Winter Meetings 2018: Rumors and Speculation
- Thread starter Snodgrass'Muff
- Start date
Brantley's still got another year in Cleveland, right?
Agree that Dyson is a logical fit there.
Oh well, looks like Marlins man will have to shitcan his Marlins get up including the all important backwards visor when he sits behind home plate and in the front row of major sporting events around the country then; now he won't stick out like a sore thumb and get all the attention he apparently can't live without.
Per Buster Olney, Giants want Jay Bruce but are not willing to go beyond 3 years for the 30-year old. If they're not willing to go for more than 3 for Bruce, I'm not seeing them as serious suitors for the same-aged, more-defensively-challenged JDM.
So, who does that leave as our competition for JD?
With Britton down I wonder if Orioles would go for Manny for Kimbrel (1 yr control), XB (2 yr control) Wright and Groome?
Red Sox can then kiss JDM good buy and grab one of the FA closers on the market with the money saved
Red Sox can then kiss JDM good buy and grab one of the FA closers on the market with the money saved
This is a massive overpay. Kimbrel for Machado straight up I could see.
2017 WAR:
Kimbrel - 3.6
Machado - 3.5
Both with one year of control left? Not insane.
Your first one though.. awful.
They would only be interested in Kimbrel if they intend to compete, in which case Machado wouldn't be available.
So they are going to make a lateral move that gets them no closer to a rebuild and then follow it up with another trade that actually helps them instead of just moving him for prospects in the first place because they want to do the Red Sox a solid?
I was responding to the 1 for 1 swap. The original Idea isn't worth responding to.
Them again? Jeez, why is it every time someone looks at a client of Boras', that fucking mystery team is always interested too?
Makes zero sense to me. When's the last time a team went from last place to winning their division, let alone the World Series?
Given all the back and forth on JD Martinez lately, I thought it would be interesting to dig into exactly how much value he might lose by moving from RF to DH (hint: not as much as you might expect) and how much value he could generate on the field while DHing (hint: probably a lot more than most of you would expect).
If Fangraphs has an accurate estimation of what 1 WAR is worth, a 6/150 contract would give the team a pretty good chance of seeing surplus value.
Check out the full piece here: http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/fielding/statistical-analysis-fielding/jd-martinez-worth-dh/
If Fangraphs has an accurate estimation of what 1 WAR is worth, a 6/150 contract would give the team a pretty good chance of seeing surplus value.
Check out the full piece here: http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/fielding/statistical-analysis-fielding/jd-martinez-worth-dh/
My only real issue with JDM is the length of the deal. I would not want to go 6 years guaranteed (and NFW to 7). I'd try to go 4, but could live with 5, with an option year or two, and be willing to offer an opt-out after three to get him (and Boras) to take fewer years guaranteed. Since it's not apparent that we have much competition for his services, I don't see that we should go overboard here, and risk having an albatross contract in year 6.
This was a great read. It might be worth digging into in its own thread rather than this mega thread.
I know the focus in the second part of the article was, essentially, deriving break-even scenarios for Martinez' production based on the dollar value of a win and his projected contract. My question would be whether there is a more rigorous way to refine the projection for Martinez' production over the next 6 years of his playing career. This popped out at me because you use David Ortiz kind of as a shorthand comp, but I wonder if there aren't better models which would take into account age-related decline to get a better sense of what Martinez might actually look like as a hitter in his age 30-35 seasons. Essentially, I'm wondering how we can say that he is more likely to turn out like David Ortiz rather than, say, Jason Bay, Corey Hart, or Carlos Quentin (among many similar-looking players who fell off a cliff after age 30)
That's obviously a more complicated question than what I was addressing in the article. One way to look is to check B-R's similar player lists. His general and through age 29 lists have both encouraging and discouraging names on it.
