Contract Crowdsourcing 2023-24: Ballot 7 of 11
Free agency begins five days after the end of the World Series. As in other recent seasons, FanGraphs is once again facilitating a contract crowdsourcing project, with the idea being to harness the wisdom of the crowd to better understand and project the 2023-24 free agent market.
In recent years, we’ve added a few features to these ballots based on reader feedback. You now have the option to indicate that a player will only receive a minor-league contract, or won’t receive one at all. If there is a player option, team option, or opt out in a player’s contract, you’ll be able to indicate whether you think he will remain with his current team or become a free agent. Numbers are prorated to full season where noted. The projected WAR figures are from the first cut of the 2024 Steamer600 projections.
Below are ballots for eight of this year’s free agents — in this case, another group of starting pitchers.
Meg is the editor-in-chief of FanGraphs and the co-host of Effectively Wild. Prior to joining FanGraphs, her work appeared at Baseball Prospectus, Lookout Landing, and Just A Bit Outside. You can follow her on Bluesky @megrowler.fangraphs.com.
I think everyone here gets a 1 year but for Wacha.
My pitcher votes are VERY heavy on making the qualifying offer and accepted for both ballots 6 and 7.
If I were a MLB GM, I’d be willing to go 20.5 mil for a currently healthy decent starter (everyone always needs more pitching, because all pitchers are injured, some of them just throw anyway). I’d be reluctant to go long (see the part about all being injured).
Given the contracts these guys are likely to get if they decline the option, Ive got lots of accepted options or staying on current contracts. I doubt that they all will, but I don’t know how to project who’ll be irrational about it or who can actually do noticably better than 20.5 mil for a 1 year deal.
I think so too. Maeda might get 2. He’s been very good when he has pitched. That means he might be in-demand enough that someone gives him a 2 year, $10M deal or something to get him instead of a 1 year, $12M contract and going somewhere else.
Yeah, I’m in the one year boat, but Maeda was the genuine puzzler. In the end, I copped out by assuming he would be offered and accept a QO, which might actually happen if he wants to stay there. If you think he can give you 165+ innings, wouldn’t you pay $20m for only one year in this market?
Imagine if Severino had been a FA this past spring instead of now. Probably cost himself like $80 million.
The thought of him hitting free agency and not only not getting the QO, but it being an obvious no-go, would have seemed crazy last year.
Gibson seems like a good bet to get 2 years, and Maeda might too. I imagine Kershaw can get multiple years if he wants them, and after seeing what the other late 30s pitchers have gotten recently, he may want the same.
I’m struggling to come up with a scenario where the Padres ever would have declined those team options on Wacha – either Wacha is great and they get to keep him for cheap or Wacha is anything less than great and they get to pay him less money for fewer years. How/why did that player option clause ever even make it into the contract? Am I missing something?
Luxury tax, most likely. Lowers the initial AAV
The player option was a fall-back for Wacha in case 2023 wasn’t a good year for him. Here are the three possible outcomes:
Honestly I’m on the fence about the Padres picking up the team option. If they weren’t in a position where they need to trim payroll, I think they’d pick it up. Then again, how do you replace his 2023 production on the cheap, especially knowing that Snell, Lugo, and possibly Martinez are leaving? I could see them selecting the team option on Wacha and trying to negotiate fresh contracts for both Lugo & Martinez.
Unless I’m missing something, it makes sense. If he’s good, they exercise the option and get him for 2/32. If he’s very bad or very hurt, they decline and he exercises his option and gets 3/18. Anything in between and they probably both decline.
Seems pretty fair all around.
Honestly, I picked “stays on current contract” because I couldn’t make heads or tails of the whole thing.