Winter Meetings 2018: Rumors and Speculation

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 21, 2017

grimshaw said:
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.

If you expand that FG leaderboard to a three-year slice to get a better sample, JDM is no longer one of the very worst throwing OFs, but he does acquire the 7th worst range among the 51 qualifiers. And he's near the bottom in error runs as well. Speaking of which, I don't think I want a guy whose errors are mostly of the "mental/lack of concentration type" patrolling the Monster.

There's no sugar-coating it. He'd be terrible out there. Of course, we've survived bad defensive left fielders before -- in fact we've won three championships with them. But if they put him there, let's not pretend it isn't gonna be ugly.

grimshaw · Dec 21, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
If you expand that FG leaderboard to a three-year slice to get a better sample, JDM is no longer one of the very worst throwing OFs, but he does acquire the 7th worst range among the 51 qualifiers. And he's near the bottom in error runs as well. Speaking of which, I don't think I want a guy whose errors are mostly of the "mental/lack of concentration type" patrolling the Monster.

There's no sugar-coating it. He'd be terrible out there. Of course, we've survived bad defensive left fielders before -- in fact we've won three championships with them. But if they put him there, let's not pretend it isn't gonna be ugly.

Fair enough, and he'll get slaughtered by the fans if those errors happen - but my point regarding the arm is that it hasn't recovered since his injury the last year it was decent, even after a year and a half so I think it's permanent.

Captaincoop · Dec 21, 2017

Forgive me if I missed this above, but at this point, what teams are even seriously considering paying JD Martinez? Is there one, other than maybe the Red Sox?

Boras may be terrifically misplaying this market.

MikeM · Dec 21, 2017

Captaincoop said:
Forgive me if I missed this above, but at this point, what teams are even seriously considering paying JD Martinez? Is there one, other than maybe the Red Sox?

Boras may be terrifically misplaying this market.

The problem with this line of thought is that we are really only left speculating easy surface fits. JDM is an elite enough hitter though, and is coming off such a monster year, that a lot of the other potential fits outside that may completely revolve around the unknown of how exactly Team X is viewing JDM atm. If there even ends up being one unseen interest out there that finds themselves buying into last year's King Kong slugfest being legit, then adding that guy to their lineup and post season chances at the needed expense of tinkering elsewhere isn't some unthinkable reach.

I think people's underlying want for JDM here is leaving them talking up the dire look of the market more so then it actually appears. We already knew from Day 1 this was likely to drag out and that Boras ultimately wasn't getting his opening price in full. Outside of the Yankees filling their potential landing spot/lineup hole with Stanton, not much has changed or taken a noteworthy turn for the worse in that respect. Especially if you believe the Sox are still in the bidding.

E5 Yaz · Dec 21, 2017

This market is not just JD Martinez specific.

Hosmer hasn't signed. Moustakas and Cain haven't signed. Arrieta and Darvish haven't signed.

Unless I'm blanking completely on someone, the biggest name to have signed is Santana.

We're seeing a widespread course correction based on luxury tax and next year's mega-class of free agents

SouthernBoSox · Dec 21, 2017

E5 Yaz said:
This market is not just JD Martinez specific.

Hosmer hasn't signed. Moustakas and Cain haven't signed. Arrieta and Darvish haven't signed.

Unless I'm blanking completely on someone, the biggest name to have signed is Santana.

We're seeing a widespread course correction based on luxury tax and next year's mega-class of free agents

Exactly. The new tax threshold implications are absolutely affecting Free Agents. I'll be shocked if JDM signs anywhere close to 7/200

MikeM · Dec 21, 2017

E5 Yaz said:
This market is not just JD Martinez specific.

Hosmer hasn't signed. Moustakas and Cain haven't signed. Arrieta and Darvish haven't signed.

Unless I'm blanking completely on someone, the biggest name to have signed is Santana.

We're seeing a widespread course correction based on luxury tax and next year's mega-class of free agents

Maybe to an extent, but I think the Boras spread and overall track record question marks on all of those guys listed (in relationship to handing out any blank checks) is probably factoring in just as much.

