Offseason 2019-2020 MLB Catch All Thread

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

47 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, it fixes a lot. If every team was forced to have a $100M+ payroll it would change a ton. The middle class would get paid again. 

 

You make the floor 70% of the cap, problem solved. If the current tax is a hard cap, then nobody can spend more than $210M, on payroll, but everyone has to spend $147M. More teams will be able to keep their own players. There could even be a salary scale with performance bonuses for rookies so they get paid more. Even the freaking A's and Rays are making a ton of money. Don't let them tell you otherwise. I honestly don't think the owners want a salary cap either because they'd have to open up the books. They don't want the players to know how much money they're making. 

I think if you initiated a floor, then you end up seeing far more teams trying to remain at or around the floor than the ceiling. Using your earlier example of $100M as a floor base, only 6 teams were under that in terms of their total payrolls for 2019 (this includes injuries, etc). So it doesn't change anything in that regard. What's funny is for years the owners wanted a salary CAP only to be denied by the MLBPA. I don't think you would get either side agreeing to it now, especially the owners.

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I think if you initiated a floor, then you end up seeing far more teams trying to remain at or around the floor than the ceiling. Using your earlier example of $100M as a floor base, only 6 teams were under that in terms of their total payrolls for 2019 (this includes injuries, etc). So it doesn't change anything in that regard. What's funny is for years the owners wanted a salary CAP only to be denied by the MLBPA. I don't think you would get either side agreeing to it now, especially the owners.

I agree with you here. If the Owners don't want a cap&floor system, and they don't want to open their books, they have to remove draft pick penalties from the luxury tax equation. 

[thxfrthmmrs]

20 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I think if you initiated a floor, then you end up seeing far more teams trying to remain at or around the floor than the ceiling. Using your earlier example of $100M as a floor base, only 6 teams were under that in terms of their total payrolls for 2019 (this includes injuries, etc). So it doesn't change anything in that regard. What's funny is for years the owners wanted a salary CAP only to be denied by the MLBPA. I don't think you would get either side agreeing to it now, especially the owners.

Actually it doesn’t. I’m a big proponent of a salary floor in baseball, similar to the NBA, who sets it at 90% of the cap. It may be an unrealistic initial target for MLB, like Parkman suggested it could be 70-80% of the cap and gets adjusted over time. This obviously would require greater revenue sharing amongst teams which would have a hard time getting owners sign off on. However with a floor put in place the competitive balance of the league would become a lot closer and theoretically the middle of the road veteran players would get paid as well.

[Jack Parkman]

37 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Actually it doesn’t. I’m a big proponent of a salary floor in baseball, similar to the NBA, who sets it at 90% of the cap. It may be an unrealistic initial target for MLB, like Parkman suggested it could be 70-80% of the cap and gets adjusted over time. This obviously would require greater revenue sharing amongst teams which would have a hard time getting owners sign off on. However with a floor put in place the competitive balance of the league would become a lot closer and theoretically the middle of the road veteran players would get paid as well.

I used the NHL model as the baseline. 

the NHL salary floor is roughly 74% of the cap. Because there is more money involved in baseball, I think that a soft cap system with a floor is a nice compromise. Make the luxury tax ceiling of 208M the cap, then 74% of that would be roughly 154M. 

That would be the floor. You can make a rule such that you can't exceed the soft cap for more than 3 seasons in a decade. Use them wisely. 

They could also make a "Trout Rule", similar to the NBA's Bird Rule, where you're allowed to exceed the soft cap without penalty for 1 player that was acquired before they reached one year of MLB service time. 
 

I also am a proponent of changing the FA rules a bit. The rules are the following: Players are allowed to become Free Agents at age 29 with 6+ full seasons of MLB service, 6 seasons after the season of their MLB debut, or Age 31 if the player makes his MLB debut at age 25 or older. Age 25/29/31 is considered as follows: The player must be  25/29/31 years old or older by the end of the regular season following the winter of their FA.  It puts everyone on the same playing field in FA. Contracts could actually be used as a comparables. It would kill the service time issue as everyone would know when players reach FA. 

