Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Here’s why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper

Is Harper really better than Stanton?

9. They were just willing to do this with Stanton
The Cardinals, by all accounts, were willing to take on Stanton’s entire contract last offseason. Stanton is signed through 2027 for a total of $270 million, nearly $33 million a year (when you account for a $10 million buyout in ‘28). Stanton is (obviously) a great player. But is he better than Harper? Probably not, right? And then remember that Harper is two years younger. Harper might get more than $33 million, and it might be for longer than ‘27. But that’s still a better bet than Stanton, right? If they were willing to take Stanton, why in the world would they not go all the way for Harper?

Jim Furtado Posted: November 07, 2018 at 09:51 PM | 63 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bryce harper, cardinals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. The Duke Posted: November 07, 2018 at 10:11 PM (#5784039)
That is a well-written article. Can’t argue the points. Maybe it happens.

The Braves are the team for Harper. Pair him with Acuna. Add Albies and more pitching than the eye can see and he could be in the playoffs ever year for 10 years. The Braves are cheap but if you were ever going to make a bet, this would be the one to make.
   2. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 07, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5784041)
if you were ever going to make a bet, this would be the one to make.
...for a player who, 3 out of the last 5 years, has put up WAR of 1.5 or less (and 2 of those 3 in 145+ games)? This whole thing is getting insane.
   3. base ball chick Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:13 AM (#5784074)
i really don't get why on earth any team would give harper a 10 year contract. he's a guy who had one monster year and at age 26, can't stay on the field, and is already a lousy fielder, and is having trouble with the shift.

i think the hype is getting him the attention, when he has a whole lot of danger signals
   4. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:19 AM (#5784075)
If Harper gets $350MM, I will build a life-size statue of Boras, put it in my living room, and genuflect before it every day.
   5. Michael Paulionis Posted: November 08, 2018 at 01:54 AM (#5784082)
If Harper gets $350MM


That's a little vague. How about if he were to get it payed in installments of $1 million dollars a year for the next 350 years? That's how my boy Bobby Bo stays rich...because he's smart!

In all seriousness though, what would be the problem of a 15 year/$350 million contract for Harper? Do I think Boras would ask for/take it? No...because Harper at $23 million a season would be a price any team would gladly pay for Harper's 26-40. Do I need to remind baseball fans that Albert Pujols is being paid $28 million for his age 39 season, $29 million for his age 40 season, and a staggering $30 million for 41?

Now, $350 million over 5 years? Yeah, that'd be insane. Personally, I think he will sign for somewhere around 10 years/$350 million. Any agent could get that deal from either Philly, Washington, or LA. Both Machado and Harper will probably end up with contracts approaching that amount of money.
   6. Michael Paulionis Posted: November 08, 2018 at 02:27 AM (#5784083)
FTA:

Harper might get more than $33 million, and it might be for longer than '27.


Assuming, Leitch is trying to say $33 million/year from 2019-2027: That would be a 9 year deal for $297 million. Stanton is signed for the next 9 years and due to receive $270 million ($260million is 2019-2027 salaries+$10 million 2028 buyout). That would be a 9 year deal of $30 million/season. I guess he's trying to say: "Stanton is worth $30 million/season therefore Harper should be worth $33 million/season". I'd rather pay Stanton $30 million a year than Harper $33 million a year.

Plus, there's this reminder:
Miami Marlins to pay $30m to New York Yankees if Stanton does not opt out following 2020 season.

So really, New York (presumably St. Louis would have gotten a similar sweetener from Derek Jeter, too) is only paying Stanton $240 for his age 29-37 seasons. ~$26.67 million/season. Do I think St. Louis gets Harper for 9/$297 million? No. Because there will be teams willing to go higher. $33 million/year is bargain-basement-level for Harper. Repeating my previous statement "I'd rather pay Stanton $30 million a year than Harper $33 million a year." Well, I'd definitely rather pay Stanton $27 million/year than Harper $35-$40 million/year. If Leitch were trying to be genuine, he'd stop trying to work this out in his head and remind St. Louisians how the world works in reality. Going after Stanton was a smart idea, because it was a smart idea. You know what was a better idea? Trading for his teammate. You know what was the best idea? Trading for his other teammate.
   7. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:19 AM (#5784084)
Stanton is (obviously) a great player. But is he better than Harper? Probably not, right?

