2021 MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes

zambonir 2021-01-26 20:53:27 UTC #3

That's 25%. I just don't see how they'll do better than that (at least not in many states) even by September, nor do I think 20,000 people will actually want to attend games.

David_Criss 2021-01-26 22:02:32 UTC #4

zambonir 2021-01-27 00:25:23 UTC #5

One year, $18 million.

A mere $1.5 for Freddy

zambonir 2021-01-28 20:56:17 UTC #6

I'm feeling kind of good about the Mets. Not that this hedge fund business will actually hurt them (though a lot of jokes right now that they'll have to pull their offer) but so far there is little to suggest they will become a more functional organization. And as we know ourselves, dysfunctional with money can sometimes be worse than dysfunctional and cheap.

zambonir 2021-01-30 02:53:21 UTC #7

Well, now we kinda need to go after Story. But still don't probably have the trade capital. But if Didi slips away...

BREAKING: Cardinals have agreed to acquire Nolan Arenado from Rockies, sources tell @TheAthletic . Deal pending approval from both MLB and players’ union; Rockies sending Cardinals significant cash, believed to be in $50M range, and Arenado will be deferring money.
— Ken Rosenthal ( @Ken_Rosenthal ) January 30, 2021

xogfog 2021-01-30 03:27:09 UTC #8

Cardinals trade for Nolan Arenado

zambonir 2021-01-30 03:29:19 UTC #9

No way!

LoneStarPhan 2021-01-30 08:01:44 UTC #10

Looks like the reports are true.

Reports are that the Rockies are sending fifty million to the Cardinals. Will Trevor Story be the next to move?

andyb 2021-01-30 14:13:21 UTC #11

Seems to be a fascinating trade. No top prospects. Just guys in the top 20. Colorado mainly gets out of all but $50 million of the contract and that is their win. The Cardinals potentially take on $149 million over 6 years with a $15 million 7th year tacked on the end. And there are opt-outs so it could only be a 1 or 2 year deal (though whether Arenado could improve his future contract which would be 4 or 5 years left at over $30 million AAV is debateable.

The Cardinals had room to take on a huge salary for middling prospects. The Phillies did not. It is risky on the St. Louis end if he opts out or regresses, but it really does not risk much of their future talent so really not all that risky. Looks a bit like the kind of deal the Yankees would make to take on an ARod which is surprising from a mid-revenue market team.

fish 2021-01-30 16:08:36 UTC #12

A deal for Story feels like it would get complicated. I think they’d need Kingery included, but for the Phils to balance taking on his 17 million they’d have to include segura (and probably pay half his salary). But including Segura means giving up more- like including Howard. To replace Howard the Phils would probably want Jon Gray, then the rest of the deal includes Stott, Morales, and another.

Howard is probably the deal breaker for me, but replacing with Gray sure makes it more palatable.

zambonir 2021-01-30 18:03:13 UTC #13

Well, it's moot now.

The Phillies and Rockies were basically in the same place heading into 2019, except the Rockies had just made the playoffs twice. They locked up Blackmon in 2018 and re-upped Arenado two days before we signed Harper. They only lost two more games than we did last year. Hope we're not where they are in a year or two.

zambonir 2021-01-31 19:57:42 UTC #14

Seems to me that's a deal the union ought to take. You would think the next offer would be fewer games.

I assume official spring training dates will also shift if this happens. Question is, does "expanded" mean 12, 14 or 16 teams?

MLB on Friday proposed to the union a 154-game schedule with full pay, delayed by a month and extended by a week, sources say. Also, with expanded postseason. Union considering.
— Tim Brown ( @TBrownYahoo ) January 31, 2021

LoneStarPhan 2021-01-31 20:06:58 UTC #15

More on the proposed 154 game schedule, etc.

zambonir 2021-01-31 21:16:23 UTC #16

I would think the actual details (and financial distribution) of expanded post-season is the real x factor. Because unless the owners are willing to try and declare emergency powers again, the players don't have to do anything, and it's understandable if they'd say, "just pay us for the 8 games you don't want us to play. Or let's play them."

