The story about the Mariners and Chapman doesn't sound very strong.
This is really getting weird, that's for sure.
Collusion claims by Boras would add an ugly twist to this offseason.
Last edited:
Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
This is really getting weird, that's for sure.
Collusion claims by Boras would add an ugly twist to this offseason.
Looks like the Brewers may have been motivated with Woodruff.... Brewers resign him to a 2 year deal.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/02/brewers-to-re-sign-brandon-woodruff.html
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/02/brewers-to-re-sign-brandon-woodruff.html
Boras at one time was able to by pass GM's and directly influence ownership. Everyone has smartened up here and called his bluffs.
Players and the agents have the right to collude (contracts are made public), owners do not. Boras would have uphill battle on Montgomery and Snell. Their comps are not going to compare to the asks. Boras assumed the Red Sox were going to spend. Hell their owners said so. The moment that was not a reality the market thinned right out.
We don't know much about the asks, other than the one rumor that Snell wanted 9/270.
And the only reported offer was the Yankees to Snell of 6/150 - which is less than they signed Rodon for.
I will add - maybe this is obvious - that in almost every field/profession/endeavor, right up to the most consequential things, the people who rise to the top in that field are of course fallible, often wrong, and sometimes incompetent (I don't think Breslow and team are incompetent, I like the Breslow hiring, just adding to discussion). There are many things that mitigate expertise and professional status: the fog of war, the myopia of echo chambers, the delusions of ego, the rigidities of dogma, the corruptions of nepotism/favoritism (with all of this see: Bill Belichick the last few years).
And with any public endeavor, the consumer/voter/fan has every right to criticize. I'm a professional actor and director, and have worked at a decently high level, and for the life of me I would never suggest the public shouldn't criticize the work I'm a part of, would never invalidate criticism by suggesting I know more about it all than they do. I know you're not exactly saying that RR, though it is sometimes a refrain here, more commonly whipped out during the Bloom tenure: "they know more than you do ..." Just feels like an inadequate argument, and indeed an appeal to authority.
Last edited:
Legally this is right. I am sure Boras is aware of what he would need to prove. I suspect it is more than a longshot.
The reported offer I saw was 5/150 which is a higher AAV. Boras overplayed his hand, its happened before, but Snell and Montgomery will probably still end up with a solid AAV. As far as I can tell $30M AAV offer from Yankees would have put Snell 8th in MLB.
This AL East club has 'serious interest' in Snell (report)
Per Red Sox Payroll the Red Sox are at 205.6. If there really is a hard cap at $225 there is $19 million left.
There's a piece in the Athletic this morning about the Yankees' reluctance on Snell and Montgomery.
https://theathletic.com/5284329/2024/02/19/yankees-payroll-pursuit-snell-montgomery/
Mark Feinsand
@Feinsand
·
30m
Blake Snell has an offer on the table from the Yankees, per source, though the Angels and Giants remain possibilities for the reigning NL Cy Young winner.
Trout said yesterday he did not think the Angels were going to sign any more free agents.
@Feinsand
·
30m
Blake Snell has an offer on the table from the Yankees, per source, though the Angels and Giants remain possibilities for the reigning NL Cy Young winner.
Trout said yesterday he did not think the Angels were going to sign any more free agents.
Last edited:
The Giants have always made the most sense here, especially if Snell really does prefer the West Coast.
Don't be surprised if it's pinstripes for Snell, crazy tax hit and all. They seem extra motivated this offseason.
I can't believe one of the Red Sox associated with Boston excellence would counsel against signing free agents. I am going to take this as a sign Boston is not done and stay in firm denial.
Have seen passing reference to Zack Greinke upthread, but this article suggests there may be some legs .
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://heavy.com/sports/mlb/boston-red-sox/zack-greinke-free-agent-rumors/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjXwonw7LeEAxUjlIkEHcziBR4QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3T8s6F1kJAF1VrNs5q5zdr
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://heavy.com/sports/mlb/boston-red-sox/zack-greinke-free-agent-rumors/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjXwonw7LeEAxUjlIkEHcziBR4QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3T8s6F1kJAF1VrNs5q5zdr
Greinke might be my favorite pitcher of the last 20 years, but I have no desire to see him pitch for the 2024 Red Sox.
