2018 Season MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

allentown 2018-10-25 22:11:56 UTC #364

And some organizations have deliberately ducked below the lux cap for a season to reset the clock on penalties, which increase with repeated over-cap budgets. These organizations all have a salary budget well above what ours will be if we sign Machado as a FA.

Austinfan 2018-10-25 22:15:56 UTC #365

Red Sox got lucky they could dump a lot of their mistakes onto the Dodgers, then the new Dodger management worked to rid themselves of those albatross contracts.

I have nothing against signing free agents that are good value (I opposed Darvish last year for what is now obvious, over 30 pitchers are big gambles and should never get more than 3 year deals). I just don't think you can build a team that way, you can add some talent, you can take on some bad contracts from other teams, but in the end, buying WAR is too expensive to be used for more than marginal improvements.

And I still think Philly will never be a prime destination for top FAs except for someone like Trout in 2021.
We're best focusing on good value in the second tier FA market than be used by player agents to drive up the price of the top stars while missing better opportunities.
Our best bet on top FAs was like Arrieta last year, wait and see if the expected market never materializes, then move in with your value offer instead of getting caught up in the frenzy of a bidding war.
And of course you need luck, we signed the right player in Morton, just the wrong season.

andyb 2018-10-25 22:38:23 UTC #366

You would have opposed every high priced free agent last year. JD Martinez included. You also keep implying that people are recommending to build exclusively with free agency. Nobody is recommending that.

And I am not sure how the Red Sox got "lucky" dumping salary to the Dodgers. They were smart. But that deal was in 2012 (for Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett) and every big piece of that deal is retired from baseball. And the prospects the Red Sox got did not amount to much. The deal did put the Red Sox in position to sign more free agents and take on more salary when the time was right. But that type of deal has absolutely nothing to do with the Phillies current situation as we don't need to dump salary at all.

And the Dodgers went from 86 wins and 2nd place in 2012 to 92 wins and first place in 2013 after that trade. And they have finished first in every year since the trade, so that trade actually helped both teams.

mdougherty12 2018-10-25 23:24:43 UTC #367

Carl Crawford was the only real disastrous contract that Boston traded to LA. Adrian Gonzalez was pretty good for most of the length of his extension, though diminished from his best seasons. Josh Beckett's extension was only 4/$68 million and he was outstanding in 2011 and had some good stretches after the injuries hit. Not great value, but not a disaster either.

The Dodgers never really disposed of the albatross contracts, either. Beckett and Crawford finished their careers in LA. Adrian Gonzalez was the Dodgers' starting 1B for several years. They did eventually trade him with 1 year left on his contract, in the deal that brought Matt Kemp back to LA.

mdougherty12 2018-11-03 02:09:39 UTC #368

Kershaw signs a 3 year/$93 million deal, replacing the 2 years/$65 million he had left on the previous contract:

Austinfan 2018-11-03 16:10:00 UTC #369

I think this was a crazy contract, and the funny thing is this writer, while trying to justify it, agrees with me.
The problem is both his dramatic velocity decline and durability, he's close to the edge of the cliff.

He's has 21, 27 and 26 starts the last three years, still putting up top numbers, but I doubt he has 10 WAR left in that arm, and could be finished at any point. The upside is he barely justifies the contract, the downside is he craters.

julio 2018-11-03 16:24:50 UTC #370

It's the Dodgers' money, they have plenty of it - and if MLB stopped paying players "exorbitant" salaries, there would be no downward pressure on ticket prices, no reduction in concession/parking costs, no reduction in cable TV subscription rates, etc. - just more money in the bank accounts and investment portfolios of MLB ownership.

All those costs that fans pay - cable bills, ticket prices, concessions, merchandise - are driven by supply scarcity - not by the cost of producing those things.

My conclusion: Who cares how much players are paid? Those salaries don't impact fans' costs. Now, some MLB types might want me to think that fan costs are so high because of salaries - because justifying monopoly rents to the average baseball fan (assuming the fan understood what "monopoly rents" means) would be challenging (to say the least).

