2018 Hot Stove League

[ettin]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok, so he can crush any team financially and still won’t sign them to 10 year deals.  That only adds to the speculation that 10 year deals are not going to happen with these guys.  

You can not want something but still do it because it improves your team and keeps you highly competitive.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that categorically says they will not do something if it clearly improves their team and they have the roster space and the money to execute it.

Look I get that a large portion of this board believes that any baseball contract over $10M is a lot and that any long-term contract for any player over $200M is disgusting but the market has been increasing significantly over a long period of time. Also I get that teams are steering away from long contracts into age 30 players and above but we are not talking about that here with Harper and Machado.

You can rail against the free markets all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these two are going to get paid a lot more money than people are projecting here (and perhaps under what I think they will get too it can work both ways).

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

I actually had them both exceeding $400M approaching $500M, something like $450 for Machado and Harper at $420 or something along those lines. I still believe both will exceed $400M. That is where I stand right now and I fully admit that I could be completely wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

No team is offering them that kind of money. 

 

I hate to say this.... Mike Trout isn't worth 1/2 a Billion either......... No athlete is!  I don't find a game that entertaining!

[ettin]

27 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it doesn't matter what they can do.  it's only matters what they will do.  

Every team has the spending power to add Harper or Machado and some Harper and Machado.  There's a reason they're not doing it and it's not because they can't afford it.  It's that it doesn't make sense for them to do so.  They have all the numbers and projection and budgets etc.  

Committing 8-10 years to these guys at 30+ mil has been vetted up an down by almost every team.  

I don't think there is a lack of activity because teams are suddenly better at controlling the rumor mill.  It's that they're just not interested in that length of contract.  Why have teams suddenly jumped in at the end?  Because they're not getting the length of deal they want.  Why is it taking so long?  Because they're not getting the length of deal they want.  

Agents used to present a number and teams would look at their budgets and say yeah or neigh.  Now the teams are telling the players what they are worth and not the other way around.  

I do not think this is the case at the top end of the market.

[ettin]

3 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

 

 

I hate to say this.... Mike Trout isn't worth 1/2 a Billion either......... No athlete is!  I don't find a game that entertaining!

I don't think so either Slappy but it doesn't matter what you or I think, it is what the free market will pay them (and once again I freely admit that I might wind up being wrong about their contracts).

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

7 minutes ago, ettin said:

I don't think so either Slappy but it doesn't matter what you or I think, it is what the free market will pay them (and once again I freely admit that I might wind up being wrong about their contracts).

Well, ettin, Neither of us are wrong or incorrect as of yet!... As neither have signed. I still don't believe either will end up with the 10 year deal they covet.

Maybe a 5-7 with 1 or 2 opt outs.

They both have fleas. Mostly on the Marketability side as being a FACE of an Organization! They both run to the beat of their own drum. Would I love to have them? Sure, at a more Hamilton type contract though! 5/125M..

[DMVol]

4 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

....Maybe a 5-7 with 1 or 2 opt outs.

Maybe 7/8 for both...but not 10....and not 300....we’ll see...

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, ettin said:

You can not want something but still do it because it improves your team and keeps you highly competitive.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that categorically says they will not do something if it clearly improves their team and they have the roster space and the money to execute it.

Look I get that a large portion of this board believes that any baseball contract over $10M is a lot and that any long-term contract for any player over $200M is disgusting but the market has been increasing significantly over a long period of time. Also I get that teams are steering away from long contracts into age 30 players and above but we are not talking about that here with Harper and Machado.

You can rail against the free markets all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these two are going to get paid a lot more money than people are projecting here (and perhaps under what I think they will get too it can work both ways).

Your argument was more relevant 5 years ago. Since then there has been a shift in another direction by ballclubs. Not just a couple but the entire league. 

Robinson Cano was the last player to receive a 10 year contract back in 2014 by the Mariners. 

The next longest contract was Jason Heyward for 8 years in 2016.

You have to go back to 2011-12 to find more contracts that exceed 8 years. They just aren't happening anymore and i don't think Machado is getting anything past 7 years and Harper walked on his best deal from the Nationals that were over paying for the home grown talent. He is just not that good of a player once you eliminate his singular (steroids) stand out year. 

[ettin]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Your argument was more relevant 5 years ago. Since then there has been a shift in another direction by ballclubs. Not just a couple but the entire league. 

Robinson Cano was the last player to receive a 10 year contract back in 2014 by the Mariners. 

The next longest contract was Jason Heyward for 8 years in 2016.

You have to go back to 2011-12 to find more contracts that exceed 8 years. They just aren't happening anymore and i don't think Machado is getting anything past 7 years and Harper walked on his best deal from the Nationals that were over paying for the home grown talent. He is just not that good of a player once you eliminate his singular (steroids) stand out year. 

This is a potentially valid opinion and outcome.

Maybe I am wrong. Is it okay if I have this opinion?

A lot of people here are trying hard to convince me otherwise and I freely admit that I may look naive/foolish when they finally do sign.

[ettin]

Since it is relevant to the conversation:

[Stradling]

29 minutes ago, ettin said:

You can not want something but still do it because it improves your team and keeps you highly competitive.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that categorically says they will not do something if it clearly improves their team and they have the roster space and the money to execute it.

Look I get that a large portion of this board believes that any baseball contract over $10M is a lot and that any long-term contract for any player over $200M is disgusting but the market has been increasing significantly over a long period of time. Also I get that teams are steering away from long contracts into age 30 players and above but we are not talking about that here with Harper and Machado.

You can rail against the free markets all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these two are going to get paid a lot more money than people are projecting here (and perhaps under what I think they will get too it can work both ways).

I’m far from one of the guys that think $200 million is disgusting.  I think both deserve a $200 million contract.  But it’s very obvious that the free agent game has changed.  

[m0nkey]

11 minutes ago, ettin said:

Maybe I am wrong. Is it okay if I have this opinion?

No, no opinions. You are either right or wrong. 

[VariousCrap]

Trout isn't going to get a 10 year deal if he waits for free agency.  Those days are done.  The only way he gets a 10 year contract is if he extends with the Angels prior to FA.

Edited February 13, 2019 by VariousCrap

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

You can not want something but still do it because it improves your team and keeps you highly competitive.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that categorically says they will not do something if it clearly improves their team and they have the roster space and the money to execute it.

Look I get that a large portion of this board believes that any baseball contract over $10M is a lot and that any long-term contract for any player over $200M is disgusting but the market has been increasing significantly over a long period of time. Also I get that teams are steering away from long contracts into age 30 players and above but we are not talking about that here with Harper and Machado.

You can rail against the free markets all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these two are going to get paid a lot more money than people are projecting here (and perhaps under what I think they will get too it can work both ways).

The market has clearly altered based on a new approach to player valuation in the past five years. You can believe what you want, but there isn’t the slightest chance either approaches 400mil at this point - unless two owners magically change their mind and get in a bidding war - I’m starting to wonder if even Trout will at this point. If either was going to sign for that much, they would’ve by now. There’s no indication in the market that they’re getting that much in years or total salary. At this point, the max would be 350, and that might be high now. 

The question isn’t what owners can afford, it’s what they’re willing to spend. They’ve convinced themselves they can win with lower payrolls and most of the big time spenders aren’t around anymore or are working on a budget, despite the fact that they can clearly afford it. The reality that most long term contracts have ended poorly gives them an argument for the public, even if it’s at least somewhat ridiculous. I suspect they’ll both end up in around the 300-330 range. 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

Since it is relevant to the conversation:

I read that earlier as well and thought it interesting and I totally agree.  Frankly, this is where I thought the market was way overvalued.   the Lance Lynn deal is a decent example but even still probably a year less and 20 mil short of what he'd have gotten 5 years ago.  Teams have wised up to that segment of the market.  Those were sucker deals for the most part.  Frankly, the Cozart deal was a sucker deal as well.  

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

You can not want something but still do it because it improves your team and keeps you highly competitive.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that categorically says they will not do something if it clearly improves their team and they have the roster space and the money to execute it.

Look I get that a large portion of this board believes that any baseball contract over $10M is a lot and that any long-term contract for any player over $200M is disgusting but the market has been increasing significantly over a long period of time. Also I get that teams are steering away from long contracts into age 30 players and above but we are not talking about that here with Harper and Machado.

You can rail against the free markets all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these two are going to get paid a lot more money than people are projecting here (and perhaps under what I think they will get too it can work both ways).

1 mil is a lot of money.  10m is a shit ton and 200m isn't even a real number.  

I actually couldn't care less how much a player makes.  I would encourage them to get every last dime they think they can and I don't blame any of them for chasing the money or settling on less to play for the team they want.  

I just don't think Harper and Machado are going to get what you think.  I have always maintained that Machado would get about 250 and Harper around 330.  

[ettin]

6 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

The market has clearly altered based on a new approach to player valuation in the past five years. You can believe what you want, but there isn’t the slightest chance either approaches 400mil at this point - unless two owners magically change their mind and get in a bidding war - I’m starting to wonder if even Trout will at this point. If either was going to sign for that much, they would’ve by now. There’s no indication in the market that they’re getting that much in years or total salary. At this point, the max would be 350, and that might be high now. 

The question isn’t what owners can afford, it’s what they’re willing to spend. They’ve convinced themselves they can win with lower payrolls and most of the big time spenders aren’t around anymore or are working on a budget, despite the fact that they can clearly afford it. The reality that most long term contracts have ended poorly gives them an argument for the public, even if it’s at least somewhat ridiculous. I suspect they’ll both end up in around the 300-330 range. 

What has altered?

Last off-season was a sh*t-show of bad free agents with J.D. Martinez, essentially a DH, getting 5 years, $100M at age 30? The year before that was not that impressive either and the free agent money reacted accordingly. There is a reason teams consolidated their resources to get under the Luxury Tax last season, in anticipation of spending this season. In fact it was the theme for the last 3 years or so.

So frankly, you can believe what you want but to-date it has not been reflected in the market. When it does (and if this is the magical year) then I will be more than happy to admit that there has been a change.

Until then I still expect Machado and Harper to exceed $400M each. Again, this is my opinion and I could be completely wrong.

[ettin]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

1 mil is a lot of money.  10m is a shit ton and 200m isn't even a real number.  

I actually couldn't care less how much a player makes.  I would encourage them to get every last dime they think they can and I don't blame any of them for chasing the money or settling on less to play for the team they want.  

I just don't think Harper and Machado are going to get what you think.  I have always maintained that Machado would get about 250 and Harper around 330.  

This is a perfectly reasonable argument and we will see where they fall and it wouldn't surprise me if they did get what you are projecting if there has been this big shift in the marketplace.

[Pancake Bear]

38 minutes ago, ettin said:

What has altered?

Last off-season was a sh*t-show of bad free agents with J.D. Martinez, essentially a DH, getting 5 years, $100M at age 30? The year before that was not that impressive either and the free agent money reacted accordingly. There is a reason teams consolidated their resources to get under the Luxury Tax last season, in anticipation of spending this season. In fact it was the theme for the last 3 years or so.

So frankly, you can believe what you want but to-date it has not been reflected in the market. When it does (and if this is the magical year) then I will be more than happy to admit that there has been a change.

Until then I still expect Machado and Harper to exceed $400M each. Again, this is my opinion and I could be completely wrong.

Um, look at the date: When’s the last time 4 of the top guys were unsigned this late? Last year the excuse was that it was a bad free agent class. What about this time? 

Allthe buzz from the rumor guys is that Harper and Machado are getting lowballed at less than 8 years and sub-300mil total deals. If the were wrong and you were right, signatures would already be on paper. Maybe someone will blink, but a number of teams have gone on record as balking at contracts over 7ish years. Could it change? Sure, but if either gets over 350, I’ll be shocked at this this point. The evidence all points to a prolonged hold out, a shorter term deal, or a lower aav (probably least likely).

This isn’t opinion, it’s based on information we can see. Contracts have not been rising as fast as they should proportionate to what the sport is making. What is rising? Analytics. Reports are teams are all valuing players similarly and are less willing to bite at Boras’ sales pitch.

And why should they when teams like Tampa and Oakland keep putting out playoff teams semi-regularly on shoestring budgets? Big budget teams can run with a similar model and a larger, albeit still limited budget and put up consistently competitive teams. They aren’t spending stupid money anymore because they don’t want to and don’t need to. Where’s the incentive? So while Harper and Machado would probably be worth 10yr 400 mil, they won’t get it, because teams don’t want to spend that much and are winning the propaganda battle in the media, IMO. 

Could change, but there’s little indication of it at this point. 