Err, yes?

I would take Stanton post-2017 over Harper post-2018 straight up pretty comfortably.
   8. Blastin Posted: November 08, 2018 at 06:23 AM (#5784090)
can't stay on the field


Sometimes, sure, but he played 159 this past year.
   9. Blastin Posted: November 08, 2018 at 06:41 AM (#5784091)
I would take Stanton post-2017 over Harper post-2018 straight up pretty comfortably.


"Bad, injured hamstring Stanton" was a fine, 3.5 WAR player this past year.

   10. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2018 at 08:00 AM (#5784102)
For the same reason you don’t pay Jason heyward tens of millions for defense, you don’t ignore Harper because of defensive WAR. His OPS averaged .900 through age 25. Most players are just getting started at that age. He’s not played 162 games a season but he’s mostly played a lot. He is walking a ton.

His Inception to date totals to me look mostly like a floor which you should be happy to pay for. He has shown he can do 10 WAR so plenty of upside plus he is a marketing machine.

He’s going to get a really big contract
   11. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 08:50 AM (#5784117)
I'm inclined to think #10 is right. Mostly because it only takes two teams that think #10 is right to make it so.
   12. PreservedFish Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:15 AM (#5784130)
Has anyone noticed that Harper looks a lot better by Fangraphs? 3.5 WAR last year!

BR has his three shitty years totaling 3.9 WAR, but Fangraphs has them totaling 8.1 WAR. Significant difference. A guy that is still worth 3 WAR in his slump years is pretty good. (And I'm doubtful about last year's D numbers)

I'm inclined to think that he'll be a stud. I wouldn't want to lay out $300M to find out, personally, but I wouldn't expect a bunch of 1.5 WAR years in the future.
   13. jmurph Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5784131)
I have no idea how much this kind of thing matters but I also get the sense that Harper is among the... 5ish biggest stars in baseball? I've seen actual Bryce Harper commercials, is what I'm saying, and I'm not sure I've seen very many other active baseball players in commercials. That's not a factor for GMs, presumably, but might help the Boras-ownership level discussions.
   14. Ziggy's screen name Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5784137)
the Boras-ownership level discussions.


Not to be underestimated. The people with the checkbooks aren't baseball people.
   15. PreservedFish Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5784148)
Absolutely. At this level, the GM is likely just asked to prepare a report on the matter, and possibly isn't even in the room when the final decision is made.
   16. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5784149)
A guy that is still worth 3 WAR in his slump years is pretty good. (And I'm doubtful about last year's D numbers)


But those wouldn't be his slump years. They're just who he is, save one outlier season.


   17. PreservedFish Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:45 AM (#5784163)
Steamer has him projected for 4.9 WAR. I think that's reasonable. That's who he is.
   18. BrianBrianson Posted: November 08, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5784169)
If you only consider his bad years, of course Harper looks bad.

If you only consider his good years, he looks unfathomably good.

If you look at them all - well, he's averaged 4 WAR/year since age 19. That's ... a lot of upside, but a 10+ year contract is a lot of downside.
   19. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 08, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5784195)
Bill James once said that the best predictor of a player's next season is his career record. After all his ups and downs, Harper is at .279/.388/.512 for a 139 OPS+. That's not an MVP, but it is a perennial All-Star.

I'll say this: I'd be thrilled if the Rockies signed him. His worst-case scenario is basically what Carlos Gonzalez has been giving them in right field the past few years; his upside is one of the best players in the game.
   20. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5784220)

If you only consider his good year, he looks unfathomably good
.

