SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2013 Offseason non-Sox MLB Discussion
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 17, 2014 19:46:55 GMT -5
Silly O's…
Buster Olney ?@buster_ESPN 1m O's went to 4th year in their talks w/Jimenez out of concern BOS and/or TOR would go for three-year deal. But TOR/BOS didn't make offers.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 17, 2014 21:31:17 GMT -5
I still think it was a solid deal at the AAV but I agree giving a fourth year wasn't ideal. I'm surprised to hear they thought Boston would be involved even with the Dempster news. The draft pick alone should have guaranteed they weren't. Toronto on the other hand i could have imagined as Santana's home run tendency doesn't appear to match up in Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Feb 17, 2014 22:54:46 GMT -5
Really like that signing for the Orioles. He was obviously bad in 2012, but dominant in 2013 to the point where he was the best pitcher in baseball the 2nd half. I watched a late August start and his slider was nearly unhittable similar to Schrezer's slider when he's on.
xFIPs have been consistent with exception of that one aforementioned season.
I thought Lincecum's AAV would push the SP market much higher, but IMO, Orioles just passed the Yanks-McCann deal as the most sensible contract for a bigger name free agent.
Taking a hard look at Lester and Jimenez's age/performance to date, it's tough to justify Lester's expected extension being worth double what Jimenez was able to fetch.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 18, 2014 9:12:48 GMT -5
Why would a major FA pitcher even want to come to Boston to be in the likely position that he'd have to fight for starts for his entire contract?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 18, 2014 22:02:01 GMT -5
The QO is crushing free agents with any sort of risk involved. Not sure how that is surprising to anyone and I'm guessing we will see a drastic shift next year with more guys accepting the QO.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Feb 18, 2014 22:26:33 GMT -5
Why would a major FA pitcher even want to come to Boston to be in the likely position that he'd have to fight for starts for his entire contract? Depending on your definition of "major free agent" I don't see it being a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 18, 2014 22:54:41 GMT -5
The QO is crushing free agents with any sort of risk involved. Not sure how that is surprising to anyone and I'm guessing we will see a drastic shift next year with more guys accepting the QO. But is the problem the QO or what the player is willing to accept? There are certainly contract terms that could have gotten Drew into a camp by this point. He's reportedly insisting on at least a player option for the second year. If he had just accepted a one-year deal, my guess is he'd have signed by now. I also think it relevant that no player has accepted the QO either. If Drew accepts the QO, he's got a one-year deal for $14M. End of problems for him. I think the players union will definitely fight for a change, but I've thought about this recently and you have to think a lot of the blame needs to fall on the players for mis-judging their markets before declining the QO, and then if you see it as a problem that they're not in camp yet, some falls on the players for not coming down to where their market is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 19, 2014 9:58:57 GMT -5
Why would a major FA pitcher even want to come to Boston to be in the likely position that he'd have to fight for starts for his entire contract? Depending on your definition of "major free agent" I don't see it being a problem. $52 million isn't major? I can't see in any universe that the Red Sox were serious bidders for Jimenez or that he would have any interest in joining a 6-man rotation.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 19, 2014 10:37:37 GMT -5
I've said it a million times, but they need multiple levels of QO. No way should Drew, Santana, Jimenez have 1st round picks attached to them (or be paid 14 million per).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 19, 2014 12:59:16 GMT -5
I've said it a million times, but they need multiple levels of QO. No way should Drew, Santana, Jimenez have 1st round picks attached to them (or be paid 14 million per). So accept the QO and get paid more than you're worth. The economic calculus for the player is this: If you think you won't be able to get a better deal than the QO if you're on the market with a pick attached, you accept the QO. If you think you will get a better deal, you decline it. The only way an inefficiency arises is if the player and his agent misjudge the market and/or the player's value with a pick attached. For example, Morales was NUTS for declining the QO. But that doesn't make the system inherently unfair. If the player declines the QO and gambles wrong, it's on them. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but to me, the "problem" is that players like Morales and Drew overestimated their markets and they're paying a price. This at least is a better system than the prior one, which screwed players in attaching picks to them without giving them an alternative or putting their original team on the hook.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 19, 2014 13:11:01 GMT -5
