Billions & Billions

I thought signing Pedroia at age 30 for eight years was a bad deal. It was only 110M. I knew he would break down. He’s missed the equivalent of two full seasons in the first five. Now he’s starting the year on the DL in season six. It’s going to get ugly when he’s told he’s not the 2b anymore. 

Don’t tell the owner you’re scared. Tell him you have a 12 year plan to build from within. 

The only really long extension is trout who is signed into his late 30s.

The other extensions I feel are quite reasonable, most are young players in their 20s, sale and goldy are signed till mid 30s which isn't without risk but reasonable.

I don't feel teams are pressured into extensions, i think the opposite is true and the players rather sign extensions because free agency was such a hold up and they don't want the pain of negotating halfway or longer into spring training to get a decent deal.

Luv Baseball,

Exactly.  This is the same point I was trying to make in the Trout thread....it isn't necessarily the money it is the length of the contract and the future roster flexibility.   Some of these teams are painting themselves into a corner.  RJM brought up Pedroia and I'll use him as an example.  I know RJM is a huge Red Sox fan as I am.  I agree with him that the Pedrioa extension a few years ago was probably not a good business investment, but I know why the Red Sox did it.  He was the face of the franchise.   When I first read about the extension I couldn't believe it.  Possibly the Red Sox learned something there...short statured infield MVP and ROY (rookie of the year) have a  limited shelf life especially when they play like their hair is on fire.  I see the Red Sox going after DH Martinez moreso for an extension because he is later in his career and they can get greater value there than trying to sign a young 26-year old Mookie Betts to an extension or get involved in a full scale bidding war orchestrated by Boras for his first free agent contract.   Martinez has proven himself capable of driving in many, many runs.   Betts is more of the Pedrioa model.   I love Bett's talent at 26 years old, and we all know where this is going >$300M 10+years.  Somebody is going to be willing to make a huge payday for Mookie and lock their payroll and roster flexibility up for many years to come.   Also, I just don't see his body holding up 10+ years with the way he plays today.   If I'm signing the checks, I'm letting someone else take the risk.  

As always, JMO

So Luv and Fenway, since you are not signing anyone to big, long term contracts, what is your strategy?  Or is your owner happy with maybe a second wild card berth every five years or so?

It's easy to say you won't do this and won't do that.

Signed, 

Maybe Next Year

Go44Dad,

Yes, my strategy would be stay away from long-term 10+ year contracts thereby freeing up money and resources to pursue other mid-length options (3-6 years), develop farm system and try to extend contracts with players under my control and veteran players that contribute.   This gives your roster flexibility and your front office options when they need to make a move for a specific team need such as a Justin Verlander with the Astros a few years ago.  I think it is foolish to enter into these 10+ year contracts when the average MLB career is just about half that.   Recent teams have been successful with this model including Astros, Red Sox, Royals and Cubs.   Royals jettisoned their contracts but the other three are still World Series contenders. 

JMO.

fenwaysouth posted:

Luv Baseball,

Exactly.  This is the same point I was trying to make in the Trout thread....it isn't necessarily the money it is the length of the contract and the future roster flexibility.   Some of these teams are painting themselves into a corner.  RJM brought up Pedroia and I'll use him as an example.  I know RJM is a huge Red Sox fan as I am.  I agree with him that the Pedrioa extension a few years ago was probably not a good business investment, but I know why the Red Sox did it.  He was the face of the franchise.   When I first read about the extension I couldn't believe it.  Possibly the Red Sox learned something there...short statured infield MVP and ROY (rookie of the year) have a  limited shelf life especially when they play like their hair is on fire.  I see the Red Sox going after DH Martinez moreso for an extension because he is later in his career and they can get greater value there than trying to sign a young 26-year old Mookie Betts to an extension or get involved in a full scale bidding war orchestrated by Boras for his first free agent contract.   Martinez has proven himself capable of driving in many, many runs.   Betts is more of the Pedrioa model.   I love Bett's talent at 26 years old, and we all know where this is going >$300M 10+years.  Somebody is going to be willing to make a huge payday for Mookie and lock their payroll and roster flexibility up for many years to come.   Also, I just don't see his body holding up 10+ years with the way he plays today.   If I'm signing the checks, I'm letting someone else take the risk.  

