Does anyone know how free agent bidding works?

[Angelsjunky]

Is it something like this?

GM A: "I"ll offer X-years for Y-$$$."

Agent: "We'll get back to you."

GM B: "I'll offer..."

Agent: We'll get back to you.

Agent (Calls GM A): Bidding is now up to X...will you up your offer?"

GM A: "OK, I'll offer..."

Agent: "We'll get back you." 

Agent (Calls GM B): "Bidding is now up to...what say you?"

 

Etc....with the assumption that there are usually many more GMs involved, and a ton of calls over days, weeks, even months.

Or are the bids "silent" and the agent just says "No, not good enough" until someone offers enough? Anyone know?

[tdawg87]

Yes.

[kevinb]

I imagine it’s just like any other job bidding or house bidding. You offer something. They counter etc etc I’m sure there’s multiple offers from multiple teams. Then at the end of the counters. The players look at everything and chooses the best option

[Pancake Bear]

Haven’t you seen Moneyball?  They show us exactly what it looks like. 

[UndertheHalo]

Jews are involved.  
 

@nate confirm ?

[nate]

i cant be the only one on here

[Claude]

All free agents should be brought to a MLB public auction. Every team could attend and bid. 

[Bronson]

36 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Haven’t you seen Moneyball?  They show us exactly what it looks like. 

Fantastic film. Probably the greatest baseball film ever made. Too bad it’s about the dirtbag A’s.

[TroutField]

14 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

All free agents should be brought to a MLB public auction. Every team could attend and bid. 

That’s racist

[Second Base]

It changes between players, agents and teams. With some players, they meet with their agents, come up with an expected contract and the teams they expect to be involved. Then the player considers which teams they'd prefer.

Agents will float the contact expectations with teams, who will start writing one of many off-season plans (which are useless because they're always subject to change). Then the waiting game starts. A lot of teams will wait until the Winter Meetings before they make actual offers. 

It's pretty normal for an agent to receive a number and call their player, who will sit on the number for a few hours, either assessing their market or paying or talking it over with their family. But within 12 hours there's typically an answer. 

I've known minor leaguers that will wait by the phone all winter before getting an offer overseas which he was excited to take, only to have teams talk about offers afterward, which is ridiculous.

I know the Angels under Stoneman were notorious for take it it leave it offers. As I understand this is what started a rift between Moreno and Boras. Boras didn't like those and wouldn't even repeat them to his players because they weren't in the timeline they had written out. 

Boras likes to control the timing of things. 

If I had to guess, with Boras he'll float rumors and numbers to the media to try and drive a market. Then he'll hold a market and teams hostage. If teams don't meet an asking price he'll give them the silent treatment and keep giving "insider info" to the media until he gets what he wants. A. Player could always tell him to talk to a team they want to sign with, but most of the time, they'll trust him because he gets top dollar.

Just my guess with Cole, he'll hold the market hostage until at least the Winter Meetings and then start asking ridiculous numbers. The silent treatment will continue through Christmas, then around mid January he'll call teams back and say he's ready to negotiate. Then he'll tell the media the market is heating up, and teams will start to feel the pressure. Then beginning February, they'll sign.

I think the ridiculous part is that often times, this approach really doesn't work. Last year, Harper to the Phillies for 300 million was a forgive conclusion in November. After a winter full of drama, Harper signs with the Phils for that amount, just in February. I bet Philadelphia waited Boras out.

[T.G.]

What usually happens is FA's and their agents have lunch with @Tank. If Tank picks up the tab - they sign with the Angels... i.e. Josh Hamilton, GMJ, Matt Harvey, Trevor Cahill, etc.

If the agent picks up the tab - they sign elsewhere i.e. Patrick Corbin, Michael Brantley, Charlie Morton, Zack Britton, etc.

Edited November 8, 2019 by True Grich

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, True Grich said:

What usually happens is FA's and their agents have lunch with @Tank. If Tank picks up the tab - they sign with the Angels... i.e. Josh Hamilton, GMJ, Matt Harvey, Trevor Cahill, etc.

If the agent picks up the tab - they sign elsewhere i.e. Patrick Corbin, Michael Brantley, Charlie Morton, Zack Britton, etc.

Well it comes down to whether @Tank or @nate pick up the tab. So, yeah, Tank picks up the tab.

 

[tomsred]

I think it depends on how much dirt the team can dig up on the player involved.  So eventually the team says you can sign with us for XXX amount, or we will expose your weaknesses to the public.  It's called a quid pro quo, ....if it's bad enough then it's bribery.

[Claude]

22 hours ago, Second Base said:

It changes between players, agents and teams. With some players, they meet with their agents, come up with an expected contract and the teams they expect to be involved. Then the player considers which teams they'd prefer.

Agents will float the contact expectations with teams, who will start writing one of many off-season plans (which are useless because they're always subject to change). Then the waiting game starts. A lot of teams will wait until the Winter Meetings before they make actual offers. 

It's pretty normal for an agent to receive a number and call their player, who will sit on the number for a few hours, either assessing their market or paying or talking it over with their family. But within 12 hours there's typically an answer. 

I've known minor leaguers that will wait by the phone all winter before getting an offer overseas which he was excited to take, only to have teams talk about offers afterward, which is ridiculous.

I know the Angels under Stoneman were notorious for take it it leave it offers. As I understand this is what started a rift between Moreno and Boras. Boras didn't like those and wouldn't even repeat them to his players because they weren't in the timeline they had written out. 

Boras likes to control the timing of things. 

If I had to guess, with Boras he'll float rumors and numbers to the media to try and drive a market. Then he'll hold a market and teams hostage. If teams don't meet an asking price he'll give them the silent treatment and keep giving "insider info" to the media until he gets what he wants. A. Player could always tell him to talk to a team they want to sign with, but most of the time, they'll trust him because he gets top dollar.

Just my guess with Cole, he'll hold the market hostage until at least the Winter Meetings and then start asking ridiculous numbers. The silent treatment will continue through Christmas, then around mid January he'll call teams back and say he's ready to negotiate. Then he'll tell the media the market is heating up, and teams will start to feel the pressure. Then beginning February, they'll sign.

I think the ridiculous part is that often times, this approach really doesn't work. Last year, Harper to the Phillies for 300 million was a forgive conclusion in November. After a winter full of drama, Harper signs with the Phils for that amount, just in February. I bet Philadelphia waited Boras out.

If Boras truly is as you describe him to be then all owners should just tell all of his clients that they’re not interested. Or even better, they should lowball all of his clients. If for some reason we don’t get Cole because of Boras then I won’t blame Arte for passing. 

[Stradling]

Yea, that is called collusion.

[Claude]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Yea, that is called collusion.

No it’s not. If they’re signing other players with more reasonable agents then that’s just looking for better deals. You’re not required to pay higher prices because an agent over exaggerates their value. Teams are free to shop. 

[Stradling]

Yes it is. 

[Second Base]

17 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

No it’s not. If they’re signing other players with more reasonable agents then that’s just looking for better deals. You’re not required to pay higher prices because an agent over exaggerates their value. Teams are free to shop. 

No I'm pretty sure owners conspiring is called collusion. I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly respect your opinion, but that's pretty much exactly what collusion is.

[tdawg87]

Nuh uh!

[Claude]

4 minutes ago, Second Base said:

No I'm pretty sure owners conspiring is called collusion. I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly respect your opinion, but that's pretty much exactly what collusion is.

I hear you. I remember reading an article years ago about Boras’s approach and how his clients are always pushed at an unreasonable 25% above what they’re really worth in the open market. He’s doing a disservice to MLB baseball and the fans. 

[Troll Daddy]

There’s no rules There’s no guarantees There’s no winners  

[Second Base]

2 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

I hear you. I remember reading an article years ago about Boras’s approach and how his clients are always pushed at an unreasonable 25% above what they’re really worth in the open market. He’s doing a disservice to MLB baseball and the fans. 

Yeah, that's good MO. And it was a good financial move for him and his clients and worked 100% of the time for a decade. But just in the last 3-4 years, his antics are screwing his clients as often as they're helping. Gone are the days when a defensively limited 1B/DH like Prince Fielder can sit on the market until damn near Spring Training and still get 200 million.

I understand Harper, I mean that upside, and his athleticism in the outfield... If I were there Phillies, I'd have offered him the same thing.

But as far as I can tell, Boras still pushed for monster contracts for very flawed or limited players. Keuchel and Moustakas immediately come to mind as examples. Kendrys Morales too. The game has changed. Owners are almost certainly colluding, analytics have shown what was considered valuable before isn't any more. Every team had changed, and now every team is basically assessing players in the same exact way. The flexibility or competitive nature of free agents has changed the market, and based on evidence from the past few off-seasons, Boras' inability to change costs his clients money and time.

If you had asked me 5 years ago if I would hire Boras as my agent, I would've said absolutely. But now.... No, I'd probably try to go with someone that doesn't care about antics or representing 1000 players, like Craig Landis. 

I'm legitimately concerned that Cole won't sign until February, and it'll either screw the Angels, or they'll be forced to move on.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Second Base

[Pancake Bear]

What evidence is there that teams are colluding? 

That’s what I thought. 

[tdawg87]

6 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

What evidence is there that teams are colluding? 

That’s what I thought. 

Hey! At least give us a chance to respond, jerk.

There is no evidence.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

No it’s not. If they’re signing other players with more reasonable agents then that’s just looking for better deals. You’re not required to pay higher prices because an agent over exaggerates their value. Teams are free to shop. 

If the owners all agree between themselves to boycott a certain agent it is absolutely collusion. It's the very definition of collusion.