2018-19 Phillies Off-Season Discussion (2019 version)

[julio]

Advantage of buying out Nola's arbitration years would be in getting a lower AAV a few years from now if we think that is an issue. 7-12-18 would be a 12.33 AAV. Of course if we go for both Machado and Harper that would be a bad idea.... But if we only add one of them it might be a good way to move some later salary forward.

So.... Possibly the Phils do not want to discuss a long-term deal with Nola until the Machado/Harper things settle out - which could come quite soon? When that's done, and they know more about what their payroll looks like for the next several years, then they talk multi-years with Nola. If that's the case, submitting a relatively low salary figure today (it's Nola's first arb year) could be a way of kicking the can down the road a couple of weeks.

[Austinfan]

They definitely add risk, heads the play wins, tails the team loses.
If the player over performs (or the market rises), player opts out, he wins, team loses potential upside.
If the player under performs, he doesn't opt out, team loses b/c they have to pay for performance below expectations.

So a team would pay less on a contract with opt outs, since the loss of potential upside means they'd value the player below his expected performance/value (which includes the probability of him over and under performing).
Player should compensate the team for the value of the opt out, which is basically a real option.

[Florida_Sunshine]

I hear you but none of which you, andy and AF account for the arm troubles Nola had just over a year ago.

No concern? IMO doesn't that override what likely turns out to be a minor cost control?

[bkox]

Todd Zolecki (ToddZolecki)

[andyb]

They definitely add risk, heads the play wins, tails the team loses.
If the player over performs (or the market rises), player opts out, he wins, team loses potential upside.
If the player under performs, he doesn't opt out, team loses b/c they have to pay for performance below expectations.

So a team would pay less on a contract with opt outs, since the loss of potential upside means they'd value the player before his expected performance/value (which includes the probability of him over and under performing).
Player should compensate the team for the value of the opt out, which is basically a real option.

How does letting a player go if they opt out increase risk? It makes the team lose upside, but risk is about the player underperforming as you say. This changes nothing in that respect. And if the player accepts a bit less money to get the opt out, one could argue the team is lowering the risk by offering the opt out.

You sure are in bed with ownership philosophically. Why should the player compensate the team? Perhaps the player should get rewarded if they play well. What a fantastic concept that would be rather than letting the billionaire owners reap excess profits.

Personally if they can save $10-$20 million to give the player the opt out I do that every single time because the one thing I do not want is a 36-38 year old player that is owed $35 million a year. That is the real risk. That is the Howard scenario.

[zambonir]

Most of the baseball writers keep saying - collusion alert - that teams are almost all committed to "file and trial" now, i.e. if they don't agree before the deadline, there's an actual hearing. But working on a new deal with Nola would certainly be another path.

Some background on MLB non-player pensions:

MLB teams can cut pensions for non-players

I imagine it is tiered the same way salary is - the bench coach and the pitching coach probably make the most money and get a pension (the hitting coach too, presumably). The 1B and 3B coaches don't get paid as well. I wouldn't have guessed that meant no pension whatsoever but either way it seemed like Flores was getting a promotion, because he was closer to the manager in Baltimore.

I'm sure the trend of going young, and having a lot of assistant coaches, means your total coaching staff is more guys making less on average. And if this is the case with a flush team like the Phillies imagine what, say, the bullpen coach for a team like the Royals might get?

[zambonir]

It's not really that big a spread, which is why it doesn't make a lot of sense. Wonder who was less willing to meet in the middle, Nola or the Phillies? Can't see how/why the Phillies would possibly want to have to get up in front of an arbitrator and talk about their most important player's injury history and that his 2018 might not be sustainable.

Jim Salisbury (JSalisburyNBCS)

[tom81]

Nola is asking for 50% more than the Phillies offered, I consider that a real big spread.

[julio]

A few more minor leaguers signed and invited to the big camp this spring:

Meghan Montemurro (M_Montemurro)

[allentown]

Since they research these things and the analytics department early on added a guy who analyzed arb award $ for the commissioner's office, I strongly suspect that the Phillies offer is what the arb stats say is a fair deal. I also think we all know that Nola just turned in a $25-30 million value season. This is a prime example of how flawed the arb system is and how badly it steals from young players. I hope he is award $6.75 million. He is a bargain at that salary -- a HUUUGE bargain.

