JDM

Status
Not open for further replies.

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,046
Baring an Aaron-Boone-like-injury to a key offensive player on a GFIN team (this is a very limited pool) this whole "I'll just sit it out until I get the mega-deal I deserve" ploy seems like a very dangerous game to play. At some point in time, everyone and everything under the sun "jumps the shark." We may be about to witness Boris doing his best Fonzie impression.:fonz:
And how many contending teams have a key corner OFer or DH that they'd have to replace with a guy the caliber of Martinez? We're basically talking about him needing an injury to occur to 1 of maybe 25 players in baseball. Then narrow that down to the guys who are only signed for 2018. Because the Yankees aren't going to sign JDM for 6/$150M when Judge is lost for the season. They're going to offer him 1/$20. Good luck JD...
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Apparently Hosmer is holding out for a deal of *more than* seven years, so maybe he’s the guy behind the threats?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
125 million vs 150-175 million. How does the difference change your quality of life? It does not change it much. Might affect the size of the inheritance you leave. I take the 125

Also, recent Federal tax cuts should allow him to keep more of his earnings, every little bit helps

So i agree with the above sentiments that sitting out makes little sense for a JDM at least from our perspective

However, if he takes out an insurance policy against injury he may be willing to take a risk and go for it and wait for a devastating injury (eg say Judge or Betts get injured) that has a team panic buying. Risking 12-14 million for an extra year or two at 25 million a year makes a bit of sense if you have insurance for 25 -50 million against injury in 2018 like Scherzer did. No guarantees though and if you suspect collusion you just dont take the risk
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,467
Maine
Apparently Hosmer is holding out for a deal of *more than* seven years, so maybe he’s the guy behind the threats?
Even more laughable if it's him. At least with Martinez, he is far and away the best bat on the market. Hosmer is limited to a position for which there are a number of similar players that a team can sign cheaper. A team can move on from Hosmer and sign someone like Morrison or Duda or Napoli or Reynolds for less money and years, and still get 80% of the production (if not more).
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
And how many contending teams have a key corner OFer or DH that they'd have to replace with a guy the caliber of Martinez? We're basically talking about him needing an injury to occur to 1 of maybe 25 players in baseball. Then narrow that down to the guys who are only signed for 2018. Because the Yankees aren't going to sign JDM for 6/$150M when Judge is lost for the season. They're going to offer him 1/$20. Good luck JD...
Exactly! IF Bryce Harper were to go down for the year, AND the Nats thought they weren't likely to resign him, they MIGHT be willing to give JDM a mega-deal. That's about the only scenario I can come up with as even a semi-viable possibility. Any others I may be missing?
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
So many good points... so little server storage space.

What I find most intriguing is that heretofore, agents, especially super agents like Mr. Boras, held information superiority over their negotiating counterparts. By communicating directly with multiple team decision makers their sense for market demand was superior.

The rise of business savvy front offices and computer model assisted evaluation has leveled the negotiations.

This effect is expressed as a "market correction" by fans... "collusion" by agents and political snowflakes.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,909
Even with the nats, they have great OF depth and one of the best OF prospects in the game. They aren’t signing JD to block Robles
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Even more laughable if it's him. At least with Martinez, he is far and away the best bat on the market. Hosmer is limited to a position for which there are a number of similar players that a team can sign cheaper. A team can move on from Hosmer and sign someone like Morrison or Duda or Napoli or Reynolds for less money and years, and still get 80% of the production (if not more).
If Boras truly is holding out for 8 years, it’s almost like he wants Hosmer unsigned so he can build a case for collusion.
 
Last edited:

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
So many good points... so little server storage space.

What I find most intriguing is that heretofore, agents, especially super agents like Mr. Boras, held information superiority over their negotiating counterparts. By communicating directly with multiple team decision makers their sense for market demand was superior.

The rise of business savvy front offices and computer model assisted evaluation has leveled the negotiations.

