Another player I really suspect simply wanted to play for Chicago more than make ten million more clams somewhere he didn’t really care to be.MLBTR predicted Bellinger would get $264 million. I'm guessing the delta of $184 million is a record.
I actually think it’s the opposite. I think his market was essentially non existent since the Yankees got Soto. Cubs were the only fit.Another player I really suspect simply wanted to play for Chicago more than make ten million more clams somewhere he didn’t really care to be.
I expect Snells to look very similar but slightly longer.That projection by MLBTR was not their finest work.
The first of Boras's Big Four to sign gets a pillow contract.
Hope you're right about Monty - your numbers make sense - please let it be the Red Sox.I expect Snells to look very similar but slightly longer.
Monty might really be there at 4/95mm with an opt out after 2.
Fascinating off season continues to be fascinating.
Nola, not sure if there are any others.Has anyone other than the Dodgers signed a free agent for more than 4 years?
Aaron NolaHas anyone other than the Dodgers signed a free agent for more than 4 years? The RSN situation affects pretty much everyone except them and it's showing in the deals teams are willing to offer. Someone might go to 5 with Snell to lower the AAV, but those 6-8 year contracts everyone was talking about at the start of the offseason were fantasy.
My daughter was born the day the Red Sox lost a 2003 ALDS game to the A's on a squeeze play in extra innings. I watched the game from the hospital with her in my lap, and thought, "Welcome to Red Sox nation, this is the way it's gonna be. Sorry."that’s awesome!
My daughter (first child) was born within days of the end of the 2004 World Series win.
she has no idea how close she was to being named Damona Curtitia Ramires Ortiz Roberta ….
This from the Boston Globe today:You can't really generalize about this stuff. I think with some players what you say is exactly right, because Boston is unique in its history, especially recently, and in the atmosphere. But if you don't connect with that -- and with most players having no connection to New England, this is often true -- then the negative stuff might scare you off, or at least drive up your price. It's safe to say that Black players are going to have their suspicions, fair or no, and you wonder if other teams play this up to discourage people signing with the Sox. Certainly pitchers have always needed a little extra convincing about playing in a "hitters' park," though nowadays pitchers understand the nuances of how Fenway does and doesn't aid hitters. It seems like with Japanese players, the Sox are at a significant disadvantage, presumably because most American cities all just feel really foreign to them, except NY and LA to some degree? But even that is a generalization that won't hold up all the time.
My son was born at NYU (first of six generations outside Maine) to Beckett going 8.2 and almost shutting out the Os. I think we brought the WS back to NE.My daughter was born the day the Red Sox lost a 2003 ALDS game to the A's on a squeeze play in extra innings. I watched the game from the hospital with her in my lap, and thought, "Welcome to Red Sox nation, this is the way it's gonna be. Sorry."
Well, there's certainly no reason not to believe what he say's about playing at Fenway. Lifted this from Tyler Milliken's X account. 45 games played at Fenway, just more than 1/2 of a season's worth of home games.This from the Boston Globe today:
Teoscar Hernández told the Flippin’ Bats podcast that his final decision in free agency came down to the Dodgers or Red Sox.
He wanted to play in Boston because of his love of Fenway Park and the passion from the fans.
“It feels good to play there,” Hernández said. “I love it. I do.”
But Hernández signed with the Dodgers. The Sox, he said, “didn’t come with a good deal.”
This seems like collusion, or it may just be that every front office--or at least the ones with the kind of resources to spend big money---all employ analytics teams that have led them to similar conclusions against offering lucrative long-term deals to these players. But if this happened forty years ago, there would definitely be people thinking something fishy was going on.Bellinger gets 1/30, 2/60, or 3/80, so not a terrible deal for him. If he has a season like he had last year, he opts out and tries again. Imagine we will see similar type deals with the pitchers- although I think Snell is the most challenging, doubt any team wants to give up a pick for a potential one year rental, and it doesn’t seem like going back to SD is realistic.
It does. I am sure there is a lawsuit coming after this case.This seems like collusion, or it may just be that every front office--or at least the ones with the kind of resources to spend big money---all employ analytics teams that have led them to similar conclusions against offering lucrative long-term deals to these players. But if this happened forty years ago, there would definitely be people thinking something fishy was going on.
If I wasn't clear, I agree that it's due to teams getting smarter.Eh, I dunno. Bellinger is a tough player to project- his fWAR has been between -1 and 8, by season. Hes projected to be a 2.4 win player this season. A long term deal feels really risky given his track record; I think the same is true of Snell and Chapman, and Montgomery likely seems to be looking for too much $$$.
Hard to know what’s going on without any idea of what these guys are asking for, or what teams have offered.
