Phillies 2025-2026 Hot Stove Discussion

[Austinfan]

The downside risk is the same, but without any upside potential.
So for an opt out to make sense for a team, the downside risk must be significantly less (player accepts a sizable discount).

It's unlikely an opt out is an alternative to a market priced long-term deal, rather, it's an alternative to a 1-2 year deal for a player with a lot of risk (lacks track record).

Baseball should limit all contracts to five years or less, b/c this avoids teams having long-term contract liabilities that could destroy a franchise for a decade. While rich franchises can spend their way around most bad mistakes, medium market teams could find themselves in a downward spiral.

Agents would hate it, stars would hate it, but the rest of the players would benefit - as long as the total revenue to players remains the same, it would reallocate money from nonperforming stars to other players.

[andyb]

But the downside risk IS less because the team can opt to not sign a player when they opt out. The Mets got a great year out of Pete Alonso for instance and he opted out. The Orioles now have substantial risk on their books.

The scenario I am painting of a player being good for a couple of years and bad later in the contract is very common. The opt out can really save teams in that situation.

On your other question the players would lose out if contracts were limited in length without a salary cap and guaranteed revenue share. Right now players get more revenue because of these long term deals and the money it shuffles around to the lower revenue teams. Since we are not going to see a salary cap, limiting contract length is another thing that will never happen.

[zambonir]

Contract length also saves a lot of teams because they prefer a lower AAV and are not worried about money five years from now because they will have made far more than any "wasted" salary in revenues and franchise apprecation.

The Phillies would never do this Imai deal not because they eschew opt-outs but because if they needed a pitcher badly enough they would just get one of the more proven expensive ones. But Imai's youth and upside is what makes him appealing.

For a win-now team that also doesn't want to be a Top 5 payroll team, it makes sense. If he's a star and opts out they will have reconsider the payroll.

Who would you rather have:

Dylan Cease, 30, seven years, $210M (valued at $184.6 with deferrals)
Imai, 27, three years $54M (or one year $21M)
Michael King, 30, three years $75M
Imanaga, 32, Cubs didn't pick up his three-year $57.75M option and he turned down a cheap one-year option but took their QO at $22.5M
Merrill Kelly, 37, two years $40 M
Eflin, 31, one year $10M (but could be as high as $15M if he's healthy)

One assumes Ranger and Valdez will still get five-six year and around of $25M AAV (MLBTR says $30 for Valdez and $23 for Ranger).

[julio]

But if he is bad, how does option out lower the risk compared to a straight contract?

There is a theoretical risk reduction to the club, if including opt-outs in a multi-year contract induces the player to sign for less money (especially in years prior to the opt-out date(s)) than the player would have signed for without the opt-outs, and if the club would be willing to agree to such a non-opt-out contract. If the player bombs, the club is still on the hook for the contract, but it's a smaller contract than they would have signed without opt-outs.

So there's no increased financial downside risk to a club from including opt-outs and getting stuck with a bad contract. The key is to not commit more in the out years than you would have willing to commit in a contract with no opt-outs.

Including opt-outs in multi-year contracts is not without some "costs" to a club, though. I'm thinking here about the increased uncertainty that these contracts create for the front office. How do you approach potential trades in July, when you don't know whether Player A is going to opt out in November? What is Player A's trade value? Do you have to worry about trading a prospect who might step into your lineup if Player A bugs out? These aren't direct financial costs, but increased uncertainty makes it harder to make good trades, and increases the risk that you'll make a deal that comes back to bite the club - not so much in the pocketbook as on the field.

[Matt_Winkelman]

Teams are generally looking for control and payoff for development work. There is a lot of focus on the risk and yes there is not more risk than a straight contract, it is about the relationship between risk and reward. On a straight contract the team can reap any reward they get from making improvements, with opt outs there is no way to gain that value. Think of the Zack Wheeler first contract. With an opt out the net that he was undervalued is lost. You can say this deal is better than the projected, but the projected was never reality and really you are comparing teams offering longer term more guaranteed (lower AAV) deals opting to take on the risk of years, but doing it because they gain any surplus. This deal the Astros can get one good year IF he is immediately good, but gain no benefit to being right, instead Imai gets that benefit. If the industry was right to be skeptical it he is just ordinary, they are at best getting what they paid for with no chance at added value.

[allentown]

I mainly agree with what you wrote, but will differ/add a few points:

1) While we would expect/hope for further development at the MLB level, these Japanese signings are for MLB contracts, with the expectation that the signee will be a part of or 2026 rotation, or bullpen as a bare minimum

2) The team cerrainly loses two year's worrth of WAR if the player opts out after first or second year, but the team then loses the risk of injury during the year(s) opted out of. If the player opts out, the signing team is still in a position to sing him to an extension and is the team that has the best understanding of his ability and health. That is advantage. If he enjoyed the city, fellow players, manager, and coaches, then that is a further advantage in resigning him. If he wasn't happy in Philly, it might be best for him to leave.

3.) The Phillies continue to not have signed a significant over-25/posted player from Cuba/Japan/S. Korea. As has been argued earlier, yes, we can sign a FA for those $, but the FAs of comparable talent are older, require more $, and require taking on contractual obligations well into the players age 30+ seasons. There are uber stars and other stars whom opposing teams have acquired from this talent pool. The Phillies put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not dipping into this rich pool of talent.