This effect is expressed as a "market correction" by fans... "collusion" by agents and political snowflakes.
Interesting point but please don't bring in partisan politics, even slyly.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
If Boras truly is holding out for 8 years, it’s almost like he wants Hosmer unsigned so he can build a case for collusion.
The collusion thing is such a red herring. When the owners were colluding they were not even making offers. Andre Dawson had to go as far as to give the Cubs a blank 1-year contract and allowed them to fill in the amount. All these players have offers, they’re just for less than they want because they’re flawed players and teams now can valu those flaws more accurately.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,610
Mid-surburbia
The collusion thing is such a red herring. When the owners were colluding they were not even making offers. Andre Dawson had to go as far as to give the Cubs a blank 1-year contract and allowed them to fill in the amount. All these players have offers, they’re just for less than they want because they’re flawed players and teams now can valu those flaws more accurately.
TBH i don't even understand what modern collusion looks like. Short of a written agreement between teams to not spend money, in the context of the CBA it just looks like everyone's working off the same core data and coming to the same (obvious) conclusion about the FA market.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,610
Mid-surburbia
Brandon Moss had a great rant on all this on MLBN today. First player I've seen really own the union's role in the revenue imbalance both between owners & players as well as pre-FA & FA-age players.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
1,758
New Mexico
The collusion thing is such a red herring. When the owners were colluding they were not even making offers. Andre Dawson had to go as far as to give the Cubs a blank 1-year contract and allowed them to fill in the amount. All these players have offers, they’re just for less than they want because they’re flawed players and teams now can valu those flaws more accurately.
Maybe they've just gotten better at it.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
I doubt It’s Hosmer. If he’s got 7/140 in his hip pocket it’s hard to believe he would threaten to sit.
If Hosmer actually had 7/140 on the table he'd of signed it long before now. No way he could look at the current state of the FA market and do otherwise.

So it wouldn't really surprise me if it turned out those 7 years offers were just Heyman planted rumors which SD/KC didn't bother to deny, and the player is indeed him.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
The collusion thing is such a red herring. When the owners were colluding they were not even making offers. Andre Dawson had to go as far as to give the Cubs a blank 1-year contract and allowed them to fill in the amount. All these players have offers, they’re just for less than they want because they’re flawed players and teams now can valu those flaws more accurately.
There is collusion that is so obvious that it smacks you on the head and the colluders get caught. Then there is smart collusion thats harder to detect. After getting caught 4 times and paying the piper, they are smarter. Manfred has been with MLB since the collusion years of the 80's. He knows.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
TBH i don't even understand what modern collusion looks like. Short of a written agreement between teams to not spend money, in the context of the CBA it just looks like everyone's working off the same core data and coming to the same (obvious) conclusion about the FA market.


MLB is a legal monopoly made of 30 owners who meet regularly. They were caught in the 80's sharing information on offers to players, memos were issued in writing, easy to catch.

Perhaps they now put their offers on networks and provide other teams with passwords to access. .

They could verbally agree on max terms for key free agents, perhaps not even all key free agents. Nothing beside handwritten notes taken by each owner who conveys that to the GM, or maybe not even them.

Perhaps teams even agree to a model for player evaluation. Thats a form of collusion. Can 30 analytic departments come up with the same valuation operating independently even if they shared the same data?. No. Look at FG and BR WAR, some players have huge variations. Both have access to same data. Same with UZR and DRS, same data, different results. Besides that, valuation is as much based on need and resources, and where you are on the win curve. Even if you could exactly forecast a players future numbers, which you can't, his value to 30 different teams would be all over the place.

If multiple teams are coming up with the same numbers, and basically agreeing to not compete, its something that has to looked into and addressed. Collusion is not permitted under CBA just as PED's are not permitted. Unfortunately there is no test for collusion like PED's. But when players all of a sudden became stronger and hit more HR, many looked to steroids as the explanation. The teams performance when it comes to FA and valuation has suddenly changed in a way that benefits owners Collusion has got to be a suspect
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Can 30 analytic departments come up with the same valuation operating independently even if they shared the same data?. No.
Sure, but why is this necessarily a smoking gun? It would only be one if we assume that the gap between what the major free agents are expecting and the largest likely offer in the absence of collusion is quite small. What if it isn't? What if teams are indeed evaluating FAs independently and quite differently, but (for example) their estimates of JDM's value range from 4/90 to 5/130, while Boras is holding out for 6/170?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,410
Portsmouth, NH
Or, alternatively, it’s just a weak FA class and owners/GMs are being less reckless in a new CBA/luxury tax environment. But yes, let’s assume collusion. I’m sure they have a secret chat board on the dark web and they all agree on highest bids. Otherwise why wouldn’t someone be offering JDM $30M/yr over 7 years as a late blooming hitter who is a terrible defender?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Sure, but why is this necessarily a smoking gun? It would only be one if we assume that the gap between what the major free agents are expecting and the largest likely offer in the absence of collusion is quite small. What if it isn't? What if teams are indeed evaluating FAs independently and quite differently, but (for example) their estimates of JDM's value range from 4/90 to 5/130, while Boras is holding out for 6/170?
Right. They don't all reach the same *exact* conclusion, but the range from min to max is likely a lot smaller now that it was 20 years ago. It's certainly not a stretch to think that all 30 teams could conclude that Eric Hosmer is not worth an 8 year deal, and JDM is not worth 200 million.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,704
Southwestern CT
There is collusion that is so obvious that it smacks you on the head and the colluders get caught. Then there is smart collusion thats harder to detect. After getting caught 4 times and paying the piper, they are smarter. Manfred has been with MLB since the collusion years of the 80's. He knows.
The absence of evidence is not evidence.