Similar Batters:
- Yoenis Cespedes (959.2)
- Bryce Harper (958.8)
- Brad Hawpe (932.4)
- Carlos Quentin (928.2)
- Henry Rodriguez (927.6)
- Nolan Arenado (923.6)
- Ellis Valentine (922.4)
- Wes Covington (920.6)
- Hank Leiber (915.4)
- Tony Conigliaro (914.3)
- Jason Bay (970.1)
- Geoff Jenkins (965.5)
- Kevin Mitchell (953.7)
- Bobby Higginson (944.5)
- Aubrey Huff (943.9)
- Ryan Klesko (942.8)
- David Justice (941.1)
- Larry Walker (940.2)
- Corey Hart (938.3)
- J.D. Drew (937.4)
Obviously seeing Bay and Quentin up there induces some fear. But on the plus side here are some names that had pretty good overall runs in their age 30-35 seasons.
JD Drew - 126, 105, 138, 134, 109, 68 with 100 HR
David Justice - 137, 158, 114, 124, 139, 99 OPS+ with 140 HR (age 30 season was just 40 games)
Larry Walker - 178, 158, 164, 110, 160, 151 with 182 HR
Seems like a decent spectrum of guesses about what Martinez would be in the next 6 years with Drew being the low end and Walker being best case scenario.
I'd be pretty happy if we got David Justice out of a Martinez signing. And even the Drew OPS+ run might squeak out enough value to cover a 6/150 contract. Again, this is assuming that Fangraphs has a solid handle on the value of a win.
Edit: I'd toss Kevin Mitchell and Ryan Klesko into the positive end as well.
Klesko - 145, 152, 118, 129, 111 with 107 HR (played in only 6 games at age 35, then had a 92 OPS+ at age 36 over 119 games before hanging up the cleats)
Mitchell - 118, 160, 185, 139, 66 with 70 HR (an injury caused him to miss all of his age 33 year, came back strong for a season then fell off a cliff)
Last edited:
While never pleasant, an albatross year (or two) at the end of of contract is par for the course when signing FAs to long term deals. It's more or less unavoidable. The trick is to limit the damage.
IMO a reasonable contract offer for JDM would be 6/150 .. which is more or less what the original crowd-sourced estimates (on Fangraphs IIRC) were. If Im DD I really don't want to go to 7 - but if he has to then maybe 7/150 - the lower AAV may be attractive in that case.
If they have to come up from 6/150 I don't think adding a year and no dollars is going to move the needle, but I agree with the general sentiment. If 6/150 isn't quite enough and going up to 7/165 or so is the difference between him coming to Boston or, say, going back to Arizona, I'd give him the extra year and expect it to be an albatross in the last year or two and be fine with that. It's possible for him to pay for the contract in the first 5 years.
I think I've found a very good comp, even though he's not on BBref's list.
I looked strictly at component numbers: K and BB rates, BABIP and ISO--since I think they characterize a hitter more deeply than the slash numbers and counting stats BBref uses. Only one guy since 1947 with at least 2500 PA through age 29 was quite close to Martinez on all four.
For Martinez through age 29, those numbers are 8.0%, 25.1%, .341 and .230.
For Mystery Comp Man through age 29, they were 8.1%, 23.7%, .351 and .203.
Damn close, right?
It's
I looked strictly at component numbers: K and BB rates, BABIP and ISO--since I think they characterize a hitter more deeply than the slash numbers and counting stats BBref uses. Only one guy since 1947 with at least 2500 PA through age 29 was quite close to Martinez on all four.
For Martinez through age 29, those numbers are 8.0%, 25.1%, .341 and .230.
For Mystery Comp Man through age 29, they were 8.1%, 23.7%, .351 and .203.
Damn close, right?
It's
Matt Kemp
No. Because you'll have him clogging up your batting order and payroll for an additional year. Presumably when he's older and worse.
I'd rather pay him the extra money now to get rid of him a year sooner.
I'm certainly comfortable with the idea that, over the length of a long-term FA contract, you'll get most of the value/production in the early years, and that by the end you may not get enough production that the player is "worth" what you're paying him. But you don't want to be in the situation where you're paying $20m+ for replacement-level or worse production, because that's when you get hamstrung.
