2015-2016 Offseason Thread

[nicksaviking]

Upton is a guy that would excite and terrify me at the same time. I always dislike un-attributed comments about a guys poor dedication or work ethic but those things certainly dog Upton. If they were true, and I'm not claiming they are, you'd think those issues would really take hold after a guy got his big contract. And now that he's a Tiger, I totally hope they're true.

 

As far as his production goes, his OBP has been dropping for a few years and Detroit has a tendency to sap some power. I see some pretty good bust potential here. Cespedes seemed like a much better fit to me, unlike many players, his power didn't seem diminished, and he's a better fielder.

[amjgt]

This paragraph from MLBTR just makes me sad:

 

Lynn Henning of the Detroit News breaks down the series of events that led to the Tigers’ signing of Justin Upton to a six-year, $132.75MM contract today. As Henning notes, owner Mike Ilitch went into the club’s annual offseason holiday break with some reservations about the concept of a Cameron Maybin/Tyler Collins platoon in left field. By the time Tigers’ brass returned to their offices, Ilitch was committed to signing one of Upton, Yoenis Cespedes or Alex Gordon to upgrade in left field. Tigers scouts and analysts went to work on making as informed a decision as possible, and GM Al Avila consulted with assistant Alan Trammel and Tigers broadcaster Kirk Gibson about their personal experiences with Upton from the trio’s days together in Arizona. Henning notes that Detroit also considered Chris Davis, as Jon Heyman reported, but ultimately concerns over his ability to handle left field at Comerica Park eliminated him from the fold. Upton’s age and superior on-base percentage appear to have been focal points in the decision, though Henning notes that Cespedes was under serious consideration until last week. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports tweeted the same yesterday, noting that Detroit negotiated with both Upton and Cespedes simultaneously before deciding on Upton.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/whitesox-yoenis-cespedes-three-years.html

[amjgt]

In that same article is this nugget, which might actually be the most interesting thing (twins related) that I've seen on MLBTR all off season.

 

La Velle E. Neal of the Minneapolis Star Tribune tweets that Twins scouts believe left-hander Fernando Abad was tipping his pitches last season, which resulted in the veteran’s struggles. The Twins believe they can correct the issue, per Neal, which would give Abad a shot to break camp with the club. Minnesota signed the 30-year-old to a minor league deal earlier this offseason. Abad posted a 4.15 ERA with Oakland last season but had recorded a 2.27 ERA across 95 innings in the two seasons prior.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In that same article is this nugget, which might actually be the most interesting thing (twins related) that I've seen on MLBTR all off season.

 

La Velle E. Neal of the Minneapolis Star Tribune tweets that Twins scouts believe left-hander Fernando Abad was tipping his pitches last season, which resulted in the veteran’s struggles. The Twins believe they can correct the issue, per Neal, which would give Abad a shot to break camp with the club. Minnesota signed the 30-year-old to a minor league deal earlier this offseason. Abad posted a 4.15 ERA with Oakland last season but had recorded a 2.27 ERA across 95 innings in the two seasons prior.

Massively off-topic, but I saw that too.  Problem is, Abad's issues go back a lot further than just tipping pitches last season.  He actually has reverse platoon splits, with awful numbers vs LHB for 3 of the last 4 years.  And we're priming him to be our top lefty setup man...

[biggentleben]

Jared Burton has received a 50-game suspension.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/jared-burton-receives-fifty-game-suspension.html

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

Cespedes returns to the Mets for (potentially) $75 million. There's an opt-out after the first year and some provision that he will make $27.5 if he opts out (it's not clear from the currently published terms how that's structured, or what his base salary is if he doesn't opt out.)

 

That's a lot of money per year, but pretty interesting to see how the negotiations balanced a big annual value against a shorter than usual contract for a big free agent.

 

Since the Mets are my "other" team, I was always kind of hoping they'd bring Cespedes back, even if there were some objectively decent reasons not to.

[Willihammer]

3/75 is only half of MLBTR's pre-offseason predictions, which are usually pretty close.

Is it just me or are a lot of Boras clients signing underwhelming contracts under the current CBA?

[biggentleben]

 

3/75 is only half of MLBTR's pre-offseason predictions, which are usually pretty close.

Is it just me or are a lot of Boras clients signing underwhelming contracts under the current CBA?

 

Cespedes is with Jay-z's Roc Nation Sports, not Boras

 

Perhaps that's true regardless of agent, but notice that most are taking opt outs that position them to hit free agency again after 2017 or even earlier. I wonder if there's some sentiment that there's going to be some big money headed the players' way in the new CBA.

