MLB (Non-Phils) News and Notes 2016

[bkeich]

And to be fair, it isnt indentured servitude any more than many professional jobs that have you sign a contract that if you leave in less than X years there is a penalty (only partial 401K contributions, payback of moving expenses, possible other financial penalties, etc.). Indentured Servitude was "no choice but run for the hills and hope not to get arrested", this is very different. If I would have left my current job in the first year I would have suffered significant financial penalties, there is some difference, but my current employer also didnt spend 4-6 years training me on their dime.

There certainly is "some difference." For starters, if you leave (and take a penalty), you can take a job with another employer in the same industry. Darin Ruf cannot do that. He works for the club that holds hos contract, or he's shut out of the industry. He has, and had, zero ability to negotiate any limits in his contract - he was bound for seven years by the standard minor league contract, and he's bound for six under the major-league contract. Unlike you, he cannot leave for a better job, and take a financial penalty. He cannot leave, period. I'll also wager that your contract didn't allow your employer to sell your contract to a competitor, and direct you to relocate at the drop of a hat, under penalty of being shut out of the industry.

Secondly, your argument that young players are "trained on the major leagues' dime" is ignorant of the history of minor league baseball. There was a time when the minors were independent - when major leagues payed nothing toward the development of minor league players. That system went away - because the major leagues captured the players, and created farm systems. You cannot argue that independent minor leagues, with "almost major league" talent, could not function economically today; there are two kinds of obvious refutations of that - one is the crowds that attend minor league games, notwithstanding that the teams they're watching often are deliberately handicapped by the major league organizations; the second is that, even without near-major-league talent, the independent minors are holding their own.

The current system is monopolistic - both horizontally, across the major leagues, and vertically, with major league control of most of the minor leagues. Players are treated as property - without the freedom of movement (with or without financial penalties due to contract restrictions) that the rest of us take for granted.

And as fans, because we benefit from the current system...we tend to look the other way, don't we? It's easy to just assume the status quo must be OK, or it wouldn't be the status quo. But...

I am very aware of the history of the minor leagues. How is that relevant? Your talking of a system long gone.

Of course players have freedom. They can always stop playing as their "career" is simply a short term job. Very few stay in baseball more than a short period. Almost none actually spend their life in it.

This system is basically the same as every sport. It is entertainment, and yes the owners of the teams have more control over their employees than most industries. That is mostly because there is a limit to how horizontal that industry can be, there just isn't a demand for 100,000 baseball players. It is a niche industry that only a very small of the population can perform in, so trying to compare it other industries just does not work because of the comparatively small demand of personnel.

To allow complete freedom of players would simply destroy the sport, that is why no sport I can think of has that freedom. The period of training must somehow be financed, and the only way I can think of (and the only one implemented) is to require the trainee to provide the service at a below market cost for a period of time. There are other professions that mimic this (medical/doctors, professors, etc.)

And yes, you are correct that all players of sports don't really have the ability to shop their services until they complete this apprentice period. That is more a result of there not being more than one league because the demand for the profession does not justify having 500 teams.

A complete open market would just widen the difference between the haves (NY, LA, etc.) and the have nots in the industry.

[Lucky_Beagle]

Max K's 20 in the Nats 3-2 win over the Tigers.

[andyb]

And no, WAR isn't worth $9-10M
Most of the inflation in baseball was a few franchises with big cable deals.
It remains to be seen how much money there is on the internet, ask the music business if streaming is as valuable as CDs!
And baseball has almost no international potential, there's Japan, but they have homegrown baseball with Japanese players, central American and Venezeula, loyal but poor (i.e., little economic potential) and ???
NFL Europe folded, the idea of a NFL franchise in London will be LA but far worse.

Soccer is the world game, followed by basketball.
The NFL has its NA niche, ML baseball is a little wider but ithere's no evidence that Korea or Japan are going to be significant markets.

So if you concede that last year WAR was worth $7M (but that's delivered WAR, expected WAR should be discounted for risk), and 10% inflation continues for two years, that's $8.5M a delivered WAR in 2017, then 5% inflation, you don't get to $10M a WAR until 2020 - and I think that's optimistic.

You should apply a 10% discount factor after age 30 to expected WAR when judging these contracts (about the decline modeled by Fansgraphs and other sites), not project as if their peak year WAR will continue indefinitely.

The best contracts are fora player in his mid-20s, instead of an opt-out I'd just pay more for his peak years, opt outs are foolish because they shift all the risk to the team.

This ignores reality. WAR is generally acknowledged to be worth about $8 million in 2016. See this Fangraphs article for an example. They use a 5% inflation factor and that is conservative.
fangraphs.com/blogs/figuring ... ade-value/

7 year deal starting in 2017 for WAR value increasing WAR by 0.4 or 0.5 a year (again slightly more conservative than 5%): 8.4, 8.8, 9.2, 9.6, 10.0, 10.5, 11.0 = 67.5 (9.6).

Baseball inflation: statista.com/statistics/1934 ... ince-2005/

A big driver of future revenue will be MLB advanced media which is already over $1 billion a year. There will be international gains. Baseball is played throughout Latin America and is growing in paces like Brazil and Colombia. European growth (Max Kepler) is also very possible.

To assume baseball inflation will just stop is "head in the sand" logic. Also to assume you should "just spend money on contracts to players in their mid 20s" assumes there are lots of them available. There is always going to be a cost of acquisition for free agents to get them without paying prospects. That means mildly overpaying in terms of WAR. Generally this is the back end of contracts. But there is also a cost in terms of teams not spending the money they have. If the Phillies are an 85-win team with a $100 million payroll but can afford to pay out $200 million, those extra wins are pretty valuable even if they are expensive.

Your comments on delivered and expected WAR also don't make sense. Most projections are age-based so they already account for WAR declining as a player ages.

You simply don't want to spend money even when there is lots of data suggesting that some big free agent contracts can add WAR and help teams. The Strasburg deal was a good deal at a considerable discount.

[zambonir]

MLB Trade Rumors does a weekly email newsletter (mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/s ... ter-2.html). This week's is about how "drastically underpaid" Strasburg is going to be. Compared to Price and Greinke and given there was no one else of that caliber hitting the market.

An excerpt:

*for Strasburg and agent Scott Boras to agree to a deal this close to free agency, it must be precedent-setting in some way. $225MM at minimum, an opt-out clause earlier than usual, something like that.

Instead, the deal was shockingly small. The seven-year, $175MM guarantee given to Strasburg is more like $160MM after accounting for significant deferrals. [Adding back-in opt-out value] Strasburg signed the equivalent of a straight seven-year, $185MM deal.

If you’re going to argue that teams were going to get suddenly rational in free agency regarding Strasburg’s health history, and not drive the bidding up into the mid-$200MM range, well, OK. I don’t agree with that, because Strasburg was headed toward the perfect storm of an extremely irrational free agent contract. *

[Austinfan]

The Fansgraph WAR value is based on prices paid for FAs, the problem is that there is an obvious "winner's curse" in free agency, a certain subset of owners have high discount rates and/or are overly optimistic, and grossly overpay, driving up the average value (which is above the median value by a significant margin, demonstrating the distorting impact of winner curse outlier contracts). The Yankees were a big part of this trend:

fangraphs.com/blogs/the-assu ... -of-a-win/

This guy gives a higher value, based on actual performance, but what he's really demonstrating is the existence of the "winner's curse," teams are overly optimistic about free agents and overpay. Note that palyers that resign with their own teams cost 23% less per WAR than those signed as free agents - which reflects information asymetries in the market, that teams resign the players they think are good values, and let the ones that want more money than they're worth walk (the universe of teams that sign their own players is larger than the ones that overpay on the FA market).

hardballtimes.com/methodolog ... s-per-war/

If you do what every other team does, you're going to end up with a mediocre team, the top teams know how to find value, and what to pay for it. The key is to identify the "bargains" in free agency and focus on those players, and ignore the "big names" that will engender bidding wars - a sure way to fall prey to the winner's curse.

If you want to win over the long haul, invest your money in player development and international FAs and avoid overpriced free agents. What free agent could the Phillies have bought who would have been better than Herrera? Good scouting beats bad contracts every day - which is why I'd get into a bidding war for the best scouts before I'd overpay for the best free agents.