Changed that for you slightly. Obviously 4-5 WAR seasons are good and all, but not at all unfathomably good. Nor are they worth $30M a year for 10 years.
   21. base ball chick Posted: November 08, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5784262)
i can't think of ANY contract (except manny ramirez) that was longer than 6 years that was actually worth it
   22. BrianBrianson Posted: November 08, 2018 at 11:48 AM (#5784263)
Changed that for you slightly. Obviously 4-5 WAR seasons are good and all, but not at all unfathomably good. Nor are they worth $30M a year for 10 years.


Free agents are getting ~$8 million/WAR these days. So, yes, if he's 4-5 WAR/season, he's worth ~$30 million/year for 10 years (if you think he'll keep it up for 10 years, which ain't crazy, albeit is risky.
   23. BDC Posted: November 08, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5784271)
i can't think of ANY contract (except manny ramirez) that was longer than 6 years that was actually worth it


This being BBTF, I had to scour my brain and B-Ref for one :) Scott Rolen didn't seem to earn his money because he wasn't very durable, but he was very good, so even at the end of that contract Rolen was putting up 3-4 WAR in about 3/4-complete seasons for "only" $11-12M a year. Overall (I may not be adding this up exactly right) it looks like 8 years, $90M for 36 WAR. I don't know what WAR was going for in the '00s but it seems not terrible at first glance.
   24. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5784273)
If I were Bryce Harper, the Rockies are exactly the team I'd want to sign with, if they'll get within $30 million of what the Yankees offer.
   25. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5784275)
I don't know if BBC means just free agent contracts, but Jeter signed for 10/189 in 2001 and was definitely worth it.

e: Also Todd Helton got 9/141 that same offseason, and I don't think the Rockies had any complaints. So I assume she meant guys changing teams in free agency, specifically.
   26. PreservedFish Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5784278)
And of course there are plenty of players that could have signed 6 year contracts that would've been worthwhile. Bonds, Maddux, etc. Which is perfectly relevant, unless the theory is that the long contract itself causes the players to decline.
   27. BDC Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5784279)
I guess Rolen too was technically extended by the Cardinals rather than on the FA market, though I could be mis-stating the situation. In any case, the principle that the bad-idea long FA contracts outnumber the good ones holds water.

there are plenty of players that could have signed 6 year contracts that would've been worthwhile


Adrian Beltre initially signed for five with Texas, then with an option year and a 2-year extension played eight; all worth it.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5784281)
i can't think of ANY contract (except manny ramirez) that was longer than 6 years that was actually worth it

ARod.
   29. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:13 PM (#5784282)
Matt Holliday’s long deal with cardinals worked out
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5784286)
i really don't get why on earth any team would give harper a 10 year contract. he's a guy who had one monster year and at age 26, can't stay on the field, and is already a lousy fielder, and is having trouble with the shift.

Cross posting from the other Harper thread:

He's got a 140 OPS+ through age 25, with 175-190 upside. Manny Ramirez was at 140 OPS+ through 25, so was Miguel Cabrera.

The idea is you can control an elite, elite bat through his entire prime. That's why you go 10 years. Even at 1B, a Ramirez/Cabrera bat plays as a HoFer.

I would love to see the Yankees sign Harper for 10/350 and stick him at 1B. I think he'd stay healthier and absolutely mash.

But, I wouldn't give the 10 years if he insists on an early opt-out.
   31. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5784304)
But, I wouldn't give the 10 years if he insists on an early opt-out.


I don't think it's even a question that the early opt-out will be non-negotiable.
   32. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5784316)
The best-case scenario is that Harper signs with the Rockies for ten years with a five-year opt-out, gives them five years of near-MVP quality, opts out, and signs a ten-year deal with the Yankees, who then get to ride out his long, slow, painful decline phase.
   33. BDC Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5784328)
The best-case scenario is that Harper signs with the Rockies for ten years with a five-year opt-out, gives them five years of near-MVP quality, opts out, and signs a ten-year deal with the Yankees, who then get to ride out his long, slow, painful decline phase


That is akin to my feeling about JD Martinez and the Red Sox last winter (minus the Schadenfreude subplot :) Some people were dismayed that Martinez could opt out after two years, but I thought (and still think) that that would be great for the Red Sox. He's had one outstanding year already, let him have another and then let someone else overpay for his decline.
   34. base ball chick Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5784329)
PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5784275)
I don't know if BBC means just free agent contracts, but Jeter signed for 10/189 in 2001 and was definitely worth it.

e: Also Todd Helton got 9/141 that same offseason, and I don't think the Rockies had any complaints. So I assume she meant guys changing teams in free agency, specifically.