[kab21]

The opt out is going to be viewed differently when we look back at this era of baseball.  I think teams are really going to regret letting this become standard.

 

It was a banner year for FA's and I don't think there were enough teams willing to sign FA's to massive deals.  One reason is that the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers have loaded rosters with bloated contracts already. 

[USAFChief]

I guess I don't see why an opt out is such a big negative for a team.

 

One of the reasons many posters here dislike big FA signings is paying for the "decline phase" years at the end of the contract.

 

An opt out seems to me to make that less likely. In fact, were I a GM, I'd sort of hope the player performs well enough to opt out. I got a free agent for a year or three, at a price that already factors in the long term risk, and am then out from under the contract.

 

I'd have had to pay a lot more to get that one to three year deal up front,if I even could.

[DaveW]

Cespedes basically is setting himself up for a 180 million dollar payday if he has a monster 2016.

 

Smart move on his part.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I guess I don't see why an opt out is such a big negative for a team.

One of the reasons many posters here dislike big FA signings is paying for the "decline phase" years at the end of the contract.

An opt out seems to me to make that less likely. In fact, were I a GM, I'd sort of hope the player performs well enough to opt out. I got a free agent for a year or three, at a price that already factors in the long term risk, and am then out from under the contract.

I'd have had to pay a lot more to get that one to three year deal up front,if I even could.

 

Well, there are a few articles on Fangraphs explaining why it is generally advantageous for the player, not for the team, to have opt outs.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd have had to pay a lot more to get that one to three year deal up front,if I even could.

But that same statement is true if the player performs great in the first 1-3 years of the deal -- you'd have to pay a lot more to get them to re-sign for another ~3 years at that point.  Greinke is a common example, the Dodgers got a nice deal for his first 3 years but give that performance, they absolutely would have wanted him another 3 years, but that wasn't possible with the opt out.

 

It's probably not worth a ton to the player.  A couple estimates for David Price's opt out valued it from $10-13 mil, or 5-6% of his total contract value.  I'd think teams like the Red Sox or Dodgers would have no problem paying that premium, so who knows, maybe the players value it a lot higher than that.

[kab21]

 

I guess I don't see why an opt out is such a big negative for a team.

One of the reasons many posters here dislike big FA signings is paying for the "decline phase" years at the end of the contract.

An opt out seems to me to make that less likely. In fact, were I a GM, I'd sort of hope the player performs well enough to opt out. I got a free agent for a year or three, at a price that already factors in the long term risk, and am then out from under the contract.

I'd have had to pay a lot more to get that one to three year deal up front,if I even could.

The team takes on all of the risk and the player gets big leverage.

 

Let's assume that most FA's are 28-31 yrs old.  Some prime or near prime years left and then decline.

 

Scenario A - Player performs great and the team wins.  Sort of.  After 2-3 yrs they either lose the player or sign them to an even bigger deal (that really ends up in the decline years).  The Dodgers got great value out of Greinke but now they have a hole in their rotation.  They would certainly prefer to have Greinke for the original contract.  At the time I doubt anyone was offering more money than that.

 

Scenario A (pt 2) - The team is forced to resign the player opting out because they can't afford to lose them.  This is the ARod  and CC scenario where the Yankees gave new contracts to the players well past their primes and are going to pay for it.

 

Scenario B - The player underperforms the contract and the team is stuck with that contract.

 

The bigger concern is the new Cespedes contract.  Give me guaranteed money AND continual free agency.  If this becomes the norm then offseasons will definitely not be boring for fans at least. 

[Willihammer]

The Dodgers cannot possibly have any regrets about the Greinke deal. They got great value over the last three years. And now they have cash to go sign Maeda who will be 28 and is a decent bet to give better value over the next 3 years than Greinke. Plus they get a comp pick.

 

IMO where the equation favors the player more is when you have an older, less elite player, and where the money is backloaded. The Kennedy-Royals contract, basically. That is going to burn the Royals.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Dodgers cannot possibly have any regrets about the Greinke deal. They got great value over the last three years. And now they have cash to go sign Maeda who will be 28 and is a decent bet to give better value over the next 3 years than Greinke. Plus they get a comp pick.

Wouldn't they have liked to have Greinke on a 3/84 deal right now, though?  (That's 3/74 that was remaining on his deal, plus $10 mil as an assumed "discount" that the got for the opt out, although that would have been spread over all 6 years.)  That's probably more valuable to them than the comp pick.  And they certainly didn't need to shed Greinke to guarantee $25 mil to Maeda.  Perhaps without the looming opt out, the Dodger could have been less aggressive last offseason in signing Brandon McCarthy?

