2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

[Austinfan]

The agents who represent the "name" players want big paydays.
Most of the players probably want higher minimum salaries and better benefits.

[DurhamBull]

Didn’t realize Werth was 38 and coming off three mediocre-to-bad seasons. Time flies.

Yeah. We all tend to assume that players who are household names are still good to go. But they get old...fast. (Faster and faster, as I get older!)

Yes, my original thought about Werth was that he has gotten old, but I am, shall we say, a good bit less young than he is, and I'm certainly not old, so he can't be either.

I think in a lot of cases they get old faster than THEY realize, as well. You look at that list of unsigned FA - Werth, Utley, Chooch. Of the 112 unsigned, 24 (by my eyeball count) are 36 or older. 30 more are either 34 or 35 years old. Part of what's going on here is that salaries have gotten so high that players are loath to retire, even when their skills have largely gone.

Salary is probably part of it, although stars like Werth and Utley are probably swimming in money, or they are if they haven't been foolish. I'm sure they could find space for another few million $ in their vaults, but they don't need it, per se.

I think what's even harder for them to step away from is being a baseball player. For many, it's been their primary identity since they started to become stars in, what, high school? So they've been exceptional and treated like it for 20+ years and the entirety of their adulthood, and then in their late 30s/early 40s they have to reinvent themselves. It takes a different kind of exceptionalism to embrace that and be graceful about it. Who wouldn't try to keep the party going for another year?

I've long thought that there's an excellent market for being a psychologist/life coach who specializes in nothing but helping sports stars through this period. Multi-millionaire at 40 is a huge success story, but it's probably hard to feel that way if you're a former all-star hitting .220. The stage is set for them to have a wonderful, relaxed, fulfilling middle and old age if only they can find some things that matter to them besides excelling on the field.

[allentown]

Referring to the Phillies $48 million payroll is part of the misconception. I count $49 million in already fixed salaries, but that is for only 8 players. The opening roster will have 17 more players, so even at about MLB minimum, that is another 9 million. The Phillies payroll is down considerably from last season, but not by as much as these guys suggest. Nola may well be extended sometime this year. The numbers do illustrate my contention that we could sign Darvish and not come even two zip codes away from being financially or salary cap constrained. And no, I would not give any of these guys a 6-7 year contract.

[andyb]

Verducci with a good article on why and how the players got rolled in the last collective bargaining agreement. They got distracted by shiny things like better clubhouse meals and more off days and took their eye off the larger picture that negotiations should always start with how the money is divided. Players negotiated small increases in the luxury tax line that were much smaller than revenue increases. I think the player' share of revenue has decreased from around 50% to 38% over the past decade. Better clubhouse meals are not going to fix that.

Players will be smarter going into the next negotiation but this is going to get uglier in the short term. The luxury tax line should be going up 5% a year or more to keep pace with revenues. So an increase of $50 million plus over a 5 year deal, not the $10-$15 million increase that was negotiated. A higher minimum salary is not going to fix this (that should happen regardless). More revenue sharing will help a bit. But the sport really needs a higher luxury tax cap plain and simple.

The fight over MLB free agency is getting ugly

[Philsmania]

Verducci with a good article on why and how the players got rolled in the last collective bargaining agreement. They got distracted by shiny things like better clubhouse meals and more off days and took their eye off the larger picture that negotiations should always start with how the money is divided. Players negotiated small increases in the luxury tax line that were much smaller than revenue increases. I think the player' share of revenue has decreased from around 50% to 38% over the past decade. Better clubhouse meals are not going to fix that.

Players will be smarter going into the next negotiation but this is going to get uglier in the short term. The luxury tax line should be going up 5% a year or more to keep pace with revenues. So an increase of $50 million plus over a 5 year deal, not the $10-$15 million increase that was negotiated. A higher minimum salary is not going to fix this (that should happen regardless). More revenue sharing will help a bit. But the sport really needs a higher luxury tax cap plain and simple.

The fight over MLB free agency is getting ugly

I wouldn't be surprised if Tony Clark gets sacked not before long. The problem is for the MLBPA as unions in other sports discovered, once the union loses the upper hand, it's pretty much up Turd's Creek and will end up with a crushing defeat in the next strike.

