No Sox listed in the top 10 nor in the dishonorable mention. So we're in good shape to compete for the coveted Payroll Efficiency Trophy for this year, sweet!
I liked this comment from an AL exec on the Indians getting dishonorable mentions for Swisher and Bourn: “These might not seem like killers, but how much better off are the Indians the next two years with their young core and [nearly] $30 million a year to supplement what they currently have on the free-agent market? Imagine the current Indians team with Andrew Miller and James Shields. It sucks to be a small-market team sometimes.”
So if they didn't sign those two big money free agents, they could've used the money to go out and sign two other big money free agents. Which would definitely work out so much better for some reason.
I mean obviously Shields and Miller would be really likely to improve Cleveland in 2015, but in order for them to sign with Cleveland, they would have had to beat the Yankees offer for Miller (or maybe even go over $40 million for a setup reliever) and probably give Shields five years at big money (if even that much that would get him to sign.) Since they are pitchers, it wouldn't be surprising at all to see those contracts on the 2016 or 2017 worst contracts list.
At the moment a team signs a player, the team obviously thinks the player is going to be good and improve them for at least a few years. No team hands out a big contract thinking "This probably won't work out and could look really dumb in a couple years." Even though many big contracts end up like that.
Most teams talk about how signing free agents to long term big money deals is inefficient, risky and not a good way to go, but they keep doing it. Some of them do work out, but many end up nightmares. It's interesting to compare the mindset at the moment the shiny new toy is purchased against how everything looks just a couple years later. (That Sandoval deal... well we'll see.)
It's not the end of the world to have a contract on this list. But to have a couple of them, like the Tigers and Rangers and Angels, wow.
I liked this comment from an AL exec on the Indians getting dishonorable mentions for Swisher and Bourn: “These might not seem like killers, but how much better off are the Indians the next two years with their young core and [nearly] $30 million a year to supplement what they currently have on the free-agent market? Imagine the current Indians team with Andrew Miller and James Shields. It sucks to be a small-market team sometimes.”
So if they didn't sign those two big money free agents, they could've used the money to go out and sign two other big money free agents. Which would definitely work out so much better for some reason.
I mean obviously Shields and Miller would be really likely to improve Cleveland in 2015, but in order for them to sign with Cleveland, they would have had to beat the Yankees offer for Miller (or maybe even go over $40 million for a setup reliever) and probably give Shields five years at big money (if even that much that would get him to sign.) Since they are pitchers, it wouldn't be surprising at all to see those contracts on the 2016 or 2017 worst contracts list.
At the moment a team signs a player, the team obviously thinks the player is going to be good and improve them for at least a few years. No team hands out a big contract thinking "This probably won't work out and could look really dumb in a couple years." Even though many big contracts end up like that.
Most teams talk about how signing free agents to long term big money deals is inefficient, risky and not a good way to go, but they keep doing it. Some of them do work out, but many end up nightmares. It's interesting to compare the mindset at the moment the shiny new toy is purchased against how everything looks just a couple years later. (That Sandoval deal... well we'll see.)
It's not the end of the world to have a contract on this list. But to have a couple of them, like the Tigers and Rangers and Angels, wow.
