2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

[bigegypt0417]

Per Heyman, the asking price is high for Hernandez.

Jon Heyman (JonHeyman)

As it should be

[bigegypt0417]

or they cant sign him and want a premium return.

[zambonir]

I think the AAV is recalculated for a player based on the remaining contract at the time of the trade. So AAV is more like $25.5 for Stanton.

I don't know if that's correct. If so a lot of people are getting it wrong.

Ellsbury has a full no trade clause and I think, given the choice, he'd rather sit the bench in New York than in Philly.

That's what they are saying and I don't think he really fits here anyway (plus, yeah, you couldn't flip him easily). But I bet he does get traded. He's gonna be buried there.

[andyb]

I think the AAV is recalculated for a player based on the remaining contract at the time of the trade. So AAV is more like $25.5 for Stanton.

I don't know if that's correct. If so a lot of people are getting it wrong.

In this Fangraphs chat a few days ago Dave Cameron said it (the AAV for the competitive balance tax) is recalculated based on the remaining contract traded:

"Dave Cameron: The CBT calculation is based on what the team takes, not what the AAV was at time of signing."

Dave Cameron FanGraphs Chat – 12/6/17 | FanGraphs Baseball

[California_Dreamin]

Word from the Winter meetings is that the Phils have inquired about Machado and the O's are listening. Per an Oriole reporter, they love Sanchez and also covet Kingery in any deal for MM and would give the Phils a 72 hour window to negotiate a deal. Of course, this is the Orioles so Angelo could and oft times does jump in and veto deals at the last moment so who knows were this goes.

Still, it is interesting to consider and I for one would quickly include SS in any deal for a long term signed MM, though some on other Phillie sites would not. To me, this still is the time honored adage of valuing a hitter more than a pitcher in most cases since pitchers break down more often than hitters.

Doubt anything comes of this, can't see Machado doing a deal now when he is one year from free agency and the Yankees have already expressed a down the road interest, but if it happened the Phils could quickly elevate themselves from pretenders to contenders. Machado would make every youngster in the Phillie lineup better merely by his presence.

Thoughts anyone?

[Austinfan]

I'm getting wary of Machado.

Knee surgery once again ends Orioles third baseman Manny Machado's season

Problem is you're not talking a contract until age 30, you're talking a contract near age 40, what if he loses mobility 3 years into the contract and has to move to 1B where Hoskins is hitting just as well?
Players with knee injuries have a higher risk of arthritis in their 30s.
The problem isn't money per se, it's guaranteed money on extremely long-term deals.
The league should negotiate a limit on contract length in the next labor agreement, because it's unfair to other players (when a player falls off the cliff and gets paid, that's less money for the stars bringing in the fans to the park).
I have no problem paying for performance, it's paying for nonperformance that can cripple a franchise for close to a decade ($30+M a year for a nonperforming player is a disaster for a contender).

[Patchmk88]

Man Austinfan, I really enjoy listening to you input. It is one of the many reasons I hang around here. However over the past week or so, I have seen you come up with an excuse not to trade or sign anyone that is mentioned. Machado is a superstar who has played 156 plus games for 3 straight years. I'm not too worried about him moving to 1B anytime soon.

[andyb]

That was 2014 knee surgery for Machado. He has since played 162, 157, and 156 games. He is still 25 years old.

Not sure Machado is a bigger injury risk compared to Harper or Trout or anyone else. Other players will be older.

At some point you need to pay to acquire stars and part of that is the risk of long term deals. A 6 WAR season is going to be worth like $60 million and Machado could very well have several more left in him.

[zambonir]

I'd trade for Machado. But there have been no real talks

Matt Gelb (MattGelb)

[Austinfan]

I think this is a general problem in baseball, when you have guaranteed contracts, they should have a time limit, say five years.
The great players will simply sign 2 five year deals at top dollars, and a 3rd deal at a lower rate.
Lesser players will get 1 five year deal, then when they don't perform, the money will go to other players who are performing.

This benefits all players except those grossly overpaid for a few good seasons, by ensuring that 10-12 year deals can't tie up money in nonperforming players and hurt the game.

