Nola and Phils Agree to Extension

andyb 2019-02-14 21:56:46 UTC #21

Agents not happy about the Nola extension. They thought he would have moved the line for first time pitching eligibles if he had gone to his hearing:

LoneStarPhan 2019-02-14 23:29:20 UTC #22

Remember, it is not the agent that is left out if a player gets a career ending injury while in his first arbitration year.

I have always thought that the clubs assumed way too much risk in the long deals if they were at projected market value. The player gets a guarantee in a deal like the Nola contract. For me, I'd do the Nola contract every time if I were the player.

zambonir 2019-02-15 00:09:00 UTC #23

Well, the math is still the same for an agent up to a point. They lose money on their clients getting hurt (or not being able to get as good a deal) that isn't automatically replaced by different clients. But only the player can decide what they are comfortable with. Obviously if Machado wanted to just get on with his life, play for the Yankees and report to camp tomorrow, he could tell both his agent and the MLBPA to pound sand.

Imagine how unhappy Boras would be if that happened.

tom81 2019-02-15 00:46:19 UTC #24

Me too, it sets you up for life and you get to play baseball for the team you know that has treated you well. On the other hand if I was Harper I’d take on the risk and go to max the money. He has already made over $45 million in his career so he is pretty much set for life now. I would bet on myself and take the shorter term deal for the high AAV that doesn’t tie you to one team for too long. I’d take the 3 year deal for the highest $ and bet that I’d still be a healthy stud in demand at 29. If you lose you still have that $100 million + from the 3 year deal.

dcsman 2019-02-15 04:42:45 UTC #25

Love this deal! I know I might be in the minority, but regardless of whether or not Harper or Machado sign here, I really think this offseason was really well done by Klentak and Co.

Jeff05 2019-02-15 05:18:16 UTC #26

You've got company, dcsman. Machado would be the absolute icing on top for me!

zambonir 2019-02-15 05:51:24 UTC #27

Stark's latest Athletic column surveying various insiders ranks Realmuto and Segura as two of the top three trades (Goldschmidt third) and Phillies as the second most-improved team in baseball (I think). After...the Mets.

el-pietro 2019-02-15 10:14:12 UTC #28

Agreed. They can't force Machado or Harper to sign a contract. I may criticize them if the eventual deals those players sign are much lower than expected but if the Phils offer is reasonable then I won't hold failing to get either star against them, though I will be disappointed.

bkeich 2019-02-15 13:43:26 UTC #29

"Agents not happy" is always a good sign.

andyb 2019-02-15 15:08:42 UTC #30

That means the players as a group will be unhappy once they realize arbitration awards are not rising as fast as baseball revenues. Happy is relative. Anyone should be happy making $10 million a year. But if you should really be making $12 million a year and that extra $2 million is just going into extra windfall profits for your boss - then you might be a little unhappy.

schillingfan 2019-02-15 15:31:44 UTC #31

Salaries are relative to profits. entertainment is one business where the workers are the indispensable part of making profit for the "owners." Personally I'm happy to see more going to the workers than the pockets of the one percent (good progressive that I am.) Corporate CEOs make hundreds of millions per year, including some banks which nearly wrecked our economy. Now that is obscene.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 15:42:39 UTC #32

You really need to look at the entire picture here.

Nola is now making a guaranteed $10M/year versus the $12M/year? The only way he makes the $12M/year is IF he stays healthy AND performs. And you can't mention the $2M windfall to the owners in isolation without also acknowledging the risk the owners take in the long term guaranteed contracts. Clearly, Nola made the decision he was happy without having to go year to year in arbitration and was willing to agree to a set number for his first couple of years of free agency. I still see more risk on this deal for the owners than anyone is mentioning.

andyb 2019-02-15 15:49:27 UTC #33

The big picture is different than what you lay out though. We are now finishing a second year where salaries have stayed flat or gone down. Revenues are still going up. Not 10% a year any more but likely at least 5%.

The argument about any individual player and risk is merely a distraction. We are mainly talking about the percentage of revenues that goes to player compensation. It is the system that is wrong here. There are no minimum salary requirements for teams. The luxury tax line went up at a much lower rate than revenues increased. Owners manipulate service time to pay players less.

And yes, lots of owners are choosing more profits over winning. Not just whether they make a profit, but whether they make a small profit or a large profit.

I was not criticizing Nola at all. He got a fair salary in the current system. But we are about to pay him $6 million when he was worth more than $50 million last year. In any fair system he would be paid even more than he is currently getting. It is the system that is wrong.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 15:55:38 UTC #34

I understand you are not criticizing Nola at all. I am criticizing the concept. I think you can still say that owners are making too much and more needs to go to the players. That was not my point.

