Contract Crowdsourcing Again: Bryce Harper and Manny Machado
There’s a report out today about Manny Machado:
Manny Machado remains unsigned, but the Chicago White Sox have made at least one pitch to the superstar shortstop.
Multiple sources told ESPN’s Buster Olney that the White Sox have a seven-year, $175 million offer on the table for Machado.
I do think there’s something important to understand here. Machado hasn’t yet signed anywhere. The idea that he would sign for $175 million seems almost preposterous, but then again, he hasn’t signed for $175 million. If the reported terms are true, they do seem too small, but that’s how a negotiation is conducted. The player side asks for X, which is ultimately too high. The team side proposes Y, which is ultimately too low. If an agreement is reached, it’s for Z. We’re going to learn the most information when Machado actually has a new employer. Then, and only then, will we have a fuller understanding of what his market looked like. Said understanding still won’t be complete.
So Machado is still out there, available. Bryce Harper is also still out there, also available. Machado’s age is 26 and six months. Harper’s age is 26 and three months. There was thought that, through free agency, they might be able to reach some record contracts. Those contracts might still be out there in front of them. Increasingly, however, it feels like they might not be. Which is why this little post is going up.
Over the weekend, Kiley McDaniel suggested to me that we re-run this project. Contract crowdsourcing ought to be familiar — we asked you about Harper, and we asked you about Machado, last October 23. Now, obviously, none of us are involved in the actual talks. The only information we get is from what’s publicly reported, and what’s publicly reported isn’t always accurate. Especially in these cases, when you have two premium players represented by two powerful agents. But, since October, we’ve seen how the offseason in general has progressed. We’ve heard about which teams might and might not be in the mix for either player. What Kiley and I want to know is whether the crowdsourced contract estimates have changed. And, if they’ve changed, in which direction, and by how much? Do you, collectively, see Machado settling for less? Do you see Harper settling for less? Do you see Scott Boras allowing Harper to settle for less? Or do you think the money is all still there, and all parties are just taking their time?
Based on what’s public, the Machado market might be down to the White Sox and Phillies. The Harper market might be down to the Nationals and Phillies. The Nationals have also already spent a lot, so you’d think that would put the Phillies in a pretty commanding position, here. But what’s unclear is how late might be too late, when it comes to other suitors getting involved. And maybe other suitors are already involved, and they’ve just stayed under the radar. All we really know is that a few teams are serious. More teams might be out there, and you’d think other contenders wouldn’t allow Machado to get to the White Sox for $175 million. You’d think, but, this is where we are. This is why this post has been written and published.
Let us know what you think. We all understand we don’t have enough information. But if we can’t yet see Machado or Harper actually signing, the next-best thing is imagining it. Thank you all for your participation.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
To me, 7 or 8 year contracts make no sense for MM or BH. They should hold out for 10 or go shorter with a higher AAV, something like 5@$35 or so.
I think you are probably right, but I think a 10 year deal is much different for Harper or Machado than it is for someone like Votto or Pujols who were older. For players as good as they are, there is a pretty good chance that they will still be useful starting players when they are in their mid-30s. So the 10-year structure is not simply to defer costs so that you don’t have too high of an AAV. They should be seeking to be paid for value even for those years. If you want to defer money but keep it in the confines of the contractual terms, you’d need to go towards 12-13 years for them.
On the other hand, I think it would be pretty easy to sell a team basically on the Jason Heyward structure but just for a lot more money. I would jump at the chance to sign Machado for 8 years/$240 million with opt outs after years 3 and 4 years (I put 8/$264 as my guess, but that is assuming no opt outs, and I think $3 million per year is a pretty fair price for getting those opt outs). If I’m Machado, I don’t want 10 years unless it is for a good deal more money than what I’m getting offered for 8 years.
I guessed 190M/5 (38M AAV) for Harper. Likely with an opt-out after Year 2 and one after Year 3
I went 4/164, that seems to be what the Dodgers are trying to do with Harper
Prince Fielder signed for $214 million on January 25th. That feels like the bare minimum on when you can officially start to worry about these guys.
Of course, that took Victor Martinez tearing his ACL during the offseason & “win at all costs” Tigers owner Mike Ilitch cutting the check.
if only one they had Brodie Van Wagenen as their former agent
I’d been below the crowd in October, thinking both guys would sign for below-$300 million deals (something like 10 years and $28 AAV or 8 years $30 AAV). I still think that will happen, but man. It’s feeling like it could be lower than that even.
I had Machado at 10 years, $300M. I think he’s clocking in for less than that, either in years or AAV. How much less is unknown, but it’s incomprehensible to me that the White Sox’s bid could be the high one. I think his floor is 7 years, $200M; and his ceiling is 9 years, $270M.
I didn’t have any idea what to make of Harper. The original word was that he wanted to break Stanton’s contract, and with the Nationals’ penchant for spreading money out, it seemed like an obvious match. Now I have no idea what’s happening, but if that’s off the table, I would expect him to gun for a contract that allows him to test the market in either 2020 and 2022, either with numerous opt-outs or just having a super-high AAV short-term deal. I suspect the latter is more of an option now than it was before.