By not insisting in a salary floor, the MLBPA (which is usually much sharper than this) created the conditions that limit the number of teams that actually compete for free agents. And if these teams don't have significant needs or are unwilling to get burned again by signing non-elite talent to elite contracts (see Sandoval, Pablo) you're going to see a very soft market.

That's not collusion. That's a rational market correction.
 
Jun 27, 2006
66
Really, if you look at fairly recent past, all the big spending clubs have large contracts they regret. Many, more than one. Then subtract the teams that never give out large contracts and the teams that are rebuilding. Add in the weak FA market this year and the strong one next year. Plus Boras representing most the major talent this year. Its just a "perfect storm" for this off season.
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2018/02/scott_boras_red_sox_offer_different_opinions_on_30_and

Interesting Boras spin:

1) "A young man’s game, it is not, Boras said. Older players are being written into the lineup more often now than they were a decade ago." He then goes on to quote age based populations with no statistically significant difference.

2) "The older guys are still productive, Boras argued, noting that the best 55 players, according to WAR, ages 30-36 from 2000 to 2009 were averaging 2.5-2.8 WAR, just a tick below their averages in their late 20s." These are Steroid Era samples which diminishes age based decline.

If this is the best of Mr. Boras, he has ceded information superiority to the best of the front offices.

One can only assume the negotiations game has changed, and he has not kept up.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Scott Boras is not presenting unassailable facts in an effort to describe an objective truth, he provides rhetoric to sway opinion to the (monetary) benefit of his clients. While he may be at a disadvantage in this round of negotiations (due to weaker skills among his clients, or CBT limits on this customers), he is still doing everything he can to increase the offers to his clients.

It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about the margins and incremental gains.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Boras could also frankly be part of the specific problem this year - by representing so many of the top FAs, he is under alot of pressure to not have the first one or two that sign take a "below market deal" (albeit from the too-high expectations that he previously set) and by doing so somewhat "set" a lower calibrated market level for the rest of them...
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Also, as we learned when Johnny Damon became a free agent, much of Boras's bluster is not for the public or for the MLB teams with which he's negotiating. It's to puff up his client so that the client will stay strong and not cave early.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Yeah, well it ain't "early" anymore, so I expect one of them will get break from the pack soon and sign - they have to be getting collectively worried despite Boras' usual bluster, I mean they are discussing having to do their own little misfit-toy-island FA Spring training camp-thingy....
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Scott Boras is not presenting unassailable facts in an effort to describe an objective truth, he provides rhetoric to sway opinion to the (monetary) benefit of his clients. While he may be at a disadvantage in this round of negotiations (due to weaker skills among his clients, or CBT limits on this customers), he is still doing everything he can to increase the offers to his clients.

It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about the margins and incremental gains.
Very well said, and I thank you for clarifying my point.

When I write of information superiority - the technical details of most issues are secondary.

Rather as the best lobbyists know effective strategic communications, private and public, advocate to higher purpose . Truthful compelling facts and data support that higher purpose all to achieve the desired outcome.

Mr. Boras in those direct quotes is revealing his limits as an advocate. His data as disclosed in the direct quotes - are impersonal and not compelling to fans or management. Thus my assessment that if this is the best of Mr. Boras, he has ceded information superiority to the best of the front offices.

