JDM

Status
Not open for further replies.

mfried

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,680
Since the slugging outfielder/DH might be the one important piece of new business for the Sox this offseason, I would love to see you all address the questions:
1) How much should Dombrowski pay?
2) If they take the plunge, will Bradley or Ramirez be exported? Should they? Can the Sox use Moreland, Ramirez, Martinez and Bradley?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
For question 1 I'll point to this again: http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/fielding/statistical-analysis-fielding/jd-martinez-worth-dh/

Here's the conclusion, though it loses all nuance without the rest of the article, so give it a look if you have the time. Short answer, though, is a lot.

At $12.82M, that 3.25 WAR becomes $41.67M on the open market across those six years. That’s just over $250M of value over that span. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Red Sox turn around and offer 6/250 as a counter to Boras’s 8/200. I’m simply pointing out that the assumption that a DH can’t be worth 6/150 or even 6/200 isn’t necessarily true. If the team can land him for the former, there’s a pretty good chance that there would be some surplus value on the field. Even at 2.5 WAR per year averaged Martinez could produce anywhere from $146.25M to $192.3M in value.
As for question 2, I imagine that if they can find a taker for Hanley, they'd do it regardless of the status of Martinez. That said, his rate of balls hit 95 mph or more, and his launch angles suggest he could bounce back nicely next year if he's actually healthy. Though, with shoulder surgery, you never know...
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
1. That is the $40 dollar question. If he pays him $30 million he blows through the CBT. Seven years would not be something we should consider. However, DD may have to pay $25 Million for five years. I for one would like us to offer him a 3 year $28 million deal.
2. I don't think a trade is necessary if we sign him. However, it would be better for the team if we trade Hanley to free up money to sign a UT-IF and a LH-RP.

Edit: we should for he should
 
Last edited:

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
#1 - I would go a max of 5/130 guaranteed. Could add a team option for year 6. Would try to get down to 4 years guaranteed by offering an opt-out (after year 3, or maybe even year 2).

#2 - I don't think JBJ should be shipped out to make room for JDM (although I would have for Stanton). And I don't think we'd get enough (or would have to eat too much salary) to make it worth it to trade Hanley, who I think still has some upside left. I think there are enough ABs to go around, although it would likely squeeze out Brentz and maybe Swihart, both of whom I'd like to see given some chance ( it's going to be a battle for those last couple of spots on the 25-man roster coming out of ST).
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,402
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Well .. if they don't trade anyone you're looking at a bench of Swihart/Leon, Marrero, Hanley and Brentz.

This isn't exactly very flexible and Marrero as the UT INF would be stretched.

