Machado to Padres

[Bagwell-1994]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I don't know if Harper is an underachiever who will never reach the level expected or just not as good as a lot of us thought.



He is still young but has had ample opportunity to get back to his MVP level, which, in hind-sight, may turn out to be his peak. I hope not though...I have almost as many Harpers as Trouts.



IMO, until he shows some consistency, he's not worth the 'max' deals.

My thoughts exactly. Harper is (assuming) trying to command a record-setting type free agent deal.. A-Rod/Pujols/Cabrera type money but he has nowhere near the consistency or numerous prolific seasons that any of those guys had to earn their hefty contracts. He has one brilliant 10-WAR season, and three 1-WAR seasons, all in all averaging 3.9 WAR per year. That's not elite/record setting money-worthy IMO. His best season is what Trout AVERAGES over every year of his career (9.1 WAR... close enough) perhaps not fair to compare people to Trout, just for point of reference.

Even Machado has averaged 4.8 WAR per season and has much more consistency in elite performance than Harper.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bagwell-1994

My thoughts exactly. Harper is (assuming) trying to command a record-setting type free agent deal.. A-Rod/Pujols/Cabrera type money but he has nowhere near the consistency or numerous prolific seasons that any of those guys had to earn their hefty contracts. He has one brilliant 10-WAR season, and three 1-WAR seasons, all in all averaging 3.9 WAR per year. That's not elite/record setting money-worthy IMO. His best season is what Trout AVERAGES over every year of his career (9.1 WAR... close enough) perhaps not fair to compare people to Trout, just for point of reference.

Even Machado has averaged 4.8 WAR per season and has much more consistency in elite performance than Harper.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The book is still very much out on Harper, but given the undeniable potential, teams are going to take risks.

[packs]

I guess the question is whether or not there is potential to be better or only a potential that he continues to trend the other way.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The book is still very much out on Harper, but given the undeniable potential, teams are going to take risks.

Looks like the only team to take the risk may be Philly. If I'm Philly, my offer is less now.

Aside from Harpers MVP season way back in 2015, he led the league in 1 category ( over a 7 year career ). That was last year in walks.

Huge chunk of change for a player that doesn't lead the league in anything, except walks one year.

I just don't see it. Maybe someone else does, but his stats don't add to 300 mil to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Looks like the only team to take the risk may be Philly. If I'm Philly, my offer is less now.

Aside from Harpers MVP season way back in 2015, he led the league in 1 category ( over a 7 year career ). That was last year in walks.

Huge chunk of change for a player that doesn't lead the league in anything, except walks one year.

I just don't see it. Maybe someone else does, but his stats don't add to 300 mil to me.

It's the promise of that one great season, plus flashes of his undeniable talent and the belief that he can somehow put whatever has held him back behind him. I'm not sure he's worth it.

[Bagwell-1994]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The book is still very much out on Harper, but given the undeniable potential, teams are going to take risks.

I would understand taking a risk due to the potential upside as he enters his peak years. But it seems to me a shorter deal for high annual average salary would be more fitting and safe for the team involved. Reportedly turning down a 10-year $300 million offer from Nats implies he was searching for even MORE than that which is just ludicrous in my view. Gigantic money should be rewarded based on proven performance, not on potential, IMO.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk