JDM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
My guess is they really want him, but they think/know he doesn't have any other serious bidders.
Exactly. More over, I don't think we can assume that 5/100 is the max of what the Sox would be willing to pay, but it is the point to which bidding has taken them thus far. In other words, after reading the market, Dombrowski started off with a low-ish offer anticipating it would be countered and beaten from somewhere else and he'd just raise the offer if need be, only it hasn't been countered yet (presumably). No sense in bidding against himself in the meantime.

If this is all true, it's understandable why Martinez hasn't signed anything yet. But at some point, he's going to have to come to the realization that it is the best he can do and sign it...unless some team (D-Backs?) swoops in late with a better offer.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
As mentioned, the biggest reason those record profits are being kept by owners is because of a system that does not reward young players. The league minimum is too low compared to profits, and a system that sees its FA talent controlling most of the income in the player pool was destined to hit a wall eventually. Its becoming pretty clear that threshold is arriving. The goal of the next CBA should be to let players start making money sooner and lessen the long term control teams have over their prospects (maybe some kind of RFA status like hockey has would make sense).
Agree with this, for the most part.

There is absolutely no evidence of collusion, and the behavior of the teams does not suggest collusion. And I say this as an attorney who negotiates CBAs for a labor union. The players are victims of the circumstances (cited by Cameron and many here) and of the system they negotiated. I was stunned when I saw what the MLBPA agreed to, and they are now suffering the consequences.

I have no doubt that the players (and the agents!) will want to change this system in the next round of negotiations. But I don't think there's much chance at all that the owners will want to "lessen the long term control teams have over their prospects," for a whole host of reasons. The best chance that the players would have would be to (1) further increases to the minimum salary; and (2) change the way that salaries increase during the initial period of team control, which could be done in a variety of ways (e.g., make player eligible for arbitration sooner, and/or provide a higher minimum for players once they reach identified thresholds of playing time). And they should also try to make some changes in how the thresholds for the CBT (luxury tax) work - they didn't raise these nearly enough to reflect the growth in revenues. At the very least, increases to these CBT thresholds should be tied or indexed to increases in revenue.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Unless, of course, this is how they value him as a player. Full time DH
That is his value. He's a bad enough outfielder that his fielding effectively cancels out the difference in positional value between a corner outfielder and a DH. The only reason to play him in the outfield, if you're an AL team, is if your best lineup includes another guy who's an even worse defender.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Exactly. More over, I don't think we can assume that 5/100 is the max of what the Sox would be willing to pay, but it is the point to which bidding has taken them thus far. In other words, after reading the market, Dombrowski started off with a low-ish offer anticipating it would be countered and beaten from somewhere else and he'd just raise the offer if need be, only it hasn't been countered yet (presumably). No sense in bidding against himself in the meantime.

If this is all true, it's understandable why Martinez hasn't signed anything yet. But at some point, he's going to have to come to the realization that it is the best he can do and sign it...unless some team (D-Backs?) swoops in late with a better offer.
He is not taking a 1-year pillow deal anywhere this offseason either. Next year's FA class is loaded and he won't get what he wants. He has this offseason to really cash in and get a long-term deal when he's the centerpiece of what's out there.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
DD has basically overpaid for every asset he’s wanted. Unless the ownership has told him to cut payroll (perhaps due to low ticket sales?), him slow playing has never really been his mantra. Nor has coming in late and aggressively.

So if adD really wants JDM this is not his normal mantra.

Unless, of course, this is how they value him as a player. Full time DH
That seems a simplistic exaggeration. Who exactly has he overpaid for? Price was the best pitcher on the market. If you think they paid him $31M a year when they could have had him for $25M per, you're delusional. Same for the trades for guys like Kimbrel, Pomeranz, and Sale. He pays the going rate, that doesn't mean he "overpays". This report fits with that philosophy.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
If it’s really the Sox and the Diamondbacks at this point—and I struggle to think who else would be in at nine figures—then our opposition research is super informed.

No FO but ours would be as familiar with how Hazen, Sawdaye, and Porter value defense. DD likely has a very precise and educated dollar value of how much the D-backs determine five years of JDM’s post-lisfranc surgery, -14.8 UZR/150 outfield work demerits his hitting value.

Agree with this, for the most part.

There is absolutely no evidence of collusion, and the behavior of the teams does not suggest collusion. And I say this as an attorney who negotiates CBAs for a labor union. The players are victims of the circumstances (cited by Cameron and many here) and of the system they negotiated. I was stunned when I saw what the MLBPA agreed to, and they are now suffering the consequences.

I have no doubt that the players (and the agents!) will want to change this system in the next round of negotiations. But I don't think there's much chance at all that the owners will want to "lessen the long term control teams have over their prospects," for a whole host of reasons. The best chance that the players would have would be to (1) further increases to the minimum salary; and (2) change the way that salaries increase during the initial period of team control, which could be done in a variety of ways (e.g., make player eligible for arbitration sooner, and/or provide a higher minimum for players once they reach identified thresholds of playing time). And they should also try to make some changes in how the thresholds for the CBT (luxury tax) work - they didn't raise these nearly enough to reflect the growth in revenues. At the very least, increases to these CBT thresholds should be tied or indexed to increases in revenue.
Helpful post, thanks.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Five years at 100 million makes it seem that the Red Sox want an offer to be on record but don’t really expect him to accept it, nor do they want him on the team all that much.
This. Which I've basically been suspecting since the start given the routinely overlooked but still ugly back drop reality going in to all this.

If this proves to be the case it'll definitely be interesting to see how much flip flopping goes on here though, as some previous offseason perspectives are then going to have to shape themselves around a supportive stance that a DD decision to essentially do absolutely no tinkering this winter (which includes the lack of a better offensive upside option at 1B) was always the smart play here.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
This. Which I've basically been suspecting since the start given the routinely overlooked but still ugly back drop reality going in to all this.

If this proves to be the case it'll definitely be interesting to see how much flip flopping goes on here though, as some previous offseason perspectives are then going to have to shape themselves around a supportive stance that a DD decision to essentially do absolutely no tinkering this winter (which includes the lack of a better offensive upside option at 1B) was always the smart play here.
The only surefire offensive option at first base available better than who we signed was Carlos Santana, and signing him would have precluded our ability to sign JDM.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
This. Which I've basically been suspecting since the start given the routinely overlooked but still ugly back drop reality going in to all this.

If this proves to be the case it'll definitely be interesting to see how much flip flopping goes on here though, as some previous offseason perspectives are then going to have to shape themselves around a supportive stance that a DD decision to essentially do absolutely no tinkering this winter (which includes the lack of a better offensive upside option at 1B) was always the smart play here.
Do you honestly believe that it's been DD's plan all along to enter the 2018 season with no new additions? The reports of his offers to Carlos Santana and JDM indicate otherwise.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
This. Which I've basically been suspecting since the start given the routinely overlooked but still ugly back drop reality going in to all this.

If this proves to be the case it'll definitely be interesting to see how much flip flopping goes on here though, as some previous offseason perspectives are then going to have to shape themselves around a supportive stance that a DD decision to essentially do absolutely no tinkering this winter (which includes the lack of a better offensive upside option at 1B) was always the smart play here.
If you promise not to flip flop on your JDM making 180 mill+ prediction and if the Red Sox eventually acquire a really big bat, I promise I will not flip flop on what you are saying.

Number one is not looking good for you right now, but we shall see.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
The only surefire offensive option at first base available better than who we signed was Carlos Santana, and signing him would have precluded our ability to sign JDM.
It didn't even need to be surefire imo. Personally, I'd have settled for even the chance at more upside. Which could have started with a guy already in house for that matter, and then opened the door to even more potential options.

For the record though, your aftermath take on a do nothing winter materializing out of all this would be one of the first ones I'd look forward to seeing (seems you are already starting to piece together bigger picture reasons on why that Moreland signing sucked).

Do you honestly believe that it's been DD's plan all along to enter the 2018 season with no new additions? The reports of his offers to Carlos Santana and JDM indicate otherwise.
I didn't foresee the fact he seems rather smitten with Moreland, but on the possibility that the bigger/impact FA wouldn't be in the current cards? It was always a very distinct possibility imo.

FWIW, I didn't see anybody report on what our offer to Santana actually was either.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Under the assumption that JDM does not play the field for Boston (why would you sit one of BBB for him, except in obvious rest situations...Chris Young had 243 ab's last year and he can field), it's either JDM or Hanley rotating through the DH spot.

I can't see JDM the DH being worth the investment Boras seeks, unless he's on a team that already has a shitty corner outfielder...and one who can't hit.

There were only 2 DH's last year that made sense: Cruz and Encanarcion. Every other team in the AL suffered at that position.

Holliday hit .231

Morales struck out 132 times with a .302 OBP / Trumbo 149 K's with a .289 OBP

Beltran, Martinez, Davidson, Moss and Pujols all sucked.

So the Red Sox are looking at paying for the marginal upgrade from Ramirez to Martinez...which is worth something, but how can one assume Ramirez will suck badly? If he hits well and stays healthy, he's on the team in 2019 and the Red Sox have that JDM money to extend or sign players. If he sucks, they've got $47M in the bankl (Ramirez' salary plus the salary dodged for JDM). That's real money.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
So the Red Sox are looking at paying for the marginal upgrade from Ramirez to Martinez...which is worth something, but how can one assume Ramirez will suck badly? If he hits well and stays healthy, he's on the team in 2019 and the Red Sox have that JDM money to extend or sign players. If he sucks, they've got $47M in the bankl (Ramirez' salary plus the salary dodged for JDM). That's real money.
They won’t have that money, though, because of arb increases for half the team and a $2.5M raise for Sale. Should be over $20-25M.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
If you promise not to flip flop on JDM making way less than 180 million and if the Red Sox eventually acquiring a really big bat, I promise I will not flip flop on what you are saying.

Number one is not looking good for you right now, but we shall see.
For sure, I'd end up owning that.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
For the record though, your aftermath take on a do nothing winter materializing out of all this would be one of the first ones I'd look forward to seeing (seems you are already starting to piece together bigger picture reasons on why that Moreland signing sucked).
I don’t think the Moreland signing sucks. It is good.

And I don’t think we’ll have a do-nothing winter. I think Hanley at DH is nothing more than a hedge and DD has a number of options lined up to replace him, JDM first among them, because it’s colossally stupid to yoke the team’s 2018 chances to the risk of entering next offseason with two-thirds of our available cap space tied up on Hanley Ramirez.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I can't see JDM the DH being worth the investment Boras seeks, unless he's on a team that already has a shitty corner outfielder...and one who can't hit.
As I said above, it's an illusion to imagine that JDM the LF is worth anything more than JDM the DH. He'll provide roughly the same value either way. To the Sox specifically, barring a trade, they're a better team with him at DH, since Benintendi provides more value in LF than Hanley does at DH.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Well, you also think that the team is would cut Hanley. Once you let that possibility go I'm guessing things might start looking different.
Correct, and that’s hardly novel. Recall that Drellich posited the same thing in October.

Hanley’s wRC+ over the last three years is 106. Do you know how easy that is to replace? Do you know how likely it is to decline at 35?

Cutting Hanley (or swapping him for another underwater contract) is exactly what they’ll do if they sign JDM. They’ll probably also do it if they get any of the several other backup targets DD has for that spot.

There’s no way we want Hanley at $22M on this team in 2019, no way they risk the clubhouse grievance if we bail on him midseason while he’s hitting well, or relegate him to a part-time role. And factoring his pre-CBA price tag, he’s got no trade value in a league where 50 percent of teams aren’t trying to win, 25 percent he can’t play defense for, and the other 25 percent is our competition.
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
For sure, I'd end up owning that.
Yeah, I was about to call you on that one too, LOL.

I think he signs, with us, and pretty soon. It's really hard to understand how Martinez is better off holding out into ST; if anything, it degrades his value for a contending team. He certainly doesn't want to go into the market again next season.

My theory: the hold out threats didn't shake Dombrowski, so Boras leaked this to try to entice other teams into the bidding. But which teams? He's just a bad fit for the NL — the Giants never made sense, the Diamondbacks barely do — and, well, we're the AL contender with both money and a DH opening. (Thank God for the Pujols contract...). For this reason, I also think the "$100m range" comment should be understood to mean that the offer is lower, not higher. Dombrowski will agree to inch the offer up a few $m, to save everyone face, and he'll sign.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I think they'd be signing JDM for him to play the Chris Young role plus a substantial amount at DH this year, then become essentially a full-time DH next year, when Hanley is likely not to be on the team. He can get 30-40 games in LF spelling Ben10 and JBJ (with Andrew moving over) v LHPs. That wouldn't be the optimal usage from the team's perspective, but Cora would likely give JDM OF time if that's, as he says, what he wants, just to keep everyone in the dugout moderately happy.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
As for the 5/$100M report, it sure makes it sound like they see JDM as a younger Encarnacion, seeking a big deal in the same kind of limited market. I hope that's the case, actually. As others noted, I'm having a hard time seeing where the competition for JDM is, beyond AZ. Philly has money, but it seems dumb for a rebuilding NL team to spend big bucks on a good hitting, over 30, DH-type.

Maybe DD could close the deal by offering some incentives ($1M for top 3 MVP finish, etc.) and an opt-out after year 3 (which he'd be unlikely to exercise).
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,923
Salem, NH
If you’re Boras/JDM, at what point does a short deal become preferable to a long deal?

That is, if his best offer right now is 5/100 - but he can go out and find say 1/27 or 2/50... then a follow up deal of 4/73 or 3/50 effectively be a wash.

Of course, that carries more risk for JDM, but there may be a higher potential reward for him in that route. What would you all think that “breaking point” would be?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Maybe DD could close the deal by offering some incentives ($1M for top 3 MVP finish, etc.) and an opt-out after year 3 (which he'd be unlikely to exercise).
Short of another team making a competitive offer, what incentive does DD have to add anything to his current offer (assuming things like bonuses for MVP finishes, etc aren't already included)? That's the definition of bidding against oneself. It would appear, based on this alleged offer, that Dombrowski is in no way desperate to put Martinez in a Red Sox uniform this winter. He wants him, but he'll only sign him at the market rate, and it appears market rate is presently whatever Dombrowski is offering.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Short of another team making a competitive offer, what incentive does DD have to add anything to his current offer (assuming things like bonuses for MVP finishes, etc aren't already included)? That's the definition of bidding against oneself. It would appear, based on this alleged offer, that Dombrowski is in no way desperate to put Martinez in a Red Sox uniform this winter. He wants him, but he'll only sign him at the market rate, and it appears market rate is presently whatever Dombrowski is offering.
Agreed. I was mostly suggesting window dressings that would give the appearance to JDM that we want him (it's all about being wanted! Plus, you know, money) without actually offering him that much more!
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
All the Yankees would really have to do is trade Gardner or Hicks to the Giants, who don’t want to give up a draft pick for Cain, and they too could be in on JDM.

Stanton in left. Hicks/Ellsbury in center. Judge in right. Martinez at DH. If it’s something like Gardner (2/$23M left) and Robertson (1/$13M) for, say, Cory Gearrin and Chris Shaw, it’d even be a net money wash for this year.
 
Last edited:

Hawk68

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Agree with this, for the most part.

There is absolutely no evidence of collusion, and the behavior of the teams does not suggest collusion. And I say this as an attorney who negotiates CBAs for a labor union. The players are victims of the circumstances (cited by Cameron and many here) and of the system they negotiated. I was stunned when I saw what the MLBPA agreed to, and they are now suffering the consequences.

I have no doubt that the players (and the agents!) will want to change this system in the next round of negotiations. But I don't think there's much chance at all that the owners will want to "lessen the long term control teams have over their prospects," for a whole host of reasons. The best chance that the players would have would be to (1) further increases to the minimum salary; and (2) change the way that salaries increase during the initial period of team control, which could be done in a variety of ways (e.g., make player eligible for arbitration sooner, and/or provide a higher minimum for players once they reach identified thresholds of playing time). And they should also try to make some changes in how the thresholds for the CBT (luxury tax) work - they didn't raise these nearly enough to reflect the growth in revenues. At the very least, increases to these CBT thresholds should be tied or indexed to increases in revenue.
Thanks for sharing your insight and experience.

In your opinion, from management perspective, what might they offer or counter offer to further split current MLB players from future MLB players - to the advantage of current ownership?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
I think much of the problem here is that Boras' reputation is at stake. He has made incredibly inflated promises to his clients - JDM and Hosmer in particular - that were never, ever realistic. He simply has completely misread the market. It's pretty obvious that last year's market correction was not simply a blip. So he's trotted out the usual Boras bag of tricks to create leverage where none exists - mystery teams and hold outs threatened, whispers of collusion and general complaints about the unfair financial system. At this stage it's more about Boras saving face than getting a good deal for his clients.

Good on DD for not falling for any of them.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
All the Yankees would really have to do is trade Gardner or Hicks to the Giants, who don’t want to give up a draft pick for Cain, and they too could be in on JDM.

Stanton in left. Hicks/Ellsbury in center. Judge in right. Martinez at DH. If it’s something like Gardner (2/$23M left) and Robertson (1/$13M) for Cory Gearrin and a prospect it’d even be a net money wash for this year.
NY already has a good chance to break the alltime team record for HRs in a season (it is 264, they led MLB with 241 last year and added Stanton plus hopefully a full season of Bird), there is zero chance they would weaken their defense and bullpen in order to pay big money for a fulltime DH.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
NY already has a good chance to break the alltime team record for HRs in a season (it is 264, they led MLB with 241 last year and added Stanton plus hopefully a full season of Bird), there is zero chance they would weaken their defense and bullpen in order to pay big money for a fulltime DH.
Runs are runs, wins are wins. They’d still have Ellsbury, Hicks and Frazier as plus-defensive outfielders. It’s not impossible and I’m sure it’s occurred to Boras.

FWIW, J.D. Martinez has the highest wRC+ among RHH to the opposite field the last two years (288). His bat’s a better fit for the Toilet than it is for Fenway, and your sitting DH is actually a full-time OF.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
I have no doubt that the players (and the agents!) will want to change this system in the next round of negotiations. But I don't think there's much chance at all that the owners will want to "lessen the long term control teams have over their prospects," for a whole host of reasons. The best chance that the players would have would be to (1) further increases to the minimum salary; and (2) change the way that salaries increase during the initial period of team control, which could be done in a variety of ways (e.g., make player eligible for arbitration sooner, and/or provide a higher minimum for players once they reach identified thresholds of playing time). And they should also try to make some changes in how the thresholds for the CBT (luxury tax) work - they didn't raise these nearly enough to reflect the growth in revenues. At the very least, increases to these CBT thresholds should be tied or indexed to increases in revenue.
Thank you for your insightful post. I think what you mentioned here is what I meant when I said “limit control over prospects”... I guess I wasn’t necessarily talking about service time to the team, but more in the sense of artificially limiting young player salaries, as you clarified in your two points in the bolded. Thank you for making those points, that was basically what I had in mind when I posted about adopting an RFA status or something similar, but didn’t make that clear.
 

Hawk68

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
All the Yankees would really have to do is trade Gardner or Hicks to the Giants, who don’t want to give up a draft pick for Cain, and they too could be in on JDM.

Stanton in left. Hicks/Ellsbury in center. Judge in right. Martinez at DH. If it’s something like Gardner (2/$23M left) and Robertson (1/$13M) for, say, Cory Gearrin and Chris Shaw, it’d even be a net money wash for this year.

With all respect, while that would strengthen an already formidable opponent for the 2018 Red Sox, that particular package reminds me of the talk radio circa 1987. Callers wanted to package then highly overpaid Rice ($2M), Stanley ($1M) and Ed Romero ($.5M) ... and somehow we would get value in return.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If you’re Boras/JDM, at what point does a short deal become preferable to a long deal?

That is, if his best offer right now is 5/100 - but he can go out and find say 1/27 or 2/50... then a follow up deal of 4/73 or 3/50 effectively be a wash.

Of course, that carries more risk for JDM, but there may be a higher potential reward for him in that route. What would you all think that “breaking point” would be?
Free agents usually take the biggest pot of guaranteed money. A 30-year old DH like JDM isn’t a likely candidate to break the mould.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
They’d still have Ellsbury, Hicks and Frazier as plus-defensive outfielders.
I'm just nitpicking now, but actually Judge and Stanton and Hicks are plus-defensive outfielders, Ellsbury is mediocre at best and Frazier is not clear yet, but he was not good in the bigs last year. But Gardner is their best defensive OF, so the defense would in fact be hurt, maybe not massively but it would be.

But to the bigger picture, I don't think it makes any sense for NY to add another long-term big deal for a dedicated DH. If they're going to move Gardner and/or Robertson to save money (possible for Gardner although a risky clubhouse move, really unlikely for Robertson unless they get a very nice package from someone), it's going to be to add a SP like Darvish (and even that I think is unlikely, although of course it depends on the price).
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
You dont make a 5/100 offer for this years top FA and best hitter by far and reasonably expect to get him unless either you don't really want him Except at a bargain, or you know with some certainty he has not got a better offer. The latter suggests collusion , if true, even if its not evidence. Also, MLB has paid out damages for collusion on 4 separate occasions. Its like when something valuable goes missing with a convicted thief in the room. You have to seriously look at him as a suspect even if there is no other evidence other than something is missing.

FA spending after 2016- 2.4 billion
FA spensing after 2017 - 1.4 billion
FA spending after 2018- 650 million

Thats a lot of missing dollars .

Revenue up almost 1 billion in this period, valuations up, teams flush with a 50 million BamTek sale. Something fishy.

As Passan pointed out in his article, some of the excuses or rationalizations for the lack of interest in FA simply don't hold water

Doesn't mean these other dynamics are not restraining spending somewhat but not to this extent. Most teams have no LT worries and those that do are nowhere near where heavy penalties kick in. Teams don't lose a 1st round pick anymore which was a favorite excuse before. Most teams have no intention of going after Harper, Machado or Kershaw since they would make up too high a fraction of their total payroll.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Free agents usually take the biggest pot of guaranteed money. A 30-year old DH like JDM isn’t a likely candidate to break the mould.
Not to mention that in order to get a pillow contract, particular a high AAV one like Hank suggests, there has to be a team willing to take on that kind of commitment. So any teams looking to get or stay under the luxury tax are likely out, as well as any teams with no expectation of contention in 2018 or 2019 (because why spend that kind of money to win 75 games instead of 73). Frankly, I don't think a pillow contract really expands his pool of suitors all that much from what exists now unless he takes less.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
You dont make a 5/100 offer for this years top FA and best hitter by far and reasonably expect to get him unless either you don't really want him Except at a bargain, or you know with some certainty he has not got a better offer.
Or.... 5/100 is an opening offer you fully expect to move up from (as much as you might expect the player to come down from a 7/200 request), and thus far there's been no need to move off that initial offer. I think it's as suggestive of a shrewd assessment of the player's market as much as it is suggestive of collusion.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I think much of the problem here is that Boras' reputation is at stake. He has made incredibly inflated promises to his clients - JDM and Hosmer in particular - that were never, ever realistic. He simply has completely misread the market. It's pretty obvious that last year's market correction was not simply a blip. So he's trotted out the usual Boras bag of tricks to create leverage where none exists - mystery teams and hold outs threatened, whispers of collusion and general complaints about the unfair financial system. At this stage it's more about Boras saving face than getting a good deal for his clients.

Good on DD for not falling for any of them.
I get that this is your take on the situation. You could be right about Boras. I kinda doubt it. An alternative narrative is that Boras knows full well and better than everyone else exactly how bad the current CBA is for the players; that he has actually advised his players accordingly; that his strategy is to still shoot for the moon knowing they'll never get it; and to make it clear to everyone that the market is valuing players "unfairly," thereby giving his clients collectively the impetus to push the union to negotiate a better deal the next go round (while still getting them the best deal now that he can).

He is NEVER going to just accept the status quo: "The CBA stinks, and there's no way these good-not-great players I represent, like Hosmer and JDM, can push the bar upward, so we expect and will settle for the best disappointingly team-friendly, less than 9 figure deal we can muster." Words Scott Boras will never say.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I'm just nitpicking now, but actually Judge and Stanton and Hicks are plus-defensive outfielders, Ellsbury is mediocre at best and Frazier is not clear yet, but he was not good in the bigs last year. But Gardner is their best defensive OF, so the defense would in fact be hurt, maybe not massively but it would be.

But to the bigger picture, I don't think it makes any sense for NY to add another long-term big deal for a dedicated DH. If they're going to move Gardner and/or Robertson to save money (possible for Gardner although a risky clubhouse move, really unlikely for Robertson unless they get a very nice package from someone), it's going to be to add a SP like Darvish (and even that I think is unlikely, although of course it depends on the price).
Ellsbury is a superior CF er to Gardner. He would be just as good as Gardner in LF IMO even with the noodle arm. Having Stanton or Judge at DH despite their plus defense at the corners seems a waste even if you get a marginal upgrade on defense which is offset by a league average or worse offensive player.

Certainly JDM at DH would be a huge upgrade over Gardner in LF even if they lose a bit on defense. JDM bat plays well at YS3 with his RCF power (7 HR in 40 AB Or something like that there)

When these guys need a rest give them a full rest instead of DH. Players need rest as much mentally as physically and DH only helps with the latter.

Frankly if guys like JDM are going to be available for 5/100 Hal and Cashman should just scrap going under the LT. I dont see they have a need for Harper or Machado which really would the only reason to reset.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
You dont make a 5/100 offer for this years top FA and best hitter by far and reasonably expect to get him unless either you don't really want him Except at a bargain, or you know with some certainty he has not got a better offer. The latter suggests collusion , if true, even if its not evidence. Also, MLB has paid out damages for collusion on 4 separate occasions. Its like when something valuable goes missing with a convicted thief in the room. You have to seriously look at him as a suspect even if there is no other evidence other than something is missing.

FA spending after 2016- 2.4 billion
FA spensing after 2017 - 1.4 billion
FA spending after 2018- 650 million

Thats a lot of missing dollars .

Revenue up almost 1 billion in this period, valuations up, teams flush with a 50 million BamTek sale. Something fishy.

As Passan pointed out in his article, some of the excuses or rationalizations for the lack of interest in FA simply don't hold water

Doesn't mean these other dynamics are not restraining spending somewhat but not to this extent. Most teams have no LT worries and those that do are nowhere near where heavy penalties kick in. Teams don't lose a 1st round pick anymore which was a favorite excuse before. Most teams have no intention of going after Harper, Machado or Kershaw since they would make up too high a fraction of their total payroll.
As you say, there’s a history here, but I’m not seeing it this time around.

By all accounts, Eric Hosmer is weighing two monstrous offers, even though he probably isn’t one of the top 5 players at his very deep position. That’s a pretty big mark against any collusion theory.

The other top-tier free agents just don’t inspire much excitement. It’s telling that a 30-year old glorified DH like JDM is the biggest name on the market. I’m sure it also doesn’t help that next year’s market is expected to be much more attractive; that’s a big incentive for small-market teams who can’t make a splash every offseason to keep their powder dry this time around. Likewise, the MFY have their own, non-collusive reasons to sit out this year’s free-agent market, and they’re a big enough player to affect the entire market.

It’s true that there are way more lesser FAs unsigned than usual at this point in the offseason, but it’s certainly common for that market to remain sluggish until most of the big names are off the market. If a lot of those guys are still unsigned on March 1, I might believe there’s collusion, but I expect things will start moving in a hurry at some point in the next few weeks.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Or.... 5/100 is an opening offer you fully expect to move up from (as much as you might expect the player to come down from a 7/200 request), and thus far there's been no need to move off that initial offer. I think it's as suggestive of a shrewd assessment of the player's market as much as it is suggestive of collusion.
It makes sense if this was early December but not mid January. How would one know he does not have a better offer? Agents always pretending they got something better (sometimes its true) . Of course if they had an information bank like in the 80's that would explain it.

DD is a guy who blew 217 on Price early in the FA season. I doubt anyone was close to that offer. Not that JDM should get anywhere near that but shrewd has never been DD's MO
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
DD is a guy who blew 217 on Price early in the FA season. I doubt anyone was close to that offer. Not that JDM should get anywhere near that but shrewd has never been DD's MO
That was the same off-season where Grienke got $206 million. It's actually more likely than not that DD had a decent read on the market. He seems to have a decent read on this one too
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
It makes sense if this was early December but not mid January. How would one know he does not have a better offer? Agents always pretending they got something better (sometimes its true) . Of course if they had an information bank like in the 80's that would explain it.

DD is a guy who blew 217 on Price early in the FA season. I doubt anyone was close to that offer. Not that JDM should get anywhere near that but shrewd has never been DD's MO
The counter to that is that David Price had a lot more potential suitors than JDM does.
For example: https://fansided.com/2015/11/05/david-price-mlb-free-agency-landing-spots/ lists Boston, Cubs, Dodgers, Detroit and Astros.
Thats some big money clubs that could all use an "Ace".

JDM fits on very few clubs positionally and payroll-wise*.

EDIT: *for the price that he is looking for at least.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Or.... 5/100 is an opening offer you fully expect to move up from (as much as you might expect the player to come down from a 7/200 request), and thus far there's been no need to move off that initial offer. I think it's as suggestive of a shrewd assessment of the player's market as much as it is suggestive of collusion.
Especially because we were able to deduce from here that he didn't have much of a market. It isn't rocket science to realize that the third worst outfielder in baseball probably isn't a great fit in the NL. If we can figure that out, Dombrowski definitely can.

Not that JDM should get anywhere near that but shrewd has never been DD's MO
I think a lot of Dombrowski's rep around here is shaped by deals that were driven by Ilitch in Detroit.

The counter to that is that David Price had a lot more potential suitors than JDM does.
For example: https://fansided.com/2015/11/05/david-price-mlb-free-agency-landing-spots/ lists Boston, Cubs, Dodgers, Detroit and Astros.
Thats some big money clubs that could all use an "Ace".

JDM fits on very few clubs positionally and payroll-wise.
And you didn't even include the Cardinals, who offered him $190m, and where he thought he was headed.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
It makes sense if this was early December but not mid January. How would one know he does not have a better offer? Agents always pretending they got something better (sometimes its true) . Of course if they had an information bank like in the 80's that would explain it.
Well, we don't know that the Red Sox offer wasn't made in December. And we can only assume he doesn't have a better offer because a) he hasn't signed yet and b) why would the Red Sox offer be the only one in the rumors if there were others on the table, particularly better ones? Seems counter productive for the agent to leak an offer and not have it be the best one made...and there's no doubt that this, along with all other reports regarding Martinez (like the ones where he's allegedly prepared to hold out into spring training), are coming from the agent side and not the teams.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Why is there no doubt that this is coming from the agent side?

Sure, the holdout rumor is almost certainly coming from Boras/Martinez. But this rumor does not benefit them at all. Not sure why they would leak it.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Why is there no doubt that this is coming from the agent side?

Sure, the holdout rumor is almost certainly coming from Boras/Martinez. But this rumor does not benefit them at all. Not sure why they would leak it.
To put public pressure on, it seems likely, the Red Sox or bring other teams into the mix. This with the player threatening to sit out is the only leverage the agent has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.