Around the League: 2017 offseason edition / 2018 Season

[bravesfanforlife88]

JD to Boston, 5/110, opt out after 2 years.

Not that bad of a deal.

Sounds like he will make $50m in the first 2 seasons before his opt out, but also has a SECOND opt out as well

[sturg33]

Jarrod Dyson goes for 2 years/$7M.

That's a 2-3 WAR player going for nothing... Nobody taking Markakis

[Enscheff]

Sounds like he will make $50m in the first 2 seasons before his opt out, but also has a SECOND opt out as well

Looks to broken down as 25/25/22/19/19 with opt outs after years 2 and 3.

Yet another team trying to front load a contract to encourage the player to opt out and mitigate their risk. It will be interesting to see how this tactic works out for teams.

[Enscheff]

Jarrod Dyson goes for 2 years/$7M.

That's a 2-3 WAR player going for nothing... Nobody taking Markakis

Makes you wonder if Maybin will be cheap enough to be the Braves 4th OFer.

[bravesfanforlife88]

Makes you wonder if Maybin will be cheap enough to be the Braves 4th OFer.

I’d love to bring Maybin back

[thewupk]

Jarrod Dyson goes for 2 years/$7M.

That's a 2-3 WAR player going for nothing... Nobody taking Markakis

That shipped sailed after his first season here. That was likely the only time we had any chance to move him.

[thethe]

Jarrod Dyson goes for 2 years/$7M.

That's a 2-3 WAR player going for nothing... Nobody taking Markakis

Are position players being devalued? Anyone have the updates on $ per WAR this season hitter vs pitcher?

[dak]

Jarrod Dyson goes for 2 years/$7M.

That's a 2-3 WAR player going for nothing... Nobody taking Markakis

It's looking more likely than I thought that Corey Dickerson will pass through waivers unclaimed and become a FA at this rate. BAL will probably end up with Cargo, Jay, or Dickerson (most likely one of the first two). Maybe we'll be in the mix for the remaining 2 or Maybin.

[thewupk]

Are position players being devalued? Anyone have the updates on $ per WAR this season hitter vs pitcher?

Hard to say but at first glance it looks that way. Veterans as a whole have been devalued this offseason which is a true first.

[thethe]

Hard to say but at first glance it looks that way. Veterans as a whole have been devalued this offseason which is a true first.

Do you think the older player being devalued is based on the defensive aging curve primarily?

[thewupk]

Do you think the older player being devalued is based on the defensive aging curve primarily?

I believe that is part of it among a lot of other things. Teams are finally realizing that older players can crap the bed at anytime. You are also seeing, which has been suggested around here, teams incentive players to opt out after a few years. Front load the contract to when players are likely to still be valuable and give them a way out if they are still producing and want more money. If they start to decline then you aren't overpaying for production which makes them easier to move if necessary.

But the truth is that players are most valuable before they are 30 and teams have all realized this as a collective group it seems. There will always the the exceptions. The all-stars of the world will still get their money and deals but the average players are going to see less money coming their way. If that contiues for a few more years the MLBPA will almost certainly aim for a salary floor.

[nsacpi]

Are position players being devalued? Anyone have the updates on $ per WAR this season hitter vs pitcher?

Martinez and Darvish both went for about $8M per expected win...havent done the numbers on Hosmer

[nsacpi]

I believe that is part of it among a lot of other things. Teams are finally realizing that older players can crap the bed at anytime. You are also seeing, which has been suggested around here, teams incentive players to opt out after a few years. Front load the contract to when players are likely to still be valuable and give them a way out if they are still producing and want more money. If they start to decline then you aren't overpaying for production which makes them easier to move if necessary.

But the truth is that players are most valuable before they are 30 and teams have all realized this as a collective group it seems. There will always the the exceptions. The all-stars of the world will still get their money and deals but the average players are going to see less money coming their way. If that contiues for a few more years the MLBPA will almost certainly aim for a salary floor.

I think that's the big development this offseason...trying to contour contracts to match the aging curve..

[clvclv]

I believe that is part of it among a lot of other things. Teams are finally realizing that older players can crap the bed at anytime. You are also seeing, which has been suggested around here, teams incentive players to opt out after a few years. Front load the contract to when players are likely to still be valuable and give them a way out if they are still producing and want more money. If they start to decline then you aren't overpaying for production which makes them easier to move if necessary.