[andyb]

The Fansgraph WAR value is based on prices paid for FAs, the problem is that there is an obvious "winner's curse" in free agency, a certain subset of owners have high discount rates and/or are overly optimistic, and grossly overpay, driving up the average value (which is above the median value by a significant margin, demonstrating the distorting impact of winner curse outlier contracts). The Yankees were a big part of this trend:

fangraphs.com/blogs/the-assu ... -of-a-win/

This guy gives a higher value, based on actual performance, but what he's really demonstrating is the existence of the "winner's curse," teams are overly optimistic about free agents and overpay. Note that palyers that resign with their own teams cost 23% less per WAR than those signed as free agents - which reflects information asymetries in the market, that teams resign the players they think are good values, and let the ones that want more money than they're worth walk (the universe of teams that sign their own players is larger than the ones that overpay on the FA market).

hardballtimes.com/methodolog ... s-per-war/

If you do what every other team does, you're going to end up with a mediocre team, the top teams know how to find value, and what to pay for it. The key is to identify the "bargains" in free agency and focus on those players, and ignore the "big names" that will engender bidding wars - a sure way to fall prey to the winner's curse.

If you want to win over the long haul, invest your money in player development and international FAs and avoid overpriced free agents. What free agent could the Phillies have bought who would have been better than Herrera? Good scouting beats bad contracts every day - which is why I'd get into a bidding war for the best scouts before I'd overpay for the best free agents.

The market is the market. Prices include your so-called winner's curse. That is why you overpay a little for free agents to acquire them. Certain players like Strasburg might take below-market deals to stay somewhere. That does not affect the value of a WAR though because it is acknowledged that the deals are below market.

Most people acknowledge that a WAR is worth about $8 million in 2016. Both the articles you cited (though they are 2 years old) reflect that. Baseball inflation is also not just going to go away.

Saying teams should develop their own prospects really goes without saying and has nothing to do with this conversation. WAR dollar values let people calculate how much a free agent is worth (though supply and demand affect things also). Nothing you said changes any of that. Getting back to the Phillies - if we are to compete in 2017 and 2018 without trading our best prospects then we are probably going to want to supplement with free agent dollars or trades for contracts that are too expensive for some teams. You may feel good never spending money. But by doing so you are not using a resource that can add wins to a franchise.

[Austinfan]

WAR values don't tell you want a FA is worth, it tells you what a few teams are wiling to pay for free agents. The fact that the median $/WAR is significantly lower than the average value says the average value is skewed by a few outliers.

However, since teams buying free agents have not been particularly successful doing so, it raises a question whether that's a viable strategy. SF, St Louis, KC, have done fine without big overpays. Since resigning your own players has been shown to be more effective than overpaying for players other teams didn't want to resign, that suggests the FA market overvalues players - reflecting both the winner's curse and a few owners with high discount rates.

The optimal strategy remains developing your own players, resigning the ones that are worth the payment (i.e. don't overpay because other teams overpay, see Howard), buying only FAs that are market value (i.e., the cost per WAR of resigning players where teams make good decisions, if the FA market is paying $8M per WAR, the 23% discount suggests that efficient value is more like $6M per WAR).

$40M a year for Harper or Trout is reasonable on a 5 year deal, but not on a 15 year deal.
In the post-PED era, you should expect even top players to decline significantly after age 30, and to be finished by 35. There will be a few exceptions, but unless you have a working crystal ball, good luck identifying them.
Just because the other lemmings are jumping off the cliff, you don't have to follow suit.

If you need to overpay for FAs to be competitive, a simplier solution is to fire your GM, and hire a better one and overspend on scouts and player development. Because if you're developing talent on a consistent basis, you should be able to build a competitive team through home grown talent, trades and value acquisitions without getting into bidding wars for FA talent.

[andyb]

$40M a year for Harper or Trout is reasonable on a 5 year deal, but not on a 15 year deal.

Good luck finding that unicorn.

[BostonRoss]

I like to keep track of large contracts and see how they worked out. I would have to say that most of them have not.

