Manny Machado - Page 3 - Other Baseball - Twins Daily
Posted 14 January 2019 - 04:41 PM
Even if owning a baseball team is more profitable now than it was, at the end of the day Harper and Machado are going to make 300 million dollars to play baseball. I don't see why they are the unsung hero in this. Reports are that Harper turned down 300M from a competitive team, the team that drafted him, a fan base that adores him. He will go to the highest bidder no matter who it is. He cares about money just as much as the most budget conscience owner.
I enjoy the irony the last two years have brought to baseball. Everyone went from complaining about how the Yankees and Dodgers could just buy the good players to complaining about how "cheap" the Yankees and Dodgers are being.
The big take away is that players on average are making much more than they were in the past. Personally I am glad these handful of mega deals haven't increased. Jeff Samardzija is proof that you can pitch to a mid 4 ERA and make 20M per season.
If anyone should be complaining in todays MLB it is the Rookie Contracts not the 1% of players that are crying about not getting 10 years Mega deals
Machado and Harper may get paid $300 million to play baseball... The Pohlads make millions every year because their dad handed them a baseball team when he died. I find that more disgusting and they provide no value to our entertainment.
#42 SomeGuy
I'd much rather the actual entertainers that produce value get the money. I have no idea why one would be good with it being otherwise. The Twins can afford to sign either, they'd rather make more money. That's their right, but I don't get why fans agree so much with owners.
Maybe cheaper tickets or higher minor league salaries would be more noble causes than saying players should be getting close to a half billion dollars guaranteed.Especially when the player in question has a habit of stomping feet, jogging out plays, and fighting.
Major injuries happen all the time, what if Manny gets a major knee injury year one of a 8-10 year deal?Might never be the same on the field but money in the bank.
#43 SomeGuy
The Pohlads are the reason we get to watch the Twins and not select a random professional team from another state to cheer for.I am thankful they haven't tried to squeeze the Twins into the state of California or Texas.
Edited by SomeGuy, 14 January 2019 - 05:00 PM.
#44 SomeGuy
Its "disgusting" when a family owned business is handed down to their children?? Maybe AT&T should have had a chance to buy them?
#45 sdangus
Posted 14 January 2019 - 05:40 PM
Has your salary gone up by that percentage in that time frame. Mine sure hasn't.
I get that nobody wants top-tier talent to go to the rival team, but we need to think rationally about this.
What does Minneapolis have to offer a professional athlete that Chicago can't?
We like to tout the outdoors and natural beauty of our state to outsiders, but do we really think any of that matters to a kid that grew up in Miami? Is he spending his off-days during the season rollerblading round Nokomis? Do we really think Manny's sticking around to go ice fishing in the winter?
As much as I'm not a fan of Chicago, the dining, the nightlife, etc. (you know, the things that are likely to appeal to a 26-year-old) are better there. I don't think that's even debatable.
Outside business interests? Do you think more endorsement deals and media exposure are coming from the 4th largest media market in the country, or the 15th? Sure, we've got those lucrative Carrier and Old Dutch endorsements to offer up, and maybe Sid can convince the fine folks at Murray's to get Manny some steaks, but do we think it's enough?
All of those things are about "building a brand," which is what most of these guys are looking to do these days.
The amount the Twins would have to pay to overcompensate for taxes, quality of life (perceived or otherwise), endorsements, etc. would be staggering, in both years and AAS.
Now, take everything I said above and swap Manny for Harper and it's the same discussion.
Honestly, if they wanted to make a huge splash with one of the league's big names, they'd probably have a better shot at landing Trout in a couple of years ... and the odds of that won't be great, either.
Did you figure in all the other taxes?
Real estate and sales etc do not matter that much.He does not have to buy a house there
IMO their greatest chance to get a superstar in a long term contract is to extend Miguel Sano...
birdwatcher, twinssporto and jud6312 like this
Posted 14 January 2019 - 05:59 PM
The Twins offer needs to be 5% higher to match the White Sox, just to compensate about the difference in State Income Tax.So if the WSox offered $285M, a $300M offer would just match that WSox offer, which means that the Twins would have to go at the $315M range or $39.3M per year, to get him which is just nuts.There is no way that a. they will be getting close to $40M a year value from him or b. they could afford to build a winning team around him if they paid him that much.