Were my mission to sway the public opinion of Red Sox Nation to make it easier for the Red Sox Management to sign my client, I would have pointed out the strong performance of beloved stars as evidence that supports my client.

From the fans perspective the only one that comes to my mind is David Ortiz. But had Mr. Boras made a personal case based on David - fortified with a couple of others who resonated with the audience, he would better serve his client's objectives.

As is, in this case and to date, he has not achieved his mission objective which we believe he opened at 7/$210M.

This entire offseason is revealing much of the changing negotiating climate. By both what has happened and what has not happened.
 
Last edited:

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,245
Twin Cities
Boras' public statements serve many functions. He's trying to influence the entire narrative - how the media reports on contracts and trends, how other agents think about the options available to their clients and the offers they are receiving, how other players think about the negotiating climate, etc. I'd say the group he is least trying to influence with his public statements are his own clients, because he is talking to them directly. They already know what his gameplan is, and if they have questions, they call him. They don't wait to see what he tweets next or says in front of a microphone.

JDM likely knows what Boras thinks about his current and future options. He's not nearly as far in the dark as we are!
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
The absence of evidence is not evidence.

By not insisting in a salary floor, the MLBPA (which is usually much sharper than this) created the conditions that limit the number of teams that actually compete for free agents. And if these teams don't have significant needs or are unwilling to get burned again by signing non-elite talent to elite contracts (see Sandoval, Pablo) you're going to see a very soft market.

That's not collusion. That's a rational market correction.
Laying it all on MLBPA is interesting. Not a Tony C fan, he did a terrible job on the CBA, but this is not all on him.

Manfred has enormous power as commisioner, perhaps not as much as Bud but if he wanted the lower teams to bump up payroll or risk lower revenue sharing dollars, they jump.

The agreement with MLB when they approved revenue sharing was that those dollars would be used to improve the team on the field. MLB and Manfred should honor the agreement.

You cant ask for a floor without accepting a cap. The current LT is hardly a hard cap, at least not if you dont go over by 40 million. Going over 39 million cost teams about 2 . 5 million more than in the last CBA. Nobody close to being 40 over and only the Red Sox within reach of being 20 over. Losing some international FA money is hardly a game changer. Talking 16 yo kids here. Lottery tickets. You can trade not very good prospects to make up the money. None of this explains whats happening today.

The 2nd WC teams was to make the post season in reach for more teams. Getting rid of the 1st round pick penalty was supposed to make teams more interested in signing FA who turned down a QO. What happened? More teams tanking or not competing than ever.

Anyways, call it what you will, but unless owners back down soon that C word is going to be coming up a lot more often.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
JDM would be foolish to try and do a ST on his own with 125 million on the table. Unless he has an insurance policy covering an injury with a sizeable payout, he is one injury away from getting Bautista money

May not be what he wants or is worth, but sometimes you have to accept the reality for what it is. Bad luck for him and others, and maybe they can get something in the collusion settlement down the road, but he wont starve
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Or, alternatively, it’s just a weak FA class and owners/GMs are being less reckless in a new CBA/luxury tax environment. But yes, let’s assume collusion. I’m sure they have a secret chat board on the dark web and they all agree on highest bids. Otherwise why wouldn’t someone be offering JDM $30M/yr over 7 years as a late blooming hitter who is a terrible defender?
Its not that weak. I read somewhere that in the last 12 years its ranked 6th in top 40 WAR (previous season)

I dont know what JDM has been offered. Seems the only club to make an offer is the Red Sox. For 5/125 I would think half a dozen clubs would be in. JDM is one guy though, half of all top 40 FA are unsigned.

Payroll is now expected to deflate for the first time since 2004 in the aftermath of another collusion allegation in 2002-2003 that was settled by MLB. Every other payroll deflation has come from lockouts or collusion. Payroll deflation despite record revenues and robust revenue growth is suspicious
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,393
Rogers Park
Its not that weak. I read somewhere that in the last 12 years its ranked 6th in top 40 WAR (previous season)

I dont know what JDM has been offered. Seems the only club to make an offer is the Red Sox. For 5/125 I would think half a dozen clubs would be in. JDM is one guy though, half of all top 40 FA are unsigned.
Which clubs, though? I've pretty much gamed it out for all of them.