I'd have no problem giving Machado a 5 year, $200M deal, it's the 10-12 year deals that give me pause.

[zambonir]

I'm not sure you can even legally collectively bargain such a thing, but it will never happen.

The entire system of paying for past performance during declining years is bad, but the owners have little stake in wanting to reverse that, ditto a lot of players.

In any case, assuming they manage their assets correctly the Phillies could easily afford to pay 35-38 year-old Manny Machado not to play for them, and if they win a couple of rings between now and then I'm not sure we should care if they can't (because I don't really believe indefinite success is sustainable).

[allentown]

The entire system of paying for past performance during declining years is bad, but the owners have little stake in wanting to reverse that, ditto a lot of players.

-

I don't see any evidence that owners over-pay for future performance, because they are paying for past performance with another team. They give a contract big enough to land the player, but less than they believe the player is worth to them, both in added wins and added revenue. Certainly the $/WAR for FAs (or re-upping one's own players) is more than the cost of guys within their 6 years of team control, including bonus and development cost. This shouldn't be surprising because we know that the purpose of the draft is to allow clubs to acquire H.S. and college talent at below market rates. Baseball has utilized its monopoly status and the fact that the union doesn't represent or much care about baseball players until they reach the majors, to achieve this substantial cost saving. The proof of this seems obvious to me, but I'll cite two items as 'proof': the bonus Travis Lee received years ago on the open market after being declared a FA and secondly, the fact that the commish rewards the poor teams by giving them compensatory charity draft picks. If the cost of signing and developing amateur talent vs the average MLB value these guys ultimately produce were not shifted way in favor of the team, then the commish would hardly be doing the poor teams a favor by giving them extra draft picks -- he would, in fact, be harming them by providing public pressure to spend more on the draft than economics say is sensible. I'll note that most teams use these picks for amateurs, rather than trading them. The market may be less team favorable in LA, although giving extra international allocation is still viewed as a way to make struggling teams more competitive and to give them an extra advantage. Here, a lot of allocation is traded, suggesting a lot of teams may not value it super highly vs cost, but there have been 2 confounding factors: 11 teams in penalty and not allowed to fully participate in the draft and previous warping of the market by teams who were allowed (encouraged by rules) to shatter their allocation limit. We'll know more about the value of international allocation $ when we observe how things work after all teams are allowed to fully participate in the market. I guess one can add very aggressive cheating by teams like the Braves and Red Sox as a third warping factor. That they were willing to cheat suggests that at least these two teams value the high bonus international prospects higher than the cost of their bonuses. Obviously, the teams which shattered their allocations felt the same. So that is at least almost half the teams in baseball who subscribe to this view.

[Philsmania]

The entire system of paying for past performance during declining years is bad, but the owners have little stake in wanting to reverse that, ditto a lot of players.

-

I don't see any evidence that owners over-pay for future performance, because they are paying for past performance with another team. They give a contract big enough to land the player, but less than they believe the player is worth to them, both in added wins and added revenue. Certainly the $/WAR for FAs (or re-upping one's own players) is more than the cost of guys within their 6 years of team control, including bonus and development cost. This shouldn't be surprising because we know that the purpose of the draft is to allow clubs to acquire H.S. and college talent at below market rates. Baseball has utilized its monopoly status and the fact that the union doesn't represent or much care about baseball players until they reach the majors, to achieve this substantial cost saving. The proof of this seems obvious to me, but I'll cite two items as 'proof': the bonus Travis Lee received years ago on the open market after being declared a FA and secondly, the fact that the commish rewards the poor teams by giving them compensatory charity draft picks. If the cost of signing and developing amateur talent vs the average MLB value these guys ultimately produce were not shifted way in favor of the team, then the commish would hardly be doing the poor teams a favor by giving them extra draft picks -- he would, in fact, be harming them by providing public pressure to spend more on the draft than economics say is sensible. I'll note that most teams use these picks for amateurs, rather than trading them. The market may be less team favorable in LA, although giving extra international allocation is still viewed as a way to make struggling teams more competitive and to give them an extra advantage. Here, a lot of allocation is traded, suggesting a lot of teams may not value it super highly vs cost, but there have been 2 confounding factors: 11 teams in penalty and not allowed to fully participate in the draft and previous warping of the market by teams who were allowed (encouraged by rules) to shatter their allocation limit. We'll know more about the value of international allocation $ when we observe how things work after all teams are allowed to fully participate in the market. I guess one can add very aggressive cheating by teams like the Braves and Red Sox as a third warping factor. That they were willing to cheat suggests that at least these two teams value the high bonus international prospects higher than the cost of their bonuses. Obviously, the teams which shattered their allocations felt the same. So that is at least almost half the teams in baseball who subscribe to this view.