Certainly, accept at the same time analytics have given everyone a better understanding of player value. The invisible hand of the market is sort of showing itself these days…This seems like collusion, or it may just be that every front office--or at least the ones with the kind of resources to spend big money---all employ analytics teams that have led them to similar conclusions against offering lucrative long-term deals to these players. But if this happened forty years ago, there would definitely be people thinking something fishy was going on.
I think it's the second one. Every team is working off the same set of data with roughly the same analytic departments. The game on the field has been homogenized and it's extended into player acquisition, too.This seems like collusion, or it may just be that every front office--or at least the ones with the kind of resources to spend big money---all employ analytics teams that have led them to similar conclusions against offering lucrative long-term deals to these players. But if this happened forty years ago, there would definitely be people thinking something fishy was going on.
This is such a salient point, and one I've been pondering for a long time. It used to be that there were a multitude of organizational approaches, on and off the field. Like you said, now its nearly all the same. It's made for a much more boring game.I think it's the second one. Every team is working off the same set of data with roughly the same analytic departments. The game on the field has been homogenized and it's extended into player acquisition, too.
I'm wondering if there's something else going on too, like the owners are seeing some financial data that indicates MLB revenues are not growing like they were.Certainly, accept at the same time analytics have given everyone a better understanding of player value. The invisible hand of the market is sort of showing itself these days…
The Cubs would have been on that list until last night.Several big market teams (Mets, Sox; even teams like the Padres and Angels) seemingly sitting out the market hasn’t helped.
Ownership understands that an 85-90 win team on a budget can win a championship. The key is to get to the playoffs, then it’s more of a function on who’s hot at the right time.I'm wondering if there's something else going on too, like some financial data indicating MLB revenues are not growing like they were.
Possibly. The Yankees aren't exactly clipping coupons either, especially if they sign Snell. And they were all in on Yamamoto, too.Ownership understands that an 85-90 win team on a budget can win a championship. The key is to get to the playoffs, then it’s more of a function on who’s hot at the right time.
They are working under the assumption that spending 150mm annually to upgrade a team from an 87 win team to a 94 win team is a poor investment of dollars.
They could be wrong. But it’s clear that’s the current thinking outside of the Dodgers.
But the other aspect of this is that spending to upgrade a 93-win team to a 108-win team is a good investment.Ownership understands that an 85-90 win team on a budget can win a championship. The key is to get to the playoffs, then it’s more of a function on who’s hot at the right time.
They are working under the assumption that spending 150mm annually to upgrade a team from an 87 win team to a 94 win team is a poor investment of dollars.
They could be wrong. But it’s clear that’s the current thinking outside of the Dodgers.
I wonder if the Red Sox will get back to this space in the next five years.Ownership understands that an 85-90 win team on a budget can win a championship. The key is to get to the playoffs, then it’s more of a function on who’s hot at the right time.
They are working under the assumption that spending 150mm annually to upgrade a team from an 87 win team to a 94 win team is a poor investment of dollars.
They could be wrong. But it’s clear that’s the current thinking outside of the Dodgers.
Devers would probably pull a Manny and demand he start in the field somewhere. Maybe he already has. Of course, the Red Sox back then had two great hitters that wouldn’t be good in the field and only one could DH. Also, haven’t the Sox (Breslow?) declared that DH would be spread among several guys?Well, crap on a cracker was I wrong about Belinger.
I am shocked Boras misread the market this badly and didn’t get him numbers even in line with Lee, on a total dollars standpoint. I was certain he was getting $150m at the absolute minimum, and would have probably landed around $175m. It’ll be interesting to see if this was a unique situation to Belinger, or if the Snell and Monty markets collapse.
If the market truly is this low for hitters, I’ll admit I’d at least toy with the idea of something like 3/$65m for Chapman and move Devers to DH.
He‘d provide some RH balance to the lineup and would pretty drastically improve the defense. If the Sox aren’t going to bother to actually improve starting pitching, maybe that would be a more cost effective way. It’d be interesting to see which ”replacement” helps a pitching staff more - LF or 3b.
I‘m not smart enough to figure that out.
I would think that it took until now for Bellinger to sign suggests that someone misread the market. Players (and agents) who have contract expectations that are in line with teams don't typically remain unemployed until after spring training starts.How do we know Boras misread the market, though? I don’t think comparing actuals to made up projections reality tells us much. Boras only screwed up if he rejected better offers earlier, expecting more.
Don't the Sox have several OF prospects they think highly of, whom a long-signed Hernandez might block?It does. I am sure there is a lawsuit coming after this case.
The Hernandez stuff is just really frustrating. Not defensible from a team with their ticket prices. It is one thing to say you don't like the player - but they DID.
Boras is human so he has flaws. But he has set up a system where he makes money regardless of how things go so I would argue he is doing things pretty well. He also seems to earn a lot of money for his clients too so he is winning there as well.Boras may be the best, but he's not exempt from miscalculations any more than anyone else who makes their living off volatile markets.
This is the point that those of us who are uninformed keep forgetting. We keep repeating the projections from the media to the point where we wind up using them as gospel.Also, media reports about negotiations are typically sourced from someone with an interest in an outcome. It sucks but in the end, all we really have to judge a negotiation is the final result. The rest is just spin.
I think it's the second one. Every team is working off the same set of data with roughly the same analytic departments. The game on the field has been homogenized and it's extended into player acquisition, too.
This is such a salient point, and one I've been pondering for a long time. It used to be that there were a multitude of organizational approaches, on and off the field. Like you said, now its nearly all the same. It's made for a much more boring game.
All of the above. The "Tampa Bay model" is no longer unique. That model has been around long enough now that there is a sort "tree" if you will, that has branched out and touched just about every franchise in one way or another. And to be honest, when we look at that shift the Sox were sort of in on the ground floor with the hiring of Theo all those years ago and bringing in Bill James. In time,Tampa seemed to have taken all of that to the next level. Now every team is leaning more and more on analytics and as mentioned above, every team is consuming the same data. How it's interpreted might be the only variable here, but much of the on and off field decisions are very regimented these days. Concerning the financial... We're said to be in a good economy, but the cost of EVERYTHING has gone up so much since Covid. Some of us may be making more money than we've ever made, yet it seems like more and more we're looking at our finances and searching for ways to stretch those dollars as they're not going as far as we would think that they should. The entertainment industry as a whole has seen a huge shift in how their product is consumed and baseball is no exception, especially in a time when the interest in the sport has taken a hit from younger generations for a whole host of reasons. Owners would be foolish not to try to project future trends in all aspects of their sport.I'm wondering if there's something else going on too, like the owners are seeing some financial data that indicates MLB revenues are not growing like they were.
Cashman has already said he expects Soto to go to FA.Any scenario in which the Yankees don’t extend or re-sign Soto seems so unlikely to me that it isn’t even worth discussing.
Still kind of insane to me he reportedly turned that down so far from FA (unless he just didn't like Washington).Cashman has already said he expects Soto to go to FA.
Soto turned down 14/440 from the Nats. He's going to want 500+ million assuming his standard season this year.
I don’t think so; Hernandez would’ve required at most 3 years and in theory a stronger 2 year offer might’ve worked out. He’s also a RH power bat with questionable defense, so he’d be in LF. The only “prospect” he’s really blocking is Duran. He’d be in competition with Yoshida, but it looks like one of these guys needed to be dealt to make room for himDon't the Sox have several OF prospects they think highly of, whom a long-signed Hernandez might block?
I don’t think there’s any way for Chapman to get cheap enough that he makes sense for the Sox given their artificial payroll limitations. They need to spend the money they have on pitching, not on wishcasting Chapman to reverse his decline so we can displace the best player on the team and create additional conflicts at 1B (where Casa should get a long term deal ASAP) and DH (where Breslow wants to rotate people). The best solution here is to hope coaching and Story stabilizing SS defense makes Devers second half 2023 numbers a trend.For those wanting to sign Chapman - no team is taking Yoshida off our hands in a full salary dump.
Definitely a possibility for someone as up and down as he has been.Instead he’s more likely to get 100 over the next 5 years if lucky.
Why do you interpret this to mean they did like him but were too cheap to pay him? Maybe the offer reflects that they liked him but didn't love him? Or they are doing one year deals because they think Anthony will take that spot in a year?It does. I am sure there is a lawsuit coming after this case.
The Hernandez stuff is just really frustrating. Not defensible from a team with their ticket prices. It is one thing to say you don't like the player - but they DID.
And it will be even more hilarious when they crash out in the NLDS again.I don't we can properly estimate the revenue the Dodgers will accrue thanks to "owning" Japan and its 127M people, many of whom looove baseball. And the Dodgers know that they'll come out ahead even with the massive signings. I'm sure they have a way to assess this increased revenue. The Dodgers have taken the big market playbook to another level where few, if any, can follow.
How severe is it? Hopefully it's a minor pause.Neville says Bryan Mata has pulled a hammy, and he has been shut down. Tough break for Mata, as he is out of options. His career has been beseiged by injuries, TJS, on and on. He is really talented athletically, but how do you wager on staying the course with this guy?