Looking Ahead - The 2020 Offseason Thread

[Southcack77]

Ahh, the age old debate of labor vs the ruling class.

While I agree that players deserve their fair share of the revenue pie, let’s not act like players could just exist on their own as a marketable product.

Someone has to build a stadium. Someone has to pay expenses. Someone has to pay support personnel. Someone has to take on all that risk before a single ticket is sold or game is televised.

So yeah, owners are greedy, but that’s why they are rich in the first place. They hoard money the same way other people hoard boxes.

and the players on their own are great at baseball and unique (that's why they are paid a lot of money) but would be incapable of creating something on their own that would pay them what they are asking the owners to pay them.

 

[Enscheff]

and the players on their own are great at baseball and unique (that's why they are paid a lot of money) but would be incapable of creating something on their own that would pay them what they are asking the owners to pay them.

You mean ESPN wouldn't just show up and start paying a group of dudes playing baseball on a random field for the rights to televise the games?

 

[Russ2dollas]

Being a billionaire or having an unrealized appreciation of your franchise value doesn't have anything to do with not laying people off when you have a 100m dollar drop in revenue.

Any business that sees a huge drop in revenue is going to cut staff even if it expects that revenue to return at some point. And they'll typically cut the staff that is most replaceable or overpaid as opposed to higher value staff.

Over time staff gets more expensive, often to the point where they are paid beyond what is reasonable in the market or banding. Revenue downtimes is when those folks get purged.

That's just business.

It's not. It's a choice. THere are stories of pizza parlours not laying off their staff in a pandemic.

If you made hundreds of millions of dollars in the previous years you can afford a loss of 100 million in a pandemic year. If you are smart.

Most people live pay check to pay check. I'm not a billionaire but I've got a year's salary in cash, more than that in non-retirement investments, and more than that in retirement investments. One year isn't going to get me. They could do that too.

The argument why these folks should get these huge windfalls is they are taking on risk. Part of that risk is handling one to two down years when you've had 20 up years.

 

[Russ2dollas]

You mean ESPN wouldn't just show up and start paying a group of dudes playing baseball on a random field for the rights to televise the games?

Teams provide value. Not saying they don't.

But they don't purchase their stadiums for the most part.

Everything in sports has been going up and up and up for decades. A lot of that is in franchise value, and you cannot get to that money without selling or debt, but it's still true.

I wish they would have a cap based on honest income. But the players won't agree to the cap and the owners won't be honest about their books. In my opinion it should be 60/40 players splitting income. Then they both have an interest in doing things that make the league more profitable. You see that in basketball.

 

[Enscheff]

Teams provide value. Not saying they don't.

But they don't purchase their stadiums for the most part.

Everything in sports has been going up and up and up for decades. A lot of that is in franchise value, and you cannot get to that money without selling or debt, but it's still true.

I wish they would have a cap based on honest income. But the players won't agree to the cap and the owners won't be honest about their books. In my opinion it should be 60/40 players splitting income. Then they both have an interest in doing things that make the league more profitable. You see that in basketball.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the owners. I agree with you that most businesses can afford to absorb losses to protect employees if they so choose. My in-laws run a document scanning business, and they didn't lay off a single person, and continued to pay them when they had to stay home. My in-laws are certainly not billionaires, and their business certainly didn't have millions in cash reserves. They just chose to take care of their employees.

I was just putting a bit of perspective against the "owners just steal everything from players" narrative that was brewing.

 

[clvclv]

What in the world are you babbling about?

Market value changes by the minute, not year-over-year - unfortunately I deal with this fact every day.

There's a very good chance your house isn't worth the same thing it was worth at this time yesterday - why would a baseball player's "value" be any different? A bank or lender may very well USE a "market value appraisal" dated 355 days ago when making a loan, but that number has nothing to do with what your home is worth today. Market value is a snapshot of one specific day in time - whatever asset you're trying to put a value on doesn't remain static beyond the close of business on the day the asset is valued. Homes just like yours may sell tomorrow for more or less than what your house is valued at today, rendering the appraisal done yesterday useless by the end of business today. Baseball players are the same. If the Mutts were able to trade for Arenado tonight, Springer would have less value to them tomorrow because they have already improved their offense. Doesn't mean Springer would have NO value to them anymore, but it does mean they wouldn't be quite as desperate to add him AFTER adding Arenado.

 

[Southcack77]

It's not. It's a choice. THere are stories of pizza parlours not laying off their staff in a pandemic.

If you made hundreds of millions of dollars in the previous years you can afford a loss of 100 million in a pandemic year. If you are smart.

Most people live pay check to pay check. I'm not a billionaire but I've got a year's salary in cash, more than that in non-retirement investments, and more than that in retirement investments. One year isn't going to get me. They could do that too.

The argument why these folks should get these huge windfalls is they are taking on risk. Part of that risk is handling one to two down years when you've had 20 up years.

Big difference between a family business and a corporation, but most of the family restaurants businesses I know have let people go.

It's unrealistic to expect any business to eat millions of dollars in losses just because the business itself could be sold for a lot and the owner is rich.

They aren't in partnership with their employees any more than banks are in partnerships with their mortgagees.

 

[Carp]

Market value changes by the minute, not year-over-year - unfortunately I deal with this fact every day.

There's a very good chance your house isn't worth the same thing it was worth at this time yesterday - why would a baseball player's "value" be any different? A bank or lender may very well USE a "market value appraisal" dated 355 days ago when making a loan, but that number has nothing to do with what your home is worth today. Market value is a snapshot of one specific day in time - whatever asset you're trying to put a value on doesn't remain static beyond the close of business on the day the asset is valued. Homes just like yours may sell tomorrow for more or less than what your house is valued at today, rendering the appraisal done yesterday useless by the end of business today. Baseball players are the same. If the Mutts were able to trade for Arenado tonight, Springer would have less value to them tomorrow because they have already improved their offense. Doesn't mean Springer would have NO value to them anymore, but it does mean they wouldn't be quite as desperate to add him AFTER adding Arenado.

What a player's "value" is after signing his contract is irrelevant. The market for his services was at least 1.5 million (or whatever amount it was) because that is what the Braves valued him at.

And it's the exact range you'd expect to sign a bench player for.

 

[DirkPiggler]

Good points but I disagree with the comment I've bolded. Mrs. 50# and I go the St. Paul Saints' games more than Twins' games. Cheaper. Nice atmosphere. But the quality of play is so noticeably different than what you witness in a major league/upper minor league game and you see it across-the-board. Players are markedly slower. Defense is shoddy with few spectacular plays. Pitchers' velocity mirrors 1970s MLB. Sure, the kids don't notice and if you went through a whole generation of fans, it probably wouldn't make a difference. For the semi-serious fan and above, there would be a considerable drop-off in interest. And if young fans think the game is boring now, watching that level of baseball would drive them to watching televised chess.

Bottom line for me. All labor negotiations boil down to a simple equation: Capital's "but for" against the Labor's value added. I generally side with the players because the owners have been subsidized heavily by local governments, which while not guaranteeing income, certainly has bounced the wealth aspect of a franchise upward. The DH will become universal and that could hike payrolls, but it's more likely going to push the salaries down for the last couple of guys in the bullpen and the last couple of guys on the bench. Additionally, we are already seeing a contraction of the minor leagues (which I am pretty sure the Players' Association does not lose a wink of sleep over) and that will boost bottom lines. It may take a year of additional recovery from the inability to put people in the stands, but there's going to be money sloshing around at some point.

My only counterpoint is this...do you know anyone who is a baseball fan solely because of one player? Someone who was a Red Sox fan because of Mookie Betts, who became a Dodgers fan and now couldn't care less about the Sox since they traded away their superstar? I'm a huge fan of Acuña, Albies, and Freeman, but if they were traded to the Yankees tomorrow I'd hope for them to lose every game.

Sure, we all prefer to watch the best athletes do things we could only dream of accomplishing. But ultimately we are fans of the sport first, teams second, and players third.

 

[clvclv]

What a player's "value" is after signing his contract is irrelevant. The market for his services was at least 1.5 million (or whatever amount it was) because that is what the Braves valued him at.

And it's the exact range you'd expect to sign a bench player for.

Wrong, sorry.

Camargo's value to the Braves was $1.36 million - not the market.

This is the reason banks require an appraiser to provide them with THREE comparables, not one (and to that extent it's not entirely unlike the arbitration system). One house sold high - that sucker/buyer was from Florida and had never seen a mountain, so they felt the first house they found that had a deck with a long range mountain view was "stunning" - even though 70% of the homes in the area had similar views, many listed for sale for less money. One house sold low - that buyer was the son or daughter of the seller's childhood best friend, and the seller wouldn't have accepted that offer from someone they didn't have ties to. The "market value" of the home is somewhere between those two numbers.

This is where the two processes differ. Before going to an arbitrator, the team files a value (typically on the low end) and the player's representatives file a number (typically on the high end). If the player and team don't settle on a number somewhere between the two BEFORE the player's hearing, the arbitrator listens to the arguments from both sides and picks the number the most convincing side provided - low or high. That doesn't reflect the market value. Camargo's representatives had already done their legwork before Johan accepted his contract and believed that no one else out there was likely to top the Braves' offer so they advised him to accept it since it was likely to be the highest. Camargo's value to THE REST of the market was lower - in essence he went to the highest bidder for his services without becoming a free-agent. His representatives knew that if he didn't agree to sign for what the Braves offered he'd have been non-tendered, and they knew there was a very good chance there wasn't going to be someone else stepping up to offer as much as the Braves were offering.

Remember when everyone was so up in arms over Folty going to a hearing with the Braves over $100,000? He did that because he knew his market value was higher and he was being shortchanged - there were plenty of teams that would have paid more than what the Braves were offering, and his representatives would provide that information to the arbitrator. The fact that the filing figures were so close together was a mistake on his representatives part - since the arbitrator would have had to choose the higher of the two numbers rather than awarding "market value", Folty actually left money on the table in that instance.

 

[PawPawMaxwell]

A house is appraised at todays value and your ABILITY
to pay for it.

A baseball players value is appraised at last years performance value and your WILLINGNESS to pay for it.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

I am sorry for adding to the derailment of this thread but an appraisers doesn’t set the market rate. He sets a perceived value that lenders can use when determining a loan amount. 3 different appraisals could produce 3 different sales prices. And it could be huge differences. The market rate for the house is the sales price. That house with the big deck and killer view has sales price value to the sucker from Florida. He might have artificially inflated the market value now and every appraisal after that will use it as a comp to inflate their own perceived market value. If appraisal set the market then no house would ever appreciate in value.

 

[Carp]

Wrong, sorry.

Camargo's value to the Braves was $1.36 million - not the market.

This is the reason banks require an appraiser to provide them with THREE comparables, not one (and to that extent it's not entirely unlike the arbitration system). One house sold high - that sucker/buyer was from Florida and had never seen a mountain, so they felt the first house they found that had a deck with a long range mountain view was "stunning" - even though 70% of the homes in the area had similar views, many listed for sale for less money. One house sold low - that buyer was the son or daughter of the seller's childhood best friend, and the seller wouldn't have accepted that offer from someone they didn't have ties to. The "market value" of the home is somewhere between those two numbers.

This is where the two processes differ. Before going to an arbitrator, the team files a value (typically on the low end) and the player's representatives file a number (typically on the high end). If the player and team don't settle on a number somewhere between the two BEFORE the player's hearing, the arbitrator listens to the arguments from both sides and picks the number the most convincing side provided - low or high. That doesn't reflect the market value. Camargo's representatives had already done their legwork before Johan accepted his contract and believed that no one else out there was likely to top the Braves' offer so they advised him to accept it since it was likely to be the highest. Camargo's value to THE REST of the market was lower - in essence he went to the highest bidder for his services without becoming a free-agent. His representatives knew that if he didn't agree to sign for what the Braves offered he'd have been non-tendered, and they knew there was a very good chance there wasn't going to be someone else stepping up to offer as much as the Braves were offering.

Remember when everyone was so up in arms over Folty going to a hearing with the Braves over $100,000? He did that because he knew his market value was higher and he was being shortchanged - there were plenty of teams that would have paid more than what the Braves were offering, and his representatives would provide that information to the arbitrator. The fact that the filing figures were so close together was a mistake on his representatives part - since the arbitrator would have had to choose the higher of the two numbers rather than awarding "market value", Folty actually left money on the table in that instance.

This isn't real estate. I don't know why you keep bringing that up as some sort of basis. They aren't remotely similar.

The Braves are part of the market. Unless you assume the Braves have no idea how to properly value players, then Camargo was paid what the market valued him at. You have no clue why Camargo accepted the offer he did, so assuming it's because he knew he wouldn't get a similar offer elsewhere is asinine.

I don't know why you would bring up the Folty case to prove your point. A couple hundred thousand in the baseball market is pretty irrelevant.

I can't believe I even have to waste bandwidth to try and explain this. Johan Camargo is not worth arguing about.

 

[OcalaBrave]

The laws of supply and demand should not be applied to professional athlete salaries. This is why MLB has had to design revenue sharing and the NFL and NBA have gone to caps.

In the real world, a company is limited in capturing the best talent by providing greater salary or benefits/incentives, and thereby gain a competitive advantage over competitors, by the added revenue they gain by adding the employee and the competitive advantage. Moreover, when a company dominates an industry, its added revenue is also limited by the threat of anti-trust rules.

In professional sports, competitive owners, in an effort to win a championship, will invest in talent beyond the added revenue those players will bring. Stated differently, a player has a greater value to a team in competitive mode than a team in rebuilding mode and the player has even greater value to the competitive owner with a significant source of revenue beyond baseball that can be tapped to win a championship.

One other major difference I see. Unlike the real world where and industry comprised of companies competing to make widgets will not diminish the demand for widgets by having a single company dominate the industry (think Kleenex), if a team was equally dominate in a sports league it would be a disaster for the revenue streams of all involved.

