Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

Taxes might also play into it.  And cost of living, short term as it may be.  Of course i also think there would be other things that go into it like the franchise, manager, state of the team, etc before the actual city  

the players spend little time at “home” during the season anyway that I don’t see the amenities meaning all that much. And it’s during the summer so they don’t live here full time so it’s not something you think about in terms of schools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll go where the money is, especially if this offseason is anything like the last two. 

However, we probably do have to overpay given that we aren't on either coast and have a craptacular team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they're chasing a ring players almost always go where they feel they can make the most money.   

A place like Detroit would be attractive on a short term deal cause you know barring injury you're going to be playing every day.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need anything that can hit.  Why not wait until the beginning of spring training and snag a few of the Oh-My-God-Why-Is-He-Still-Unsigned guys?  This striking early BS is getting us no where.  Yeah, I know someone will pull Josh Harrison out of their butt, but those later guys generally have chips on their shoulders.  Everyone knows it's easier to flip a chip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of how much the city you play in means: Not a ton, perhaps? 

Almost nobody lives in the city they play in during the off-season.

Then they are on the road half the time.

Get to the home ballpark around 3 PM for a 7 PM game? Leave around midnight?  There’s a window of free time for drinking and ho-ing before you go to sleep but you’re constantly in different time zones playing an assortment of night games with occasional day games so a rational sleep schedule may cancel out some of the drinking and ho-ing if you want to make a profession of the game. 

Wake up around 11 AM? Get dressed and you’ve got two or three hours before you get to the ballpark. These are all big cities and it can take a while to get from where you live to where you need to be which eats up time. 

Aside for a couple hours twice a day, one late when you could at times be sort of beat, and the other in the early afternoon just before you need to be sharp for the game, these are activities that could be adequately met just about anywhere. 

Take the money and run while you can because there’s a good chance it won’t last as long as you had hoped. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

detroit is no one's version of a free agent destination unless the team is playing for championships.  we all know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chasfh said:

I don't think there's any chance the Tigers sign any player who could otherwise play for a contending team, for the obvious reason, but I've also wondered at times whether Detroit itself plays a factor. I've seen from those anonymous player polls in past years that Detroit is considered among the cities they least like to visit, and nice suburbs aside, I wonder whether they could see themselves enjoying living here, especially Latin players.

I'd guess that a common retort to this would be that players will always go where they'll make the most money, but I gotta believe there's some limit to that. Other things being equal, if someone is offered $2 million to come to Detroit versus, say, $1.9 million to play in Chicago, maybe they'd take the Chicago offer, because Chicago >> Detroit from a perceived livability standpoint. I don't know either way, but I have wondered about this.

This all goes out the window, of course, when we talk about outsized contracts like Miggy's.

Just kind of an observation/the few I've talked to. But, I don't think cities play a huge part. Remember the players aren't super stupid (well most aren't). They understand even a place like Detroit has good places. They won't be living in or spending much time on West King Street. They also known, like in your example, sure they might take $100K less to go to chicago, but the cost of living is higher in Chicago, what about income taxes? Athlete tax? etc. So the money being equal is not as black and white as you make it seem. 

I think players tend to look more towards regions in baseball. Oh my family lives in California, I'd like to play a west coast team. Or I was drafted by detroit and played 5 years there. My kids like birhmingham's school so we're not going to be moving, I'd like to stay in the midwest. Etc. etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that that regional observation is a good one - if the money is equal, guys want to play "closer to home".  Trout is the obvious exception, he didn't wait to see how much the Phillies or the NY teams would pay him. 

But I don't think that the city matters all that much - guys want to go where the best money is.  They all say that they want a chance to play for a winner, but I'm not sure how important that is, compared to the actual cash.  That "play for a winner" thing always bothered me, I think that the first FA to say it out loud was Reggie Jackson and it offended me.  My reaction was hey Reggie, if you are as good as you obviously think that you are, then any team that you play for should be a winner by definition, right?  You're so good that any team that you play for is going to be a contender.  So that's BS I think, they want the money, and the decision about where to play is 100% about the money. 

"Play for a winner" is real though when you are 34, at the end of the line, and 2 teams are each offering you $1.5 mil.  You take the one that you think has the best chance of getting you a ring.

So I don't think that the actual city of Detroit is really a factor in signing players.  It's just that there don't seem to be that many players from Michigan anymore, so Detroit isn't "closer to home", when the money being offered is equal.  But if the money is right, they will play in Detroit, or Buffalo, or on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, leflore said:

Except Lou, of course.  Say it. Say it! SAY IT!!!

OK... OK....except for Lou....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Revenue sharing recipients get a pick after the first pick if the player signs a contract for more than $50M, after the second round if less than $50M

Revenue sharing payers get a pick after the second round.

Luxury tax payers get a pick after the 4th round.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

They'll go where the money is, especially if this offseason is anything like the last two. 

However, we probably do have to overpay given that we aren't on either coast and have a craptacular team.

