2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

zambonir 2018-03-07 00:26:55 UTC #1418

I don't think either of them are in the mix with a four-man bench. Gonna be Knapp, Williams, someone who at minimum can play all three OF positions and someone who at minimum can play SS and 2B. I don't think trying Quinn out at SS in the former sport cancels the need for someone in the latter spot.

But sure, Rupp for DH games or when they add an extra bat during those 5th starter lulls would make more sense than Joseph

flyers19rw 2018-03-07 00:59:09 UTC #1419

Right about Knapp being a multi positional player. At Cal, he caught, did some first base as well as right field because of his strong arm. IDK when he last played the OF and if he could do it in the majors but it's out there. For all of the switching of positions the Kapler has utilized, I'm surprised that Knapp hasn't seen any time in a corner OF position.

andyb 2018-03-07 04:58:56 UTC #1420

No way they even think of 3 catchers on a 4-man bench. And the flexibility possibilities are yet another argument against Rupp and for carrying Knapp if either Knapp and/or Alfaro could swing to 1B or OF in an emergency.

While Alfaro has not played OF it has always been discussed as a position that he is a good athletic match for. He has 45-50 speed which is good for a catcher and obviously the arm for RF. I don't think the Phillies would do a lot of playing the second catcher in the field, but with a 4-man bench you do more of it than with a 5-man bench. If you have to burn the backup catcher as a pinch hitter it might be better to double-switch him onto the field so he is still available behind the plate defensively.

zambonir 2018-03-07 06:18:25 UTC #1421

We might see Santana catch before we see Alfaro or Knapp in RF.

MattsRiff 2018-03-07 15:53:27 UTC #1422

Twins offered Lynn 2-years/20mil.

tom81 2018-03-07 16:22:47 UTC #1423

He should have taken the QA.

Austinfan 2018-03-07 16:25:19 UTC #1424

It's a lowball, but Lynn's 2017 season wasn't that good, FIP of 4.82 suggests his ERA is misleading.
He averaged 92.2 on his 4 seamer, 91.2 on his two seamer, down 1+ MPH from pre-TJ.
Lynn will be 31, he might bounce back slightly his second year past TJ, but he didn't get a TJ boost,
He has a plus cutter, decent curve and bad changeup.

Problem is guys with his stuff are rarely effective past age 32.
Though 2 years/$30-36M would be close to market value, or 3 years/$36-45M
(figure his third year at 33 is -1 to +2 WAR)

Analytics has probably devalued middlin' players over 30, they're less likely to continue to be productive and the value of a 1-2 WAR veteran is limited unless you're a team with a weak farm system (i.e. the alternative isn't a promising rookie but a replacement player off the street or a AAAA player).

julio 2018-03-07 16:37:13 UTC #1425

I'm beginning to wonder if this might, in fact, be the best strategy for many (most?) players offered QOs. (Not sure what a QA is ) Given that a player can only be given a QO once, what we have is effectively a one-time, fairly expensive one-year extension of the 6-year reserve.

Now, I'm just a typical American peasant... far from the 1%. But that said, I have trouble with the idea that accepting a one-year, $17 million contract somehow threatens anybody's "financial security."

Don't misunderstand. I fully support players' rights to contract themselves to the highest bidder - and in fact, I wouldn't object if the 6-year reserve were watered down (I don't much like indentured servitude, even at MLB's pre-free agency pay scale). But the MLBPA agreed to the current QO system, so I have to assume that the players (through their representatives) are OK with this potential one-year reserve extension. So...go with it. Anticipate it. Plan a dual-track strategy as you hit FA. If a QO is presented... consider deferring entering the market for one year; it's not as if the club can do it a second time.

The alternative - in the next CBA round - would be to push for elimination of penalties for signing any free agent. MLB could provide draft compensation for lost FA, without any penalties for clubs who sign such FA; they've just chosen not to go there, which is a deliberate attempt to discourage the signing/movement of top free agents. I don't know why the MLBPA agreed to this...but they did.

andyb 2018-03-07 17:02:06 UTC #1426

Bowden on the best remaining fits for free agents. He basically outlines 4 teams in competition for the 3 good starters left. The Nats are only interested in Arrieta. The Phillies and Brewers in the mix on all 3 (Arrieta, Lynn, Cobb). And the Orioles at the bottom not being able to afford Arrieta.