[ettin]

15 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Um, look at the date: When’s the last time 4 of the top guys were unsigned this late? Last year the excuse was that it was a bad free agent class. What about this time? 

Allthe buzz from the rumor guys is that Harper and Machado are getting lowballed at less than 8 years and sub-300mil total deals. If the were wrong and you were right, signatures would already be on paper. Maybe someone will blink, but a number of teams have gone on record as balking at contracts over 7ish years. Could it change? Sure, but if either gets over 350, I’ll be shocked at this this point. The evidence all points to a prolonged hold out, a shorter term deal, or a lower aav (probably least likely).

This isn’t opinion, it’s based on information we can see. Contracts have not been rising as fast as they should proportionate to what the sport is making. What is rising? Analytics. Reports are teams are all valuing players similarly and are less willing to bite at Boras’ sales pitch.

And why should they when teams like Tampa and Oakland keep putting out playoff teams semi-regularly on shoestring budgets? Big budget teams can run with a similar model and a larger, albeit still limited budget and put up consistently competitive teams. They aren’t spending stupid money anymore because they don’t want to and don’t need to. Where’s the incentive? So while Harper and Machado would probably be worth 10yr 400 mil, they won’t get it, because teams don’t want to spend that much and are winning the propaganda battle in the media, IMO. 

Could change, but there’s little indication of it at this point. 

I feel like banging my head against the wall.

The trend over the last handful of years, particularly with Scott Boras clients is to stretch out free agency until late in the off-season. They do this to apply pressure to the teams and create maximum bidding wars rather than hammering it all out at the Winter meetings, which created an artificial deadline that agents have rightly decided to start ignoring in favor of maximizing their clients paydays.

Look you see it one way I see it another. I have fully admitted that my point of view might not be correct but we will all see what happens.

Done explaining my point of view over and over again.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

  I have always maintained that Machado would get about 250 and Harper around 330. 

Once the Nationals recinded the 10 year deal, Harper lost all negotiation power. He (Boras actually) can't waive it in front of other owners and say, best this. The best offer left the room. Now it's who will make the next best which is probably fewer years or lesser money. 

Machado doesn't even have that to sell. He played the no hustle card and injured players and his reputation in the World Series. This guy is the poster boy for high risk. 

[Blarg]

2 minutes ago, ettin said:

The trend over the last handful of years, particularly with Scott Boras clients is to stretch out free agency until late in the off-season.

The off season ends tomorrow for most teams. Boras is not getting any better deal waiting any longer. In fact, last season he cost a few players extended contracts by refusing their best offer early.

[Troll Daddy]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Once the Nationals recinded the 10 year deal, Harper lost all negotiation power. He (Boras actually) can't waive it in front of other owners and say, best this. The best offer left the room. Now it's who will make the next best which is probably fewer years or lesser money. 

Machado doesn't even have that to sell. He played the no hustle card and injured players and his reputation in the World Series. This guy is the poster boy for high risk. 

Is your opinion on Machado based on his few months with the Dodgers? 

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Once the Nationals recinded the 10 year deal, Harper lost all negotiation power. He (Boras actually) can't waive it in front of other owners and say, best this. The best offer left the room. Now it's who will make the next best which is probably fewer years or lesser money. 

Machado doesn't even have that to sell. He played the no hustle card and injured players and his reputation in the World Series. This guy is the poster boy for high risk. 

I agree with all you have said.  Don't discount the Lerner/Boras relationship for a last minute swoop in of Harper doesn't get what he wants from the dogs.  I think he'll get above 300 mil.  My guess is the phils will go there.  

I think Machado will take 7/210 from the yanks but it will come out that later that the CWS offered 250.  

[Fish Oil]

14 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Is your opinion on Machado based on his few months with the Dodgers? 

Machado's behavior on the Dodgers was an extension of his behavior with the Orioles. He has a long and well-deserved reputation for this sort of juvenile nonsense. 

[VariousCrap]

11 minutes ago, Fish Oil said:

Machado's behavior on the Dodgers was an extension of his behavior with the Orioles. He has a long and well-deserved reputation for this sort of juvenile nonsense. 

Jim Palmer, who covered Machado's entire O's career, has long talked about how Machado was not the best clubhouse guy and never hustled.  He was very critical of him.