Both of these paragraphs can't be true at the same time. If the first paragraph is true, that would mean we could outbid the Yankees by a dollar and win the player. If the second paragraph is true, that means we'd have to outbid another team by a substantial amount to win the player, which was the hypothesis I put out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Just kind of an observation/the few I've talked to. But, I don't think cities play a huge part. Remember the players aren't super stupid (well most aren't). They understand even a place like Detroit has good places. They won't be living in or spending much time on West King Street. They also known, like in your example, sure they might take $100K less to go to chicago, but the cost of living is higher in Chicago, what about income taxes? Athlete tax? etc. So the money being equal is not as black and white as you make it seem. 

I think players tend to look more towards regions in baseball. Oh my family lives in California, I'd like to play a west coast team. Or I was drafted by detroit and played 5 years there. My kids like birhmingham's school so we're not going to be moving, I'd like to stay in the midwest. Etc. etc. 

You and @Oblong make good points, especially about the regional issue. Somebody who has his offseason home outside LA might may well take an offer from the Giants or Diamondbacks because they could easily hop on a plane home to spend an off day there, which may win him even if a Midwest team offers more money. And Oblong's point about the state of the team is valid, and despite the Econ 101 stipulation I recognize that in the real world not all things are equal. After all, as the reigning 2012 league champions, we won the services of Anibal Sanchez when he was at the height of his powers, even though we were outbid by the 101-loss Cubs.

I take your point on the COL/taxes issue, although my point was less the exact $100K difference and more of, if there's a clear but not really substantial difference between the two, do the White Sox win out over the Tigers because Chicago >> Detroit? As @Tenacious D suggests, how much more do we have to outbid a team to get a player, and how much does the city itself play into that? Based on the Sanchez example, it's small, but is it truly nothing? I find it interesting to contemplate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Charles Liston said:

I think that that regional observation is a good one - if the money is equal, guys want to play "closer to home".  Trout is the obvious exception, he didn't wait to see how much the Phillies or the NY teams would pay him. 

But I don't think that the city matters all that much - guys want to go where the best money is.  They all say that they want a chance to play for a winner, but I'm not sure how important that is, compared to the actual cash.  That "play for a winner" thing always bothered me, I think that the first FA to say it out loud was Reggie Jackson and it offended me.  My reaction was hey Reggie, if you are as good as you obviously think that you are, then any team that you play for should be a winner by definition, right?  You're so good that any team that you play for is going to be a contender.  So that's BS I think, they want the money, and the decision about where to play is 100% about the money. 

"Play for a winner" is real though when you are 34, at the end of the line, and 2 teams are each offering you $1.5 mil.  You take the one that you think has the best chance of getting you a ring.

So I don't think that the actual city of Detroit is really a factor in signing players.  It's just that there don't seem to be that many players from Michigan anymore, so Detroit isn't "closer to home", when the money being offered is equal.  But if the money is right, they will play in Detroit, or Buffalo, or on the moon.

I have wondered this about Trout: how driven is he—I mean really, really driven—to win a World Series over everything else? Of course every player wants to play on a World Series winner, and there are plenty of players we could all name who are driven by a single-minded focus on nothing but winning rings. But I'd guess there are also other players, All-Star-level guys, who just enjoy playing big league ball and may be more motivated to play for an organization they feel totally comfortable within and which demonstrates complete loyalty to him, despite their established inability to field a winning team.

I think Trout may be one of those latter guys, and that he just loves playing for the Angels in southern California, and that's why he signed the rest-of-his-career contract to play out his days there. Otherwise, if he were really truly driven to win a ring above every other consideration, he'd've played out his original contract through 2020 and then gone to the team (e.g., Yankees, Dodgers, Astros) he and his agent think would be most likely to win a ring in 2021. Because Lord knows the Angels have demonstrated quite clearly they just throw stuff against the wall and have no real idea how to put a pennant winner around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of wanting to play for a winner has always seemed childish and superficial to me.  Growing up in an organization and then helping the team become a winner seems like it would be more satisfying than joining a team that was already a winner without you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You and @Oblong make good points, especially about the regional issue. Somebody who has his offseason home outside LA might may well take an offer from the Giants or Diamondbacks because they could easily hop on a plane home to spend an off day there, which may win him even if a Midwest team offers more money. And Oblong's point about the state of the team is valid, and despite the Econ 101 stipulation I recognize that in the real world not all things are equal. After all, as the reigning 2012 league champions, we won the services of Anibal Sanchez when he was at the height of his powers, even though we were outbid by the 101-loss Cubs.

I take your point on the COL/taxes issue, although my point was less the exact $100K difference and more of, if there's a clear but not really substantial difference between the two, do the White Sox win out over the Tigers because Chicago >> Detroit? As @Tenacious D suggests, how much more do we have to outbid a team to get a player, and how much does the city itself play into that? Based on the Sanchez example, it's small, but is it truly nothing? I find it interesting to contemplate.