I mean there isn't really a "he's looked super solid for years now and we'll just hope he doesn't decline" buy in the bunch, and even anybody that might pass for that type is probably waiting for other people to help his own market.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 21, 2017

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
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 personally don’t want anything to do with him at what he’s going to end up getting, I was just noting that there is that benefit if the dollars are equal. I’m not in the camp that there’s some two year window and then they’re going to blow it up and rebuild, so if they do sign him and we assume they do it viewing the last year or two as the cost of doing business/he’s going to suck, I’d rather they kept the aav down to allow for other moves.

PapaSox · Dec 21, 2017

I don't know if this would work or make sense to the Sox but if the window looks to be two maybe three years why not put together a $90-$95/3 yr offer together for JDM. He gets the ridiculous money Boris is looking for. The contract remains simple - no opt outs or options. He gets to go back out into FA at 32 - old but not that old for a good hitting DH type. And, we get the guy we want for about the time he is needed. It leaves little room to add any other pieces as it will bump up near the $237 unless when Panda's comes off next year, Price jumps (He will likely go to Cubs) and Pomeranz is a FA does things drop down enough to accept a year over the limit.

Sampo Gida · Dec 21, 2017

I'm thinking JDM probably asks for and gets a 1 yr opt out. With many teams sitting this year out or even reducing payroll to get under the LT and "supposedly" ready to spend big next year, those who miss out on the Harpers, etc will presumably have money to spend. Also that 50 million from BamTEch and the LT threshold jumps 9 million. Thats huge in itself.

One of the biggest mysteries to me is Clark not demanding higher LT thresholds after years of stagnation while allowing the penalties for going over the LT threshold to make it effectively a hard cap. You cant give in on one (penalties) without getting the other (higher thresholds) This would have been strike worthy in itself. Why the players have not booted him out the front door is hard to fathom.

Of course, next year when Harper et all dont get what they expect we will be told there were too many stars. Law of supply and demand. Too much supply. The C word may come out then.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 21, 2017

In what world does a guy who has a seemingly very limited market get a one year opt out? If he wants to go back on the market next year, he signs a one year deal and that would be a really dumb decision. His market isn’t going to go up, he’d risk missing out on a long term deal if he sucks or gets hurt and he’d presumably have a QO attached to him. He has literally zero bargaining power for a one year opt out.

moondog80 · Dec 21, 2017

Prince Fielder signed his big deal on January 26. Boras is a patient man.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 21, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
In what world does a guy who has a seemingly very limited market get a one year opt out? If he wants to go back on the market next year, he signs a one year deal and that would be a really dumb decision. His market isn’t going to go up, he’d risk missing out on a long term deal if he sucks or gets hurt and he’d presumably have a QO attached to him. He has literally zero bargaining power for a one year opt out.

Didn't Cespedes do exactly that two years ago?

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 21, 2017

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Didn't Cespedes do exactly that two years ago?

He did, but he was 24, a good defender or at least average depending on your preferred metric and had a reportedly better market than JDM does. He also wasn’t coming off a career year, wasn’t looking at the same luxury tax world or the same market.

JDM is a 30 yo DH who just likely had his career year and is essentially guaranteed to be not worth what he gets on the back end. He’s rumored to have two interested teams. could be dead wrong but I don’t see the comparison, other than the simple fact that it happened once. If a team gives him that, they’re idiots, which obviously doesn’t preclude it from happening, but if it’s the Sox I’d literally rather they gave him a 1/$35M deal and get the QO option rather than do that nonsense. Ymmv.

EvilEmpire · Dec 21, 2017

If Martinez is getting several offers lower than he wants, and those offers are in a similar range, getting one of those teams to throw in an early opt isn't unreasonable. Might be the only serious distinction between the offers he's getting.

