JDM
- Thread starter mfried
- Start date
- Status
Unless (like the Astros bidding on pitch tipping Darvish) you think you can fix it and get much more future than the past. I don't think that myself, but that is a pretty reasonable assumption for a team going high on Hosmer, whether they prove to be right or wrong. Although launch angle at Petco isn't necessarily such a great thing if you turn your line drive doubles into high flies that get run down on the warning track.
We should also consider the $500K year that Lackey's injury generated. That has value even if it resulted in one decent (Joe Kelly) and one sunk cost (Allen Craig) in trade. The Lackey and Drew deals weren't bad.
While not the end all/be all, the Fangraphs figures for Drew and Lackey:
Drew: $78.3 mil over 5 years (11, 25.1, 30.9, 13.5, -2.2). The contract was $70 mil over 5 years
Lackey: $92.4 mil over 6 years (19.7, 7.1, 0, 18, 18.7, 28.9). The contract ended up being $83 mil over 6 years
Hawk, my point is that for a high payroll team like the Red Sox, all that matters is what they paid against the CBT threshold. So the posting fee for Matsuzaka isn't really relevant if we're trying to determine whether he was "worth it" or not.
If we’re going to religigate deals from ten years ago, given by a different FO under a different CBA, when a different set of rules for IFA applied, can we not do it in the JDM thread?
In the meantime, per Herman (and thus, likely, Scott Boras) apparently our 5-year deal is not the only one.
That reads to me like Boras trying to get the Sox to add a year. If the other offers were worth more, wouldn’t there be more details?
In the meantime, per Herman (and thus, likely, Scott Boras) apparently our 5-year deal is not the only one.
https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-where-top-10-mlb-free-agents-stand-in-slow-market/
That reads to me like Boras trying to get the Sox to add a year. If the other offers were worth more, wouldn’t there be more details?
I used to wonder about that myself. Thought it was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo...Crazy thing is... it's true...All of it.
Thanks for the link. I agree that does sound like agent fed position publicized through a nationally known sportswriter - posting on a site unknown to me.
Back to my other hot stove passion, the great game of each stakeholder positioning themselves for advantage as more than $500M transfers from owners to players...
Do agents leak such "data" to provide the author something to write about or is there direct payment for the placement on the always opaque WWW?
I dont think it is "all" that matters. I mean, its an important consideration but 50 million is a lot of change and over 6 years probably saved them 10 -20 million in tax. I believe Luchino once said there about 3 or more ways of looking at payroll and each way was important in some way.
Regardless, somewhere in the Red Sox financials that 50 million flashes red, as do salaries paid for Castillo and Craig (up to last year). They may dictate the necessity of not going over LT at all (costing us an EE last year) or cause a cut elsewhere in the budget
Frankly this year especially I feel the agents are being muted as there are very few FA rumors. Most rumors are about trades it seems and these would come from teams which serve to suppress the FA market (increasing percieved supply). Rumors on the FA side seem as much to do with teams not being interested in a given player (against CBA collusion rules)
On any given day the major blogs will have an article saying such and such a player is not worth what he is asking or just got, or excusing why teams are not spending, or quoting an executive saying FA signings are bad, etc
My sense is agents are being overwhelmed by national writers and blogs who seem to have an owner centric view that alters fans perceptions and expectations. Either that or most of the agents are not doing their job given the lack of rumors about their players which reinforces the perception of a weak market for them and is not in the players interest.
Of course, playing the media only works for agents in a fair market where owners have no information exchanges like what occurred in the 1980's collusion scandal. In that case its a wasted effort.
I appreciate Dombrowski's patience, especially dealing with Boras and where the market appears to consist of only one team. But damn it, can this just get done already?
Its pretty much Boras MO although Boras players like Ellsbury and JD Drew reached agreements earlier (JD signing got held up over medicals).
The danger is some other team sneaks in and everyone else if value is off the table, but maybe thats all for the best if some of these guys can bounce back
Here is a brief rundown of Boras' big clients and when they signed during the offseason -
November - Bernie Williams
December - Kevin Brown, A-Rod, Adrian Beltre (and his second one in early January), Johnny Damon, Kevin Millwood, Mark Teixeira, Jason Werth, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Shin Soo Choo
January - Carlos Beltran signed his big one on January 12th, Max Scherzer Jan 19th, Matt Holliday on Jan 21st.