As always, JMO

I think it is wrong to think in a yearly budget. The number of years doesn't matter just what you spend overall. If you got your dollar worth of the contract in the first 7 years out of the contract it doesn't matter if the player is useless the last 3 years, they can just release him or put him on the bench. Teams like to spread out the money so they have to pay less per year. I mean is 10/300 really worse than 8/280? Yeah it is two more years but basically the same money while being less bad for the luxury tax.

A 10 year contract isn't any more "handcuffing" than an 8 year contract if you don't pay more overall, you always pay for the prime and slightly after prime years and the final years are just deferring pay into later years.

This is especially interesting if as a team you plan to rebuild. A bad contract hurts a conpetetive team but if you tank anyway in 6 years you can afford to pay a declining player a lot since the team will get cheap anyway while tanking so it doesn't matter if the payroll is 40 or 70 mil both is cheap.

RJM posted:

I thought signing Pedroia at age 30 for eight years was a bad deal. It was only 110M. I knew he would break down. He’s missed the equivalent of two full seasons in the first five. Now he’s starting the year on the DL in season six. It’s going to get ugly when he’s told he’s not the 2b anymore. 

Would 5/95 have been a better deal? I agree 8 is long, but for the 13 million a year he is getting that contract isn't going to kill them at any point. Especially if he can get healthy and play in even 100 games a year. 

FWIW he hit 318 and 290 before the knee injury. Without the injury, it is a pretty good deal for the Sox. Especially considering they had a homegrown face of the franchise. But to be fair, any deal where a player gets hurt and misses time is a bad deal. 

PABaseball posted:

RJM posted:

I thought signing Pedroia at age 30 for eight years was a bad deal. It was only 110M. I knew he would break down. He’s missed the equivalent of two full seasons in the first five. Now he’s starting the year on the DL in season six. It’s going to get ugly when he’s told he’s not the 2b anymore. 

Would 5/95 have been a better deal? I agree 8 is long, but for the 13 million a year he is getting that contract isn't going to kill them at any point. Especially if he can get healthy and play in even 100 games a year. 

FWIW he hit 318 and 290 before the knee injury. Without the injury, it is a pretty good deal for the Sox. Especially considering they had a homegrown face of the franchise. But to be fair, any deal where a player gets hurt and misses time is a bad deal. 

 

The Sox had a PR issue on their hands. Everyone knew Pedroia would flame out. It just wasn’t expected as soon as it came. A smart deal would have been three years for 50-55M.  But Pedroia would have got ticked off. He was the face of the franchise along with Ortiz. I guess the Sox figured they got two “home town discount” long term deals with Pedroia. If anyone was underpaid based on production it was Ortiz. 

RJM posted:

PABaseball posted:

RJM posted:

I thought signing Pedroia at age 30 for eight years was a bad deal. It was only 110M. I knew he would break down. He’s missed the equivalent of two full seasons in the first five. Now he’s starting the year on the DL in season six. It’s going to get ugly when he’s told he’s not the 2b anymore. 

Would 5/95 have been a better deal? I agree 8 is long, but for the 13 million a year he is getting that contract isn't going to kill them at any point. Especially if he can get healthy and play in even 100 games a year. 

FWIW he hit 318 and 290 before the knee injury. Without the injury, it is a pretty good deal for the Sox. Especially considering they had a homegrown face of the franchise. But to be fair, any deal where a player gets hurt and misses time is a bad deal. 

 

The Sox had a PR issue on their hands. Everyone knew Pedroia would flame out. It just wasn’t expected as soon as it came. A smart deal would have been three years for 50-55M.  But Pedroia would have got ticked off. He was the face of the franchise along with Ortiz. I guess the Sox figured they got two “home town discount” long term deals with Pedroia. If anyone was underpaid based on production it was Ortiz. 

I can agree with that. Although in Pedroia's defense his production didn't fall off a cliff due to lack of baseball ability, it was the result of some unfortunate in game injuries. Foul ball off the foot/ankle, taken out at 2B. He missed some time but he was still producing very well for the money he was making. It wouldn't surprise me if he came back and hit .280 this year. It also wouldn't surprise me if he didn't play a single game.

