Warhead36 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 No way do you pay Kimbrel or any Closer that kind of money. Way too volatile of a position. Just wait until the deadline and trade for a good reliever on a bad team, those usually go for pretty cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Nats May be able to sign Kimbrel on a big one year deal. It’s March and he running out of options. The Lerners will probably do something inflammatory to mess it up like offering him 20 million for one year and then deferring 15 million until 2045 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said: Nats May be able to sign Kimbrel on a big one year deal. It’s March and he running out of options. Doubtful. Pretty much every team in the league would offer him a one year deal. He’s unsigned because he’s holding out for a long term deal. Nats can buy his services, but it’s likely to come at a steep price... we’ll be paying him as an elite closer for *years* after he’s no longer effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 He’s already declining. https://www.mlb.com/news/craig-kimbrel-red-flags-for-free-agent-suitors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Yeah, I don't think anyone can sign him and hope for his Atlanta years. He's no longer the monster he was in Atlanta, but he was still elite level last year (save for the yips in the playoffs). You have to weigh whether he can keep up elite level for a few more years. I think three years or less is a good length for the team. Four years or more, you start having real concerns. I think Nats have to start thinking away from pick up reliever for cheap at the deadline. We're gonna have to start hoarding more of the prospects for transition to the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 If these rumors about keeping Robles down for a a couple of weeks to extend his contract are true, and starting MAT in CF for the opener, i will be pissed if we are being cheap again. those few weeks can lose us the division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 41 minutes ago, skinfan2k said: If these rumors about keeping Robles down for a a couple of weeks to extend his contract are true, and starting MAT in CF for the opener, i will be pissed if we are being cheap again. those few weeks can lose us the division Counterpoint: I believe Harper could have been still under contract this year had the Nats taken a similar approach with him. Although to your point, they may well have missed the playoffs that season without Harper. If MAT is hitting well in ST, might as well give him a shot to open the year. Robles is right there to take over anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 11 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Counterpoint: I believe Harper could have been still under contract this year had the Nats taken a similar approach with him. Although to your point, they may well have missed the playoffs that season without Harper. If MAT is hitting well in ST, might as well give him a shot to open the year. Robles is right there to take over anytime. I agree... The bottom line is we need to win baseball games though. If they think Robles is the better option to win baseball games, he needs to be up. if the idea is that MAT will produce similarly across the first month of the season, and Robles will be grooming up... i agree with it. We all know that wins in April count just as much as they do in August, especially with the idea that a wildcard game is a single game elimination. This is likely going to be a nasty division, so we need to win all year. I understand the long term thinking, and I respect it and agree with it, unless it's COSTING you games. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 12 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Counterpoint: I believe Harper could have been still under contract this year had the Nats taken a similar approach with him. I am confused, that is what we did with Bryce. He didn't come up until June 1 of 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 MAT is what he is: a decent 4th OF who can play defense but is very streaky offensively. I want to see what Robles can do full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said: I am confused, that is what we did with Bryce. He didn't come up until June 1 of 2012. Hmm maybe I’m misremembering, I recalled there was some controversy whether to go ahead and call him up due to team need or push it back longer. Might be thinking of a different player though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 14 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Hmm maybe I’m misremembering, I recalled there was some controversy whether to go ahead and call him up due to team need or push it back longer. Might be thinking of a different player though. Harper got called up April 27.. I believe Benning is right, that we held him back. I think it actually turned into controversy, because the concern was going to be that Harper would get frustrated knowing that he was only being sent down in order to manipulate the contract, and that he had done enough to start the season with the big club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFi Skins Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Would love to sign Trout... better player than Harper and a big FU to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkB452 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 13 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Counterpoint: I believe Harper could have been still under contract this year had the Nats taken a similar approach with him. Although to your point, they may well have missed the playoffs that season without Harper. If MAT is hitting well in ST, might as well give him a shot to open the year. Robles is right there to take over anytime. You are correct about Harper. There seemed to be intent/ a plan to keep him in the minors until after his Super 2 date (early June?), but injuries forced them to call him up early and his play kept him in the majors....not sure if Robles is Super 2 arbitration eligible or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 56 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Hmm maybe I’m misremembering, I recalled there was some controversy whether to go ahead and call him up due to team need or push it back longer. Might be thinking of a different player though. 38 minutes ago, OVCChairman said: Harper got called up April 27.. I believe Benning is right, that we held him back. I think it actually turned into controversy, because the concern was going to be that Harper would get frustrated knowing that he was only being sent down in order to manipulate the contract, and that he had done enough to start the season with the big club. You both are right, I was wrong. He came up April 27, but the Nationals original plan was to keep him in the minors until June 1 of that season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said: You both are right, I was wrong. He came up April 27, but the Nationals original plan was to keep him in the minors until June 1 of that season. Yeah I looked and that's the same day we sent Zimm to the DL. That was the corresponding move. I believe that's what forced our hand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 This guys 7 part Twitter post is ruffling some feathers 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Doesn't Robles already have two september call ups under his belt? Unless Nats are gonna wait until mid June (for FA) or mid July (for Super 2), seems like he's gonna accrue a year in 2019. Even if he doesn't accrue a year in 2019, he'll almost surely be super 2 in 2022 if he pans out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, CRobi21 said: This guys 7 part Twitter post is ruffling some feathers The bandwagon jumpers...oh boy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) Truth coming out on Nats offer. 