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Dec 21, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
He did, but he was 24, a good defender or at least average depending on your preferred metric and had a reportedly better market than JDM does. He also wasn’t coming off a career year, wasn’t looking at the same luxury tax world or the same market.

JDM is a 30 yo DH who just likely had his career year and is essentially guaranteed to be not worth what he gets on the back end. He’s rumored to have two interested teams. could be dead wrong but I don’t see the comparison, other than the simple fact that it happened once. If a team gives him that, they’re idiots, which obviously doesn’t preclude it from happening, but if it’s the Sox I’d literally rather they gave him a 1/$35M deal and get the QO option rather than do that nonsense. Ymmv.

YC was 30, not 24

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 21, 2017

Yikes that’s a big brain fart on me. I’ll bow out. I think it’d be dumb to offer him a one year opt out and if his market isn’t what he thinks it is, I think it’s far more likely he takes a one year deal than something below what he wants and an opt out. I’ll shut up now.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Dec 21, 2017

Who are going to be big FA's after 2020? I realize that's a long ways down the road but that seems to be the year of reckoning for this group of Sox.

EDIT- I mean league-wide... not just Boston's FA's

moondog80 · Dec 21, 2017

The reason the Sox would give him a one year opt-out is if he accepts terms that would otherwise be unacceptable — say, 3 years and 75 mil. Maybe that’s not the right amount but there’s some number that makes sense.

Oppo · Dec 21, 2017

Trotsky said:
Who are going to be big FA's after 2020? I realize that's a long ways down the road but that seems to be the year of reckoning for this group of Sox.

EDIT- I mean league-wide... not just Boston's FA's

Trout and Kershaw

Average Reds · Dec 21, 2017

moondog80 said:
The reason the Sox would give him a one year opt-out is if he accepts terms that would otherwise be unacceptable — say, 3 years and 75 mil. Maybe that’s not the right amount but there’s some number that makes sense.

Help me understand this - terms that are unacceptable to who?

moondog80 · Dec 21, 2017

Average Reds said:
Help me understand this - terms that are unacceptable to who?

Unacceptable to Martinez. The opt out is an enticement for the player to accept a deal he otherwise would not. The Cespedes deal is the model.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 21, 2017

moondog80 said:
The reason the Sox would give him a one year opt-out is if he accepts terms that would otherwise be unacceptable — say, 3 years and 75 mil. Maybe that’s not the right amount but there’s some number that makes sense.

How about something like a front-loaded 5/125 guarantee, with an opt-out after year 1 and a team $25M option for year 6? That gives flexibility to the player at the near end and the team at the far end, with the middle ground being a deal that guarantees the player the bulk of the dollars he's likely to get from anyone.

moondog80 · Dec 22, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
How about something like a front-loaded 5/125 guarantee, with an opt-out after year 1 and a team $25M option for year 6? That gives flexibility to the player at the near end and the team at the far end, with the middle ground being a deal that guarantees the player the bulk of the dollars he's likely to get from anyone.

In that case I'd say the player opt-out is too much from the team's perspective. JDM might not even get 5/125 without the player opt out, and I don't see the team option in year 6 as all that valuable.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 22, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
How about something like a front-loaded 5/125 guarantee, with an opt-out after year 1 and a team $25M option for year 6? That gives flexibility to the player at the near end and the team at the far end, with the middle ground being a deal that guarantees the player the bulk of the dollars he's likely to get from anyone.

Where is the benefit for the team in such a deal? The only argument I can see for a team doing something like that is to utilize the extra years to spread out the cost in terms of AAV for luxury tax purposes. Problem is that I think if a player opts out, the AAV would get recalculated to what the player actual received for his one year of play.

In other words, if they front load that 5/125 deal by paying $30-35M in salary plus bonuses in year one, and then the player opts out, wouldn't the luxury taxable AAV jump from $25M to the $30-35M figure? If it's a matter of not caring about the one year luxury tax hit (since the Sox are already going to be over), they might as well just offer the 1/30-35 and not put themselves on the hook for the other 90-95 million.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 22, 2017

moondog80 said:
In that case I'd say the player opt-out is too much from the team's perspective. JDM might not even get 5/125 without the player opt out, and I don't see the team option in year 6 as all that valuable.