I honestly thought he had announced his retirement.
I honestly thought he had announced his retirement.
View: https://twitter.com/tylermilliken_/status/1759634485144952906?s=46
Interesting info from Teoscar. Shockingly weak market. Red Sox weren’t willing to go to 3 years.
Interesting info from Teoscar. Shockingly weak market. Red Sox weren’t willing to go to 3 years.
Digging into the linked article, I don't see a whole lot of there there. The source of the "rumor" is one writer at SI.com (who may or may not be an AI bot) offering what appears to be his opinion rather than any kind of sourced report of the two sides talking. I wouldn't worry about it.
Andy Martino
@martinonyc
·
2h
As of yesterday, there wasn’t a sense at Yankees camp that the team was close to adding Blake Snell. A few people in the know said there hadn’t been momentum lately. No one is saying it’s impossible, but that was the tone yesterday
@martinonyc
·
2h
As of yesterday, there wasn’t a sense at Yankees camp that the team was close to adding Blake Snell. A few people in the know said there hadn’t been momentum lately. No one is saying it’s impossible, but that was the tone yesterday
Dude is almost 32 and has had two seasons that he played more than 130 games and had an OPS+ higher than 110 in, both in Toronto, and would be at best a slight upgrade over Yoshida in Left Field.
He would have fit the bill as a RHB, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't have been happy about them signing him, but to say the Sox not signing him to a 3 year deal is "shameful" is just ridiculous. It's an interesting tidbit, but adding "shame" and "disaster" to everything that doesn't get done is such a conversation ender, especially when, outside of Ohtani (and potentially YY), this free agent class is a lot of "good to very good but not really great" players.
Could/would he have likely hit third (say between Devers and Casas)? No, not a disaster either way.
I can picture Pedroia hopping on a Facetime and just saying, "hey do you A$$#$^& know that you sucked last year and there's a couple guys out there just waiting for contracts?"
I wonder how much of this Snell/JM issue is that teams are well aware how little these deals work out. And beyond premium premium talent (Ohtani’s and the younger high upside takes like Yamamoto) some players aren’t worth 8+ years.
I’m all in favor of $40m a year at short years than $30m over long. The players deserve the money, the owners HAVE the money.
BUT - these contract lengths for these ages are an absolute joke and ruining free agency.
I’m all in favor of $40m a year at short years than $30m over long. The players deserve the money, the owners HAVE the money.
BUT - these contract lengths for these ages are an absolute joke and ruining free agency.
It makes no sense to give a contract of longer than 5 years to a player over 30 - especially a pitcher. Three years makes the most sense, and I can see 4 years for Snell or Montgomery, maybe 5, but I'd like that 5th year to be an option year. There's not a great track record for even 5 year deals for pitchers over 30 - if you go 6 or 7 you might as well light the money on fire.
How is it ruining free agency? Players should grab every dime they can.
Sports Owners in the US are some of the biggest parasites that plague this country. There is no bigger group of welfare queens.
I agree they should. But the expectation of 8+ years on the wrong side of 30 has been normalized and it’s bad for the game by knowingly bloating payrolls down the line.
I would vastly prefer the same numbers over shorter years. Snell for 250/5 is better than 250/9 or whatever.
The luxury tax should be higher to accommodate the money in the game. It’s just the way we have gone about it is backwards and is creating a ton of albatross contracts.
let them earn the money they deserve but IMO it should be over shorter periods. The financially side of the game is wack but that’s another issue. A higher ceiling and a hard floor would raise all boats.
I'm not sure how you blame a player looking for security when they're on the "wrong side" of 30. Clearly, most pitchers are going to be nowhere near their optimal selves at 34 and when they have to go to the market to offer their services at that point they are at a significant disadvantage. Getting another few years at 20 mil into their late 30s seems like a perfectly fine thing to ask for; maybe no one takes them up on it, but you'll never get it without asking. The understanding for years has been giving out those kinds of contracts knowing that the first few years would be value for the team and the last part of it would be value for the player. They don't always work out for the teams, but that is part of the cost of getting the player you need now.