10 years/$300M, with $16M deferred. So $284M over 10 years with the rest to be paid out after the contract expired. This 10 year/$300M with $100M deferred to be paid out in $5M increments over 20 years was nothing more than Scott Boras bull****... Edited March 4, 2019 by Popeman38 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) On 3/1/2019 at 11:24 AM, skinsfan_1215 said: It won't be, and that's what I'm most irritated about. They have really low contract commitments the next few years and reportedly frontloaded his contract accordingly. He'll be a bargain for them well into his mid 30s. Still, by end of August everyone knew the Nats were toast (they did too, they traded many of their players). So why the hell not take the best offer for Harper if you were never going to truly be in the running for him? That's three players/prospects they don't have now that they could have. This is really hindsight.. but maybe if they did trade to him LAD he would have actually signed there and not with goddamn Philly. Not according to these links. It appears as if his first year the figure is $10 mill plus a $20 million signing bonus. It accelerates immediately to $26 million/year and that's the figure through the season when he will be 35. Then it only drops a few million. So the Phils will be paying a 35 year old who already has a bad injury history $26 million/year, then they will be on the hook for 22 million/year until he reaches 38. I would think Nats fans are relieved their team did not make this deal. https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/philadelphia-phillies/bryce-harper-8658/ https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/philadelphia-phillies/bryce-harper-8658/ Edited March 4, 2019 by Darrell Green Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry.Randolphe Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 I don't think it's the deal, per se....I think it's the way he went about leaving....and going to a division rival no less. He lied in the media that he wanted to be here when he clearly didn't. It's like Cousins all over again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Popeman38 said: Truth coming out on Nats offer. 10 years/$300M, with $16M deferred. So $284M over 10 years with the rest to be paid out after the contract expired. This 10 year/$300M with $100M deferred to be paid out in $5M increments over 20 years was nothing more than Scott Boras bull****... I didn't see this -- where did you see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 20 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said: I didn't see this -- where did you see it? I wonder if this doesn't all stem from what I can only assume is a typo from Boswell's chat today. From the chat Quote For example, word got out quickly that the Nats had offered Harper $300M for 10 years with "some" deferred money." That is correct __technically. The next leak said that the NPV of the Nats offer was $284M. I don't know which side leaked that. But it served a useful dual purpose. It made the Nats look like they'd made as pretty good offer. And it let Boras/Harper claim that they had set a $300M "floor" under Harper's market. And nobody had LIED! Remember how I wrote in this chat a week or two ago that I'd gotten sick and tired of covering free agent contract negotiations __after more than 30 years of doing it__ because nobody told you the COMPLETE truth. They didn't lie. They just misdirect you. Now, lets flip the coin to the present. NOW, it is in the interests of the Boras/Harper camp to say, or leak, that the Nats offer, with all that deferred money, was much LOWER than the Phils $330M offer. They don't emphasize that the NPV of the Phils offer was ~$238M, not the full $330M. And they don't underline that it was the Nats offer was their first first offer __so you can't know how much higher the Nats would have gone (or refused to go) if you'd negotiated during those seven weeks. I believe it was Boras who leaked that Nats' 10 year offer had 100 mil of it deferred for 20 (30?) years after the contract was over. That the net present value of the 300 million offer was really only 186 million. I'm assuming that Boswell typo'd 184 to 284 because for 10/300 million offer to have NPV of 284, it would have be heavily front loaded. An even spread of 30 mil per year on a 10/300 results in an NPV of $231. There is no way that the Lerners offered a deal with an NPV of 284. The central point of Boswell's answer is that NPV of 184 on a 10/300 may seem jarring (leading some to criticize the Nats for lowballing), but NPV on a 13/330 only results in a 238 mil. Machado's NPV is gonna be around 231+ (both Harper and Machado's NPV will be a little higher. Harper around 241 and Machado a few million higher too because they got a chunk of the first year salary as signing bonuses (meaning not prorated over the course of the year)). For Machado's NPV to eclipse Harper over 13 years, he's only gonna need like a 3/15 deal at 36. Going back to the original point, yes 186 NPV on a 10/300 is low. It's roughly the equivalent of a non-deferred, evenly split 10/250 offer. But is it a ridiculous offer like it would seem at first glance of "only NPV of 186" "100 mil deferred til age 60" kind of talk? I tend to think not. But this is a point that Nats ownership will have to think about and monitor going forward. Fairly or unfairly, the 100 mil with long term deferral has created the perception among some that they were being at best cheap to at worst deceitful. I wonder how the players viewed it. I get the benefit of deferrals for people like the Lerners who have supreme confidence in being able to generate great return on investment and have proven it time and time again. They would rather give 100 mil over 20 years than 70 mil over 10 (just as an example figure), because they are confident that they can generate more than the difference with time. But do the players view that as being cheap? Even if the conclusion is unfair (and it probably is. I doubt players can generate the same kind of ROI that Lerners can) and the deferral with higher amount represents a win-win, perception can be reality and if the players blanch at deferrals, Lerners may have to change their way of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said: I don't think it's the deal, per se....I think it's the way he went about leaving....and going to a division rival no less. He lied in the media that he wanted to be here when he clearly didn't. It's like Cousins all over again. I feel like he legitimately wanted to be here, just not as much as he wanted to etch his name in some kind of history. If the offers were identical, I'm fairly confident he stays 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now