Problem is if they take the qualifying offer, they only get one year. If they don't, their new contract is severely deflated because of the pick attached. That pick is an anchor and a punishment for being good enough to be offered the qualifying offer. Hell, compare Peralta to Drew and tell me which one should be getting a 4 year $52 million contract.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 19, 2014 13:11:46 GMT -5
I've said it a million times, but they need multiple levels of QO. No way should Drew, Santana, Jimenez have 1st round picks attached to them (or be paid 14 million per). So accept the QO and get paid more than you're worth. The economic calculus for the player is this: If you think you won't be able to get a better deal than the QO if you're on the market with a pick attached, you accept the QO. If you think you will get a better deal, you decline it. The only way an inefficiency arises is if the player and his agent misjudge the market and/or the player's value with a pick attached. For example, Morales was NUTS for declining the QO. But that doesn't make the system inherently unfair. If the player declines the QO and gambles wrong, it's on them. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but to me, the "problem" is that players like Morales and Drew overestimated their markets and they're paying a price. This at least is a better system than the prior one, which screwed players in attaching picks to them without giving them an alternative or putting their original team on the hook. I agree with this. It is better than the alternative and it does give the players more control, but it is clearly not an ideal system. What is the downside to just making the compensation pick depend on the actual contract signed? Rather than making players guess, just have the compensation picks stagger depending on the AAV. For instance if the player signs for $14M+ then the team nets a 1st round comp and the signing team loses its 1st rounder. If the player signs for $12-$14M then it is a 2nd round comp and the signing team loses a 2nd. You could have as many brackets as you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 19, 2014 13:37:43 GMT -5
Problem is if they take the qualifying offer, they only get one year. If they don't, their new contract is severely deflated because of the pick attached. That pick is an anchor and a punishment for being good enough to be offered the qualifying offer. Hell, compare Peralta to Drew and tell me which one should be getting a 4 year $52 million contract. This is the real problem-- the QO system forces mid-level veteran players who reach free agency (usually at 30 or later) to accept one-year overpays, which puts virtually the entirety of the injury/performance risk on the player. Going year-to-year is a pretty miserable proposition for a veteran player, and the fact that the QO can be offered as many times as a team wants means that even is a player performs well, he'll still have the QO penalty (and will be a year older), making it difficult (and a risky gamble) to find a long-term deal the next year. I thought this was a nice solution: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-suggestion-to-improve-the-qualifying-offer-system/ADD: Really, though, I think my ideal solution would be the following: (a) instead of taking picks away from the new team, just give picks to the old team-- this helps teams that can't afford to re-sign players without hurting any individual player's market (b) use something like the NFL's compensatory pick equation ( here's a good explanation) to calculate which teams get picks. Have it take into account all the players they sign and let leave, rather than keying it on specific players who get big contracts. Yeah, it would do less to "encourage" players to re-sign with their old teams and is thus more of a consolation prize, but it also significantly reduces the market risk that individual players bear, which I am very much in favor of.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 19, 2014 13:44:31 GMT -5
Problem is if they take the qualifying offer, they only get one year. If they don't, their new contract is severely deflated because of the pick attached. That pick is an anchor and a punishment for being good enough to be offered the qualifying offer. Hell, compare Peralta to Drew and tell me which one should be getting a 4 year $52 million contract. Isn't the whole purpose of the QO system to give the team (no matter how bad) a chance to keep their quality players? Seems to me that is starting to work with the new system. If you want to get a quality player away from a team that needs or wants him you have to pay for it. The gamble is in the owners office now with the high qualifying offer risks. If Seattle or Texas is willing to risk on Morales or Cruz 9apparently lower quality power players) at the start of the signing period they have a right to try and keep them for that high cost.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 19, 2014 13:53:38 GMT -5
