JDM

[CSteinhardt]

Alex Speier‏ @alexspeier 2m2 minutes ago
In structuring the Nunez deal in this fashion, it’s functionally a one-year, $6 million guarantee with an AAV (for luxury tax purposes) of $4M in 2018. Sox still have a bit over $20M to sign Martinez while remaining under the $237M threshold that kicks in draft pick penalty.

If I understand the rules correctly, the nature of the option means that if it gets declined, the AAV is recalculated and luxury tax retroactively assessed as necessary. Or did that change at some point after the last time I looked at this/are the rules different for draft pick penalties? If not, then if Nunez is likely to decline the option, it has to be treated as $6M instead of $4M this year, I think.

 

[StuckOnYouk]

The idea that J.D. is holding out for more money - not for himself, but for future players - is just the most laughable argument players always bring up.
He hired Scott Boras and fired his agent just before free agency so he could be a cold-blooded assasin in the market. It's about his money, not some kid 5 years from now.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

If I understand the rules correctly, the nature of the option means that if it gets declined, the AAV is recalculated and luxury tax retroactively assessed as necessary. Or did that change at some point after the last time I looked at this/are the rules different for draft pick penalties? If not, then if Nunez is likely to decline the option, it has to be treated as $6M instead of $4M this year, I think.

I believe player options are always included when calculated AAV. I don't think this is anything new.

 

[chawson]

The idea that J.D. is holding out for more money - not for himself, but for future players - is just the most laughable argument players always bring up.
He hired Scott Boras and fired his agent just before free agency so he could be a cold-blooded assasin in the market. It's about his money, not some kid 5 years from now.

Why? Much of the entire history of organized labor is based on this principle.

These guys make up each other’s best friends and primary social circles for decades. It’s not hard to imagine they feel accountability to one another, or that a player’s reputation and respect earned within the league could be affected by their collegiality.

 

[MikeM]

The players need to accept what they’re actually worth, enough of this collusion talk

I actually found his interview somewhat refreshing, and probably the best presented evidence yet of what our offer to JDM actually is.

Whether or not he needs to just shut up and simply accept this market correction that is now finally making it out of long standing paper theory is another debate altogether obviously. Call it what you want though, correction or collusion, but the fairly massive amount of visible push back coming out of ownerships as a whole is still a pretty big and evolving blow from the player value POV. Especially if the days of walking in to a negotiation and relying on those Cueto/Zimmerman type contracts to at worst set the per/year baseline (plus expected inflation) truly are dead.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I actually found his interview somewhat refreshing, and probably the best presented evidence yet of what our offer to JDM actually is.

Whether or not he needs to just shut up and simply accept this market correction that is now finally making it out of long standing paper theory is another debate altogether obviously. Call it what you want though, correction or collusion, but the fairly massive amount of visible push back coming out of ownerships as a whole is still a pretty big and evolving blow from the player value POV. Especially if the days of walking in to a negotiation and relying on those Cueto/Zimmerman type contracts to at worst set the per/year baseline (plus expected inflation) truly are dead.

I’ll give JDM credit for holding his ground. He’s made around $22-25M in his career and turns 31 in August. 5/100 certainly isn’t what he thought he’d get when FA started but it’s still a ton of money for a guy whose value is probably at its apex given his age and lack of position. There is a decent amount of downside here for him to play hardball.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Why? Much of the entire history of organized labor is based on this principle.

These guys make up each other’s best friends and primary social circles for decades. It’s not hard to imagine they feel accountability to one another, or that a player’s reputation and respect earned within the league could be affected by their collegiality.

First...decades?

Second, the history of organized labor in sports has evolved a bit. This isn’t guys fighting for another buck an hour for their assembly line or free agency rights or $10k extra. This is guys trying to make life changing money in the brief window they have to do it. Other players aren’t going to begrudge them for getting theirs or for not raising some sort of arbitrary bar.

I don’t exactly think a Daniel Nava type is going to get upset at JDM because he didn’t ask for more to help him out on the scale.

 

[RedOctober3829]

It’s Speier’s reporting I’m responding to here. He’s got the Sox at $218M after Nunez.

