It's January, it's probably cold out, let's talk some baseball...
Super Scherzer
The Washington Nationals winning the Max Scherzer Sweepstakes earlier this week is rather interesting, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I just think it's a hilarious contract. Not that Scherzer may or may not be worth the money (that's certainly another debate) but because it's structured so bizarrely, with the right-hander having 105 million dollars still owed to him from the Nationals when he next becomes a free agent seven years from now. It just amuses me for some reason. Maybe it's the thought of a 39 year old Scherzer pitching against Washington in the playoffs and beating them, and getting fifteen million dollars from his old team to do it.
In regards to the here and now, it's an interesting arrangement. You can sure ask a bunch of questions about a contract like this, like does the short term budgetary benefit outweigh the extreme length of the commitment? Could contracts like this (perhaps on smaller scales, perhaps larger) become more common if annual salaries for players continue to increase? Is it wreckless, or brilliant?
Another aspect to this deal is with Washington now acquiring All The Pitchers, they've got six very good starters and the luxury of potentially trading one to fill a different area of need. Doug Fister and Jordan Zimmermann (nnice) have been theorized as trade candidates, since both are free agents after the season. Shockingly, Stephen Strasburg has also been mentioned. Shocking in that, when you have a guy like that (young at 25, still fairly affordable and extremely good) you usually want to keep that guy around. But hey, if he's available you gotta try and get him, right? I'm sure Goins, Navarro, Sal Fasano's moustache and a basket of poutine would be a good enough offer. The Nats can even throw in some Expos memorabilia from the basement to make the, uh, salaries match or something.
Another Thought For Debate
Let's say this is a theoretical universe, and that the Blue Jays can sign James Shields instantly if they want to. Assume the money and contract length doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant to this anyhow. The team is exactly the same otherwise. With these circumstances in mind, my thought is: Would you sign Shields if it gave you a 0% chance of signing, say for example, one of Price or Cueto next winter? Or would you not sign Shields and take a 65% chance of signing one of Price or Cueto for 2016?
Pitchers and catchers report in just about a month... soon my pretties... soon...
Super Scherzer
The Washington Nationals winning the Max Scherzer Sweepstakes earlier this week is rather interesting, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I just think it's a hilarious contract. Not that Scherzer may or may not be worth the money (that's certainly another debate) but because it's structured so bizarrely, with the right-hander having 105 million dollars still owed to him from the Nationals when he next becomes a free agent seven years from now. It just amuses me for some reason. Maybe it's the thought of a 39 year old Scherzer pitching against Washington in the playoffs and beating them, and getting fifteen million dollars from his old team to do it.
In regards to the here and now, it's an interesting arrangement. You can sure ask a bunch of questions about a contract like this, like does the short term budgetary benefit outweigh the extreme length of the commitment? Could contracts like this (perhaps on smaller scales, perhaps larger) become more common if annual salaries for players continue to increase? Is it wreckless, or brilliant?
Another aspect to this deal is with Washington now acquiring All The Pitchers, they've got six very good starters and the luxury of potentially trading one to fill a different area of need. Doug Fister and Jordan Zimmermann (nnice) have been theorized as trade candidates, since both are free agents after the season. Shockingly, Stephen Strasburg has also been mentioned. Shocking in that, when you have a guy like that (young at 25, still fairly affordable and extremely good) you usually want to keep that guy around. But hey, if he's available you gotta try and get him, right? I'm sure Goins, Navarro, Sal Fasano's moustache and a basket of poutine would be a good enough offer. The Nats can even throw in some Expos memorabilia from the basement to make the, uh, salaries match or something.
Another Thought For Debate
Let's say this is a theoretical universe, and that the Blue Jays can sign James Shields instantly if they want to. Assume the money and contract length doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant to this anyhow. The team is exactly the same otherwise. With these circumstances in mind, my thought is: Would you sign Shields if it gave you a 0% chance of signing, say for example, one of Price or Cueto next winter? Or would you not sign Shields and take a 65% chance of signing one of Price or Cueto for 2016?
Pitchers and catchers report in just about a month... soon my pretties... soon...