Well, in that case, adjust the base deal as needed until the opt-out is worth it from the team's perspective (4/100?). Or another way to make it a bit more team-attractive would be to make it an opt-out after year two rather than year one, which would fit in well with the two-year-window concept. Or combine the two tweaks: 4/100, opt-out after year two, team options for years 5 and 6.

Point being, if the opt-out can be used as a way to shorten the overall commitment, I'd be in favor of that.

chawson · Dec 22, 2017

Trotsky said:
Who are going to be big FA's after 2020? I realize that's a long ways down the road but that seems to be the year of reckoning for this group of Sox.

Some of these will sign extensions or age off the board but it's a pretty good class, fwiw. Doubt the Sox are making roster decisions about it, but I'm sure it's crossed their mind that if the Yankees employ Stanton, Harper, and Judge, they'd have no room for 29-year-old Mike Trout.

C
Realmuto, Vazquez

IF
Beckham, Bour, Carpenter, Cozart, Encarnacion, Gurriel, Gyorko, Harrison, Kipnis, Simmons, Solarte, Suarez, Thames, Turner, Villar

OF
Betts, Bradley, Calhoun, Cespedes, Grichuk, C. Hernandez, Pederson, Peralta, Reddick, Souza, Springer, Taylor, Trout

SP
Bauer, Carrasco, Chatwood, DeGrom, DeSclafani, Gausman, Hendricks, Kershaw, Lester, Minor, Nelson, Paxton, Peacock, Quintana, Salazar, Samardzija, Sanchez, Stroman, Tanaka, Verlander

RP
Colome, Doolittle, Giles, Iglesias, Osuna

Minneapolis Millers · Dec 22, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
... Or combine the two tweaks: 4/100, opt-out after year two, team options for years 5 and 6...

I'd be all over this, but that's at best a February deal for a Boras client, not a December one. And I'd expect AZ to beat it. But the approach is good...

Harry Hooper · Dec 22, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
Well, in that case, adjust the base deal as needed until the opt-out is worth it from the team's perspective (4/100?). Or another way to make it a bit more team-attractive would be to make it an opt-out after year two rather than year one, which would fit in well with the two-year-window concept. Or combine the two tweaks: 4/100, opt-out after year two, team options for years 5 and 6.

Point being, if the opt-out can be used as a way to shorten the overall commitment, I'd be in favor of that.

Given the trove of free agents available next winter, the opt-out after 2 years might be more attractive to JDM than it normally would be. I still don't think it's very attractive to the player, though, given his age.

Can a team reach an agreement with a player where the team commits to not making a QO when the deal ends, or is that forbidden? Some of the international free agents signed deals for a specific term where the team waived arbitration rights after the initial 3-year or 4-year contract ended.

DanoooME · Dec 22, 2017

Savin Hillbilly said:
Well, in that case, adjust the base deal as needed until the opt-out is worth it from the team's perspective (4/100?). Or another way to make it a bit more team-attractive would be to make it an opt-out after year two rather than year one, which would fit in well with the two-year-window concept. Or combine the two tweaks: 4/100, opt-out after year two, team options for years 5 and 6.

Point being, if the opt-out can be used as a way to shorten the overall commitment, I'd be in favor of that.

I brought up something like this the other day in this thread. My final question was: would it work with a flat per-year dollar figure? Or does it need to be front or back loaded?

No player would likely take an opt-out after 2018. The competition for dollars will be fierce with big names in the market after that year and it would be foolish as someone less than top stars to voluntarily go into that market.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 22, 2017

Minneapolis Millers said:
I'd be all over this, but that's at best a February deal for a Boras client, not a December one.

