually going to stop producing. When we look back at the end of his contract, we all know he will not have earned his contract. BT was speaking of Pujols in terms of his next contract. We all know Pujols is going to get paid. By the end of his next contract though, I would put money on him not living up to the amount he signs for. But, that's what the market dictates.
The Cubs didn't look at Fukudome and think "This guy will produce ABC, so he deserves to get paid $XYX." The Cubs looked at Fukudome, got a feel for what other teams might try to pay him, and tried to present the most attractive offer to him. If you don't present a worthy offer, you don't get the free agent. If you disagreed with getting Fukudome in the first place, that's a different argument. If you disagree with the amount, BT is saying if the Cubs didn't pay what they paid, there's a good chance they would not have landed him.