Read the rest of this entry »

Over the last few weeks, I’ve written a lot about opt-out clauses. Yesterday, I again attempted to show why opt-outs are a benefit to the player and come at the expense of taking power from the teams. Through all of these conversations, however, we’ve been focused on how opt-outs are currently being used in MLB; to give high-end players the chance to land a significant raise in the midst of a contract that already pays them an awful lot of money. Right now, opt-outs are luxury items that allow elite players to get both the benefits of a shorter-term commitment to a single franchise coupled with a long-term insurance policy in case things don’t work out as they hope.

But there’s nothing that says opt-outs have to be used in that manner, or for that type of player. And in thinking through various scenarios where opt-outs could be placed into contracts, I wonder if the rising acceptance of these kinds of deals might actually end up being a boon to lower-revenue franchises and players at the other end of the spectrum.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yeah, I’m writing about opt-outs again. I know, I’ve already written about them a couple of times this winter, so I’m running the risk of beating a dead horse even further, but opt-outs continue to be a source of some controversy, especially since they’ve been handed out so commonly this winter. Last week, Rob Manfred weighed in briefly, stating that he didn’t see the value in opt-outs from the team perspective.

“The logic of opt-out clauses for the club escapes me,” Manfred told FOX Sports on Thursday night. “You make an eight-year agreement with a player. He plays well, and he opts out after three. You either pay the player again or you lose him.

“Conversely, if the player performs poorly, he doesn’t opt out and gets the benefit of the eight-year agreement. That doesn’t strike me as a very good deal. Personally, I don’t see the logic of it. But clubs do what they do.”

I didn’t write about Manfred’s comments when they were published because of the fear of the dead-horse phenomenon, and because all I’d have to add to those comments is that the logic teams are seeing is a chance to save money on long-term commitments by including opt-outs in order to reduce the total amount of guaranteed money they’re including in their offers. But Manfred knows that; he just can’t say it publicly. As commissioner, he’s limited in what he can say about player compensation, especially with a CBA negotiation upcoming, and so I figured I’d just let the comment be.

But then today, Rob Neyer wrote about Manfred’s comments, and added a few of his own. And since his point about opt-outs is the one that I most stridently disagree with, I figure it’s worth bringing this issue up one more time. First, though, Rob’s take on opt-outs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, the Dodgers were involved in the three team trade that sent Todd Frazier to the White Sox, presumably because the Reds preferred a different type of prospect than what Chicago could offer. Andrew Friedman and his gang essentially acted as brokers for the other two teams, and took a commission for helping facilitate the trade, upgrading their own stock of prospects in the process.

But when a win-now team chooses to upgrade their prospect stock over simply just acquiring a guy like Frazier for themselves, it raises questions about what the overarching strategy really is. And when Andrew Friedman says stuff like this, the questions seem to be even more legitimate.

Friedman, asked if he is any more comfortable trading elite pitching prospects today than he was yesterday: "Yeah."

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) December 16, 2015

Of course, to be fair, Friedman also said this.

Friedman said he knows some teams are interested in players Dodgers acquired today but trade is not necessarily precursor to another.

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) December 16, 2015

Ken Rosenthal, the most connected guy out there, published a piece not long after suggesting that this deal might help the Dodgers pursue Jose Fernandez. Based on what the asking price was during the winter meetings, however, perhaps we should actually be looking at the other Florida team when looking for a partner in a mega-trade for the Dodgers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday, the San Francisco Giants reportedly agreed to terms with free agent starter Johnny Cueto on a six-year contract that will guarantee him $130 million, a pretty nice haul for a pitcher who struggled significantly in the second half of the year. And when you factor in that Cueto also obtained an opt-out after the second year, which could allow him to re-enter the market after the 2017 season and land a significant raise if he pitches well over his next 400 innings, this deal offers a lot of reasons for Cueto and his representatives to be happy with how the market has developed.

However, it’s interesting to see Cueto sign with the Giants for $130 million, when just a few weeks prior, his agent had publicly stated that a reported six year, $120 million offer from the Diamondbacks was a “low offer for the market”. In fact, his agent made it sound like they were going to be aiming quite a bit higher.

“It was a low offer for the market,” Dixon said. “We didn’t have to think hard to reject that offer. Arizona wanted to do something fast, but we didn’t want to take something below market value for a No. 1 starter, and with the recent events, I think that time gave us the reason.”

Agents are known for public comments that may not be reflective of reality, since their job is to get as much money for their clients as possible, not be objective sources of information. But in light of Dixon’s comments, it’s worth noting that Cueto actually took a smaller guaranteed income by accepting the Giants’ offer than he would have received if he had taken the Diamondbacks’ offer, due to the very different tax climates in California and Arizona.