Agreed, but as much as the suspense is killing me, I really don't want DD to make a December Boras deal for Martinez. I'd rather risk losing him, especially since our likely competition appears to be in the other league.

geoduck no quahog · Dec 22, 2017

Unless the Yankees swoop in. (I don't buy into their payroll propaganda)

moondog80 · Dec 22, 2017

geoduck no quahog said:
Unless the Yankees swoop in. (I don't buy into their payroll propaganda)

Where would they play him? LF and RF are all set, and they want to go after Harper next year.

jon abbey · Dec 22, 2017

Yeah, there is zero chance they are going after Martinez. I know I said that about Stanton too, but that took a freak set of circumstances which no one including NY anticipated.

If NY is going to spend money on a FA hitter (unlikely unless they move more salary), it will be someone who can play 3B (Frazier or Moustakas), and even that would be unlikely to be more than one year assuming they plan to go after Machado next year as has been heavily rumored.

smallball · Dec 22, 2017

jon abbey said:
Yeah, there is zero chance they are going after Martinez. I know I said that about Stanton too, but that took a freak set of circumstances which no one including NY anticipated.

NY always has to buy the biggest rock in the window, especially if they catch Boston eying it too. No surprise at all.

jon abbey · Dec 22, 2017

smallball said:
NY always has to buy the biggest rock in the window, especially if they catch Boston eying it too. No surprise at all.

None of that has any connection to reality, but believe what you need to.

moondog80 · Dec 22, 2017

I think NY has tried to stick it to the Sox before (I feel like they wouldn't have gone after Ellsbury when they already had Gardner if he was on say, the Rockies), but in this case there just isn't a fit. I'd love it if they did since it would screw up thier plans for next year (either they don't get Harper or they trade someone at a discount), but it's not happening.

jon abbey · Dec 22, 2017

Agreed that his Sox-ness might have been a component in going after Ellsbury (and Damon before him, even more), but also that offseason was a huge mess for NY. They waited way too long to decide/realize they couldn't actually reset the tax because too many of their prospects didn't develop as expected or got hurt, and once they decided/realized that it was impossible, they went nuts in the FA market, throwing money at seemingly whoever would take it. They literally offered contracts to Beltran and Shin-Soo Choo at the same time and told them both that whoever took it first, they'd sign and the other offer would be dropped. No one operates (or should operate) like that, thankfully for NY fans those days seem to be long gone in the Bronx.

Sampo Gida · Dec 22, 2017

jon abbey said:
Agreed that his Sox-ness might have been a component in going after Ellsbury (and Damon before him, even more), but also that offseason was a huge mess for NY. They waited way too long to decide/realize they couldn't actually reset the tax because too many of their prospects didn't develop as expected or got hurt, and once they decided/realized that it was impossible, they went nuts in the FA market, throwing money at seemingly whoever would take it. They literally offered contracts to Beltran and Shin-Soo Choo at the same time and told them both that whoever took it first, they'd sign and the other offer would be dropped. No one operates (or should operate) like that, thankfully for NY fans those days seem to be long gone in the Bronx.

Part of that nutness was the decision to let future HOFer Cano leave as well as Granderson. Other considerations were Mo leaving after 2013, Jeter departing after 2014, as well as Arods suspension in 2014, and with missing the post season in 2013 the boat was taking on water and Hal was worried about alienating the fan base. Yet for all of that nutness in spending they actually cut payroll from 2013 by 20 million.

I dont think the Yankees ever believed they could get under the LT threshold until Arod, CC and Teix salaries came off the books and they all had NTC's cause Cashman handed them out like candy.

Ellsbury was attractive because he was coming off a good year following his shoulder issues in 2012. The power was not at 2011 levels but there was an uptick in the 2nd half and Boras likely convinced him a combination of YS3 and a fully recovered shoulder would lead to 2011 numbers

McCann was necessary after letting Martin go to reduce payroll and Romine busting.

