Wow.
Sea Speed said:
Thirty years?
Sea Speed said:
Yea that is the huuuuge exception not the rule
Yeah, that's why it's a hypothetical. It's a smaller amount so you can build around him. If he has a solid 8+ years and you win a couple WS, is it worth it to still pay him for another 20 after he's retired? But it's not really enough that you can't absorb it in those years, either.Sea Speed said:
Yea that is the huuuuge exception not the rule
do they make aging pros climb **** when they can't hit anymore?htxag09 said:
Nah, he'll be healthy for more than 3. I feel like people over exaggerate the injury proneness of him. It is an absolutely terrible contract that'll drag them down the last several years, though. And I love that.
Brings me to a hypothetical, say you have a guy like judge. What if the Astros offered him 30 years at 12 mil? Think that's a good deal for the Astros? Thought process being you can absorb that 12 mil in the future and won't hurt you as much as 30+ the ladder years of his contract.
I said it was a moot point as I don't see any baseball player taking that kind of contract. They have the competitiveness to be paid the highest per year and they want the money now.
Texaggie7nine said:
What if the owner looks at it like "I'm willing to pay you $50+ mil a year these next 2/3 years, but I'm not willing to take the cap penalty due to the other big salaries that I'm paying, so I'm going to spread it out over several years.
Texaggie7nine said:
What if the owner looks at it like "I'm willing to pay you $50+ mil a year these next 2/3 years, but I'm not willing to take the cap penalty due to the other big salaries that I'm paying, so I'm going to spread it out over several years.
But what if you can afford to. Just be a never ending money printer. I mean, the old Yankee's way of doing business worked out if you are paying the right people.txags92 said:Texaggie7nine said:
What if the owner looks at it like "I'm willing to pay you $50+ mil a year these next 2/3 years, but I'm not willing to take the cap penalty due to the other big salaries that I'm paying, so I'm going to spread it out over several years.
Sounds like a great way to make sure you are never a dynasty and won't be able to afford to pay promising newcomers you want to keep. Good if you want a few good years, but not the way to build a long term powerhouse team IMO.
Diggity said:do they make aging pros climb **** when they can't hit anymore?htxag09 said:
Nah, he'll be healthy for more than 3. I feel like people over exaggerate the injury proneness of him. It is an absolutely terrible contract that'll drag them down the last several years, though. And I love that.
Brings me to a hypothetical, say you have a guy like judge. What if the Astros offered him 30 years at 12 mil? Think that's a good deal for the Astros? Thought process being you can absorb that 12 mil in the future and won't hurt you as much as 30+ the ladder years of his contract.
I said it was a moot point as I don't see any baseball player taking that kind of contract. They have the competitiveness to be paid the highest per year and they want the money now.
Bondag said:Sea Speed said:
Thirty years?
Bobby Bonilla says Hi
The giants don't strike me as the kind of franchise to be a money printing machine.Texaggie7nine said:But what if you can afford to. Just be a never ending money printer. I mean, the old Yankee's way of doing business worked out if you are paying the right people.txags92 said:Texaggie7nine said:
What if the owner looks at it like "I'm willing to pay you $50+ mil a year these next 2/3 years, but I'm not willing to take the cap penalty due to the other big salaries that I'm paying, so I'm going to spread it out over several years.
Sounds like a great way to make sure you are never a dynasty and won't be able to afford to pay promising newcomers you want to keep. Good if you want a few good years, but not the way to build a long term powerhouse team IMO.