There are 19 total contracts over $100M whose terms have finished. Here's how I rate them (age at first year of contract in parentheses):

Good (5) - Pujols (non-FA, Cards) (24), Jeter (non-FA) (27) , Cabrera (first Tigers contract, non-FA) (25), Manny (29), A-Rod (first FA contract) (25)
OK -(4) Helton (29), Cliff Lee (31), Beltran (28), Sabathia (first FA contract) (28)
Bad (10) - Dice-K (I included him because the posting fee pushed the Red Sox cost over $100M) (26), Zito (29), Giambi (31), Kevin Brown (34), Johan Santana (29), Griffey (31), Carlos Lee (31), Alfonso Soriano (31), Vernon Wells (29), Mike Hampton (28)

One could argue about where I placed a few of these, but overall, the record is not good. Three of the five I rated good were not even free agent contracts. The age distribution is not surprising, nor is the lack of good contracts to pitchers.

Of the contracts that are not finished but are at least halfway completed, I rate them as follows:

So far so good (2) - Hamels (29), Greinke (though he opted out) (29)
OK (6) - Tulo (26), Matt Holliday (30), Adrian Gonzalez (not sure what to think about that--the Sox traded him quickly, but then won the World Series--meanwhile, the Dodgers haven't gone very far with him) (30), Mauer (28), Teixeira (29), Werth (32)
Bad (9) - A-Rod after opt out (32), Jose Reyes (29), Fielder (28), Matt Cain (27), Josh Hamilton (32), Matt Kemp (27), Sabathia after opt out (31), Carl Crawford (29), and you know who (32).

Still not a good record for these contracts. More than half were bad. Overall, signing a hitter who is not yet 29 is not a bad bet. Anything else usually ranges from bad to awful.

Apologies for any errors I made.

[Austinfan]

Note that a couple FA contracts that worked out did so with the aid of PEDs.

The problem with big, long-term contracts is they tend to be based on the player's peak production and paid accordingly, so that there is a lot of downside risk but little upside potential in those deals.

A player doesn't have to totally tank to make a bad deal, if you pay for an average of 5-6 WAR and only get 2-3 WAR, you're paying a lot of money for a player who wouldn't be hard to replace with a decent prospect or second tier FA. And you may be stuck with that contract for 4-5 more years with the possibility of the player falling off the cliff. If you have two or three of these deals on the books, you might lose 30-40% your "salary cap" and effectively become a mid-income team.

Baseball needs to make some changes like limiting contracts to 4-5 years so that teams that dig a deep hole aren't crippled indefinitely. Agents won't like it (they'd have to work harder), current elite players wouldn't like, but other players would realize it would make more money available to players who are actually performing.

[EastFallowfield]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

[julio]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

[Philsmania]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

No, Wright's current contract is an eight year extension that he signed in 2012 and which runs from 2013-2020. However, in a rarity these days the contract actually pays him less each the last two seasons ($15 million & $12 million respectively as opposed to the $20 million he's paid annually through 2018). And, he actually took a significant pay cut for year one of the deal (2013 when he previously had a team option for $16 million but got paid only $11 million in year one of the extension). I think that was when the Mets ownership group was still reeling from Madoff. I'll hand one thing to Wright, he really loves and is loyal to the Mets organization.

baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/

[julio]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

No, Wright's current contract is an eight year extension that he signed in 2012 and which runs from 2013-2020. However, in a rarity these days the contract actually pays him less each the last two seasons ($15 million & $12 million respectively as opposed to the $20 million he's paid annually through 2018). And, he actually took a pay significant cut for year one of the deal (2013 when he previously had a team option for $16 million but got paid only $11 million in year one of the extension). I think that was when the Mets ownership group was still reeling from Madoff. I'll hand one thing to Wright, he really loves and is loyal to the Mets organization.

baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/

Thanks for the clarification, Philsmania! For what it's worth, baseball-reference lists it as a 14-year contract, doesn't mention that it was originally six and then extended.

[EastFallowfield]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

Guy played 38 games last season, so talking about how well he did in that fraction of a season is fine, but hardly worth all those millions. And, yes, I was referring to the 8 year contract. And the Mets are hoping the soft sidearm tosses he makes from third are due to a temporary issue, hoping it's not permanent due to his back condition.

“Below average at best,” said one rival talent evaluator, who was taken aback by the drop-off in Wright’s arm strength from last season. “He literally cannot make any long throw.”

newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.11789903

[Philsmania]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

Guy played 38 games last season, so talking about how well he did in that fraction of a season is fine, but hardly worth all those millions. And, yes, I was referring to the 8 year contract. And the Mets are hoping the soft sidearm tosses he makes from third are due to a temporary issue, hoping it's not permanent due to his back condition.