The reason is because that gets negotiated by the players union and the owners. Separate issue from your comments that I said don't fairly present the correct picture.

The owners takes on much more risk in the scenario we discussed above. It really has nothing to do with this present agreement and how the economics have changed. That is for the next CBA to negotiate out.

andyb 2019-02-15 16:08:59 UTC #35

Not if a team with a revenue stream like the Phillies could still make money with a $250 million payroll. There is risk in any individual contract, but I think you overestimate the risk for a team like the Phillies. There certainly would be more risk for a smaller market team, but collectively the risk for deals like this are pretty minimal. Nola would need to average less than 1.5 WAR over the next 4 years for the contract to be worth it and that would value WAR at less than $8 million per. That is just not a whole lot or risk for about 25 teams in MLB (and all 30 of them would have done this deal most likely).

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 16:15:08 UTC #36

No, it is still a big risk of the resources of the team.

On any guaranteed contract, the risk is of whether that player performs to the contract. Obviously, if injured, he does not.

It really has nothing to do with revenue streams of the teams. They are entitled to make decisions on how and who they sign. If they sign a player that blows out his arm or gets dead arm, that is lost opportunity.

Owners are the ones stuck with this risk. I understand you are ambivalent because you are not happy with the CBA, but that is a different concept.

I, for one, wish there were no guaranteed contracts. Go year to year, nothing guaranteed. Pay players what you think they are worth, be able to adjust to market conditions, player performance, etc.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 16:16:50 UTC #37

Also, you are using the max for WAR. I thought I read where you were using that as if every player could be evaluated that way and that was not valid.

andyb 2019-02-15 16:21:54 UTC #38

$8 million is on the low side of WAR based on the current free agent market. It has been a bit higher ($9 million plus) in past years. Arbitration levels of course are lower, but you can't get those players on the open market.

I'll continue to disagree about risk. There are guaranteed revenue streams in baseball. The Phillies will make a profit if Nola blows his arm out, even if they had to sign a $20 million a year replacement. The risk is more about not being able to replace a 25-year-old star with anyone as good. But it is decidedly NOT a risk of losing money. If Nola is that good, he should be paid more to reflect that value. You just continue to overestimate the risk. Revenues increasing coupled with lower salaries means owners have less risk pure and simple.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 16:32:26 UTC #39

Herein lies our difference. I am talking about the risk on the contract for an owner. You have already made the decision that owners make too much money and can still make a profit. But honestly, you have no clue. How can you make a broad brush statement that the owners would still make money with a payroll of $250M. My degree is in accounting and there is so much we do not know. Starting with, you ommitted the profit that an owner is entitled to make. It really has nothing to do with whether or not a team can be profitable with a payroll of $250M. You should acknowledge you have no idea.

But, you did change the subject from my saying you failed to account for the risk an owner takes on a long term contract and jumped into the aspects of the CBA and your personal feelings toward that agreement. Some of your points are valid. Others are not.

This was my original premise. You really need to look at the entire picture here.

You and I don't know if the Phillies can be profitable at a payroll of $250M .........more importantly it is not relevant to the risk an owner takes on a guaranteed contract.

I think Nola took it because he knows he had arm troubles and did not want to deal with the risk of going year to year on contracts, whether arbitration or free agency, when he could lock in a guaranteed amount that is likely below full value if he performs. In his position, I would have done the same. But, here was my main point, he transferred that risk to the owners. All the other stuff you brought up is off topic and needs to be discussed under a CBA discussion and I already stated my position that I wish all contracts were not guaranteed.

andyb 2019-02-15 16:43:56 UTC #40

This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. Never said an owner is not entitled to a profit. You however are just suspending reality when you say we don't know much. We do know a lot.

We don't know the specific profit and loss for any individual club (and lots of revenue is shielded on balance statements from stadiums and Cable channel ownership), but we do have some public sources. The Phillies made $88 million and $91 million the past 2 years. They probably made more from their cable channel ownership. Their franchise value has doubled in the past 5 years to $1.7 billion. These are facts. The cable revenue stream is guaranteed. And they could make a whole lot more money by selling more tickets to a team that is actually good.

So don't pretend to say we know nothing about the Phillies revenue. A 4/45 deal for a 25-year-old star has very little risk for the Phillies. A $300 million deal for an older player has more risk of course but we are not talking about that. Perhaps you should check your ownership bias a little bit too. There is nothing I have said that is not true even if we can't verify every single fact.