Moore is signed for 5 years plus 3 option years, so it gives us some idea of a baseline. The contract is for 5/$11 with a max of 8/$37 (with some conditions which will increase that a little bit based on durability).

Now that is heavily artificially deflated by the fact that he is under Tampa's control for 6 years. The two FA year options are for $9 and $10 M. So if they had to pay him "fairly" early, we might guesstimate something like 8/$80. More likely something like 6/$60 with 2 option years at $15 each.

Now that is artificially deflated by the fact that he can only negotiate with one team. So 6/$60 becomes ... 6/$80? with two options at $18-20?

Anyway, yes, the numbers start to get up to Darvish like totals I think. Really the only difference between him and Darvish is (a) what do you think of NPB vs. minor-leagues and (b) what do you think of the fact Darvish has tossed a good number of innings already (could be positive, could be negative). MLB tends to reward established success so I'm guessing Darvish would do better. So I'll stick with the 6/$80 guesstimate. Of course Darvish's 6/$100 is artificially deflated under the same system.

I'm not clear on the conditions of Cespedes' contract. Someone here suggested it's agreed he will not be under the arbitration system but I can't imagine why not -- that's outside of contract negotiation I would have thought. He might have an agreement that the A's will non-tender him after 4 years but if you don't have 6 years service time, you are subject to arbitration until you do -- as far as I know. Anyway, that would make Cespedes' contract deflated as well although he was able to negotiate with all teams. I'm honestly not sure 4/$36 for him is all that good of a deal but, outside the arb system, I can't say it wouldn't have gotten to 4/$48 or something.

I suspect teams would rather have Harper or Trout than Cespedes. Obviously I'd want more info that my amateur eyes (and I haven't seen either enough) but if I believe the hype, I'd be pretty comfy with 8/$100 which I'm not sure would get it done.

It is interesting because it's the opposite of the typical FA situation. Usually you are paying for short-term production, willing to live with decline on the backside. Here you're willing to live with under-production on the front-end in hopes of star production on the back-end.

these kind of once in a generation talents?

There are three of them.

There are three of them.

Awesome. Maybe he means once in each of their individual family's generations. I'd bet thar Mike Trout is a better baseball player than his siblings and cousins, assuming he has any.

Ask Matt Welch about that, Shredder. Last September I went to two of the 3 O's-Angels games. Matt went to all three. The game I missed, Matt was sitting next to the extended Trout family.

I don't think we'll ever see once-in-a-generation talents like Matt Wieters, Jason Heyward, and Buster Posey again in our lifetimes.

I think Harper is probably a once-in-a-generation hitting prospect. Trout clearly isn't as he's behind Harper and Moore is not anywhere near the prospect Strasburg was 2 years ago.

I think Harper is probably a once-in-a-generation hitting prospect. Trout clearly isn't as he's behind Harper and Moore is not anywhere near the prospect Strasburg was 2 years ago.

Oddly I think that Trout will have a better career than Harper and Moore a better one than Strasburg.

If I had Mike Trout, I wouldn't trade him straight-up for Bryce Harper.

I think I'd take Trout over more Harper or Moore, too.

Maybe Harper has a better chance to be legendary, but for every Stanton, there's a couple Pat Burrells and for every couple Pat Burrells, there's a gaggle of Delmon Youngs and Ben Grieves...and so on...

If Trout doesn't reach his offensive ceiling, I think the fact that he ought to be a pretty stellar CF lessens the risk.

If I had Mike Trout, I wouldn't trade him straight-up for Bryce Harper.

Serious question: if you had Bryce Harper, would you trade him straight-up for Mike Trout?

Serious question: if you had Bryce Harper, would you trade him straight-up for Mike Trout?


Yes. Harper may be a phenom, but so's Trout and the latter's ability to play at least a solid centerfield reduces the downside.

[Edit: Coke to zonk]

Oddly I think that Trout will have a better career than Harper and Moore a better one than Strasburg.

I kind of agree, because I think Stra is gonna get hurt again.

But if he stays healthy, I think Strsburg is going to be one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Serious question: if you had Bryce Harper, would you trade him straight-up for Mike Trout?

I thought the same question. I probably don't trade either guy for the other one.

I thought the same question. I probably don't trade either guy for the other one

Assuming they're almost equal players, it would probably be in their real team's best interests to swap them. The Angels have the best defensive center fielder in baseball already, while the Nats have two guys locked in at the corners.

I was thinking risk aversion as a GM - you don't want to be the guy who traded the better one way.

Assuming they're almost equal players, it would probably be in their real team's best interests to swap them. The Angels have the best defensive center fielder in baseball already, while the Nats have two guys locked in at the corners.

Actually - that's a real good point. The risk that D-K notes for both GMs means it would probably never happen, but it would certainly make a good deal of sense for both rosters.... Not that it's a bad thing to have too many quality defensive OFers if they can all ht enough to play... So I suppose I'd still try to get the Nats to sweeten the pot, they'd laugh, and nothing would get done anyway.