Just today, I saw articles - focused on Cleveland, but with more general relevance - which talked about the trend to reduce the number of seats in MLB venues, and increase the price of those seats. What's that about? That's about maximizing revenue in a monopoly market. Clubs don't have to worry about somebody else setting up shop next door, so they manipulate supply and prices to the point that they clear the maximum revenue. Reducing player salaries would have no impact on this strategy - it would just increase profits.

zambonir 2018-11-03 16:40:19 UTC #371

The Kershaw contract is nothing, it saves the Dodgers money in AAV, retains a beloved (and still productive) players and if he craters the third dead year is worth far more than not having him for the next two. Phillies would have loved to have him on that deal but of course had he gone full FA he would have gotten either more years or more AAV.

allentown 2018-11-04 01:43:05 UTC #372

You also need to credit him with pitching in 15 post-season games during that span. I agree he probably won't produce 10 WAR over the next 3 seasons. However, the cost per WAR will keep rising, being a LHSP adds scarcity points, there is a good chance of additional post-season starts, and he is an LAD hero so he is also going to sell tickets. He seems to have more gas in the tank. Vying for more WS makes the value of a WAR higher for LAD than for your average team. If they get over the top with Kershaw and wouldn't without him, then he'll easily be worth every penny. It's also not as though he's going to be an old SP when this contract ends. The Dodgers are well versed on his physical health/condition and his current ability/ rate of decline. They are an organization which has proven that they know what they're doing. There is risk in any contract, but the risk/reward on this one seems fine.

Austinfan 2018-11-04 21:39:49 UTC #373

Actually, it's about catering to the 1%, by reducing the number of seats, you can provide better service to the season ticket holders, shorter lines, better sight lines, etc., ensuring you sell more of the high priced seats at the loss of revenues from lower cost seats. This is more price discrimination than monopolization.

Which is fine by me, at some point I'll have my 80" UHD TV and see far more than I could ever see from the nosebleed seats even if I could afford them. So if the rich subsidize the game, at least that would be one benefit they're providing society.

mdougherty12 2018-11-08 02:42:10 UTC #374

The Braves hire Houston's former analytics head, Mike Fast:

zambonir 2018-11-08 03:29:04 UTC #375

I wonder where Fast's old boss Sig Mejdal is going to end up, and at what kind of level.

David_Criss 2018-11-08 18:12:22 UTC #376

Wow Seattle just snagged Mallex Smith and a top prospect from Tampa Bay for Cemeron Rupp clone Mike Zunino and pitching prospect who has only started 12 professional games.

tom81 2018-11-14 16:22:32 UTC #377

Additional Mariners news not good for the franchise. These are some ugly accusations.

Rosenthal talks about it today:

andyb 2018-11-15 18:15:46 UTC #378

MLB and Fox renew through 2028. There is definitely a fee increase though given this goes 10 years in the future it is probably more in the 3%-5% yearly increase category. Still an increase though and does not really touch any out of market streaming that MLB does.

baseballoldie 2018-11-15 18:44:27 UTC #379

Pretty amazing how MLB revenues are growing and how little of that revenue growth seems to be making its way to the players. Looking like its going to be a bumpy CBA negotiation next time around if the owners don't start spreading the wealth with the players.

Also, its absolutely disgusting to see how the MLB owners have total disregard for minor league player salaries given the revenue in the game.

andyb 2018-11-15 19:05:46 UTC #380

Definitely agree there. While the players released statements that their share of the revenue was constant, I think MLB continued to exclude certain categories of income from channel ownership and the like (which the Phillies benefit from of course). The luxury tax line went up much slower than overall revenues and we definitely now have evidence of teams exceeding the cap by smaller amounts to avoid penalties. I can't imagine how the players' share of revenue did NOT decrease last year.

If they spread the money around to minor leaguers it might be better, but they have only given token increases to them. The players definitely need better negotiators as they seem to go for shiny objects like a few more off days in the season rather than actual revenue.

Philsmania 2018-11-16 02:53:42 UTC #381

Ugh. Ten more years of Fox's tacky coverage.

LoneStarPhan 2018-11-16 03:36:03 UTC #382

I only hope that the coverage is not expanded. I hate missing games because they are on Fox.

andyb 2018-11-16 04:07:48 UTC #383

From the article it sounds like they will air a few more games on Fox once the new part of the agreement kicks in for 2022. They already have 2 national windows on Saturday (afternoon and prime time) and I imagine they will kick a few more games to Fox in prime time since Fox wants to do more sports now after selling their cable and studio properties to Disney.

Not a big change.