formermav43

That's why I'd argue they need to play Lee and/or Diaz. Lee has the first round pedigree and certainly won't be a worse offensive catcher than Maldonado; Diaz looks like a bat first guy who might not even stick at catcher. Maybe neither of those guys end up panning out, but they need to find out.

Given that Bogaerts got 11/280, if 1) he has another season like 2022 and 2) spending next offseason is similar, I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to 10/300. That seems crazy in a vacuum, and it would have been way out of line with projections as recently as 4 months ago. But it seems like the going rate today.

Maldonado is in the conversation for the worst-hitting everyday player of the postwar era (of players with at least 3,000 PA, he has the second lowest batting average to Jeff Mathis, but Mathis never caught more than 100 games in a season; he is tied for 25th in lowest wOBA; the one thing that maybe elevates him from absolute worst is that when he happens to make contact, he hits with more power than most of the other guys in the basement). Anyway, anyone expecting him to make any contribution at all with his bat is missing the point. That's not why he's there. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like it's an easy position to upgrade, but I think this is an area where you just have to roll with how the team values him, especially given that a catcher's defensive contributions are still difficult to quantify. I also don't think that there's any point in adding another catcher at this late stage, even if Maldonado can't catch 100 games. They need to see what Lee and/or Diaz can do, and no one available today is likely to offer an upgrade over them even if they aren't very good. If it's a real problem as the season goes on, they can add a catcher at the deadline like they did last year.

"As you know, I'll play everybody." Baker elaborated, "I'm going to run Dubon out there at least 50 times in CF, so it really doesn't matter who the 'starter' is."

That level of performance gets you extended as manager of the Yankees.

All Cretans are liars.

I’d say the first one is great cinema.

I don't believe I have said "all." I have said they tend to, it's nearly inevitable, etc. That's not "my truth," that's what the data says. So you have to bank on Valdez being the rare exception.

I think our key disagreement is on what a "fair and reasonable" extension offer is in this case. We have 2 typical categories here: what the Astros (and Braves in particular lately) have liked doing, giving a young guy an extension that buys out some of his arbitration and early free agent years at what will likely be below market value then in exchange for giving him security up front; and the classic megadeal for a guy who hits free agency in his prime, where you are paying for the next 3-5 years of production with the understanding that you are basically eating the back half of the contract and giving him security then. The problem with extending Valdez is that he doesn't really fall into either of those categories. The whole point in either of those cases is to try to control a guy in his prime, and you are either paying up front instead of him getting the minimum, or you are paying him at the end of his career when he might otherwise be out of the league. Valdez is in his prime NOW. He's already under team control. And I'd argue he's more likely to be washed when he hits free agency than he is to be an above average starter at 33.

But to be clear, if you want to give him more money now because he has outperformed his contract or to help clubhouse morale or whatever - great. There's plenty of room under the luxury tax, and there aren't any more moves coming this offseason. Give him every bit of it while he's still under team control if you want. But I still wouldn't tack on any more years. I think by the time he's a free agent, that money will be better spent elsewhere.

The idea that letting him go through the CBA process and then leaving as a free agent - the very thing that happens to countless other players - is somehow doing him dirty is curious.

You've already mentioned 3 of them for starters - Keuchel, Correa, Springer (whom you evidently view as a big loss, and I'd argue the jury is still out on given the length of the contract, not to mention the fact that Tucker made him unnecessary - he's not good in CF anymore). That statement was made in the context of your statement that, "teams routinely pay bigger money to aging players in the back end of contracts knowing there's a good chance the player's performance will fall off." None of those deals fall into that category - the oldest player at the end of it will be Altuve, at 34, and his AAV is a bargain. But they wouldn't budge on the years for Correa. Springer will be heading into his age 38 season when he's a free agent. Etc. And every single guy you named they extended was younger than Valdez is now - and that's without taking into account the aging of groundball pitchers that we already have covered. So the question is, is Valdez more like the young guys they extended, or the older guys they didn't want to give longterm deals to? Even at 5/$90 like you propose, is he more likely to be an effective starter at 34, or washed up before he even hits free agency? I don't think "giving him his money" based on what he did last year is smart, and I think the Astros history of NOT doing business that way is a good thing.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think we basically see the data the same way, we just don't agree on what the smart move is.

Right. But I also know that the Astros have made it a practice to not sign those contracts in the first place, and it's a piece of why they have been so successful compared to those teams that do. Valdez seems to me like a guy you let play out his deal and walk, like they have with others before him.

1) That he is such an outlier - he is one of the most extreme groundball pitchers of all-time, not just currently - arguably makes him more of a risk, not less. 2) I do not agree with the last sentence at all. His pay should be based on future expectations, not past performance. The team can evaluate that much better than any of us can, so if they agree with your assessment that his production is likely to continue - that's great! But if he ages like 99% of groundball pitchers, then paying him at 32 for what he did at 28 is foolish. Let another, less savvy organization do that if they choose.

So was Felix Hernandez. But it's not about how good they are in their prime, it's about the aging curve of groundball pitchers. It's a near inevitability that they break down early.

Not really. Groundball pitchers tend to decline earlier than others, around 30. By 34, most of them are out of the game. Look at Keuchel for a good example we all know. Or Felix Hernandez-he entered decline *before* and retired at 33. Valdez is one of the most extreme groundball pitchers of all time, more so than either of those guys. When he hits free agency, he’ll be 32. It’s more likely he’ll already be in decline while he’s still in arbitration than that he’ll be effective throughout the additional years of an extension.

I still think extending Valdez is not a great idea.

5 star QBs redshirting, evidently.

In addition to the ballpark, you get exclusive access to a special area worthy of the former Commissioner.

I thought the fact it says “parody” twice was a bit of a tell too.

I don't even understand why it matters. I go to football games to watch the football game, not a light show. (I assume this means I'm getting old.)

I’d rather imagine him catching the ball.