MLB (Non-Phils) News and Notes 2016

[zambonir]

It's possible expanded rosters is what owners aren't ready (to pay) for, but the DH gets it done. I guess it really depends how much the AL owner want it, as far as lining up the votes.

[mdougherty12]

Looks like the Mets have signed Cespedes, pending a physical:

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/m ... pedes.html

3 years/$75 million with an opt-out after the first year.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[LoneStarPhan]

I find these opt out contracts just plain crazy for the clubs. I think if I were the GM, I would insist that if the player gets an opt out, then so does the club. Yes, I know that it is a competitive market and if you want to sign a player, you may pay more, give more years, or give special perks that you don't want to give, or you may lose the player to another club.

Still, l view this opt out trend as foolish for teams to give out.

[tom81]

I find these opt out contracts just plain crazy for the clubs. I think if I were the GM, I would insist that if the player gets an opt out, then so does the club. Yes, I know that it is a competitive market and if you want to sign a player, you may pay more, give more years, or give special perks that you don't want to give, or you may lose the player to another club.

Still, l view this opt out trend as foolish for teams to give out.

I think this particular deal is great for the Mets. It's basically a one year deal because of the front loading and the opt-out after 1 year. If he has a similar year to last year they are only paying $4-$5 million per WAR for that year, a real bargain. If he gets hurt or his ability rapidly declines they have limited the damage to only $75 million. If he has a great year and opt out the Mets can make him a qualifying offer and get at least a top pick too. They also have the opportunity to offer him another contract next year in the open market. What's not to like for the Mets?

[el-pietro]

What happens if players opt out in these deals, can the clubs offer a QO?

[julio]

What happens if players opt out in these deals, can the clubs offer a QO?

Yes. In this case, the contract also appears to be front-loaded (2016 salary is reported as $27.5 million, which means the out-year guarantees average less - and that's assuming none of the $75 million is a signing bonus (none is reported as yet, but that's not definitive at this point!). The reason a club does this is that the total out-year commitment is less - substantially less, in years and/or annual average - than would be necessary to sign the player without the opt-out clause.

[julio]

What happens if players opt out in these deals, can the clubs offer a QO?

Yes. In this case, the contract also appears to be front-loaded (2016 salary is reported as $27.5 million, which means the out-year guarantees average less - and that's assuming none of the $75 million is a signing bonus (none is reported as yet, but that's not definitive at this point!). The reason a club does this is that the total out-year commitment is less - substantially less, in years and/or annual average - than would be necessary to sign the player without the opt-out clause.

Update. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the Mets can offer Cespedes a QO if he opts out after 2016. Why? Because the CBA provides that process (QO, draft pick compensation) for players who become free agents because they have six years' major-league service time. Cespedes will not have six years service time as of the end of 2016 - he's at 4.000 years now, and will presumably be at 5.000 years come October.

I obviously don't know the specific language of Cespedes' contract, but under the general terms of the CBA, if he opts out of the remainder of his contract this fall, the Mets would nonetheless still have rights to him, and he would be eligible for salary arbitration (for a one-year contract with the Mets) - unless the Mets non-tender him. The terms of the "opt out" clause in his contract may be that the Mets have agreed to non-tender Cespedes if he takes the "opt out" - in which case he would become an unrestricted free agent, but with no draft pick compensation to the Mets.

[el-pietro]

So if Cespedes had not been traded mid season last year he wouldn't necessarily have been eligible for a QO?

[julio]

So if Cespedes had not been traded mid season last year he wouldn't necessarily have been eligible for a QO?

Again, I'm not certain, but I think not. I don't think a club can give a player with less than six years' service time a contract that somehow treats him under the CBA as if he had that service time. They can certainly give him a contract that doesn't have the standard reserves built in (e.g., a contract that terminates at the end of a specified season, with no residual rights to the club) - but I don't think that a club could unilaterally opt a player without the requisite service time into the Article XX process (the QO, the draft pick compensation).

[matt78]

The other big change being discussed was a 28-man roster/25 active (the active part is meaningless given starting pitchers never likely to get in a game that does not last 17 innings).

Not sure how I feel about that though. Probably go from a 5 to 6-man bench (good), but then go to a 14-man pitching staff. 9 relievers without some sort of rule where the pitcher needs to face at least 2 or 3 batters could be a disaster.

Couldn't they just make a rule that all starting pitchers need to remain on the active roster?