- yes, i meant a free agent contract and not an extension with a contract already in place. otherwise i would say that albert pujols contract was the best of all time
   35. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5784330)
- yes, i meant a free agent contract and not an extension with a contract already in place. otherwise i would say that albert pujols contract was the best of all time


Manny's FA deal with Boston was for eight years, and we loved all but the last three months of it.

   36. base ball chick Posted: November 08, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5784331)
the original arod contract was worth it

rolen - not so much after the first 4

helton was an extension

matt holiday - ok, pretty good
   37. Nasty Nate Posted: November 08, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5784335)
That is akin to my feeling about JD Martinez and the Red Sox last winter (minus the Schadenfreude subplot :) Some people were dismayed that Martinez could opt out after two years, but I thought (and still think) that that would be great for the Red Sox. He's had one outstanding year already, let him have another and then let someone else overpay for his decline.
It's pretty likely that JD in 2020-2022 will be someone that the Red Sox would love to have on their team, even if it is his "decline." But yes, once the contract is finalized with the opt-outs, everyone (team, player, fans) hopes that he is good enough to use one.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 01:58 PM (#5784381)

I don't think it's even a question that the early opt-out will be non-negotiable.


Everything's negotiable.

No way I give someone a 10 year deal with a 3 year opt out, unless he takes a huge AAV discount.

If I'd pay Harper 10/350 with no opt-outs, I'd give him 10/250 with a 3 year opt-out, heavily backloaded.

An opt-out is particularly bad for the team with Harper because his talent level is so uncertain. Most of the value of the deal is in the 25% upside scenarios where he hits like Mickey Mantle for 6 or 7 years. Chopping 3 or 4 years off that potential with an opt-out drastically reduces the expected value of the contract to the team.
   39. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: November 08, 2018 at 02:12 PM (#5784393)
Yes, personally I agree completely. But it's something Harper and Boras will insist on, and while you and I will not accede to it, it's a smart bet that least 2 of the other 28 teams will. Most likely more than just two.

Inasmuch as I'm not willing to give him a 10 year contract with an early opt-out, and I'm also not willing to pay him $45M a year, we are forced to conclude that I will not be signing Bryce Harper. But someone out there will, and it will probably end up being a 10 year contract with an early opt-out. That's how free agency always ends up, for a star.

It always feels like there are two completely different discussions going on simultaneously: "What do I personally think this player is worth?" (my personal answer: about 10/320 if he's willing to be a DH, and more like 6/175 if he's not, with no opt-outs; more like 10/250 if there has to be an early opt-out) as opposed to "What contract is this player likely to get on the free market?" (my personal guess: around 10/320 with opt-outs after year 3 and year 6.)

And, again, that's how free agency works: if I don't value the player more highly than about 18 other guys (allowing for the fact the A's and Pirates and Indians and so forth can't afford him and won't be bidding) then I won't be signing him.
   40. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5784398)
Yes, personally I agree completely. But it's something Harper and Boras will insist on, and while you and I will not accede to it, it's a smart bet that least 2 of the other 28 teams will. Most likely more than just two.

Inasmuch as I'm not willing to give him a 10 year contract with an early opt-out, and I'm also not willing to pay him $45M a year, we are forced to conclude that I will not be signing Bryce Harper. But someone out there will, and it will probably end up being a 10 year contract with an early opt-out. That's how free agency always ends up, for a star.