The team's paying it anyway, why not do it over fewer years and regain the roster spot sooner and fill it with a younger/better player? We didn't start seeing these extremely long contracts until the luxury tax rules incentivized lower AAVs. If the tax caps were raised or the system re-vamped to not incentivize the lower AAVs, I think contract lengths would shorten.
If given the choice, do we really think most players would choose the 9 year deal over the 5 year deal if the total value was the same? They'd pick the 5 year deal and take another bite of the apple when it expired.
In addition to what @TomRicardo said - unless you are independently wealthy, have a plan to get there fairly quickly or stand to inherit a great deal of money so you can buy a sports team and employ players, I don't see why you are against athletes getting the absolute maximum - the contract length is an accounting trick to get to the right AAV. Those last few years that look really risky when the player is 30 or 40-something are likely considered to be nothing but upside to the teams who pass them out. In many other industries companies continue making payments to former employees long after they have moved on so while it looks odd to have a former player still collecting checks, its a common occurrence in business. Why should this be viewed any differently?
What is remarkable is that sports fans, and Red Sox fans in particular, are really worried that the team stick to a sensible budget. Ownership has managed to convince folks that the players, whose MLB career expectancy is somewhere around five years total, are asking too much or that the teams that choose to play in the high end market are going to come around to the FSG way of thinking eventually. Its hard to argue with ownership's approach when the brand loyalty is this strong.
At some point, maybe people should consider that the parameters introduced by Sox management aren't a function of being clever and disciplined about team building or that these crazy contracts being handed out by the big spending clubs aren't maybe so crazy, especially if we were able to get a good picture on revenues (though the stuff you can find online, to the extent that its accurate, suggests that revenue growth is still outpacing salary inflation). On the other hand, maybe this is the right way to run this team, with this ballpark and fanbase. We just don't have enough information to get an accurate read imo.
It's an auction situation, though. If you want the goods you have to outbid everyone else.
Sure, why not? If they think the player is worth paying $250M, who's hurt if they pay him that over three years instead of nine? Only the owner's pocket book, I'd say.
The most advantageous system for the players would be everyone on a one-year deal. It'd be chaos every off-season, but every player would be paid what they're worth and the owners wouldn't have to budget for five years down the line.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying the contracts are too long, not too rich.
in a world of guaranteed contracts, there should be a limit on time so the contract isn’t manipulated to pad length to spread out the money.
Let them make as much as they can. The owners can afford it - but because of the luxury cap which is not aligned with the actual money these teams are making/are worth - it creates this really weird system.
Hell, let’s just do $250/1!
I guess I’m crazy, but if a player costs $250M regardless of length or contract, I’d take as long as possible. If the player ends up no longer worth the contract in year 4, 6, or 9- you can always cut them, no?
The problem is that players work for peanuts for years and years, they have to be great for a bunch of years in MLB before getting paid big money. Performance needs to be better coupled to salary on both ends, less underpaying early on would mean less overpaying later.
Because there's a CBT and tying up $50M/yr is worse than tying up $27M/yr.
Yeah this is also a problem. The 6 years of cheap control for what are likely going to be their best years is a system that feeds into the current problem.
Anyway - I’ve done enough derailing.
I have cited the case of Shin-Soo Choo before:
Cleveland: 21.7 bWAR in 7 seasons (age 23-29). Was paid $10M total.
Texas: 8.8 bWAR in 7 seasons (age 31-37). Was paid $130M total.
Both parts of that need to be fixed, you can't fix the second without fixing the first also.
Cleveland: 21.7 bWAR in 7 seasons (age 23-29). Was paid $10M total.
Texas: 8.8 bWAR in 7 seasons (age 31-37). Was paid $130M total.
Both parts of that need to be fixed, you can't fix the second without fixing the first also.
Your overall point and a larger one being raised by others in this thread, is that the salary system in MLB creates these "strange" outcomes. But if the way its set up means that to compete you have to offer a 10 year deal, that's what you do to compete. You might still compete without handing out that deal but its likely going to be much harder.
Oh for sure. It’s a system that’s been normalized that I dislike. It’s a fairly recent one too.
I just wish the cap was 2x higher and there was mandatory floor and everyone would make money hand over fist.
I’m just being clear that I’m not siding with the teams/owners. The players deserve to get paid. I just wish the system was better to do it rather than have to do these contracts that are being normalized.
- Status