I pinned Machado at 8 years $240m. Much higher than the White Sox offer obviously, but it has to be right? Right? I can’t fathom him only getting $175M. I’ve been disagreeing with those saying the players are being more or less robbed this offseason, because with every contract I can at least make the thinking work (Grandal aside). But if Machado only gets $175M… I’ll start to see what they mean.
And Harper, it seems like rumors have been floated for $300M+ so it seems like a given. The floor on his bat is so high that it almost seems like a no brainer to me. But I guess 10 years is a long time to tie up for one guy
I was really close to this – I voted Machado at 8-years 252M. I voted Harper at 10-years 320M. I prefer Machado, but, Boras.. I just don’t see a reality where Boras doesn’t get 10-years and doesn’t break 32M. I mean worst case scenario, wait until February then break out his blackmail pics of Lerner to get it done, right?
Mine was almost identical – 8/248 for Machado and 10/320 for Harper.
same here–8/256 for Machado; 10/300 for Harper, but I’m probably a bit low here; Boras will find a way to get Harper to surpass Stanton’s deal, won’t he?…hard to say in THIS market…
In 2014, Harper hit .273/.344/.423.
In 2016, Harper hit .243/.373/.441.
So…. the floor on his bat isn’t really all that high. If he’s hitting something like .260/.360/.430, then his bat is basically Shin Soo Choo, or Michael Conforto. Which is… you know, fine, but would you see Michael Conforto getting a $300M contract right now? Yes, Harper’s ceiling is much higher than that, but there’s a very real probability that if you sign Harper, you’re getting a DH who can get you a ton of walks and 25-30 HR with a batting average below .250. Is that really worth three hundred million dollars?
Maybe FrodoBeck meant to say that the ceiling on Harper’s bat is so high.
That’s exactly what I mean. A .360 OBP floor is pretty damn high, is it not? A floor of Conforto or Choo is a great hedge, in conjunction with a sky-high ceiling. If Harper’s bad seasons were sub 100 wRC+ or abysmal negative WAR seasons then it would be a different story, but he has a built in level of performance that he has shown he can significantly exceed.
People considered this to be a down year for Harper, and his wRC+ was nearly that of Machado, who had the best hitting year of his career.
Eh; fWAR is kind to Harper’s value. bWAR has him at 1.1 in 2014; 1.5 in 2016; and 1.3 in 2018. For context, Harper was worth exactly the same bWAR last year as teammate Ryan Zimmerman, who played in 85 games and hit .264/.337/.486 with 13 HR.
I see what you’re saying overall. I always find myself assuming guys will exceed their floors, rather than assuming they could easily end up playing at those floors.
If he wanted a short term deal I think we’d have heard more about him and the Dodgers considering that’s pretty much exactly what the Dodgers want.
I dont think an AAV under 30 seems likely for either player- are there any rumors besides the odd ChiSox one suggesting any serious offer below 30? Seems anything under 30 is pretty much out of the question, as would be expected.
More likely the normal, near-record breaking 35ish AAV contracts that all are expecting are on the way.
These contracts are going to end up with nearly incomprehensible if/and/or/maybe terms like the Arrietta “swopt-out” or whatever Boras is calling it.
If the “total dollars” number is looking unimpressive, then Boras might look to structure the deal to juice that up (relative to actual expected value to the player). Save face for the agent and the player.
I really think that the Nats are just a stalking horse for Boras here. They’re effectively capped out already, and a Harper deal would be almost 100% overage. As a repeat offender that’s mighty expensive for ownership, and runs the risk of costing draft position as well. It would probably mean letting Rendon walk next year, and would keep the Nats in luxury tax hell for a year or two after that.
Not that the Lerners don’t have the money to do it if they really wanted to. It would be amusing the see a team other than NYY, BOS, or LAD make an open mockery of the luxury tax. I just don’t think it’s for real.
Right now it’s PHI bidding against itself, and either Harper doesn’t really want to play there, or Boras just wants more real bidders (most likely).
You don’t think LA is a serious bidder???
Not publically they sure aren’t.
They will be a serious bidder if gives up his 10 year contract term. $38/3 with second year option?
You’re throwing around terms that have no relevance to how the baseball CBA is structured. “Capped out?” Baseball has no salary cap, regardless of how the owners are behaving. “Luxury tax hell?” It comes to a few extra million dollars a year against a payroll in the hundreds of millions. Now as you point out, the Lerners (one of the wealthiest ownership groups in all of professional sports) could afford it, so I don’t know if you meant those things literally, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people act like any of these owners have financial constraints that aren’t entirely self-imposed.
Self imposed financial constraints are how wealthy people stay wealthy. I don’t see these constraints as a bad thing in business, but then again, I’m a finance guy. It would be nice if we could lift the veil of secrecy around most of these teams financial statements, dig into the numbers a bit, and see how all these decisions affect the amount and riskiness of their cash flows. That way, the “owners are colluding” arguments would be more than just agents and labor talking points – there would be TEETH to the arguments.
In as much as we fans would love to see every owner pull out all the stops to bring home a title, that simply isn’t how the industry operates. It is still a business, and even the biggest fanboi owners do have SOME limit on how much cash they’re willing to throw down the vanity hole.
The luxury tax comes with a surcharge of between 20% and 95%, plus the potential for draft penalties. Sure, it’s just money, but when a $30M AAV contract could end up really meaning almost $60M and whatever the dollar value of dropping 10 spots in first round ends up being … that’s not nothing.
I will further credit the Nats this: They filled in all of the other holes first. A lot of teams, when in the running for high dollar FAs, will go cheap in other spots to leave CBT room for the superstar. Then if they miss on the bid they can spend the money (or not) later. The Nats didn’t do that. They spent big $$$ on Corbin. They signed real FAs in Dozier, Suzuki, Adams, and Rosenthal rather than going cheap or counting on MiLB depth. The Lerners spent up to the CBT limit before Harper is in the picture.
Which, of course, is why I think Harper’s not really in the picture. But if somehow he is, bully for Ted Lerner!
I just don’t understand how, if 7/175 is truly the best offer on the table, GMs/owners are even sleeping knowing that topping that by a little bit is still an incredible deal? Wtf. Even the most pessimistic tuned projections call for 12ish war over his next 7 years if all hell breaks loose, standard tuned ones are calling for mid 20s, and optimistic ones low 30s over the course of the contract. 25 million a year for 3-4 war a year? Excuse me? Everyone should be on that.
Because it’s not the best offer that will stay on the table, in my opinion.
As far as I can tell, this is a replay of the JD Martinez last year. There was substantial hand-wringing about whether he’d get paid, the Death of Free Agency, etc – and then when it was all said and done he signed for precisely the crowd-sourced 110/5.
[Effectively the same with Arrieta, albeit not as tidy: projected for the same 110/5 as JDM. Ended up getting $55/2 and a player option for another $20. (Or this dual-option – I refuse to use this inane ‘swellopt’ nomenclature – that could be worth $40/2 or $50/2, depending on IP – hard to find the thresholds and know if 170IP got him there or not). The point is, he was basically fine. Absolute worst case for him is $75/3.
Shorter guarantee,/higher AAV than the crowd expected.]
We’re here again. Same mid-January panic in the middle of slow baseball news cycle.
Last year (a) all the big names ended up getting paid and (b) there are very, very few substantial contracts that look like wins for the club side with a year of hindsight.
I would have thought, fast-forwarding a year with this in mind, that the hysteria would have cooled.
But it doesn’t seem to have.
(Note: Sullivan notably exempt from the standard-issue FG hysteria, and and I think this poll is a fascinating idea.)
Yup, that’s about it. The only real comparator is JD Martinez from last year, in financial terms. Both Machado and Harper have tons of promise, but simple calcs like WAR per year don’t really matter unless you are, say, Mike Trout or Mookie Betts (or pick pitcher of choice).
JD wanted $200+ million for a long term contract. He got $110 with opt-outs. Now, he was, what, four years older at the time, so let’s lengthen the contract by two years, and add in opt-outs because they are now the norm for star players.
Manny and Bryce are aiming for $300 million, and maybe with a fair wind they’ll get there. But I think they’re more likely to get a JD Martinez contract at perhaps 60% of what they’re aiming at, with player-friendly clauses attached.
Seven years at $30 per, plus opt-outs at relevant points, seems reasonable to me.
(Of course, you could make the argument that a single year of 9+ WAR is worth $80+ million … but (a) that depends upon the team’s position on the curve, which may not align with that particular year, and (b) I don’t think FOs think this way right now.)
For Harper: 4 yrs for $40M each. Mutual option for another 4-year contract at $30M each. If the team declines, there is a $30M buyout. Or, if team wants to exercise the option, Harper can accept or opt out and try to beat that 4yrs, 120M. At a minimum, Harper gets a) four years at either $160M or $190M or b) eight years, $280M
Similar thought on Harper:
10M signing bonus
2019: 40M
2020: 40
Player Opt-Out (2 years/90M)
2021: 40
2022: 40
Player Opt-Out (4 years/170M)
2023: 35
2024: 35
2025: 35
2026: 35
(8 years/310M)
Wow 144 for Hosmer looks even worse now
I had completely blanked out that dollar figure. Man.
especially when you figure that they would likely be ALL OVER Manny Machado right now if they hadn’t blown their wad (well, a decent chunk of it) on a mediocre-at-best Hosmer
Yeah, teams that might be in are probably looking ahead to next year’s FA group and figuring it may make more sense to wait… Arenado, Rendon, Cole, Xander, MadBum, Sale, Donaldson, Goldy…
But look out. It’s 2019 and we all know Hosmer loves the odd numbered seasons!
Plays right into the Padres plan to be ok in 2019, and competitive in 2021 and 2023.
Harper is going to get his megadeal. Machado cost himself 100 million likely, and can you blame a team for not wanting to throw a huge contact at a guy who finally gets in shape before last offseason (contract year) ? Where was that motivation before? When you throw in all the other stepping on peoples foot, the inevitable beanball/broken hand, it is a lot of risk for a team. Harpers career risk was always that he “played too hard” which is the exact opposite of Machado.
I understand completely why this is getting downvoted, but Machado is a douche. He will seriously test the “winning breeds chemistry” mantra for the clubhouse he joins.
I have to think that news of the White Sox offer could only have been leaked by Boras and Co.
There are way too many teams that would not bother with Machado if the commitment is$300 million, but if word gets out that you could be the highest offer with, say, 8/27.5? Have to think lots of teams get involved there, which of course drives up the price.
Course…I thought the same thing with J.D. Martinez last year and even his deflated price (relative to his initial ask) never really got anyone else interested. Might have been a special circumstance though since everyone seemed to believe the Red Sox would outbid them, so why bother.
All I can say is – Minnesota Twins, if you can get Machado w/ a $250 million commitment and you sit on your hands…pathetic.
Machado isn’t a Boras client
Reading that report certainly made me think: (1) wow, there’s gotta be some risk aversion we’re not accounting for (CBA risk?), because the Harper/Machado 2019 FA class was a convenient crutch for looking at lackluster FA demand last offseason and (2) wow, there should be more than three teams involved on these two players.
Is it out of the question for e.g. Boston to decide they’d rather give LT money to Machado than Bogaerts? You could play both on the left side this year and shift Machado to short when Bogaerts leaves next winter.
I’m not sure that’s a BETTER idea than status quo, but I’d have to think there are a number of competitive teams that have to start thinking more seriously about bidding. Which was probably the point of letting 7/175 reach the media.
So from reading the newspaper clipping, there’s a bit of game theory going on with all this. The Phillies are in on both players, and are willing to make the high offer, but are only willing to sign one. Or at least, that’s what they’re trying to signal. So they want to make one of Machado/Harper blink and sign with them at their preferred price, because otherwise they’re going lose all their leverage.
The White Sox and Nationals, meanwhile, are trying to lowball Machado and Harper (as much as you can lowball anyone with these insane contract numbers). 7/$175M is so low that you have to believe the Phillies are going to beat it, unless they think they’ll never come to an agreement with Machado and go to Harper instead.
So in scenario #1, the Phillies sign Machado to, say, a 8/$240M contract (Machado is not signing for less than the White Sox’s offer, so if he’s going to Philly that means there was some bidding going on; I just picked that out as having more years and a higher AAV). This shreds Harper’s leverage, meaning he either has to pick a high AAV deal over a few years (Dodgers?) or a super-long contract with a lower AAV (Nationals?). In that case, you can see either a a 3/$110M deal or a 14/$330M deal, trying to set a record either AAV or total value.
In scenario #2, the Phillies sign Harper first. I have no idea what they value Harper at, but knowing how long Boras likes to wait teams out, this probably only happens if the Phillies top the 10/$300M deal from the Nationals, or the $325M deal from Stanton…but maybe it doesn’t get to that. But in that case, Machado’s leverage disappears, and he’s stuck with that White Sox offer. At that price, you might see the Yankees get back involved, but if not, he’s stuck in JD Martinez territory.
In scenario #3, the White Sox sign Machado first, after a bidding war between the Phillies and White Sox drives up the price a bit (maybe as high as 8/$240M) or after they wait him out as he’s been JD Martinez’d (in which case, he’s probably stuck at 7 years around $200M). In that case, I have no idea what happens with Harper’s contract. It could be anything! The Phillies are still involved, so you could see him getting a deal like what Machado got, but plus 5% to make Harper feel good; or 5% less, because the Phillies win a staring contest. You could see Boras insisting on a 10/$330M deal anyway from the Phillies anyway, because he figures they don’t have the self-control to resist. You could see a deal that sets a new AAV record, a pillow deal, or a 15 year deal that breaks, and you could see any number of teams giving it to them in that case.
So in other words, I think Machado’s contract situation is pretty stable, but Harper’s is all over the place. I kind of felt that way before too, but now it seems even clearer than ever.
FWIW:
That’s pretty much my WAG: 32/8 for Machado and 33/8 for Harper. And I might be high.
I don’t see either getting 10 years and 8 is a reach, probably with vesting options.
Johnny Hustle might get more but not Machado.
And I’m thinking Harper will get paid closer to his floor than his ceiling, Boras smoke and mirrors or not.
Free agents used to auction themselves off but all those $300-500M predictions did was reduce the bidders. I’d be shocked if either player gets even three serious bids.