A positionless slugger at $125m makes a ton of sense for win-now clubs who need a DH and occasional OF. That's us — and so far as I can tell, it's only us.

He's a less-ideal fit for teams who would have to play him in the OF all the time — e.g. contending NL clubs such as SF or ARI, or AL contenders who are already staffed at DH, such as the LAAA, MIN or SEA.

He could work as a veteran presence and lineup anchor on an AL team that expects to contend in 2-3 years, such as CHW. But he's expensive for them.

But then, I don't know if I posted it anywhere, but my prediction was that he would sign with Boston by February 1st. Seeing as that was yesterday, I'm sort of on the clock.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
…You cant ask for a floor without accepting a cap.
Why not?

This little nugget gets trotted out every time a salary floor is mentioned, and while the cap/ floor dichotomy has been integrated into the salary structure of other sports, it isn’t exactly difficult to imagine situations where you have a floor without a cap. For instance, consider the federal minimum wage: there is no corresponding cap to earnings.

The cap/ floor pairing seems rooted in the idea that cost certainty for the players should also lock in labor rate certainty for ownership, however the point of the minimum salary here is to ensure that the profits of new revenue streams make it to the players.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
At this point I'm not sure a cap would be the worst thing in the world, so long as it did come with a floor and with the cap being tied a percentage of revenues. I don't think there's any way we're going to see the pre-arb/arb system significantly altered. It's just too valuable to the owners for them to give it up. But if they will agree to a floor in conjunction with a cap (they are close enough to one now that it's not a huge difference) the combination of a higher cap/threshold and forcing teams to spend a minimum amount on payroll should bring up salaries in general by a significant amount.

It would require a transition period, and would render the efforts to penalize big market teams for buying all the talent it touch less effective, but it seems like the simplest way to fix this mess, IMO.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,393
Rogers Park
You could also allocate the revenue sharing money differently. For instance, the league could use that pool of money to subsidize deals given by small-market teams, rather than just giving them the money. So TB or whoever would have to spend to access revenue sharing; they couldn’t just field an all pre-arb 25-man roster and pocket the money.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,296
You could also allocate the revenue sharing money differently. For instance, the league could use that pool of money to subsidize deals given by small-market teams, rather than just giving them the money. So TB or whoever would have to spend to access revenue sharing; they couldn’t just field an all pre-arb 25-man roster and pocket the money.
That's pretty interesting. Not sure I'd tie it to particular deals, as opposed to overall roster spending, but spending tiers tied to revenue sharing tiers sounds like the foundation of an idea.
Also, "market" is a peculiar term of art in baseball.
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Jul 21, 2005
50
It is simple. The market is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller.

Mr.Van-Wagenen can help break the impasse by accepting the best market offer available.

He is weak and seeks to find nefarious reasons for his inability to adapt to reality.
I think the Boras factor is being underrated in the conversation about the slow market. By representing such a high number of top free agents he can slow the market down all by himself. It's almost as though he could create his own sub-union that is prepared to collectively hold out until it's player values are met. Not only is waiting out of market a traditional boras strategy, he's also got access to each of the offers that are coming in to his stable a free agent. That makes it a lot easier to see how individual players are being valued, and to hold out until a systemic value is met across the board. I think it's relevant that the one market that did develop quickly was the top flight relief market. Boras did not represent any of those pitchers. He does represent Greg Holland, who remains unsigned, but Holland was never going to set the market for relievers this offseason. We've also seen some of the second-tier position players he doesn't represent, like Cain, Bruce and Santana, sign.