Everyone has an opportunity to be come a FA between the ages of 29-31. There would be no illusions of what you're getting or not in FA. 

Also, after a player's second full season in the majors, a player is allowed arbitration. This way, players who jump into superstardom immediately get paid at a younger age. You only get two cheap years. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Lillian]

I'm confused, or perhaps befuddled is a better word. The Rockies seem to be asking for the moon, from any team interested in Arenado. Any team that trades for Arenado will have to take on his remaining seven years and $234 million owed. Moreover, the third baseman has an opt-out clause after the 2021 season. Therefore, it's really like only getting two years of the All Star third baseman, at a salary, which though fair, is not any bargain.

My question is two fold; why would anyone give up 3 top 100 prospects for the Colorado slugger and how do you value that kind of player and contract, with only 2 years of control guaranteed?

[BackDoorBreach]

18 minutes ago, Lillian said:

I'm confused, or perhaps befuddled is a better word. The Rockies seem to be asking for the moon, from any team interested in Arenado. Any team that trades for Arenado will have to take on his remaining seven years and $234 million owed. Moreover, the third baseman has an opt-out clause after the 2021 season. Therefore, it's really like only getting two years of the All Star third baseman, at a salary, which though fair, is not any bargain.

My question is two fold; why would anyone give up 3 top 100 prospects for the Colorado slugger and how do you value that kind of player and contract, with only 2 years of control guaranteed?

The opt out hurts his trade value a little imo but the only reason that is in the contract was to keep the Rockies honest about being competitive.  Arenado is one of those guys that really, really, values playing on a contending team.  Assuming he goes to a perennial contender it shouldn't really be a huge thing.  Of course you'll have to consider it as a GM trying to obtain him but I think it's overblown due to his personality.

He is definitely worth it even though his splits have a big variance.

[Lillian]

1 hour ago, BackDoorBreach said:

The opt out hurts his trade value a little imo but the only reason that is in the contract was to keep the Rockies honest about being competitive.  Arenado is one of those guys that really, really, values playing on a contending team.  Assuming he goes to a perennial contender it shouldn't really be a huge thing.  Of course you'll have to consider it as a GM trying to obtain him but I think it's overblown due to his personality.

He is definitely worth it even though his splits have a big variance.

Thanks for the clarification. Based upon what I've read, it appears that Colorado would want at least both Vaughn and Madrigal. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I understand Arenado's motivation for the opt out, but unless the need for his team to be competitive were carefully spelled out and contractually binding, the risk of him bolting, after just 2 seasons, makes such a deal untenable, IMO.

[Sleepy Harold]

 

[mqr]

2 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

That 'The Twins have nothing to worry about' article is going to age so poorly. 

[ChiSoxFanMike]

3 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

We get Keuchel, they get Hill and Bailey. Love it to see it.

[steveno89]

Just now, mqr said:

That 'The Twins have nothing to worry about' article is going to age so poorly. 

Hill had surgery on his elbow and won't be able to pitch until June or July...and also is 39 years old

Homer Bailey had one solid season in 2019, unlikely to repeat that, yikes

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

Wow that's great that that's all they got this offseason.  Though Hill will be a very strong pitcher when he pitches.  Wish he went elsewherre for that reason haha

[chetkincaid]

I'll be a lot less worried about the Twins when Josh Donaldson signs with the Nats or the Braves. 

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

Just now, chetkincaid said:

I'll be a lot less worried about the Twins when Josh Donaldson signs with the Nats or the Braves. 

Same.. This is the big FA I have been waiting on regarding the Twins. He would be a massive (and needed) move for them.

[ChiSox59]

I’ve known about this for a little bit. Good news for our Sox. Hill will be a decent piece for them at some point, but he is going to miss half the season. Pretty encouraging for the Sox - a Berrios, Odorizzi, Bailey, Thorpe, Smeltzer rotation to start the year isn’t very good. Though it obviously gets better with Pinedia joining the fold in late May and Hill sometime in the summer. 
 

Twins definitely want Donaldson. But whether they’re willing to be the high bidder remains to be seen. 

[fathom]

Just now, ChiSox59 said:

I’ve known about this for a little bit. Good news for our Sox. Hill will be a decent piece for them at some point, but he is going to miss half the season. Pretty encouraging for the Sox - a Berrios, Odorizzi, Bailey, Thorpe, Smeltzer rotation to start the year isn’t very good. Though it obviously gets better with Pinedia joining the fold in late May and Hill sometime in the summer. 
 

Twins definitely want Donaldson. But whether they’re willing to be the high bidder remains to be seen. 

I can confirm 59 knew about this for a while 

[Jose Abreu]

4 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I’ve known about this for a little bit. Good news for our Sox. Hill will be a decent piece for them at some point, but he is going to miss half the season. Pretty encouraging for the Sox - a Berrios, Odorizzi, Bailey, Thorpe, Smeltzer rotation to start the year isn’t very good. Though it obviously gets better with Pinedia joining the fold in late May and Hill sometime in the summer. 
 

 Twins definitely want Donaldson. But whether they’re willing to be the high bidder remains to be seen. 

Do you think Minnesota still trades for Price/Boyd/Ray? I can't imagine them wanting their end of year rotation to be Berrios/Odorizzi/Hill/Bailey/? (Graterol?), especially with Hill's durability issues and their lack of SP depth 

 

Edit- forgot Pineda but point remains 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Jose Abreu

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Do you think Minnesota still trades for Price/Boyd/Ray? I can't imagine them wanting their end of year rotation to be Berrios/Odorizzi/Hill/Bailey/? (Graterol?), especially with Hill's durability issues and their lack of SP depth 

 

Edit- forgot Pineda but point remains 

How many games will Pineda miss for them? About 40? I thought he got suspended in early September. 

[mqr]

1. José Berríos
2. Jake Odorizzi
3. Michael Pineda (Out until May)
4. Rich Hill (out until June with injury)
5. Homer Bailey
6. Randy Dobnak
7. Devin Smeltzer

I actually think I like the Sox staff more. 

[ChiSoxFanMike]

4 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Do you think Minnesota still trades for Price/Boyd/Ray? I can't imagine them wanting their end of year rotation to be Berrios/Odorizzi/Hill/Bailey/? (Graterol?), especially with Hill's durability issues and their lack of SP depth 

 

They also brought back Pineda, but yeah, that rotation is not very good at all. Hill is good when he’s on the mound but he’s almost always injured. And Bailey is trash.  

[SoCalChiSox]

There will be no floor because there's no incentive for the owners to agree to that. Analytics provides the possibility of being successful without spending so owners have a win-win scenario where there is winning plus mega profits. 

The union would have to offer a massive concession to get the votes it would need for a floor and even then the floor would have to still be relatively low. You have to provide them similar profit margins in a new system otherwise they won't vote for it. 

[ChiSox59]

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

How many games will Pineda miss for them? About 40? I thought he got suspended in early September. 

39 games, yes. 
 

5 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Do you think Minnesota still trades for Price/Boyd/Ray? I can't imagine them wanting their end of year rotation to be Berrios/Odorizzi/Hill/Bailey/? (Graterol?), especially with Hill's durability issues and their lack of SP depth 

Edit- forgot Pineda but point remains 

I don’t. I think this is it. They like Thorpe a lot. Graterol likely starts in AA, he may factor in later in the season as needed, but the most innings he’s ever thrown is 102 in a season. 
 

Berrios-Odo-Pineda-Hill-Bailey/Thorpe/Graterol is alright, but they won’t actually be throwing those guys out in tandem much at all this season. I also think Berrios’ elbow is worth monitoring. He lost a lot of velocity on his FB towards the middle to back end of the season. They really need him to stay healthy (obviously). 

[Baron]

As long as Josh Donaldson doesn't sign there we're good. 

[SoCalChiSox]

2 minutes ago, Baron said:

As long as Josh Donaldson doesn't sign there we're good. 

I think those signings make it more likely he does sign there, unfortunately. They can put all their ammo into just him now. 

[chw42]

I really don't see the Twins committing $100 million for a 34 year old 3B. They're cheaper than we are.