February - Magglio Ordonez.
The one we are probably most wary of is Prince Fielder who waited until late January when there didn't seem to be another obvious bidder.
The market has never been held up this much though. The off season when Scherzer signed late, Lester had signed over the meetings, and Jordan Zimmerman was also on the market so other dominoes had already fallen.
November - Bernie Williams
December - Kevin Brown, A-Rod, Adrian Beltre (and his second one in early January), Johnny Damon, Kevin Millwood, Mark Teixeira, Jason Werth, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Shin Soo Choo
January - Carlos Beltran signed his big one on January 12th, Max Scherzer Jan 19th, Matt Holliday on Jan 21st.
February - Magglio Ordonez.
The one we are probably most wary of is Prince Fielder who waited until late January when there didn't seem to be another obvious bidder.
The market has never been held up this much though. The off season when Scherzer signed late, Lester had signed over the meetings, and Jordan Zimmerman was also on the market so other dominoes had already fallen.
Why wouldn't JDM and Boras accept a one year deal, and then re-enter the FA pool again next year, the big class? I mean I think it's clear he is not getting the 7/200 deal he wants, nor would he next year. my point is, would it be worth the risk for him to sign a one year deal, hope he has another 45 hr season, and reap the benefits next year? He would be a major consolation prize for those who don't win the Machado/Harper sweepstakes, as well as much cheaper. Maybe after others get the 10/400 deals we are hearing about, his 5/130 doesn't sound so bad. I get he is older than both those guys, but I think he would get a 5/150 deal very easily next year. Even if he ends up with a 5/130 deal now, He would EASILY get a 20-25 million one year deal this year I would think and get a 4/110 next year (getting his 5/130 deal, albeit it a little different than planned) without much difficulty,
Of course, if he doesn't produce this year, he shoots himself in the foot, but that would also mean he wasn't worth the big contract to begin with. My point is he would have more suitors next year, I don't think he would lose anything, and gain much, by doing it this way. If Boras wouldn't be ok with this, to me it sends up a huge red flag about the faith he has in his client. If Boras thinks he is worth 5/150 now, he shouldn't have any issue with him being worth 4/110 or 120 next year. I get that maybe you just take the big payday, guaranteed cash NOW, Just saying Boras should put as much faith in his client as he is asking the teams to do, also.
I hope I am explaining it right.
Of course, if he doesn't produce this year, he shoots himself in the foot, but that would also mean he wasn't worth the big contract to begin with. My point is he would have more suitors next year, I don't think he would lose anything, and gain much, by doing it this way. If Boras wouldn't be ok with this, to me it sends up a huge red flag about the faith he has in his client. If Boras thinks he is worth 5/150 now, he shouldn't have any issue with him being worth 4/110 or 120 next year. I get that maybe you just take the big payday, guaranteed cash NOW, Just saying Boras should put as much faith in his client as he is asking the teams to do, also.
I hope I am explaining it right.
Last edited:
Absolutely not. The risk he gets hurt and/or doesn't have another huge career year where he slugs .690 is just too high.
JDM is getting paid this winter because he's too good a hitter not to, and people are misreading this overall situation if they really think that this somehow ends with the Red Sox bidding against themselves on a 30yo hitter at the 5 year mark. With JDM it's just a matter of when, and at how much less then the $200m of guaranteed money he's going to settle on.
If I'm Hosmer though I'd of already been blowing up Boras' phone telling him to take one of those 7 year deals out of SD/KC if they really were legit. The trickle down effect of the biggest names holding out for so long probably doesn't end up doing the lesser tier positional guys (money will always find it's way to quality pitching given the constant demand for it) any overall favors either. Guessing we' see some of the patient GM's score some solid value type signings over the next month.
"Monster season" was a poor word choice. I meant another 40+ hr season, proving it wasnt a fluke. My mistake. I edited it above.
JDM signing a one year deal would be an incredibly bad idea on his part. Obviously he won't be getting $200M(I doubt he seriously thought he would) but he will still get well in to 9 figures this year and the downside risk is just too high next year.