If the logjam is going to break I think its going to be the result of players outside of Boras corp and at the lower end (Morrison, Duda, etc.) signing first.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,711
Seriously though.... how long can these guys hold out? It seems to me that the leverage here is with the teams management/ownership. (I have no side I'm rooting for... they're both almost criminally overpaid for doing dumb fucking shit.... but it is what it is).
It seems all these teams that could use any of these FA's that are holding out are willing to go into the season (and possibly through it) without them. Even Mike Trout would have a price that would be too high for anyone. Teams are betting (correctly, IMO) that the fan base will show up whether it has Hosmer or JDM or whoever on their roster or not.
Seriously thought this was going to be done on the 1st of February..... my guess is now that the Super Bowl just started occupying too much sports media time and attention so things will pick up again shortly after today and we'll start seeing the holdouts sign by the 15th.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,467
Maine
It seems all these teams that could use any of these FA's that are holding out are willing to go into the season (and possibly through it) without them. Even Mike Trout would have a price that would be too high for anyone. Teams are betting (correctly, IMO) that the fan base will show up whether it has Hosmer or JDM or whoever on their roster or not.
I think the unique situation right now is that none of these top players are ones that their potential suitors need. They're the best available for what they do, but they aren't make or break guys that you pull out all the stops for. In Hosmer's case, there are half a dozen other guys who can do 80%+ what he can at far less money. In Martinez's, his defense limits his options to the point where teams can and already have chosen to get more value for their buck with a lesser hitter who can field well.

They are the epitome of what you only want to pay your price for, and not a penny more. I have to think that if a Trout type was on the market, teams would be falling over themselves to break their budget to pay.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Hosmer is the one who really seems to me to be playing with fire. If I were the Royals or Padres, I’d tell him he has 3 days or I’m moving on to Duda or Morrison. There’s just no reason to let him hold you up like this.

I think either Duda or Morrison would be adequate to protect the Sox in the event JD Martinez won’t sign by the end of this week too. It’s time for them to set their team with players who want to play for them and start spring training.

Hosmer, Martinez, Arrieta and Darvish all have reasonable offers out there. They are being ridiculous.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Hosmer, Martinez, Arrieta and Darvish all have reasonable offers out there. They are being ridiculous.
It's almost as if their agents would rather try to build a case for collusion than have their clients take the best deal available in this marketplace.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
I think either Duda or Morrison would be adequate to protect the Sox in the event JD Martinez won’t sign by the end of this week too.
I think "would have been adequate" is probably more appropriate there, since both those potential roster fits got a lot more complicated here once Moreland was re-signed. If anything there I'm guessing SD would just end up taking a complete pass on moving Myers off first, TB ends up snagging one of Morrison/Duda back on the super cheap, and the fact KC doesn't have to pay any FA penalties on Hosmer starts finally coming in to full play.

That very latter is probably also a possibility on JDM for that matter. Everybody seems so focused on an all or nothing outcome there centered around the Sox, but if I'm Boras and dealing with a client that is absolutely insisting on viewing himself as a guy who just slugged .690 (which nobody rightfully seems to be buying as 100% legit atm), shifting gears towards a potential "bet on yourself" Cespedes'like opt out after one contract ultimately makes a lot more sense there then sitting out. At which point Arizona, and in the event they were willing to spend, could be left sitting prettier then we are in terms of making that surrounding situation work.

For example: 3/$85-90m with an opt out after one. Which doubles JDM's career earnings in 2018, offers up a large chunk of fall back insurance to the 5 year Sox money being left on the table, and has them betting that another big/consecutive 1.000ops season going in to a record breaking market (where some guys will be asking for double the years in commitment) will leave them coming out ahead in the long haul.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,467
Maine
One thing...there are no picks attached to Martinez. As he was traded mid-season, he was ineligible to be offered a qualifying offer.

The only penalty any team would pay to sign him, aside from the salary (depending on how you view his true value), is if he put the team over the luxury tax (or further over, in the Red Sox case).
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
One thing...there are no picks attached to Martinez. As he was traded mid-season, he was ineligible to be offered a qualifying offer.

The only penalty any team would pay to sign him, aside from the salary (depending on how you view his true value), is if he put the team over the luxury tax (or further over, in the Red Sox case).
I caught that before you posted in an edit.

But yeah, for starters you do have the surrounding LT concern here Arizona wouldn't have. Plus on top of that JDM absolutely killing it at Chase field last year, and the potential reluctance he might have to giving up on a situation where he's guaranteed a spot in the OF.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,572
Suburbs of Washington, DC
For example: 3/$85-90m with an opt out after one. Which doubles JDM's career earnings in 2018, offers up a large chunk of fall back insurance to the 5 year Sox money being left on the table, and has them betting that another big/consecutive 1.000ops season going in to a record breaking market (where some guys will be asking for double the years in commitment) will leave them coming out ahead in the long haul.
But with the opt out, JDM would be in next year's free agent class. I don't get why he would turn down 5/$125MM for 3/$90MM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.