I think they have to trade Hanley .. or release him. Unlike many on this board I do not want Bradley traded. The outfield defense would take a huge hit with JDM in left and Benentendi in CF.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Here's how I think things stand, with the caveat that this is nothing but the moderately-informed musings of a guy on the internet.
  • Boras asked for 7/$200, which means he wants 6/$150. The early public "Agent Scott Boras is looking for..." numbers are generally over the moon, and he only occasionally gets them. This is something that people seem to forget every year.
  • I think Martinez is worth signing at 6/$150. That commitment aims for him to produce 16ish fWAR over 6 years, and I think that's not too ambitious, given that he's been worth 14 fWAR over his past 4 years. Of course, there's always risk, especially with a guy who hasn't always been the healthiest player.
  • However: I think we can get him *much* cheaper.
  • Our only confirmed competitors for his services are SFG and ARI:
    • ARI reportedly cannot afford JDM without moving Greinke, at which point it's hard to tell if they're actually improving the team, or just moving deck chairs around. If I'm Arizona — in their league, with their roster, in their ballpark — I want the 200 IP ace who's shown he can pitch in the desert, who is now owed 'only' 4/$120. Mike Hazen likely feels the same way. If you move that $120m just to give a comparable sum to JDM, where are you finding a new SP1? They're only in if the price falls to the point they can afford both players. I don't know where point is, but I imagine it's under $100m.
    • San Francisco is trying to stay under the CBT threshold, and they need both a LF bat and improved OF defense. They need to sign Jarrod Dyson to play CF and acquire McCutchen for LF: something like that. Sabean and Evans know what they're doing. If they sign JDM, they've spent their budget, still have no CF, and maybe made their OF defense even worse somehow? Unlikely. Stanton made a lot more sense for them than Martinez does. They're only in if the price falls *a ton,* and even then, I'm not sure it makes sense.
  • So I think DD is doing a good job in not negotiating against himself. He should match or beat the best offer from ARI or SFG, but those offers shouldn't touch what we can afford to spend on JDM given our needs and where we are on the success cycle.
  • Bottom line, the longer this goes on, the lower I anticipate the resulting deal coming in at. I had predicted $160m two months ago, but now I'll be more surprised if the deal is more than $135 than I will if it's $100 or lower.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
I thought CBT was the $237 million limit. You're sayings it's the lower limit of $197?
Any team over $197M in salary are paying the Competitive Balance Tax. The $237M number is where penalties go beyond simply paying extra money (though there's an additional surtax on exceeding $237M). Teams going over $237M also have their highest draft pick dropped 10 positions.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
If I'm Arizona — in their league, with their roster, in their ballpark — I want the 200 IP ace who's shown he can pitch in the desert, who is now owed 'only' 4/$120.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Greinke is still owed 4/$138.5M.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
At what point does Boras come to DD and float the idea of the Adrian Beltre make good contract for JDM? Get your client as close as you can to the $30mm you floated early in the off-season and save your powder for the 2019 market when there might be more than one team bidding.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
At what point does Boras come to DD and float the idea of the Adrian Beltre make good contract for JDM? Get your client as close as you can to the $30mm you floated early in the off-season and save your powder for the 2019 market when there might be more than one team bidding.
You do the one-year deal when you have a player like Beltre hitting free agency off a very bad year (83 OPS+ in 2009). Martinez is coming off what's likely the best year he'll ever have. It's hard to picture anything he does in 2018 that would make his value higher than it is now.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
I doubt JD has a better season next year than he did this year. So he would just be a year older, coming off a worse year, in the greatest FA class in years. The fact is that he is a good, but not amazing, player. If he doubled his career WAR over the course of the deal, he would have a marginally more valuable career than Jason Bay(who also had the best year of his career at 30 and the completely fell off a cliff once he got a big FA contract from the Mets). He isn't an elite talent and he doesnt deserve to be paid like one. He cant field so he is useless immediately if his bat drops below anything but amazing.
 
Last edited:

Hawk68

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
  • So I think DD is doing a good job in not negotiating against himself. He should match or beat the best offer from ARI or SFG, but those offers shouldn't touch what we can afford to spend on JDM given our needs and where we are on the success cycle.
  • Bottom line, the longer this goes on, the lower I anticipate the resulting deal coming in at. I had predicted $160m two months ago, but now I'll be more surprised if the deal is more than $135 than I will if it's $100 or lower.


I agree 100%. If I were negotiating for Red Sox I would start in the three year $95M range and keep the dialogue open. More years, lower AAV. Want an OPT Out? We can work those details.

Long story short, I believe JDM will DH and find fill-in OF AB for the Red Sox, and HR will be moved in spring training with healthy subsidy.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Frankly if JDM is looking at a pillow contract down the road many more teams will be in play for him.

I think he still insists on 5-6 years but if the total dollars not what he likes (under 25 million AAV)he may ask for a 1 yr opt out and choose a park that best fits his bat. This could put the Yankees in play and his bat plays far better at YS3 than Fenway.

Players often look at total dollars more than AAV since they know an injury and or age related decline can end any hopes of a future mega deal
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
The more this drags on, the more I think we'll see JDM for around the $25M/5 years that makes more sense on the Red Sox..... and the more (and I was pretty certain this wasn't going to be the case) I think Hanley will be moved (and you just know he'll have the year at the plate that looks like the 2nd half of his 2016 for a full healthy season) for pennies on the dollar.

JDM will be the "starting LF'er" but most of his games will be at DH. The OF will stay intact... I think Brentz still should have a place on the team as mostly a platoon with Moreland and injury to OF insurance and mostly the 4th OF'er.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Wait a minute ... so Dave Dombrowski, the guy who blew everyone else away two years ago for David Price, the guy who sent away every top prospect except Devers and Benintendi to get the guys he wanted in trades ... *that* guy has suddenly morphed into the master negotiator who is staring down Scott Boras to get J.D. Martinez at his price and not a nickel more?

