Three of the six biggest contracts in baseball history have been signed within the last two weeks, as Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and (in an extension) Nolan Arenado all inked major deals. This flurry of spending comes on the heels of a second straight winter of closed free agent activity, however, leaving the players’ union still more concerned with the scads of non-superstars who have yet to find work, Bleacher Report’s Scott Miller writes. “Ultimately, it is about more than [a few players]; it’s the big picture,” Cardinals reliever Andrew Miller said. “And even guys getting deals that they’re happy with, the timing of it, in the past it used to be maybe a couple of guys played the long game [in negotiations], but now it seems like guys have no choice. The stories we hear when guys show up to camp is that they had no offers. Teams said they’d check in, but they’re really not getting a firm offer or numbers exchanged until camp opens, and that’s a problem. Or, it’s at least new to us.”
Some more from around baseball as we kick off a new week…
- Miguel Andujar’s huge rookie season was one reason the Yankees didn’t ardently pursue Machado, though now that Andujar has third base to himself, the New York Times’ James Wagner writes that the young slugger has been working to prove his defensive worth at the position. Andujar has been taking fielding training all winter, with particular focus on his footwork and throwing. There’s obviously quite a bit of room for improvement, as Andujar had far and away the worst UZR/150 (-24.5) and Defensive Runs Saved (-25) of any qualified third baseman in the sport last season. If Andujar can go from being a liability in the field to even just mediocre, it will give the Yankees all the more reason to keep his potent bat in the lineup as often as possible.
- A move to the bullpen in 2018 got Adam Conley’s career back on track after he struggled as a starter the previous season, and as MLB.com’s Joe Frisaro writes, the new role has unlocked Conley’s velocity. Never considered a hard thrower as a starter, MLB.com’s Statcast credited the Marlins southpaw with an 89.7mph average velocity on his four-seam fastball in 2017. Last season, however, that same pitch clocked in at 95.2mph. Beyond just the natural velocity bump that comes with tossing shorter outings as a reliever, Conley also straightened out his mechanics. This led to some solid numbers (4.09 ERA, 2.78 K/BB rate, 8.9 K/9) over 50 2/3 IP out of Miami’s bullpen, though still with room for improvement, as Conley allowed a lot of hard contact. Still, it certainly seems like Conley could play a big role in a wide-open Marlins bullpen, perhaps even getting some looks in save situations.
- Ryan Brasier has begun throwing from 90 feet, Red Sox manager Alex Cora told MassLive.com’s Christopher Smith and other reporters, as Brasier continues to recover from a toe infection. The issue has slowed Brasier’s spring work, though the right-hander and potential closer candidate is expected to be ready for Opening Day.
- The Cubs bullpen doesn’t have a ton of questions as it relates to personnel, though there is still quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding the relief corps, as MLB.com’s Jordan Bastian explores five unanswered questions heading into the season. Brandon Kintzler and Brian Duensing, for instance, seem to have jobs locked up, though are looking to rebound after subpar 2018 seasons. It also still isn’t clear who will win the eighth bullpen spot, as Tyler Chatwood (another pitcher who struggled last year) could still end up in a relief role if the rotation doesn’t suffer any injuries.
What a breath of fresh air to finally see the free agent market—for so long a con job by the likes of the players union and Scott Boras, among others—undergo a market correction. Nothing wrong at all with re-evaluating, and re-calibrating, the worth of a player.
“Miguel Andujar‘s huge rookie season was one reason the Yankees didn’t ardently pursue Machado…”
Why didn’t they ardently pursue Harper?
There will be lots of sabre rattling about a strike, but no strike.
All of MLB’s owners have fortunes independent of their ballclubs. They have the resources to outlast the players. The people who would be hurt by a strike are front office and ballpark employees. The owners wouldn’t miss a single meal. Meanwhile, many players would see their careers end and others never begin.
The union’s ability to get meaningful concessions depends on making a lot of noise about a strike, so they will do so, but an actual strike would go badly for the MLBPA.
lol they’ve gone on strike before, the owners weren’t missing any meals then either, were they?
In 1994 with a mostly different group of owners at a very different economic level than today. Many owners needed the income stream then, either for themselves or to pay for the debt on the team. Now, the teams are worth so much, they could borrow against the equity for years without a blink.
Also, Fehr caught the owners off guard despite his threats. Every pro sports labor stoppage has been won by the owners since 1994 because owners now know to amass a “war chest” which the union cannot match.
We saw recently what happens when someone tries to shut something down to get what they want with zero leverage and no plan. It doesn’t work out well.