It's been 16 years since I looked at this stuff in my law school class but I think most players live in Florida for the tax write offs regardless of where the team is. Derek Jeter got in a mini scandel over this years ago. http://www.espn.com/...tory?id=3231419
IF he becomes one. The jury is still out on that. Machado brings that to the team RIGHT NOW. If Sano and/or Buxton become that, too, then wow, we will have THE team. If not, and we don’t sign better, we will not be competitive. I think we can sign better than sitting around hoping for more.
gunnarthor, Twins33 and Danchat like this
In any event, the team has the resources to sign the best free agent. That player fits the teams need perfectly. That player is young enough to be part of this current core and young enough to be a part of the team when the Lewis/Kiriloff wave emerges. There is no reason for the fan base to accept that the Twins aren't even negotiating with him. The Twins have huge payroll flexibility. We have no one under contract after next year. The Twins should have been looking at both him and Harper and instead we're getting players DFA'd from other teams.
Carole Keller, USAFChief, Twins33 and 3 others like this
Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:12 PM
The point is that 10 year deals are almost always a bad choice, not how Machado compares to Pujols. David Wright was very good a few years ago and is now suddenly retired in his mid 30s because his body broke down. 10 years is a long time to promise any player regardless of how young they currently are.
Wright's deal was a 7 year extension that didn't start until he was 31.
Again, Machado is 26. The 8 year contract that is the subject of this thread would end in his age 33 season.
There have absolutely been bad long-term deals in baseball. But there have also been good ones, and Machado's age and position at least make him an interesting comp for some of the best. A-Rod and Jeter both signed 10 year deals at age 25 and 27, respectively, that turned out very well. Tulowitzki effectively signed a 9 year deal starting at age 26 (5 year extension on top of 4 remaining years) that obviously didn't work out as well, but even then, the Rockies did get a few productive years and were able to get out of the last few years of the deal.
Yes. At least the athletes have to compete and develop to get $300 million one day. Ol' Jimmy had to keep on breathing to get his fortune.
Nope. Comparing sports/entertainment salaries to anything else in the real world is useless. I bet your salary would go up just as much if your company grew by $1.3 billion in a short amount of time.
Maybe cheaper tickets or higher minor league salaries would be more noble causes than saying players should be getting close to a half billion dollars guaranteed. Especially when the player in question has a habit of stomping feet, jogging out plays, and fighting.
Major injuries happen all the time, what if Manny gets a major knee injury year one of a 8-10 year deal? Might never be the same on the field but money in the bank.
Don't worry, your boy Jim will only pay a fraction of the sum he signed to and insurance will take care of the rest in case of a devastating injury. The Pohlads are safe from needing food stamps.
Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:33 PM
The argument is would a team be better off going for the 8-10 year deal or sign a couple 4-5 year deals. A team could have paired Nathan Eovaldi and Andrew McCutchen for 33M per season instead of the 31.25M that Machado is sitting on. And if either one fails it is 4 years instead of 8.
This is a fair argument, but -- the Twins didn't do this, and I don't think they have ever done this (multiple $50+ mil FA contracts in one offseason). So while you may prefer your scenario, I do wonder if you would also prefer just signing Machado at 8/250 over doing nothing.
Additionally, the odds that Machado "fails" on a 8 year contract beginning at age 26 are probably lower than the failure odds on McCutchen and Eovaldi on 4 year deals with their respective ages/positions/health histories. But on the flip side, the odds that Machado produces multiple all-star quality seasons, or even an MVP quality season, are dramatically higher. You've got to balance everything. The job of the front office is not just risk avoidance -- and if they focus too much on risk avoidance, they will probably find themselves out of a job!
Heck, the Twins did something like this back in 2013-2015 -- spreading out their FA dollars on Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana -- but I'd still rather have Scherzer. Or even Greinke.
I could see an argument for a different allocation of this kind of payroll, but it would probably have to start with a better class of player -- maybe Corbin or Keuchel this offseason?
Edited by spycake, 14 January 2019 - 06:40 PM.
You guys keep holding your breath for a utopian world where business owners don't try to maximize profit.
Me choosing to live in reality doesn't mean I'd rather the billionaires keep it over the millionaires, but there isn't a single successful business that pays more than they have to out of the kindness of their heart.
Some pay more than they have to, but it's to retain the talent and working conditions that maximize their profits, not just because they are really generous.
#58 twinssporto
Why is it better for the money to sit in the owner's pockets, than be spent on players? How does that help the sport at all? There is plenty of money to sign him. And others. And cano was worth every penny. The Mariners did a terrible job building around him.
If we lived in a perfect world for a baseball fan (insert your favorite baseball team name here). The correct answer would be to spend the money in the manner that would win the most games and bring home the most championships year in and year out.
You're correct that Cano was a good signing (until the suspension) and the Mariners didn't do a great job building around him. However, there is a ton of data available that says these long term FA contracts either don't work out very well over time or laden with so much risk the return doesn't justify the means.
Deciding how much money to risk in order to win now and in the future is a hard line to walk sometimes....Add in the additional issues such as: Owners want to make money not lose it, the current CBA is a mess, ticket sales don't matter as much to the teams bottom line as it used to (TV royalties, licensing agreements, etc.) and you've got a real mess to deal with in the near future.
Come on, Phillies.
Sure, the guy's an A-hat, but I don't wanna face him 19 times a year.
birdwatcher, Twins33, ChrisKnutson and 1 other like this
If Machado (or Harper, or Trout for that matter) by themselves can make a team win a World Series, their teams would have won, no?
The Twins are better distributing that $ and taking example by teams like the Astros and the Cardinals.Even the Yankees won only one World Series with Arod and the Giants only one with Bonds (but 2 after he left...)
A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.
Manny Machado - Page 3 - Other Baseball - Twins Daily
Posted 14 January 2019 - 04:41 PM
Even if owning a baseball team is more profitable now than it was, at the end of the day Harper and Machado are going to make 300 million dollars to play baseball. I don't see why they are the unsung hero in this. Reports are that Harper turned down 300M from a competitive team, the team that drafted him, a fan base that adores him. He will go to the highest bidder no matter who it is. He cares about money just as much as the most budget conscience owner.
I enjoy the irony the last two years have brought to baseball. Everyone went from complaining about how the Yankees and Dodgers could just buy the good players to complaining about how "cheap" the Yankees and Dodgers are being.
The big take away is that players on average are making much more than they were in the past. Personally I am glad these handful of mega deals haven't increased. Jeff Samardzija is proof that you can pitch to a mid 4 ERA and make 20M per season.
If anyone should be complaining in todays MLB it is the Rookie Contracts not the 1% of players that are crying about not getting 10 years Mega deals
Machado and Harper may get paid $300 million to play baseball... The Pohlads make millions every year because their dad handed them a baseball team when he died. I find that more disgusting and they provide no value to our entertainment.
#42 SomeGuy
I'd much rather the actual entertainers that produce value get the money. I have no idea why one would be good with it being otherwise. The Twins can afford to sign either, they'd rather make more money. That's their right, but I don't get why fans agree so much with owners.
Maybe cheaper tickets or higher minor league salaries would be more noble causes than saying players should be getting close to a half billion dollars guaranteed.Especially when the player in question has a habit of stomping feet, jogging out plays, and fighting.
Major injuries happen all the time, what if Manny gets a major knee injury year one of a 8-10 year deal?Might never be the same on the field but money in the bank.
#43 SomeGuy
The Pohlads are the reason we get to watch the Twins and not select a random professional team from another state to cheer for.I am thankful they haven't tried to squeeze the Twins into the state of California or Texas.
Edited by SomeGuy, 14 January 2019 - 05:00 PM.
#44 SomeGuy
Its "disgusting" when a family owned business is handed down to their children?? Maybe AT&T should have had a chance to buy them?
#45 sdangus
Posted 14 January 2019 - 05:40 PM
Has your salary gone up by that percentage in that time frame. Mine sure hasn't.
I get that nobody wants top-tier talent to go to the rival team, but we need to think rationally about this.
What does Minneapolis have to offer a professional athlete that Chicago can't?
We like to tout the outdoors and natural beauty of our state to outsiders, but do we really think any of that matters to a kid that grew up in Miami? Is he spending his off-days during the season rollerblading round Nokomis? Do we really think Manny's sticking around to go ice fishing in the winter?
As much as I'm not a fan of Chicago, the dining, the nightlife, etc. (you know, the things that are likely to appeal to a 26-year-old) are better there. I don't think that's even debatable.
Outside business interests? Do you think more endorsement deals and media exposure are coming from the 4th largest media market in the country, or the 15th? Sure, we've got those lucrative Carrier and Old Dutch endorsements to offer up, and maybe Sid can convince the fine folks at Murray's to get Manny some steaks, but do we think it's enough?
All of those things are about "building a brand," which is what most of these guys are looking to do these days.
The amount the Twins would have to pay to overcompensate for taxes, quality of life (perceived or otherwise), endorsements, etc. would be staggering, in both years and AAS.
Now, take everything I said above and swap Manny for Harper and it's the same discussion.
Honestly, if they wanted to make a huge splash with one of the league's big names, they'd probably have a better shot at landing Trout in a couple of years ... and the odds of that won't be great, either.
Did you figure in all the other taxes?
Real estate and sales etc do not matter that much.He does not have to buy a house there
IMO their greatest chance to get a superstar in a long term contract is to extend Miguel Sano...
birdwatcher, twinssporto and jud6312 like this
Posted 14 January 2019 - 05:59 PM
The Twins offer needs to be 5% higher to match the White Sox, just to compensate about the difference in State Income Tax.So if the WSox offered $285M, a $300M offer would just match that WSox offer, which means that the Twins would have to go at the $315M range or $39.3M per year, to get him which is just nuts.There is no way that a. they will be getting close to $40M a year value from him or b. they could afford to build a winning team around him if they paid him that much.
It's been 16 years since I looked at this stuff in my law school class but I think most players live in Florida for the tax write offs regardless of where the team is. Derek Jeter got in a mini scandel over this years ago. http://www.espn.com/...tory?id=3231419
IF he becomes one. The jury is still out on that. Machado brings that to the team RIGHT NOW. If Sano and/or Buxton become that, too, then wow, we will have THE team. If not, and we don’t sign better, we will not be competitive. I think we can sign better than sitting around hoping for more.
gunnarthor, Twins33 and Danchat like this
In any event, the team has the resources to sign the best free agent. That player fits the teams need perfectly. That player is young enough to be part of this current core and young enough to be a part of the team when the Lewis/Kiriloff wave emerges. There is no reason for the fan base to accept that the Twins aren't even negotiating with him. The Twins have huge payroll flexibility. We have no one 
under contract after next year. The Twins should have been looking at both him and Harper and instead we're getting players DFA'd from other teams.
Carole Keller, USAFChief, Twins33 and 3 others like this
Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:12 PM
The point is that 10 year deals are almost always a bad choice, not how Machado compares to Pujols. David Wright was very good a few years ago and is now suddenly retired in his mid 30s because his body broke down. 10 years is a long time to promise any player regardless of how young they currently are.
Wright's deal was a 7 year extension that didn't start until he was 31.
Again, Machado is 26. The 8 year contract that is the subject of this thread would end in his age 33 season.
There have absolutely been bad long-term deals in baseball. But there have also been good ones, and Machado's age and position at least make him an interesting comp for some of the best. A-Rod and Jeter both signed 10 year deals at age 25 and 27, respectively, that turned out very well. Tulowitzki effectively signed a 9 year deal starting at age 26 (5 year extension on top of 4 remaining years) that obviously didn't work out as well, but even then, the Rockies did get a few productive years and were able to get out of the last few years of the deal.
Yes. At least the athletes have to compete and develop to get $300 million one day. Ol' Jimmy had to keep on breathing to get his fortune.
Nope. Comparing sports/entertainment salaries to anything else in the real world is useless. I bet your salary would go up just as much if your company grew by $1.3 billion in a short amount of time.
Maybe cheaper tickets or higher minor league salaries would be more noble causes than saying players should be getting close to a half billion dollars guaranteed. Especially when the player in question has a habit of stomping feet, jogging out plays, and fighting.
Major injuries happen all the time, what if Manny gets a major knee injury year one of a 8-10 year deal? Might never be the same on the field but money in the bank.
Don't worry, your boy Jim will only pay a fraction of the sum he signed to and insurance will take care of the rest in case of a devastating injury. The Pohlads are safe from needing food stamps.
Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:33 PM
The argument is would a team be better off going for the 8-10 year deal or sign a couple 4-5 year deals. A team could have paired Nathan Eovaldi and Andrew McCutchen for 33M per season instead of the 31.25M that Machado is sitting on. And if either one fails it is 4 years instead of 8.
This is a fair argument, but -- the Twins didn't do this, and I don't think they have ever done this (multiple $50+ mil FA contracts in one offseason). So while you may prefer your scenario, I do wonder if you would also prefer just signing Machado at 8/250 over doing nothing.
Additionally, the odds that Machado "fails" on a 8 year contract beginning at age 26 are probably lower than the failure odds on McCutchen and Eovaldi on 4 year deals with their respective ages/positions/health histories. But on the flip side, the odds that Machado produces multiple all-star quality seasons, or even an MVP quality season, are dramatically higher. You've got to balance everything. The job of the front office is not just risk avoidance -- and if they focus too much on risk avoidance, they will probably find themselves out of a job!
Heck, the Twins did something like this back in 2013-2015 -- spreading out their FA dollars on Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana -- but I'd still rather have Scherzer. Or even Greinke.
I could see an argument for a different allocation of this kind of payroll, but it would probably have to start with a better class of player -- maybe Corbin or Keuchel this offseason?
Edited by spycake, 14 January 2019 - 06:40 PM.
You guys keep holding your breath for a utopian world where business owners don't try to maximize profit.
Me choosing to live in reality doesn't mean I'd rather the billionaires keep it over the millionaires, but there isn't a single successful business that pays more than they have to out of the kindness of their heart.
Some pay more than they have to, but it's to retain the talent and working conditions that maximize their profits, not just because they are really generous.
#58 twinssporto
Why is it better for the money to sit in the owner's pockets, than be spent on players? How does that help the sport at all? There is plenty of money to sign him. And others. And cano was worth every penny. The Mariners did a terrible job building around him.
If we lived in a perfect world for a baseball fan (insert your favorite baseball team name here). The correct answer would be to spend the money in the manner that would win the most games and bring home the most championships year in and year out.
You're correct that Cano was a good signing (until the suspension) and the Mariners didn't do a great job building around him. However, there is a ton of data available that says these long term FA contracts either don't work out very well over time or laden with so much risk the return doesn't justify the means.
Deciding how much money to risk in order to win now and in the future is a hard line to walk sometimes....Add in the additional issues such as: Owners want to make money not lose it, the current CBA is a mess, ticket sales don't matter as much to the teams bottom line as it used to (TV royalties, licensing agreements, etc.) and you've got a real mess to deal with in the near future.
Come on, Phillies.
Sure, the guy's an A-hat, but I don't wanna face him 19 times a year.
birdwatcher, Twins33, ChrisKnutson and 1 other like this
If Machado (or Harper, or Trout for that matter) by themselves can make a team win a World Series, their teams would have won, no?
The Twins are better distributing that $ and taking example by teams like the Astros and the Cardinals.Even the Yankees won only one World Series with Arod and the Giants only one with Bonds (but 2 after he left...)
A solid rounded team is better than a single superstar.