2018-19 Offseason Thread

[phillipmike]

Read on Twitter

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Schad]

I agree with this philosophy but Vlad’s dad made 140M+ in his career. I don’t think Vlad needs the money, could bet on himself as a potential generational player and get to free agency sooner and make more money.

Certainly, his family doesn't want for money. Free agency isn't quite the incredible bounty that it was, though, and an extension that buys out a couple years at an AAV not far from full market value might be more attractive than it would have been a couple years ago. Especially with a labour stoppage looming in 2021.

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

[phillipmike]

Read on Twitter

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[polo007]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[BigLeagueChew]

Players reactions to arb hearings will never end, you could have avoided arbitration. Both sides talk crap about each other for an hour+, what did you expect.

Imagine that though, 1 year deals for everyone!

[wamco]

Of the sp prospects , which are gonna pan out, which will become above average relief pitchers and which will flop? Interested to hear the guesses. Do we have enough of them that worst case scenario, they form a cheap formidable bullpen and 5th starter?

[Skin Blues]

Players reactions to arb hearings will never end, you could have avoided arbitration. Both sides talk crap about each other for an hour+, what did you expect.

Imagine that though, 1 year deals for everyone!

It wasn't so much that they were talking crap, but that they claimed his $100,000 donation to charity was a character flaw because he gave it out in $420.69 denominations. The attempt to make him seem like a bad person due to the denominations of his $100,000 donation ultimately failed, anyway. So, not so much bitterness as much as "that was pretty dumb, and I'm gonna let the public know what you think about players that donate to charity".

As for going to one year contracts for the rest of his career, he's had that position since at least last season, if not before. It wasn't caused by the process of his most recent arb hearing. And going on one year contracts is almost certainly a +EV decision for any player. The only reason not to go that route, from a player's perspective, is if you're risk averse. I think he's made enough money that risk-aversity isn't an issue anymore. Taking a long multi-year deal is basically paying for an insurance policy against the chance that you fail or get injured. Insurance is almost always -EV. The reason it would rarely happen is because of this risk-aversity on behalf of the players, and/or if they want to be able to settle down in one spot by including a no-trade clause. But the reason it never happens, is because agents don't want to take a chance that they get dropped at some point. Agents always maximize their own earnings by signing a deal as long as possible. Last thing Bauer's (or any player's) agent wants is him changing his mind 2 or 3 years from now and going with new representation.

[BigLeagueChew]

Players reactions to arb hearings will never end, you could have avoided arbitration. Both sides talk crap about each other for an hour+, what did you expect.

Imagine that though, 1 year deals for everyone!

It wasn't so much that they were talking crap, but that they claimed his $100,000 donation to charity was a character flaw because he gave it out in $420.69 denominations. The attempt to make him seem like a bad person due to the denominations of his $100,000 donation ultimately failed, anyway. So, not so much bitterness as much as "that was pretty dumb, and I'm gonna let the public know what you think about players that donate to charity".

As for going to one year contracts for the rest of his career, he's had that position since at least last season, if not before. It wasn't caused by the process of his most recent arb hearing. And going on one year contracts is almost certainly a +EV decision for any player. The only reason not to go that route, from a player's perspective, is if you're risk averse. I think he's made enough money that risk-aversity isn't an issue anymore. Taking a long multi-year deal is basically paying for an insurance policy against the chance that you fail or get injured. Insurance is almost always -EV. The reason it would rarely happen is because of this risk-aversity on behalf of the players, and/or if they want to be able to settle down in one spot by including a no-trade clause. But the reason it never happens, is because agents don't want to take a chance that they get dropped at some point. Agents always maximize their own earnings by signing a deal as long as possible. Last thing Bauer's (or any player's) agent wants is him changing his mind 2 or 3 years from now and going with new representation.

I didn't know about that charity stuff , that does seem a bit odd.

[Schad]

It wasn't so much that they were talking crap, but that they claimed his $100,000 donation to charity was a character flaw because he gave it out in $420.69 denominations. The attempt to make him seem like a bad person due to the denominations of his $100,000 donation ultimately failed, anyway. So, not so much bitterness as much as "that was pretty dumb, and I'm gonna let the public know what you think about players that donate to charity".

As for going to one year contracts for the rest of his career, he's had that position since at least last season, if not before. It wasn't caused by the process of his most recent arb hearing. And going on one year contracts is almost certainly a +EV decision for any player. The only reason not to go that route, from a player's perspective, is if you're risk averse. I think he's made enough money that risk-aversity isn't an issue anymore. Taking a long multi-year deal is basically paying for an insurance policy against the chance that you fail or get injured. Insurance is almost always -EV. The reason it would rarely happen is because of this risk-aversity on behalf of the players, and/or if they want to be able to settle down in one spot by including a no-trade clause. But the reason it never happens, is because agents don't want to take a chance that they get dropped at some point. Agents always maximize their own earnings by signing a deal as long as possible. Last thing Bauer's (or any player's) agent wants is him changing his mind 2 or 3 years from now and going with new representation.

While often true for one player, the same would not be true if every player was going year-to-year. The artificial scarcity created because only a small percentage of baseball's best players are free agents each year improves their bargaining position; if every FA-eligible player was on the market, it'd be far more likely to depress salaries even further, because teams wouldn't feel the pressure to secure once-in-an-X players on long-term deals, which would have knock-on effects for mid-tier FAs.

[Skin Blues]

It wasn't so much that they were talking crap, but that they claimed his $100,000 donation to charity was a character flaw because he gave it out in $420.69 denominations. The attempt to make him seem like a bad person due to the denominations of his $100,000 donation ultimately failed, anyway. So, not so much bitterness as much as "that was pretty dumb, and I'm gonna let the public know what you think about players that donate to charity".

As for going to one year contracts for the rest of his career, he's had that position since at least last season, if not before. It wasn't caused by the process of his most recent arb hearing. And going on one year contracts is almost certainly a +EV decision for any player. The only reason not to go that route, from a player's perspective, is if you're risk averse. I think he's made enough money that risk-aversity isn't an issue anymore. Taking a long multi-year deal is basically paying for an insurance policy against the chance that you fail or get injured. Insurance is almost always -EV. The reason it would rarely happen is because of this risk-aversity on behalf of the players, and/or if they want to be able to settle down in one spot by including a no-trade clause. But the reason it never happens, is because agents don't want to take a chance that they get dropped at some point. Agents always maximize their own earnings by signing a deal as long as possible. Last thing Bauer's (or any player's) agent wants is him changing his mind 2 or 3 years from now and going with new representation.

While often true for one player, the same would not be true if every player was going year-to-year. The artificial scarcity created because only a small percentage of baseball's best players are free agents each year improves their bargaining position; if every FA-eligible player was on the market, it'd be far more likely to depress salaries even further, because teams wouldn't feel the pressure to secure once-in-an-X players on long-term deals, which would have knock-on effects for mid-tier FAs.

It's hard to predict what would happen if every player changed their risk-aversity simultaneously. There are a lot of variables and unforeseen consequences. But in general when you pay for insurance, there's a cost associated with that. There are other considerations like wanting to stay in one place for a while. There are chances owners would collude to not sign these types of guys, possibly as a quid pro quo for certain agents. Who knows? It's something I'd like to see somebody try, though. It's been a while since Roger Clements signed a series of 1 year deals ($18M, $22M, etc) and Randy Johnson signed a series of lucrative 2 year deals.

[Schad]

It's hard to predict what would happen if every player changed their risk-aversity simultaneously. There are a lot of variables and unforeseen consequences. But in general when you pay for insurance, there's a cost associated with that. There are other considerations like wanting to stay in one place for a while. There are chances owners would collude to not sign these types of guys, possibly as a quid pro quo for certain agents. Who knows? It's something I'd like to see somebody try, though. It's been a while since Roger Clements signed a series of 1 year deals ($18M, $22M, etc) and Randy Johnson signed a series of lucrative 2 year deals.

Coincidentally, this was posted today:

https://deadspin.com/trevor-bauers-idea-for-universal-free-agency-isnt-that-1832658309

The person who originally posited leaguewide free agency was...Charlie O Finley. Charlie O is one of the league's most notorious hucksters and probably the cheapest man in sports. He was a team owner, and he suggested it as a counter to the actual free agent system that existed. He did so because it was greatly to the benefit of the owners.

Clemens and Randy Johnson existed in an era where players were good into their 40s. That era has now passed.

[Skin Blues]

It's hard to predict what would happen if every player changed their risk-aversity simultaneously. There are a lot of variables and unforeseen consequences. But in general when you pay for insurance, there's a cost associated with that. There are other considerations like wanting to stay in one place for a while. There are chances owners would collude to not sign these types of guys, possibly as a quid pro quo for certain agents. Who knows? It's something I'd like to see somebody try, though. It's been a while since Roger Clements signed a series of 1 year deals ($18M, $22M, etc) and Randy Johnson signed a series of lucrative 2 year deals.

Coincidentally, this was posted today:

https://deadspin.com/trevor-bauers-idea-for-universal-free-agency-isnt-that-1832658309

The person who originally posited leaguewide free agency was...Charlie O Finley. Charlie O is one of the league's most notorious hucksters and probably the cheapest man in sports. He was a team owner, and he suggested it as a counter to the actual free agent system that existed. He did so because it was greatly to the benefit of the owners.

Clemens and Randy Johnson existed in an era where players were good into their 40s. That era has now passed.

Trevor Bauer is 28 and nobody else is doing this, so I don't see the relevance of either of those points. Whether you're good until your'e 40 or 35 is irrelevant, as well. You're paying for insurance for the 5+ years that you're playing in the league after you've reached free agency, as opposed to 10+ years.

Mandating that every single player must go year to year is obviously an extreme variation of what Bauer is talking about; he's saying it makes sense for individual players. And it does. As usual, Deadspin is more about TMZ nonsense than actual reporting.

[Schad]

Trevor Bauer is 28 and nobody else is doing this, so I don't see the relevance of either of those points. Whether you're good until your'e 40 or 35 is irrelevant, as well. You're paying for insurance for the 5+ years that you're playing in the league after you've reached free agency, as opposed to 10+ years.

Mandating that every single player must go year to year is obviously an extreme variation of what Bauer is talking about; he's saying it makes sense for individual players. And it does. As usual, Deadspin is more about TMZ nonsense than actual reporting.

Trevor Bauer's first post-FA season will be at age 31. You know as well as I do that bounteous contracts extending from age 31 aren't as plentiful as they once were.

Also, Ray Ratto (who wrote that column) is in his fourth decade as a sportswriter. He's been a BBWAA member for rather a long time. Unless you assume that Deadspin's platform has a deleterious effect on anyone writing for them, he's a real-by-god sports writer person.

[Skin Blues]

Trevor Bauer is 28 and nobody else is doing this, so I don't see the relevance of either of those points. Whether you're good until your'e 40 or 35 is irrelevant, as well. You're paying for insurance for the 5+ years that you're playing in the league after you've reached free agency, as opposed to 10+ years.

Mandating that every single player must go year to year is obviously an extreme variation of what Bauer is talking about; he's saying it makes sense for individual players. And it does. As usual, Deadspin is more about TMZ nonsense than actual reporting.

Trevor Bauer's first post-FA season will be at age 31. You know as well as I do that bounteous contracts extending from age 31 aren't as plentiful as they once were.

Also, Ray Ratto (who wrote that column) is in his fourth decade as a sportswriter. He's been a BBWAA member for rather a long time. Unless you assume that Deadspin's platform has a deleterious effect on anyone writing for them, he's a real-by-god sports writer person.

That article is junk, regardless of who he is. He spends most of it arguing against a strawman. Deadspin attracts a certain type of "journalism". And speaking of tenure, how long was Murray Chass a member of the BBWAA?

As for Bauer, he'll be 30 in his first year after being granted free agency, not 31 (he'll be 29 when he actually reaches free agency, but it'll be his age 30 season), but it doesn't matter anyway. He could be 30, 31, 32, 33, whatever - if he takes a multi-year deal as a FA, he's taking less money (in terms of expected value) than he could have otherwise by taking on more risk.

[Schad]

That article is junk, regardless of who he is. He spends most of it arguing against a strawman. Deadspin attracts a certain type of "journalism". And speaking of tenure, how long was Murray Chass a member of the BBWAA?

What part of his argument are you suggesting didn't happen? Charlie O Finley's desire for universal free agency is well known. It was in at least one his biographies. It's a thing that happened. It's a thing that has been in the public domain for decades. The fact that Charlie O wanted it should be a pretty good indication that it was something that benefited the owners.

As for Bauer, he'll be 30 in his first year after being granted free agency, not 31 (he'll be 29 when he actually reaches free agency, but it'll be his age 30 season), but it doesn't matter anyway. He could be 30, 31, 32, 33, whatever - if he takes a multi-year deal as a FA, he's taking less money (in terms of expected value) than he could have otherwise by taking on more risk.

Give me some numbers on this. Historically, teams overpay for the front half of contracts, at the cost of the back end. This is the reason that free agent mega-deals have generally benefited players. It's certainly possible that this has changed in the past couple years, though no one has tested it, but there are some rather clever agents out there, and there's a reason they aren't lining up for one-year deals.

[Skin Blues]

That article is junk, regardless of who he is. He spends most of it arguing against a strawman. Deadspin attracts a certain type of "journalism". And speaking of tenure, how long was Murray Chass a member of the BBWAA?

What part of his argument are you suggesting didn't happen? Charlie O Finley's desire for universal free agency is well known. It was in at least one his biographies. It's a thing that happened. It's a thing that has been in the public domain for decades. The fact that Charlie O wanted it should be a pretty good indication that it was something that benefited the owners.

As for Bauer, he'll be 30 in his first year after being granted free agency, not 31 (he'll be 29 when he actually reaches free agency, but it'll be his age 30 season), but it doesn't matter anyway. He could be 30, 31, 32, 33, whatever - if he takes a multi-year deal as a FA, he's taking less money (in terms of expected value) than he could have otherwise by taking on more risk.

Give me some numbers on this. Historically, teams overpay for the front half of contracts, at the cost of the back end. This is the reason that free agent mega-deals have generally benefited players. It's certainly possible that this has changed in the past couple years, though no one has tested it, but there are some rather clever agents out there, and there's a reason they aren't lining up for one-year deals.

My point is he's arguing against a strawman. Bauer isn't advocating for the same thing Charlie O'Finley was. Nobody is.

As for long contracts being -EV vs year to year, this is just a fact of life. When a young player signs away 2 free agent seasons in return for locking in their arb years for a very low rate (usually the same rate they were projected to get anyway), they are paying a big price to mitigate risk. For every Jon Singleton there are a dozen Jose Ramirez, Jose Bautistas, Mike Trouts, etc, who signed away free agent years for well below market value and ended up losing a lot of money. Every insurance policy is a net loss, and they don't make financial sense if you can afford to cover the expenses of a catastrophic event. Buying job security is buying an insurance policy; that's what multi-year deals are.

And yes, agents are very smart. This is a big reason to players don't try this. They will never advise a player to take a 1 year deal if there's an option for multi-year, because there's a chance the player could switch agencies after year 1.

[Schad]

My point is he's arguing against a strawman. Bauer isn't advocating for the same thing Charlie O'Finley was. Nobody is.

He's arguing for year-to-year free agency. There is a very good reason it doesn't happen.

Also: O was his middle initial, rather than a part of his surname.

As for long contracts being -EV vs year to year, this is just a fact of life. When a young player signs away 2 free agent seasons in return for locking in their arb years for a very low rate (usually the same rate they were projected to get anyway), they are paying a big price to mitigate risk. For every Jon Singleton there are a dozen Jose Ramirez, Jose Bautistas, Mike Trouts, etc, who signed away free agent years for well below market value and ended up losing a lot of money. Every insurance policy is a net loss, and they don't make financial sense if you can afford to cover the expenses of a catastrophic event. Buying job security is buying an insurance policy; that's what multi-year deals are.

Signing away arb years is definitely -EV. Signing long-term FA isn't. The degree to which long-term free agency benefits the player has only increased in recent years, which is why owners have been less willing to sanction it.

And yes, agents are very smart. This is a big reason to players don't try this. They will never advise a player to take a 1 year deal if there's an option for multi-year, because there's a chance the player could switch agencies after year 1.

Why would agents fear players switching agencies in instances where the agent was doing what is demonstrably beneficial? Even if one or two players switched, the sheer fact that they were maximizing value and the large group of players in the stable of most agents would result in a +EV decision for them overall. Yet it doesn't happen. Odd.