The idea that a player coming off a career year should sign a pillow contract during an offseason where he is the top free agent is about as ludicrous as claiming that an opt-out clause inserted at the request of the agent somehow benefits the club.
If JDM finds himself in a position where he even has to consider a pillow contract, he should sue Boras for malpractice. Because the market for his services will never be better than it is right now.
Right. He'll be a year older and there is about a 99.9% chance he doesn't repeat his 2017 numbers. Even if Harper and Machado weren't on the market next winter, there is no chance he'll get more years or dollars than he will this year, whatever the actual offers are. He likely wouldn't get as many years or dollars.
Not saying I fully buy in but what about a rationale that say 8 teams are saving their resources this off-season for Machado/Harper in 2018. But obviously only two teams will be able to do land them. Maybe teams will line up after the dust settles under the thought "well we can't end up with nothing". Boom Pillow contract makes sense.
Who are the 8 teams that can seriously offer contracts in the 10/300-10/450 range? I seriously can't think of anywhere near that many. But after you build that list, how many of those are going to throw more than 5/130 at a DH? The Red Sox need a long term DH, so going 5/130 or maybe 6/150 for him makes some sense. After that?
If the Yankees do add Harper, they have no room for a DH only bat. But if they fail on Harper, maybe they decide to add Martinez instead. Would they go 5 or 6 years, though? Especially if he doesn't repeat his 2017? Not likely.
After that I just don't see a likely fit. An NL team will need to accept his poor to terrible defense which will be one more year of aging legs worse. He's just not going to beat what he'll get this winter (which will almost assuredly be more than the 5/130 reported).
Ownership is not involved with this
Red Sox ownership has given president of baseball ops Dave Dombrowski more autonomy than his predecessors received, writes Evan Drellich of NBC Sports Boston, and it’s been Dombrowski who has primarily driven the Red Sox’ pursuit of J.D. Martinez.
Red Sox ownership has given president of baseball ops Dave Dombrowski more autonomy than his predecessors received, writes Evan Drellich of NBC Sports Boston, and it’s been Dombrowski who has primarily driven the Red Sox’ pursuit of J.D. Martinez.
I get that this is a matter of opinion and we’ll never be able to conclusive prove this one way or another.
That said, This is the logic of a child and is utterly ridiculous.
Last edited:
I think the only way Martinez ends up with a "pillow" contract is if it's along the lines of the one Cespedes signed a couple winters ago...a multi-year deal with an opt-out after year one. That way he has some long term security but he can jump into the fray next winter if he thinks it's worth his while.
I don't think it will ever get to a point where all he can get is a one year deal. Someone out there is going to give him a multi-year deal (aren't there already rumors of 5-year offers?). It's only a matter of him coming down off of whatever high demands he's making to take the best deal available. And I have a hard time believing that he's going to toss away a guaranteed $100M+ offer to gamble on a) a good to great and healthy 2018 and b) a much more free-spending market next winter. If he was 27 it would be one thing. He's 30. He has to strike now, even in a depressed market. It is likely the best chance he has to cash in.
I don't think it will ever get to a point where all he can get is a one year deal. Someone out there is going to give him a multi-year deal (aren't there already rumors of 5-year offers?). It's only a matter of him coming down off of whatever high demands he's making to take the best deal available. And I have a hard time believing that he's going to toss away a guaranteed $100M+ offer to gamble on a) a good to great and healthy 2018 and b) a much more free-spending market next winter. If he was 27 it would be one thing. He's 30. He has to strike now, even in a depressed market. It is likely the best chance he has to cash in.
Dave Cameron has 2 interesting thoughts regarding JDM on the most recent Fangraphs podcast:
He noted that the end of the aging curve may not be linear once the player hits the 1 WAR threshold: teams don’t want to start a player at that talent, so they are likely to see their playing time, and therefore value, decline beyond that. This affects what teams can expect to recoup at the end of the deal.
The other idea he floated was that teams up against the CBT could sign players for slightly more overall money, but at a much longer term, to bring the cost, essentially buying out their next contract. Comparing that to the $130M number currently floated for JDM, perhaps a $160M over 10 years becomes more palatable and o both sides.