Sorry, not buying it. The longer this goes on, the more I think it's an indication that JDM doesn't want to come to Boston.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,257
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
I'm hoping 5/135 and not a penny more ... gets him over the 25M AAV people seem to assume without going to a 6th year and/or 30M ... regardless, I'm afraid this is going to be an overpay
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
With Price he was going after an ace, and everyone agreed Price was an ace. Here he's going after a star DH, but Boras is marketing him as a star OF.

Also, it's not like there's crazy action going on elsewhere with the other options dropping off the board. Nothing's moving.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
Sorry, not buying it. The longer this goes on, the more I think it's an indication that JDM doesn't want to come to Boston.
Or vice versa...Dombrowski isn't interested in signing JDM.

Admittedly, I haven't read everything there is to read, but it seems to me that most reports tying the Red Sox and Martinez don't have the tone of the two sides are talking and negotiations are on-going. It's just speculation that there should be mutual interest.

I haven't seen or heard anything to indicate there is an absolutely certain desire on the part of the Red Sox to sign JD Martinez. It's been just that he's the best bat out there and they need a big bat so their pairing is inevitable. Contrast that to, for example, rumors of the Padres' interest in Eric Hosmer. That's been less of the speculative "those two make a good fit" talk and more explicit "the Padres want him" reports.

Basically, I'm not buying anything the media says about the Red Sox this off-season. There's just too much of a track record with Dombrowski of signings and trades that basically come out of nowhere with little to no hint of what was coming until the deal was about 99% of the way done, if not complete. Dombrowski plays everything close to his vest to the point that it's pretty much a given that no one in the media is getting insider dope from the team to fuel rumors. Which leaves them to more or less manufacture rumors and speculation to sell papers and give sports radio some talking points. It's wishcasting and bullshit until proven otherwise as far as I'm concerned.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Sorry, not buying it. The longer this goes on, the more I think it's an indication that JDM doesn't want to come to Boston.
While possible, it's far more likely that Boras is holding out as long as possible to create the illusion, or even the reality, of multiple teams bidding in order to help the market develop. It's not like he hasn't done this before.

Seems foolish to speak in absolutes when thinking of reasons for why a Boras client has not signed early.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
While possible, it's far more likely that Boras is holding out as long as possible to create the illusion, or even the reality, of multiple teams bidding in order to help the market develop. It's not like he hasn't done this before.

Seems foolish to speak in absolutes when thinking of reasons for why a Boras client has not signed early.
Right. Boras clients don't typically sign early. If this indicates anything, it's probably more likely that Boras' price and what teams are willing to offer aren't close, and at some point one or both sides will move off of their lines in the sand and a deal will get made. I'm guessing Dombrowski (and maybe a couple of other teams) are sticking to 5 years, Boras wants 7 or 8. I'd guess that eventually there will be an agreement on 6. Maybe with a vesting option for a 7th based on PAs or something.

Frankly, if they can sign him for 6/150 with a vesting option for a 7th year based on like 1100 PAs between his 5th and 6th years, I'd be pretty happy with it. Such an option won't vest unless he's healthy, and if he's healthy, I think there's a reasonable chance he's still a good hitter in 2024, at age 36.

Edit: Even if we are conservative with an estimate on how much a win cost last year and say 8 million, with a rate of increase at about 500K per season, that's 11.5M per win in 2024. That's 2.23 WAR.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Well .. if they don't trade anyone you're looking at a bench of Swihart/Leon, Marrero, Hanley and Brentz.

This isn't exactly very flexible and Marrero as the UT INF would be stretched.

I think they have to trade Hanley .. or release him. Unlike many on this board I do not want Bradley traded. The outfield defense would take a huge hit with JDM in left and Benentendi in CF.
The question of the bench is an interesting one. Because, really, what does the 2017 Red Sox NEED the bench to do, versus what they might want the bench to be able to do.

1) They NEED a backup catcher to play at least 40 full games.

2) They NEED utility players good enough to give defensive positional regulars regular days off, for every infielder and outfielder position.

Is that all they need from the bench? The list of want-to-haves seems to be a lot longer.

A) They should want a slick-fielding infielder with a strong and accurate arm, available to play late innings of any game with the lead — at 3B —due to Devers’ poor arm and suspect range.

B) They should want a RHH 1B able to platoon with Mitch Moreland.

