[ad_1]
In the past two seasons, one of my tasks has been talking to Giants fans on their team. It's … two difficult years. Once you have passed, "My boy, they are really ugly", followed by five seconds of uncomfortable silence, the conversation needs fuel. That's why I spent a lot of time talking about the possibility of Bryce Harper signing with the Giants, which naturally provokes strong reactions.
One of the lines I have read or heard on many occasions was that the giants had to avoid Harper and start a complete rebuilding. It was a constant refrain, and the idea of restoring and spending money was presented as being directly opposite. Do not sign Harper. Rebuild! Do not spend more money. Rebuild!
My friends, if I have one lesson to learn from this off season, is that the reconstruction teams have the more reasons to mess with players like Bryce Harper or Manny Machado. Do not laugh at bad teams looking to spend big for young superstars. Encourage them. Because not only they try, but they place themselves in a better position to win if the pendulum returns in their favor.
The Giants may be a bad example because there are legitimate reasons not to sign Harper. Any investment in a left-handed batter who is not Barry Bonds could be a waste in AT & T Park. With Harper, they could have the highest payroll in baseball and still be ugly. They have all kinds of huge deals with players in their thirties, most of whom will probably not be All-Stars in 2019. That is, they can even contribute beyond Instagram.
But let's take the White Sox, for example. Jon Morosi reports that the White Sox are considering both Harper and Machado, which means they would agree to pay two players – for a decade or more – about as much as A's complete list made in 2018. That's a scary idea! And there were more than a few people on Twitter and various discussion forums who hated the plan or chuckled at the futility of it. The concern was simple enough to explain:
Why now? The White Sox are awful. They have lost 100 games. With Harper and Machado, they could lose 85 if all goes well.
It's not false. Slap Harper and Machado in any bad team, and they will probably always be bad. Just … less. One or two players can not bring a historically horrible playoff team because that's not how baseball works.
But the White Sox have a robust farming system and, here, we think we'll be good in the future. Let's say they sign Bryce Harper for 10 years.
In 2019, he will be 26 years old.
In 2020, he will be 27 years old.
In 2021, he will be 28 years old.
In 2022, he will be 29 years old.
None of us knows if the White Sox will fight for 2020, let alone for 2022. If the 2013 Astros can turn into the 2015 Astros, anything can happen in two years. Four years ago, the Cubs entered the off-season as a joke and the Orioles finished 25 games in front of the Red Sox. In four years, Harper and Machado will not even be 30 years old. There is a good chance that they will help all the teams during this period.
This brings us to the only reason why a team should not want Bryce Harper or Manny Machado, though. Ready? I am going to make it a bigger font for people at the back.
The only reason a team should not want Bryce Harper or Manny Machado is that their contracts make it impossible to buy players who improve this baseball team.
That's all. That's the reason. This is the only reason. And if you run a bad team, especially if you have a very low payroll, it does not really apply to you.
Here is an example: suppose that the Astros reduce the numbers and realize that to keep Jose Altuve, George Springer, Alex Bregman and Carlos Correa until 2022, they will have to pay (x) dollars. If they sign Harper for (y) dollars, then (x + y) dollars would place them beyond a reasonable threshold and would hurt their ability to fill a list of 25 people. One of these players will have to go, and it is likely that Harper will be the worst of the five.
This is reasonable.
For the most part, however, bad teams do not have this problem. If they do not spend their money on Harper or Machado, they do not divide it into five reasonably priced autonomous agents that will exponentially improve the team. The free agent market is not built like that. A bad team could have spent $ 35 million against Wade Davis and Eric Hosmer last year. Or they could have spent that on Brandon Morrow, Lance Lynn, and Jay Bruce. Or they could have spent it on Jonathan Lucroy, Logan Morrison, Mitch Moreland, Steve Cishek, Welington Castillo and Joe Smith. There were a lot of ways to spend $ 35 million in the last off season.
I'm just not sure they're better than paying $ 35 million to Harper or Machado. Not if a crystal ball or a time machine is involved.
This is explained by the fact that free agents are historically terrible bets, most teams regretting their decision just a year later. Look at the last season, for example. J.D. Martinez and Lorenzo Cain have been absolute successes, but there are so many instant regrets.
So let's change this truism, then. Free agents are historically terrible bets … unless you can recruit a talent from another world, 26 years old or younger.
Oh, oh yes, go ahead. Alex Rodriguez hit 424 home runs in the decade after leaving the Mariners in attack. He wins an average of seven victories a year. Vladimir Guerrero was not a good deal, but he certainly gave for their money. The Tigers poured ultra-star money to Miguel Cabrera to keep him close to him during his 20 years. He rewarded them with milestones and a pennant. Signing young players does not always work; the signature of young superstars usually does. The trick is to determine which young players qualify.
Harper and Machado are probably qualified. This is the mandatory list of players who have reached 150 or more circuits before turning 25. It's a list of players who could have improved the teams for years to come. More than half of the list are players who have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame, or whose numbers are the same but can not enter because of DEP links. And if you limit this list to players with a base percentage as high as Harper, the list becomes even more exclusive and impressive.
Bad teams should want these players to build around, anchor the alignment while everything else is tuned. They should want these players so that they do not feel obliged to share all their best hopes if they compete before the scheduled date (see: all the talents that the Astros and Brewers left during the last two seasons). They should want these players because they are like municipal bonds, almost guaranteed to retain some of their value, in a monotonous post-season bond wilderness, and they will keep the cost certainty as long as the total payroll is low and that recruits and young people are cheap.
Bad teams should want these players because no one wants to watch a team of shit. Let's go there. Make your teams less shitty, crappy teams.
Teams like the White Sox, with an agricultural system that should soon start spitting underpaid youth, should be interested. Teams like the Braves, with training already overburdened with underpaid young people, should absolutely to be interested. You can poll rich teams like the Red Sox, Cubs or Yankees and find out what their owners can afford (which is huge), but it's a bad idea for any financially solvent, low-paying team not to consider long-term superstar in his mid-twenties just because the current list is disgusting.
I'm talking to you, Orioles. I talk to you and I look in your eyes.
The worst scenario for a team like the Orioles, Royals, White Sox or Padres would be that Harper or Machado sign up for a lot of money and then decline as soon as the team fights, which prevent them from making the necessary upgrades. That's right, except that it suggests that Harper or Machado decline before turning 30, which is not predicted by a forecasting model, or that the team will not argue for at least five or six years old, which is a stupid approach for all team to take. Seriously, look at the difference between the 2013 and the 2015 Astros. It's worth it.
There are precedents and they are imperfect. Magglio Ordoñez signed with a Tigers team and was perfectly able to help them win a pennant a few years later. Jayson Werth looked like a boondoggle for a national team who had never done anything and he was there to help when they became perpetual contenders.
Harper and Machado are better than one or the other of these players. They will be there for a bad team that will suddenly be good.
When it comes to players who are 25 years old and have at least four appearances in the All Star (Harper has six), do not worry too much about the path your future will take. Just be aware that there is a good chance that these players will help a team win, probably a lot, over the next few years. Just know that it's hard not to stumble in a competitive season, especially with the help of these young superstars. And if it sounds like a custom painting job on a "75 Vega next year," do not worry too much. Next season will probably not be the last in baseball history.
Probably. You do not know if you opened a journal recently, but …
If this is not the case, then the bad teams should recruit the good, young and dear players. They should enjoy their success while the rest of the team buzzes around them. And when this team is ready to dominate, it should already have an All-Star.
Reconstruction and spending are not mutually exclusive. As for the bad teams with a low payroll, they are in fact very complementary.
[ad_2]
Source link