I mean, it's such a small # that if they do delay the season a month they could just have doubleheaders to stay at 162.

One assumes what the owners want out of the next CBA is a 154-game season with expanded playoffs, and that's an issue here as well, the players don't want to give them a free test run/concession to that before they have to.

But it comes back to the emergency thing. If it doesn't happen the players hold all the cards. If it does the owners can start cutting games again but we're looking at grievances and labor fights (most of which are coming anyway).

andyb 2021-01-31 21:22:47 UTC #17

Why do the players have to take any of these offers? Every other sport is playing. The owners are contractually obligated to do 162 games unless something extraordinary happens.

Their offer would be more credible if it were a 162 game offer. The players might give them the expanded postseason if they got that. There is just no reason for the players to give up something they already have.

zambonir 2021-01-31 21:33:05 UTC #18

Yeah I gave it a little more thought after my first post. But I still think the owners are willing to fight/play fewer games. And I don't think it has to be that crazy for them to claim there's still an emergency. The pandemic isn't over. And there are probably still setbacks ahead.

And baseball isn't like the other sports: twice as many games, twice as many fans for a sellout, more dependent on in-person revenue.

"You guys are full of it, just honor the CBA," is a perfectly understandable position, but so long as the owners don't budge from their own "we're losing money just by playing games" pretense there's no middle ground. The two sides aren't even playing the same sport, really. One side wants baseball and one side wants to maximize efficiencies and profitability.

andyb 2021-01-31 21:37:50 UTC #19

What is a little unclear from the tweets is what "full" pay means. Remember last Spring the negotiations were over the number of games and pro-rated pay. If this was 162 games of pay for 154 games then the players might be more serious.

There is also the matter of injuries. They are starting 4 weeks later. Ending 2 weeks later. And dropping a little more than a week of games (8).

So we know they are getting rid of some off days and potentially adding some DHs. A compressed 154 game schedule seems dangerous.

Frankly there is no guarantee the fan situation will be better a few weeks later in any of these places. The whole AZ farce was an MLB lobbyist grasstops creation. If I am a player I have no trust here and just want to play. I might suggest delaying Spring Training 10 days until the mandatory reporting date (2/27) but unless the MLB offer does more I am not that interested.

andyb 2021-01-31 21:40:03 UTC #20

In baseball news, Rodon returns to the White Sox for the same deal we gave Moore:

I am guessing he had a similar market and the connection with Chicago meant he was going to take that, but I might have preferred Rodon's upside to Moore's better durability. Taijuan Walker is another arm with some upside out there that might sign shortly for something modest.

zambonir 2021-01-31 23:49:02 UTC #21

I guess the additional report suggest no proration, so I don't see any downside for the players there. Just a question of how much they are willing to balance out those eight games of "free" labor against the playoff money.

I imagine they could also work out some kind of salary advance for players who would actually struggled to wait another five weeks for their opening day paycheck. But what about the minor leaguers?

julio 2021-02-01 00:56:25 UTC #22

I would like to think that it's only the minor leaguers who might "struggle to wait another five weeks for their opening day paycheck." If you have to "struggle" over one or two paychecks when you're pulling down $570k a year (major league minimum)... you have bigger problems. I would say the same about guys who aren't technically "major leaguers," but who are on 40-man rosters. The minimum salary for theses guys is $93,000 (or $46,600, if they've only been on a 40-man roster since November 2020). There's very little reason why a 20-something kid should be "struggling" with that kind of salary. I mean, yeah, some kids make bad choices (about where to live, how much to spend on excessive housing, vehicles, etc.), but really?

Now, minor leaguers (not on 40-man rosters) are a different story. Struggling is pretty common there. On the other hand, if the minor league camp is delayed, those minor leaguers who actually have off-season jobs (even at minimum wage!) might be better off, if they can stay in those off-season jobs for an extra month, which would likely pay them more than a month playing for a minor-league club.

I'm sure individual cases could be found where a delay creates a hardship; but in general, I don't buy it.