Dec. 1: The Reds have formally announced their deal with Martinez. Interestingly, GM Nick Krall tells Reds beat writers that Martinez will come to camp and compete for a job in the rotation — obviously implying that Martinez has not been assured of starting job just yet (link via Mark Sheldon of MLB.com). Martinez will make $14MM next season and will have a $12MM salary in 2025 if he doesn’t opt out, MLBTR has learned.
Nov. 30: The Reds are in agreement with Nick Martinez on a two-year, $26MM guarantee, reports Jeff Passan of ESPN (X link). The deal allows the right-hander to opt out after the first season. Yusseff Diaz of Pelota Cubana first reported that Martinez, a client of the Boras Corporation, was signing with Cincinnati.
Martinez, 33, has spent the past two seasons in San Diego. After a three-year run at Japan’s highest level, he signed with the Padres during the 2021-22 offseason. Technically a four-year guarantee, the deal afforded Martinez an opt-out chance after each year. He turned in a 3.47 ERA over 106 1/3 innings in a swing role during the first season and elected to retest free agency.
He parlayed that free agent trip into a new three-year pact with the Friars. Martinez locked in a $10MM salary for this past season, while each side had a two-year option covering the 2024-25 campaigns. He posted a remarkably similar year to his debut campaign as a Padre.
As was the case in 2022, Martinez went into this past season battling for a rotation spot. He took four turns through the rotation while Joe Musgrove was on the injured list in early April. Once Musgrove returned, Martinez moved back into the relief role he had occupied for the majority of the previous season.
He would ultimately appear in 63 contests, starting nine of them. Martinez worked 110 1/3 innings, allowing 3.43 earned runs per nine. He struck out 23% of batters faced behind a solid 12.6% swinging strike percentage. Martinez demonstrated average control and kept the ball on the ground on nearly 54% of batted balls allowed. He excelled at staying off barrels, with opponents making hard contact (a batted ball hit 95 MPH or harder) less than 30% of the time. That contact suppression ranked within the top five percent of qualified pitchers, according to Statcast.
Over his two seasons in San Diego, he combined for a 3.45 ERA with a 22.1% strikeout rate across 216 1/3 frames. At year’s end, both he and the Friars turned down their respective option provisions. San Diego declined to retain him at $16MM annually for the next two seasons, while the player passed on successive $8MM salaries. He ultimately lands between those two price points, securing a $13MM average annual value. The guarantee is in line with MLBTR’s prediction of two years and $25MM. The opt-out affords him the flexibility to again get back to free agency a year from now if he turns in a strong season in Cincinnati.
Whether he decides to retest free agency likely depends on how well he holds up over a full season as a starter. The Friars never quite entrusted him with an extended rotation run. Martinez has started only 19 of his 110 appearances since his return to MLB. There hasn’t been a material difference in his run prevention in either role. Martinez owns a 3.48 ERA in 91 relief outings over the past two seasons; he has allowed 3.41 earned runs per nine as a starter.
As one might expect, he has had better underlying marks when working in shorter stints. Martinez’s strikeout rate is a couple points higher out of the bullpen (23% against 20.9%). He has been much better at avoiding free passes as a reliever, walking 7.1% of batters faced in that role compared to an 11.2% rate from the rotation.
Regardless of the slightly worse peripherals, it’s not outlandish to project Martinez as a viable starting pitcher. He has a far deeper repertoire than the typical reliever, turning to five pitches (sinker, changeup, curveball, cutter, four-seam fastball) with regularity. Martinez was effective this year in the few opportunities he received to turn an opposing lineup over a second or third time. He has held his own in unfavorable platoon situations, keeping left-handed batters to a reasonable .242/.322/.408 line since the start of 2022.
Martinez should get a look in Cincinnati’s Opening Day starting five. The Reds had one of the sport’s least effective rotations, finishing 28th in MLB (ahead of only the A’s and Rockies) with a 5.43 ERA. The rotation’s ineffectiveness was the single biggest reason for the team coming up a little shy of the postseason. Addressing the group was a clear priority for GM Nick Krall and his staff heading into the offseason.
Hunter Greene and Andrew Abbott headline the in-house options. Nick Lodolo’s 2023 campaign was wrecked by left leg injuries, but he’ll surely have a rotation spot so long as he’s healthy. Graham Ashcraft projects as the #5 starter after overcoming a disastrous first half to turn in a 2.81 ERA from the All-Star Break onward. Brandon Williamson, who pitched to a 4.46 ERA over 117 innings as a rookie, would be the top depth option. Prospects Connor Phillips and Lyon Richardson each made brief big league appearances late in the year.
It’s not a group without talent, but no team can count on its top five or six starters staying healthy for an entire season. Greene and Lodolo have each missed extended chunks of action over the past two years. Abbott and Williamson have yet to play a full season at the MLB level. Martinez doesn’t have an extended track record of starting. The front office could still look for another arm to solidify the group. They’ve been linked to each of Tyler Glasnow and Shane Bieber on the trade front. Signing Martinez doesn’t necessarily take them out of that market.
Paired with Wednesday afternoon’s signing of reliever Emilio Pagán to a two-year, $16MM deal, this is the most active that Cincinnati has been in free agency for the past few seasons. As reflected on MLBTR’s contract tracker, the Reds hadn’t signed a free agent to a multi-year contract since adding Nick Castellanos on a four-year pact in January 2020. Where ownership sets the spending limit remains to be seen, but there should still be some financial flexibility.
Roster Resource projected the Reds’ 2024 payroll commitments in the $58MM range before the Martinez deal. If the money is evenly distributed — the contract’s specific financial breakdown remains unreported — it’d bring them around $71MM. The club opened the 2023 season with a player payroll approaching $83MM and was well above $100MM in the two preceding seasons.
Image courtesy of USA Today Sports.
I guess we won’t be seeing him in ST as he was quoted saying.
Well that stinks but as to his quote, Reds play just a few minutes away from Peoria and the will play each other so there is that.
Padres need to trade for a 1 and sign 2 out of maybe 6-7 back end options so we knew they wouldn’t sign them all. Time to find another NM or Lugo (or just sign Lugo).
Padres =last place
Fin, who were you last month? I think you sound so much like one of my 3 mutes.
Longtimecoming has way more than 3 people muted.
Padres have a 1 and a 2 in Musgrove and DArvish. They need to sign or trade for a #3-#5.
Beyond that they have Avila and Waldron as #6-7.
For now I’ll call Darvish the 3. If he returns to health, hopefully one of the best 3’s in the league. Similar to last year where he was spotted down with Snell, Musgrove and even Wacha/Lugo to some extent.
