2018 MLB Thread

[MrBug708]

It could be titled Otani watch, but for now, the M's tske on Dee Gordon's salary to gain more financial freedom to sign the Japanese star

[dacman]

I've been telling people for several weeks now that Ohtani will be a Mariner.

[MrBug708]

Apparently Stanton will only approve a deal to the Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, and Cubs

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Apparently Stanton will only approve a deal to the Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, and Cubs

Please come to New York!!

[MrBug708]

Yankees probably want their money with Harper

[Vince, Pt. II]

Rumors coming out today that the four team list was premature and that Stanton has not officially ruled out any team.

[Neuqua]

Ohtani to the Angels.

Interesting.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Did not see that one coming. I thought he was Seattle bound for sure.

[MrBug708]

The Angels were the only team that would agree to let Ohtani both hit and pitch every day
— Sam Miller (@SamMillerBB) December 8, 2017

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The Angels were the only team that would agree to let Ohtani both hit and pitch every day
— Sam Miller (@SamMillerBB) December 8, 2017

Hope they can keep that story straight for the inevitable investigation.

[BYU 14]

I think he is a good fit for the Angels. If his power translates, gives them some much need left handed pop in the lineup, a nice 4 man OF rotation and pitching depth, in which he could end up anywhere from a 1 to 3 starter.

[Jas_lov]

Yanks have a deal with Marlins for Stanton. Not sure yet what they're giving up. Starlin Castro and prospects is all I've seen reported.

[MrBug708]

That's a pretty strong RH lineup and essentially takes them out of the. Bryce Harper sweepstakes

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

That's a pretty strong RH lineup and essentially takes them out of the. Bryce Harper sweepstakes

Yeah, not fun facing Sanchez, Stanton and Judge consecutively. I am okay with Castro going as it opens up second for Gleyber Torres, who should be fully recovered from TJ surgery. Torreyes could slide in their too if they can't get rid of Headley.

If they can add another starter to shore up the 4/5 spot in the rotation that is a lineup that can contend for years.

[PilotMan]

I just want to stop by and say, Fuck the Yankees, and Fuck Stanton. I won't miss seeing him in the NL, and I was secretly holding out hope that LA could figure out a way to get the deal done, but knew it probably wouldn't happen. Otani (sp) took away the Angels for him, but still. Fuck everyone.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I just want to stop by and say, Fuck the Yankees, and Fuck Stanton. I won't miss seeing him in the NL, and I was secretly holding out hope that LA could figure out a way to get the deal done, but knew it probably wouldn't happen. Otani (sp) took away the Angels for him, but still. Fuck everyone.

Yanks will take Kershaw for him

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Yanks will take Kershaw for him

YOU! GO BACK TO YOUR CORNER! YOU'LL TALK WHEN I SAY YOU CAN!

[Shkspr]

So after this, Jeter can leave the Marlins and attempt to hook up with the Cubs, right? Kris Bryant would look good in pinstripes.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Yeah, not fun facing Sanchez, Stanton and Judge consecutively. I am okay with Castro going as it opens up second for Gleyber Torres, who should be fully recovered from TJ surgery. Torreyes could slide in their too if they can't get rid of Headley.

If they can add another starter to shore up the 4/5 spot in the rotation that is a lineup that can contend for years.

Yeah it's a lineup that could post close to 300 homers.

[JPhillips]

If the reported 35 mil from FL is correct, with Castro included the deal could be almost salary neutral up to Stanton's option year.

[frnk55]

I'm so surprised the LA didn't get Stanton. That team has more money than God. Can't stand em.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by frnk55

I'm so surprised the LA didn't get Stanton. That team has more money than God. Can't stand em.

Dodgers don't really want to take on bad contracts anymore. They also care about the luxury tax because of draft position implications

[stevew]

Bad contracts are guys like Albert pujols. Not reigning MVPs that still play the field at an acceptable level

[MrBug708]

A guy averaging 120 games a year and a mediocre fielder with 10 years left, is a bad contract. Doesn't make him a bad player

[Toddzilla]

I think Pujols was measured as the worst every-day player in the majors last season (may have been 2016). Nothing to do with salary, just simple awfulness.

EDIT: nope, this year https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...r-in-baseball/

[Vince, Pt. II]

Yeah, while that contract is perfectly fine for the next two or three years, it's eventually going to be categorically awful.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

A guy averaging 120 games a year and a mediocre fielder with 10 years left, is a bad contract. Doesn't make him a bad player

Makes him a nice DH though

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Yeah, while that contract is perfectly fine for the next two or three years, it's eventually going to be categorically awful.

If he falls apart, it's a bad deal. If he continues to play well, he'll opt out so this could only be a 3 year deal for the Yanks.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If he falls apart, it's a bad deal. If he continues to play well, he'll opt out so this could only be a 3 year deal for the Yanks.

I don't conceivably see him opting out and getting a better deal

[tarcone]

Dang, I wish Ozzie Smith was the Marlins GM

[stevew]

Ted Simmons finished 1 vote short of the HOF?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by stevew

Ted Simmons finished 1 vote short of the HOF?

Yeah I think it's past time to fold the veteran's committee .

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I don't conceivably see him opting out and getting a better deal

If he puts up three healthy years at a high level - not necessarily threatening 60 every year, just 'I'm healthy, and I'm raking,' somebody will give him 7/210 and not even blink. That's his floor in an opt-out scenario. How much higher he goes depends on other circumstances.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If he puts up three healthy years at a high level - not necessarily threatening 60 every year, just 'I'm healthy, and I'm raking,' somebody will give him 7/210 and not even blink. That's his floor in an opt-out scenario. How much higher he goes depends on other circumstances.

Isn't he already getting that in the current deal?

[JPhillips]

I think the opt-out depends on what Harper and Machado get.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Isn't he already getting that in the current deal?

Yes. And that, IMO, is his floor, provided he stays healthy and productive.

Unless his production craters or he goes back to being hurt every year, there's no reason for him not to exercise his opt-out.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yes. And that, IMO, is his floor, provided he stays healthy and productive.

Unless his production craters or he goes back to being hurt every year, there's no reason for him not to exercise his opt-out.

That's the thing. Unless he is going to get significantly more, he won't opt out. Now I would guess after three productive years, he will find someone to give him significantly more, and he would opt out. But if all.signs point to him signing a similar contract to what he already has, what is the benefit of opting out?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That's the thing. Unless he is going to get significantly more, he won't opt out. Now I would guess after three productive years, he will find someone to give him significantly more, and he would opt out. But if all.signs point to him signing a similar contract to what he already has, what is the benefit of opting out?

If what you have is the floor of what you'll get, then the benefit is that there's nothing but upside to opting out, and that upside isn't necessarily fiscal.

At minimum, opting out gives him the freedom to choose his destination for the first time, and maybe that choice is driven by other-than-financial considerations.

But in terms of straight compensation, as JPhillips alluded to, next year's FA market could reset what "market" means for Stanton. If he's making $32m or so AAV and Machado and Harper push more like $40m AAV, there's upside there for Stanton even if he doesn't join them in the $40m AAV club.

And even without that, having the leverage to play 29 other teams against the Yankees - particularly if he's been productive - gives him the opportunity to boost his take.

Shoot, if nothing ELSE, he can tell the Yankees "look, I signed the deal I signed because I was playing half my games in Florida, where there's no income tax. If you want me around for the long haul, we need to talk about a new contract that addresses that." This year, the Yanks kind of had all the leverage. Nobody else he wanted to play for was willing to assume enough of the contract to make anything happen, from the sound of it. Everybody in the world knew he wanted out of Miami. Three years from now, that changes.

He has the leverage then, with the ability to opt out, the threat of signing with Boston or another major media market, and the aging and development of their young players could mean that, draft-wise, they won't have been able to get a franchise-level talent to plug into the hole he leaves behind (because they'll have been winning 90+ every year).

It's a no-lose scenario for him. If he gets hurt again or just sucks, he's got $295 million coming that nobody can take away from him. If he maintains or even improves his performance, there is no downside to opting out. Just upside; the question is how much.

[Chief Rum]

Yea but you said 7/$210 M. That's the entire crux of what I'm saying. All of what you say are sensible reasons to opt out, but almost all of those are for money reasons. If he is going to opt out, he needs to have a really good idea he is going to get significantly more than what he is already set to make. Which is not 7/$210 M. Just as hypothetical, let's say he would get 8/$280 instead, maybe with another opt out after three years. That's a reason to opt out.

I guess what I am really saying, in your original argument, you shouldn't have tossed out 7/210, but a significantly better new deal. Otherwise, outside of non-baseball reasons, as you mention, why opt out?

[Vince, Pt. II]

I feel like I'm missing something, but if he knows he's going to get AT LEAST what he's already making, why wouldn't he opt out? Why does it need to be significantly more? Isn't even $1 more a "successful" opt out?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I feel like I'm missing something, but if he knows he's going to get AT LEAST what he's already making, why wouldn't he opt out? Why does it need to be significantly more? Isn't even $1 more a "successful" opt out?

Sack didn't say a $1 more. He said he's getting the same amount (in his hypothetical).

[Shkspr]

Just to clarify, after the 2020 optout date, Stanton's deal has 7 years and 208 million guaranteed, and an additional team option at $25 million with a $10 million buyout. That said, opting out makes sense even if you don't think you'll get more money, if it lets you choose where to go in three years. Right now, Stanton had the leverage to force the move to the Yankees. Three years from now, he may want to go somewhere else.

The real question, as has been suggested, is what do the deals of Harper, Machado, and Trout do to the market? Harper is probably the most relevant next domino to fall because of two reasons: first, he apparently wants a record-breaking contract, and second, he's really only had one season that merits record-breaking. His established level is at the 5 win WAR mark, with significant upside, but also the likelihood of missing about 20 games a year with one injury or another. Supposedly the $500 million figure has been thrown around, but if you pay him that, what the hell does Mike Trout get when he's worth about $15-20 million more a year than Harper?

I think when all is said and done, the contract number for Harper is 10/$380. That gets him:
The largest total contract in American team sport history,
The largest single season contract in MLB history,
The largest AAV in MLB history,
And will put his total career earnings by the end of the deal above A-Rod.

But, it doesn't overvalue him all that much. The upside on Harper is that even at the end of that deal, he's only 35. The real key to that deal is if he can produce more than 5-6 WAR a year during the meat of the deal. If he can, then he should still be an asset at the end of the deal. More importantly, if Harper is worth $38 million a year, then Stanton in 2020 can probably get $40 million. The only problem for Stanton is that he's at best the 2nd best OF on the market, because that's when Trout hits FA, as well. Trout's going to be the guy breaking (likely Harper's) records for salary.

[stevew]

If Stanton opts out he already knows what kind of offer is available to him. Tampering almost always happens.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I feel like I'm missing something, but if he knows he's going to get AT LEAST what he's already making, why wouldn't he opt out? Why does it need to be significantly more? Isn't even $1 more a "successful" opt out?

Since his current deal includes a full no-trade clause, I'm guessing he would need a lot more money to opt out (and potentially give that up).

[RainMaker]

Are we sure that the contracts are going to keep going up? Take Harper for example. How many teams can realistically offer him the kind of massive money we're talking about here? I feel like we have enough good GMs in the game now that these giant deals are going to be rarer.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yea but you said 7/$210 M. That's the entire crux of what I'm saying. All of what you say are sensible reasons to opt out, but almost all of those are for money reasons. If he is going to opt out, he needs to have a really good idea he is going to get significantly more than what he is already set to make. Which is not 7/$210 M. Just as hypothetical, let's say he would get 8/$280 instead, maybe with another opt out after three years. That's a reason to opt out.

I said 7/$210 is his floor, as that's approximately what would be remaining on his contract at that point. And, actually, looking at bb-ref, 7/208 is what remains of his guaranteed money after this year ($10m buyout on his $25m option year also), so a 7/$210m contract is still a marginal improvement.

But the crux of what I'M saying is that even if, financially, 7/$210M (or $208M) is what he stands to make if he opts out, there is zero reason not to do so, because even if the dollars don't change, he can improve the contract in other ways.

I guess what I am really saying, in your original argument, you shouldn't have tossed out 7/210, but a significantly better new deal. Otherwise, outside of non-baseball reasons, as you mention, why opt out?

I tossed out the numbers I did because they represent a floor. In any world in which an opt-out is likely, he's not dropping below that point. Given that, there's no reason not to opt out (or make the team believe you will) and see if you can improve your contractual terms, whether that's guaranteeing the 8th year that's currently an option, seeing if you can play the market for more money, making the same money you're already slated to make but for a team you'd rather play for, or any of a dozen other creative options that his agents would no doubt brainstorm.

It's the whole point of a player option. You don't negotiate for something you there's no point using, assuming (as players will) that you perform up to the standards you expect of yourself.

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I feel like I'm missing something, but if he knows he's going to get AT LEAST what he's already making, why wouldn't he opt out? Why does it need to be significantly more? Isn't even $1 more a "successful" opt out?

Pretty much this, and again, that ignores the possibility that there may be tangential improvements to new the contract that aren't directly tied to financial compensation.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Sack didn't say a $1 more. He said he's getting the same amount (in his hypothetical).

I said he's not getting less on the open market than what he's already making. That's what "a floor" means. Please don't misrepresent my argument. As long as he stays healthy and productive - and productive needn't mean a repeat of 2017 - what he's slated to make represents the minimum he can expect on the open market. Given that, there is zero reason not to explore the upside potential.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are we sure that the contracts are going to keep going up? Take Harper for example. How many teams can realistically offer him the kind of massive money we're talking about here? I feel like we have enough good GMs in the game now that these giant deals are going to be rarer.

There's a limited pool of players who could expect to command that kind of money to begin with. Machado, Harper, Trout, Kershaw, Bumgarner, Stanton.

There's dudes a tier down who've enjoyed the rising tide effect of those top salaries, but that's the tier I'd expect to be affected by the "good GMs." The elite are likely to still get paid. Yes, their market shrinks some because there's a more limited number of teams that can realistically play in that pool - Tampa Bay is never going to be a threat to sign Harper. Neither is Milwaukee. So forth.

But as long as there are a half-dozen or so markets who have to contend with outsized fanbase expectations, generational talents will get paid.

[stevew]

Padres totally fucked the rest of the league by taking on the Headley deal. Means the Yankees can easily sign CC, probably Frazier and a few reliever types(or take a gamble on Pineda for a 2 year UCL rehab)

[Vince, Pt. II]

What in the heck do the Padres get out of that deal?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are we sure that the contracts are going to keep going up? Take Harper for example. How many teams can realistically offer him the kind of massive money we're talking about here? I feel like we have enough good GMs in the game now that these giant deals are going to be rarer.

Like Sack said, the top of the baseball market has always gone up higher & faster than people a decade before would've thought feasible.

Glad to see the Yankees going back to being hated for buying players. Since Dombrowski showed up in Boston we've been the ones overpaying for players in FA/trades while the Yankees grew a homegrown core.