Yeah he's allocating $10 million for in season acquisitions. I'm not sure they need to have that much available. I'd keep $3-$4 million available if it means the difference in getting Martinez and not getting him. They could always send a salary out if they're trading for somebody.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I actually found his interview somewhat refreshing, and probably the best presented evidence yet of what our offer to JDM actually is.

Whether or not he needs to just shut up and simply accept this market correction that is now finally making it out of long standing paper theory is another debate altogether obviously. Call it what you want though, correction or collusion, but the fairly massive amount of visible push back coming out of ownerships as a whole is still a pretty big and evolving blow from the player value POV. Especially if the days of walking in to a negotiation and relying on those Cueto/Zimmerman type contracts to at worst set the per/year baseline (plus expected inflation) truly are dead.

I’m all for players making every dime they can, without handcuffing franchises from making moves to improve, but I have little sympathy when they helped create the system through poor negotiating/representation. What on earth were they thinking when they decided Tony Clark should be the union president?

 

[brandonchristensen]

i'm curious how this suppressed market carries over to next year with Harper and others.

 

[chawson]

Yeah he's allocating $10 million for in season acquisitions. I'm not sure they need to have that much available. I'd keep $3-$4 million available if it means the difference in getting Martinez and not getting him. They could always send a salary out if they're trading for somebody.

You’re right. Seems odd for a journalist to independently determine that an abstract estimated reserve sum should already be factored within a hard taxable payroll without some direct quote from the team. Especially someone as fastidious about numbers as Speier.

 

[RedOctober3829]

i'm curious how this suppressed market carries over to next year with Harper and others.

It won't carry over. The other big market teams will not be angling to stay under the $197 million mark so there will be much more competition upping the prices for the free agents.

 

[RedOctober3829]

You’re right. Seems odd for a journalist to independently determine that an abstract estimated reserve sum should already be factored within a hard taxable payroll without some direct quote from the team. Especially someone as fastidious about numbers as Speier.

He may be putting that number in there because that's how much they've allowed themselves in the past.

 

[NDame616]

i'm curious how this suppressed market carries over to next year with Harper and others.

It won't. Part of the issues guys like Hosmer and JDM are experiencing is that next year is so stacked teams are waiting to makw their splash

 

[BigPapiMPD34]

If I understand the rules correctly, the nature of the option means that if it gets declined, the AAV is recalculated and luxury tax retroactively assessed as necessary. Or did that change at some point after the last time I looked at this/are the rules different for draft pick penalties? If not, then if Nunez is likely to decline the option, it has to be treated as $6M instead of $4M this year, I think.

I do recall that when player options are declined, the AAV is recalculated and luxury tax retroactively assessed. However, not sure if that is still the case with the new CBA. Nunez is the only Sox player with a player option, so I'm just relying on Speier's reporting. Would like to hear if anyone has confirmations on this. Below is how it is expected to work out:

If he declines the option, it would be 4M AAV for 2018 and 2M AAV for 2019. The buyout effectively counts in the year that is being bought out (2019), not the year in which it is to be paid (November 2018).

If he picks up the option, it would be 4M for 2018 and 4M for 2019 (or 5M-6M in 2019 if he hits the escalators/incentives).

 

[BigPapiMPD34]

He may be putting that number in there because that's how much they've allowed themselves in the past.

Agree, he seems to have really good sources in the Sox front office, so I wouldn't be surprised if his 10M estimate is a very accurate picture of what the Sox allot themselves. If anything, its a slight overestimate just to be safe. I recall one year during the Theo era, the team thought they were under the threshold, but MLB informed them that they went over.

Also, its important to note that this 10M estimate isn't just for trades and acquisitions. It also includes the minor league salaries and all the minor league call-ups. The pro-rated salaries for all the players called up/down throughout the year isn't a fixed number, but can be reasonably estimated I suppose.

 

[chawson]

First...decades?

Second, the history of organized labor in sports has evolved a bit. This isn’t guys fighting for another buck an hour for their assembly line or free agency rights or $10k extra. This is guys trying to make life changing money in the brief window they have to do it. Other players aren’t going to begrudge them for getting theirs or for not raising some sort of arbitrary bar.