C) They may want a RHH LF able to platoon with Andrew Benintendi, although they may prefer to accept worse production in order to allow him opportunity to develop his bat against MLB LHP.

D) They should want a pinch-runner able to run for either catcher, in the 8th/9th/extras, to tie or win the game.

E) If they land JDM and play him as a LF, they should want a defensive replacement in LF, as with Devers.

F) ???

G) Profit !

————

Well, I could only think of 4-5 nice-to-haves, and the list is clearly longer if JDM is signed to play LF. However, regardless where JDM would play, the Sox almost certainly need to have a stronger bench if he’s on the team.

If both JDM and HR are on the team, then either JBJ needs to be traded, or the bench needs to be incredibly flexible. Because while they are two good hitters, they are also two really limited baseball player.

On the other hand, the Sox shouldn’t need a traditional “bat off the bench” for pinch hitting opportunities, especially when Pedroia is back.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Wait a minute ... so Dave Dombrowski, the guy who blew everyone else away two years ago for David Price, the guy who sent away every top prospect except Devers and Benintendi to get the guys he wanted in trades ... *that* guy has suddenly morphed into the master negotiator who is staring down Scott Boras to get J.D. Martinez at his price and not a nickel more?

Sorry, not buying it. The longer this goes on, the more I think it's an indication that JDM doesn't want to come to Boston.
Agreed that none of that is really adding up beyond outside speculation trying to force the fit, which is basically pretty similar to the EE stuff last winter. Although I'm guessing more along the indication lines that Henry simply doesn't want to cut that type of check this winter, otherwise DD would have pulled the trigger by now.

Thinking a possible trade on McCutchen at this point is probably more likely as a late type add.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
I think we are just a week or two before Boras starts moaning about league-wide collusion or something - I know he often takes his guys deeper into the offseason before they sign, but he has most of the "big name" players (5 of the top 8 I believe) and the New Year is almost upon us and none of them have signed yet....

I suspect other teams know that the likely absence of many of the games big spending clubs of recent years from the competition to land this years top FAs has them all thinking the same thing - that Boras has much less leverage than usual, so be patient and he will drop the asking prices eventually. Combined with other teams that "could" play (because they have low present payrolls) but will not because they are going to save their bullets for the bigger prizes in next year's FA class, it makes for alot fewer interested teams than a "normal" year it would appear. Then add in the "these big deals are usually duds" conventional GM wisdom that only grows stronger each and every year...

For JDM specifically, I would be surprised at this point if he gets better than 5 years/$120-$130M....
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
JDM has his upsides and downsides. He's the middle order bat we need, But he also
- Can't field well, so will need to DH often (making DH less available for Pedey, or Devers, or anyone else)
- kills a roster spot that could go to a more versatile player.
- relegates Hanley to a $22M platoon player.

I could see DD thinking that they'd work around those issues if they can get JDM for a good price, but that those limitations make it unwise to overpay for him.

What's a good price? I agree with others: it's less than 6/$150M. Maybe 5/$120M?
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
JDM has his upsides and downsides. He's the middle order bat we need, But he also
- Can't field well, so will need to DH often (making DH less available for Pedey, or Devers, or anyone else)
- kills a roster spot that could go to a more versatile player.
- relegates Hanley to a $22M platoon player.

I could see DD thinking that they'd work around those issues if they can get JDM for a good price, but that those limitations make it unwise to overpay for him.

What's a good price? I agree with others: it's less than 6/$150M. Maybe 5/$120M?
He should be the every DH. Pedroia isn't the bat he used to be. If he isn't healthy enough for second, let him rest and in the right situations let him pinch hit. Just gotta live with Devers defense. Hanley is just a tough decision whoever you sign. 5/120 is probably an overpay but that's the way things go.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I think we are just a week or two before Boras starts moaning about league-wide collusion or something - I know he often takes his guys deeper into the offseason before they sign, but he has most of the "big name" players (5 of the top 8 I believe) and the New Year is almost upon us and none of them have signed yet....

I suspect other teams know that the likely absence of many of the games big spending clubs of recent years from the competition to land this years top FAs has them all thinking the same thing - that Boras has much less leverage than usual, so be patient and he will drop the asking prices eventually. Combined with other teams that "could" play (because they have low present payrolls) but will not because they are going to save their bullets for the bigger prizes in next year's FA class, it makes for alot fewer interested teams than a "normal" year it would appear. Then add in the "these big deals are usually duds" conventional GM wisdom that only grows stronger each and every year...