Problem is if they take the qualifying offer, they only get one year. If they don't, their new contract is severely deflated because of the pick attached. That pick is an anchor and a punishment for being good enough to be offered the qualifying offer. Hell, compare Peralta to Drew and tell me which one should be getting a 4 year $52 million contract. Isn't the whole purpose of the QO system to give the team (no matter how bad) a chance to keep their quality players? Seems to me that is starting to work with the new system. If you want to get a quality player away from a team that needs or wants him you have to pay for it. The gamble is in the owners office now with the high qualifying offer risks. If Seattle or Texas is willing to risk on Morales or Cruz 9apparently lower quality power players) at the start of the signing period they have a right to try and keep them for that high cost. That's the thing, though-- it doesn't really affect star players at all. The QO penalty is nowhere near strong enough to give a team like the Reds any real leverage with a free agent like Choo who is going to get $100m+ regardless. Instead, what it really does is give big market teams (the ones with enough salary flexibility to risk a one-year overpay at the start of the offseason) the option to either go year-to-year with midlevel free agents or inhibit their market enough such that they re-sign at reduced rates.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 19, 2014 13:54:12 GMT -5
Problem is if they take the qualifying offer, they only get one year. If they don't, their new contract is severely deflated because of the pick attached. That pick is an anchor and a punishment for being good enough to be offered the qualifying offer. Hell, compare Peralta to Drew and tell me which one should be getting a 4 year $52 million contract. Isn't the whole purpose of the QO system to give the team (no matter how bad) a chance to keep their quality players? Seems to me that is starting to work with the new system. If you want to get a quality player away from a team that needs or wants him you have to pay for it. The gamble is in the owners office now with the high qualifying offer risks. If Seattle or Texas is willing to risk on Morales or Cruz apparently lower quality power players) at the start of the signing period they have a right to try and keep them for that high cost. From the Sox' perspective, the purpose of the QO system is to give them lots of comp picks. What that does to guys like Drew is make them most likely get paid way less than similar quality free agents who didn't get qualifying offers. Let's say Drew didn't get a QO and Peralta did. Who would get a bigger/longer contract? What's the price for being a better player who didn't get busted for PEDs? An anchor that's probably going to net him half as much money.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 19, 2014 14:00:32 GMT -5
Then differentiate between the QO ( aka "franchise tag") limited to two uses at an increasing rate each use and the compensatory pick system to provide teams with some compensation. Is the NFL model bad for baseball?
Also with the continuing escalation of AAV on contracts don't you expect the current QO system to approach 18 to 19 million very soon. Do you suspect this will result in less QOs offered in general especially on the Drew, Morales, etc.. type of players?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 19, 2014 14:20:03 GMT -5
Isn't the whole purpose of the QO system to give the team (no matter how bad) a chance to keep their quality players? Seems to me that is starting to work with the new system. If you want to get a quality player away from a team that needs or wants him you have to pay for it. The gamble is in the owners office now with the high qualifying offer risks. If Seattle or Texas is willing to risk on Morales or Cruz 9apparently lower quality power players) at the start of the signing period they have a right to try and keep them for that high cost. That's the thing, though-- it doesn't really affect star players at all. The QO penalty is nowhere near strong enough to give a team like the Reds any real leverage with a free agent like Choo who is going to get $100m+ regardless. Instead, what it really does is give big market teams (the ones with enough salary flexibility to risk a one-year overpay at the start of the offseason) the option to either go year-to-year with midlevel free agents or inhibit their market enough such that they re-sign at reduced rates. Who signed last year at a reduced rate though? Kyle Lohse was last years poster boy and he signed for a fair exchange market value 3 yr contract. The team & player Risk / Reward seemed pretty equal to me. If we are going to have teams capable of winning campaigns those teams must keep the under star powered players (such as Naps or Jimenez this year) these just under star players seem to add to the teams just enough for a winning campaign. It is not to much to ask for teams like Cleveland to have a chance to repeat to the playoffs or benefit with a pick to replace a loss that maybe the one missed piece to another playoff run. Is it to much for Seattle, KC, Cleveland, Texas, Boston on the bottom five non stat quality to get a pick out of the 13 QOs? I don't think it has hurt at all to run it this way. To me I would like to see a small change in the 7 day window to decide while talking to other teams say 2 weeks or 3 at most for the players risk/reward.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 19, 2014 14:34:26 GMT -5