Maybe we should stop looking at past prices for prime free agents and automatically assuming they are going to recur. Prices are going lower. The CBA emphasized the advantages for owners to invest in cheap younger players, made the draft better and wider for them, and didn’t do anything meaningful to the CBT thresholds. Now, they can really see the benefits of being conservative in spending. When several big market teams all at once decide to be frugal, that impacts the market in a big way. There’s still money for players who fill a need. But “luxury goods” better be luxury, and maybe also slightly discounted.
I’m not suggesting collusion–rather a new consciousness that prices do not always rise, and one player doesn’t necessarily change you from a fringe team to a wild card, a wild card into a division winner, or a division winner into a World Series winner. Machado had 72 PA’s in the playoffs last year, hit ,227 with 3 HR and 12 RBI.
One thing to consider is that teams have internalized the concept of competitive windows. As the Angels are busily demonstrating year after year, even the best player in the game won’t help you much if the rest of the team is past their expiration date or not ready for prime time.
Once you eliminate the teams that can’t afford them, the teams that don’t need them, the teams that aren’t competing within the next three years, what’s left?
There’s no more George Steinbrenners or Mike Ilitches in the game.
Today’s owners are more about running sustainable businesses and ten year deals don’t fit that mold.
Let’s wait and see if the $M/projected WAR comes in under 7-8 for these two contracts before we buy the PR blitz that compensation has decreased.
Ben Lindburgh did a strong piece last year, refuting Craig Edwards, about whether there was statistically significant evidence that compensation (ie player share) was actually decreasing.
Prices do not always rise, sure- but with a set target of 50-50 split of BGR, compensation does rise when revenues rise, and revenues are rising. It’s reasonable to expect the cost of WAR to still be around 8m and to keep pushing upwards slowly, which is why everyone is probably right to project around 35m AAV for Harper and Machado. It’ll likely happen despite a nonstop PR blitz along the way, pushing various false narratives.
Here’s a stupid “win now” suggestion for the Phillies, btw. Sign whichever of Machado and Harper you want to a 7 year contract in early February (when the phantom “other team” will have either fessed up or disappeared) — add sugar to that contract, and sign the other to a better two-year deal with opt-outs: say, $35 million for two years, with $25 million per year for the next six.
Some insane version of this could actually net the Phillies the top two free agent hitters around, give them maybe +8 WAR for two years, and yet not be a long term commitment.
(But it still requires waiting until February.)
But why would you want to do that as the Phillies? You won’t see a ROI on that investment at all. People hear seem to be pretty oblivious t the idea that this is a business all of a sudden.
Also, lowballing one guy to sign the other won’t make for a kumbayah clubhouse.
How is this not a long-term commitment? This idea is signing one of them to a 7-year contract, and the other to an 8-year contract.
Unless you’re using “opt-out” in some sense that’s different than common usage, that second contract is an 8-year commitment from the Phillies. Opting out after two years is at the player’s option.
One thing I have kept thinking during free agency this season is that teams might not want to sign these players to 10 year deals at high AAV because they know in a few years they plan to push really hard in a new CBA such that these would look like bad deals.
I had a weird thought on all of this the other day….
Manny Machado is kind of comparable as a ballplayer to Scott Rolen. On that basis he should be worth a nice contract. However, when it comes to the Phillies, I remember how the Philly fan base and Rolen were like oil and water. I’d have to imagine that Philly + Machado could be like oil and gunpowder. And if somebody in the Phillies brain trust is thinking that way, it’s possible the Phillies aren’t going much past 7/175 because of the risk that the deal could get ugly, EVEN if Machado’s play is as good as hoped.
Rolen : Machado is actually an excellent comparison on a number of different levels, although I seem to recall the main reason Rolen was hated in Philly was because he forced his way out.
You’re right about Rolen. Though imagine if Machado goes full Papelbon on the Philly fans…the counter reaction may have Machado begging for a trade out of town.
(I think Harper may actually be ok with a love/hate relationship with the local fans, so he doesn’t have this particular risk, imo.)
is this what they should get? or what we think they will get?
Will get
yall need to listen to this podcast. Must listen too! Jeff Borris discuss these contracts and whats going on behind the scenes into todays free agent world.
cbssports.com/mlb/news/barry-bonds-former-agent-says-mlb-owners-are-colluding-against-players-to-suppress-salaries/
MLB had record revenue this year. 10.3 $B. Yet this is 2nd year in a row where players salaries went down while revenues are going up. The CBA says that 50% of the revenue goes to the players, therefore, if revenues go up then so should the payrolls…that is not happening. Its currently sets at 41.9% of the 10.3 $B reported or 4.13 $B payroll. A Violation of the CBA as its not even close to 50%.
Teams should be spending 1 $B more on the players that they are currently pocketing. Thats 35 $MM/team more that the owners are pocketing on avg that should be going to the players.
Teams are also not to dicuss players deals and communicate publicly as they have with Machado and Harper. Another collusion violation. Yankees telling the public the status of their negotiations with machado is against the rules. Another violation.
There are many more violations on the owners but this post will get long. Several players are speaking out on twitter with arietta being the latest today. This new cba agreement is going to get ugly. really sad for the fans as we do not want to miss another world series like the last time there was strike.
Why should they be spending more?
They don’t give out a prize for having the biggest payroll. They do give a prize for only spending what it takes to be competitive. It’s called profit.
Aside from the Phillies no other team has talked of spending stupid money.
It’s easy to spend other people’s money but today’s owners seem to be treating their teams like for-profit businesses, not a rich man’s toy.
The language on this point about public comments is Attachment 49 (page 300) of the CBA – http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf .
A few points about it. I’ll summarize my understanding rather than quote the relevant language in full because the full text runs a couple pages, but I’d encourage anyone interested in this topic to read it.
– These media rules apply to comments about free agents by “the Office of the Commissioner, the Players Association, Clubs, players, and player representatives (collectively, the ‘Covered Parties’)”. In short, these rules apply to agents as well as front offices.
– At first read, it appears that the entire existence of reports on offers for unsigned free agents from journalists like Rosenthal, Heyman, Olney, et al indicates that this attachment of the CBA must be routinely violated by teams, or agents, or (most likely) both.
This language is very broad: “none of the Covered Parties may make comments to the media about the value of an unsigned free agent, or about possible or contemplated terms for an unsigned free agent. That applies to comments that are either on or off the record as well as anonymous comments (such as from an “industry source”). The non-exhaustive list of prohibited comments includes examples such as “we are out on Player X”, “Player X is seeking more than Player Y received”, and “Player X has contract offers from multiple clubs”.
Unless we think that writers such as Rosenthal are bugging offices, tapping phone lines, and/or hacking email systems, the information that they report about offers to unsigned free agents logically has to come from some subset of “Covered Parties”. The almost certain reality is that it’s from a mix of both team front offices and agents.
– There is, however, some wiggle room based on a proviso that teams, players, and agents “may respond to a Media Report of the existence or terms of a Contract Offer”. “Media Report” is defined as”either a published report or a pre-publication inquiry
from a media member to verify accuracy.” This proviso doesn’t give carte balance to answer any and all questions from a reporter. If teams and agents do follow it, they are just supposed to confirm or deny that discussions are ongoing, confirm or deny that an offer has been made, and tell a reporter if the details of a contract offer (as laid out by a reporter) are accurate. They can also, not surprisingly, offer only a “no comment” on any of these points.
To take an example, under the CBA the White Sox or Lozano now could – as Lozano just did publicly – say that a 7 year / $175 million contract offer isn’t correct. They can do that either publicly or privately. They aren’t, however, supposed to respond by saying that the offer is actually X years / Y dollars. They also aren’t supposed to respond to follow-up questions from the reporter, so a reporter shouldn’t be able to nail down the terms of a contract offer just by throwing out a long list of possible contract terms and asking “is that correct?”
My two take-aways after this admittedly lengthy comment:
(1) Following the letter of the CBA, it should actually be possible for a reporter with good front office sources to get a good idea what teams have interest in a particular free agent. Call up people at a several team front offices with likely interest in a player and ask them “I hear that you made an offer to player X. Is that accurate?” on a laundry list of players. If both teams and agents are following the CBA, though, it should be difficult, bordering on impossible, for reporters to nail down the terms of an offer to a free agent.
(2) Given the amount of anonymously sourced information that we see from several MLB writers on the terms of contract offers, neither team front offices nor agents really want to start accusing each other of violating these media rules. My best bet is that just about everybody on both sides is at risk if there start to be back and forth allegations of violating these rules with anonymously sourced leaks to baseball reporters.
if you don’t think these contract offers are being leaked out via front offices that is being naive. They are not just saying that is correct or not, they have specific contract details in the media being leaked to certain reporters. They are not just miraculously guessing the correct contract to ask the teams about. Its circumstantial evidence, but its still evidence.
I am not saying that front offices don’t sometimes leak contract offers.
As my last paragraph says, I think that both teams and agents sometimes leak both contract offers and other information that – per the CBA – neither group is supposed to leak.
I am also saying that – per the relevant section of the CBA – there are certain things that teams (and agents) can say about status of negotiations with free agents. Your initial comment states that teams can’t say anything, but that’s not the rule in the relevant section of the CBA.
The MLB CBA does not set a percentage of revenue that goes to the players.
They don’t need to collude if they’re all working off the same data.
if they were working off the same data then the offers would be higher. The models and FG war forecasts and adding/using aging curves, inflation , discount factors and everything in between shows both of these players should be getting offers over 300$ MM dollars. This is not a true market when the owners are colluding setting there own market via public reporters leaking contract offers. Teams coming out saying our offer is 180$MM, half of what they are worth. They are setting their own market. Collusion vioaltion. There is no “market”.
I guarantee mlb clubs have information about 100 times more in depth than what you are reading here at fg.
Of interest: Lozano actually came out and said that the Machado contract numbers were incorrect. Which would make a lot of sense.
I think the people that know the real story on these offers/negotiations are not leaking. And that’s probably a good thing, given that is what the CBA says should happen. These reported low-ball offers are likely FAKE NEWS.
