Nobody likes The Moose?

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by nickha2

No he will be up trust me. Shaw will just platoon. This was the whole reason they only signed Moose to a 1 year because shaw has better power numbers and will move back to 3rd next year and Keston will be the starting 2B.

Then why would they platoon Shaw this year? So he goes from a starterx , to platoon and back and in the meantime have a lessor player getting all the ABs at 3rd?

Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by Brewers3

Orrrrrr he hits .280 like rookie season and it definitely is

His ops+ was 89 in 17. He was not good.

[nickha2]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Then why would they platoon Shaw this year? So he goes from a starterx , to platoon and back and in the meantime have a lessor player getting all the ABs at 3rd?

Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

He is not going to go to platoon untill probably august-september. Yes it does make sense.

[base set]

Moose is back cuz Shaw at 2nd is better than their other options at 2B

[Brewers3]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

His ops+ was 89 in 17. He was not good.

Who cares. I’d take a .280 average over .210 all day. Just has to be better doesn’t have to be an above average hitter at the bottom of the order. It’d be nice though.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by VeedonFleece

That option was there for this year but Moustakas declined his end - it's possible the Brewers may have declined their option and he pre-empted this.

Still, you have to question the advice he's been given. He turned down the $17.4m qualifying offer in '17, then obviously declined the option for '19 - that's 32.4 million over two years. He ended up taking $5.5 for '18, and received $1m in a buyout when he declined the option for '19. So, instead of $32.4m for two years, he's ended up with $16.5m. I'm sure he's not hurting for cash but that's a lot of dough he's passed up.

You can't fault a guy for wanting to test the market when he finally reaches free agency, the so-called reward for being underpaid for years leading up to it. He just had the misfortune of having his free agency correspond with the offseasons where everybody *COINCIDENTALLY* decided it was smarter to not spend in free agency. It just sucks for guys like him that are caught in the middle of this timeline. Hopefully they'll get a cut of the collusion settlements that are sure to come in the near future.

[nickha2]

Originally Posted by RossOK

You can't fault a guy for wanting to test the market when he finally reaches free agency, the so-called reward for being underpaid for years leading up to it. He just had the misfortune of having his free agency correspond with the offseasons where everybody *COINCIDENTALLY* decided it was smarter to not spend in free agency. It just sucks for guys like him that are caught in the middle of this timeline. Hopefully they'll get a cut of the collusion settlements that are sure to come in the near future.

There is no collusion at all here. This is a matter of players wanting long contracts and the owners saying no. There are many examples of players getting 7 year deals and it crippling the team for years. This way with shorter contracts you can rebuild faster in the event a team doesn't do as well as projected.

On what planet is a guy going to get a 7 years 300M contract.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by nickha2

There is no collusion at all here. This is a matter of players wanting long contracts and the owners saying no. There are many examples of players getting 7 year deals and it crippling the team for years. This way with shorter contracts you can rebuild faster in the event a team doesn't do as well as projected.

On what planet is a guy going to get a 7 years 300M contract.

Crippling by whose standards? I forget, how many losing seasons have the Yankees had since the Ellsbury signing? Or the Dodgers after signing Adrian Gonzalez? How about the Red Sox since signing Pablo Sandoval?

And nobody thinks a guy like Moustakas is asking for 7/$300M. But surely something like 3/$40 is more than workable for several teams. For not even one to offer something along those lines is rather suspicious.

[purejd86p]

The guy is set for life!

[Hollywood42]

Well yeah.... the 3 teams with the most money to spend can stomach bad contracts. How about the rest of the league? Some teams, sure, others it would definitely have a terrible effect

Originally Posted by RossOK

Crippling by whose standards? I forget, how many losing seasons have the Yankees had since the Ellsbury signing? Or the Dodgers after signing Adrian Gonzalez? How about the Red Sox since signing Pablo Sandoval?

