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

[jimbomill]

if Harper takes the shorter deal with LA then he's following his heart over his bank account...

His bank account will still be v e r y healthy

[bigegypt0417]

if Harper takes the shorter deal with LA then he's following his heart over his bank account...

His bank account will still be v e r y healthy

Agreed!

[Squire]

I mean one of the rare superstar 26 year old free agent players in MLB history bypassing a 10 year guaranteed contract (with a 3-4 year opt out) for a straight 3-4 year deal and thus making him a free agent at age 29-30 (when those guys are getting barely a sniff in the current free agent market) would be a fairly stunning business decision even if he is "following his heart"

[allentown]

Both taking the shorter deal and demanding a 3-year opt out on the longer deal, is a vote of confidence in himself that his value will increase or at least stay the same over the next 3-4 seasons and that he will stay healthy. In a sense, getting less per year and getting your money later is a fearful, defensive vote that you will be injured or your career will go downhill. It is essentially buying insurance -- a willingness to accept fewer $ over the next few seasons, in return for career income security.

[bigegypt0417]

My thought is the players association will fight very hard to not let that happen but who knows...the danger for them is that teams see this deal and start offering less years.

[Squire]

I think Boras himself will be fighting hard to not let that happen. He looks weak since Lozano got Machado a 10 year guarantee and Arenado's agent got him an 8 year guarantee while he was still under club control.

[Lawman]

Jon Morosi (jonmorosi)

[Eisenreich]

That tweet seems to state the obvious. But have we had any indication at all that LA would do a long term deal? Or were they planning on paying him over 300 million in a short term deal? I don’t get it.

[Jazzhead]

The Arenado contract's three-year opt out probably makes it more likely that the Phils will have to provide for a similar opt out. Maybe after four years - which would still be sooner than the five year opt-out in the Machado contract.

But an opt-out allows Harper the same flexibility to test the market again as he would under a short term deal, with the added security of the contract's out years should he choose not to do so. That would appear to be added reason to sign with the Phils if there are indeed the only ones offering a 10-year deal. If Harper turns it down under those circumstances, that says to me what I've been suggesting all along: Harper/Boras are using the Phils strictly as leverage and have not been negotiating with us in good faith.

[zambonir]

Adam Jones - who actually refused to play for the Phillies already, unlike Harper who has done no such thing- is 33 and in defensive decline, he can't play CF anymore unless you have a last place team (like the Orioles did last year). He's not any better than Altherr or Williams, and definitely worse than Herrera or Quinn.

Y'all know we're gonna do this again for Trout right? There's not going to be a hometown discount. He's going to want $400 million. Or we'll have to give up a bunch of talent we don't actually have (now that Sixto's gone) for the trade an early extension (but that could save them some money, sure).

Honestly, it's an emotional rollercoaster at this point but it was always assumed the Phillies would either have to way outbid the Dodgers or lose him to the Dodgers, if they got into the same financial ballpark with their offer. They just weren't in the game until now, supposedly. There's a lot of public/media pressure on them to spend.

If we lose we can always trade for one of their OFs

[California_Dreamin]

FWIW Dept....Stark on the radio today said he has been told "by a guy in the know" that Trout will never make it to free agency. Now, does that mean he signs an extension with the Angels? No, but it does mean that if he is traded people believe he will agree to an extension BEFORE he is dealt.

[Patchmk88]

Well unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough young talent to trade for him. That means if Stark is right that we’ll never see Trout in a Phillies uniform.

[zambonir]

I think that's a very wishful interpretation. How would anyone even know that? How would Trout even know that yet? He does have a full no-trade so sure, in theory he could block a trade to any team that doesn't also give him the huge deal at the time of the trade. He could also block a trade to anyone but the Phillies.

But the Occam's Razor interpretation of that is still that the Angels are ready to make a big enough offer, that he is ready to take it, and that he's not pining to hit the open market.

[Jazzhead]

I think that's a very wishful interpretation. How would anyone even know that? How would Trout even know that yet? He does have a full no-trade so sure, in theory he could block a trade to any team that doesn't also give him the huge deal at the time of the trade. He could also block a trade to anyone but the Phillies.

I think if it's an interpretation based on insider information, it's probably information about the inclinations of Angels management. If the Angels can't sign Trout to an extension, they will trade him to a team that will sign him to an extension. Trout would have to cooperate to make that happen, and it is this scenario that most plausibly gets him to the Phils.

The Angels have to win this year, or the stage will be set to trade Trout for prospects, to a team that will pay well because it will sign Trout to an extension.

[zambonir]

I don't know that Trout will want to leave the Angels if they don't win, nor do I think they will trade him if they don't win. Keeping their star is is more important to them (i.e. their owner) than a rebuild and if the Angels write the check why wouldn't he want to stay? Manny Machado just signed with a last-place team. Also, he doesn't actually like attention (just ask Rob Manfred). Far easier to stay anonymous in Anaheim and go to Eagles games. If he played for the Phillies he wouldn't be able to leave the house. (I'm not saying he won't come here of course but staying where he is still seems the most likely scenario at this point).

I think the only information anyone has is that the Angels want to get him signed. Same information that was out there about Arenado, but probaby less of a sure thing. It's unlikely the Angels and his agent have even discussed trade scenarios. Usually players with no-trade clauses aren't even approached until there's an actual offer, and only then does a discussion of whether he would approve it, as well as possible extensions, even come up.

[Florida_Sunshine]

I think Trout is different. Just like we can say Harper likely prefers LA due to proximity to home, wouldn’t we apply the same to our local guy?

Where does Trout always gravitate towards? Where are his friends?

Yes, if we spurn him, he could likely stay in Anaheim but I think we want him. Would rather pay him big bucks than any other player I can think of.

[el-pietro]

I don't think Trout is trade-able. Hes one of the greatest players of all time, and other than Barry Bonds he is probably the best in 30+ years. Its impossible for a team to give up a fair deal for him without crippling themselves.

What is the upside for Anaheim in trading him? What do they get back that's worth more than just having Trout for an extra season/end of season? Yeah there will eventually be a point where in terms of pure total value the prospects you get back are worth more long term than just keeping Trout but Mike Trout is worth more than just pure wins and losses.

Maybe at the deadline in 2020 if the Angels are 15+ games out of it and he has an opportunity to go to a winner for a playoff run he gets a move if he asks the Angels to let him go but other than that I don't see it.

[jimbomill]

Stark on the radio today said he has been told "by a guy in the know"

Well unless the guy is Mike Trout, there's opinion rather than fact in that statement. Of course, even if it were MT, things change ....

[saycheese]

Trout is trade able if Babe Ruth can be traded anyone can be. We certainly have more than enough to get it done however I say that with a caveat. We would have to put in more quantity of good players than a couple of star level players. Looking at the Angels roster would they turn down Herrera or Williams, plus Franco or Kingery, plus Domingez or Edgar Garcia plus Choose two of Eflin, Pivetta, De La Santos, Ervin etc. Plus Bohm, Medina, Garcia and either Haseley or Moniak. That is a ton of players, 5 of which would be immediately on the team. Plus they would get prospects in Bohm, Medina, Garcia and either Hasely or Moniak. I will offer up that no team should ever trade that much but to illustrate the fact we could indeed make it happen and in fact do it without too much hurt to the major league team. Trout replaces the either Herrera or Williams, Whomever they don't take is at third base, We could spend money to buy one more starter or go with the two who were not picked. Losing the minor leaguers would be the problem as we would take a huge hit on depth.
I am not advocating this type of deal just putting out the converse that it could happen.

[allentown]

Babe Ruth was traded in an era of unstable ownership in which star players were traded in order to meet payroll. No ownership group is that desperate today and if one became that desperate, I suspect the commish would organize a sale of the franchise. The Athletics also made deals like this. It was a very bad look for the game.