It always feels like there are two completely different discussions going on simultaneously: "What do I personally think this player is worth?" (my personal answer: about 10/320 if he's willing to be a DH, and more like 6/175 if he's not, with no opt-outs; more like 10/250 if there has to be an early opt-out) as opposed to "What contract is this player likely to get on the free market?" (my personal guess: around 10/320 with opt-outs after year 3 and year 6.)


I think the big difference is the principal agent problem. We're thinking like fans which value all of the next 10 years of our team roughly equally. FWIW, ownership should probably think this way too, unless they're really old.

The front office on the other hand cares massively more about the next 3 years than the last 3, because success now gets them a fat contract extension, or a better job, while failure gets them fired.
   41. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 08, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5784410)
If I'd pay Harper 10/350 with no opt-outs, I'd give him 10/250 with a 3 year opt-out, heavily backloaded.

An opt-out is particularly bad for the team with Harper because his talent level is so uncertain. Most of the value of the deal is in the 25% upside scenarios where he hits like Mickey Mantle for 6 or 7 years. Chopping 3 or 4 years off that potential with an opt-out drastically reduces the expected value of the contract to the team.


I don't understand this. You'd rather give Harper 10/350 than 4/140? If Harper came to you asking for a four-year contract, you'd insist on adding more years to it?
   42. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5784415)
I don't understand this. You'd rather give Harper 10/350 than 4/140? If Harper came to you asking for a four-year contract, you'd insist on adding more years to it?

I don't think I said that. But, if I think Harper is an elite bat, than yes, I'd rather sign him for 10 years than 4, if I get a much lower AAV. I'd rather give him 10/350 than 4/180, or 6/250.

Signing Harper is betting on hit being a true talent 160 OPS+ hitter for the next 5-7 years. If he's that, you want him locked up for a long time while he's being value as a 140 OPS+ hitter.

Of course the opt out isn't just a shorter contract, it's only a shorter contract when you want it to be a longer contract.
   43. JL72 Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5784419)
FWIW, ownership should probably think this way too, unless they're really old.


We saw this evolve with the Tigers and Ilitch. In the beginning, although the team spent, it did so relatively smartly. But as Ilitich aged, they started to pass out some pretty big contracts (and trade away prospects), all in an effort to get a World Series ring before he passed. Sadly, they failed, and now have had to deal with the aftermath.
   44. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5784435)
I don't understand this. You'd rather give Harper 10/350 than 4/140? If Harper came to you asking for a four-year contract, you'd insist on adding more years to it?

Err, that is not how that works.

You only get the 4/140, if he in hindsight the 4/140 was a huge bargain. If Harper is coming off something like 25-30 WAR the previous 4 seasons, sure, I would (almost certainly) want the extra 6/210.

But if he is coming off 8 WAR? Well you are still on the hook for the 210 now.
   45. Nasty Nate Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5784436)
I don't understand this. You'd rather give Harper 10/350 than 4/140?
Your assumption with this question is that it would be 100% that he opts out after 4 years and walks away from 6/210. That's not a fair assumption for right now.
   46. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5784443)
The way I see it -

Every extra 50 million Harper gets is another step closer to "Jason Heyward: Not such a terrible deal after all".
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5784450)
The way I see it -

Every extra 50 million Harper gets is another step closer to "Jason Heyward: Not such a terrible deal after all".


Just because someone else burns their house down doesn't make your decision to set your car on fire any better.
   48. BDC Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5784453)
As PASTE suggests, these matters are all just bargaining chips and worth what the parties see them as.

I'm just inclined to think that if an early opt-out is worth something to the player, I'd (as a GM) happy to see him take it in lieu of money or years. If I'm in the market for a bazillion-dollar player, another one will come along after those couple of years to absorb the money I save on him, and if my bazillion-dollar player does sign for even more money with another club, he's likely to become a millstone to them.