Apparently the stupid money is wising up. Ownership has been burned too many times on the Jason Heywards of the league to keep investing huge sums on long term contracts.
I don’t mind players making a boat load of money but the salaries for an obviously declining player was silly.
Now, we opt-outs. I hate them.
If Harper or Machado were open to a 1 year deal with an absurd AAV (e.g. $50M), would they be making a mistake? And would a team make such an offer? Plenty of teams could afford $50M for 1 year.
Red Sox paid more than $70M last year to Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Allen Craig, Rusney Castillo, Manny Ramirez (deferred $), and Dustin Pedroia. And they got nothing from any of them. If a team can afford to spend $70M on nothing, and still win 108 games and cruise through the playoffs, then another team could very definitely afford to pay $50M for one of the game’s best hitters.
Take 1 year at $50M, and hit free agency again at age 27…
The fascination with the future! It will happen, Bauers already been on record as saying he likes this path hell it could even turn into the norm 30 years down the road who knows-
One thing that you probably have to lend more thought to though is that these Mlb teams aren’t just like making a fantasy baseball team on your computer in March. The fans like to pick out/identify/ follow players through a whole bunch of years not just 1, I think teams know this route would hurt the fan base in the end but it will certainly happen in the near future with some Stars
I put 7/$224 for Machado and 8/$264 for Bryce.
If Manny signs first, both players will briefly be able to lay claim to “highest paid” and save face.
The genius of the luxury tax, from the perspective of the owners, is it gives them an excuse not to bid on free agents.
So long as no owner decides to play Steinbrenner and swoop in and sign every Machado or Harper, the owners get to replicate the effects of collusion without actually having to do it.
Jeff,
I like you a lot as a writer and podcaster, but I’d like you even more if the teams had been at price point Z and the final agreement was at Y. Y is literally between X and Z. I hope you have a great day.
So the excuse last year was everyone was saving their money to spend big this year on all these primo Free Agents. Still waiting for the splurge.
I”ll hold off on bringing up the Big C word that rhymes with illusion for now
And I’ll refrain from the two word response that starts with “NO” and ends with “!!!” that must inevitably follow it
Why not? I think it’s fair to say that there is certainly widespread confusion.
Yes definitely hold off on that, your wrong. Owners are just smarter now and they are just manipulating a market that was agreed upon by both parties; the same as you and I do when we shop at 2 grocery stores to save with coupons/sales, Its not evil its life-
The moneys there to be spent, it’s the over the top risk expected to be taken by owners that’s keeping them away- AAV is sitting strong, its risk that owners want to decrease and HELL RIGHTFULLY SO – Do you enjoy seeing Pujols draw close to 20% of your teams spending power for the next 3 years? Is that good baseball? Angels fans? You?? You don’t think the odds of Kuechel having a 60 mill deal are greater today if that contract never exists?
They can both have 5/185 tomorrow and those would be the top 2 AAV contracts EVER; We can not tell owners how to run THEIR business. Baseball contracts are already 100% guaranteed which isn’t the case in many sports- The collusion/ free agents being abused mantra is getting really old really fast. It doesn’t seem like much thought is put into it from the ones saying it as well, its more or less just Twitter babble
The thing I’m most confident about is that the “years” in these contracts will be so complicated by various options that they will be meaningless.
Also, if these are truly the best offers, Harper and Machado start to look like good investments. Where are the Twins, Reds, Padres? Any mid market hopeful with limited salary commitments could top these offers and justify it reasonably well.
Indeed where the Hell are the Twins with their 0$ 2020 payroll commitment, great point- And He’d be great for Sd to take stress of the youths
Here’s essentially my idea. Now, I should begin with that I generally lean towards the so-called “Huntington apologist” side of Pirates fans, but I think there couldn’t be a better time, or need, to sign Machado. They easily have the space currently, with a cost friendly roster.
So, Pirates should do a front loaded 6 year, plus 2 option years deal. Possibly even an earlier opt-out. But, pay Machado $37.5M for first 2 years, then $25M for each subsequent year. Be just above $28M AAV for full 8 years, or just above $29M AAV for 6. From there, they could add incentives with the notion, “If you’re doing well, chances are we’re doing well”, to up the AAV. Even if they did nothing else rest of this off-season, I think they instantly become a contender. And they’d have an OD payroll of just north of $110M, with probably a huge boost in fan confidence (ticket sales).
They have an immediate need at SS. Hayes or Tucker could become trade bait, depending if you stick with Machado at SS, or slide him to 3B. Or one of the 2, Tucker or Hayes, could move to 2B.
I don’t think either will get 10 years:
Machado (6 years?$190.5MM)
Harper (8 years?$280MM)
IMO there is alot of anchoring going on here, driven by Boras setting the “$400-500m” narrative.
