Royals *** Official 2018 Royals Offseason Repository *** - Page 34

Originally Posted by Mecca:
And Harper is going to get paid more by a large margin.

Deservedly so.

I was simply trying to figure out why anyone would try to compare Hosmer to Harper and act as if you would be getting his production at 1/3 the price or some shit.

The one thing you get with Hosmer over Harper is 150+ games. Harper has only done that once. But if Harper could manage to stay healthy for an entire season, Hosmer's numbers would dwarf Harper's.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by wazu:
I�ll enter the Royals current shitty TV deal as Exhibit A.

Signed in 2008. Different media landscape now.

Look, I've already provided the quote by Mellinger, who said he talked to officials on both sides of the negotiations who said team quality will have very little to do with the contract.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by jd1020:
Harper also played in just 111 games last year. If you dont want to go back the same 3 years on Harper as you did Hosmer, you conveniently leave out his 9.5 WAR season.

Hosmer has been around since 2011 and has a career 9.9 WAR.

Harper has been around since 2012 and has a career 27.7 WAR.

Bryce had 1 monster year. One of the best in history. But what else? Seriously, what else has he done? Be a 4 we guy? So what? Big whoop. Hosmer can do that too, for much cheaper.

2015 is ancient history anyway. Yordano was pitching for us, zobrist was our 2B, holland closing. Gordon was still playable etc
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
2015 is ancient history anyway.

Then why are you using it to boost Hosmer?

Since 2016 (eliminating ancient history), Hosmer has accumlated 4 WAR with one of those seasons being a -0.1 WAR. Harper sits at 8.3.
[Reply]

I'm not. You can write off 2015 for anyone. It's largely irrelevant to 2018 and beyond.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
I'm not. You can write off 2015 for anyone. It's largely irrelevant to 2018 and beyond.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
He was 3.5 two years ago. If one believes his defensive metrics are wrong, then he's prob 4-5 range two of the last 3 years. He just turned 28.

(By the way, Bryce Harper last two years WAR: 3.5, 4.8)

So you didn't just take Hosmer's 2015 and 2017 season (conveniently leaving out 2016) and compare it to Harper's 2016 and 2017 season (conveniently leaving out 2015) just then to make it sound like you were getting Harper?

If not, my mistake but that seems like exactly what you just did.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
Signed in 2008. Different media landscape now.

Look, I've already provided the quote by Mellinger, who said he talked to officials on both sides of the negotiations who said team quality will have very little to do with the contract.

Seems like Mellinger should ask a simple follow up question- �why wouldn�t it?� If TV negotiations somehow defy all basic tenets of capitalism, would be interesting to know why.
[Reply]

I just don't buy the report. When has an offer/signing leaked under DM? He's always done things under the radar. The money is a non issue he always smoke screens money. It's whether or not you belive Hosmer will age quickly or not
[Reply]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Depends.

What if it's five years, with an opt out after 3, and two team or mutual option years on the back end with a small buyout?

That structure would make sense for both sides, I think. Maybe the market's soft enough for that to happen.

I don't understand why more teams don't try to add a team option on the back end (or make the last year a team option) as a pair with the opt out rights.

I suspect they try. But in free agency, it's a player's market and if one team offers that deal with the team option at the back, that offer gets shopped. If the team option is for a 35 year old player at $22 million, the player/agent know there's a maybe 50% chance that gets picked up so the 'value' gets calculated at $11 million.

So let's say Hosmer's offer is 7/$127 with the 7th year being a team option at $22 million. They try to turn that into a 7th year guaranteed at, say, $15 million instead. They'll look for a 7 year, $120 million deal at that point because it has higher value.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Bryce had 1 monster year. One of the best in history. But what else? Seriously, what else has he done? Be a 4 we guy? So what? Big whoop. Hosmer can do that too, for much cheaper.

Um...put up numbers that have been rivaled by maybe 3-5 people in the history of the sport through his age 24 season?

Trying to downplay what Harper's done at the ages he's done it at is silly. Bryce Harper is going to sail into the HoF and go down as one of the 10-15 best hitters in baseball history.

Eric Hosmer...uh...won't.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by wazu:
Seems like Mellinger should ask a simple follow up question- �why wouldn�t it?� If TV negotiations somehow defy all basic tenets of capitalism, would be interesting to know why.

How in the world is that "defying all basic tenets of capitalism"? The market value of a TV contract simply depends on more than a team's competitiveness, in large part because you can't predict a team's success over the term of the deal -- usually a decade or more. Therefore they rely on other factors, such as size of market, number of competitors bidding for it, etc.

THAT'S capitalism.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by SPchief:
I just don't buy the report. When has an offer/signing leaked under DM? He's always done things under the radar. The money is a non issue he always smoke screens money. It's whether or not you belive Hosmer will age quickly or not

THIS...unless things have been practically inked. But that would make no sense, since Boras / Nightengale do this media leak to get someone else to pony up for a bigger contract. Teams mentioned are usually being used. It will be interesting to see if DM comes out and denies the report. If it's a legit offer by the Royals, I would imagine he's not very happy and this could sour their semi-good relationship with Boras. They are anal about keeping their negotiations tight.

EDIT: There is the possibility that the contract offer / years part of the report is true...but the total is either made up, not guaranteed (regardless of what the report says) heavily back-loaded or with variations of opt-outs and / or team options.
[Reply]

The money wouldn't be a huge issue if we weren't paying a bunch of shitheels, that aren't producing anything, gobs of money. It pains me to think that without Gordon and Kennedy, we could probably have kept Moose, as well.
[Reply]

Flanny is saying that DM is not commenting. Which means some of this is likely true.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
How in the world is that "defying all basic tenets of capitalism"? The market value of a TV contract simply depends on more than a team's competitiveness, in large part because you can't predict a team's success over the term of the deal -- usually a decade or more. Therefore they rely on other factors, such as size of market, number of competitors bidding for it, etc.

THAT'S capitalism.

And if ratings go in the tank because the once-in-30-years playoff window has closed, that doesn�t make a big impact on the forecasted value? Please.
[Reply]