There is a reason why it's called "team control". Because the team gets to control how much a player makes until his sixth year.
Let's put it another way: If you do a really good job at work, how much raise do you usually expect the following year?
I'd say that 4% is more generous than most raises anyone on this list gets from year to year...
I'm not worried. I think the bone spurs had a lot to do with his crap pitching late last year.
However, I do worry about him if and when we make the postseason. His track record in October? Not so good...
This is a non-issue.
This is how it works. You don't get paid for the value you have now or COULD have in the future. You get paid for the value you've already provided. This is why Wells, Hamilton, and Pujols make more than $20 million/year. Because of the value they HAVE provided. In the past. Players are not paid on projected future performance.
It also doesn't make sense for the budget to pay him now.
Trout will get paid, I suspect, when Wells is no longer. Not before.
This is how baseball works.
He's only up 4 from the end of last year? *Pfft*
Remember that one of the reasons he didn't make the team out of spring training last year is that he had a viral infection early in the spring and lost weight?
Non.
Issue.
I'm not saying "show me the money". What I'm basing my comment on is Greinke stating that he'd rather have $200 million than $10 million. Who wouldn't?
What I'm saying is that if it's close, I'd rather win.
Obviously, if it's close, I'd want to be on a winner. If it's $200 million vs $10 million, I'd want the $200 mil. If it's a choice between $150M & $200M, I would probably lean toward the winner. If it's $180M vs $200M, there's no question.
0-4.
Good job scrubs. Blow 7-2 & 8-4 leads.
Trying this mantra:
"Spring training doesn't count. Spring training doesn't count. Spring training doesn't count..."