In realty, $500m was never going to happen unless one of them posted a 10 WAR year and signed for something like $41m over 12 years, ie something unprecedented in length. $50m/10 years was never in play. Even $40m over 10 years, to get to the round 400 number so often used in the PR planted stories, was always a bit of a stretch in the sense that the ‘flat rate over X years’ template is outdated for top end FAs.
This PR blitz anchored expectations high. 400m was never a median projection, it was always top end, 99th percentile upside of what Machado or Harper might get in the market. It’s a realistic upside number (unlike 500m) that should likely happen somewhat soon (in the next 3-4 years or so), so some hype on this subject makes sense particularly given the moderate (but exaggerated) slow down in last year’s market.
But in reality modern contracts look like the 185/5 with multiple opt-outs that are rumoured.
While this seems like a dramatic swing due to the PR blitz, the round 400 number, and the high anchoring: in reality, I think this survey will show that the crowd has been projecting around 7-8m per projected WAR for both players, both earlier this offseason and now.
At 4.5ish projected WAR and at let’s say 7.5m per projected WAR, you’d expect both players to get about $33.5m per season. Or at 8m per projected war, $36m AAV. Above that and you are talking record-breaking levels of pay.
Within a few million AAV, I think that’s (1) what nearly everyone projected in the early offseason, (2) what everyone will project now; and (3) what they will get. The larger issue is how many years, but the old fashioned ’10 years without any buyouts’ is trending towards obsolete, and its not clear that the player would even want such a deal.
IMO Boras et al are playing a bit of a game by focusing on total value for some contracts, as if to push the collusion narrative, when in some instances the lesser years taken by players is reflective of the player’s best interests given the development of modern contract mechanisms.
You nailed it and in your modest proposal Harper still breaks the all time AAV with a 5/185 by a good amount (2 mill and change) and hes still a player that comes with some fleas- We talk so much about owner greed but maybe just maybe its the player/agent whoes being greedy by saying I deserve a 10 year deal- Teams have wised up, its not collusion its just being smart.
I think that is part of the argument/problem. A 10-year 300M offer pays either player that 5-year 185/term while they’re *worth* it. Then it would pay them 5-years at 115M for ages 32-36 while they’re less *worth* it. But with the expected (and mostly made up) salary inflation per/WAR, both players easily project to be worth 5/115 for their age 31 – 36 years in beginning in 2024.
That said, I’ve been reading this site for years – I remember when the claim was 4M per WAR. And I remember when DC completely and baselessly made up the .5M year inflation. I have witnessed firsthand a site that relies on empirical data embrace a false number and never attempt to prove or defend it. And that leads to argument/problem #2 – no one knows what a win is actually worth. It’s not this insane 9 or 10M with a flat .5M annual raise though, that much is for damn sure.
Why aren’t we asking if its even fair to be seeking 10 years in the first place.Instead we loosely throw around “collusion” where we see fit?- I find it absurd, they can BOTH probably set the AAV record with 35 mill per year on 5/175, 6/210 or 7/245 deals if they wanted-
Perhaps the owners aren’t the only ones greedy here.?.?. Regardless, next years free agent crop has sooo much better value to it, hats off to the Yankees/Dodgers, its not that they don’t want to spend money its that they dont want to spend that money on Manny Machado and Bryce Harper
I’m not sure if the thinking has evolved far enough yet, but I do feel like we’re going to start skewing towards signficant higher AAV, with more opt-outs, and lower-length terms. I mean, everyone in these comments is saying this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see an NBA superstar-type deal crop up in MLB at some point… Say, a 2-year, $92 million with an opt-out after the first year. Perhaps a three year $132 million deal with opt-outs after years 1 and 2.
I have always been a little surprised at the hesitance of guys to ‘bet on theirselves’ to some degree, foregoing long-term deals for higher averaged short-term deals, and as the AAV goes up and up, and the contract length seems to go down (no more 7, 8 or 10 year deals), it seems there’s now even more incentive to load up on AAV and have the ability to re-evalutate free agency every year. It’s somewhat fatiguing, to us, the baseball consumers, but if Machado and Harper really want to maximize their earnings I think the best move would be a lot of options, and shorter deals than we’d expect.
I can’t see either player getting 10 years. I also can’t see either player getting just $25M/year, especially as contracts are shorter. $25M is just above a league average player.
Machado 8/230, Harper 7/210 each with an opt out after 4 years. But I’ve not put a lot of thought into it.
The ballot isn’t loading
Given Boras is Harper’s agent and has been gratuitously employing “swell-opts” for his clients, I wouldn’t be surprised if Harper gets a similar sort of deal. I’m thinking at least 5 years guaranteed at
an AAV of $25MM with a club option that gives Harper another 5 years at $30MM. If the club option gets declined, Harper can then either exercise a player option at $25MM or opt out altogether.
(over)thinking it through, i assume 4-5 years with an AAV floor of $35M and opt outs.
Assumptions:
8-10 year deals aren’t a think anymore
signing for 6-7 years doesn’t make a lot of sense because i doubt either guy wants to hit FA again at 34 Figure 4-5 years now and each guy still has a shot at another payday.