It could also be how GMs valued veterans back then.

It could also be how GMs valued veterans back then.
by No Right Turn on Red (2024-04-15 14:28:18)

In reply to: I’d guess the former: inflated value of batting average. posted by tdiddy07

Back in the day, it seemed common for teams to sign someone who they could "depend on" to give someone a rest every once in a while. These players were relatively cheap (Mabry made about $500,000-$1,000,000 per year on single year contracts in his 30s).

When it comes to bench players nowadays, you see teams willing to depend on young prospects over veterans. The players are cheap, and it gives teams the opportunity to see what they've got. Rather than signing a player with a long track history of mediocre at best.

There are still exceptions. For example, the Cardinals give at bats to Taylor Motter last year. Or the Cardinals giving at bats to Brandon Crawford and Matt Carpenter this year.

Replies:

And managers. - John@Indy 2024-04-17 14:07:05
Those are the contracts I'm most critical of when the Reds - tdiddy07 2024-04-16 09:21:59