Were there any teams last offseason (or this one, really) in a the market for a decent 3B? These collusion claims are kinda off base, IMO

Originally Posted by RossOK

And nobody thinks a guy like Moustakas is asking for 7/$300M. But surely something like 3/$40 is more than workable for several teams. For not even one to offer something along those lines is rather suspicious.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by nickha2

There is no collusion at all here. This is a matter of players wanting long contracts and the owners saying no. There are many examples of players getting 7 year deals and it crippling the team for years. This way with shorter contracts you can rebuild faster in the event a team doesn't do as well as projected.

On what planet is a guy going to get a 7 years 300M contract.

Bingo. I'll take my team, the Giants, far example:

After the 2014 season, we declined Pablo Sandoval's contract demands, and the Red Sox signed him to a 5/90 deal, for which they got -2.1 WAR.

After the 2015 season the Giants signed Jeff Samardzjia to a 5/90 deal. So far they've gotten 4.5 WAR for $50.4 million.

After the 2015 season the Giants also signed Johnny Cueto to a 6/130 deal with an opt-out after two seasons. Of course, Cueto got injured towards the end of his second season, logically decided not to opt-out, struggled through the early part of 2018 before having to have TJ surgery and missing the entire 2019 season. By the end of this year, the Giants will have paid $81.3 million for 8.3 WAR.

Then there is Mark Melancon, who the Giants signed in a panic after their 2016 season ended with a bullpen meltdown in Game 4 of the NLDS against the Cubs. So far he's rewarded the Giants with a whopping 0.2 WAR for his $29 million.

And don't get me started on Barry Zito's deal, during which he was paid $119 million, and earned 2 WAR.

So someone please explain why signing players to expensive long-term deals is a good idea????

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by msink28

He had 2.5 WAR last year, not 0.4. 0.4 was for his sample with the Brewers. It is a nice value play for Milwaukee, much like the Grandal signing.

What's Mike's WPA in his Post Season career? It's .20

How is the lifetime WPA for these WAR heroes in the regular season compared to when nearly every opportunity in the Post Season is critical? Top 3 in MVP vote last season and their lifetime career WPA.

Mike Trout : -15
Mookie Betts : -57
Jose Ramirez : -70

Many players can produce in Low Leverage opportunities but give me the Late & Close, High Leverage, Post Season players who don't go Houdini on their team.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Well yeah.... the 3 teams with the most money to spend can stomach bad contracts. How about the rest of the league? Some teams, sure, others it would definitely have a terrible effect

Were there any teams last offseason (or this one, really) in a the market for a decent 3B? These collusion claims are kinda off base, IMO

I'm sure the Phillies would've been much happier with Moustakas at third instead of Maikel Franco.

Originally Posted by mfw13

Bingo. I'll take my team, the Giants, far example:

After the 2014 season, we declined Pablo Sandoval's contract demands, and the Red Sox signed him to a 5/90 deal, for which they got -2.1 WAR.

After the 2015 season the Giants signed Jeff Samardzjia to a 5/90 deal. So far they've gotten 4.5 WAR for $50.4 million.

After the 2015 season the Giants also signed Johnny Cueto to a 6/130 deal with an opt-out after two seasons. Of course, Cueto got injured towards the end of his second season, logically decided not to opt-out, struggled through the early part of 2018 before having to have TJ surgery and missing the entire 2019 season. By the end of this year, the Giants will have paid $81.3 million for 8.3 WAR.

Then there is Mark Melancon, who the Giants signed in a panic after their 2016 season ended with a bullpen meltdown in Game 4 of the NLDS against the Cubs. So far he's rewarded the Giants with a whopping 0.2 WAR for his $29 million.

And don't get me started on Barry Zito's deal, during which he was paid $119 million, and earned 2 WAR.

So someone please explain why signing players to expensive long-term deals is a good idea????

Because that is (was) the going rate for free agents, back when teams were competing with each other to actually, ya know, compete. The Giants didn't serve up those contracts just because they're really nice people. That's what it took for them to sign those guys as they were fielding offers from other teams. But now, all of a sudden, every single team just happens to have the exact same mindset and gameplan when it comes to roster construction? Nothing suspicious there. A majority of teams are tens of millions below the CBT, so the only thing keeping them from spending money on free agents is their own stinginess.

All of this is set against the backdrop of record-breaking revenues, which makes the whole "crippling franchises" argument even more laughable.

Also, the fact that the Giants were able to win three championships (2 with him) while working with Zito's contract shows longterm contracts aren't the albatrosses a lot of you seem to think they are. Plus, they wouldn't have won in 2012 WITHOUT Zito.

[Stifle]

WPA in Post Season for F. Lindor -10, N. Arenado -21, Yelich -.08

It's not easy producing in the Post Season.

[Stech36]

Originally Posted by Stifle

What's Mike's WPA in his Post Season career? It's .20

How is the lifetime WPA for these WAR heroes in the regular season compared to when nearly every opportunity in the Post Season is critical? Top 3 in MVP vote last season and their lifetime career WPA.

Mike Trout : -15
Mookie Betts : -57
Jose Ramirez : -70

Many players can produce in Low Leverage opportunities but give me the Late & Close, High Leverage, Post Season players who don't go Houdini on their team.

I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers. mike Trouts Career WPA is 39.23

Edit, oh in the postseason. It’s -.15 for Trout. In 3 games lol

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by Stech36

I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers. mike Trouts Career WPA is 39.23

Edit, oh in the postseason. It’s -.15 for Trout. In 3 games lol

His most important 3 games of his career, I believe you forgot to mention that.

[Hollywood42]

Franco's track record is iffy, but he did almost exactly what Moustakas did offensively last year

Originally Posted by RossOK

I'm sure the Phillies would've been much happier with Moustakas at third instead of Maikel Franco.

[Stech36]

Originally Posted by Stifle

His most important 3 games of his career, I believe you forgot to mention that.

You can not make an argument that Trout is good or bad in the post season based on 3 games 5 years ago

[Blue_Devil]

Originally Posted by nickha2

If and its a big if arcia can hit around .240-.250 they might have the best offense in the National League.

Or somewhere around 7th in the American League.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by Stech36

You can not make an argument that Trout is good or bad in the post season based on 3 games 5 years ago

Ted Williams had to be critiqued a lifetime for his only Post Season series. Williams had only seen the shift a previous time for 2 games and after a hit in the first at bat in the third game it was done away with before that World Series.

Maybe if Trout would have performed better than he wouldn't have only been critiqued for just 3 games. Please ask if this might not be true! Same can be said for Votto : -34.

J. Baez .40 Impressive !

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by Brewers3

Who cares. I’d take a .280 average over .210 all day. Just has to be better doesn’t have to be an above average hitter at the bottom of the order. It’d be nice though.

Well I mean that’s how you compare him to the other hitters in the league so I think it’s kind of valuable to know it’s 11% worse then the average hitter.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by nickha2

He is not going to go to platoon untill probably august-september. Yes it does make sense.

No it really doesn’t.

So come August if he is performing at an all star level they are going to platoon him with a rookie and play everyday a player who hasn’t been as good for two years?

I’m not sure how that makes sense

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Franco's track record is iffy, but he did almost exactly what Moustakas did offensively last year

Emphasis on "offensively." Anyway, following Franco's 2017, the Phillies should have been looking towards Moustakas on at least a 2-year deal, probably 3 since they took a step earlier than expected last year.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by nickha2

There is no collusion at all here. This is a matter of players wanting long contracts and the owners saying no. There are many examples of players getting 7 year deals and it crippling the team for years. This way with shorter contracts you can rebuild faster in the event a team doesn't do as well as projected.

On what planet is a guy going to get a 7 years 300M contract.

Crippling? “Many examples”? Can we name some? Not saying there aren’t but it would be nice to know more

[Brewers3]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Well I mean that’s how you compare him to the other hitters in the league so I think it’s kind of valuable to know it’s 11% worse then the average hitter.

You're clearly missing my point.

Can't wait to start the smack talk with Cardinals and Cubs fans this season again.