[andyb]

The other big change being discussed was a 28-man roster/25 active (the active part is meaningless given starting pitchers never likely to get in a game that does not last 17 innings).

Not sure how I feel about that though. Probably go from a 5 to 6-man bench (good), but then go to a 14-man pitching staff. 9 relievers without some sort of rule where the pitcher needs to face at least 2 or 3 batters could be a disaster.

Couldn't they just make a rule that all starting pitchers need to remain on the active roster?

Hard to do that because starters can and do relieve.

IMO whatever they make the roster size they should just make everyone eligible every day. The bigger change I want are pitchers facing multiple hitters. Ideally 3. Once you do that you need less relievers and games move quicker. I have always thought that using relief pitchers for an inning or two is better for their health than appearing 80 times and often facing only 1 or 2 hitters. Quicker games, healthier pitchers - what is there not to like about that.

[LoneStarPhan]

I don't see any real need to complicate things by having to designate inactive players for every game. Just let the active roster be the active roster. Making it 26, 27, or even 28 would help when a team has a player or two or even more that have those minor injuries, making them unavailable for a game or a couple games, but not so long as to put the player on the DL.

I would welcome a roster increase to 26. I'm not sure 28 is needed. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the negotiations to the next agreement. I hope both sides can work the details out by the end of the year so that there is no disruption due to a labor dispute.

[LoneStarPhan]

I am not a big fan of the specialization of relievers, but it sure seems to be the way it is done now. I believe the critical point in the game for the bullpen is often not the ninth inning and the best pitcher in the bullpen should sometimes be used in such a critical situation.

The pitch to a minimum of 3 batters (unless injured, of course) is a good and reasonable rule, IMO. Actually, I would say face a minimum of 3 batters or complete the inning. I don't see a problem with a pitcher coming in to finish off an inning by facing only one hitter and then being replaced to start the next inning. I would add that if a pitcher comes in and is pulled for injury after facing less than the required 3 hitters, then that pitcher would be ineligible to appear in the next 3 games. This would be a check on any hankie-pankie with a reliever coming up with an non-existent injury.

[LoneStarPhan]

Doug Fister signs a one year deal with Houston.

twitter.com/hashtag/Astros?src=hash

[Austinfan]

One year, $7M.

Something tells me Phillies were willing to offer more if they had interest (look what they're paying Morton), he wanted to go to a contender and stay there, since with a team like the Phillies he'd have a high probability of being traded to a contender, but he'd have to pull up mid-season and move.

Fans forget that players get to make choices, sometimes they have different priorities than short-term income maximization.

[LoneStarPhan]

One year, $7M.

Something tells me Phillies were willing to offer more if they had interest (look what they're paying Morton), he wanted to go to a contender and stay there, since with a team like the Phillies he'd have a high probability of being traded to a contender, but he'd have to pull up mid-season and move.

Fans forget that players get to make choices, sometimes they have different priorities than short-term income maximization.

Right on. We just don't know if the Phillies expressed interest. If they did, the player may well have rebuffed them. In the long term picture, not a big deal for the Phillies rebuild.

[Philsmania]

One year, $7M.

Something tells me Phillies were willing to offer more if they had interest (look what they're paying Morton), he wanted to go to a contender and stay there, since with a team like the Phillies he'd have a high probability of being traded to a contender, but he'd have to pull up mid-season and move.

Fans forget that players get to make choices, sometimes they have different priorities than short-term income maximization.

Not to mention that if it's Fister's intention to rebuild his value on a one-year pillow contract after a disappointing 2015, it stands to reason that he would have a better chance at rebuilding his value by pitching in and winning important games for a contending team in 2016. He would only come here if the Phillies totally blew his socks off financially (and really, why should they?) or if he was really desperate (apparently, he wasn't).

[bigegypt0417]

Rhymer Liriano traded to the brewers...

[Slinging_Southpaw]

Rhymer Liriano traded to the brewers...

Brewers acquired OF Rymer Liriano from the Padres for LHP Trevor Seidenberger.

Liriano has been considered a top prospect in the past, so many were caught off guard when the Padres designated him for assignment last week. The rebuilding Brewers quickly jumped at the opportunity to bring him into the fold. The 24-year-old batted .292/.383/.460 with 14 home runs and 18 stolen bases last season at the Triple-A level and could make for an intriguing fantasy option if the at-bats are there. For what it's worth, he has some experience in center field.

For a mediocre relief pitching prospect.
" title="Angry"/>

[LoneStarPhan]

Looks like he never made it to the waiver wire.