|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 11, 2007 14:43:18 GMT -5
Except that pitchers pitch away from that. They pitch to CF. They know about the shortporch and now they know how to pitch around it.
LC, CF and RC kill alot of homerun balls.
|
|
|
|
Post by hembo36 on Oct 11, 2007 20:21:26 GMT -5
what makes you think he cant play until he is 42 or 44? i said it was a stretch but you're the biggest arod basher here...everybody here knows you said his best years are behind him and then he comes in and hits almost 100 hr's since that insane comment...for sake of argument lets say he signs a 10 year deal(and im almost positive it will be) he is 484 hr's from 1000..i really dont think 48 is a stretch for at least half that time..while i said 1000 is unlikely its certainly not out of the realm of possibility he hits well over 900..over a 10 year period? come on...thats what 37 38 hr's a year? you telling me thats not possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 11, 2007 20:53:37 GMT -5
Everybody here does know it and I did say it. I was wrong for 1 season. Just as you have been wrong about Berkman and quite a few other things.
So lets move on and be realistic. I maybe have less of an opinion of Arod than I should and maybe you give him too much credit, as you are right now.
Lets say he does get that 10 year deal, which I dont think he will ( no one is giving a player $30 million per year to play when he is 40, 41, 42 years old in the back end of a LTC 5 years, maybe 6 but not at $30 million per), but lets just say he does. He needs 482 HR's, not 488 to get to 1000. That means he would need to average 48 homers a year for the next 10 years. Who has done that? Barry? How did Barry do that? Steriods?
Even Barry, the most prolific HR hitter of all time didnt average 48 homers a year.
Now, I never said he couldnt get to 900, but well over? Not likely. 900 is a stretch, A HUGE STRETCH.
Whether you want to accept it or not, Arod probably wont play that long as his skills will fall off and he is getting to those years where that will start happing sooner than later. I would be SHOCKED if he plays much past passing Barry. I expect him to pass Barry in 6 or 7 years when he is 38-39. He may play till he is 40, but I highly doubt he will play past that if he plays that long. Arod is going to have to end his career being a nomad and DH'ing or playing 1st.
Arod isnt going to average 50+ homers over the last 8 years of his career when he never has before. He is going to have down years whether you like it or not.
Is it possible? Anything is possible. The Astros could make all the right moves, have no injuries, have some young guys play out of their skull and win the WS in 2008. Its possible. But it isnt likely. I expect Arod to hit between 760 and 800. He needs 282 homers to get to 800. Thats 35 a year average. Thats about the best you can expect.
If you think about it you will see what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by hembo36 on Oct 11, 2007 22:00:46 GMT -5
player $30 million per year to play when he is 40, 41, 42
hmm..thats odd..i thought clemens made at least 25 mil pro rated
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 11, 2007 22:05:52 GMT -5
Do you know what pro rated means hembo? Thats means he didnt make $25 million. Plus... Drayton didnt sign him to that deal 10 years ago. Teams just arent going to take that risk. Signing a player who is 32 to a 10 year deal is stupid. I dont care who it is. 5, 6 even 7 years MAYBE... but he doesnt get 10. If he does it will be a team that care NOTHING about winning and only pays it for the novelty of having Arod.
I think it is funny that you b*tched and moaned along with Vega about Biggio and him being old and over the hill at his age chasing 3000 hits, but you have no problem with giving Payrod 10 years $30 million per to chase some stupid idea of 1000 homers. Do you really think Arod will be worth anywhere near $30 million per 6 years from now let alone 10 years from now? How bad will that contract hamstring a team?
It is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by hembo36 on Oct 12, 2007 15:56:16 GMT -5
Yes i know what pro rated is..Thats like everytime you come to this board you only appear to be coming with half assed info...When you get the whole picture is when you should post....
You do realize that a 10 yr 250 mil contract isnt all guaranteed, right? teams NEVER jump into one of those without a million loopholes..incentives, time played, injuries etc....i'd bet very little of a contract is guaranteed money
|
|
|
|
Post by sadoug on Oct 12, 2007 18:37:45 GMT -5
Texas Rangers?....why then are they still paying for Arod?
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 12, 2007 19:53:59 GMT -5
Hembo... you accuse people all the time of having "half assed" info and then you make THIS statement.... " You do realize that a 10 yr 250 mil contract isnt all guaranteed " You really need to probably quit acting like the freaking authority on baseball info. ALL MLB PLAYER CONTRACTS ARE GUARANTEED... you freaking moron. ALL OF THEM, EVERY DIME... I swear hembo... How it is you think you know everything and you actually know very very little. There arent loopholes ETC ETC ... If you sign a 10 year $250 million deal you get $250 million dollars.
You need to just quit... YOU make a freaking fool of yourself on a daily basis and you dont seem to care. Its quite sad. You are probably a nice guy/gal in person. But on here you just dont do well. Its sad that you think you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 12, 2007 20:13:06 GMT -5
Yes Doug... the Rangers are still paying a rather large portion of PayRods salary. Worst contract ever signed in the history of MLB. The Rangers were stone stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by hembo36 on Oct 12, 2007 20:38:37 GMT -5
I stand by that 110% percent..tehre are many many loopholes to cover the teams...absofcknlutely...the Vick thing is a perfect example...You two are coming in like the know all be's and its not the case in most contracts....you know this...
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Oct 12, 2007 20:45:46 GMT -5
NFL contracts are NOT guaranteed, MLB contracts are.
You are just dead wrong. Stand by it all you want, but you are clueless.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Oct 14, 2007 13:32:35 GMT -5
You do realize that a 10 yr 250 mil contract isnt all guaranteed, right? teams NEVER jump into one of those without a million loopholes..incentives, time played, injuries etc....i'd bet very little of a contract is guaranteed money MLB contracts are guaranteed. No ifs, ands, or butts about them. Incentives that are on top of the base are not guaranteed, but what the incentives can be based on are very specific. NFL contracts and MLB contracts are completely different because they're 2 different leagues with different Collective Bargaining Agreements. NFL contracts only 'guarantee' the signing bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach on Oct 15, 2007 11:03:18 GMT -5
If the contract contains incentives, then part of the contract is not guaranteed. Someone look up A-Rod's contract and see if there are incentives in it.
I do disagree that "very little" of A-rod's money is guaranteed. I'd say most of it is guaranteed whether he suits up or not.
|
|
