Yeah, why would you want anything to do with a guy who has hit more than 120 home runs and OPS+ed over 140 during the past three seasons?
There are reasons not to like Davis, especially for a team like Toronto that actually has some similar players and doesn’t need to fill the sort of holes that Davis is made for. But while he does strike out a lot, his BA and OBP were slightly above league average, and his slugging was way above. He is, as a couple of analysts have pointed out recently, the type of player who would have been the subject of massive bidding wars ten or fifteen years ago.
The biggest danger with Davis, like so many free agents, is that getting him will probably require a contract that takes him well into his twilight years, leaving him as a $20 million/year dead weight for the last two or three or four years of the deal. Anyway, talks between Davis and the Orioles have broken down for now. Apparently the Orioles started with an offer of 7/150, while Davis might have been asking as much as 8/200. I think Davis is worth a big contract, but maybe not as big as he wants, especially for a guy who gives you below-replacement-level defense just about anywhere he plays.
So, which AL team is currently in need of a solid DH?
On a separate but related issue, i wish there were a way to fix the CBA so that good young players get closer to what their talents are worth, and did not have to wait until the declining portion of their careers to win the Free Agent lottery. It would also allow young players who shine for a few years and then fade, or get injured, to make some real money from baseball before they leave the game. Doing this might also reshape the financial landscape such that teams might not be as inclined to give contracts that end up paying 30 or 40 million per year to fat, slow, declining sluggers in the 35+ age bracket.
I understand that doing this would undermine the current cost controls that allow poorer clubs to get and develop good young talent for little money, but surely there are some Ivy League economists out there who could produce a model that maintains a solid level of competitive parity while also putting in place a contract system that more closely reflects the true market value of all players, whether young or old.
And it’s being reported that they’re not done yet. They’re looking to trade for a starting pitcher. I would imagine that Soler is one of the names mentioned as being dangled.
Not to worry…two of em are 35+ and they are likely to pay multi millions for an average offensive talent in Heyword. How did having a star roster work for the Dodgers?
It got them the third-most wins in the National League, and a comfortable 8-game victory in their Division, which is pretty much all you can reliably expect from any star roster, no matter how much money you spend.
Average offensive talent, but one of the best defensive players in baseball. 6.5 WAR is nothing to sneeze at.
And the Dodgers have won 90+ games the last 3 seasons, winning the NL West each time. I think they are fine with that. Granted they haven’t been fortunately in the playoffs, but they’ve run into the Cards twice and the super-hot Mets last season.
Cubs with Rizzo, Zobrist, Russell, Bryant in the infield, Schwarber, Heyward, Soler in the outfield and Montero catching. Half the games at Wrigley and Javier Baez as odd man out.
So far. But there are reports that the Cubs are looking to get another starting pitcher. Soler would probably be included in any deal. If so, Baez may get a look at CF in spring training, and Heyward slides to right.
Its being reported that Manfried wont lift Pete Roses permanent ban.
I do believe they should let him into the HoF before he dies. At this point this whole mess seems so petty. His issues occured after his playing career ended.
Shocking! There was no way Manfried was going to reverse that decision. I agree, though, put him in the HOF. And Shoeless Joe, too. Put a note on their plaques, “banned for gambling.”
The killer rule, though, prohibits Rose from being involved in organized baseball. It doesn’t say anything about being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
The Hall of Fame is a separate organization (granted, with many sitting directors in common) and chose to create a rule more or less specifically to exclude Rose. There had never been a rule saying they couldn’t induct Shoeless Joe Jackson; the writers just chose not to. There’s no particular reason why it has to keep that rule around except that it would have been very embarrassing to give Rose a plaque when he was banned from baseball and denying he’d done anything to merit it. Can you imagine the blazing dirigible crash THAT induction speech would have been?
Now, with Rose at least mostly admitting what he did I’m not sure it’d be a terrible thing for the HoF to dump the Rose Rule. MLB can still exclude him for employment with them and he can get the plaque his playing career deserves.
Anyone who doesn’t understand why baseball has these rules really needs to read the articles; Rose is STILL gambling on baseball. He has, obviously, a serious gambling addiction. God bless him, I wish him well and I have a friend or three who’ve struggled with gambling addictions and it’s a bitch to beat, but Manfred’s position is eminently reasonable and is exactly the reason Rose was banned in the first place; he is a risk to MLB. If someone made him a manager there is every reason to believe he’d gamble on his own team again.
If Rose was truly in a place in his life where he could be trusted again… I mean, he’d be going to them with signed affdavits and testimonials to his recovery, saying “I haven’t so much as bet a nickel in ten years. I pay for my gas at the pump so I don’t have to go inside where the scratch tickets are. I gambled on baseball. I gambled on my own team. It probably influenced my decisions and I am deeply sorry, and I believe I have put that addiction at bay now. Here’s my GA sponsor.”
Instead, Rose has, and he always has, insisted that he deserves to be back in baseball because he’s Pete Rose.
Truthfully, however, that’s beside the point. Rule 21 applies to managers just as much as it does to players and, you can argue, that a manager has far more ability to manipulate the results of a game unfavorably than a single player.
I find myself surprisingly unworried about Cueto to the Giants. I am worried that other teams are getting better while LA is losing players, but I don’t think Cueto is a difference maker for SF.
Theres some fans and media members in Philadelphia who are raising an eyebrow at the trade. What they don’t get is a good trade doesn’t alway mean you fleeced the other guy----i think its a good trade for both squads.
What does Philly need a closer for? They aren’t going to be in the 80+ win range for at least 2 seasons, if not more. They need prospects.
Houston is trying to win a World Series, and was looking for a power reliever.
I think it was a good trade for both parties, a win-win. Two teams, two agendas.
So the Giants signed Cueto (6 yrs / $130M) and Samardzija (5 yrs / $90M) for almost the same as what Boston will pay David Price (7 yrs. / $217M). Not bad.