So a little extra weight to carry at the back end is ok, but an albatross, not so much. Which is why I'd prefer to limit the risk by avoiding a guaranteed 6th year, and be willing to offer an opt-out after 3 to get there (and maybe front-load the deal a little as well). Maybe that doesn't get it done, but it might if there's no one else out there willing to offer 6/150.
So a little extra weight to carry at the back end is ok, but an albatross, not so much. Which is why I'd prefer to limit the risk by avoiding a guaranteed 6th year, and be willing to offer an opt-out after 3 to get there (and maybe front-load the deal a little as well). Maybe that doesn't get it done, but it might if there's no one else out there willing to offer 6/150.
I know it's Boras, but maybe there's some sort of compromise deal that can be made.
7 year deal (dollars TBD)
After 2 years, he gets an opt-out
After 4 years, the last three years are club options taken year by year.
That mitigates the club's risk of him leaving them in the cold after 2 really good years and expecting to get more money, and if he's hurt/terrible those first two years, the club is really only "stuck" with him 2 more years before declining the first option and making him a FA.
The next question would be what would the dollar levels have to be to make it agreeable to both sides. Is there enough of a compromise there to really change the dollars? If the deal is 7/$175 (for simplicity here), does the contract need to be backloaded or frontloaded or left at $25M each year?
I'd be curious to know if any club has tried structuring a contract like this so that it's more equitable.
7 year deal (dollars TBD)
After 2 years, he gets an opt-out
After 4 years, the last three years are club options taken year by year.
That mitigates the club's risk of him leaving them in the cold after 2 really good years and expecting to get more money, and if he's hurt/terrible those first two years, the club is really only "stuck" with him 2 more years before declining the first option and making him a FA.
The next question would be what would the dollar levels have to be to make it agreeable to both sides. Is there enough of a compromise there to really change the dollars? If the deal is 7/$175 (for simplicity here), does the contract need to be backloaded or frontloaded or left at $25M each year?
I'd be curious to know if any club has tried structuring a contract like this so that it's more equitable.
I'd love that, but Boras is nowhere near the point where he will accept only 4 guaranteed years. I'll be thrilled if we only get 5, more realistically it will take 6.
I also wonder why clubs don't do higher signing bonuses too. When Jon Lester signed his big deal in Chicago, he got a 30 mill bonus. His AAV is just 20 now. It would have been 25.
Why not do something like that for JDM? If 30 of that 150 or so is on the front end, it makes him easier to trade or put out to pasture on the back end.
Why not do something like that for JDM? If 30 of that 150 or so is on the front end, it makes him easier to trade or put out to pasture on the back end.
Last edited:
Do Similarity Scores really have any meaning? After all, you're saying that this guy did this for teams abc in years xxxx-xx and this other player did this for teams def in years yyyy-yy. To use an exaggerated example, would the numbers for a batter in 1961 equate to a batter in 2017? I really think you need to take Similarity Scores with a grain of salt.
Signing bonuses count in AAV. From the determination of salary section of the latest CBA:
Edit: And Cot's has his tax hit at 25.7 the next two years.
Last edited:
Of course you do. I didn't suggest they were the end all be all. Of course, I chose OPS+ when looking at the comps for exactly the reason you touched on regarding a player from, say, 1961 vs one in 2017.
Good piece, Snod.
There was one question (well beyond the scope of its discussion, admittedly) it provoked while I was reading it, which I thought people might have opinions about. If teams are, in fact, beginning to adhere a bit more firmly to the CBT threshold, that would have consequences for the inflation rates on those $/WAR ratios, right? What happens to the FA market and MLB rosters in a world where $/WAR *doesn't* grow 5% per year?
Not to derail the JDM talk, but if we want another player to fixate on. Player A is Giancarlo Stanton.
LD | GB | FB | IFFB | SOFT | MED | HARD
16.3 | 42.8 | 40.9 | 14.8 | 19.4 | 40.2 | 40.5
24.9 | 35.0 | 40.0 | 01.9 | 11.5 | 48.1 | 40.4
Stanton's BB/K % is 11.6/26.1
Player X's BB/K % is 6.2/22.8
Stanton's 2017 average fly ball distance: 183 ft.
Player X's 2017 average fly ball distance: 202 ft.