Herein lies Baseball's grand bargain and great inefficiency. The reserve clause is still in effect for a player's first six years when he is probably at his best and most valuable. He finally gets to be a free agent when he is declining. I have said before that the best situation and the one that the PA should fight for is to get rid of arbitration years and make free agency after three years like the other major leagues do. Then, you'll have players hitting free agency in their prime.

[Austinfan]

There's a balance, if you couldn't control players, you wouldn't even have a minor league system, after three years most players are just becoming valuable, many struggle their first couple years.
So teams would reduce player development while burying players in the minors as long as possible to get the most value out of those three seasons.
The tradeoff now is you get the player dirt cheap while he develops (and you take the risk he's Franco, not Herrera), then pay more the next three years under arbitration.

Limiting the length of contracts, while strengthening the minimum payroll, would shift funds from underperformers on long-term deals to rising stars (since there would be more salary cap room).

One change could be to make players eligible for free agency after six years OR their 28th birthday, ensuring late bloomers would have a crack at one big pay day. I'd also eliminate compensation for free agents, instead maybe have a payment like we do to the Japanese league (as a % of the FA contract?).

[Squire]

Heyman Tweets that the Phillies are considering making an offer to RHP Jake Arrieta

Jon Heyman (JonHeyman)

[bigegypt0417]

I'd have no problem giving Machado a 5 year, $200M deal, it's the 10-12 year deals that give me pause.

You aren't going to sign players doing this. He's young and he's going to sign his one major deal and it's going to be around 10 years. That is going to be the going rate for FA's this young.

[David_Criss]

If the O's are willing to give a team a 72-hour window to negotiate a deal that means they are entertaining trade offers. Machado could cash in now knowing he will have to wait until after Harper next year. If he wants to come to Philly. But unless another team is in on him and has a good chance to remove him from the FA pool next year, then I hope the Phillies hang tight. Adding him this year does not make sense unless you get him locked up.

[andyb]

No surprise that the O's want to start any deal for Machado with Sixto. I am actually OK with the players in the proposed deal. Galvis has little value and while I love Kingery, I also know that I am perfectly fine with Cesar. It is probably close to 50-50 that Kingery will be better than Hernandez. It makes sense to trade Hernandez first because he should have significant trade value. More trade value than Kingery because of the greater certainty around veteran performance compared to an untested rookie. Kingery makes more sense for the O's because they have to gamble on the extra years of control from Kingery (assume they would move Schoop to 3B).

A Machado deal pending him signing a long term contract would be a good thing and could accelerate this team to almost immediate contention. Think of the quality of our division. The Nats are good. Other than that the Braves are a step behind the Phillies in their rebuild, the Mets are in disarray, and the Marlins are imploding and rebuilding. 57 games against the Braves, Mets, and Marlins could be a huge advantage in a wild card fight. If they got Machado and a Darvish/Arrietta without giving up any major league pieces I think we have a contender.

[EDmuch]

Well Arrieta is not my first choice, but he would give some very much needed veteran stability to the rotation. He would also do a decent job for at least a couple of years and maybe a little longer. Surprised that we would give up the pick, but it would be a second rounder, I believe. This suggests to me that there is not a lot going on concerning with either Pittsburgh or Tampa on the trade front.

[EDmuch]

I also agree that if there was any actual movement on the trade front concerning Machado, Sixto and Kingery would have to be an acceptable part of the trade price.