He noted that the end of the aging curve may not be linear once the player hits the 1 WAR threshold: teams don’t want to start a player at that talent, so they are likely to see their playing time, and therefore value, decline beyond that. This affects what teams can expect to recoup at the end of the deal.
The other idea he floated was that teams up against the CBT could sign players for slightly more overall money, but at a much longer term, to bring the cost, essentially buying out their next contract. Comparing that to the $130M number currently floated for JDM, perhaps a $160M over 10 years becomes more palatable and o both sides.
I’m pretty sure the Commisioner’s office has to approve all contracts. Can’t see them approving a 10 year deal like that specially designed to circumvent the competitive balance tax.
How does it circumvent the CBT system? If the player agrees to the contract, the player agrees to the contract. MLBPA might throw a tantrum about it, but again, they don't have any actual power to void a contract if the player, agent and team are in agreement.
The problem with the 10/160 suggestion is that there is no way JDM is going to agree to it. He can get 5/160 this year then go forward with 1 and 2 year deals and make another 50-100 million before he retires.
agreed ... do I remember correctly that Tony Gwynn upset the MLBPA by taking less to stay with SD than he would've gotten elsewhere? I understand advocating for their membership, but if a member makes a conscious choice to enter an agreement it should be their decision and not the union.
Unless years 6-10 of the deal is for the league minimum or something in order to cut AAV nearly in half, I'm not sure what objection they could raise. Front loading might make it more fiscally reasonable to cut the player late in the deal, but the AAV figure stays on the books for the full length of the contract. Maybe that lowered AAV is helpful immediately, but it becomes less helpful once you get into the years in which it greatly exceeds the actual salary paid.
Cameron mentioned that the Commissioner’s Office might not allow something like a 100 year contract, or something excessive, but I’m not sure they’d have much call to disallow a 10 year contract, especially since it aligns with the Commissioner and ownership objective of holding down player costs (to the benefit of ownership).
I don't know...for one thing, I don't think he can get 5/160 this year. Let's say he can get 5/130. He'd be gambling on making 30 mil from age 35 on...I'd probably take the over on that, but it's not absurd to think he'd be risk averse enough to take it, especially if they front load the deal to compensate for the fact that 25 mil in 2018 is a lot better than 13 mil in 2018 + 12 mil in 2027.
Speaking of front loading deals, is there a limit to that? Can someone sign for 30 mil in years 1-5 and 500K in years 6-10?
Slightly OT - but AJ Preller just hired Cameron, so he is now Padres bound. Maybe he'll get Preller to go 15 years on Hosmer
Couldn't you offer a frontloaded 10 year, 160mil with an opt out after year 5, with $130 million coming in the first 5 years?
Or does that contract count as $26 mil until the option is actually picked up?
Or does that contract count as $26 mil until the option is actually picked up?
It seems like that would defeat the purpose of bringing the contract’s AAV down. They might be able to make it more enticing by front loading it, busy most players seem to prefer a bigger overall number over the actual value factoring inflation, taxes, etc.
I think that would count as $16M per year if it's structured as an opt-out and not an option. And that's where the Commissioner's office could get concerned. It's in the player's interest to get more money up front, but if the team is offering that as a fairly obvious way to avoid the CBT, there's probably a point where the league would say no. Your example approaches that point, but let's make it more obvious: 10 years/$135M, paid as 26/26/26/26/26/1/1/1/1/1. I'm not sure even that obvious an attempt to bring down the annual value would get the deal voided, since the player is agreeing to take more money early and offset it with veteran minimum deals late. Both sides are arguably getting fair value. But then add in a player opt-out at year 5, where the team's apparent value is at significant risk of disappearing, and all it's really guaranteed of getting is CBT relief? MLB might object. The league almost certainly would if the length of the deal approached absurd levels (15 years, 20? With the opt-out after year 5? That begins to look like a sham).
Didn’t the rules around this sort of thing get changed after Theo’s contract for Beltre?
That deal was for one year, with an option/buyout (that everyone understood would be bought out) designed to drop the AAV.
Edited to add details, now that I'm at my desk:
"The deal will pay Beltre a base salary of $9 million in 2010. It includes a $5 million player option for 2011 and a $1 million buyout, and is contingent upon Beltre passing a physical exam, which is expected to be performed before the end of the week, sources said." The option value improved with PA escalators, but everyone understood that he was going to take the buyout and seek a long-term deal, as in fact happened.