[Willihammer]

 

Wouldn't they have liked to have Greinke on a 3/84 deal right now, though?  (That's 3/74 that was remaining on his deal, plus $10 mil as an assumed "discount" that the got for the opt out, although that would have been spread over all 6 years.)  That's probably more valuable to them than the comp pick.  And they certainly didn't need to shed Greinke to guarantee $25 mil to Maeda.  Perhaps without the looming opt out, the Dodger could have been less aggressive last offseason in signing Brandon McCarthy?

OK well the McCarthy deal looks bad because they got a player in his decline years (and an oft-injured one at that). It really clashes with their Greinke and Maeda contracts which suggest they value youth. Like Chief said, the whole idea seems to be about avoiding decline years. In the rare case that someone opts out and proceeds to not decline as most other players do, that's not much of a risk at all. That's an exceptional player.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yeah, in the Greinke case, they got 3 years of an exceptional player.  But even without the opt out, they would have gotten those same 3 years, plus they would now have that exceptional player effectively signed to a nice short term contract. And either way, they were stuck paying him the full 6 years if he got hurt or didn't perform.

 

If the opt out discount is really just ~5% as suggested by some, it's really not worth it for teams signing elite talent, I don't think.  But it's such a trend now, maybe players are pegging the discount much higher (i.e. saying "it would take 15-20% more than this to get me to waive my opt out demand").

[Willihammer]

 

Yeah, in the Greinke case, they got 3 years of an exceptional player.  But even without the opt out, they would have gotten those same 3 years, plus they would now have that exceptional player effectively signed to a nice short term contract. And either way, they were stuck paying him the full 6 years if he got hurt or didn't perform..

*In the first three years, when that risk is relatively small. But it grows every year he remains under contract after that. The opt-out precludes him falling off a table in years 4+ and leaving the Dodgers with the bill (and saves ~5% off the price tag, and raises the chances for a comp pick). That is the upside for teams missing from Kab's scenario A.

 

I mean, unless there's another reason. Nobody points a gun to a team's head when they sign these contracts. Clearly they see some benefit to them.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

*In the first three years, when that risk is relatively small. But it grows every year he remains under contract after that. The opt-out precludes him falling off a table in years 4+ and leaving the Dodgers with the bill (and saves ~5% off the price tag, and raises the chances for a comp pick). That is the upside for teams missing from Kab's scenario A.

But in that scenario, the player just completed 3 exceptional years.  The likelihood of him falling of the table the very next year is slim.  Such downside risk would be very minimal throughout any 3 year contract coming off of 3 exceptional years, I would think.

 

The Dodgers would have gladly resigned Greinke for 3/84 or whatever this winter if possible, actually they probably tried to offer him much more than that and lost out.  They weren't smartly saving $10 mil and netting a comp pick, while escaping from some great year 4-6 downside risk.  Frankly, I think the Dodgers were a little surprised themselves that Greinke performed as well as he did in LA.

 

 

I mean, unless there's another reason. Nobody points a gun to a team's head when they sign these contracts. Clearly they see some benefit to them.

 

The benefit is, they get the player.  These opt outs are so common now (Ian Kennedy!) and so extreme (Cespedes after 1 year!) that it's almost becoming a non-negotiable demand from the player.

 

Obviously I'm not crying for any teams here, just trying to lay out the facts.  If I were the teams, I'd try to be pretty aggressive in paying up front to avoid opt outs, for elite talent, anyway -- guys I'd love to have through age 34 like Greinke but might prefer not to extend through age 37 if I can help it.  But that cat may be out of the bag now.

[Willihammer]

The bottom line is I find it highly unlikely that the market is so inefficient as to favor players in a lopsided way over ownership. The fact that teams continue to agree to opt-out clauses after players keep excercising them, proves the fairness of the deals to both parties. Whether they do it to avoid decline years, etc. is speculation on my part. I admit I could be completely wrong about that (but I doubt it).

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't know.  Obviously pre-FA deals favor ownership in a lopsided way over players.  And to some degree, baseball history since the 1970's has shown a gradual favoring of players over ownership in free agency.  Wouldn't surprise me if opt-outs were the latest part of that.  I don't think it's necessarily lopsided, but it's there whether the teams like it or not.

[USAFChief]

But in that scenario, the player just completed 3 exceptional years. The likelihood of him falling of the table the very next year is slim. Such downside risk would be very minimal throughout any 3 year contract coming off of 3 exceptional years, I would think.

