2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

[julio]

The Arrieta/Lynn/Cobb types may be looking at a situation where they don't get an acceptable offer until the 2nd week in June. The compensation issues expire as of the day before the June (Rule 4) amateur draft.

Would it make sense for the Phillies to purse Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb in June? No draft pick loss, no international bonus pool penalty. Just money.

[andyb]

Makes sense for the Phillies to some degree. Whether the players would make it up in salary (higher pay because of no compensation) is another question. I am guessing the Boras clients would want a huge bonus in the first year to make up for the pro-rated half year the player would miss by signing late.

[zambonir]

Well, we'd have to see what the Phillies' record was at that point. Of course it would, but the competition might be more fierce then.

One of the players in that Passan article floated this very possibility a few months ago, of sitting out not because of the compensation change but because once teams are in the heat of the season their needs change and they become more desperate.

As for that WAR projection in the Zolecki article, for sure, if you think you have .5 starter in hand and Lynn only gives you 1.5, and you figure you can upgrade at the trade deadline, you're not gonna pay too much for a mere .5 WAR in the first half of the season.

I agree the compensation shouldn't faze the Phillies too much. They can trade for allocation, and can also acquire some lower-level depth from the 2018 draft class down the line, even if they are buyers (you throw in an extra AAA-level piece in exchange for an A-ball piece. Plus if they trade Hernandez it might not be for a major leaguer. Ditto Rupp or some of the starting pitcher spare parts).

On the other hand, giving up picks when they pick this high, and hopefully for the last time, when they are also almost certainly going to give up picks next year too, is a little questionable. But that's a call they already made with Santana.

[julio]

Makes sense for the Phillies to some degree. Whether the players would make it up in salary (higher pay because of no compensation) is another question. I am guessing the Boras clients would want a huge bonus in the first year to make up for the pro-rated half year the player would miss by signing late.

If these guys get to June without a contract, what they "want" in a signing bonus may not matter much. At some point, they'll either take the best available offer, or they'll sit out the season - which could be career-ending.

It's a auction market - and in an auction, if you set a minimum price, some of the time you just don't sell anything.

[zambonir]

I think Arrieta is the only one who could play that game, and he probably doesn't have to either (he'll get a one-year deal, bonus or "pillow" at worst).

And if teams like the Phillies, Brewers and Twins simply don't want Lynn or Cobb on anything other than a one-year deal and there's no other team they'll probably take it.

This happened before to Kyle Lohse as well. But I don't think the compensation is going to be a deciding factor for anyone. There's no team who is like, "if it wasn't for the draft pick we'd give Lynn a three-year $50 million deal." The years and the $ are the hold-up, not the compensation. If they were willing to take shorter/cheaper deals teams won't mind the compensation.

At some point teams have to use this as leverage against the pitchers too. "It's now so late into spring training that you're only going to make two starts in April, why should we pay full price for that?"

[andyb]

If these guys get to June without a contract, what they "want" in a signing bonus may not matter much. At some point, they'll either take the best available offer, or they'll sit out the season - which could be career-ending

It is more whether they choose to wait because they think the compensation is dragging down their offers. This is more important for Lynn and Cobb since they are in that in-between area where teams might subtract the value of the compensation (pick plus allocations might be worth $10 million in WAR) from their contract offer.

So a Cobb might get a 3/30 offer now from a team that values him at 3/40. In June he might get a 3/35 offer. Now the value the Phillies give up with a 3rd round pick is less than the value of a 2nd round pick, so it is less of a factor for us.

[Austinfan]

A factor for the Phillies is they can audition their young pitchers, see how the team is doing, and decide if adding a pitcher in June has any real value (i.e. either the young pitchers are doing well enough that Lynn and Cobb are unlikely to add value, or poor enough that the team is only going to win 70 games).

One incentive in waiting for July is the Phillies have the room to take on a bad contract as long as there are only 1-2 years left, a big money team with a big salary that falls out of contention might want to dump a pitcher to free up room ro reload in the offseason.

[zambonir]

I think the Phillies will be very active in July in both directions. They could be winning and still decide to boldly move on from Hernandez or an OF for the right deal (or just to add depth to use in other trades). They could also be losing and still go hard after a controllable pitcher.

I don't believe any of these free agents will be unsigned on April 1 but then, I didn't believe they'd be unsigned now either. Moustakas is actually the one where the "holdout" model makes the most sense. He's young enough and his value is static enough (good bad or otherwise) that he could miss a few months. Whereas the three pitchers just get less valuable even if the compensation improves market conditions. If I were them I'd sooner take the one-year $15 deal and try my luck next season than sit for three months, especially since you'd also leave 2018 $ on the table.

Arrieta for three years with two player opt-outs would make a lot of sense. Any team can afford to swallow that third year if he's just okay or actively on the decline, and if he's not on the decline, he can go cash in.

[allentown]

I agree the compensation shouldn't faze the Phillies too much. They can trade for allocation, and can also acquire some lower-level depth from the 2018 draft class down the line, even if they are buyers (you throw in an extra AAA-level piece in exchange for an A-ball piece. Plus if they trade Hernandez it might not be for a major leaguer. Ditto Rupp or some of the starting pitcher spare parts).

The Phillies also can and should at the start of the permissible period, which I think is opening day, trade for one of the commissioner's infamous low-revenue-team-charity draft picks. Work out a trade in the next week, because it likely requires carrying a guy or two on the 25-man for a day.