But the truth is that players are most valuable before they are 30 and teams have all realized this as a collective group it seems. There will always the the exceptions. The all-stars of the world will still get their money and deals but the average players are going to see less money coming their way. If that contiues for a few more years the MLBPA will almost certainly aim for a salary floor.

Which is exactly what both intrigues me and scares the *hit out of me about Donaldson if AA chooses to play (and he's out there) next winter. If his reps and the Jays are as far apart as it looks like right now, it's more than a little worrisome that we could join the teams making the mistake of putting the franchise's future in the player's hands by way of opt-outs to win the bidding.

I'd love to have Donaldson as much as the next guy, but for all the numbers you guys can toss around I wouldn't want Heyward's contract on the Braves' books for anything. Teams have learned a bit by looking at it and are front-loading those deals as much as possible this winter, but I don't want ANY player dictating how much of my budget is spent on him when he's no longer performing. Hosmer's deal gets "better" for the Padres after the first 5 years, but if he drops off a cliff they STILL owe him $13 million per. Does anyone honestly believe he's going to walk away from that? If he sucks, he's going to keep taking your money - if he doesn't, he's going to walk away and leave them with a huge hole.

Whether we all put the same weight on the defensive side of the ball or the metrics, we all seem to at least agree that defense and speed will decline much quicker than a players' bat - you guys keep screaming about how quickly you expect Inciarte to decline soon (and no one really fusses that you're crazy). Given that, does anyone think there's a chance in *ell Heyward chooses to walk away from the rest of the money the Cubs owe him after this season??? If you do, I've got some oceanfront property to sell you in Indiana.

[Jaw]

Are position players being devalued? Anyone have the updates on $ per WAR this season hitter vs pitcher?

I think elite position players are as valuable as ever. It's the marginal guys who have lost their value. Teams aren't willing to take the risk of guaranteed contracts for a 3 win guy when they expect to get 1.5 or 2 wins out of a pre FA player. I think there will be some crazy contracts handed out next offseason for a handful of players, and crumbs for everyone else.

[sturg33]

I've always thought that opt-outs were good for the teams.

Most long term contracts don't go sour until 3-4 years into it... If you have a player who is crushing it, you're getting good value out of them, and then they leave and you're not stuck with a declining asset. If they stay, you're in the exact same spot you would have been without the opt out.

Yes, there is a chance you get a player who opts out and he continues being a beast for the life of the contract... but at least in this scenario you don't get burned like we are seeing so commonly

[thethe]

I think elite position players are as valuable as ever. It's the marginal guys who have lost their value. Teams aren't willing to take the risk of guaranteed contracts for a 3 win guy when they expect to get 1.5 or 2 wins out of a pre FA player. I think there will be some crazy contracts handed out next offseason for a handful of players, and crumbs for everyone else.

crumbs....nice

[Carp]

I think you guys are giving way too much credit to the front office guys around the league. This offseason has really just been a perfect storm to cause this market. Several of the large market teams are pushing up against the luxury tax, and other large market teams (Giants, Angels, Cubs) have already made their moves. The other large market teams at some point realized the depressed market and wisely waited it out.

My make no mistake, bad contracts to aging veterans isn't going the way of the dinosaur. And that's because the shelf life of GMs doesn't tend to be very long. Either it's a new GM wanting to make a name for himself and create buzz, or its a GM one the hot seat who makes a desperation move to try and win now.

[Enscheff]

I've always thought that opt-outs were good for the teams.

Most long term contracts don't go sour until 3-4 years into it... If you have a player who is crushing it, you're getting good value out of them, and then they leave and you're not stuck with a declining asset. If they stay, you're in the exact same spot you would have been without the opt out.

Yes, there is a chance you get a player who opts out and he continues being a beast for the life of the contract... but at least in this scenario you don't get burned like we are seeing so commonly

Opt outs are a negative value for teams, and a positive value for players. Period.

What we are seeing now is teams trying to make the opt out a little more team friendly, but they are still decidedly a boon for the player.

[sturg33]

Opt outs are a negative value for teams, and a positive value for players. Period.

What we are seeing now is teams trying to make the opt out a little more team friendly, but they are still decidedly a boon for the player.

I agree they help the player more than the team.

But I think they are more valuable to the team than a standard 7 year contract