[allentown]

A strange article. He cites the clubs growing reliance upon advanced analysis and statistics then himself evaluates Frazier based only upon his .220 BA the past few years. That's ultra shallow, even by years ago, back-of-the-baseball-card Philliesplayer evaluation. No mention that Frazier's WAR the past 3 years have been 4.0. 3.4, and 3.6. I'm not a fan of giving a big contract to Frazier, but that .220 BA analysis is ludicrous. The players may have been rolled on an international draft, but it's really hard to figure how that could be, since the bonuses to international draftees and which teams get them has very little impact upon MLB players. I guess it may be a 'patriotic' reaction on the part of Latino players. Did the players focus on luxury issues? That also seems doubtful. One consideration might be that the rank-and-file union member cares a lot less about FA contracts to age 35-37 for the 'top' players than the agents do, rightly concluding that this will never benefit them. For most players, upping the minimum to $1 million, with $1.5 million after 1.0 years service and 2.0 million after 2.0 years service would have a FAR greater impact. The last contract did reduce the penalties for signing a FA with a QO and did reduce the number of players qualifying for comp. Perhaps the players assumed this would have a greater impact than it has had. Perhaps agents are upset, because they had less sway in the last labor agreement negotiation and have less sway in today's game.

I will confess, I have a hard time believing that more than a small percentage of players cares at all about pace-of-game.

I'm not sure how much support the agents will have to benefit the older FA in the next contract. That strikes me as the same thing as today's millennials looking at Social Security and R proposals to reform it: they get to pay for my generation to continue to enjoy benefits, which they are convinced they will never see. The handwriting is on the wall: baseball teams know that 35+-year old players are VERY seldom worth big $, the value of 'veteran leadership is a myth' -- more often these guys are dugout cancers, and most of these guys, especially FA from other teams, do not actually sell tickets.

Players in general, and young MLB players and minor league players who make it to A+ leagues and above in particular, do deserve a bigger piece of baseball's revenue pie, but it is likely to be a HARD sell to 50% of union membership for the bulk of those $ to flow to the older FAs who want 6-7 year deals. I think you could totally eliminate the penalties for signing a QO FA and the payout wouldn't rise all that much. Raising the lux cap certainly would have an impact. Setting an average-over-the-season salary budget floor would also have an impact. Going to a draft lottery for the top 10 picks might have a bit of an impact. Increasing the number of wild cards might have a significant impact. The biggest thing the players could do to help older FA hitters is to push for the DH in the NL.

[andyb]

For most players, upping the minimum to $1 million, with $1.5 million after 1.0 years service and 2.0 million after 2.0 years service would have a FAR greater impact.

This is an example of how the players get distracted though. I completely agree with you that the players should have a higher minimum. The difference is this is not really giving much up from the owners. Yes it would mean the low budget teams would spend another $5 million to maybe even $15 million on payroll at a minimum (though of course they could still keep their overall budgets close to the same if they wanted to). If I am an owner, I really don't care much about the minimum as long as the overall payroll limits are the same. If teams stick to an artificially low ceiling then overall spending is just not going to rise.

None of this means that the smaller issues are unimportant. Players should get better meals. There should be more off days. There probably should be larger rosters because of all the injury issues. But all that is pennies unless the players get a larger share of the pie (or something close to what they used to get). Teams are just making larger profits and the players are not getting paid their fare share.

Back to the Phillies - this actually creates a greater reason that they should go after Darvish. If the market for free agents is artificially lowered by the big-spending clubs wanting to reset their luxury tax rates for next year, then there are bargains for the clubs with the potential to spend that remain. All the talk about these contracts "not being worth it" is clubs trying to spin the media. As we have said before, the Phillies will get 0 WAR from $0 spent. So WAR from Darvish is a bonus. Darvish under the previous market would have gotten a 6 year/$175 million deal. If he can be signed for 5/120 then that is a bargain that may never come around again. Time to sign Darvish now.

[tom81]

Darvish under the previous market would have gotten a 6 year/$175 million deal. If he can be signed for 5/120 then that is a bargain that may never come around again. Time to sign Darvish now.

I agree with what he would have gotten in the previous market and also agree that he might take a 5 year deal now at close to the number you suggest. There may be more than one team willing to go there for Darvish so I think it takes a bit more $ to get him. I think Darvish is the perfect fit for us in this type of deal. He lends creditability to the team, he takes a load off the younger pitchers, and we can afford his salary over that time frame. The way the politics are going in MLB a five year deal may actually be a four year deal with the fifth being cancelled by the strike.

[EDmuch]

I think Phils may have to go 5 years, $140 million to lure him away from teams that are closer to being playoff ready this year. Would anyone go $140 ?????

[allentown]

I agree on Darvish. I think $120 million/4 gets it done and also leaves the hope of a follow-on FA deal somewhere as a spur toward top performance.

I think raising the minimum salary and salaries for guys with 1 and 2 years experience would be significant. When I say 1.0 years, I mean 1.0 years, as in if you start your second major league season a month short of 1.0, then you get an automatic raise after that month. This also eliminates some of the gamesmanship over starting guys a month into the season. Like a $15/hr minimum wage, it would also impact guys higher up the ladder -- at least everyone in arb years. I remain unconvinced that the various FA permutations have done much for the lower paid half of MLB players and doubt there is a formula which would help. I suggested several other approaches in addition to the higher minimums, which would increase payrolls, with the biggest impact being the bottom 2/3 of salaries.

[Austinfan]

The other thing that helps the rank and file are better benefits, including shorter eligibility requirements for pensions and higher pension payments (and requirements to fund pensions).
Raising minor league salaries would also be a good thing.

[andyb]

Benefits and minimum salaries are all nice but they are distractions. The negotiations have taken MLB players' share of MLB revenues down from a little over 50% to below 40%. 50% was arguably too high as the expense of running baseball organizations outside of MLB salary is probably greater than in other sports, but there was no real justification to essentially lower the players' share by one quarter. Other than the players getting rolled by the owners. And BTW those revenue share numbers INCLUDE benefits. The luxury tax calculation now includes close to $14 million for benefits.

I am all for higher minimums and benefits. They just need to be negotiated after the share of the revenue pie is negotiated. The players negotiated for those things before - and that was just plain stupid on their part. Maybe a strike would have happened if they asked for more like I am advocating, but maybe they needed to force a strike. Billionaire owners always have more leverage in these situations and the players need stick together to get what they deserve.

[julio]

A post was split to a new topic: Survey for Phils fans

[andyb]

Frazier to the Mets for 2/$17 million. Pretty good bargain for them.

[tom81]

Maybe he declines a bit due to age and puts up around 4 WAR in those two years. 4/WAR sounds really cheap. Hope we can get a starter for 2 to 4 years at that price.

[zambonir]

I mean, that's pretty cheap. Cheap enough to make him a 400 AB bench player or make him tradeable, if you're the Phillies, though that scenario probably only made sense before Santana.

[andyb]

I mean, that's pretty cheap. Cheap enough to make him a 400 AB bench player or make him tradeable, if you're the Phillies, though that scenario probably only made sense before Santana.

Not really a fit for us as you say, but still a bargain. I think there is definitely some collusion out there though a unique form of collusion. Teams feel free to have low payrolls when they are rebuilding, so there is less pressure to spend from 10+ teams since there is no payroll floor. Then we have new pressure from the top with big market teams declining to spend because they want to reset their tax rate for when they go way over next year.

Which makes me think the Phillies really need to take advantage this year because there is no way we get Harper or Machado next year. These are artificial bargains based on an imperfect market (in part created by the players' negotiating stupidity). We really need to come out of this with one of the top 4 arms - Darvish or Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn. With Darvish being the priority since there is no compensation.

[LoneStarPhan]

After years of taking huge risks by giving free agents long-term contracts, the clubs have finally seen that dollars so spent are usually overpayment and in some cases, down right loses. Smart executives figure where they can do the most good for the club. They have no obligation to provide free agents with lucrative contracts. This certainly is not collusion. However, I agree that the Phillies may have an opportunity in the next couple weeks to add a player or two if they can get the free agent they think can help to accept a 3 year deal.

[zambonir]

Which makes me think the Phillies really need to take advantage this year because there is no way we get Harper or Machado next year.

I see no reason why the Phillies can't be the highest bidder there. If they lose because Harper wants to be a Cub or Machado wants to be a Yankee fine. But I think this front office has a high level of confidence about getting Machado, as well as the readiness to hand out the largest contract of all-time. Kind of the whole point of the low payroll up to now.

But yes. They should go get a pitcher. Not only to exploit the market inefficiency but to make the team better for next year's sales pitch, as we've always said, but now the price is right.

I don't think the market is necessarily going to swing back in the players' favor next year though. Yeah, the Yanks and Dodgers (and Phillies) will be spending again, but the macro forces aren't going anywhere.

Just a matter of whether one of these pitchers will take an offer than the Phillies can live with, as Santana did. They may have all already turned down (for now) the best offer the Phillies are willing to make (and not just the Phillies, obviously).

[EDmuch]

While there is a lot of speculation here that this is the time for the Phils to make a move due to the tight market, I am not convinced they see it that way. I still think the Phils are using their new found love of statistical analysis to limit their interest to "value" players who fit there desire for OBP hitters and pitchers who throw strikes. I just don't see them going away form that approach because there are some weaknesses in the market. I wish they would. But I don't see it happening.