I don’t exactly think a Daniel Nava type is going to get upset at JDM because he didn’t ask for more to help him out on the scale.

I think you’re misrepresenting my point. No one said JDM risks being shunned. But there are qualifiable reasons someone would value making a decision that considered the benefit of their colleagues instead of one that’s 100 percent self-interested. That’d be the case in any industry where people work collectively, and Castellanos’s statements seem to support it.

 

[shaggydog2000]

Why? Much of the entire history of organized labor is based on this principle.

These guys make up each other’s best friends and primary social circles for decades. It’s not hard to imagine they feel accountability to one another, or that a player’s reputation and respect earned within the league could be affected by their collegiality.

They also mention that Castellanos is the union rep for the team, that he is pushing the "every free agent should strive to raise the bar" narrative is not surprising. This doesn't mean it is Martinez' point of view as well, or even one shared widely by players.

 

[CSteinhardt]

I believe player options are always included when calculated AAV. I don't think this is anything new.

I remember looking into this a couple of offseasons ago and I the answer at the time was:

- Player options are considered guaranteed money and calculated as part of the AAV. So if you have 1/6M + player option of 1/2M, it's treated as 2/8M, for an AAV of 4M.

- If the player picks up the option, the AAV would be 4M during year 1 and 4M during year two; the fact that the second year was an option doesn't change the AAV as it's always been treated as a 2 year, 8M contract.

- If the player declines the option, the AAV is recalculated retroactively and the accounting is done as if the deal had been 1/6M for the previous season. This would potentially mean getting a tax bill for past seasons in some cases, since your payroll ended up being 2M above what you had previously thought it to be.

What makes this more complicated is that although money can retroactively be paid or refunded, one cannot take away a draft pick after it has been made or retroactively give one back. So I don't know what this means for the rules on draft picks, or whether this is something that was accordingly taken out of the latest CBA.

 

[chawson]

They also mention that Castellanos is the union rep for the team, that he is pushing the "every free agent should strive to raise the bar" narrative is not surprising. This doesn't mean it is Martinez' point of view as well, or even one shared widely by players.

Seems like a stretch to assume the perspective of a team’s MLBPA union rep is an outlier among its MLB players.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

It’s not the owners though, it’s market correction from all the analytics departments. They aren’t trying to set anything for next year like Castellanos suggests

 

[BigPapiMPD34]

I remember looking into this a couple of offseasons ago and I the answer at the time was:

- Player options are considered guaranteed money and calculated as part of the AAV. So if you have 1/6M + player option of 1/2M, it's treated as 2/8M, for an AAV of 4M.

- If the player picks up the option, the AAV would be 4M during year 1 and 4M during year two; the fact that the second year was an option doesn't change the AAV as it's always been treated as a 2 year, 8M contract.

- If the player declines the option, the AAV is recalculated retroactively and the accounting is done as if the deal had been 1/6M for the previous season. This would potentially mean getting a tax bill for past seasons in some cases, since your payroll ended up being 2M above what you had previously thought it to be.

What makes this more complicated is that although money can retroactively be paid or refunded, one cannot take away a draft pick after it has been made or retroactively give one back. So I don't know what this means for the rules on draft picks, or whether this is something that was accordingly taken out of the latest CBA.

Good explanation. So it seems like in the case of Nunez, they structured it in such a way that the AAV for 2018 will be 4M regardless of whether or not he picks up the option. This benefits the Sox since they can more easily project their budget space.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Seems like a stretch to assume the perspective of a team’s MLBPA union rep is an outlier among its MLB players.

In the abstract, they can all talk the good talk, with the union rep talking the loudest. But when it comes to their own contracts, no one is thinking about anyone but himself. Or should he be.
It's a load of shit.

 

[E5 Yaz]

It's a load of shit.

You can never find a spare sock when you need one

 

[Byrdbrain]

Seems like a stretch to assume the perspective of a team’s MLBPA union rep is an outlier among its MLB players.