If things were truly equal, offer and org stability, etc, and the player had to pick between CHicago and Detroit I still don't think the city itself would be something they consider. I guess it depends on the person and what they like to do. If it's a younger player who's single maybe he chooses Chicago because the thought of living downtown and taking a cab/uber/driver to the game each day appeals to him.  But maybe he's the kind of guy that wants to be "free" and on an off day get in his truck and go fishing or on a lake and suburban Detroit appeals to him for that reason.  Maybe the thought of driving into Chicago each day with traffic issues is something he'd rather not deal with.  With baseball I don't think the players consider the local environment as much as they would in otehr sports since their off season is during the school year and they won't be there.  

I read that Ian Kinsler said he bought a place in Traverse CIty or somewhere near there and plans to live there post playing career. The 80's era Tigers are the last of the "live in Detroit" generation because they had to get jobs and used their celebrity to get sales rep type positions and built up a network... guys like Wilcox, Petry, Jason Thompson, Rozema...  for Hockey players from NA they mostly come from the North so Detroit is a an obvious choice with it's off season being in the summer.  

But baseball player?  They are home in FL on Sunday night after the last day game of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

The idea of wanting to play for a winner has always seemed childish and superficial to me.  Growing up in an organization and then helping the team become a winner seems like it would be more satisfying than joining a team that was already a winner without you.  

I agree that lifting a team from mediocrity to a ring would be a tremendously satisfying career accomplishment, but we both know that baseball is a highly decentralized game in which even the best players in history can't single-handedly carry a team to a championship, the way the best basketball players can carry a team to an NBA championship or a particularly hot goalie can carry a team to a Stanley Cup. A baseball team needs to hit on a lot of cylinders all together to win pennants and rings. I don't think it's childish or superficial for a big league player to want to win a ring so bad that they will sign with a team that already has the best chance to do so. That's seems pragmatic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players sign where the moneys at, they really don't care about the destination, particularly in baseball where there aren't endorsements like there are in basketball.(where it could benefit playing in a larger market)   These guys are essentially playing everyday for 6 months and in the offseason they can live where ever they want.       

Blake Griffin did an interview during the offseason(it wasn't a local person so it wasn't him just blowing smoke) and he mentioned how much he liked playing in Detroit cause during the season all he wants to do is practice, play and watch TV without distractions which the suburbs of Detroit provide.  Plus as Biggs can attest to :)   Metro Detroit isn't a bad place to live if you have a ton of money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the 2009 draft class.  There's always the giggling at other teams for passing on Trout before he was taken by the Angels at 25.  But he wasn't even the top draft pick of the Angels.  They took Randall Grichuk at 24.

The other thing about Trout's draft slot is that it was originally the Yankees' pick.  The pick was conveyed to the Angels as compensation for the Mark Teixeira signing.

Grichuk was a compensatory pick as well.  The Angels received it as compensation for the Mets signing Francisco Rodriguez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chasfh said:

I agree that lifting a team from mediocrity to a ring would be a tremendously satisfying career accomplishment, but we both know that baseball is a highly decentralized game in which even the best players in history can't single-handedly carry a team to a championship, the way the best basketball players can carry a team to an NBA championship or a particularly hot goalie can carry a team to a Stanley Cup. A baseball team needs to hit on a lot of cylinders all together to win pennants and rings. I don't think it's childish or superficial for a big league player to want to win a ring so bad that they will sign with a team that already has the best chance to do so. That's seems pragmatic to me.

No player single-handedly wins the championship but being a big part of an organization that develops into a winner seems a lot more satisfying.  I would think you would you develop bonds with your organization, your teammates and the city which makes the experience more meaningful.  Just joining a team that was already a winner and winning a championship is a nice sugar high and ego boost but less meaningful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I was looking at the 2009 draft class.  There's always the giggling at other teams for passing on Trout before he was taken by the Angels at 25.  But he wasn't even the top draft pick of the Angels.  They took Randall Grichuk at 24.

The other thing about Trout's draft slot is that it was originally the Yankees' pick.  The pick was conveyed to the Angels as compensation for the Mark Teixeira signing.

Grichuk was a compensatory pick as well.  The Angels received it as compensation for the Mets signing Francisco Rodriguez.

There was an article on ESPN during the season going in depth about the Trout pick and everything that went into it.  I can't remember the reason but there was a method to their madness on why they took him at 25 instead of 24.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Players sign where the moneys at, they really don't care about the destination, particularly in baseball where there aren't endorsements like there are in basketball.(where it could benefit playing in a larger market)   These guys are essentially playing everyday for 6 months and in the offseason they can live where ever they want.       

Blake Griffin did an interview during the offseason(it wasn't a local person so it wasn't him just blowing smoke) and he mentioned how much he liked playing in Detroit cause during the season all he wants to do is practice, play and watch TV without distractions which the suburbs of Detroit provide.  Plus as Biggs can attest to :)   Metro Detroit isn't a bad place to live if you have a ton of money.  

wait, wut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,829
    • Total Posts
      2,953,366
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...