135 replies to this topic

[Mike in STL]

I'm still guessing Mariners and it'll be something like the Scherzer/DC contract....like 8/200 with half the money deferred.

I'll take Chapman, Bellinger and Montgomery to the Giants. Someone finally takes their money. They'll team up there to 'make everyone else pay' and will use years or deferrals to fit it into the giants budget.

I'm comfortable watching the immediate regret of others.
(I'm out for a couple of days)

Bellinger would be a perfect fit here. Can’t have enough arms, sign me up for Montgomery too. Kremer pushed to the 6th man/longman. He’d be called upon when inevitably someone from the rotation goes down.

Doesn’t sound like any of these moves will be made though.

[Slidemaster]

Royals just extended Witt to a massive deal.

Get it done Os. If they can so can you.

[Mike B]

Royals just extended Witt to a massive deal.

Get it done Os. If they can so can you.

I think we will need to be patient, until the ownership changes hands, then maybe.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I think we will need to be patient, until the ownership changes hands, then maybe.

100%. Its now become a real possibility to extend players here but not until the transition is approved and completed. Maybe not til PA dies and the rest of Angelos's stake gets sold too.


Btw its so unlikely to be any of the Boras clients

[You Play to Win the Game]

I don’t know. I mean the trust fund is now secured in legal writing for the trust fund baby, so why not start now? What difference would it make?

[Mackus]

Maybe not til PA dies and the rest of Angelos's stake gets sold too.

Don't think this is a hurdle. Once Rubenstein is the control person, the Angelos family is as irrelevant as any of the other minority owners are now.

[hallas]

That deal for WItt seems to suck for the club, not gonna lie.  It's 7/148 before the first opt out, so if he performs well they're only buying out 3 years of FA at 100 million.  There's minimal downside risk for Witt because of the annual opt-outs, and 4/140 of additional downside risk for the club.  If he went to FA in on schedule he'd sign what, 9/400?  Maybe 9/450?  He delays it a couple years and signs 7/300 instead if he performs well, and doesn't opt out if the market isn't looking good.  Maybe if Witt continues to be a 6 win player through his age 29 season the Royals get some decent surplus value out of him, but that's it.  He'd have to turn into an absolute monster, perennial MVP type guy for this deal to really have upside for the Royals, and I'm not sure if his career-to-date supports even sniffing that sort of projection.

[SonicAttack]

That deal for WItt seems to suck for the club, not gonna lie.  It's 7/148 before the first opt out, so if he performs well they're only buying out 3 years of FA at 100 million.  There's minimal downside risk for Witt because of the annual opt-outs, and 4/140 of additional downside risk for the club.  If he went to FA in on schedule he'd sign what, 9/400?  Maybe 9/450?  He delays it a couple years and signs 7/300 instead if he performs well, and doesn't opt out if the market isn't looking good.  Maybe if Witt continues to be a 6 win player through his age 29 season the Royals get some decent surplus value out of him, but that's it.  He'd have to turn into an absolute monster, perennial MVP type guy for this deal to really have upside for the Royals, and I'm not sure if his career-to-date supports even sniffing that sort of projection.

11yrs/$288mil - he's 23yrs old and is already a monster.  Great sign for KC, Witt is great, and can be a perennial MVP.

[Mackus]

That deal for WItt seems to suck for the club, not gonna lie.  It's 7/148 before the first opt out, so if he performs well they're only buying out 3 years of FA at 100 million.  There's minimal downside risk for Witt because of the annual opt-outs, and 4/140 of additional downside risk for the club.  If he went to FA in on schedule he'd sign what, 9/400?  Maybe 9/450?  He delays it a couple years and signs 7/300 instead if he performs well, and doesn't opt out if the market isn't looking good.  Maybe if Witt continues to be a 6 win player through his age 29 season the Royals get some decent surplus value out of him, but that's it.  He'd have to turn into an absolute monster, perennial MVP type guy for this deal to really have upside for the Royals, and I'm not sure if his career-to-date supports even sniffing that sort of projection.

 

He won ROY at 22 and then top-10 MVP at 23.  I think he's got the resume.  

 

I do think your point about the Royals not getting much of a discount is apt.  They are taking on most of the risk and Witt can still get out.  There is a pretty narrow bandwidth for it to be a successful deal AND for Witt to still be under contract in years 8, 9 or 10.  But you can always renegotiate if the deal is working but the player looks poised to opt out, similar to what Manny did.  And even if he does opt out, they still win.  They get three prime years they otherwise wouldn't have at below market rates.

 

I'd be happy to give a similar deal to Henderson (one year extra to match the service).  I'd take on the back-end risk to be locking in 3 FA years.  3/$100M like you point out feels big now, but in 5 years that might not be a top-20 AAV among position players.  Inflation is very high in MLB contracts.

[hallas]

He won ROY at 22 and then top-10 MVP at 23.  I think he's got the resume.  

 

I do think your point about the Royals not getting much of a discount is apt.  They are taking on most of the risk and Witt can still get out.  There is a pretty narrow bandwidth for it to be a successful deal AND for Witt to still be under contract in years 8, 9 or 10.  But you can always renegotiate if the deal is working but the player looks poised to opt out, similar to what Manny did.  And even if he does opt out, they still win.  They get three prime years they otherwise wouldn't have at below market rates.

 

I'd be happy to give a similar deal to Henderson (one year extra to match the service).  I'd take on the back-end risk to be locking in 3 FA years.  3/$100M like you point out feels big now, but in 5 years that might not be a top-20 AAV among position players.  Inflation is very high in MLB contracts.

 

The past 10 or so years the owners have done a pretty good job keeping salary inflation in check.  They don't get the mandated salary increases like NFL does with their salary caps/floors.  The cost per FA win is actually lower in 2023 than it was in 2018.  It's possible (likely?) that KC is banking on a bounceback in FA salaries now that we're past our COVID-related revenue depression.  But I think they'd have to jump well past 11 or 12 million per win in order to really make a dent here, and that seems like a pretty big jump to make in the next 7 years.

 

This is a pretty big tangent but I think a salary cap + salary floor might actually increase player salaries more than the current open market system.  Teams are getting smarter about how they spend their money, and outside the big market teams they're mostly spending on long player-friendly extensions.  Maybe this kind of deal represents a pushback from players, but I'm not sure if it's going to be enough to tilt the market in their favor.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

The past 10 or so years the owners have done a pretty good job keeping salary inflation in check.  They don't get the mandated salary increases like NFL does with their salary caps/floors.  The cost per FA win is actually lower in 2023 than it was in 2018.  It's possible (likely?) that KC is banking on a bounceback in FA salaries now that we're past our COVID-related revenue depression.  But I think they'd have to jump well past 11 or 12 million per win in order to really make a dent here, and that seems like a pretty big jump to make in the next 7 years.

 

This is a pretty big tangent but I think a salary cap + salary floor might actually increase player salaries more than the current open market system.  Teams are getting smarter about how they spend their money, and outside the big market teams they're mostly spending on long player-friendly extensions.  Maybe this kind of deal represents a pushback from players, but I'm not sure if it's going to be enough to tilt the market in their favor.

I agree with this for the majority of players. Btu I think this would also just about eliminate these monster long term deals. So the very top tier guys would get less IMO.

[mdrunning]

This is a pretty big tangent but I think a salary cap + salary floor might actually increase player salaries more than the current open market system.  Teams are getting smarter about how they spend their money, and outside the big market teams they're mostly spending on long player-friendly extensions.  Maybe this kind of deal represents a pushback from players, but I'm not sure if it's going to be enough to tilt the market in their favor.

You really do want to see another players' strike, don't you? 

[bmore_ken]

That deal for WItt seems to suck for the club, not gonna lie.  

This is the thinking that has this team making the playoffs last year for the first time this century

[hallas]

You really do want to see another players' strike, don't you?

I think the players are digging their heels here on principle. They haven't seen serious salary growth in years despite a huge uptick in revenue. Compare that to the NFL cap which has doubled since 2011. A salary cap coupled with a salary floor that forces teams like Pittsburgh and Angelos-era Orioles to spend at least 75% of their revenue sharing intake (over 150m from the sources I've seen) would increase salaries far beyond current levels, with a downside for the top tier players making mega-contracts.

[BSLChrisStoner]

This is the thinking that has this team making the playoffs last year for the first time this century

Huh?

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Huh?

Face palm