Re: [討論] 今年的合約跟交易

看板NY-Yankees作者kafen (石頭)時間17年前 (2008/07/05 16:12)推噓2(2推 0噓 0→)

留言2則, 2人參與討論串12/31 (看更多)

let me ask you one thing If Santana did not have NTC. Twins agreed to send Santana to Mets for several prospects. Santana would have to go because he did not have NTC. Mets got Santana and the right to negotiate with him for a long term deal wihout other teams' involvements. Do you agree that Mets would have been in a risk of losing Santana for nothing? They paid 4 prospects for him but he can still walk away after the season is over. If you were Mets' GM, which way you want to go, make the trade and long term deal together or seperate them? From Santana's perspective, signing a long term deal rather than entering FA market is not a bad move. He might be able to get more in the FA market. But what if he was injured during the season? Who knows what can happen in one year. Taking the money on the talbe is not bad at all. For Beltran's case, firstly, his value was not as high as Santana's. Houston traded a perspect along with Dotel for him. I dont think that is a big price. Houston did offer Beltran a contract, maybe not as big as the one from Mets. But they can afford letting him go because they did not buy him in a very high price. ※ 引述《vegas (買雞頭貴過買松阪牛?)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《vegas (買雞頭貴過買松阪牛?)》之銘言： : : In Santana's case, the reason Mets signed him with a fat contract is not : : because Mets want a contract long and big but because Santana had full NTC : : (no-trade clasue) to void any possible deal that includes him. Mets has to : : offer a good enough contract to persuade Santana to give up his NTC to : : complete the deal. : : -- : : 推 kafen:from Mets' perspective, they might not want to sigh such 07/05 15:15 : : → kafen:a huge contract for that long. So you are right. But 07/05 15:16 : : → kafen:they did not want to simply rent Santana for 1 yr either 07/05 15:17 : : → kafen:especially after giving up that much farm talent 07/05 15:17 : Let me put it this way. Now, think of two Johan Santana on the trading : block, one with NTC, the other without. If other things being equal, who will : be of greater value on trading market? Its the one without NTC that would : cause the team more prospect to trade for. Why? because I could get that : Santana without his consent and I could still negotiate for a contract : extension after I got him when no other team can talk to him. : Lets refresh our memory how Santana's teammate Beltran joined Mets. : Beltran was first traded to Astros for a few month when Astro was contending. : Technically, Astros rents Beltran for months. At the end of the season, Mets : outbid other teams, including Astros, in Boras' auction and signed Beltran to : a big contract. : So, did Astros try to extend Beltran's contract? I think they probably : did. But Boras would not take that offer. To Beltran's best interest, he : should test the FA market first an take the biggest offer he got. : What I am trying to say is that, when a player was put on trading block : at the last year of his contract, NTC matters. In Santana's case, he could : decide not to wave his NTC and played for Twins for a few more months and : then test FA market to see the crazy GMs outbiding each other. So, whether : or not a team would sign the trade-in to longterm depends on the price and : on the attitude of the player, not on how mych talent they gave up. : e and -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 209.173.238.18