My vote is cespedes. He has improved a lot ever since coming to the mets
jvoynik
I’ve got to agree with you. He has been on a hot streak ever since joining the National League and is considered as a candidate for NL MVP
Phillies2017
Chris Davis reminds me of Ryan Howard
Just a bad contract waiting to happen
gomerhodge71
Davis is a risk to me because of the medication he is on. The adderall is obviously a major factor in his performance. Does he continue to use it? Does he try to switch to something else that gets a rejection from MLB? Does he build up an immunity to it? And he still whiffs a little too much for my comfort zone. I’d give him 4-5 years, but not 7.
ryan211
Cespedes reminds me of Carlos Beltran circa 2004: power hitting out-fielder traded mid-season who then went on an absolute tear. If he continues his success in the post-season, as did Beltran that year, he’ll land a huge deal. And even if he doesn’t, he’s already doubled his production (per WAR) from any previous year. Put my vote down for Cespedes.
Drewnasty
I voted for Cespedes, but that doesn’t mean I would want to sign him to whatever deal he is now seeking. Big difference. In terms of who I’d want out of this group, give me Price every single day.
bobbleheadguru
Heyward for 8 years or Cespedes for 6 years at same AAV?
I would go Heyward at age 26 v. Cespedes at age 30.
73SFGiantsFan
Without taking away from the obvious production all of these impending Free Agents being discussed has put up. The idea of cash strapping an organization and locking a player into a contract anything more than 5 yrs is pure insanity. A perfect example of this are the Zito and Howard contracts of past and present. That doesn’t mean they are all bad, but percentage of failure far exceeds the history of success on these long term contracts. You ultimately backlog an organization. Consistently, year in and year out a teams 40 man roster gets held for ransom which forces teams to cut or expose players to the open market that they would normally not find themselves doing. I think 5 yrs is more than enough for teams to conduct medium range planning and assess their current crop of talents ascension through the organization while adding key pieces to solidify their teams ability to contend. The teams that are successful year in and year out have all limited their liability to long term contracts. Exception to this case would be the Dodgers because of Kershaw, and he is the exception to the rule in their case. I doubt they will get beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs again this year, and I’m perfectly fine with that. 300 million dollars does not buy you a ring.
Comments for this post have been closed by the site administrator.
Slipknot37
My vote is cespedes. He has improved a lot ever since coming to the mets
jvoynik
I’ve got to agree with you. He has been on a hot streak ever since joining the National League and is considered as a candidate for NL MVP
Phillies2017
Chris Davis reminds me of Ryan Howard
Just a bad contract waiting to happen
gomerhodge71
Davis is a risk to me because of the medication he is on. The adderall is obviously a major factor in his performance. Does he continue to use it? Does he try to switch to something else that gets a rejection from MLB? Does he build up an immunity to it? And he still whiffs a little too much for my comfort zone. I’d give him 4-5 years, but not 7.
ryan211
Cespedes reminds me of Carlos Beltran circa 2004: power hitting out-fielder traded mid-season who then went on an absolute tear. If he continues his success in the post-season, as did Beltran that year, he’ll land a huge deal. And even if he doesn’t, he’s already doubled his production (per WAR) from any previous year. Put my vote down for Cespedes.
Drewnasty
I voted for Cespedes, but that doesn’t mean I would want to sign him to whatever deal he is now seeking. Big difference. In terms of who I’d want out of this group, give me Price every single day.
bobbleheadguru
Heyward for 8 years or Cespedes for 6 years at same AAV?
I would go Heyward at age 26 v. Cespedes at age 30.
73SFGiantsFan
Without taking away from the obvious production all of these impending Free Agents being discussed has put up. The idea of cash strapping an organization and locking a player into a contract anything more than 5 yrs is pure insanity. A perfect example of this are the Zito and Howard contracts of past and present. That doesn’t mean they are all bad, but percentage of failure far exceeds the history of success on these long term contracts. You ultimately backlog an organization. Consistently, year in and year out a teams 40 man roster gets held for ransom which forces teams to cut or expose players to the open market that they would normally not find themselves doing. I think 5 yrs is more than enough for teams to conduct medium range planning and assess their current crop of talents ascension through the organization while adding key pieces to solidify their teams ability to contend. The teams that are successful year in and year out have all limited their liability to long term contracts. Exception to this case would be the Dodgers because of Kershaw, and he is the exception to the rule in their case. I doubt they will get beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs again this year, and I’m perfectly fine with that. 300 million dollars does not buy you a ring.