Who signed last year at a reduced rate though? Adam LaRoche re-signed with the Nationals for 2/$24m and Michael Bourn signed with the Indians for 4/$48m, both of which were arguably under-market deals. The team & player Risk / Reward seemed pretty equal to me. If we are going to have teams capable of winning campaigns those teams must keep the under star powered players (such as Naps or Jimenez this year) these just under star players seem to add to the teams just enough for a winning campaign. It is not to much to ask for teams like Cleveland to have a chance to repeat to the playoffs or benefit with a pick to replace a loss that maybe the one missed piece to another playoff run. The QO system doesn't help teams re-sign their players to a long-term deal-- it really only helps them overpay them for one year. Remember, once the QO is rejected, the player's old team faces the same quandary as any other team who might want to sign the player-- they effectively lose a draft pick for signing him. Loss aversion aside, once the QO window closes, the old team actually has an incentive to not re-sign the player-- this is the dynamic we're seeing between the Red Sox and Drew now. This dynamic means the team bears the risk of a one-year overpay (which helps big-market teams and hurts small-market teams (see, e.g., the Pirates and A.J. Burnett this year)), while the player bears market risk (if he rejects the QO) and injury/performance risk (if he accepts it). That seems pretty unbalanced to me.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 19, 2014 15:08:14 GMT -5
Adam LaRoche re-signed with the Nationals for 2/$24m and Michael Bourn signed with the Indians for 4/$48m, both of which were arguably under-market deals. Didn't LaRoche become a poster boy for why the QO works when his original team sign him though to keep the team in contention for the playoffs? Also I believe he got fair market as this last year he under preformed his (supposed higher with no QO) contract but still has a chance to redeem that with the second year and a 15M option. By and large his team needed or found they could use him for a playoff run and offered a QO. It worked Michael Bourn can also be debated as his ability for making the big bugs is/was speed and he didn't preform any better this than the offer he got did he? 23 SB 12 CS now compare that to Shane Victorino and his contract appears to be arguably market value for this type of risk / reward contract. These two player to me show the system is working although a minor tweak may be necessary. Player Salary inflation is hurting the small market teams more than the QO system. But you have some valid points to consider in a tweaking to help the small market teams although every angle seems to be forcing the big market teams to give up more and more to compensate the smallest market teams who aren't doing anything to help themselves but hoarding money. The Draft changes, International market cap system, lux tax/revenue shares all are directed at the small owners and they can't have everything going their way in a fair market system. It has to be give and take.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 19, 2014 15:30:04 GMT -5
Didn't LaRoche become a poster boy for why the QO works when his original team sign him though to keep the team in contention for the playoffs? Not at all. The Nationals aren't a small market team, and LaRoche had less of a market than he otherwise would have. And he's a great example of the risk/reward being slanted entirely in favor the team - getting offered the QO pretty much screwed LaRoche's chance of ever getting a long term deal.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 19, 2014 15:32:54 GMT -5
it's not worse, but there could still be tiers, x dollars for a first round pick (18 mil IMHO), y for a second (12 mil) and z for a third (6 mil). This is the way it is in the NFL (not sure how they calculate the dollars, but I bet there's a market-based forumla) and there are basically ZERO complaints (despite all the complaints about rookie contracts, non-guaranteeds, and the franchise thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 19, 2014 16:13:56 GMT -5
No matter how you change it, giving up picks for signing free agents is going to reduce the contracts of those free agents compared to others who don't have picks attached.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 19, 2014 17:25:53 GMT -5
yes it is, but not by such a prohibitive amount. Also, it'll lessen the steps between the guys who get QO's and are hamstrung and those that just miss and aren't crushed by that "anchor".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 19, 2014 17:49:18 GMT -5
There would be a lot of contracts ending in 999,999.99 too.
|
|
|