Discussion

andyb 2018-01-17 20:59:55 UTC #581

Free agency would be a year later, but Arenado is another high-end high-dollar option that would almost be as good. Could also see him being traded next year since his arbitration price will be sky high.

I am comfortable rolling the dice with Franco for another half season regardless. A Harrison trade would help on the margins though if we really wanted an older defensive oriented option on our bench we might as well just go get Martin Prado for nothing (but money). Always figured he'd be part of any proposed Yelich or Realmuto deals if we wanted to limit the prospect cost and I could see a healthy Prado bouncing back to a 750 OPS offensive season.

andyb 2018-01-17 21:08:45 UTC #582

For all the conspiracy theorists, Nick Williams is apparently working out with Jake Arrieta this winter:

Philsmania 2018-01-17 21:32:07 UTC #583

I have always considered Arrieta to be something of a "stay tuned" situation. If ST is getting close and he doesn't have a deal, he may consider either three year deal, possibly even one with an opt out after one year.

zambonir 2018-01-18 01:47:26 UTC #584

There is a big Jeff Passan article that talks about the possibility of players signing "pillow" contracts that are three or four-year deals with one-year opt-outs.

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-baseballs-economic-system-might-broken-224638354.html

That said I don't think any player is going to settle for a one-year deal until the musical chairs have stopped moving and right now the music isn't even playing. Though Passan also quotes one player (secondhand) as saying he might hold out until July, when the emotion of contending might raise the price (of course that seems unlikely given he'd be inactive and would have missed three months salary already, but maybe the back end would be worth it).

I'm neutral on Machado. The Phillies with Machado and Crawford are really good regardless of who is playing where, and it's also not necessarily permanent. (Crawford would be following in Machado's footsteps, in fact. Switch to 3B because the team has another SS, then switch back when that guy is no longer around (or able to play SS).

allentown 2018-01-18 03:09:39 UTC #585

A team would have to be crazy to sign one of those 'pillow' deals. If the guy is good and stays healthy, he waves goodbye after a year. If he goes sharply downhill or is injured, you get to pay him big bucks for 3 more years. That's a lot of risk for a team to assume for one year of the guy's services.

California_Dreamin 2018-01-18 03:49:15 UTC #586

allentown..I agree. I would not give Arrieta a "pillow
deal, not only losing a 3rd round pick [valuable] but undoubtedly losing a Boras client after one year. I mean, this is why those who are against trading for Machado feel the way they do...why deal away valuable pieces for a player that likely will bolt after one year.

andyb 2018-01-18 04:49:24 UTC #587

No way the Phillies would sign Arrieta to a deal with a 1-year opt out. Arrieta would be a sign they want to contend, if not this year then in 2019 and 2020. I think Arrieta will realize he is not getting 7 years from anyone. Then I think he is going to have to decide between 5 or 6 years at $22-$25 million per - or 3-4 years at $30 million per. The Phillies' advantage is that they can offer the higher AAV on a shorter deal. It would be an overpay but with dollars that do not impact the luxury cap line. That is the Phillies advantage. Whether Arrieta would consider it if his options narrow is the question.

Austinfan 2018-01-18 04:59:11 UTC #588

Arrieta is not getting 5-6 years at $20+M.
Everyone in the league knows he's had a significant falloff in velocity and is buyer beware.
Anyone who offers him more than 3 years is asking for trouble.
I don't see collusion, I see more teams using analytics and valuing free agents more reasonably.

zambonir 2018-01-18 05:33:15 UTC #589

There is so much talk - "sources," actual quotes from Klentak and Kapler - about the Phillies doing nothing with the rotation (except a mid-level or a one-year guy) that I have to assume it's all posturing and they're gonna land a big fish in the end (whether it's a trade or FA).

That said, what is the difference between a pillow deal and a straight-up one-year deal? If their choice is Jake Arrieta for one year or Andrew Cashner (or hey, Jeremy Hellickson) for one year, wouldn't you want Arrieta, especially given the chance that he doesn't opt out (if he repeats his 2017 he probably wouldn't, but would still be a decent piece). Plus he would at least be amenable to a renegotiation/extension (as happened with Cespedes).

How much worse would that even be than giving up three prospects for two years of Gerrit Cole?

California_Dreamin 2018-01-18 06:00:15 UTC #590

The difference is the draft pick...and the money. Why on earth would you spend $30 million for one year and gone...and the loss of the 3rd round pick. Arrieta's true value will come into play in 2019-2020, when the Phils A] are ready to try and bring in a HUGE free agent and B] are ready to contend.

Arrieta for 1 year makes no sense.

zambonir 2018-01-18 06:09:04 UTC #591

If the choice is 1 WAR for $10 million or 3 WAR for $30 million and a draft pick, that seems like a reasonable value given the money is meaningless. And this front office is all about those kind of calculations.

I think it's far-fetched. But you can't look at it as just a one-year deal. Arrieta only put up a 1.9 WAR last season. If that is all he's got left, he won't opt out (of what would be a three-year deal) and the Phillies are still protected from a bigger decline, as well as $ considerations past 2020 (both things that would be an issue on a four or five-year deal). If he puts up 3-4 WAR this year and leaves, c'est la vie.