I think the Sox are just hoping he can come back and give them 90 games and spot starts against lefties, but I don't think anybody will look back and say it was a bad contract (even if it might have been). I'm not sure anybody could ever dislike the man anyway. Played too hard and too well for too long which is why it will be interesting to see how the rest of his contract plays out. 

I think the deal the Mets struck with deGrom might be the way to play this budget game.  Obviously huge "face of the franchise" money but it is only 4 years out on a 30 year old pitcher.  If he pitches great Mets get their money's worth and he opts out for another swing for big money.  If he is solid but not great he gets one season of possible decline before the Mets can opt out in 2023.  Plus the Mets avoid the whole "cheap" cloud that hangs over their every move.   A TJ in June blows a hole in the team for 3 years and probably forces them to move Wheeler and possibly Syndergaard.  The Mets probably have the foreseeable future riding significantly on deGrom's health.

Look - if revenues continue to rise over the next 5 years eating the last 5 or 6 years of Trouts deal might be something the Angels can do.  Even if you assume 7% growth that means payrolls will double in 10 years.  Even then Trout will represent at least 10% of the payroll.  If he follows the Pujohls track - they will have a pretty expensive part time DH on their hands for 3 or 4 years.

Betting against increasing revenues would have been way wrong over the last 50 years.  If you think that continues forever then your risk is mitigated to a large degree.  I think it is safer and more prudent to go shorter with bigger annual number than to make 10+ year bet.  That is my risk profile and others might lean into the longer bet.  For example I think Harper found the entire process distasteful and really never wanted to do it again so the big years had real value to him.  

I am sure like anything else it will be win some/lose some outcomes.  But the long contracts seen to date ARod/Albert/Miggy/Wright to name a few leave me with the view they don't work out well in the back end and are much longer odds than the shorter term deals of being good for the club.

On other thing about these deals - money and security will often change people.  While MLB may never change into the NBA when you have a guy in the locker room with real power who earns 10X your manager - who also might have been a decent but not great MLB player - it might not be long before being a MLB manager is a much bigger headache than it has been up until now.

Business People never prepare for recession, if economy goes well they act accordingly and deal with recession when it comes. They wouldn't be billionaires if they were hesistant during good economy.

You can see this in the real estate market. The same speculation bubble that was there before the real estate crisis exists again, big finance people haven't changed their behaviour at all. The strategy is simply make as much profit as you can during hot economy and if there is a recession you worry about that later.

Yep totally agree.  To make big money you don't have to right every time but you do need to right once and that means striking while the iron is hot as you say.

More details on the deGrom and Sale deals is that there looks like pretty significant deferred money in both.  It would seem Astacio-Cortez might be influencing things here.  The deals are looking to shape up as deferring money around the $10-15MM mark stating in 2021 out over 15 years.  

The best reason to do that is if you think that the tax laws might change significantly.  A quick look if you take the 70% proposal is if you haul in $30MM with a 70% fed rate on the last $20MM plus the city and state rates that takes dollars $10MM to $30MM down to something like 15 cents on the dollar.  That is a hell of a reason to pay attention to DC as one of these guys.

https://twitter.com/spotrac/st.../1111239646065905666

Ton's of $$$ in the game.  $ 11 billion plus.  Historically teams have spend 50% of revenue on the on field product.  Which would mean average payroll should be $ 183 million per team.  We are $ 50 million below historical norms and the fans are paying the price for Tony Clark being bad at his job.  Braves have revenue of $ 442 million and are using that $$ to fund real estate dev.  Payroll of $ 110 million for the Braves is an embarrassment.    Braves if they cared about winning a WS have the resources to put together a championship contender.  The focus for the Braves is utilizing baseball money for real estate dev.  #fireAA.  

https://sports.yahoo.com/brave...ren-t-160548142.html 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019...eir-fans-are-idiots/

RossGA posted:

Ton's of $$$ in the game.  $ 11 billion plus.  Historically teams have spend 50% of revenue on the on field product.  Which would mean average payroll should be $ 183 million per team.  We are $ 50 million below historical norms and the fans are paying the price for Tony Clark being bad at his job.  Braves have revenue of $ 442 million and are using that $$ to fund real estate dev.  Payroll of $ 110 million for the Braves is an embarrassment.    Braves if they cared about winning a WS have the resources to put together a championship contender.  The focus for the Braves is utilizing baseball money for real estate dev.  #fireAA.  

https://sports.yahoo.com/brave...ren-t-160548142.html 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019...eir-fans-are-idiots/

More than half the Braves roster is made up of young guys still playing under the rookie contract. That gives them flexibility when the young guys need to get paid and if they're still in the hunt come July, to trade for a pitcher with a big price tag. Keuchel and Kimbrel are still out there as well. 

This is the same team that made the playoffs last year with a bunch of rookies. They're in pretty good shape now and moving forward. If they can get back to the playoffs with only spending 110, why would they not do it? Spending more money ≠ a championship. 

One of the articles mentions starting pitching as a priority. There weren't many good options this offseason. Corbin was the best option. Next year there is Cole, Bumgarner, Wheeler, Porcello, and possibly Strasburg. And if Donaldson doesn't prove himself, that is an extra 23 million freed up. A good case can be made that the Braves have one of the better situations in baseball. Far from embarrassing. 

PABaseball - Good to hear from someone in the Braves marketing department.   As currently constructed the Braves have a zero percent chance of winning the WS.  Prospects are cool, parades are cooler.  After suffering through a rebuild, fans have been told the Braves would be shopping in any aisle this offseason.  AA left out that while shopping in any aisle he would be standing in the dollar store.  Braves would have one of the better situations in baseball if management and ownership cared about winning.  Unfortunately they do not.  So we will suffer through the season with a minor league rotation and bullpen and half of a major league lineup.

PABaseball posted:

RossGA posted:

Ton's of $$$ in the game.  $ 11 billion plus.  Historically teams have spend 50% of revenue on the on field product.  Which would mean average payroll should be $ 183 million per team.  We are $ 50 million below historical norms and the fans are paying the price for Tony Clark being bad at his job.  Braves have revenue of $ 442 million and are using that $$ to fund real estate dev.  Payroll of $ 110 million for the Braves is an embarrassment.    Braves if they cared about winning a WS have the resources to put together a championship contender.  The focus for the Braves is utilizing baseball money for real estate dev.  #fireAA.  

https://sports.yahoo.com/brave...ren-t-160548142.html 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019...eir-fans-are-idiots/

More than half the Braves roster is made up of young guys still playing under the rookie contract. That gives them flexibility when the young guys need to get paid and if they're still in the hunt come July, to trade for a pitcher with a big price tag. Keuchel and Kimbrel are still out there as well. 

This is the same team that made the playoffs last year with a bunch of rookies. They're in pretty good shape now and moving forward. If they can get back to the playoffs with only spending 110, why would they not do it? Spending more money ≠ a championship. 

One of the articles mentions starting pitching as a priority. There weren't many good options this offseason. Corbin was the best option. Next year there is Cole, Bumgarner, Wheeler, Porcello, and possibly Strasburg. And if Donaldson doesn't prove himself, that is an extra 23 million freed up. A good case can be made that the Braves have one of the better situations in baseball. Far from embarrassing. 

They aren't in a bad spot but the phillies improved big time and the nats also didn't get worse despite losing Harper.

They are young but the phillies have probably overtaken them and the Nats probably will bounce back too.

Not saying they should have paid 300m for machado but they shouldn't have let the phillies pass them without a fight and a good reliever would have helped with that. Projections of fangraphs see the braves as a 4th place team after winning last year.

They are in a terrible spot. Fans in Atlanta are done.

Fangraphs and MLB power rankings has the Braves as the 4th best team in the NL East.  https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-p...er-rankings-coverage 

Which is correct.  They have the revenue to have signed Machado, Harper and Kimbrel and still have $ 30 million left over.  Then you trade for Realmuto and now you have a team.  Instead Phillies, Mets and Nationals got better while AA went into hibernation.  

RossGA posted:

PABaseball - Good to hear from someone in the Braves marketing department.   As currently constructed the Braves have a zero percent chance of winning the WS.  Prospects are cool, parades are cooler.  After suffering through a rebuild, fans have been told the Braves would be shopping in any aisle this offseason.  AA left out that while shopping in any aisle he would be standing in the dollar store.  Braves would have one of the better situations in baseball if management and ownership cared about winning.  Unfortunately they do not.  So we will suffer through the season with a minor league rotation and bullpen and half of a major league lineup.

Yeah I didn't think I'd get the job considering I'm a Yankees fan from the northeast. But now that I have it I'm here to tell you that the sky isn't falling because of the failure to sign powerhouse Patrick Corbin to an 8 year deal.  

You're right though. Management doesn't care about winning, that is why they decided not to make any moves this offseason. They wouldn't want to make the playoffs two years in a row. I might lose my job if that happens. Good thing the fans are done, they don't have to endure it anymore. 

Dominik85 posted:

PABaseball posted:

RossGA posted:

Ton's of $$$ in the game.  $ 11 billion plus.  Historically teams have spend 50% of revenue on the on field product.  Which would mean average payroll should be $ 183 million per team.  We are $ 50 million below historical norms and the fans are paying the price for Tony Clark being bad at his job.  Braves have revenue of $ 442 million and are using that $$ to fund real estate dev.  Payroll of $ 110 million for the Braves is an embarrassment.    Braves if they cared about winning a WS have the resources to put together a championship contender.  The focus for the Braves is utilizing baseball money for real estate dev.  #fireAA.  

https://sports.yahoo.com/brave...ren-t-160548142.html 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019...eir-fans-are-idiots/

More than half the Braves roster is made up of young guys still playing under the rookie contract. That gives them flexibility when the young guys need to get paid and if they're still in the hunt come July, to trade for a pitcher with a big price tag. Keuchel and Kimbrel are still out there as well. 

This is the same team that made the playoffs last year with a bunch of rookies. They're in pretty good shape now and moving forward. If they can get back to the playoffs with only spending 110, why would they not do it? Spending more money ≠ a championship. 

One of the articles mentions starting pitching as a priority. There weren't many good options this offseason. Corbin was the best option. Next year there is Cole, Bumgarner, Wheeler, Porcello, and possibly Strasburg. And if Donaldson doesn't prove himself, that is an extra 23 million freed up. A good case can be made that the Braves have one of the better situations in baseball. Far from embarrassing. 

They aren't in a bad spot but the phillies improved big time and the nats also didn't get worse despite losing Harper.

They are young but the phillies have probably overtaken them and the Nats probably will bounce back too.

Not saying they should have paid 300m for machado but they shouldn't have let the phillies pass them without a fight and a good reliever would have helped with that. Projections of fangraphs see the braves as a 4th place team after winning last year.

They definitely could've made some moves this offseason. I think they know they have a good young core and don't want to give out any long term deals. But I still would've went hard after Realmuto. 

There wasn't much of a pitching market this offseason. Corbin wasn't going to save that rotation. There just weren't enough options. I don't there there were enough FA starters that would've made that rotation significantly better. 

As far as the Phillies and Nats. Not a great situation, but you also have to think of the long term plan, not just spend recklessly for unproven players or overpay Harper. Without sounding too much like a Braves employee I think they make some moves the next two years and the young guys step up and round out the lineup. A lot of FA in the next 3 years. 

RossGA posted:

They are in a terrible spot. Fans in Atlanta are done.

Fangraphs and MLB power rankings has the Braves as the 4th best team in the NL East.  https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-p...er-rankings-coverage 

Which is correct.  They have the revenue to have signed Machado, Harper and Kimbrel and still have $ 30 million left over.  Then you trade for Realmuto and now you have a team.  Instead Phillies, Mets and Nationals got better while AA went into hibernation.  

Well you need to plan for multiple years and not just next year. The core is getting expensive in 2-3 years so they can't spend too much now or it will blow up. 

However I do think they could have easily afforded another 20m on the roster but not 50m. They probably should get kimbrel if the price is reasonable.