-
Knights is actually wrong; it will be to my advantage of inflation does not occur to the level I think it will. The less the salaries rise the more elite guys I'll be able to afford.
-
The guillotine is out today!
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:14 AM
-
How can you say Kershaw at $64 is a bad contract? It's market driven. If I have $70 to spend and two roster spots, and I need to maximize my points to run at the championship, a $64 Kershaw could make a lot of sense. Best player available.
-
Whether it's an auction or a snake draft, I think drafting players with the intent to trade them is a VERY dicey strategy.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:13 AM
-
You could buy four $40 players, but if they're overpriced, which sounds likely in the scenario you envision, they will only have value to you if another team decided to ignore long-term salary implications and acquire an inflated contract as a rental.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:13 AM
-
...or at least contracts that were already at peak market value that could be thrown back and gotten at the same or lower price
-
95% of my opinion on this is driven by the fact that I had aggressively cut players from most teams, freeing up cash. Most of you have stated that was too aggressive, so with less cash available, less inflation, but I saw a lot of bad contracts
-
Even with $140 to spend, I'm planning on buying one $50+ player and only one.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:12 AM
-
Jed, your point is a good one, but I still see a lot of cash available. I could potentially afford 4 $40 players; that leaves several more available to 11 other teams who still have cash to burn.
-
I also continue to disagree with the idea that "cash is flush." When you divide cash by open roster spots, there aren't many teams whose gameplan will be to collect $40 players.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:11 AM
-
There are very few scenarios where you'll want to add bad values to your roster, and a $64 Kershaw is a bad value.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:10 AM
-
At last year's auction I distinctly remember Granderson was the last "good" OF available. Was prepared to get into huge war with Branham, who had the discount, but he bowed out at $41, which turned out to be smart.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:09 AM
-
Inflation has nothing to do with contracts already on your roster; it has everything to do with available cash to spend, available roster spots to fill, and talent available in the draft pool. When cash if flush and talent is scarce - inflation
-
I don't think it is so much "inflation" as it is perceived value that XX player brings to a team. It makes some players more attractive to some teams that it doesn't to others. It's just economics. Perceived value = good deal.
-
The number of superstars is finite but the number of dollars is also very finite. After the first 8-10 player auctions, the majority of teams will no longer be able to buy a $40 player, or even a $30 player.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 9:07 AM
-
I understand you'll be bidding on top guys, so you can trade them later - but I'm sure you will be bidding on guys to drive up prices (as well you should)
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:06 AM
-
And we don't really have a ton of values on current rosters that would lead to inflation - there were several teams I didn't even know who to vote off ebcause of a lack of well underpriced players
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:05 AM
-
This isn't like MLB where budgets can climb - we have the same $400 cap we had year one.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:05 AM
-
I absolutely will be bidding on superstars at the draft, including guys like Kershaw, Trout, etc. Makes sense for me to do so.
-
I can see maybe mild inflation at the very top, and if anything that inflation will equate to lower prices in lesser places as the dollars dry up.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:04 AM
-
I've consistently said the same thing about inflation; it will be signficant at the top and trickle down to other players, especially RP
-
Not trying to game the system, etc. It's just simple economics, and easist to see in the pitching. There are basically two aces available: Kershaw & Verlander. My assumption is more than two teams really want an ace. Thus, demand outweights supply.
-
your definition of inflation seems to be shrinking a bit as the rest of the league weighs in
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 9:00 AM
-
And Strikes, by stockpiling your roster with potentially cheap talent a year or four out, you would obviously benefit by the rest of the league having to pay more for talent that you hope to have cheap.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 8:59 AM
-
Like I said yesterday, by "inflation" I mean teams will feel pressured to pay more than they are really comfortable with for star players because there are fewer of them and more teams needing them.
-
yea, I remember we had this inflation discussion last season as well, then it didn't happen. A few bad contracts, yea, but no wholesale inflation.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 8:58 AM
-
If there wasn't inflation in the 2012 draft, then teams wouldn't really be dropping players right now (like Pujols, etc.).
-
My view is that if someone wants to spend $58 on Kershaw or $74 on Trout, it's their right to damage their roster. lol
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 8:56 AM
-
Right but the 2013 draft's underlying circumstances are really no different than the 2012 draft, where there wasn't a single really inflated salary, IMO.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 8:55 AM
-
I've just been stating I think inflation will occur. That's supported by the same sentiment from the Ottoneu "experts" who created the leagues, now four years in. They've said the same many time on FanGraphs
-
A slugging 1B isn't really in my plans, kind of want the freedom to rotate/platoon the UTIL slot.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 8:52 AM
-
Why do I benefit? I'm not trying to drive up prices nor do I think I can; the "market" (auction) will determine the prices. I have every intention of bidding on elite guys in the auction, so I plan to be a factor, not a benefactor
-
'm actually not all that broken up about a straight Cueto-for-Madson trade.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 8:50 AM
-
I
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 8:50 AM
-
Strikes I can see your point but the one team that would benefit most from salary inflation of star players this year is the Strikes, as you've already punted. It seems disingenuous to continue hearing it from you and you only.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 8:41 AM
-
Jed has to be happy Pujols is now available; he traded away Cueto for him but can now get him back...
-
I mean: (still) isn't quite (as large as it ought to be)
-
Always nice to know that even our incredibly large margin ahead of all other leagues isn't quite accurate.
-
Trades year-round is great
-
I'm fine with that.
-
No one commented about trades after the cut deadline. Assuming we'll operate the way we did last year?
-
Beaten down again. I'll try again next year...
-
I think superstar-for-prospect deals are generally fine as long as Trey isn't getting the superstars.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 21, 2013 7:20 PM
-
The Blue Jays off season is enough to convince me that our current in-season system is sufficient, even when trading salary cap dollars.
-
Trying to stream RP can be maddening because you don't know when they will pitch, but for platooners, what could be easier than playing Scott Hairston against LHP or Tyler Colvin at home? I don't understand the pitfalls of that.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 21, 2013 7:09 PM
-
totally against that rule, we've been down this road before and ultimately decided it's just like baseball to be able to take on salary in exchange for prospects, teams that do inhibit their ability to compete year over year but its their decision
-
A cap proposal: any trade involving a player valued north of $25, the league MUST vote on the competitiveness of the trade. Veto or approve, but gets all league members' opinions on the trade.
-
Pujols just got punted
-
While I think there will be more parity this year, it's inevitable some teams will have to punt (or should) at some point, but I'd be surprised if anyone punts right after the auction
-
I'd expect contending teams to trade more for a $60 Kershaw at the deadline than they will for a handful of $2 Ruggiano-like breakouts. Difference makers, at the deadline, are just that
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages