The players have been pretty outspoken about this, recently. Andrew Miller brought it up at the Winter Warm-up and talked about how the CBA usually takes about five, six years to age out of relevance, and then he added this one happened quicker, and that should concern the union and how they negotiated and what they didn't see happening, Kyle Lohse was candid about the frustration he had with qualifying offers, and he was an early whistleblower on problems we saw expand through the game. Why should he get a chilly free-agent experience because he wasn't traded and happened to be on a winning team when Greinke was free to chase whatever he wanted because he was on a losing team that traded him? Players work hard to get to free agency and all they want is for free agency to be the same for all eligible players -- not to have tiers of free agency. That was an unintended consequence, and players let the union know, and changes happened.
That's in Colorado Springs, not Estes Park.
Sure. And you don't see all the questions. I try not to get surly and overly sarcastic as a result, but I don't always succeed. I do try. But some of the questions and some of the things you don't read can test my patience and make it difficult. No surprise.
Sure seems that way. An extension for Mikolas in spring training would make that all the more likely. And I bet it will be a mutual parting of the ways. Wacha seems set to want the chance to test the market and see who is interested. Could be a Ranger for the opening of a new ballpark, for example.
I don't see how this would implemented. It benefits neither side, honestly.
They no longer are in a hurry to trade him. They need him.
Honestly. I don't have one. I've always found that if I had a favorite place to write then it invites writer's block -- or this sense that I cannot write well elsewhere. I've got to write anywhere. Are some more comfortable than others? Sure. The home office has more info at my finger tips and I control the music. A coffee shop is a nice setting because there are things going on, white noise, and coffee. Each has its benefit -- but if I'm wed to one, then when I have to write on the floor near baggage claim at LAX (that's happened) or in my car at the Hertz rental area (also happened) or on the sidewalk outside the Cardinals' complex in Jupiter (also happened) or on the dugout bench while watching my son's practice (also happened) I give myself an excuse for not writing my best. I don't want that.
My choice was between film school and J-School. I would have gone into screenwriting.
But HOW. How does a team do that and not accidentally win the division? How.
Oh, given the length of contract and cost and potential bump to Cardinals' chances: Gio.
They have two teams that operate out of there. They have rehab that is stationed there. They have a Dept. of Performance and all of their studies there. It's in operation 365 days a year.
There is no evidence of your assumption, sorry. I just haven't seen it, read it, or heard it when asking around. We just know that an offer isn't as good as Harper wants it -- or his agent things he can squeeze a bit more from the team he'll inevitably sign with. I have been given no indication that Harper or the Cardinals have circled back to each other in the past week. Quite the opposite, honestly.
Because he won't take it. That would be my educated guess.
I agree strongly with your premise, and it's one that has been presented by teams, including the Cardinals, in the past. And, honestly, it was one of the things that I really tried to understand this winter when it became clear through reporting that a long-term deal was what the Cardinals wanted to avoid. Why? This was the guy. This was the age. This was the peak years. This was the same factor they had when they approach Heyward -- and Harper is the better player, by far. So what's changed? What we know is that all teams appear allergic to long-term offers. We're not seeing them. And more teams are avoiding them then are entering the bidding for Harper and Machado. One part of that is the risk -- as mapped out earlier. Another part of that is the possible labor strife ahead -- that's in play here. But, you're right, five, six, maybe even three years ago we would see teams reason that a 10-year investment in Harper is ideal because you're paying for the peak years and stomaching the out years. That's the Pujols' deal. Teams would make those. Now they don't. This is likely a response to opt-outs -- teams see those entirely as player-power clauses, not anything that benefits them. This is definitely a response to taking advantage of the current CBA. And this is definitely the outcome that follows tanking teams and teams that are run by the value or a player not the talent of the player. It's an issue.
There is no vet minimum. Their deals vary in the majors. This is so teams don't have to use a spot on the 40-man roster until they have access to the 60-day DL midway through spring training. That's why you're seeing more of these. Veterans get jobs. Veterans get promises. Teams get those valuable 40-man spots to use on players who haven't failed yet, I guess.
Again, it makes a lot of sense, but he has to say yes, and he hasn't.
Bud Norris? At last check there wasn't momentum for a move there.
Bet away. I'll wait to confirm that or see another reporter confirm it. Color me skeptical.