It actually seems like a very normal expectation, if someone cares enough about the union to put themselves up for election to the post of union rep(I assume that is how these things are done) then you would expect that person to be a bit of an outlier compared to the average player.
In any event it's a load of shit, JDM will take the deal that is best for him.

 

[chawson]

It’s not the owners though, it’s market correction from all the analytics departments. They aren’t trying to set anything for next year like Castellanos suggests

What makes it a “market correction”? The total revenue in MLB has risen to over $10 billion.

 

[shaggydog2000]

What makes it a “market correction”? The total revenue in MLB has risen to over $10 billion.

Sure. In a free market for talent that would be a huge deal. But the connection between league revenue and player salary has been artificially changed by the luxury tax not rising equivalently. That and better (or less rosy) projections of the future value of free agent players could be causing a change in the market. Revenue is still relevant, but less so under these conditions.

 

[Average Reds]

What makes it a “market correction”? The total revenue in MLB has risen to over $10 billion.

The market correction is in how they value players.

Basically, the days of very good, but non-elite players getting elite contracts (like Panda and Hanley) are ending.

 

[Murderer's Crow]

Why are we all assuming that baseball revenue and player salaries should be correlated more than they are? Since both are changing at fast paces, you’ll never know when the right baseline was and where the salaries should be. If a correction is happening, it could happen in the opposite direction of each other.

 

[Devizier]

Sure. In a free market for talent that would be a huge deal. But the connection between league revenue and player salary has been artificially changed by the luxury tax not rising equivalently. That and better (or less rosy) projections of the future value of free agent players could be causing a change in the market. Revenue is still relevant, but less so under these conditions.

Revenue is of course important but one of the driving forces behind revenue increase has been completely unrelated to team performance. Since you have that uncoupling you would imagine that expenditures on product will be (relatively) diminished.

 

[chawson]

Why are we all assuming that baseball revenue and player salaries should be correlated more than they are? Since both are changing at fast paces, you’ll never know when the right baseline was and where the salaries should be. If a correction is happening, it could happen in the opposite direction of each other.

Because there are ethical reasons to index salary to total revenue.

If ownership of your company made substantially greater profits every year—largely because of the measurably better quality of production of you and your colleagues—but some Ivy wonks determined that you actually deserved a smaller share of that revenue each year, you’d probably say something. At a certain point, you’d stop working.

 

[sackamano]

Because there are ethical reasons to index salary to total revenue.

I'm pretty certain MLB owners would be more likely to think along these line if every contract was a one year deal.

See how great the quality of your production is for this season, then we'll sit down and discuss next season.

 

[shaggydog2000]

Because there are ethical reasons to index salary to total revenue.

If ownership of your company made substantially greater profits every year—largely because of the measurably better quality of production of you and your colleagues—but some Ivy wonks determined that you actually deserved a smaller share of that revenue each year, you’d probably say something. At a certain point, you’d stop working.

And other leagues set salary caps derived from revenue. The MLB didn't. They set a tax system that has not risen with the revenue and this created a disconnect. But the union agreed to it. The players only have their representatives to blame on that one.

 

[Average Reds]

Why are we all assuming that baseball revenue and player salaries should be correlated more than they are?

“We” are not. chawson is.

Because there are ethical reasons to index salary to total revenue.

If ownership of your company made substantially greater profits every year—largely because of the measurably better quality of production of you and your colleagues—but some Ivy wonks determined that you actually deserved a smaller share of that revenue each year, you’d probably say something. At a certain point, you’d stop working.

I’m going to apologize in advance, because I don’t even know how to be polite about this.

MLB has a unionized workplace. If the players wanted to index player salaries to revenues, they should have done so.* The idea that MLB owners - or management in any industry - would put aside a pay scale that has been collectively bargained and increase salaries out of a concern for “ethical reasons” is one of be funniest things I’ve ever heard.

*There a reason that players have never wanted to index salaries to revenues, and it’s because owners have lagged players in terms of their sense of where the market was going. So, historically speaking, such an index would have been seen by players as a way to depress salaries.