For JDM specifically, I would be surprised at this point if he gets better than 5 years/$120-$130M....
Clark should be whispering the collusion word in someones ear as well.

The LT penalties are a factor but the Dodgers and Yankees have not been huge players in the FA market in recent years so I thinks its rather overstated, and penalties really dont kick in unless you go 20-40 million over the threshold where nobody has been but those two teams.

Teams should be flush with cash from the BamTeck same (50 million each) and soaring revenues (about 8% per year) and even faster rising valuations. Yet average salaries have increased less than 3% over the last 2 years and last FA class was one of the weakest ever and the dollar amount spent was less than 1/2 what was spent the previous year.

Most teams on the sideline this year know they have no chance (or very small chance) for a Machado , Kershaw or Harper and should be all in on some of the quality bats on the market.

Maybe there is some other explanation but the Manfred era has some of the signs you would expect when there is collusion. Boras and Clark should at least be letting MLB know they are watching this closely.

Also, while some deals may not work out well is it it really true that most deals are"usually" duds? The biggest issues seem to be with defensive speedsters in the OF not panning out (Crawford, Ellsbury, Heyward). Maybe teams are over rating such players. Anyways I'd like to see a study showing how many of these FA deals are turning bust compared to ten years ago
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Also, while some deals may not work out well is it it really true that most deals are"usually" duds? The biggest issues seem to be with defensive speedsters in the OF not panning out (Crawford, Ellsbury, Heyward). Maybe teams are over rating such players. Anyways I'd like to see a study showing how many of these FA deals are turning bust compared to ten years ago
To be fair, the Sox also haven't done great signing slow infielders
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
Maybe there is some other explanation but the Manfred era has some of the signs you would expect when there is collusion.
It's not collusion, most big contracts end up being albatrosses really quickly. Just look at a list of current nine figure deals, for the most part these are deals the teams would love to be rid of, so why take on a new one if you don't absolutely have to? I agree that it doesn't have much to do with Harper/Machado/Kershaw though.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The LT penalties are a factor but the Dodgers and Yankees have not been huge players in the FA market in recent years so I thinks its rather overstated, and penalties really dont kick in unless you go 20-40 million over the threshold where nobody has been but those two teams.
This is patently untrue, especially for a team hoping to sign a Harper or Machado (or Kershaw if he opts out) next winter. Those guys will likely have QO's hanging around their necks so if, say, the Yankees are over the threshold this year (not the secondary one, the actual CBT threshold of 197 million) then signing one of those players will cost them a tax penalty AND their 2nd and 5th picks in the next draft, AND 1M in IFA money instead of just a 2nd and 500k.

Getting under serves an important purpose for a team looking ahead to a big free agent or class a year out.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
What would teams be colluding about exactly? Not wanting to commit $200 million dollars for a guy on the wrong side of 30 who is already basically a DH only at this point?

I'm (probably way too optimistically) seeing Edwin Encarnacion parallels from last year in the way this could play out.
Genuine middle of order offense with high OBP and HR with poor defense.
Edwin was 3.5 years older when he signed 3/60 (with one year club option 10 mill + 2mill buyout).
JD the monster second half with ARI, but Edwin the longer track record and better at staying on the field.
And a key similar factor is seemingly limited number of suitors for the skillset that have the money to spend.

Last 4 years prior to FA
Edwin:
Games: 576
HR: 151
OBP by year: .370, .354, .372, .357
SLG by year: .530, .547, .557, .529

JD:
Games: 520
HR: 128
OBP by year: .358, .344, .373, .376
SLG by year: .553, .535, .535, .690

If that gets Edwin 3/60 and a very team friendly team option for a 4th year then the only way JD sniffs north of 150 is if a team buys 2017 as his new baseline. I'd like to think teams aren't that dumb anymore.....
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
What would teams be colluding about exactly? Not wanting to commit $200 million dollars for a guy on the wrong side of 30 who is already basically a DH only at this point?