Tanaka and Beltran worker out better although bith had injury issues that hurt them in 2014

As for JDM and the Yankees I agree its unlikely . Thats fortunate for us given his numbers at YS3. He really is not a great fit at Fenway except for his ability to mash at YS3 against the Yankees . Frankly JDM may have been a better option for them than Stanton if his price comes down to 5-6 yrs at 25 million AAV. That way they could have kept Cano until Torres was ready

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 22, 2017

While obviously the Yankees took Ellsbury directly from the Sox, I never viewed that signing as the Yankees swooping in and stealing him. That was a situation where I think the Sox were lukewarm at best on bringing him back and expected that Boras would steer him right out of their comfortable price range. In other words, they were fully prepared to let him walk regardless of where he ultimately ended up.

To me, the most recent case of the Yankees "stealing" a player that the Red Sox were targeting and prioritizing was Teixeira. Before that, maybe Contreras. This notion of the Yankees trying to stick it to the Red Sox as opposed to simply looking to improve their roster in general is antiquated at best. Frankly, I think it died with Big Stein if it ever existed at all.

curly2 · Dec 22, 2017

Red(s)HawksFan said:
To me, the most recent case of the Yankees "stealing" a player that the Red Sox were targeting and prioritizing was Teixeira. Before that, maybe Contreras. This notion of the Yankees trying to stick it to the Red Sox as opposed to simply looking to improve their roster in general is antiquated at best. Frankly, I think it died with Big Stein if it ever existed at all.

And Teixeira wasn't even "stealing" him from the Sox. Both teams wanted him for the same reason: He was really good.

Cashman is too smart to make a move just to steal the Red Sox thunder.

smallball · Dec 22, 2017

Arod. (And tell me that they didn't go after Belhorn just to shave his ass and make him walk backwards.)

smallball · Dec 22, 2017

They seem to go after the NL batting champ and the Cy Young in alternating years. It a NY conceit that they have the best, the classiest, the most, fill in the blank.

sackamano · Dec 22, 2017

I cannot remember the last time the Yankees signed the NL Cy Young winner or the NL Batting leader.

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Dec 22, 2017

sackamano said:
I cannot remember the last time the Yankees signed the NL Cy Young winner or the NL Batting leader.

Yeah, it doesn't happen

Wayapman · Dec 23, 2017

smallball said:
They seem to go after the NL batting champ and the Cy Young in alternating years. It a NY conceit that they have the best, the classiest, the most, fill in the blank.

Seriously, they just let anybody in here now?

Matt Holiday won the batting title in 2007. Otherwise the Yankees haven't signed an NL batting champ since before Tony Gwynn and that's when I stopped to even check if there were any others. As for the NL Cy winners, there was Randy Johnson and Clemens and Clemens was on the Yankees before winning the award with the Astros and then he went back to the Yankees.

All of those instances were 10ish years ago. So alternating years? Not so much. I hate the Yankees more than most but let's not just start acting like morons. It's shocking that good organizations would want to sign good players isn't it?

wnyghost · Dec 23, 2017

Boggs and Clemens?

pk1627 · Dec 23, 2017

Schilling?
Vazquez and Colon?
Pavano?
I mean, you could go back as far as last year and put Frazier on the list, even though Devers was the far superior choice

charlieoscar · Dec 23, 2017

curly2 said:
And Teixeira wasn't even "stealing" him from the Sox. Both teams wanted him for the same reason: He was really good.

The Red Sox drafted Teixeira out of high school in 1998 but weren't able to sign him because he decided to attend college, so they did have a prior interest in him (which is not saying the Yankees later "stole" him from the Sox).

Winter Meetings 2018: Rumors and Speculation

loves the secret sauce

Member

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

polka king

Member

Member

Homeland Security

New Member

Member

Homeland Security

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Homeland Security

paying for his sins

has big, douchey shoulders

Homeland Security

Member

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

loves the secret sauce

heart is two sizes two small

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Well-Known Member

above replacement level

loves the secret sauce

not particularly consistent

heart is two sizes two small

Shanghai Warrior

New Member

Shanghai Warrior

heart is two sizes two small

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

has big, douchey shoulders

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member