If for no other reason, that infield fly rate is enough to wanna see that dude on my team. That 1.9 percent pop-up rate is the third-lowest in baseball the last two years (Votto, Mauer). Sox had the highest mark in the AL last year (11.4%).
(Apologies for the back of the napkin table design.)
LD | GB | FB | IFFB | SOFT | MED | HARD
16.3 | 42.8 | 40.9 | 14.8 | 19.4 | 40.2 | 40.5
24.9 | 35.0 | 40.0 | 01.9 | 11.5 | 48.1 | 40.4
Stanton's BB/K % is 11.6/26.1
Player X's BB/K % is 6.2/22.8
Stanton's 2017 average fly ball distance: 183 ft.
Player X's 2017 average fly ball distance: 202 ft.
Nicholas Castellanos.
If for no other reason, that infield fly rate is enough to wanna see that dude on my team. That 1.9 percent pop-up rate is the third-lowest in baseball the last two years (Votto, Mauer). Sox had the highest mark in the AL last year (11.4%).
(Apologies for the back of the napkin table design.)
I actually had the same thought while writing it, but didn't want to get too far afield with what was already becoming a longer article. It's a good point and one that might be worth its own article. The value of a win is already outstripping what the the CBA will allow teams to spend. And it's doing it by a wide margin. This is part of the reason why after coming around to the point that Martinez could produce as much as $250M or more in value on the field, they shouldn't be be comfortable offering that much.
As a team the Red Sox had 17.8 batting WAR (fangraphs), and 23.9 pitching WAR last year. That's 41.7 total, and at $10.5M per win their payroll should be $437.85M. The CBA with its harsh penalties for going over the threshold, hard cap on international spending, soft cap with harsh penalties on draft spending and artificial restrictions on young MLB player salaries is effectively stealing money from the players.
Of course, that's another article (that I'm already researching) for another day.
Yeah, that's appealing (except the walks), but what do we have in the farm that gets him for his final two years of control? And do we have him DH? His fielding is terrible. Think I'd still rather have Frazier, considering likely costs.
But you're bringing down the AAV and you could just cut him if he's that bad. They ate twice that amount in Craig/Castillo/Panda last year.
He got pushed off third to play the outfield, where he seems fine. I'm more interested if DD can get him as a talent offset to some of the Tigers' bigger contracts. He's six years younger than Frazier and has two years of arb left.
I was 99% sure that was case, but my thought was more that teams he was traded to who had plenty of cap space wouldn't have to pay as much on the bottom line. Though I guess it would be kind of a marginal difference.
That's a reason in the pro column. Do you really want to eat that much contract, especially ift his fifth and sixth years aren't expected to be great too?
I think we ought to look a bit harder too at what is causing such a drop in fielding value for JDM. I'm sure his range has dropped - but that's not the biggest issue. He can't throw anymore.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=19,a
It has dropped from nearly 9 runs above average to 8 runs below average in three years. That means teams are running freely from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home. That isn't going to get better in RF, but it's going to help a lot playing LF in Fenway. Those also skew the numbers.
He's also had the dropsies more than usual the last two years with 10 errors. There was an article which I can't find now that had a video montage of all of them and most of them were of the mental/lack of concentration type.
He won't be Yaz if he moves to left, but he shouldn't be Hanley or Manny either. Let's give him some ritalin, split the difference and call him Greenwell.
Side note: Yelich had a weak ass arm last year when he moved from LF to CF. Yikes.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=19,a
It has dropped from nearly 9 runs above average to 8 runs below average in three years. That means teams are running freely from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home. That isn't going to get better in RF, but it's going to help a lot playing LF in Fenway. Those also skew the numbers.
He's also had the dropsies more than usual the last two years with 10 errors. There was an article which I can't find now that had a video montage of all of them and most of them were of the mental/lack of concentration type.
He won't be Yaz if he moves to left, but he shouldn't be Hanley or Manny either. Let's give him some ritalin, split the difference and call him Greenwell.
Side note: Yelich had a weak ass arm last year when he moved from LF to CF. Yikes.
Last edited: