Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MLB Discussion' started by SemperFidelisSox, Nov 1, 2018.
I just don't really understand how there isn't a market for a player with very solid offensive stats as a switch hitter. $3.5m on a 1 year deal is a super bargain.
Curious what the Cardinals do with Yadi showing signs of mortality. They have Knizner almost ready but he’s reportedly pretty offense first, and Molina’s knee is “at 50 percent” after surgery.
If DD is serious about not carrying three catchers as reported last week, maybe the Cards are a potential landing spot for Vazquez. Molina might be inclined to spend a year in a mentorship platoon with another catcher from Bayamón, Puerto Rico.
Three weeks to pitchers and catchers, Harper, Machado, Keuchel, Kimbrel and Pollock all still out there.
Pomeranz signs with the Giants. One-year deal. $1.5m base with $3.5m in incentives.
This should be a perfect spot for him. Low-pressure, big park.
1.5 mil that could reach 5 mil with incentives. Great deal for SF. They probably won't contend either way, but maybe he pitches like 2016-17 for a few months and they flip him for prospects in July.
I could see Boston being the destination, too. If he shows he can get his fastball above 92 with any kind of regularity, I'm real interested.
Dodgers in agreement with AJ Pollock, terms unknown. Does this take them out of the running for Harper?
Dodgers sign AJ Pollock to a 4/$50 million contract.
Another team going cheap. Why not just sign Harper?
Rosenthal reports the Cubs have signed Brad Brach.
They're very left-handed already and needed a RHH CF specifically, plus I have to think Harper's horrid defensive 2018 combined with his price tag has to be an especially tough swallow for an analytically driven front office that is interested in defensive and roster flexibility.
That feels like a really good deal for LAD.
Recently traded outfielder Mallex Smith on going from Tampa to Seattle:
That’s got to be about half what he was expecting to sign for. Wow is there a market correction going on here, even as the owners take in more and more.
There will be a players' strike the first chance they get.
For a guy who's had one All Star level season three years ago and a bunch of injury shortened decent ones around it? In his age 31 to 34 seasons? $12.5 million per year may be a little light, but a $100 million deal for him would be ridiculous.
And that will be a shame. The last work stoppage did lasting damage.
Short term, the joke is likely to be on other teams after the Yankees scoop up Harper, Machado and maybe both at rates that will appear to be bargains compared to what the expectations were a few years ago.
The players really will have no choice, though, the whole financial pay structure needs to be drastically reworked. It's going to be ugly.
I’d love to know the extent to which the recent depressed market is attributable to —
A. The current CBA;
B. Relatedly, front office executives getting “smarter”;
Help me out here a little.
Just because these enormous, agent-driven salary expectations are not being met, why would that in and of itself be collusion? As dcmissle noted, maybe FO's are getting smarter and if so, perhaps that is having a snowball effect. NYY, BOS and LAD are not handing out those contracts so maybe the middle level teams are saying to themselves NYY, BOS and LAD are pretty astute, I think I'll follow their "lead".
I think it is irrelevant that revenues are up. At our home, just because I get a raise does not mean I then go out and spend more.
I think it's a combination of A and B. And with B, there's really no need for C.
Many of us knew that the new CBA was bad as soon as it was signed. I'm sure the agents did too, and I remember there being some complaints by them about not being more involved in providing input or feedback during the bargaining process.
But I don't think a strike is inevitable. Yes, there are some significant changes that need to be made. But there are a whole lot of options for making these changes to fix the problems that are now apparent. As long as both parties are truly interested in reaching an agreement (and it would certainly seem to be in their interest to do so), a reasonable solution should be possible.
The collusion part kicks in because I just don't believe that the penalties for going over $246M are enough to deter every individual team from doing so given their specific circumstances. BOS is the obvious one, it is crazy to me that they did not add at least one top reliever this winter even though that would have put them over the top level again.
I think that it's perfectly defensible for the Red Sox to not add a top reliever. Miller was hurt, Britton wasn't great in NY, Kimbrel is still out there, but even he didn't have a dominant season last year and is going to be on the other side of 30-years-old. I wanted Ottavino, but the Yankees got him. And one of the Red Sox best relievers from last year was signed in the spring after he came home from Japan.
Relievers are a finicky position -- the Sox proved that a few years ago when they were trading away young talent for a good bullpen. Guys that were nails the year before, all of a sudden can't find the plate. Guys who were on the verge of being kicked out of the league become this year's stopper. It's a crapshoot.
In addition to what JMOH said, I'm pretty sure Boston will easily have the #1 payroll going into the season, and were leaps and bounds above everyone else last year. Further, they have some potentially massive FA payouts in their very near future if they want to keep the team intact. I'm not sure the Sox not overpaying for a reliever is evidence of anything.
I think Harper's numbers being down this year and his injury history, along with Machado coming off like a jerk who really wants to play SS are giving teams a legitimate basis for concern. A GM who signs a guy for 10/$300 is hitching his career and team's future to one guy. If you were a GM, would either Harper or Machado make you feel 100% confident in that decision?
If I'm a GM, I look at the Ellsbury, Panda, Heyward and Darvish deals, just to name 4, and do everything I can to avoid giving out that kind of contract.
The Indians, who are only two players short of a starting outfield and need additional bullpen help, just made their biggest free agent signing of the off-season: Oliver Perez will return as their top situational lefty on a 1 yr/$2.5M deal.
MLBTR projected him at 4 years/$60 million so a little under, but nothing like you're suggesting.
This may be the best sports related euphemism for stupid I've ever seen (even though you used it literally)
Yikes, *fill in announcer you hate* is only two players short of a starting outfield.
Whit Merrifield took security over payday for the rest of his arbitration eligibility. The numbers mentioned here are in total, not AAV.
Jeff PassanVerified account @JeffPassan 31m31 minutes ago
All-Star second baseman Whit Merrifield and the Kansas City Royals have a four-year deal that will land in the $15 million range, a source familiar with the deal tells ESPN. Press conference to announce it could come as soon as tomorrow. @jonmorosi first said it was close.
Jeff PassanVerified account @JeffPassan 28m28 minutes ago
The deal will buy out Whit Merrifield’s final pre-arbitration year and three seasons of arbitration. Merrifield is 30 years old and locking in guaranteed money after he led the American League in hits and stolen bases in 2018.
Jon MorosiVerified account @jonmorosi 24m24 minutes ago
Whit Merrifield’s four-year extension with #Royals will be worth $16.25 million with $2 million in performance bonuses, source says. @MLB @MLBNetwork
Really all they need is to add a salary floor, the problem with MLB isn't that the Red Sox and Yankees aren't spending enough, it's the likes of TB, Miami, and Oakland who won't spend any.
So they are forced to sign a scrub reliever for a ridiculous amount of money just to get above the floor? That doesn’t make any sense, either.
It wouldn't necessarily work like that. If the 6 or 8 cheapest teams were suddenly spending $200 million more on players they'd be competing with other teams for some of their lesser free agents and the price of them would go up. The price of the cheap teams' own players would go up. It would cost everyone more for the same players.
Expansion would also create more scarcity for qualified major leaguers.
And, frankly, if the owners keep this up and don’t expand, I’d like to see some politicians start threatening their H-1B allocation. I actually prefer to have the best players regardless of their country of origin, that’s a small part of what makes MLB the gold standard. But, the H-1B program isn’t designed to allow employers to hire the very best players. It’s like affirmative action for Americans. If there’s a qualified American or green card holder available, then you don’t get an H1-B. There should not be a case where a noncitizen is on a team as a first-year minimum-salary backup catcher, while a proven major league catcher is available via free agency.
Spend money owners. You got a tax cut too.
I don't think the H1-B program really comes in to play for MLB Players, does it? I would venture to guess that almost all foreign players would be issued Visas under the P-1 program with maybe a couple exceptions as O-1's.
Thanks. I’ll stop playing lawyer now.
I think another thing they could do is add a 26th roster spot, which would obviously cause payrolls to go up.
Arizona signed Greg Holland.
Wade Miley to HOU for 1/4.5. In other news, Wade Miley sits 97 now.
I'm starting to wonder if Harper is going to do much above the Nats initial offer. I could see them raising it a bit to let him save face, but based on what we're seeing so far, it's not at all clear that anyone else is going to match that.
Harper has gone from turning down 10/300 to meeting with the Padres.
It never seemed realistic to begin with.
The market is totally different than it was when he first came up. I think a lot of the blame is the lack of a salary floor. This isn’t on the Dodgers, the Red Sox or the Yankees. This is on the Marlins and the Rays for limiting the destinations of these star free agents.
The big market clubs can only afford so many $20M+ salaries.
A lot of the blame is on Harper and Machado, who both are probably in the top 15 players in the sport, but who also both have major warts as players. Harper hasn't been the most consistent offensive player year to year and he was literally the worst defensive OF in baseball last year, Machado came across as both dirty and lazy in the postseason. If Trout or Lindor or Betts were free agents this winter, teams would be tripping over themselves to give them ten year deals IMO.
Is the Nats offer still on the table? I did not think they were still talking.
I don't think they are talking, but I don't believe they've withdrawn it.
The case for Bryce is that he's only 26 and most, if not all, of a 10 year contract will be in his prime and maybe that once he has his money he'll focus on playing hard in the field. Not so reassuring.
The case against is that he's looking for super elite money and he's not a super elite player. He's only broken 5 WAR twice--mookie's done itfour times and for four straight years. Stanton's done it three times. Mike Trout 7 times in a row. Hell since his rookie year, he's only had a positive dWAR once.
As I've looked at it, the more convinced I am that the Nats should not increase their offer. And I'm not even sure they should keep the $300 mil on the table. I'm certain that the $40 million/year he reportedly wants is nuts. You can get two really good players for $20 million each.
Arenado and Rockies avoid arbitration by agreeing to 26 million. I know it's just a one year deal, but he's also not a FA, it will be weird if Machado can't hit that AAV.
I think they should lessen their offer - for reasons that can be debated later, the market has "corrected" and 10/300 (and forget about anything at 40) is not happening. Any chance Boras rolls the dice and gets him a 2/60 from someone and we do this dance again?
My understanding was that the Nats offer for 10/300 included a good amount of deferred money, so not the same value as a straight 30 AAV for 10 years. And also no opt-outs. So I could see them modifying the offer to front-load it a bit, and give an opt out after year 5 or 6 - or maybe one of Boras' swell-opts. I think that's how this ultimately plays out, whether it's with the Nats or some other team.
Rumors bubbling about Realmuto to Philly.
I'm definitely seeing this as a market correction. There's not too many teams that has the space to pay what some of these not quite superstars are asking for... and some of the teams don't match up with those players. I don't see how in the world AJ Pollack is worth more than $15M per season, no matter what WAR says. Kimbrell to me isn't worth that. If the idea is to put forth a competitive team year in and year out, you can't be top heavy on contracts... a bad contract can make the team uncompetive for years instead.