I’d like that Luzardo / Burnes trade with Yam so we can: (1) let Yu be a 3; (2) let Yam be a 4 to minimize pressure / have the best 4 in league maybe; and (3) not have to count on Avila and Waldron and others except for spot starts / some 6 man time
Darvish is a 2 in what world? He’s 37 coming off a really bad year. At least he’s only signed for 5 more years.
I chuckled at the 5 years.
At least the AAV is only $16 million I think
Do the Padres really have the prospect capital to get Luzardo or Burnes at this point?
Maybe the a salary neutral trade would work. Soto to the Rays for Glasnow and Margot could work (also probably wouldn’t happen)
They have the prospects to get both but I hope they don’t. 1-5 are top 100; 6-10 are border line / might make it on the list in a few months as others are out.
Then at least consider they could add more from a Soto trade.
They need to use some for 1 of those guys but not the top guys.
Padres tied the Brewers for best pitching staff ERA in baseball. If they are able to sign Yamamoto and trade for either Luzardo or Burnes they would be in the running for that type of results again in 2024.
Padres farm is stacked. Two in the top 10 overall, 5 in the top 100, expected to sign the #1 international FA in January, and several players about to jump into the top 100 when the updated rankings come out. Their farm system is ranked in top 10 by all 3 of the big scouting services, MLB, BA, and BP. Even the Athletic has them in top 10. Don’t read FG rankings so don’t know what they said.
All that to say yes, I think they do have the prospects to trade for Luzardo.
no way..Had a crack candy cane for breakfast? They lost too much. The will cut payroll significantly since the owner passed and all the free agents are packing backs for teams that can balance their check books and not borrow money to make next weeks payroll..
Fin – don’t let facts get in the way of your world. Google the top 100 if you can’t believe. I don’t rate them I just stated what’s on there.
Dervish is a legit #1 when healthy. Way better than Snell.
He’s a #1 when healthy, but I do agree that his age and injury history don’t help, but he’s had several games where he was just masterful.
You guys make it sound like trades are so easy. This isn’t MLB The Show.
@out
how do the Friars sign Yamamoto and cut their payroll? trading Soto only buys you one year of relief.
I can’t see Yamamoto in SD.
The Padres will likely need to search for guys they can sign cheap and still have some control over. Guys like Zach Plesac and Brad Keller that won’t cost much to sign and are still arbitration eligible bring enough possible upside that even if they don’t work out you lose nothing
Jimbo you can still see him when they come visit Peoria. I’ll be checking in on him the last week of February / 1st week of March.
This stinks for Padres because he seemed like a good dude and pitched well for the $$ committed but really, they need a 1/2 type guy and they need at least 1 4/5 guy (maybe 2) out of a pool of about 6-8 guys. They can find another NM. Good luck to him.
He said that to me and my wife. I will be sad to see him go and happy he got paid so well. I hope he gets a chance to be a starter in Cincinnati.
I thought it was you that shared that a few weeks ago but wasn’t 100%. My guess is that he honestly thought so but all of the moving parts created a scenario that caused him to shift.
He just got a 30% raise and the opportunity to be a starter. Regardless of whether he wanted to stay in SD or not, it’s hard to pass that up at his age and stage of his career. I just wish it was the Angels that lured him away.
Sure, Jan.
Padres = Last place
The Rockies have last all to themselves.
Reliever/spot starter for 13 million a season. That’s fairly expensive considering his role.
Fairly good signing for the Red’s. They need the arms.
Yikes
Yeah his pants are a little too tight
Make the trade for Logan Gilbert and it’s a rotation with potential. Greene Gilbert Ashcraft Martinez Abbott. With Williamson slotting into the bullpen.
And there’s Lodolo !
I still say Lodolo should be the first guy out of the pen after Greene throws his 3, 4, or 5 innings. Less taxing on the bullpen as Lodolo gives 3 or 4 then too.
Lodolo is a starter capable of giving 6 quality innings. Those guys stay out of the bullpen until they can’t. Let’s judge him this upcoming season.
mariners are not giving up gilbert
I’m pretty confident that Gilbert isn’t moving. We have no reason to do that.
I do not like the way the Reds spent $21MM today.
I don’t like Emilio Pagan at all. Definition of volatility and there were a lot of red flags in his performance last year.
2 guaranteed years at $8MM per is more than I’d like to pay for a guy who I think is truly a middle relief type arm.
Unfortunately, that’s the going price if you want even an average to slightly above average free agent bullpen piece.
The Reds needed bullpen help and they needed pitching depth. They acquired both with their most recent two moved.
With that being said, they aren’t spectacular moves by any means, but the Reds truly did get better. Plus, the more quality arms you have in the bullpen the more you can afford to use guys in more favorable situations, and the less you have to consistently rely on the same guys over and over again. That depth can keep their top guys from wearing down by the end of the season.
The home run has hurt him for so long it doesn’t seem to bode well that he will now play half his games in the best home run park in the league.
It ain’t my money. Plus each deal has an opt-out, so get a good year from them, let them try to get something better, and spend it again next year. If they stink, they aren’t going to kill the budget. Not spectacular moves, but nothing too shabby.
Pa-Gone in a bandbox like Cincy? LOL. He’s gonna give up more HRs than get K’s.
I don’t either. I have no idea what they want to spend on payroll next year but I assume no more than what they spent last year. We shed $40 million with Votto and moustakis and had 4 needs in order of cost and need below and the signings yesterday didn’t fill any of those 4 needs.
1. An ace or top of the rotation pitcher like sonny gray or Blake snell. Cost of about $25 million a year. A trade for glasnow could work and would be out only a year of $25 million but still $25 million added to last years payroll.
2. A number 2 start type starting pitcher either a trade involving India for Dylan cease or Shane Bieber. The difference in Bieber or cease contract/arbitration projection and India arbitration is adding about $7 million. Or not as good of an option is signing Rodriguez or Montgomery which would cost about $20 million a year.
3. A left handed power bat either try to work out something with Votto for a year or sign someone like Joey gallo for 3 years. Either way it adds another $10 million for 2024.
4. A left handed middle inning reliever. Could probably pick one up on a minor league deal.
Our needs to be good next year going into the offseason were going to cost $55 million or $42 with a trade of India and a few prospects. We still have those same needs and $21 million less to work with unless our payroll is going to be significantly more next year.
Sorry they forgot to ask for your permission.
This is exactly the kind of guy the Reds needed. He induces a lot of ground balls and can work as a starter or in relief. I’m still hopeful the Reds get a front of the rotation guy. After that, they could use a power hitting right handed OF. Not bad “Po Boy” LOL.
I don’t know. Ask This One Belongs to the Reds…
He will def have something bad to say about this signing lmao
Always does.
We have some right handed power with CES who is capable of 30 or more home runs and steer who is capable of 25. I think we need left handed power but not near as important as a few top end starting pitchers. Neither Friedl, fraley or benson are 25 home run type hitters.
As far as rotation goes we still lack 2 front end types. Greene and Lodolo are not front end pitchers until they actually are. Talent is there but health and even results when healthy has not been there.
Martinez is not a front end starter so I don’t see him moving the needle and after the 2 signings yesterday we have $21 million less payroll space for 2024 to work with to get 2 front end starters. I have no idea what the castellinis want to spend on payroll next year. If $125 million like a few years ago then we still have plenty of room to get what we need. If $80 million like last year then we probably are not going to get out 2 most pressing needs.
I liked the Pagan deal this one not so much. This guy has another opt out after 2024? That would be 3 years in a row that has to be some kind of record. Yeah just not a fan of this move.
Funny because I’m the exact opposite. I like adding Martinez on this deal mich more than Pagan for 16 million.
Pa-gone…dude gives away runs. Martinez is a solid arm, a true competitor, and a great teammate
This seems wiser than the Mets signing Severino for $13m. Martinez is almost as good, has none of the randomness Severino brings, and adds 100 projectable innings for the same salary. The Mets need certainty from SPs this offseason, and they added either a #1-2 or a guy who will still be in their Florida complex in August.
Yeah I’m the complete opposite on that. Severino has the upside to truly impact. A guy you can possibly recoup prospects for at the deadline or helps you elevate your teams ceiling. I don’t see anyway for the Mets to contend this year—might as well throw high upside guys out there. If they flounder you can pitch Tylor Megill and the like while you work on getting a top pick.
The problem with getting a “top pick” for the Mets is that they are so far beyond the luxury tax limits that their 1st round draft pick will automatically drop 10 places. If they end up with the #3 pick, they will fall to #13 in Round 1.
Right ! Hader and snell signings would generate end of first round picks for most teams if they sign elsewhere. For Padres, they’ll get didly for hader and squat for snell bc they are over the cap. I thought that’s why pads where reducing payroll til that loan story broke
First 6 picks (or is it first 10?) are protected. If the Mets get one of those picks their SECOND pick drops 10 spots.
@dorothy
Not if it falls in the top 6. Their 2nd highest pick gets moved back. I had to check the rules because I wasn’t clear.
mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-…
Edit: I see Harambe beat me to it but there’s the link.
Except this guy hasn’t had lower than a 3.92 FIP.. Severino has shown he can be better and pitch on the real stage when healthy
Great addition. If the “big 5” are healthy, Martinez battles Sims, Pagan, & Moll for 2nd closer/ setup guy. Or he battles for an sp job if someone injured. Gives Krall some more versatility to work with in pursuing additional pitching help. Still only about $55MM in 2024 payroll.
It does give the pitching staff some good depth. I believe this move puts the Reds projected payroll at $73m now. I don’t think they’re done just yet though.
Martinez is getting paid starter money. Doesn’t matter who’s healthy. He’s in the rotation, until he loses the job or get injured.
I think he’s gonna start in the season in rotation, reds will still sign/trade for a better piece and send everyone else to louisville.
So (in order)
Greene
Acquisition (call it giolito)
Lodolo
Ashcraft
Martinez
Abbott and Williamson start in louisville.
Giolito? The dude that got absolutely murdered at the end of last season. No thanks.
Unless he has a meltdown (or injury) in spring training, there’s a snowballs chance in hell Andrew Abbott is going to AAA.
Forgot to include the $13.25MM Reds owe Votto, Myer, Moose, & Casali in 2024. Payroll is at about $67-68MM right now.Roster at 39.
The Reds were at about $67-68 million for 2024 before signing Pagan and Martinez. Add $21 million to that now.
baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/cincinnati-reds-s…
That isn’t accurate.
Follow your last place Padres. You are incorrect as usual.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1DARIEC-6fvXM1v…
With what is owed to Votto, etc… its accurate.
Interesting consolation prize after barely missing out on Sonny Gray. I liked the Maeda signing more (for less money to boot), but this isn’t a bad signing as long as they don’t stop here. I’ve been saying it for months – the Reds need a true ace to anchor the rotation and for a legitimate chance to truly compete. They have more than enough pieces to get Glasnow, or even Cease. Land a true top of the rotation arm and perhaps a decent right handed hitting outfielder like Adam Duvall, and call it an offseason.
When the dust settles, reds will prefer to add a TOR via FA, but if they can’t get one – I think it’s gonna be Glasnow. And just as long as it’s some sort of india/Richardson package – I’m happy w that.
Reds may add an outfielder, I was surprised they were linked to solar, but I think they like Hinds to be that guy of the future and he’s a righty. If he continues to improve like he did last season – he’ll get the call this summer
To me, it doesn’t make sense adding Glasnow for 1 year and $25MM. Cease seems like a more sensible option
Another deal I’m not so sure about. His FIP isn’t fantastic….
Reds could use the money so much more elsewhere, but at least it’s only a year.
Where could they use it more than pitching?!
Better pitching… these last two guys have questionable FIPs
3.92 FIP last year is very solid for a back of rotation arm. That’s a pretty good deal for $13 million per annum.
My apologies for the confusion, what I meant to say is that the 3.92 FIP last year is solid for a guy who is likely to slot into the back end of Cincinnati’s rotation. It informs that he will likely be able to hang on as a starter who puts up a sub-4.50 ERA. Martinez is undoubtedly one of their five best arms with starting capabilities in Cincinnati, His numbers were similar to Lorenzen and Lugo in 22 who both transitioned into starters in 23 (with a good degree of success). You are right though, definitely not an innings-eating signing. I don’t care either way, I am not a Reds fan so this is just my observation as an impartial observer.
Ban-A lot of that was because he started many of the bullpen games, and they only let him go 2-3 innings in those games.
Nick always seemed to be a guy who is great for 3 weeks, the has a third of an inning and gives up 4 runs kinda guy.
That being said, I can definitely see him starting 20+ games for the Reds, and going 130 innings with a high 3’s era.
Yes, but this year was way better than his career numbers. He has a career FIP close to 5.
Maybe it’s a good gamble. I just think Cincinnatti could have scraped the dumpster for similar talent at a far lesser price.
I agree. They needed 2 top of the rotation starting pitchers. To a lesser extent a left handed power bat and a left handed middle reliever. This guy seems to be a back of the rotation starter and we have plenty of those. Green, lodolo, Ashcraft and Williamson.
Maybe Greene and lodolo can pitch to their talent and be top of the rotation types next year but they have not had the health or even the results when healthy to be that so far. They are what they are until they are something different and going into next year hoping they will pitch to their potential is hoping we will make the postseason. A hope however is not a plan.
Overpay.
Would have been ok deal but I don’t like opt outs. Solid versatile arm to have.
YDGM
“Would have been ok deal but I don’t like opt outs. Solid versatile arm to have.”
Why don’t you like opt outs?
Please don’t something like “because it gives all the leverage to the player”. Because any GM, let alone a dream GM, should have a basic understanding of how options work
From a GM’s perspective opt outs create uncertainty for payroll and positional need which can cause complications if your owner has put the team on a constrained budget. If you do not know whether a player will opt in or walk, then it is hard to create a plan too far in the future. That uncertainty for small market teams has a subtle but substantial effect. If this contract goes well, it’s a one year deal with limited upside in deadline trade talks. If it goes poorly, then it’s a hindrance in ’25. Not saying I agree with YDGM, but as a philosophy (even from an arm chair GM), being reluctant to give out player-options is perfectly justifiable.
I doubt Krall is giving opt-outs casually.. Lots of posters complaining Reds wouldn’t sign pitching-but just keep “dumpster diving”. Reds have signed some pitching, and now have more elbow room to work out another deal or 2. Pitching bargains are few and far between.
Skiiggy
I agree with some of what you say.
Contracts are agreements after negotiations. I know you know this. The point is, that during negotiations, both sides give value to the other until they reach (or don’t) an agreement.
Opt outs have value to the player. Thus, to receive them they have to give up something of value. That’s almost always money
Fans always think about “what if he’s injured or sucks? Then we have to pay him an extra year”.
That’s not the right way to think about it.
Using thus contact as an example, the team could have signed Martinez to something like a 2 year $30 million contract with no opt-out. They’d gain certainly, but lose $4 million. And if Martinez sucks or is injured, they’re stuck paying him MORE next year. And if he’s awesome this year, they paid less for that awesomeness.
Why wouldn’t a ten want to pay less for awesomeness and also pay less for suck?
Opt outs are great!!!
Of course, that evaluation is so incomplete as the opposite one
It’s a negotiation, you have to give something to get something.
Teams have their projections and expected values and likelihood the player will accept or decline the option and that all goes into the total contact value.
Like everything, there’s some risk and some reward. The Reds found this contract was beneficial to then based on their evaluation of that risk she reward.
They certainly know more about that than nearly every single fan commenting on it
cg
Yep
I think most fans think the decision was between 2/$26 and 2/$26 with an opt out
It wasn’t
Including the opt-out saved the Reds millions of dollars. Money they can use to continue improving the team
If Baez played well enough to opt out he absolutely would have gotten a QO.
@filihok We would have to know exactly how much Nick Martinez left on the table to know how much the opt-out does or doesn’t help the Reds.
My issue with the “opt outs benefits teams” people is they often say that opt outs potentially rescue teams from being on the hook for a player’s decline years. What they always seem to leave out is that if the player is playing well enough to opt out, it means he would have drawn some trade interest during what would have been his opt out offseason had it not been for the opt out. So if his team thinks he’s about to decline and wants to get out from under his contract, they can do it that way. And obviously trading a player for prospects beats losing him for nothing every time.
RG
“We would have to know exactly how much Nick Martinez left on the table ”
This sentence shows a non-underdstanding of opt-outs
Martinez didn’t leave anything on the table
He negotiated for the right to both get a larger guarantee and the right to reenter the market
To receive the benefit of being able to reenter the market, he had to take less guaranteed money.
He gained something of value, so he had to give up value elsewhere
That’s what negotiating is
@filihok I invented opt outs lol.
“He gained something of value, so he had to give up value elsewhere”
“Including the opt-out saved the Reds millions of dollars. Money they can use to continue improving the team”
What I am saying is we can’t say for sure that giving Martinez the opt-out helped or hurt the Reds unless we know exactly how much money it saved the Reds.
RG
“we can’t say for sure that giving Martinez the opt-out helped or hurt the Reds unless we know exactly how much money it saved the Reds.”
Sure
Now, tell that to all the people who don’t understand opt outs (like YDGM) who are commenting here saying that they are bad for teams
opt outs potentially rescue teams from being on the hook for a player’s decline years.
=========================
I’m curious about how often teams are hurt by the opt-outs. My hypothesis is that, if every long-term contract halfway thru, the team would be ahead 90% of the time.
I’m curious about how often teams are hurt by the opt-outs.
=============================================
Every time the player opts out except A. J. Burnett with the Phillies.
JB
“My hypothesis is that, if every long-term contract halfway thru, the team would be ahead 90% of the time.”
It looks like you left something out of your comment here
Assuming you meant if every long-term. Contact ended half way though.
Seems that you don’t understand contracts (And I think you and I have had this conversation before”
Of course teams would benefit from cutting off the last years of most long-term contracts
That’s as obvious as saying people world 6 benefit if they could quit paying their mortgage halfway through
What you’re missing is that if the mortgage is half as long, it needs to be (roughly) twice as expensive.
Game thing with player contracts. The choice isn’t between 10 years $300 million and 5 years $150 million. It’s between 10 years $300 million and 5 years $200 (or whatever million)
@filihok and JoeBrady And if the team really wanted to divest themselves of the player and his contract halfway through and he’s still productive, they can do that by trading him. They don’t need the opt out to do that.
Here’s an article about opt-outs and their value to a team. It’s from 2015 but it’s still relevant.
blogs.fangraphs.com/on-opt-outs-and-the-value-to-a…
RG
“Here’s an article about opt-outs and their value to a team. It’s from 2015 but it’s still relevant.
blogs.fangraphs.com/on-opt-outs-and-the-value-to-a…”
This is what people seem to have trouble understanding
“So it’s actually the scenarios where the player doesn’t opt-out where including the opt-out is good for the team,”
They also benefit from paying less for players who did produce
Like nearly everything, there are pros and cons to opt outs.
“They also benefit from paying less for players who did produce.”
Nope because then they are forced to pay the player even more to keep him around post opt-out like Manny Machado or Stephen Strasburg or they lose his below market production/whatever prospect value they could have traded him for entirely like Zack Greinke or the subject of this article.
RP
“Nope”
Yep
“because then they are forced to pay the player even more
Nope. They aren’t forced to do anything. It’s an OPTION it’s not an OBLIGATION.
The Padres got that production from Machado at lower cost than if there was no option.
@filihok…
“The Padres got that production from Machado at lower cost than if there was no option.”
With the opt-out the Padres are ultimately paying Manny $458m. With no opt out they would have paid him $300m + whatever extra money it would have cost them to sign him without the opt-out. So at least in Manny’s case, the opt-out had to save them $158m upfront for giving him the opt out to be worth it. I don’t have inside knowledge so I can’t tell you exactly how much it saved them but I doubt whether it was $158m.
RG
““The Padres got that production from Machado at lower cost than if there was no option.””
Just to make sure, you understand that this is true, correct
“With the opt-out the Padres are ultimately paying Manny $458m. With no opt out they would have paid him $300m + whatever extra money it would have cost them to sign him without the opt-out. So at least in Manny’s case, the opt-out had to save them $158m upfront for giving him the opt out to be worth it. I don’t have inside knowledge so I can’t tell you exactly how much it saved them but I doubt whether it was $158m.”
One time I called heads and the coin landed tails.
Two points
1) the Padres were not in any way obligated to re-sign Machado
2) If Machado had sucked, would that have made you change your mind about opt outs? If not, why do you think him not sucking would change mine?
And, just to be sure, my opinion on opt outs is that there are both benefits and draw backs for both team and player. They don’t universally favor one side or the other. A specific opt-out might favor either the team or player. Looking at them in hindsight is useless
1. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were “obligated to.” The point is they did. They had no intention of allowing Manny to leave.
2. No it wouldn’t have and no I don’t think it would change yours. We seem to mostly be on the same page but you like to argue.
All teams are somewhat more or less sensitive to opt-outs than others. For instance, back in 2019 when we signed Machado the White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf straight up said “We don’t do opt-outs.” I personally wouldn’t go that far but even at the time I thought the Padres would have been better off paying Manny $350m or something in exchange for no opt-out. Would $350m with no opt-out have gotten it done? Tough to say.
RG
“It doesn’t matter whether or not they were “obligated to.” The point is they did”
It very much matters if you’re looking at this rationally
They gave the optout
They got Manny’s production at a discounted rate for the first few years
They lost his future production
Them’s the facts
What happened later isn’t part of the discussion about the output.
They probably (almost certainty) lost out on the deal. Sure.
But that’s irrelevant in the larger discussion.
“Padres would have been better off paying Manny $350m or something in exchange for no opt-out. Would $350m with no opt-out have gotten it done? Tough to say.”
Sure, in this,dice roll, the opt out, AFTER THE FACT, favored Machado.
In another dice roll, Machado is injured or plays like crap and, though the opt out saved the Padres 50 million, unknowledgable people would still be complaining about it, saying, “because of the opt out we got stuck with Machado”.
@joe
If the team stays disciplined and doesn’t give him another 10 year ext like Machado.
@filihok
“It very much matters if you’re looking at this rationally”
Rationally, even if the Padres were willing to let Manny walk, the opt-out then deprives them of the opportunity to extract value from the contract via trade. If a player is playing well enough to opt out, he is playing well enough to have trade value.
“In another dice roll, Machado is injured or plays like crap and, though the opt out saved the Padres 50 million, unknowledgable people would still be complaining about it, saying, ‘because of the opt out we got stuck with Machado’.”
How much extra would you have paid Machado if it meant he couldn’t opt-out? Not saying your figure is right or wrong but curious.
RG
“the opt-out then deprives them of the opportunity to extract value from the contract via trade”
No. It does not. Why do you keep making these over generalized absolute statements
You don’t think the Padres could have traded Machado the deadline before he opted out? Why on earth not?
@filihok They could have traded him for MORE if not for the opt-out if they did it that way. If the player plays well enough to opt out, the opt-out destroys surplus value, regardless of whether the team wants to keep him or not.
RG
“They could have traded him for MORE if not for the opt-out”
So, it does NOT
“deprives them of the opportunity to extract value from the contract via trade”
“the opt-out destroys surplus value,”
“Destroy”
Again, overgeneralized absolute statements.
It lessens surplus value, yes.
You’re smart enough to know this, so, of course teams are as well. And they factor that into the contract value.
You guys stop feeding the filihok troll. Geez.
@filihok I’m not interested in arguing semantics. If the player opts out it means the team lost surplus value. Regardless of whether he stays with his current team or not.
Not sure if he would qualify as a troll. Trolls typically don’t block/mute other users. They like the negative attention. They thrive on it. No point in posting comments to get a reaction out of others if you can’t see that reaction.
Yes he is a very weird and atypical troll in that way. He gets off on peoples reactions to his extremely manufactured obtuseness, petty argumentative style, and dumb insults.
RG
“I’m not interested in arguing semantics”
Then say what you mean
If I were to say “Opt outs are always awesome for the team” when I mean “opt outs sometimes help” the team, it makes it hard to have a reasoned discussion, does it not?
” If the player opts out it means the team lost surplus value.”
That’s a lot different than “destroys” surplus value.
Again, teams know more about this than you or I. So, you can bet your [butt] teams factor that into,the contract.
Giving Baez an opt-out was great for the Tigers. Signing hum in the first place, not so much.
He can’t see those reactions because he mutes everyone.
@filihok You knew exactly what I meant.
It’s “you or me*” btdubs. Would you say “teams know more about this than me” or “teams know more about this than I” ? Adding “you or” to the sentence doesn’t change that.
RG
“You knew exactly what I meant.
It’s “you or me*” btdubs. Would you say “teams know more about this than me” or “teams know more about this than I” ? Adding “you or” to the sentence doesn’t change that.”
As an English teacher, there is a huge difference between a grammatical element and saying what you mean
The use of “I” or “me” doesn’t change meaning.
When you use absolute statements like
“the opt-out then deprives them of the opportunity to extract value from the contract via trade”
It does change meaning.,,
Depriving a child of food is different than giving them a smaller meal.
RG
“He can’t see those reactions because he mutes everyone.”
No
Again. The over generalized absolute statements
I don’t mute everyone
I mute people for various specific reasons
Things like: unprovoked insults, bigotry, arguing in bad faith, etc
@filihok Once again, you knew what I meant.
In any case we seem to mostly be on the same page about opt-out clauses. You might not put quite as much as a premium on them as me, but you know why I place a premium on them.
@filihok Well obviously you don’t mute *literally* everyone! Duh! If that were the case we would not be having this titillating discussion right now, would we?
RG
“Well obviously you don’t mute *literally* everyone! Duh! If that were the case we would not be having this titillating discussion right now, would we?”
Nope
So, saying that I did was pretty dumb
RG
“Once again, you knew what I meant.”
Nope. I know what you wrote
“In any case we seem to mostly be on the same page about opt-out clauses. You might not put quite as much as a premium on them as me, but you know why I place a premium on them.”
No reason to place a premium on them. You should value them properly.
@filihok…
“Nope
So, saying that I did was pretty dumb”
Don’t be so danged literal!
“No reason to place a premium on them. You should value them properly.”
But the “proper” valuation of opt-outs is up in the air. This is why some GM’s hand them out more freely despite all 30 of them knowing the pros and cons (well… except the Rockies).
RG
“Don’t be so danged literal!”
Say what you mean
“But the “proper” valuation of opt-outs is up in the air. This is why some GM’s hand them out more freely despite all 30 of them knowing the pros and cons (well… except the Rockies).”
No. The value of the opt-out it easy
Properly valuing the player and their marketm and assessing injury and performance risk is what is hard
@filihok…
“Say what you mean”
It’s called a figure of speech.
“No. The value of the opt-out it easy”
When I say it’s up in the air I mean all teams value it differently just like how they all value a particular player differently. There is no concrete value that the opt-out is objectively worth. What is known is it is worth more than zero.
“Properly valuing the player and their marketm and assessing injury and performance risk is what is hard”
That part’s true.
I swear in some previous trolling rant “filihok” aka “Samuel” said he was a retired accountant. Now it’s school teacher. And yes, I know it’s sad that I know all this history.
@ISoab Well DUH! Of course he’s Samuel but I’m more interested in the substance of his comments.
Other’s already listed many reasons not to like opt outs. Basically there are many reasons not to like them vs 0 or 1 reason to like them. If you saved a significant amount of $ I would like them. Usually you are either stuck with a bad contract or you wish there was no opt out so you could have the player longer. Numbers say just pay a bit more and have no opt out. And yeah with trades and future planning they are just a pain in the a.
YDGM
“Other’s already listed many reasons not to like opt outs.”
Not really, no.
Not anyone who correctly sees them as a thing of value for a player that they negotiate for
Just a bunch of laborers who have been brainwashed to support ownership.
“Basically there are many reasons not to like them vs 0 or 1 reason to like them.”
This is an unintelligent statement. The NUMBER of couldn’t matter less. I mean, there could be 20 reasons to do something, but if the only reason not to do it is death, it could make perfect sense that that one reason outweighs the 20 other reasons.
“Usually you are either stuck with a bad contract”
Nope
It’s like you didn’t understand a thing
If your choices are 2/$26 with on opt out or 2/$30 with no opt out, you’d much rather have the opt out.
“Numbers say just pay a bit more and have no opt out”
Do they? Show those numbers, then.
You won’t. You can’t
@YourDreamGM Depends how much more you would have to pay the player. If it’s only a mil or two then yeah, pay the guy. If it’s $100m to use an extreme example then it makes more sense to give him the opt-out.
RG
“Depends how much more you would have to pay the player.”
Yes. Of course
That’s why teams employ all kinds of finance people and data people
To predict player performance and to value that performance.
For me personally it would have to be a pretty significant amount saved to budge on the opt-out.
RG
“For me personally it would have to be a pretty significant amount saved to budge on the opt-out.
Bssed on what? Anything?
We both know you’re basing it on nothing
For 1, every situation is different. Teams are in different positions. Players are more and less volitile. The contract is closer or father from what you think the market value is. The market is different from year to year
All those things, and more, matter. So a blanket statement is ridiculous and just shows non understanding
Based on knowing that the only time the player doesn’t opt out is when I want him to and knowing that that carries significant value to a player. I’m not handing opt-outs out like party favors at my kid’s birthday party.
RG
“Based on knowing that the only time the player doesn’t opt out is when I want him to and knowing that that carries significant value to a player. I’m not handing opt-outs out like party favors at my kid’s birthday party.”
That’s about as complete as analysis as basing you decision on whether or not to have kids on your feelings towards party favors
But, hey, if that’s the most complicated thinking that you can muster and you want to sign a bunch of injury prone players to more expensive 2-year deals instead of less expensive ones, I’m only going to expand so much effort trying to change your mind
If I don’t think the player is going to provide value on his contract I simply won’t sign him to begin with.
RG
“If I don’t think the player is going to provide value on his contract I simply won’t sign him to begin with.”
I like gum
I mean, we’re just saying random things that are unrelated to the topic, right?
Or do you not understand that you can pay more for a player that provudes value to your team or you can pay less for them?
But again, while I would prefer that people have a better understanding of concepts, I don’t have the effort to spare to teach everyone
Opt outs reduce the amount teams pay for players. This is true whether the player opts out or not
Properly valuing the opt out is the trick. That involves predicting player performance and the likelihood of over and underperformance (and more)
Simple minds will look at things simply – because that’s all they can do.
@filihok…
“I like gum
I mean, we’re just saying random things that are unrelated to the topic, right?”
It’s completely related. You said “if that’s the most complicated thinking that you can muster and you want to sign a bunch of injury prone players to more expensive 2-year deals instead of less expensive ones, I’m only going to expand so much effort trying to change your mind” If I think the player is injury prone and is not going to produce value on his contract then there is no point in signing him. With or without the opt-out.
“Opt outs reduce the amount teams pay for players. This is true whether the player opts out or not”
Not if the player opts out. Look at Machado. Look at Strasburg.
“Properly valuing the opt out is the trick. That involves predicting player performance and the likelihood of over and underperformance (and more)”
That was my original point.
RG
“If I think the player is injury prone and is not going to produce value on his contract then there is no point in signing him. With or without the opt-out.”
Again. Just wut? What are you taking about.
I don’t eat Butterfingers
What’s that got to do with anything?
An injury prone player can he expected to produce, say, $20 million in value
If you want to pay them $15 million instead of $13 million because you don’t understand opt outs, there’s only so much effort I’m willing to put in to help you see that that’s stupid.
@filihok Given the example you presented and remembering that the guys actually signing the checks have more money than God, if the player has significant upside then yeah I’d pay the extra $2m for no opt-out. You might not.
@filihok Last reply because you seem crazy. Nothing wrong with being crazy and maybe I am wrong. Just you don’t seem like someone I want to have a in depth discussion with. No need to get all worked up over a difference of opinion.
I would advise teams to pay 15m with no opt out vs 13m with opt out. Best case scenario you save 2m with opt out. I prefer the no opt out scenarios.
RG
“Given the example you presented and remembering that the guys actually signing the checks have more money than God, if the player has significant upside then yeah I’d pay the extra $2m for no opt-out. You might not.”
Of course I would (assuming it was a roster fit).
So, you recognize that this statement
“If I don’t think the player is going to provide value on his contract I simply won’t sign him to begin with.”
Is an irrelevant response to this
“you want to sign a bunch of injury prone players to more expensive 2-year deals instead of less expensive ones, I’m only going to expand so much effort trying to change your mind”
I think the best type of deal is when the opt out is designed like Martinez/Lugo/Wacha/chad Green etc. was last year. Where there’s a player and team component w/ higher or lower salaries based upon each other’s decisions. (They also have to be structured right) But worked out well for the Pads. They got a cheaper rate for 1 year of production on those guys and had the opportunity to retain at a higher rate if they broke out. & it gives the players downside risk.
I think those type of deals will become more common.
@filihok You seemed to use the term “injury prone” to imply that that player would spend most/all of the season on the injured list. If you think that is what will happen with a particular player then there is no point in signing him at all. If I am signing a player it is because I think he will provide value on his contract. Eric Hosmer’s opt-out might have benefited the Padres, for instance, but they would have been even better off not signing him at all.
@Rally If someone is willing to sacrifice significant $ in exchange for opt out I would absolutely be in favor of that.
As a player I would take less to have the opt out.
@YDGM Depends *how much* less.
RG
”
You seemed to use the term “injury prone” to imply that that player would spend most/all of the season on the injured list. ”
Nope
That came from your mind, not mine
“If I am signing a player it is because I think he will provide value on his contract.”
Injury prone players can absolutely provide value.
YDGM
“I would advise teams to pay 15m with no opt out vs 13m with opt out. ”
Definitely not my Dream GM
Imagine thinking that a contract can be judged without knowing anything about the player or the team.
Depending on the specific situation, either contract could be favorable.
@filihok If that’s the case then absolutely I’d rather pay them a bit more for no opt-out.
You guys should exchange phone numbers and quit clogging this thread
Again, a guy on the lower end instead of an ace they need, as predicted. I do like how he can go either way and throws ground balls, though.
With opt outs, these are one year deals, plain and simple. But at least they are doing something.
These seem like a last minute, holy crap response to the Cardinals grtting their three starters than actual roster building, but that is Po Boy’s MO.
Best we can hope for is they keep building the pen, I guess, and one of these lottery tickets has a good year.
You are way too quick to criticize this move. Nick M is a solid signing. Its not flashy, but if you really are a Reds fan, you wouldn’t expect flashy. As to the St Louis moves, the only two responses to the Lynn and Gibson signings would be laughter and bewilderment. Gray alone won’t get them out of the hole they dug with those signings. Cincinnati was always targeting pitching, and just wasn’t in a rush to sign junk.
Lot of ptsd if you are fretting over the cardinals moves lol
My fear is they stop spending. I don’t know the details of the Lynn and Gibson deals but we really needed sonny gray. I do think $25 million a year for 3 years to a 34 year old pitchers is not a great deal but considering we needed a starting pitcher of grays caliber more than we needed bullpen help or back of the rotation starter I would have signed gray for 3 years $25 million s year before I would have Martinez and pagan for 2 years $21 million combined.
Hey if we can still afford a 5 year $25 million a year Snell then I am all good though. We get our top of the rotation and improve our bullpen. I just don’t see the reds making $46 million in additional payroll moves annually for multiple years. It would be outside the norm.
Cincy knows laughter, especially when you count payroll
So long big booty Nick!
Pagan and Martinez? Yikes
Check out the 2023 home/away splits. Looks like 4,50 ERA away from Petco. Buyer beware.
Personally I hope both Pagan and Martinez have great seasons and opt out. Works for everyone. These moves upgrade the Reds relief corp for 2024 and make signing in Cinn. more attractive for FA SP. I think these 2 signings reduce the chances that Reds trade for Glasnow, Bieber, or Cease- at least for now.
Spot on cguy about signing these two to make other signings more attractive. That’s a big deal for reds !
I’m convinced they’ll still add a TOR. Now more than ever and possibly solar too which idk how I feel about.
I thought he was worth the 8m he opted out of. I didn’t think he was worth the 16m the padres declined. Turns out he was worth in the middle.
Though 13m was more then I’d want to give him if you look at the guys that have signed in the 10-13m range he was better than all the others at that price.
Franchise record! Reds are spending!
I had him going to the Cardinals.
Another 0-for-1. Noooo!
If this was a steakhouse it’d be Chili’s. Not the best but it’ll get the job done.
One thing about chilis, as a guy who typically gets the same thing from restaurants, chilis has a lot of options ! And reds have a nice variety of options too
oh they’re really going for the bullpen help, this is scary as a cards fan
I don’t think anyone figured Krall to sign Pagan & Martinez.
He just continues to improve the franchise in somewhat unusual ways.
He’s finally got a plan that’ll work ! I’ve been coming around quite a bit on him. Just looking for him now to establish leadership and culture
The Reds needed a swing man for insurance for the rotation and middle relief. This signing fills that need. The best part is that if they can get India to agree to being an. OF/IF swing man, they are starting to be in good shape going into next season. No need to trade for or sign a RH OF bat. Move Marte to SS and De La Cruz to 3B or back to the minors if he doesn’t perform. It wouldn’t hurt to sign another middle reliever for even more insurance. Trading for or signing a top SP would cost them too much. With the young starters they have up and close to being ready, the Reds can come close to matching the performance of any expensive((in players or dollars) starter they could obtain.
Agree but McLain is actually the best SS on the team. Marte to 2B imo. India provides IF depth, as does Steer. Good place to be. But I also wouldn’t mind an India trade for the right piece, say Tanner Houck.
I agree. I wouldn’t rule McCain out at SS. De La Cruz (if he develops) is also a SS candidate. Arroyo might wind up being the Reds SS of the future. A nice problem to have with so many SS candidates already in the system.
Reds DESPERATELY needed that swing man/long reliever
Now if Bell will actually allow a reliever to pitch more than 1 inning
@dhud
How bout w all these young arms reds use a flurry of openers to keep innings down. They already had 6 starters. Martinez is 7. Use three power lefty’s to open first time through lineup w lodolo Abbott and Williamson….
I wouldn’t be opposed to it in some sense.
The other side of that though is at what point does going that stunt the development for these pitchers? Cant ever learn to pitch 6+ innings if you’re placed in a system that shields you from it
Nice topic Horn !
I think these 2 signings are those swing pieces. Neither will start that way but there’s so much competition now, especially after they add 1 more piece, the swing men will be the guys who miss out on rotation and back end jobs.
Trade bait they got india, Williamson and Richardson without hitting farm hard. That should be enough to acquire a top of rotation piece and I like Glasnow to fill that roll- a 120 innings of stellar pitching is all the reds will need of him and they got the funds to pay the full 25 mil. Plus they’ll get an end of first round pick if/when he signs else where.
The best ss has to be arroyo. Elite defense w some pop already. Reds will make way for him to be that guy of the future. Another guy who can make his way is Reece Hinds. I initially pegged him as a valuable trade chip but refs need that power bat in right field w this future team. I won’t be shocked if reds sign solar now but if he’s willing to play for reds and they don’t sign him – I believe Hinds has a lot to do w that since solar is wanting a new 3 year deal
Look at the stats for the last 2 years of lodolo, Greene and Ashcraft. Greene and Ashcraft have close to 50 career starts now and lodolo 25. That is enough starts to see a trend especially with Greene and ashcraft.
None have the stats of anything except back of the rotation and as talented as Greene and lodolo are they are not top of the rotation until they perform like they are. Going into a season with a proven top of the rotation is a plan. Going into a season hoping Greene or lodolo turn into s top of the rotation starter is well a hope.
A plan is different than a hope. Sometimes plans don’t work out and sometimes hopes and wishes come true. We could sign Blake snell and he gets injured and doesn’t pitch next year or doesn’t perform and if that happens we are no worse off. Maybe lodolo and Greene matches their era and whip to their talent and we wouldn’t have really needed a snell or a gray but with 3 aces we win 120 games.
Point is a plan is going by what has been proven in the past without any guarantee. Lodolo and Greene have never proven themselves and pitchers like snell and gray have.
What are the Cubs doing? They better watch out, the Reds have a nice young team, and if Milwaukee holds onto Burnes and Adames, they’ll be good again. I like what St. Louis did signing those 3 pitchers. Meanwhile, the Cubs seem to be banking their hopes on pitchers that are on most everyone’s list, so there’s no guarantee they will sign any of them. They could be the bride left at the altar.
Coop
Not to worry.
Brewers already lost Woodruff – feel bad for the player.
Compared to Pagan, Martinez will be St. Nick.
Gray replaces Monty, but Gibson is weak and Lynn is plain bad.
Cubs are still in mix in weak division. Reds are best competition. Let’s see if Cubs make a splash in December or January.
Gibson had some better stats than Nola. Typical flubs fan
Smart move signing with Reds. Look how he did in the American League, as soon as he transferred to the minors, he’s been much better.
I think Martinez was looking for an opportunity to be a starter. He wasn’t going to get that in SD based on how they utilized him these last 2 years. He’s a solid pitcher. I trust him more than Pagán.
this seems like a good signing for both parties. He gets a chance to start and Cincy gets a known quality pitcher. With Greene and Ashcraft, plus a healthy Lodolo, they have perhaps a better rotation than last year. I still expect them to trade for Glasnow or Bieber.
Why does everyone forget how reliable abbot was last year
Because if you don’t play for a major market team, then you are not noticed if you do a good job.
Abbot was great first time through the league but was a little shaky on the second go around. We will see if he makes adjustments.
Most Padre fans have posted they hate to see Martinez go so I am going to be happy he’s coming to Cincy!
Would rather have Maeda honestly
Martinez was another great under the radar signing by the Pads at a discount as a super utility spot starter and multi innings reliever. He wanted a secure spot in rotation but never proved himself there. He’s worth 13M if he can become a SP.
Holy overpay Batman. He had some good starts and he would always celebrate when he would pitch himself into and out of trouble, but there were a number of games last year where he came out of the pen and gave the game away. Good on him for getting a deal like this.
Much better signing than the flyball reliever they signed yesterday, but expensive unless he only starts. $13 million for a reliever or a swingman is too much for my blood. But then it’s not my money.
I do find it interesting that he is now the highest paid player on the Reds by more than 50% and he couldn’t make the Padres rotation.
Reds wouldn’t even pay Votto
13mil for a (quite good) swing man? Is that what the market is?
The luxury tax needs to go up pretty high next cba at this rate..
Or we could lower ticket prices and salaries. Lol
Ok, I’m not calling this an overpay because as a Pad fan I saw what he did for 2 years. However, I have to wonder how his signing helps Lugo get a 3 / 42 type deal that some are projecting. I had Lugo at 2 / 22 ish with maybe an option. He is 3-4 years older and yeah, started a few more games but not really enough to call him a reliable 30 starts / 180 inning guy either.
Just what this signing made me think about. I don’t think reds will regret it if he stays healthy – they need to match their expectations with his ability though.
Seth and Nick are only about 6 months apart in age. I don’t think this signing will make any difference in how many years Lugo asks for but I think it makes the $14 million AAV that has been projected more likely.
You are right – I thought Nick was a year younger than he is and that Lugo was a year older than he is.
Ok so I think it helps Lugo on AAV but not that 3rd year that everyone is throwing out there. 2/27 -2/28 instead of my original 2/22 – 2/25, then.
Lots of people including Rosenthal are throwing a 4th year on there for Lugo.
Good for Martinez. Other than the change of venue, San Diego to Cincinnati is going to be a big difference, he seems smart enough to get through the lineup three times.
I think AJ Preller dictated his utilization poorly. But the Padres were lucky last year to have a mostly solid rotation.
He was on my wish list for the Angels. He provides quality depth in both the rotation and bullpen.
Nice signing by Cincy.
I like it, especially compared to the recent Pagan and Severino signings.
Sad to see Nick go and happy he is getting his money. Its obvious that the Padres did not see him as a starter and were not willing to go beyond what he was signed for last year.
I wish him well in Cincinnati unless the Reds are playing the Padres.
Pagan isn’t going to be horrible. Martinez is a swing man and will be serviceable. Not bad signings for the money but does this push them out of the Glasnow talks?
Good question
Saw they signed Pagan. I don’t think that will work out well in GAB. Its the most homer friendly ballpark in baseball and he is a FB pitcher. I see a 4+ ERA in his future.
Nice contract. Good on you Nick. Best of luck
BLEEP! Martinez was one of the guys I was hoping Minasian would sign this offseason. He is a decent starter and a good reliever and would give the Angels some depth. Oh well.
His HOME/AWAY split – looks troublesome for reds being that reds is a hitters park, like texas – He looks like he will revert to his Texas form while on Reds maybe worse.
Pirates should of jumped on this signing
I can confirm it’s official. Nick Martinez and Emilio Pagan were both introduced at Redsfest.
Buffalo Bob isn’t paying anyone 12 million to pitch out of the bullpen, despite what they are saying.