2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

[David_Criss]

Jon Heyman (JonHeyman)

Heyman tweeting about it, too....

[andyb]

A 3 year contract wouldn't bother me that much even with the money that's being discussed.

A 5 year deal would lower the AAV though. Not that I would expect him to be good in 5 years, but the reality is that the Phillies should not have serious AAV problems even in 5 years if they keep promoting their young core. They should lock up Nola also this spring to get a couple of low paid years on his long term AAV.

The decisions a team can make with financial flexibility are different than the ones teams make when they don't have that flexibility. I still would be torn by this signing because Darvish was so much better as a fit, but it would be hard to argue that it does not make the team better and the cost is basically money they would not otherwise spend. Give him multiple opt outs also in any deal. If they end up spending $50 million for 2 good years I am fine with that because in 2 years we then will hopefully have younger options developing.

[David_Criss]

He turns 32 in March. I'd have to think a 3/78 - 1 more than Darvish per with a 2/50 to 55 option that automatically vests given certain levels met would be reasonable for both sides.

[bigegypt0417]

He turns 32 in March. I'd have to think a 3/78 - 1 more than Darvish per with a 2/50 to 55 option that automatically vests given certain levels met would be reasonable for both sides.

i'm trying to find the tweet but I think I saw the numbers were more like 3 years/85 million or so.

[saycheese]

The most important part of signing an Arrieta is the length. I really don't care if they sign him for 30 mill a year. As long as it no longer than 3 years we should be fine. We have so much financial flexibility that its the length more than anything.

[phillychuck]

The most important part of signing an Arrieta is the length. I really don't care if they sign him for 30 mill a year. As long as it no longer than 3 years we should be fine. We have so much financial flexibility that its the length more than anything.

Agree with this 100%. I think 3 years with an opt-out for one or both parties based on health.

[David_Criss]

The most important part of signing an Arrieta is the length. I really don't care if they sign him for 30 mill a year. As long as it no longer than 3 years we should be fine. We have so much financial flexibility that its the length more than anything.

Yes and Yes - 85 or 78 mil over three is fine by me. If the Phillies are contending in 2019 great, if not they can look for a haul in a trade or hold onto him and in 2020 same thing. I'd even be fine with a 1 or even 2 year automatic option as long as it is an option tied to performance. If that is what it takes.

[andyb]

One small note. Matt Winkelman was tweeting about the compensation with the Phillies losing their 3rd round pick. The one new tidbit (to me) is that it apparently does NOT entail losing another $500K from the international pool. Just the first $500K from the Santana signing.

[allentown]

Lowering the AAV is of no benefit to the Phillies in the first 3 years under any realistic scenario. It is possible that extending to 5 years would be a problem in year 5, so I would prefer to put the money into 3 seasons. Yes, Darvish was so much better, including no loss of draft pick or international bonus $. I see Darvish as a significant lost opportunity.

[andyb]

It is possible that extending to 5 years would be a problem in year 5

I just don't think this is true though. It would be really hard for the Phillies to have a big problem in year 5 even if we add 2 players that take up $70-$80 million themselves. We'll be beyond the Santana contract. Nola will be a big salary added (though one that can be lowered through a long term deal). Young players will generally be in their 2nd year of arbitration (Hoskins, Crawford) or not good enough to merit $20 million plus.

3 is of course preferable. 5 is not scary though.

[zambonir]

You have to take every Heyman/Boras rumor with a grain of salt, though I don't see how the info he's provided would actually be putting pressure on, say, the Brewers.

Darvish was probably just never interested in coming here, and he was going to get a six-year deal. But sure, it's a shame, he was younger, almost certainly better going forward, and didn't come with a comp pick. But now the market is coming to the Phillies, hopefully. And as much as they are into analytics they are also into intangibles that can be, if not quantified, at least documented. Which is to say the front office's familarity with Arrieta's personality and work ethic counts for something (even if the flip side of that is you can make a mistake more easily if you're blinded by a pre-existing relationship).

He is certainly going to get four years. That's gonna be the price of admission for the Phillies to land him, barring an outrageous AAV or bonus. If they can avoid five it's a win.

And the ironic thing about dead money/sunk cost is that you're better off with a hurt pitcher than an ineffective one, 'cause you can't just keep trotting out the former, and if you have enough money, you replace him (even Amaro's Phillies did that once, albeit badly, by signing Burnett).

For all we know this rumor is also a message from the Phillies to Cobb or Lynn.

[julio]

I don't think I'd be concerned about a five-year deal with Arrieta... as long as:

1. It's front-loaded (something like 22-22-22-10-10), to minimize actual (as opposed to AAV calc) payroll impact when it might matter; moreover, longer works better from an AAV standpoint if the total dollars are the same - although as allentown has pointed out, AAV isn't going to be an issue for the next few years.
2. It has a player opt-out after three years, and perhaps again after four years (Arrieta would opt out if he's going well - but the point here is to give him insurance against decline, not to lock up an aging pitcher for more than three years).
3. It does not include a no-trade clause. Front-loading makes the contract easier to trade, should that be the best choice down the road.

[Austinfan]

Don't think actual cash flow matters, between Comcast and Middleton, and increased attendance as the team improves, that should never be an issue.

Opt-out is irrelevant, what are the odds Arrieta will even be replacement level four years from now?

Front loading only makes it easier to trade if the new team doesn't have to take the average AVV, since otherwise you'd have to pay a noncontending team to take his contract and a contending team is likely to need the cap room.

[andyb]

Opt-out is irrelevant, what are the odds Arrieta will even be replacement level four years from now?

Agree opt outs are meaningless since frankly if Arrieta were very good, we would not want to up the pay for more years at age 34. Second comment is probably like 75%+ that Arrieta were replacement level or better. I know you hate the guy, but he is coming from a high skill level position. At age 35 there is a good chance he is still useful. Not a good chance he is worth $20 million plus, but that is a very different question. He did have a very good 2nd half last year. ERA dropped from 4.35 to 2.28. Some may be luck, but some may have been learning to pitch at 92 than at 94. He also overcame some handstring injuries. The question of whether he is worth a lot of money 4-6 years from now is just very different than if he is replacement level or better. The Phillies should do their medical due diligence, but there is not too much evidence he is spiraling as a player yet. He just may be settling into a later career period of mid-rotation starter rather than top one.

[julio]

Opt-out is irrelevant, what are the odds Arrieta will even be replacement level four years from now?

I don't agree. The opt-out is something the player wants, not something that the club needs. It's insurance against a sudden end to income. If the Phillies are willing to spend $xxx on an Arrieta contract, and really only want/need his services for three years - well, giving him an opt-out at the end of three years, with reduced salaries after that if he doesn't opt out, costs the club nothing if the total over five years is still $xxx. At the same time, it gives the player the possibility of opting out, and increasing his salary in years four and five by negotiating a new contract (with the Phils or somebody else), if he's still effective.

Now, I agree that he's not all that likely to be very attractive in the open market in years four and five. But he may not believe that. In fact, given that he's an elite professional athlete, the likelihood that he's rational about his own inevitable decline... well, it's not a high percentage. So the opt-out is likely to be attractive to him. And if it's at no cost to the club...what the heck. Make him happy.

Yes, they could sign him for three years, for the same total money - and if he got the money sooner, he'd actually be ahead, assuming any reasonable investment strategy. But that's pure economics, pure rational analysis. People don't run on pure economics or rationalism. Many players, for whatever reason, appear to want the longer contract, even if the total money is the same. Clubs may also want it - if only to appear not to be "overpaying" in a given year. (Remember the hullabaloo about "overpaying" Pat Burrell in the last years of his contract - although the annual average of that contract was a steal for the Phillies?) Again, this isn't about pure rationality; in this case, it's about PR appearances.

So there are reasons why both the player and the club might want to spread a given amount of total compensation over more than three years. If they do... well, that's what "negotiations" are about - about finding out what both parties want/need, and trying to find common ground. And... what we want - what fans in general, or a given fan in particular, want - should be irrelevant. If it works for the front office and for the player, then it works.

[zambonir]

Speaking of opt-outs, every time I read something about the D-Backs they mention what a disaster Yasmany Tomas turned out to be (he's been negative WAR his whole career, even when he was good at the plate in 2016). I remember my reluctance about him at the time, based on the deal Arizona gave him, was that if he was good he would become a free agent before the Phillies were truly ready to compete, i.e. after this season. Instead it looks like the D-Backs will be stuck with him on the 2019-2020 player options.

[tom81]

Middleton saying the right things backing his GM.

Look, I don't know what I'd do if my phone rang right now and it was Scott Boras. I mean, honestly, I think what I'd say is, 'Scott, it's nice to talk to you, but I don't negotiate. Matt does. I don't want to be rude, but I'm paying the guy a lot of money.'

Phillies' John Middleton talks pitching market

[zambonir]

That's definitely one of the less appealing things about Boras, though in the Nats case he is tight with Rizzo. Though if I'm an A-Rod or Harper I probably want some involvement from the owner. I don't think that's gonna be necessary with an Arrieta (or heh, a Hellickson).

[Dirk41]

If Arrieta was getting a 6 or 7 year deal from anyone, wouldn't he have it by now?

[zambonir]

or even a five-year deal, possibly.

it'll be a four or five-year deal with opt-outs. question is are the Phillies sticking to three no matter what, or is that's how they get him from five to four? The one notable thing in the Middleton article is he once again mentions trades, and specifically that there are players they would like to trade for if they could.