 

[UNCBlue012]

Here are a couple of nuggets from AA today:

Anthopoulos: “We’d like to get a middle of the order bat ... I’d like to say we’re going to come out of the offseason with a bat, but we might not.” #Braves

Anthopoulos on DH question: “I’m not a big believer in having a pure DH.” Says he likes to rotate guys through. #Braves

Anthopoulos says despite Melancon/Greene on FA market, believes #Braves have five guys who can pitch in late innings, with Luke Jackson the group’s wild card.

Anthopoulos on young arms/innings going into 2020 after shortened 2019: “I’m not a believer in having guys capped. Need to watch day in and day out.” #Braves

 

[Enscheff]

Here are a couple of nuggets from AA today:

Anthopoulos: “We’d like to get a middle of the order bat ... I’d like to say we’re going to come out of the offseason with a bat, but we might not.” #Braves

Anthopoulos on DH question: “I’m not a big believer in having a pure DH.” Says he likes to rotate guys through. #Braves

Anthopoulos says despite Melancon/Greene on FA market, believes #Braves have five guys who can pitch in late innings, with Luke Jackson the group’s wild card.

Anthopoulos on young arms/innings going into 2020 after shortened 2019: “I’m not a believer in having guys capped. Need to watch day in and day out.” #Braves

If "a bat" literally means any MLB bat, then there is no way this can be true after giving Smyly $11M. It would be inexcusable not to add offense with only 1.5 MLB OFers on the roster. At the very least they need to bring back Duvall and add someone like Rosario. They could do that for ~$10M and handle everything else with in-house options.

If "a bat" means a JD/Ozuna replacement, then it is plausible they add multiple mediocre bats instead of an impact bat. Obviously, we are all hoping for more than that.

 

[zbhargrove]

AA is the king of saying a ton without saying anything

 

[jpx7]

Same can be said for the owners and their wealth, who can blame them?

I blame them.

 

[Russ2dollas]

If "a bat" literally means any MLB bat, then there is no way this can be true after giving Smyly $11M. It would be inexcusable not to add offense with only 1.5 MLB OFers on the roster. At the very least they need to bring back Duvall and add someone like Rosario. They could do that for ~$10M and handle everything else with in-house options.

If "a bat" means a JD/Ozuna replacement, then it is plausible they add multiple mediocre bats instead of an impact bat. Obviously, we are all hoping for more than that.

Agree that AA says a lot words signifying nothing.

I take from this we are going to get an impact bat, but he can't promise. Even if he offers the most money, the other side has to accept it. Even if he overpays in prospects, the other team has to agree to trade the player. So you can't be 100% sure, but he's going to make it happen.

 

[clvclv]

When looking at all the Rays' injured arms, I wonder if it's not fair to think AA could make a Snell deal without including Waters. McKay having shoulder rather than elbow concerns has to give them pause, Honeywell is a walking injury waiting to happen and has already had four surgeries, there's significant RP risk with Baz (although that's never quite as worrisome when dealing with Rays' Pitchers), Bitsko's potentially 3 years away, Beeks is out for the year, Chirinos is out for the year. Just seems really odd to hear us still mentioned when the talking heads discuss Snell - you'd have to think adding another $11 million Pitcher would take us out of the running for ANY real offensive upgrades unless one came via trade AND the other team took Ender's money back as well.

Given the fact that they will probably move Lowe to the OF and Adames to 2B full time whenever they decide to start Franco's clock anyway - and their love of never-ending depth - would they consider a Wright/Touki/Contreras plus another fairly significant arm package? That's a ton to give up, and likely doesn't make sense following the Smyly signing unless there's more money than we've even hoped so far might be available, but it's awfully fun to drool over a Snell/Morton/Fried/Anderson/Soroka rotation. Smyly could take several early starts if Soroka needs time and then move to the pen - maybe you even piggyback the two of them until August. Contreras probably steps right in and splits time with Zunino, Wright probably steps right into their rotation, and after 3 months with their pitching gurus Touki probably turns into a Cy Young candidate.

That certainly doesn't help the offense, but if Smyly was going to be used in the pen, you could cut Jackson and Dayton loose to save a little money. With that kind of staff, would AA really need to spend significant money on a bat? Try to get Duvall and Rosario as your LF platoon and bring Shaw or Asdrubal Cabrera in as Riley insurance.

I think Waters/Wright/Contreras gets Snell if AA was willing to pull that trigger, but (as others have mentioned before) it just doesn't feel like the kind of thing he'd do anymore. If he actually was pushing all-in and has the resources, making that deal and signing Brantley to a 3 year deal would make things awfully exciting around these parts.