This dynamic has changed in the past 5-10 years, and I expect players to demand some sort of salary floor that is tied to overall percentage of revenues in the next contract. But there is no fucking way owners would ever just give it to them.

 

[chawson]

“We” are not. chawson is.



I’m going to apologize in advance, because I don’t even know how to be polite about this.

MLB has a unionized workplace. If the players wanted to index player salaries to revenues, they should have done so.* The idea that MLB owners - or management in any industry - would put aside a pay scale that has been collectively bargained and increase salaries out of a concern for “ethical reasons” is one of be funniest things I’ve ever heard.

*There a reason that players have never wanted to index salaries to revenues, and it’s because owners have lagged players in terms of their sense of where the market was going. So, historically speaking, such an index would have been seen by players as a way to depress salaries.

This dynamic has changed in the past 5-10 years, and I expect players to demand some sort of salary floor that is tied to overall percentage of revenues in the next contract. But there is no fucking way owners would ever just give it to them.

This seems perfectly polite.

To be clear, I don’t mean indexing individual salaries. It may be the case that the union wouldn’t want to strictly index it, sure. But there’s been multiple reports about the share of total player earnings decreasing relative to total earnings, and what we’re seeing is that players obviously have a problem with that.

And because there’s at least whispers of a possible strike, there’s absolutely an ethical component at play. None of these guys are struggling to feed their families (in the majors anyway). They want what they see as a fairer share of the pie.

This discussion began—today’s version anyway—when I disagreed with the notion that what we’re seeing is a “market correction.” It’s not. It’s a holistic set of factors for sure, but it’s far more the result of self-interested negotiations on behalf of owners (yes, agreed to by Tony Clark) than some natural market forces.

 

[pokey_reese]

Because there are ethical reasons to index salary to total revenue.

If ownership of your company made substantially greater profits every year—largely because of the measurably better quality of production of you and your colleagues—but some Ivy wonks determined that you actually deserved a smaller share of that revenue each year, you’d probably say something. At a certain point, you’d stop working.

I mean, I understand what you are saying, and it's got a real 'workers should own the means of production' vibe to it, but what you described isn't some weird hypothetical counterfactual, it's happening every day in our capitalist society.

For the last 40 years or so productivity levels have increased without workers taking home a proportional share of the gains, its why you see so many stories about executive pay and wealth inequality, etc.. No one stops working because that's not an option for basically anyone. When my company increased revenues last year, we didn't all get raises, because that's profit sharing or employee ownership, not a normal labor market practice. When companies can increase production and reduce costs by automating jobs, that's all increased profit, and they can actually pay workers less because there is now a greater supply of people looking for the remaining jobs.

Now because they are unionized and specialized, baseball players could strike, but that's the whole point, it would require collective action, not JDM sitting out the season.

 

[nvalvo]

I mean, I understand what you are saying, and it's got a real 'workers should own the means of production' vibe to it, but what you described isn't some weird hypothetical counterfactual, it's happening every day in our capitalist society.

For the last 40 years or so productivity levels have increased without workers taking home a proportional share of the gains, its why you see so many stories about executive pay and wealth inequality, etc.. No one stops working because that's not an option for basically anyone. When my company increased revenues last year, we didn't all get raises, because that's profit sharing or employee ownership, not a normal labor market practice. When companies can increase production and reduce costs by automating jobs, that's all increased profit, and they can actually pay workers less because there is now a greater supply of people looking for the remaining jobs.

Now because they are unionized and specialized, baseball players could strike, but that's the whole point, it would require collective action, not JDM sitting out the season.

 

[jon abbey]

Looking at the overall pay for players as compared to revenue masks the real problem, which is that the players eligible for big paydays don't overlap a whole lot with the players who deserve them. We go into this much more in the 'Baseball is Broken' thread, but if guys like Correa or Lindor or Ohtani were free agents, you'd see teams tripping over each other to sign them up long-term for a couple hundred million apiece.

 

[chawson]

I mean, I understand what you are saying, and it's got a real 'workers should own the means of production' vibe to it, but what you described isn't some weird hypothetical counterfactual, it's happening every day in our capitalist society.