[phillychuck]

I've heard a couple of supposedly "in the know" reporters speculate that Arietta has a 3-year deal with a player opt-out and two club options on the end in hand with the Phils, but that he's waiting on the Nationals to see what they offer.

I'd love to see the Phils sign him...this week is probably the week he signs (IMHO).

[andyb]

That does seem how Boras would structure a deal. Opt-outs after 1 or 2 years (maybe even both). Win for the player if the market is better next year or the Phillies don't progress. Not awful for the Phillies because even if Arrieta is great, Arrieta is a year or two older then AND the Phillies know more about their young players. Then club options (probably with IP vesting) give the team options to keep Arrieta presumably with a buyout that makes the 3-year AAV pretty high.

I guess the big question is the Nats. They clearly want Arrieta badly. It is just expensive for them to do it already being under the luxury tax (tax AND higher compensation AND paying the actual money). For the Phillies a 3/80 deal (with $10 million being a buyout of the options) might make huge sense.

[flyers19rw]

Opt-outs after 1 or 2 years (maybe even both).

Hows about the team has an opt out every year that the pitcher has one? What is good for one side of the contract should be good for the other.

[zambonir]

And why not pay him less money than he wants while they're at it

Arrieta still has the leverage over the Phillies here, even in this bad market. Getting him all the way down to three years would be a coup but they're still going to be guaranteeing him a nice chunk of change. No point in having opt-outs at all if they're mutual - just sign him to a one-year deal (but he won't take that, or rather, if he did, it wouldn't be with the Phillies).

Where are these rumors of a deal being on the table anyway?

[julio]

Hows about the team has an opt out every year that the pitcher has one? What is good for one side of the contract should be good for the other.

A club could certainly make such an offer... but unless no competing club made a better offer, what player would accept that? And remember, it's not legal for the clubs to collaborate with one another to eliminate competition in the labor market.

[zambonir]

Not to mention teams are free to "opt out" of their contracts with the players every year for the first six years of their career.

[flyers19rw]

As I said before, opt outs should be available to both parties in a contract or not at all. If the Phillies and Arietta want each other, then make a deal w/o them. Opt outs only allow one side to take advantage of the other. Players want protection and freedom; so does management.

[julio]

As I said before, opt outs should be available to both parties in a contract or not at all. If the Phillies and Arietta want each other, then make a deal w/o them. Opt outs only allow one side to take advantage of the other. Players want protection and freedom; so does management.

You don't seem to understand the concept of an auction market. Teams compete with one another for a player's services. That competition takes the form of clubs trying to make "better offers" than other clubs - and the clubs are not permitted to collaborate to avoid actual competition.

So how does this kind of system get to "opt outs should be available to both parties in a contract or not at all"? Certainly, a given club can take that position - but they'll just get out-bid by some other club. How do you propose to get to a place where all clubs take the "both ways, or not at all" position? Collusion?

It looks like you're just venting here - that you haven't thought about what's actually going on in the free agent market. That's fine, vent away... but don't expect us to take such venting seriously. If you have some solution in mind, let's hear it.

But saying "Just do it." reminds me of Q saying, "Just change the gravitational constant of the universe." It's not that simple.

[zambonir]

Hey, it would also be great if you could sign Arrieta to a contract that actually paid him relative to WAR. But that would only be fair if all players were paid that way, from the minute they started their career.

Beyond that, it's a negotiation. The Phillies know they would be laughed out of the room - and would lose credibility with future free agents - if they proposed such a thing. And even if it was worth proposing, it wouldn't get them the player. Arrieta is the one with the leverage here, even if he can't get the deal of his dreams - in exchange for taking a shorter contract with a lower AAV, he gets to opt out. The Phillies would have to be offering something attractive to make Arrieta agree to a "team opt-out." What do they have to offer? If I were Arrieta and the offer was a three-year $80 million deal but the team could opt-out after one year I would want the first season to pay at least $35 million guaranteed, maybe 40. And if the Phillies wanted to do that they could just sign him to one-year deal.

[julio]

And if the Phillies wanted to do that they could just sign him to one-year deal.

Yep. And realistically, a "multi-year contract" in which both parties had an opt-out after one year would be, for all practical purposes, a one-year contract. However the player performed, one party or the other would be likely to conclude they were better off after the first year to take the opt-out.

The point of a player opt-out is that it's requested (or offered) in lieu of a higher overall monetary guarantee. It is bargained. If it has value to the player (which it obviously does), then not agreeing to an opt-out in a contract means the club would have to make up that value in some other way (read: more guaranteed money). This isn't rocket science.

What it comes down to is that flyers19rw doesn't like the idea of a player opt-out. That's his prerogative, of course. What's not clear is why he objects to the idea of an opt-out.

[zambonir]

Listen, if it turns out the Phillies are the only team competing for Arrieta's services, they'll end up giving him less money or less favorable opt-outs (maybe only after two years instead of one). If they are not, they (and other teams) have to do player-favorable things of one kind of another to win the auction.

The other thing to remember about player opt-outs is sometimes they just lead to a reworked contract. If Arrieta puts up a 4.0 WAR and leads the Phillies to the playoffs he will likely use his leverage, but if the Phillies still think he's a good bet going forward (or just feel pressure to retain him) they will still have the ability to keep him.