I'm (probably way too optimistically) seeing Edwin Encarnacion parallels from last year in the way this could play out.
Genuine middle of order offense with high OBP and HR with poor defense.
Edwin was 3.5 years older when he signed 3/60 (with one year club option 10 mill + 2mill buyout).
JD the monster second half with ARI, but Edwin the longer track record and better at staying on the field.
And a key similar factor is seemingly limited number of suitors for the skillset that have the money to spend.

Last 4 years prior to FA
Edwin:
Games: 576
HR: 151
OBP by year: .370, .354, .372, .357
SLG by year: .530, .547, .557, .529

JD:
Games: 520
HR: 128
OBP by year: .358, .344, .373, .376
SLG by year: .553, .535, .535, .690

If that gets Edwin 3/60 and a very team friendly team option for a 4th year then the only way JD sniffs north of 150 is if a team buys 2017 as his new baseline. I'd like to think teams aren't that dumb anymore.....
This is a very good comparison apart from the fact that E5 is four and a half years older.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Still, there's been a natural economic choice for years. Pay a guy more/year for a shorter term, pay a guy less/year for a longer term, and/or provide opt outs. The cost of a player is what it is and it's going up, not down.

So 5/135 versus 6/150 versus 3/90 (etc.). I think that few players would consider making $90M through age 33 to be as good as $150M through age 36, particularly with an opt out. If a team doesn't want to commit all those years, then it needs to figure out what the shorter term is worth. How much more (%) would you pay/year to make a 6-year contract a 3-year contract for a 30-year old hitter? 50%? The question could be asked the other way around - which they'll do when it's time to sign Betts et. al.

(Put another way, would Encarnacion have been open to a 6/85 package?)

The risk with JDM is in eating those final years. Pay now or pay later. If it's not worth it to pay now, just walk away.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
3.5 years older that JDs current age when he signed.

That's worth ~3 times the guaranteed money?
No, but thinks he is because he has Scott Boras' 1500 page manifesto as evidence.

I had predicted 5/140 then thought it would be higher, and am now more optimistic that it'll be in that range.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
Joel Sherman talked on MLBN today about how badly the current set of big contract FAs have performed, there are fourteen guys currently in the middle of $100M+ FA deals with $20M+ average annual value, seven position players and seven pitchers. All seven of the position player deals look like deals that I doubt that team would sign again if they had the chance, Cano's looks the best and he is 35 and still has 6/144 left.

 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Yeah, Brian Kenny led an interesting discussion about that graphic, saying the only two deals teams would likely sign up for again were Lester's and Scherzer's. It's a pretty bad hit rate.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Yup - I mean some of those guys have not been great, but have had average or above average production - but of course that is not what they are being paid to do. However more than 2 of those deals have actually been pretty disastrous (Fielder, Zimmermann, Heyward and Ellsbury leading the pack) which again, I'm sure this data (albeit very SSS) gives many GMs reasons to be hesitant especially since several of the "top" FAs this year have kind of short resumes of performing at a high level - at least the Pujols and Canos of the world had produced huge prior to getting their deals...
 
Last edited:

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
With the caveat that Fangraphs' dollar value metric is flawed, I was curious to see what they thought about the production of each player on that list over the course of their contracts to date. I'm including Cespedes numbers with 2016 and 2017 combined in parentheses since his AAV was over 20 two seasons ago with the same team. The paid figure is AAV.

Robinson Cano: Paid $96M, Earned $129.5M = +33.5 (6 years left)
Yoenis Cespedes: Paid $ 27.5M ($55M), Earned $12.9M ($38.2M) = -14.6 (-16.8) (3 years left)
Chris Davis: Paid $46M, Earned $24.3M = -21.7 (5 years left)
Jacoby Ellsbury: Paid $87.4M, Earned $66.7M = -20.73 (3 years left)
Prince Fielder: Paid $142.7M, Earned $46M ($9M recouped via insurance) = -96.67 (-87.67) (3 years left)
Jason Heyward: Paid $46M, Earned $19.8M = -26.2 (6 years left)
Albert Pujols: Paid $144M, Earned $54.2M = -89.8 (4 years left)
Johnny Cueto: Paid $43.3M, Earned $53.7M = +10.4 (4 years left)*
Zach Geinke: Paid $68.8M, Earned $58.6M = -10.2 (4 years left)**
Jon Lester: Paid $77.5M, Earned $96.2M = +18.7 (3 years left)
Max Scherzer: Paid $90M, Earned $144.1M = +54.1 (4 years left)
David Price: Paid $62M, Earned $47.6M = -14.4 (5 years left)
Masahiro Tanaka: Paid $88.6, Earned $100.4M = +11.8 (3 years left)
Jordan Zimmermann: Paid $44M, Earned $19.2M = -24.8 (3 years left)

*It's worth noting that almost all of Cueto's value is from 2016.
**This despite Geinke being one of the best pitchers in baseball in 2017.