The equation seems to have been set for the past couple of weeks that the Nats will get Arrieta if they want him and decide to spend the money (with all of it likely subject to a 30% luxury tax). If the Nats bow out the Phillies have to be second in line. Beyond that we are mentioned for both Lynn and Cobb. If they sign a deal around 3/40 then I guess one has to think about it even if they are not the first choice. The 2/20 from the Twins for Lynn was never realistic.

andyb 2018-03-07 17:08:27 UTC #1427

It has been my contention that the players got rolled, agreeing to small things like more days off that cost the owners nothing and not really getting a share of revenues that would grow with baseball revenues (though of course there is some dispute on what exactly the players' share of revenues is).

What is a fair system? The 6-year reserve probably needs to shrink. Maybe they could also add an age-based free agency option. 6 years or maybe 4 years if they are already 28 years old or older. Compensation should probably go. The way to deal with that is revenue sharing. Increase the revenue sharing to 40%-45% from the low 30s and then have a minimum spending floor (encompassing all spending on players including benefits, international free agents, and draftees). Maybe MLB could fund the draft and international pools so that is not an obstacle for smaller market clubs.

In general the players are stuck with this deal though. They might get the owners to make a minor concession here and there but their priority really needs to be positioning for the next deal.

tom81 2018-03-07 17:52:47 UTC #1428

Whoops.

zambonir 2018-03-07 18:45:43 UTC #1429

If Lynn can still get two years, $30 million that's probably better than the QO, in case he gets injured. But obviously he was expecting an AAV to exceed the QO (and it still might).

Hey, there's a $17 million pitcher from last year still available if the Phillies want to bring him back

allentown 2018-03-07 18:51:43 UTC #1430

I wouldn't like to see the 6 years of team control relaxed, other than doing away with the loophole by which teams game the system to increase it to 7 years. To reduce it more than that would, IMHO, drastically reduce the incentive for teams to build through the draft/international amateur routes and increase player mobility to the extent that fan identification with the team's players is diminished. What I want to see is a significant increase in what players are paid during this period of team control. I see two ways of accomplishing this. First, establish a higher MLB minimum (and minimum for minor leaguers on the 40-man), with the minimum escalating with each year of service. Second, change the guidance to arbitrators to increase WAR-parity of arb awards to FA WAR rates more rapidly as the players move into years 3, 4, 5, 6 of team control.

Other changes which would make FA work better: retain compensation for lost FA, but eliminate the penalty for signing a FA who turns down a QO. Allow teams to get lesser compensation if they lose a FA for whom they don't make a QO, if the players' FA deal exceeds $X total dollars. Finally, the lux tax cap needs a one-time significant bump-up at the start of the next player contract (perhaps by $30-40 million and then increase with CPI), perhaps with a hard cap 20% above the lux tax threshold. All of this will boost salaries of top FA, but I think older, average to slightly below average FA will continue to feel the pinch, because teams simply don't value them as highly as they did pre-analytics.

andyb 2018-03-07 19:00:24 UTC #1431

This is the tricky part. Increasing the minimum is easy though even doubling it would not shift the ball too much. 6 years of control in the current system is really 6 years of control AND artificial limits on salary. What we are really saying is that if you are going to limit a player's movement for 6 years you should not put too many limits on salary. 3rd year players should get $20 million if they show they are worth it.

I am just not sure there is a great system to do this, even an MLB/MLBPA approved WAR formula. Players need a system to get fairly paid in the middle of their career if teams are going to suddenly not pay for their later years. Or they need to become free agents much earlier.

zambonir 2018-03-11 17:01:32 UTC #1432

Got a little OT in the "non-Phillies" thread. This completely unsourced not very reliable blog speculates that Lynn turned down a Phillies offer.

California_Dreamin 2018-03-11 19:12:17 UTC #1433

Nightengale reporting that Arrieta talks are heating up and that he is expected to sign in the next few days. He indicates that several teams are in the mix but the Phils are the favorites.

andyb 2018-03-11 19:35:45 UTC #1434

Hope it is true though no way to really know. It would make the Lynn situation make more sense if the Phillies really wanted Arrieta (and maybe deemed only Arrieta as worth giving up the draft pick).

To be clear, the Phillies are not cheap. I have no problem with a lower payroll on a rebuilding team that legitimately wants to play young players. My argument with the money is that they need to find a way to use that money to add talent (young or older) and to date they really have not done as good a job as the Braves in this respect. This can mean signing free agents. Or picking up bad contracts for prospects. Or trading for young, controllable players that make decent money.

There are ways to use money to add talent and we have not maximized those ways as the team is looking at profits of close to $100 million. So not cheap. Just a bit ineffective in figuring out how to use that money to help the team.

zambonir 2018-03-11 19:54:11 UTC #1435

julio 2018-11-30 21:00:39 UTC #1436

A post was merged into an existing topic: 2018-19 Phillies Off-Season News/Notes/Discussion

julio 2018-11-30 20:59:50 UTC #1437