MLB 2018

[Jerjo]

Brady doesn't bring the Big Sexy!

[Scott Bails]

Brady actually cares enough about the game to take care of himself.

[ronmac]

Bartolo can still sign a contract to play professional baseball! And they made a big deal of Tom Brady playing at 40. Big whoop!

Actually, Colon signed a minor league contract wit Texas this week at age 44 and after his worst season ever..

[Facelift]

Todd Frazier signs a 2-year deal with the Mets.

[Poisoned Youth]

Curious to get people’s takes on the unprecedented slow offseason. We are into the 2nd week of February and many of the top FAs have yet to sign. Is this a sign of things to come? Is there a danger in signing big names this late after camp starts? Is it possible we will see a move towards shorter contracts? Is there collusion?

[Facelift]

Curious to get people’s takes on the unprecedented slow offseason. We are into the 2nd week of February and many of the top FAs have yet to sign. Is this a sign of things to come? Is there a danger in signing big names this late after camp starts? Is it possible we will see a move towards shorter contracts? Is there collusion?

There was a very good article on fivethirtyeight.com about this a couple of weeks ago. Here is some of it:

"It’s difficult to pin down exactly why this offseason has proceeded so slowly. But the sluggish pace it has taken is quantifiable — and eye-catching. I gathered data on ESPN’s top 40 free agents for each winter going back to the 2006-07 offseason and tracked how many days it took after the end of World Series before those top players were signed. (Players technically become free agents the morning after the World Series ends.) For instance, today is Day 82 since the Astros beat the Dodgers in Game 7 of the Fall Classic, and only 43 percent of the top 40 free agents — including only two of the top 10 — have put pen to paper. How abnormal is that? Between 2006 and 2016, the average offseason saw 76 percent of the top 40 free agents inking deals by Day 82 of the offseason.

The freeze on this year’s class of free agents is alarming. For one thing, it took much longer than usual for a team to break the free-agent ice. And, aside from a brief acceleration during the winter meetings in mid-December, the pace of signings has been markedly slower than normal — particularly early in the offseason, when the biggest flurry of signings usually takes place.

Only the 2008-09 offseason, when just 53 percent of top-40 players were signed by this stage of the winter, came close to lagging as much as the current slowdown. And even then, most of the biggest available names had already been signed by this point in the offseason. Granted, three of those (Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett) were all picked up by spendthrift Yankees. By contrast, the current Yankees made their big splash in the trade market, where they acquired Giancarlo Stanton, and the team is now trying to squeak in under the luxury-tax threshold rather than adding free agents. Perhaps in the past, slow free-agent classes could always count on the Yankees to open the pocketbook and keep the money flowing — but not this year.

Before we jump to any conclusions about the owners being in cahoots, it’s worth noting that many of the explanations for this year’s issues contain at least a kernel of truth. This class of free agents is indeed mediocre — in terms of wins above replacement produced by top-40 players in their previous three seasons, this is the worst crop of available talent since at least 2006. At the top of ESPN’s free-agent rankings, ace starter Yu Darvish is as good as any prized free agent from yesteryear, but many of the names further down the list come with legitimate issues, including Jake Arrieta’s declining value, J.D. Martinez’s inconsistent defense and Alex Cobb’s durability.

It’s also true that more teams are tanking now than in years past. And the proliferation of statheads in MLB front offices over the past decade could explain why teams are no longer scrambling to offer big free-agent contracts to players who are already past their primes.

As Yahoo’s Jeff Passan wrote in an excellent column last week, that final point is part of a bigger issue with the fundamental way baseball’s economics works, particularly as younger players generate more and more of the game’s on-field value. But if teams are suddenly realizing the folly of free agency, it’s also worth asking why they’ve chosen to simultaneously make their stand this year. (Bad deals still got made last season, though perhaps not as many as in the past.) The alternative explanation — collusion — is notoriously difficult to prove, however, and seems like an unbelievable risk for a group of owners who are already making money hand over fist."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-eerily-quiet/

[Casey]

I can only hope that team owners have finally figured out that THEY can always find players to suit up for them but players/agents who think they are top shelf cannot always find a team who will want them or are willing to pay their asking price. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with a player/agent asking for $1B for 30 years. I do find fault with the owner who agrees to these terms. Maybe the fact that I've voicing this opinion at this time is due to the volatility of the stock market but if I am correct in my view of the tipping balance between owners and players/agents, I believe baseball may be experiencing the same kind of correction that is good for the sport and for the source of the sport's wealth: the fan.

If anyone challenges my opinion with the argument that people won't be willing to pay to see mediocre players I shall counter with the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, and the New York Metropolitans.

[ronmac]

It's simply that they've become gun shy of the long contracts.

[Scott Bails]

Thanks for posting that, Facelift. Interesting stuff.

I can only hope that team owners have finally figured out that THEY can always find players to suit up for them but players/agents who think they are top shelf cannot always find a team who will want them or are willing to pay their asking price. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with a player/agent asking for $1B for 30 years. I do find fault with the owner who agrees to these terms. Maybe the fact that I've voicing this opinion at this time is due to the volatility of the stock market but if I am correct in my view of the tipping balance between owners and players/agents, I believe baseball may be experiencing the same kind of correction that is good for the sport and for the source of the sport's wealth: the fan.

Yep. Completely agree.

[Poisoned Youth]

There was a very good article on fivethirtyeight.com about this a couple of weeks ago. Here is some of it:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-eerily-quiet/

Thanks!

Interesting comment about the "tanking" aspect of it, which is believable. If teams can make money, it can be more important than winning a championship. My opinion is that we have seen this fundamental shift to youth. You don't necessarily need a kid to be 24 to be MLB ready anymore. The international market also gives options to GMs. And the stats show that these payoff contracts to 30 year-olds (5,6,7 years at $20m and such) are extremely front-weighted from a productivity standpoint and a burden later on.

Perhaps adding to this effect is the costs that are increasing from arbitration eligible players. Teams would rather buy out a high-leverage player's arb years at a discount now than pay that 150-200m contract later. But that perhaps inhibits teams from going after FAs.

And then when you see this model playing out in front of your eyes with all but the Pirates of the "bottom feeder group" of recent years (Cubs, Royals, Pirates, Astros) have won a WS. Now you see teams like the Yankees willing to adopt the youth model over the spending model (Dodgers, Red Sox, Nats, Giants). And interestingly enough, the Astros and Cubs are getting up to $150m in salary in part because what they are paying their arb guys.

On a side note, Jason Heyward is making 28m this year. YIKES!

What does the future hold? Four of the bottom 5 salary teams (Padres, White Sox, Rays, and Phillies) are building impressive prospects lists. Baseball America ranks 3,4,5,and 6.

On the flip side, look for the Dodgers to shed significant salary soon and leverage their farm.

[Staun]

Thanks!

Interesting comment about the "tanking" aspect of it, which is believable. If teams can make money, it can be more important than winning a championship. My opinion is that we have seen this fundamental shift to youth. You don't necessarily need a kid to be 24 to be MLB ready anymore. The international market also gives options to GMs. And the stats show that these payoff contracts to 30 year-olds (5,6,7 years at $20m and such) are extremely front-weighted from a productivity standpoint and a burden later on.

Perhaps adding to this effect is the costs that are increasing from arbitration eligible players. Teams would rather buy out a high-leverage player's arb years at a discount now than pay that 150-200m contract later. But that perhaps inhibits teams from going after FAs.

And then when you see this model playing out in front of your eyes with all but the Pirates of the "bottom feeder group" of recent years (Cubs, Royals, Pirates, Astros) have won a WS. Now you see teams like the Yankees willing to adopt the youth model over the spending model (Dodgers, Red Sox, Nats, Giants). And interestingly enough, the Astros and Cubs are getting up to $150m in salary in part because what they are paying their arb guys.

On a side note, Jason Heyward is making 28m this year. YIKES!

What does the future hold? Four of the bottom 5 salary teams (Padres, White Sox, Rays, and Phillies) are building impressive prospects lists. Baseball America ranks 3,4,5,and 6.

On the flip side, look for the Dodgers to shed significant salary soon and leverage their farm.

Interesting. The Hayward signing was a bad deal from the beginning. As for the Dodgers, I'm not so sure. They have that TV contract behind them so they could still stretch a point. They haven't won it in a while. As for my team, the Giants, I agree. They are trying to spend their way out because the farm is so poor and the starting roster isn't that great. Maybe they have little choice but I felt it was time for them to turn it over. Get that farm up to speed and get younger.

[Scott Bails]

The Texas Rangers have traded Russell Wilson (yes, the Seattle Seahawks' QB) to the Yankees. He reportedly will work out with the Yankees in the off-season, but isn't expected to actually play for them.

[progeezer]

When Wilson was at NC State, he was courted, cajoled & begged by athletic administrators to also play baseball, but his father wanted him to concentrate on only one sport and that he (Russell) could choose which one. He did wind up playing both anyway for 2 of his years there, so he must have convinced his father somehow. When he trf to WI as a graduate with a year of elig., he made a joke on local tv that he chose WI because they didn't have a baseball team to tempt him since he thought he could make it in the NFL & wanted to concentrate on that.

[Facelift]

The Texas Rangers have traded Russell Wilson (yes, the Seattle Seahawks' QB) to the Yankees. He reportedly will work out with the Yankees in the off-season, but isn't expected to actually play for them.

Any word on if he might actually be able to play at the MLB level?

[progeezer]

Any word on if he might actually be able to play at the MLB level?

He was projected as high as a 3rd round draft pick in the MLB draft the year he was drafted by Seattle, also in the 3rd round, so, by inference, he was probably as good at one as the other.

[Jerjo]

Joe Mauer was offered football scholarships at football schools like Miami - he was the hotshot QB in the area (6'5" and a laser guided rocket for an arm). He took a minor league contract with the Twins instead. Of course he still had a concussion that hampered him until from 2016 to last June but there were points late last season when he was hitting over .400. Add to that a $23 million a year salary and I'd say he's probably happy he chose baseball.

[ronmac]

The Cubs are nuts. Darvish for six years at $126 million.

I know they needed to make up for some losses, but, yikes. I'm just glad NY didn't go after him too hard.

[Scott Bails]

You have all of these pundits and experts saying that collusion is back, and yet on the other hand it seems like some of these players just aren't settling for any contract that isn't insane.

[Jerjo]

Teams used to get packages from agents touting the stats of their clients and interpreting them in a positive way. And it used to work which led to a lot of bad contracts for mediocre players or players in decline. Now teams have big analytic departments that interpret the numbers on their own and are less likely to spend mega-stupid dollars on a contract for a superstar whose best years are behind them. Except for the Cubs.

[progeezer]

I think the Cubs now take the Cheezies very seriously after last year & their off-season acquisitions, and Darvish was in the right place at the right time.

I'd bet the farm he will break north side hearts.

[Scott Bails]

Teams used to get packages from agents touting the stats of their clients and interpreting them in a positive way. And it used to work which led to a lot of bad contracts for mediocre players or players in decline. Now teams have big analytic departments that interpret the numbers on their own and are less likely to spend mega-stupid dollars on a contract for a superstar whose best years are behind them. Except for the Cubs.

Except that the Cubs are general managed by one of the kings of analytics - Theo Epstein.

[ronmac]

I'd bet the farm he will break north side hearts.

I'd never take that bet.

[ronmac]

And, so it begins.

I can almost detect a faint heartbeat that's been dormant since October.

Feels kinda nice.

[Jerjo]

The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.

[proggy_jazzer]

I'm in - screw the calendar, this is the first week of spring!