MLBPA’s best bet is loud brinkmanship that affects season ticket sales and renewals. But a strike would be bad for them.
I’d express confidence that they realize that, but then again, Tony Clark still runs things, so…
Just because the players salaries are held up it doesn’t mean owners don’t have other responsibilities. They still have to pay players on the farm and all the other personnel, front office, scouts, etc. Rent…not sure what happens to the stadium employees. Would suck if they lose their pay waiting on millionaires and billionaires to hash out their differences.
Sorry Andrew Miller, Eovaldi got overpaid early. Same with Pierce. Both were important in 2018 but in my view got more than what others were going to pay. Other teams were trying for the big fish and some players were overpaying their worth in the beginning. Given his injury history, Pollack also in my view was overpaid. Kelly got great money based on his arm, not based on his full picture of being consistently inconsistent. Players have to understand the top will always get paid but as more teams approach the luxury tax limits, they are re-thinking whether the quality but not stud player is worth the extra cost. This will only continue. By signing Harper and Machado, the Phillies and Padres will be looking more closely going forward.
If you don’t want Free Agency to drag out, have the Agent with the most big money players start his negotiations earlier. When Boras waits, it slows everything up. Maybe if he said Harper wanted to be signed before Christmas, the Phillies wont wait until Feb to provide their first concrete offer.
Agreed. In a system like this, agents shoukd be conflicted from representing multiple players. Why is it players and agents can legally get together but not owners?
The owners can’t have it both ways. Keep control of a player for 7 years, and then not pay players because they’re pushing 30. I don’t have a dog in this hunt but I think the players have to strike if the service time requirement isn’t adjusted.
You are right. Pay the earlier and not later.
Thanks to arbitration guys are getting paid a lot of money if they deserve it. There are plenty of offers for free agents, they just may not be what their agents hoped for. Players that are worth it have extension conversations and are choosing to go to free agency more often than not.
It would be an absolute lie to say they don’t want “pay players because they’re pushing 30”. That would be completely inaccurate. What they don’t want to do is extend 10 year contracts in which the aav pays them an elite price during their declining years.
If Harper or Manny were willing to take $35 mil for 5-7 years then they would have 7-8 offers to choose from back in December. The logic makes sense and if we can agree with the thinking then why should owners be thought of in a negative light for doing what their GM and analytics team suggest?
The perfect offer that might address these concerns would be to offer the next Harper or Manny a 5-7 year deal at 10% over the highest aav to date and then several option years in which both club or player can accept/decline.
ex. Offer Harper 7/$245 (35 mil per) + 8 year option at $25, 9 year option at $20 mil and 10 year option at $18 mil. That way, if a player feels he can command more on the open market then he can decline and seek more money on the open market again. Or have the option years arbitrated.
Even shortening the years of control might work against the players. If more players enter FA at a younger age then what incentive is their to pay the vets about age 32-33 when you have many more younger players avail?
I suggest that shortening the years of control to 4 years will inevitably mean more extensions, a larger and better FA pool which would lead to more early retirement, less wages and more vets playing overseas. Where as the Grandersons, Adam Jones or Colons might be able to bounce around on 1 year mlb or minor league contracts they would probably have a tougher time finging a job if there are younger options they can go after.
southbeach, I think you’re correct on most of this.
However, I think what will happen is that if players can reach FA after 4 years, then after a period of adjustment the vets who are good enough to warrant LT deals after 4 years will be tied up and that 32-33 year old age.
Also, what you don’t mention is that if players reach FA after 4 years, teams could be much more aggressive in offering them extensions earlier in their careers – and that could lead to bigger guarantees to younger guys, and tying them up until 32-33. That would lead to less guys hitting FA, and leaving some spots open for some of those 32-33 yer old guys.
The marginal players, or those that overvalue themselves, will always be looking for a job this late because their contract demands will be more risk than most teams want to bear.
It’s hard to predict what will happen, because I don’t think anyone predicted that analytic approaches would have this much influence this soon.
What about paying bonus money to players who don’t pan out? I’ve said it before, allow players earlier free agency but rewards teams, players and fans with incentives that favor teams re-signing their own free agents.
Charles Finley May have been right. Declare every player a free agent after every season.
…may have…
They should have never picked up the option on Kinzler. He’s awful. He caused way too much drama in the Nats locker room and he’s a cancer in the Cubs clubhouse. Like Chatwood he needs to earn his spot on the opening day roster. Nothing should be guaranteed. I think Russell,Kinzler Happ and Chatwood should be packaged for pitching preferably a starter. Maybe add Schwarber and you can get Blake Snell Jacob deGrom. Corey Kluber. An elite pitcher with at least 2 years of control.