So that deal was, under the rules at the time, evaluated as a 2/$10 deal (or maybe 2/$14?), rather than a 1/$9, lowering the AAV.
I'm having trouble finding a link, but I think the rules on AAV calculations were changed in response.
That deal was for one year, with an option/buyout (that everyone understood would be bought out) designed to drop the AAV.
Edited to add details, now that I'm at my desk:
"The deal will pay Beltre a base salary of $9 million in 2010. It includes a $5 million player option for 2011 and a $1 million buyout, and is contingent upon Beltre passing a physical exam, which is expected to be performed before the end of the week, sources said." The option value improved with PA escalators, but everyone understood that he was going to take the buyout and seek a long-term deal, as in fact happened.
So that deal was, under the rules at the time, evaluated as a 2/$10 deal (or maybe 2/$14?), rather than a 1/$9, lowering the AAV.
I'm having trouble finding a link, but I think the rules on AAV calculations were changed in response.
Last edited:
Didn't the NHL have a big problem with this in the past few years, with guys getting ridiculous length deals and the last years being a joke specifically designed to circumvent the tax/cap system? I think they started closing those loopholes, but I don't know a whole lot about it.
Despite the popular use of the term "opt-out" there is no such thing. There are player options which is what these actually are. So a player signs a deal with yearly salaries of 30M, 30M, 30M, then 15M, 15M, and 15M in the last three years with an "opt-out" after year 3. What he's actually doing after that third year is opting IN to the last three years of the deal. Such a deal would almost certainly lead to the player leaving after year three, and would be 30M AAV until the opt-in was exercised or not. If it does get exercised, the AAV is recalculated to 22.5M retroactively.
So if you could get away with it you would do 1/1/1 option for 15/15/15 with a 60 M balloon payment if you opt out in year 3 or a 70 M balloon payment in year 6 if you opt in year 3. Opt out year 3 it's 3/63 AAV 21 M, opt in it's 6/118 AAV 19.6, or something along those lines
I believe that in the NHL, player contracts can't change by more than a set percentage each year (35%), and no year can be below 50% of the highest year. Also, if you're over 35 when you sign a deal, every year counts against the cap, even if you retire. They make it really hard to front-load a contract, especially for older players.
I don't know anything about NHL contracts. Do they operate via AAV against their cap? Or is it real dollars paid out in each year against the cap for that particular year? The fact that baseball uses AAV means that what is actually paid in each year is far less important than the AAV of the deal for threshold purposes.
They count the deferred money as part of the total $, but only count the years that the player is under contract to play for the team to get the contract AAV, which is what is used for CBT calculations. A team can't lower the contract AAV by deferring money.
Using this contract structure gets both player and team something they want, but it also costs them as well. The player is technically under contract and if released still gets paid, but can be traded and is still under team control for that duration, and likely won't be able to pick up those last few 1 - 2 yr part time contracts (if they're good). The team can still wind up on the hook for the money, and might find themselves rosterring/ playing a veteran with limited value because they are paying him (the team needs the discipline to take the value at the front and cut bait when it's time).
This info is correct. Teams were signing players (Detroit was a huge offender) to 14 year contracts, but the salaries in the last few years were only a million. Since the NHL used an AAV to determine cap hits, this allowed teams to pay players huge dollars in the first few years, but only taking the AAV as a cap hit. For instance, Detroit signed Henrik Zetterberg to a 12 year, 73 mill contract. It paid him 7.4 million (or7.5) for 9 years. The 10th year was 3.5 mill, and 1 mill each on the last two years. This allowed them to pay him 7.4 , but their cap hit was only 6.08 mill per year. The original plan was the player would simply "retire" when the 9 years was up, and his salary no longer counted. They originally changed the loophole to count the retirement years, especially if he was traded. But a more effective way was what I quoted from shaggy, which I believe it still is now.
https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2009/1/28/739280/zetterberg-signs-12-year-7
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/luongo-rule-nhl-cba-punish-cap-circumventing-contracts-153717517--nhl.html
https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2017/8/21/16179864/report-henrik-zetterberg-does-not-plan-to-finish-entire-contract
- Status