 

The Dodgers would have gladly resigned Greinke for 3/84 or whatever this winter if possible, actually they probably tried to offer him much more than that and lost out. They weren't smartly saving $10 mil and netting a comp pick, while escaping from some great year 4-6 downside risk. Frankly, I think the Dodgers were a little surprised themselves that Greinke performed as well as he did in LA.

 

 

 

 

The benefit is, they get the player. These opt outs are so common now (Ian Kennedy!) and so extreme (Cespedes after 1 year!) that it's almost becoming a non-negotiable demand from the player.

 

Obviously I'm not crying for any teams here, just trying to lay out the facts. If I were the teams, I'd try to be pretty aggressive in paying up front to avoid opt outs, for elite talent, anyway -- guys I'd love to have through age 34 like Greinke but might prefer not to extend through age 37 if I can help it. But that cat may be out of the bag now.

What you're missing is, the Dodgers got three great years from Grienke on a contract they couldn't have gotten if it was originally just for three years. They can take whatever was left on Grienke's deal and spend it again on younger player(s). Any team would have loved that 3 yr deal. I doubt they're terribly broken up over not having to pay for the next three years.

[DaveW]

Astros sign Fister 1 year 7 million.

Could have been a nice pickup by the Twins if we didn't give Nolasco+Hughes+Santana a bajillion combined years and almost 200 million.

 

Oh well, I guess that is why the Stros are on the rise!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What you're missing is, the Dodgers got three great years from Grienke on a contract they couldn't have gotten if it was originally just for three years. They can take whatever was left on Grienke's deal and spend it again on younger player(s). Any team would have loved that 3 yr deal. I doubt they're terribly broken up over not having to pay for the next three years.

I'm not missing it, I just don't think it's that applicable to Greinke.

 

Sure, the Dodgers couldn't have gotten Greinke on a 3 year deal back in 2013, but they also couldn't get him on a 3 year deal this winter.  That would have only been possible without the opt out.

 

As it was, the Dodgers bet $147 mil and any potential upside from ages 32-34 that Greinke wouldn't get hurt or crater in the first 3 years of the deal, through age 31.

 

It's not that big of a stretch to say they would have been better off betting, say, $167 mil initially (assuming that was the premium needed to drop the opt out) and gotten the whole 6 years.  Or even adding a 7th year.  Elite players still have considerable upside through age 34, and whatever the premium, it ultimately wouldn't have been that big of a deal to the Dodgers, especially when spread out over 6-7 years.

 

I'm not saying they're "terribly broken up about it" but the Dodgers and other big market contenders in particular need elite performers much more than they need the cost savings, the comp pick, or a hard line against keeping players beyond age 31.  Some of that is hindsight, as I believe Greinke exceeded even the Dodgers expectations for him, especially in 2015, but in general this argument should hold for any elite level performers.

 

Now, lesser performers, like Justin Upton and Yoenis Cespedes, or older guys like James Shields, I see teams being less concerned about the opt out.  They're more easily replaceable and might not age as well.  And a guy like Ian Kennedy -- well, let's just say the opt-out should be the least of Royals' fans concerns about Ian Kennedy right now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

it's a little trickier with David Price -- he got the 7th year and a higher AAV (7/217), and still got the opt-out, but there's been 3 years of inflation, and he's also been better and more consistent than Greinke circa 2013.  It's not inconceivable that the Red Sox would have been better off giving him, say, 7/240 this winter with no opt-out.

 

I've read that a lot of free agents want the opt-out now because they want to hit FA again as soon as possible after the new CBA (2017?), which they are betting will favor the players.

[cmoss84]

Dickerson dealt for Mcgee...2 other pitchers involved. Nice move for the Rays.

[bluechipper]

 

Dickerson dealt for Mcgee...2 other pitchers involved. Nice move for the Rays.

I'd say the advantage goes to the Rockies. Dickerson has hit .249/.286/.410 (.695) on the road for his career.

[drjim]

 

Dickerson dealt for Mcgee...2 other pitchers involved. Nice move for the Rays.

 

I agree, I don't get this at all for Rockies (depending on the other pitchers of course).

 

I thought McGee was the perfect guy for the Twins to target, but don't think they could have matched Dickerson.

[cmoss84]

I like McGee a lot, but he's also turning 30 this yearand coming off a major injury (that being said, he looked good last year when he came back). Dickerson-also coming off injuries-but can definitely be a solid every day OF for them. I guess it is tough to gage these Rockies until they play elsewhere.

 

I would just have an everyday player with some upside over a reliever, but that's just me.