Well, I’m definitely not trying to launch a critique of capitalism. I certainly wouldn’t want to read it here, and it’s too overtly political for the board.

My point is that it’s not unreasonable to think that JDM (who’s incidentally a MAGA dude and hardly anticapitalist) may feel some kind of responsibility to make sure his folks get paid, which overlaps with his own desire to get paid—especially if an ex-teammate close to him just disclosed as much.

Baseball is a unique economic system and it’s hard to draw real-world parallels, but it’s absolutely true that the average lay fan learns a lot about “fiscal responsibility” and market conservatism from sports (or fantasy sports) economics, for better or worse. I’m all for smart decisions to improve the team I root for, and some of that requires reducing costs. But I’ve never understand why anyone would take the owners’ side. There’s a reason they don’t report those guys’ salaries.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

And other leagues set salary caps derived from revenue. The MLB didn't. They set a tax system that has not risen with the revenue and this created a disconnect. But the union agreed to it. The players only have their representatives to blame on that one.

Exactly. All the other leagues, whether with hard or soft caps, set their limits annually based off of league revenue. But baseball sets it years in advance, seemingly arbitrarily, and then even if revenues rise, the players don’t see it because penalties are built in that make it harmful to exceed that number. This is failed negotiations by the MLBPA and they have no one to blame for it but their reps and union head, which means ultimately themselves. IF they choose to complain about it, it’s on them and the reps they voted for. If they have altruistic tendencies because of collective labor, then strike and fix it. That’s not going to happen, because it’s pretty silly to think David Price is going to forgo $30M so that JDM can get $25M instead of $20M. It’s great that Castellanos is holding a good front, but he’s not giving that money up either. If people think a player should or would forgo life altering/generational money after working that hard so some scrub getting a cup of coffee or a middle reliever can make more, I’d like to see them in that situation to make that call.

This is nothing more than a combination of a market correction, a weak class and savings for next year. We saw it in The NBA these past couple off-seasons when guys like Evan Turner got huge deals then this past year guys were fighting for scraps and will be again.

This will never be perfect. Set the cap based in league revenue (like all other leagues); remove punitive damages like draft pick forfeiture and make it purely financial; set a floor; and make the common pool encompass more revenue streams.

 

[bsj]

The longer this goes on, the more I expect Martinez to be the starting left fielder for the Yankees this season...

 

[shaggydog2000]

Well, I’m definitely not trying to launch a critique of capitalism. I certainly wouldn’t want to read it here, and it’s too overtly political for the board, which is a no-no.

My point is that it’s not unreasonable to think that JDM (who’s incidentally a MAGA dude and hardly anticapitalist) may feel some kind of responsibility to make sure his folks get paid, which overlaps with his own desire to get paid—especially if an ex-teammate close to him just disclosed as much.

Baseball is a unique economic system and it’s hard to draw real-world parallels, but it’s absolutely true that the average lay fan learns a lot about “fiscal responsibility” and market conservatism from sports (or fantasy sports) economics, for better or worse. I’m all for smart decisions to improve the team I root for, and some of that requires reducing costs. But I’ve never understand why anyone would take the owners’ side. There’s a reason they don’t report those guys’ salaries.

I think most fans would say they root for the team, not the specific players or owners. If John Henry swapped his ownership share of the Sox for an equivalent share in the Cubs, I wouldn't start rooting for the Cubs. Same thing happens when players leave. I want the team I root for to do well, and that means the owners investing their money in the team where it will help (current players, draft, resigning players, free agents) and players signing reasonable deals that won't hurt the team (it takes two sides to make the good and bad deals of course). I want players to do well. I hope all of their families are set for life. But I also want cap space for that final reliever in a mid season trade, and I don't think that is an unreasonable way to look at things. It's all monopoly money for us as fans anyway. It is so disconnected from the money we actually spend on the team thanks to the TV deals, marketing rights, profit sharing, etc.

 

[Sampo Gida]

One thing that has not been mentioned by anyone is that the lack of spending this FA season seems more of an AL issue. AL has spent about 270 million and the NL over 3 times that. Heck in a normal year the AL east has spent about 250-500 million even with the Yankees spending as little as 1 million, and is running at 5-10 times below that this year. Usually NL and AL spending has been close.