[quote]“Below average at best,” said one rival talent evaluator, who was taken aback by the drop-off in Wright’s arm strength from last season. “He literally cannot make any long throw.”[/quote]

newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.11789903

Even just using the eye test, Wright's defense doesn't appear all the good. I saw a number of balls seemingly get by him because of a lack of mobility on his part in the two series we played them last month. There are some rumbles that the Mets may deem it necessary to move him to first. And, they may have to move D'Arnaud somewhere.

[flyers19rw]

David Wright's contract isn't half over and he's about in his 'shell of his former self' stage already.

Wright is in year 10 of a 14-year contract (2007-2020). He's still productive at the plate (OPS+ of 120 so far this season; 127 last year). He appears to have slipped defensively - but dWAR is so suspect (look at Wright's history - annual dWAR is all over the map, from -1.3 to +2.1, with no apparent trend over time) that I would take that with a large grain of salt.

Guy played 38 games last season, so talking about how well he did in that fraction of a season is fine, but hardly worth all those millions. And, yes, I was referring to the 8 year contract. And the Mets are hoping the soft sidearm tosses he makes from third are due to a temporary issue, hoping it's not permanent due to his back condition.

[quote]“Below average at best,” said one rival talent evaluator, who was taken aback by the drop-off in Wright’s arm strength from last season. “He literally cannot make any long throw.”[/quote]

newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.11789903

Even just using the eye test, Wright's defense doesn't appear all the good. I saw a number of balls seemingly get by him because of a lack of mobility on his part in the two series we played them last month. There are some rumbles that the Mets may deem it necessary to move him to first. And, they may have to move D'Arnaud somewhere.

Lower back injuries usually are the kiss of death for IFs. Going back to Mike Andrews with the A's, when this type of injury occurs its tough for a player to get back to where they were. The stress of bending over for batted balls and the torque on the back when they swing is hard to tolerate.

[California_Dreamin]

Wow, what an amazing feel good story! The Rangers have recalled pitcher Matt Bush, the former #1 draft pick of the SD Padres when he was a high school infielder and was the butt of all jokes for many years as quite possibly the worst 1.1 pick since the inception of the draft back in the early 70's.

Good for him, he got his life in order after problems with the law and anything he does now is completely gravy. I bet there are many fairly knowledgeable baseball fans [Padre fans no less] who don't even know Bush is still playing baseball.

As for the guy sent down? None other than the guy many wanted instead of Odubel Herrera last year...Delino DeShields. He has struggled all year and its so ironic that the Rangers failed to protect Herrera and yet drafted DeShields as his eventual replacement on the 40 man roster. I suspect DeShields will eventually return but I do not believe he is ever going to be nearly the hitter that Herrera was, is, or will become.

[LoneStarPhan]

Rangers also signed Kyle Lohse to a minor league deal with a June 1 opt out. Reported $2MM base plus incentives. Boras is his agent.

Kyle Lohse and Rangers agree to minor league deal

Bush pitched a scoreless inning for the Rangers in their loss to Toronto tonight.

[el-pietro]

Wow, what an amazing feel good story! The Rangers have recalled pitcher Matt Bush, the former #1 draft pick of the SD Padres when he was a high school infielder and was the butt of all jokes for many years as quite possibly the worst 1.1 pick since the inception of the draft back in the early 70's.

Good for him, he got his life in order after problems with the law and anything he does now is completely gravy. I bet there are many fairly knowledgeable baseball fans [Padre fans no less] who don't even know Bush is still playing baseball.

As for the guy sent down? None other than the guy many wanted instead of Odubel Herrera last year...Delino DeShields. He has struggled all year and its so ironic that the Rangers failed to protect Herrera and yet drafted DeShields as his eventual replacement on the 40 man roster. I suspect DeShields will eventually return but I do not believe he is ever going to be nearly the hitter that Herrera was, is, or will become.

Just saw that Bush had himself a night. Not sure of the exact numbers as they were only on screen for a moment and im enjoying Washingtons finest ales but I think he had a clean inning. 18 pitches. I don't remember anything about his earlier career but good for him
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2