Kintzler’s money was guaranteed, unfortunately (or he had a player option which he elected to exercise)..
If you trade Russell, Happ and Schwarber you are left with some holes (not sure if those guys net a top tier pitcher either). Chatwood also takes value away from any deal at this point. It would take a lot more to get someone like Snell.
Schawaber is a DH. I like him but he’s a dh. Almora needs more playing time over happ. Russell has to go no matter what. Chatwood. Has go or start in Iowa.
Schwarber’s defense improved dramatically in 2018; I think he can handle left field for a few years. I really wish the Cubs had let him catch; he would have been a huge asset behind the plate. Russell has no trade value and I really wish the Cubs would jettison him. The fact that he’s on the roster actually keeps me from rooting for him.
Kinzler+Happ+Chatwood is not going to bring back very much. Throwing Schwarber in isn’t going make that deal a enough for a Cy Young winning pitcher with control left.
It’s 2003 all over again for the Sox bullpen. Ugueth Urbina and his 40 saves of 2002 were unwanted then, much like Kimbrel and his 42 saves of 2018 are undesired now. Bring on closer options (“by committee” – committee is an inevitably time wasting idea in any form) Ramiro Mendoza, Alan Embree, Bobby Howry, Mike Timlin and Chad Fox. This year we have Brasier, Barnes, Wright, Thornburg, and company. It’s less dangerous working as a ranch hand for Ugueth Urbina than running closer-by-committee or happening-upon internal closer options. Not advocating a six year deal for Kimbrel, but guys like Robertson or Herrera would have helped a great deal.
2003 was almost the curse breaker, not a bad year. Internal closer options work for most teams. If you dont find success by July then fix it.
You may content yourself with “almost,” I do not. The Yanks are much improved and July is a ways-off. Division titles can be lost in April as readily as September. Internal options are successful when successor candidates are available, not guys with 40 career innings pitched, or coming off shoulder surgery, or knuckleballers, etc. The demise of that 2003 squad, beyond Grady’s little mind, was no clear-cut closer in the bullpen. “Almost” brings no comfort.
2003 was a great year for the Fish.
Even in baseball, you can’t avoid seeing the epidemic disease in all its manifestations that is capitalism. It will be the death of us, if not baseball.
Capitalism is somewhat Darwinian, for better AND for worse.
All political systems can be viewed as edidemic diseases. Just as Mankind can be viewed as a cancerous growth on the planet Earth.
Baseball is neither a cause nor a victim. It is perfectly imperfect. But it could offer insights into possible solutions.
Why is an unsigned player, who is not on any Major or Minor league contract, any concern of the MLBPA? If the Players Union represents unaffiliated players, then I would like them to represent me too. I once played baseball in Middle School. I think it’s a shame no team has signed me this year. Of course, I’m way over the hill, but I want a multi-million dollar contract and I think the union should fight for that on my behalf.
The point of this sarcasm is that the Union does not represent the “scads” of unsigned veterans, they legally only represent players currently under a playing contract with an MLB club.
That’s not true; the MLBPA represents anyone who “holds or has held” a major league contract. They also represent any coach who was once a major league player, which is most of them.
I think a salary floor that I saw in one of the other comments is a great idea. I think the NATO 2% rule might be a good place to start. If we figure half of total revenue is reserved for operations & profit and the other half is reserved for player salaries, the salary floor should be 2% of the players’ half. The total MLB revenue was $10.3B (approx.) in 2018. The floor would work out to $103M. There shouldn’t be any teams under that.
According to spotrac.com, eight teams are under that floor, but the Padres, Royals, and White Sox would come off that list if you looked at the “Projected Competitive Balance Payroll” figure. The A’s are very close with that figure. The Marlins, Rays, Orioles and Pirates are nowhere near.
A better floor to start with would be raising the MLB minimum to $1,000,000. That would start to address the disconnect of not playing players while they are younger and producing. It would also raise the arbitration floor and lead to higher arb salaries.
I suspect that for the second reason alone, the owners may fiercely resist the idea.
Owners definitely will object. You see how fiercely people fight against raising the national minimum wage. I think the team salary floor is a more reasonable idea since less than a third of the teams are affected and it would add around $100M to the overall MLB player payroll. You’ll also see teams try to get under the luxury tax threshold by trading with teams under the floor.