Wow! -- I really underestimated that one. He just turned in a 10.5 rWAR season. So even with a conservative $7.5 million/WAR, we just got about $80 million of value for $573K of salary in 2018. Of course, he wouldn't be paid nearly that much -- for one, he only had a little over 4 WAR the prior season and also, you can't afford to give a pitcher 10 WAR worth of auction $/WAR, but we really got a deal there. We got about the preceding decades worth of draft bonus value in just one season of one guy.

[zambonir]

I guess I see it as more like 33% more. And that each side is only $1 million apart (well, 1.25). Of course it's also true that the Phillies' figure is still nearly 8 times more money than Nola made last year.

Thing is, the award can only be one figure or the other, if the Phillies are truly committed to "trial and file." And I don't see how either result is good for the team. Nola wins the arbitration, the Phillies were dumb not to offer him more. Phillies win the arbitration they have a player unhappy with them even if it's just the system. He could then go 10-10 with a 4.50 ERA next season and still get a $10 million award for 2020.

Up-thread, someone was surprised at how well Franco is going to make out. I don't agree with that, he deserves to be paid the way a career starter with his service time should be paid, if he was an all-star he'd deserve two or three times that (also, if the Phillies hadn't messed with his service time he'd be getting as much as Hernandez). But Nola obviously deserves a lot more than Franco.

[tom81]

Since they research these things and the analytics department early on added a guy who analyzed arb award $ for the commissioner's office, I strongly suspect that the Phillies offer is what the arb stats say is a fair deal.

I think the arb analyst got this one wrong. I think they were looking at old awards when revenues were lower. Nola’s season was pretty close statistically to all three of these guys and they should have put in an offer closer to Keuchel’s.

“The Phillies might be looking at the fact that only one first-time arbitration starter has been paid more than Dontrelle Willis' $4.35 million in 2006 and David Price's $4.35 million in '12: Dallas Keuchel's $7.25 million in '16, when he won the American League Cy Young Award. But Nola, who finished third in National League Cy Young Award voting last season, could be looking to raise the floor on a figure that has barely budged in 15 years.”

Aaron Nola, Phillies could go to arbitration

[zambonir]

But again, that's the system. Revenues have shot up and players have, for the most part, continued to receive their fare share of those revenues, but it all goes to later-year arbitration players and free agents.

Not that age is the same thing as service time but Keuchel was also 27 when he got that Cy, Nola is still 25 and therefore has more earning years ahead of him.

I think the Phillies are probably not wrong - we'd have to look at the guidelines but I think it's probably true that the arbitrators are obligated to hand out more money to a Cy Young Award winner than a third-place finisher. Obviously Nola's team has a lot of other very extraordinary benchmarks to use in their argument.

The Howard arbitration was not heated, at least.

[LoneStarPhan]

There is really no need for arbitration to turn ugly.

[tom81]

MLBTR’s projection system spit out a $6.6MM figure for Nola. If I’m the team i do everything you can to work out a deal for Nola. If that fails I tell the arbitrator that the team made a mistake and go with the players numbers. In this environment with the players it doesn’t make sense to build up any more ill will before the next collective bargaining agreement.

Unresolved 2019 Arbitration Cases

[Patchmk88]

Jake Arrieta on Twitter

Jake isn’t happy with the FA situation.

[David_Criss]

6.75 mil for Nola is a B A I R G A N. Dear God Neshek and Hunter are marking 9 mil each. Don't upset him over 2 mil.

[zambonir]

Jake's right. They need to get their act together before the next CBA, and the players who are over 26 need to think about helping the players who will be coming up after them, rather than just getting theirs now, since what they are getting now (and as they age) is obviously not going to be what it used to be.

Not that he's suffering, especially if the Phillies pick up his option. But he made less than $4 million in his Cy Young season. Neither side should actually want a system that rips you off when you are performing and then overpays you when you're broken.

[allentown]

Neither side should actually want a system that rips you off when you are performing and then overpays you when you're broken.

Yes, we presently have a very seniority-based system. That has been carried to extreme and when that happens, over time, there will simply be fewer seniors.

[Austinfan]

Seniors vote, minor leaguers, no matter how bright their future, don't vote.
So the system will always avoid making it too tempting to cut seniors in favor of kids, but also ensuring that most of the money goes to established players - a tough balance to maintain.
One thing is certain, young players just starting out will get underpaid.

However, one reason is simply because there is no reliable pipeline other than minor league development, even colleges rarely produce ML ready players (unlike say the NFL). So teams won't invest in development if they can't underpay young players for some extent of time.

The combination of vested interests by established players and team incentives to continue developing talent will limit how much the system can be changed.