1. This is the arena in which our larger budget provides maximum advantage. MLB has reduced our Jan 1 bonus budget, MLB system also gives us no competitive balance draft picks and reduced comp when another team signs one of our FA. We are penalized for signing QO FAs. Here, we have the advantage, because the posting fee doesn't count against the MLB salary cap penalties.

The Phillies actions in this arena of talent acquisition seems almost to harken back to the Bill Giles days, when the Phillies always were 'in' on such talent, as a PR exercise, but evidenced to real interest in an actual reasoned signing.

To the comments above listing Hispanic pitchers signed, or traded for by the Phillies as a refutation of racism allegations (and I think the team is far improved in the racism department from the Carpenter and Giles era): we have a budget allocation from MLB for international bonuses -- there isn't a ton of talent not from Latin America which is eligible for the January 1 signing periods.

[EDmuch]

MLB Rumors has a post that the Phils are now interested in Bichette. With Miller on the precipice of ML, I cannot see any reasonable reason to spend big bucks on Bichette.

[jimbomill]

ith Miller on the precipice of ML, I cannot see any reasonable reason to spend big bucks on Bichette.

Unless Stott is on the chopping block ...

[andyb]

I am not a fan of the potential move,, but one could see Bichette replacing Bohm this season and then Miller replacing Stott in some way next season (2027).

[biggsphils]

Name 1 player you want added to roster before ST. can't name Ranger or J.T. ,be realistic. I still think they need a Giolito, Bassitt type starter

[miker]

Any thoughts on FA Starling Marte? Seemingly still available and always a good hitter with a bit of power along with good speed. Granted he is old (37) but seems to be a perfect one-year fit playing in a platoon with Marsh. It is well established that Marsh cannot hit lefties and to expect otherwise at this point is just negligent.

[phillychuck]

The Bichette move can work if they are thinking about trading Bohm or Stott or moving one of the infielders to the OF. He’s a good lineup fit for this team, they can use a RH high-average hitter.

[fish]

The Bichette move can work if they are thinking about trading Bohm or Stott or moving one of the infielders to the OF. He’s a good lineup fit for this team, they can use a RH high-average hitter.

The speculation was moving Stott to third. Bichette is the kind of bat and leadership guy that helps now and the next generation. Worth the $$ if they are willing.

[dcsman]

Presumably, it’s Bichette or Realmuto. Personally, I think I’d rather have Bichette at this point.

https://www.thegoodphight.com/philadelphia-phillies-news/76748/report-phillies-interested-in-bo-bichette

[phillychuck]

If they sign Bichette, I’d move Stott to back-up IF and keep Bohm (depending on trade offers, of course).

Bichette will be a sub-par defensive player at any of the IF positions and fans might not appreciate how good Stott has made the IF defense.

[David_Criss]

Garcia and Keller, over Bader, Kepler, Strahm isn't really moving the needle ie running it back again and again and again.
There is still time to be aggressive and while eating some salary, shed some salary too for a Ranger or Bregman or Bichette.

Trade Castellanos to KC or Cleveland - Can't see him being a good clubhouse guy if he stays and is a back up. Save $5 million????
Trade Walker and Johnson to Colorado. Save $6 or $7 million?????
Trade Bohm to Seattle. Save $10 million
Sign Caratini over JT save $5 millionish

If its Ranger than Kemp plays 3B.

[allentown]

You cite just one reason why Castellanos has zero trade value. He still sees himself as a star and an every inning player and will disrupt if placed in a platoon or backup role. I think he'll be cut and left to negotiate potential role with another team.

[zambonir]

I think the idea is that while they can put JT's money towards Bichette, they would also have to trade Bohm or Stott to help get a new catcher (whether directly or by replenishing prospect capital). And we know Bohm's value is low.

Forgive me for not remembering who but I saw someone post today that the Phillies would have to attach Stott to Casty to get any kind of financial relief or return. Mostly a joke, but also true.

We already know Nick is most likely going to be released but still no rush, justI in case a few dollars an be offloaded. If he's a week late for spring training with his new team after being released not the Phillies problem though I doubt it will come to that.

[David_Criss]

If it comes down to releasing Casty as their only option, at that point, should they just hold onto him as a backup, since they will pay $20 million? You never know what team may need him during the season. Casty will also want to prove something. I just hate seeing them pay that much money for him to play for another team with nothing in return.

If Casty were a free agent, surely someone would sign him for $3 to $5 million?????????So still hoping some team sends a lottery ticket our way for his salary. Something is better than nothing.

[zambonir]

I think both sides have already agreed to move on. I don't think Casty has been an intractable problem up to this point, what happened last season was mended or at least survived, and could be again under different circumstances. But "you're platooning with Brandon Marsh' is not one of those circumstances. He's not going to swallow his pride or be a good teammate. For one thing he can't help but speak his mind or fly off the handle (which I like about him).

I agree it would still be nice if someone traded for him, and they still might. But they know he'll be avaialble for $800 K eventually, so that's the benchmark, not the $2-4 million (with incentives) he might get if he were actually a free agent.

I wish he would agree to reduced platoon job personally. I think he probably has a lot of hits left in him in the appropriate role. But he is also better off somewhere where there is playing time at DH and 1B (not far-fetched given he was also a 3B). For Dombrowski releasing him is win-win, it's best for the manager, it's best for his team and it's best for his beloved former Tigers players that he was overly sentimental and overly generous in signing.