Cespedes, Davis, Ellsbury and Fielder have all had some trouble staying healthy (with Prince being out of the game because of injury, but not retired).

So that's 5 contracts that have produced surplus value, 4 of which are pitchers. And of the 5 with surplus value, the only two I'd be willing to bet on finishing with a positive differential are Cano and Scherzer. And these dollars earned figures a on the optimistic side, IMO.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,473
Somewhere
I remember the rumors about Pujols being older than his stated age. This has dogged him throughout his career, although you don't hear about it much anymore. However, doesn't his performance for the Angels kind of support that idea? I wonder why the rumors just sort of faded.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
So that's 5 contracts that have produced surplus value, 4 of which are pitchers. And of the 5 with surplus value, the only two I'd be willing to bet on finishing with a positive differential are Cano and Scherzer. And these dollars earned figures a on the optimistic side, IMO.
The metric you're using to determine whether a contract is worth it is based entirely on these contracts themselves. On average, every free agent contract is worth exactly what was paid, because that's the definition of the term that you're using. That's why I don't understand all the posts showing a free agent to be "worth it" if he hits that average free agent dollar per WAR number over the life of the contract. Average performance in an area with terrible return on investment isn't something a team should target.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The metric you're using to determine whether a contract is worth it is based entirely on these contracts themselves. On average, every free agent contract is worth exactly what was paid, because that's the definition of the term that you're using. That's why I don't understand all the posts showing a free agent to be "worth it" if he hits that average free agent dollar per WAR number over the life of the contract. Average performance in an area with terrible return on investment isn't something a team should target.
While it'd be great if you could only sign free agents with surplus value against the average output for a contract, that's just not realistic. By this standard you should never sign free agents and you should rarely extend your own players.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
The metric you're using to determine whether a contract is worth it is based entirely on these contracts themselves. On average, every free agent contract is worth exactly what was paid, because that's the definition of the term that you're using. That's why I don't understand all the posts showing a free agent to be "worth it" if he hits that average free agent dollar per WAR number over the life of the contract. Average performance in an area with terrible return on investment isn't something a team should target.

Free agency sucks, everyone knows that, including the teams. But what else are you going to invest the money in? You can only spend a limited amount in the draft and international free agency. Seems to me the choices are to blow a wad in free agency in spite of the low success rate, or to simply have the owners keep the money.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Oh yeah - I mean, sure he has produced "surplus value" so far, but given that he is already 35 years old and starting to gain weight/break down, it seems a sure thing that the back end of that contract is going to look scary....
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Oh yeah - I mean, sure he has produced "surplus value" so far, but given that he is already 35 years old and starting to gain weight/break down, it seems a sure thing that the back end of that contract is going to look scary....
As he noted above, Fangraph's dollar metric is flawed. I doubt anybody in Seattle is going to spend the next 5 long years talking about a surplus value they got in a front end that saw zero playoff appearances.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Sign your younger players to extensions at higher dollar values earlier?
This would be an interesting experiment.

Is it really age that causes people who sign mega-deals to break down? Or is it the security of the long-term deal and generational wealth that causes small changes in focus and drive?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
This would be an interesting experiment.

Is it really age that causes people who sign mega-deals to break down? Or is it the security of the long-term deal and generational wealth that causes small changes in focus and drive?

Either way, the problems with this idea are that signing your own players long term doesn't make the risk go away (Joe Mauer, Felix Hernandez), and also that it's pretty rare the team that has a bunch of young players worthy of such extensions at the same time. Signing "bad" deals is the only way to leverage your financial situation. I wish the Sox hadn't signed Sandoval and Hanley, but the reality is that if they hadn't, they would simply have spent the money on some other equally risky (at the time) deal, that or they would just have a payroll that is 40 million dollars lower than it is now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.