It's sort of the Branch-Rickey "trade 'em a year too soon" theory translated to the 21st century. Since we've established that long contracts, even to great players, are often ill-advised, there's something to be said for getting the player himself to break that contract after you've gotten his prime out of him. So I would see the opt-out as something pretty harmless to concede if it otherwise saved me money.
   49. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5784457)
Your assumption with this question is that it would be 100% that he opts out after 4 years and walks away from 6/210. That's not a fair assumption for right now.


Actually, I'm not assuming that at all.
   50. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5784458)
Just because someone else burns their house down doesn't make your decision to set your car on fire any better.


The more people with smoldering houses and cars makes it look less bad, though... at least in world with just 30 houses and a few hundred cars.
   51. Nasty Nate Posted: November 08, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5784461)
Your assumption with this question is that it would be 100% that he opts out after 4 years and walks away from 6/210. That's not a fair assumption for right now.

Actually, I'm not assuming that at all.
OK, then what did you mean?

Teams aren't choosing between 10/350 and 4/140.
   52. cardsfanboy Posted: November 08, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5784484)
Just started to read this thread, starting with the article. The writer is arguing that the Cardinals plan of having a bunch of average to above average players at most positions really only works when there is one superstar to help out. Not a bad theory, I'm just not seeing Harper as that superstar.

The writer lists ten reasons, and not any of them are good reason.

1. the superstar factor? Again, he's not a superstar.
2. they would love him in St Louis..... not a reason to sign him.
3. He seems to be interested.....not a reason to sign him.
4. The defense would be fine.....okay... the defense would be fine without adding Harper also.... and give the team more financial flexibility to acquire a player at a position they actually need.
5. the media is kinder....not a reason to sign him
6. The Cardinals have postseason history....not a reason to sign him.
7. It's taking advantage of a Cubs weakness....not a reason to sign him.
8. They should have the money to spend.....not a reason to sign him.
9. They were willing to do this with Stanton....not a reason to sign him.
10. fans are getting restless....not a reason to sign him....


Basically he provided two half reasons to sign him, and gave about four reasons why Harper might want to play here. The reason to sign a player is that he fills in a gap at a position at a cost that improves the team and doesn't hurt the financials. Cardinals outfield of Ozuna, Bader and Martinez would be a good offensive lineup for next year and the difference between Harper and Martinez may not be a difference worth the price outlay. Yes it is going to be better with Harper(a 30 hr guy and a younger player) long term but again, it's not really sure it's going to be that much of an improvement, especially in comparison to getting Machado instead which would create a stronger lineup, by swapping out Gyorko for Machado and wouldn't create the potential clubhouse issue that is going to happen with having Fowler more or less relegated to a 4th/5th outfield spot.

I wouldn't be upset with signing Harper, just don't think it's the best move for the team.
   53. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5784498)
Machado is lazy and indifferent. Wait who said that? Oh, Machado.

The cards have had terrible fundamentals for 3 years running. Love Machado now but if he starts to decline the lazy and indifferent attitude won’t fly. Harper does indeed fill a hole as Ozuna is gone in 2020. Fowler is more than likely gone unless he lights the world on fire in March/April. It isn’t viable to sit $50 million on the bench for three years. And I certainly hope dexter fowler doesn’t become the reason to walk away from Harper
   54. cardsfanboy Posted: November 08, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5784514)
Machado is lazy and indifferent. Wait who said that? Oh, Machado.


literally this is the dumbest reason to not acquire a guy who has produced. I don't care if he claims he doesn't even try, the fact is he produces... not running out a routine play here and there... don't care. I would rather have guys with talent like Albert Pujols who jogged and posed on his first major league homerun, than a guy like Stubby Clapp who ran his ass off but just couldn't produce. Effort doesn't mean quality, and it's insane to think it does.

