2021 MLB offseason - news and notes

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Question: is expansion (and under the terms we’re discussing realignment) collectively bargained?

it would affect the playoff schemes and almost require expansion of the playoffs. Is the only reason MLB haven’t pushed for it because they need to leverage Oakland and Tampa Bay for new stadiums?
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,791
Bangkok
Bowden’s now saying that the Baez deal is 7 years. I don’t know how reliable he is but goodness, that’s a lot of years and way over projections. Correa’s going to get 11 or 12 years at this rate.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
226
This spending on free agents may seem bonkers, but I think that’s true only within the context of the lockout saber-rattling from the owners. As a matter of simple economics, I think it is actually quite logical.

keep in mind that this is happening at a time when the league recently signed national tv contract extensions that are estimated by Forbes to increase tv revenues by 65 percent, and when total local television rights revenues are estimated by this Fangraphs writer to have increased by a third in the past four years.
Lots more money in the game, so it makes sense that salaries would go up quite a bit. What’s confusing, though, is how all of this squares with the owners’ calls to not just slow the growth of player salaries, but to actually reduce them by lowering the luxury tax threshold in the new CBA. Is this all some fifth-level negotiation tactic by owners? (Hard to see what it could be, but I don’t know a lot about these things.) Does it point to owners being split in their priorities? (Cohen in NY seems like the kind of self-styled swashbuckler who‘ll make it a point of pride not to fall in line.) Does it signal that the owners secretly believe the players have more leverage than we may have imagined in any work stoppage? Is there something else going on?

One final observation: the sharp/winning teams seem to be largely sitting out this spending spree, at least so far.

So, I’m curious how the SOSH cognoscenti are reading this flurry of signings vis-a-vis the threatened lockout/strike.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
3,685
Is that deal really that nuts? Baez is somewhere between a 4.5 to 6.5 bWAR player over each of the last 3 years, excluding the 2020 COVID season.

$20M per year for an elite defender at SS who hits ~.260/.315/.500 isn’t a bad deal.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
319
Seager- 10 years $325 million, age 28 for next season
Semien- 7 years $175 million, age 31 for next season
Baez- 6 years $140 million, age 29 for next season

I'd bet that Baez's contract turns out to be the best deal.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Given that Seager signed for $325m, someone must have already promised $350m for Correa, right? And he’s still holding out for more, obviously. It would suck if the Yankees got him.
They need a SS, but are they in a position to take on another $300+M contract? They'll have to figure out how to pay Judge if they plan to keep him. Might the play for them be a Sanchez trade if/when the universal DH is announced? They won't need a thumper at SS, but rather a good solid defender with a decent OBP.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Who’s still in for Correa? Angels, Mariners, Yankees and who else?
If it’s seeming likely that the new CBA will contain a salary floor (say, $100m), I suppose why wouldn’t the Cubs, Marlins, Guardians or whoever go ahead and try to sign Correa? They could probably swap him over to a big market team for their deadweight contracts (and a couple prospects) if they wanted.

Say you’re Cashman and you wanted Correa. Is it better to sign him to a 12/$360 deal or let the Guardians sign him to one, then trade them, say, Hicks, Voit and LeMahieu and a couple prospects during or after the 2022 season? (LeMahieu’s got a complicated NTC that allows him to be traded after ‘22 only, but you get the gist).

Maybe the Rangers, Tigers and other small-market teams are loading up on valuable pricey assets now knowing that a salary floor will force them to spend anyway? That way they can receive prospects for those assets in exchange for other teams’ deadweight contracts. It seems like a better bet than say, giving 37-year-old Carlos Santana $30 million next winter just to reach the floor.
 

Bosoxian

lurker
Aug 17, 2021
45
I think the owners are expecting a floor in the new CBA which is why we’re seeing the lower tier teams more active now
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,615
Tigers and Rangers are not small market teams.

I think part of the reason why the Yankees, Dodgers, and Padres have not spent much money yet is simple- they spent in the past few years and in NY and LA’s case, they already have $200M+ committed to next years teams.

The lack of move by teams like Boston, Philly, Houston, Cubs, SF, Washington, and Atlanta is a little harder to fathom- but there are a lot of players left, some of whom will surely go to these teams.

Pirates, Guardians, Diamondbacks, A’s, Royals, Twins, Orioles, etc don’t seem to be motivated to do much of anything.
 

Ford Frick's Asterisk

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,180
This would be Cleveland's dream scenario if there was anyone they really wanted – let all the top shelf free agents sign in a panic before the CBA expires and then they'll sign a role player or two who's missed out on the market a few days before spring training (whenever that might be). Seriously though, I thought they might be in on Avisail Garcia or Mark Canha, but the market wasn't right… four years for Garcia when he's never put two good seasons together was insane. Even if the Guardians were forced to spend money (and even if some floor is established, I can't imagine it would be implemented overnight), they wouldn't be in on any of the middle infielders since their biggest strategy over the past 3 years or so has been to add young shortstops to the system and wait to see how they develop. Their needs are bats at LF/RF/1B.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,195
Don’t let it be said that the Marlins aren’t trying, and I wouldn’t sleep on them in the NL East, either. At the least, let’s have a six-month moratorium on proposing fake trades with them.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,703
Saskatchestan
This spending on free agents may seem bonkers, but I think that’s true only within the context of the lockout saber-rattling from the owners. As a matter of simple economics, I think it is actually quite logical.

Lots more money in the game, so it makes sense that salaries would go up quite a bit. What’s confusing, though, is how all of this squares with the owners’ calls to not just slow the growth of player salaries, but to actually reduce them by lowering the luxury tax threshold in the new CBA. Is this all some fifth-level negotiation tactic by owners? (Hard to see what it could be, but I don’t know a lot about these things.) Does it point to owners being split in their priorities? (Cohen in NY seems like the kind of self-styled swashbuckler who‘ll make it a point of pride not to fall in line.) Does it signal that the owners secretly believe the players have more leverage than we may have imagined in any work stoppage? Is there something else going on?

One final observation: the sharp/winning teams seem to be largely sitting out this spending spree, at least so far.

So, I’m curious how the SOSH cognoscenti are reading this flurry of signings vis-a-vis the threatened lockout/strike.
I wonder if the owners are trying to put some sort of grandfathering of existing contracts before the Dec. 2 expiry in place for the new CBA going forward?
I have no idea how that would be implemented, but just something I've been thinking of
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
As a fair-weather Angels fan the last few years this makes me pretty happy. Iglesias was quietly lights out all year, except when Maddon insisted in throwing him in a handful of non-save situations, especially early in the year.
If he stays healthy, that’s about $200-250k per inning pitched, or about the same as the Mets will pay Scherzer.

That’s not a knock on Iglesias — he’s one of the best relievers in the game. I just wonder if any pitcher is worth that much.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
Surprised the Sox weren't in on him at that price, or maybe they were and he just wasn't interested. Would have been a nice bridge between the current staff and one that in a few years is hopefully headlined by some of the younger guys that aren't ready to be top of the rotation yet.