So whats changed in the AL thats different from the NL? Why are the Mets, Brewers and Padres spending but Indians, Mariners , Orioles and Jays are not? Heck, why do the Yankees need to be under the LT threshold and pass on a Darvish which would make them a clear front runner in the East?

Red Sox give a pitcher 7 years without blinking yet cant bring themselves to give an elite DH a 6th year , a bat they deadly need to compete for the division. How are they so certain no other team jumps in?

 

[Sampo Gida]

The longer this goes on, the more I expect Martinez to be the starting left fielder for the Yankees this season...

At the very least he should be their DH with Stanton or Judge in LF and the other in RF. His bat plays well in YS3 . Better than Fenway. But they insist on getting under the LT for some strange reason, thankfully.

 

[jon abbey]

So whats changed in the AL thats different from the NL? Why are the Mets, Brewers and Padres spending but Indians, Mariners , Orioles and Jays are not?

First of all, the Jays are and the Indians don't need to, but more specifically there are four very good teams in the AL so there is seemingly one playoff spot available, and in the NL there are three very good teams so there are two playoff spots available. Yes, I know baseball doesn't usually work out like this, except maybe it does now.

 

[jon abbey]

At the very least he should be their DH with Stanton or Judge in LF and the other in RF. His bat plays well in YS3 . Better than Fenway. But they insist on getting under the LT for some strange reason, thankfully.

Maybe so they can save tens of millions of dollars when they sign both Machado and Harper next winter*.

*I'd be pretty surprised if they do this, but it is possible.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

One thing that has not been mentioned by anyone is that the lack of spending this FA season seems more of an AL issue. AL has spent about 270 million and the NL over 3 times that. Heck in a normal year the AL east has spent about 250-500 million even with the Yankees spending as little as 1 million, and is running at 5-10 times below that this year. Usually NL and AL spending has been close.

So whats changed in the AL thats different from the NL? Why are the Mets, Brewers and Padres spending but Indians, Mariners , Orioles and Jays are not? Heck, why do the Yankees need to be under the LT threshold and pass on a Darvish which would make them a clear front runner in the East?

Red Sox give a pitcher 7 years without blinking yet cant bring themselves to give an elite DH a 6th year , a bat they deadly need to compete for the division. How are they so certain no other team jumps in?

First paragraph - stuff swings. Why would it matter what league you’re in?

Second - the Yankees don’t want to get back, they’re saving bikers for next year and they have a young talented team with not many holes.

Third - they don’t deadly need a DH. This team won 93 games last year with underperformance and injuries. They shouldn’t be mortgaging the future in multiple ways to add a bat.

 

[SydneySox]

Red Sox give a pitcher 7 years without blinking yet cant bring themselves to give an elite DH a 6th year , a bat they deadly need to compete for the division. How are they so certain no other team jumps in?

This is completely irrelevant.

To make it relevant you need to say who the specific pitcher is, and the specific DH, and why the comparison is valid.

You also need to consider more of why that is the case. Is it actually because of the pitcher they won't pay the hitter? Etc.

 

[soxeast]

Red Sox give a pitcher 7 years without blinking yet cant bring themselves to give an elite DH a 6th year , a bat they deadly need to compete for the division. How are they so certain no other team jumps in?

I don't agree with this philosophy at all. SO why not spend $280m? $300m?
Since when is providing a fair offer bad? They spend too much on one guy such as Price who isn't worth it - it means they should keep spending over value when I think we can all agree once you get into the playoffs a lot comes down to who is hot?

How did that big bat of EE help the Indians along with the 30+ HR slugger in Bruce?

And are you implying that last year the Red Sox didn't "compete" vs Houston?

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/rays-acquire-c-j-cron-designate-corey-dickerson.html

Ray's Designate Corey Dickerson.
If JDM falls through, seems like a good low cost, high upside LH platoon for DH.

So I had this thought too, but he was pretty bad in the second half. Anyone follow the Rays closely enough to know if something was going on there?