For high-earners like Cueto, California has the highest marginal tax rate of any state in the country, coming in at 13.3% of all income over $1 million. Meanwhile, Arizona has one of the lowest tax rates in the country, with their highest marginal rate topping out at 4.5%. Of course, the tax code is complex, and it’s never just as simple as looking at the top marginal rate to figure out equivalent offers between teams in different states.

Read the rest on Fox Sports.

Two weeks ago, the San Francisco Giants were in the midst of a push to try and steal Zack Greinke away from the Los Angeles Dodgers. With a strong offensive core in place, upgrading the pitching staff was the obvious move for the team this winter, and pairing Greinke with Madison Bumgarner at the top of the rotation would have given the team one of the best pitching duos in baseball. However, their dreams of landing Greinke were dashed when the Arizona Diamondbacks came in and blew away the competition, offering a six year and guaranteeing $206 million in salary; neither the Dodgers nor the Giants were reportedly anywhere close to that number.

Over the last couple of weeks, their backup plan has come into focus; sign two good pitchers instead of one great one. First, it was Jeff Samardzija, and then yesterday, it was Johnny Cueto, with the team agreeing to guarantee $220 million to the pair over the next six years; significantly more than they were willing to spend on Greinke by himself, in fact. And this brings up an interesting question: since the Giants apparently had $220 million to spend on starting pitching this winter, would they have been better off just outbidding the Diamondbacks to land the ace they wanted, or is spreading the wealth around a better plan?

Read the rest of this entry »

On Friday, the Cubs won the bidding for Jason Heyward, convincing the outfielder to come to Chicago despite offers for more guaranteed money from the Nationals, the Cardinals, and reportedly one other team, perhaps the Angels. While Chicago’s offer of $184 million over eight years is certainly a substantial amount, he apparently could have taken $200 million guaranteed by going with one of the other offers. Instead he chose the Cubs, and along with putting him on baseball’s best team in 2016, the fascinating structure of the contract Chicago gave him may end up making this deal a big win for both sides.

The case for the contract being a big win for the Cubs is easy; Heyward is a very good player who will be paid like a decent one during his time in Chicago. To this point, Heyward has put up +28 WAR in six years in the majors; for the Cubs to break even on the total guaranteed money in this deal, Heyward would have to only put up about +20 WAR over the next eight years. This is essentially the kind of performance the Cubs are paying for with this deal.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the winter meetings drew to a close yesterday, the market for Jason Heyward heated up, and based on reports from around the game, it appears that the three finalists for his services are the St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, and (surprisingly) the Washington Nationals. The Cardinals interest in keeping their star right fielder has been known for a while, while the Cubs have long been a rumored suitor; Heyward is the kind of player that analytically-inclined organizations are more likely to pay for, and teams don’t get a lot more analytically inclined than the Cubs right now. Besides, with a hole in center field — though Heyward could slide to right field if the team traded Jorge Soler and acquired another CF — and a young core of players poised to put the team on the brink of perennial success, Heyward makes plenty of sense for Chicago.

The Nationals weren’t really attached to Heyward much at all until yesterday, when Jon Heyman outed them as the mystery team in this chase. The team apparently jumped in on the outfielder after losing out on Ben Zobrist, and would likely slot Heyward in as their center fielder as well, creating an elite trio along with Bryce Harper and Jayson Werth. The Nationals have been looking to add another left-handed bat to their line-up, and with Michael Taylor maybe best suited for a fourth outfielder role at this point, signing Heyward is perhaps the easiest path to solving that problem while also upgrading perhaps the weakest spot on the team.

But where does he fit the best? Who needs him the most, and should be incentivized to pay the highest price? Let’s look at all three options.

Read the rest of this entry »

For the last few weeks, the Braves have been fielding calls from teams who wanted to trade for Shelby Miller. And for good reason: Miller is just 25 years old, is coming off a strong season in which he reminded everyone he was one of the game’s best pitching prospects coming up through the Cardinals organization, and he won’t be a free agent until after the 2018 season. With the price of pitching exploding in free agency, three cost-controlled years of a quality young starter is a valuable asset, and with the Braves in full rebuild mode, trading Miller to acquire players who could be core pieces of their long-term future made a lot of sense.

But when they discussed trading Miller as part of their rebuilding process, they could not have imagined the outcome that resulted tonight. After reportedly talking to the Cubs and Dodgers without securing the kind of impact young talent they were looking for in exchange, they ended up striking a remarkable deal with the Diamondbacks. The trade brings in major league outfielder Ender Inciarte along with minor league prospects Dansby Swanson and Aaron Blair.

Except, these aren’t just any minor league prospects. Dansby Swanson was the #1 overall pick in the draft just five months ago, a shortstop who shows quality offensive skills for a middle infielder. MLB.com currently rates him as the #10 prospect in baseball, and that’s after just collecting 100 plate appearances in his professional debut this summer. With a reasonable performance as he climbs the minor league ladder this summer, he’ll likely be in the mix to be considered the best prospect in baseball at this time next year.

Read the rest on Fox Sports.