Also I'm pretty sure you can QO someone who opts out of a deal, so draft pick-wise they'd actually be gaining an asset.

andyb 2018-01-18 13:40:07 UTC #592

He might very well get that. What he won't likely get is 7 years or even 6 years at close to $30 million a year. That is what he has been asking for. He will likely slot in behind Darvish, getting a year less and maybe a couple of million less on the AAV. 5 years/$100 million would be a very reasonable deal for Arrieta. He is just not agreeing to that type of deal.

allentown 2018-01-18 14:30:30 UTC #593

This and a couple of the above posts, especially AF's about Arrieta's iffy 2017 and velocity decline, are why we should go Darvish rather than Arrietta. We keep our draft pick and international money, we get the better pitcher, and he only costs a little bit more. The only thing pointing favorably to Arrietta is the Williams' comment that he'd be happy to come to the Phillies, while we have no indication that Darvish would be. I think we can get Darvish with plus $ on a shorter contract. Thome didn't want to come to the Phillies. The agents and players' association put a lot of pressure on the top FAs to be contract pace setters and help the financial chances of lesser FAs and arb players. This is probably especially true with a big upcoming FA class. If this year's top FAs can land big deals that further sets the stage for a huge FA blowout in 2018-19. The players' association didn't negotiate an especially good deal: too little rise in lux cap with no minimum payroll and needs to protect itself by pushing the FA envelope.

flyers19rw 2018-01-18 14:43:30 UTC #594

There has been some chatter about perhaps Darvish would become a Phillies since he has been training with Williams. Darvish also has been working out with Kershaw at his H.S. facility. I'm not getting my hopes up for signing Darvish unless the Phillies pay full price for him.

andyb 2018-01-18 14:48:22 UTC #595

The small increases of like $15 million over 5 years in the luxury tax line did surprise me. In some ways the players got rolled in that deal because they did not get much back for it. The share of revenues going to players has dropped from like 54% to 38% over the past 15 years. The reality is that the luxury tax line should go up at a rate similar to overall revenue which is at least 5% a year. Or a slower increase should be accompanied by a payroll floor. Neither of those happened.

Agree that some teams are just waiting from 2019 and a huge flaw in the luxury tax system is the "reset" in tax rate down to 20% if a team gets under the cap for a year. IMO there should just be a tax rate. Getting under the line by $1 million one year should not save a team $30 million the next year. It just creates a loophole for teams to exceed the cap for less money.

Of course on the Phillies end they can easily add 3 free agents that add up to $100 million AAV without too much damage. The rest of their roster will be cheap for 5 years. And the logic of getting a free agent in 2018 is that the back end of the deal would be off the books when they are still paying a longer deal for someone like Machado a year later. As I have said, the Phillies need to figure out a way to use their cash to make the team better without sacrificing the future. Santana was a small step. But other teams like the Astros and the Yankees are figuring out more creative ways to add talent than the Phillies at this point.

andyb 2018-01-18 15:00:01 UTC #596

On that Passan article, a big part of it is players are simply getting a smaller share of revenue. We are headed to a strike or lockout next time unless the players get more. As I said, they have essentially gotten rolled in recent negotiations, accepting limits on their pay for small things like more off days in the schedule. I am guessing MLB will dangle a roster increase at some point which is in the "why should players care" category if 2 extra players (an 8% roster increase) are not accompanied by at least an 8% pay increase.

David_Criss 2018-01-18 15:44:08 UTC #597

If Moose would sign a 4 or 5 year deal in the 20 per give or take range, I'd jump for the joy if the Phillies did that instead of paying 25 to 30 mil per for Macahado next year. But looking at Moustakis gives me hope for Franco. It took a few years for Moose to put it together at the Major League level and change his approached this year. I think it was Sarge saying al year Franco has to change his approach. I watch Moose play in AA ball he looked like the next Mike Schmidt, but like Franco struggled his first few season at the big league level.

Austinfan 2018-01-18 15:49:41 UTC #598

The majority of players should value a roster increase over a salary increase.
Most players will never see a big FA playday, it's the big agents who push for the big salaries (that hurt other players).
If players were smart, they'd push for bigger rosters (more job security) and a spending floor, and a guaranteed share of revenue - and limit the length and size of FA contracts to avoid tying up too much revenue in a few players to the detriment of the majority of players.

andyb 2018-01-18 15:56:59 UTC #599

But that means a salary decrease on average. Have you ever offered to take a salary decrease in your job so they could hire a couple more people?

There is a fixed amount of money out there for player salary. These negotiations are about dividing that fixed money pie. And the majority of players should be able to advocate for a policy that increases that pie while also advocating for more equal distribution of pay (higher minimums, salary floor, pay increases for arbitration eligible players). This is what unions are all about.

What the owners are trying to do is your strategy. Give the players some crumbs at ZERO cost to yourself. The owners probably would increase the roster size to 50 if it were accompanied by the same salary/luxury tax rules. The players need to be smarter. They have gotten the short end of the stick in the past few deals and are just beginning to realize that.

gmwannabe 2018-01-18 16:48:44 UTC #600

Yeah, maybe you are right PC. i shouldn't have thrown in that 5' 8" part. i just see and remember that the 3rd sackers are fairly big and powerful. maybe i'm in the olden days in this thinking, but i will wouldn't give up on Franco for Harrison. I'd rather play walding there.
gm