Machado has outperformed Harper over their careers... Machado has played in 926 games, has 4074 pa, Harper has played in 927 games and 3957 pa.... the difference in war is 33.8 for Machado and 27.4 for Harper... (both are basically the same age... July of '92 for Machado, October for Harper.) And the Cardinals need an infielder more than another outfielder. Machado is the better choice, clearly, but I'm not going to have a problem with getting Harper, but Machado is the better name to go after.)
   55. phredbird Posted: November 08, 2018 at 05:34 PM (#5784526)

*sheepishly dipping his toes into a cards thread after rooting unabashedly for the dodgers at the end of the season*

i wonder, if we get machado, if some of his attitude problems can be addressed by oquendo? he's not really there for that kind of thing, i know, but jose seems to command a lot of respect in the org, so maybe he could have a couple of quiet talks with manny or something. or is it really that big a deal?

edit: posted this before i read 54.
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: November 08, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5784530)
Oquendo is going to stay in Florida, will not travel with the team at all, so whatever influence he has on anyone will only be in spring training.
   57. phredbird Posted: November 08, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5784545)

Oquendo is going to stay in Florida


what, again? is it his knee or is it more schildt wanting his own guys?
   58. cardsfanboy Posted: November 08, 2018 at 06:44 PM (#5784585)
what, again? is it his knee or is it more schildt wanting his own guys?


Decision to stay close to family is the official reason. No clue if it's the truth or not.

Edit: but remember that Shildt did name Oquendo as the official replacement manager if he ever got kicked out of a game, which is a bit unusual since it's usually the bench coach.... my thought process is that Oquendo returned to the team to help Matheny regain legitimacy and that after Shildt took over, decided it was in his best interest to live a more leisurely lifestyle. Although his comments on the 'joy' he gets helping 19-21 years old vs 'just coaching' could be legitimate and he just finds the job down there more fulfilling than the job at the mlb level.
   59. Master of the Horse Posted: November 08, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5784643)
In the Caymans and was seated on the beach next to some Yankee fans wondering about Harper. And the topic of Harper at first base came up and the guys wife asks how hard is to play first base. My wife Ms non baseball fan until we connected and a Moneyball film fan immediately says it’s incredibly hard

Had to share. It was awesome
   60. Nasty Nate Posted: November 09, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5784797)
She's a keeper
   61. jmurph Posted: November 09, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5784829)
Yeah that's good work.
   62. TDF, trained monkey Posted: November 09, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5784842)
He's got a 140 OPS+ through age 25, with 175-190 upside. Manny Ramirez was at 140 OPS+ through 25, so was Miguel Cabrera.
Full season OPS+ thru 25:

Ramirez: 147, 146, 144
Cabrera: 130, 151, 159, 150, 130
Harper: 118, 133, 198, 114, 156, 133

You have zero idea what you're getting with Harper (especially compared to Ramirez), and anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
   63. Nasty Nate Posted: November 09, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5784852)
zero? lying? Don't be so dramatic...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCarson Cistulli From Fangraphs Joins the Blue Jays
(7 - 2:14pm, Nov 17)
Last: DJS Holiday-Related Pun

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2483 - 2:13pm, Nov 17)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(333 - 2:08pm, Nov 17)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(229 - 2:02pm, Nov 17)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1217 - 1:58pm, Nov 17)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogMarlins get rid of orange, cite South Florida cultures with new look
(29 - 1:43pm, Nov 17)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogHow Kevin Brown Became Baseball's First $100 Million Man
(10 - 1:36pm, Nov 17)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(11 - 1:10pm, Nov 17)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogThe View is Always Better When You're the Lead Dog
(3 - 11:13am, Nov 17)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogBen Zobrist, start designing your customized cleats. MLB grants players more shoe freedom.
(1 - 10:57am, Nov 17)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(25 - 10:51am, Nov 17)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(435 - 10:00am, Nov 17)
Last: PreservedFish

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(6 - 12:26am, Nov 17)
Last: The Run Fairy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-16-2018
(10 - 8:30pm, Nov 16)
Last: crict

NewsblogFox Sports inks multi-year rights agreement with Major League Baseball
(30 - 8:00pm, Nov 16)
Last: QLE

Page rendered in 0.4713 seconds
46 querie(s) executed