Is the Slowest Offseason Ever Just a Blip?

If you’ve been wondering just how slow this offseason has been, Travis Sawchik has the answer for you: it is the slowest ever. Writing about the glacial pace of the market, Sawchik addressed both the short-term problem — that too many players need to find jobs — and hinted at possible longer-term issues caused by the current collective bargaining agreement, as well.

Whether the current issues will persist in subsequent years is a good question. Next winter, when Bryce Harper signs for $400 million or something, ownership’s reluctance to spend on the current free-agent class might seem like a distant memory. It is possible that a few of next offseason’s signings, however, will simply paper over issues that are likely to endure for the next half-decade.

One of the prominent theories regarding this slow winter has been that teams are saving up for a run at free agency next winter. That might help explain why, even after all of the current free agents find homes, total league-wide payroll in 2018 is likely to be comparable to 2017’s mark. The theory is that teams could be avoiding major commitments this year to save up for a bonanza next year. Perhaps that’s hypothesis will bear fruit. In order to make up for next offseason to compensate for this winter’s relative lack of activity, two conditions need to be met. First, next year’s crop of free agents will need to be composed of much better players and, second, teams will have to spend well beyond current levels.

Let’s start with the players involved. Harper and Manny Machado headline next year’s free-agent class. There’s really nobody close to those two this year. With each set to turn just 26 years old in 2019, both Harper and Machado seem likely to double the highest guarantee of any player this winter. After that pair, we find Charlie Blackmon, Josh Donaldson, Clayton Kershaw (who has an opt-out), and Dallas Keuchel. Blackmon and Donaldson are a little bit older than their free-agent peers, but both have been excellent in recent seasons.

The table below features the top-20 free agents available this offseason along with the best 20 players expected to enter free agency next season. The list for next season is taken mostly from a helpful post by David Schoenfield.

Free Agency: 2018 vs. 2019
2018 Free Agents 2018 Age 2017 WAR 2018 Proj. WAR 2018 Proj. WAR 2017 WAR 2019 Age 2019 Free Agents
Yu Darvish 31 3.5 3.6 6.1 4.8 26 Bryce Harper
J.D. Martinez 30 3.8 2.7 5.5 2.8 26 Manny Machado
Jake Arrieta 32 2.4 2.7 6.2 4.6 31 Clayton Kershaw
Carlos Santana 32 3.0 2.7 6.2 5.0 33 Josh Donaldson
Eric Hosmer 28 4.1 2.8 2.3 6.5 33 Charlie Blackmon
Lorenzo Cain 32 4.1 2.9 3.8 2.5 31 Dallas Keuchel
Wade Davis 32 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 30 Drew Pomeranz
Mike Moustakas 29 2.2 2.8 2.1 4.1 30 Elvis Andrus
Zack Cozart 32 5.0 3.5 3.7 5.0 32 Brian Dozier
Alex Cobb 30 2.4 1.7 3.3 1.5 33 David Price
Neil Walker 32 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.3 34 Andrew Miller
CC Sabathia 37 1.9 1.5 2.3 3.3 31 Craig Kimbrel
Todd Frazier 32 3.0 2.4 3.3 2.1 31 A.J. Pollock
Jay Bruce 31 2.7 1.2 3.0 4.3 34 Daniel Murphy
Lance Lynn 31 1.4 1.3 1.4 4.1 30 Marwin Gonzalez
Brandon Morrow 33 1.7 1.1 2.7 3.3 33 Gio Gonzalez
Tyler Chatwood 28 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.8 30 DJ Lemahieu
Greg Holland 32 1.1 0.1 2.8 3.7 32 Andrew McCutchen
Addison Reed 29 1.0 0.5 3.0 3.8 38 Nelson Cruz
Jarrod Dyson 33 2.1 1.7 0.2 0.6 31 Zach Britton
AVG 31.3 2.5 2.0 3.2 3.5 31.5 AVG

In addition to Kershaw, both Elvis Andrus and David Price have opt-outs for next offseason, meaning it’s only possible that they’ll test the mark, but not certain. Perhaps Garrett Richards and either Adam Jones or Justin Smoak would have to take their places on the table here. Regardless, that doesn’t change the overriding point — namely, that next year’s class represents a significant upgrade from this year.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Both by last season’s WAR and projected WAR for 2018, next year’s group has a one-win advantage per player over this current offseason’s crop. Some of these players might not be at their projected levels a year from now, but we have a very good base from which to start. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility to think that next year’s group is going to receive $200 million more in average annual value on their contracts. That alone could be a payroll increase of close to 5%. That would get growth to normal levels, although it wouldn’t make up for the stagnation we’re currently witnessing

Notably one of the other theories en vogue during this offseason — that teams are smarter about paying players into their 30s — is going to get a real test next offseason. After harper and Machado, all of the best available players will be 30 or older — and, in the case of some really good players, into their mid-30s. If teams are actually saving up for next offseason, they are saving up for a class full of older players.

As to the second condition required for next year’s market to compensate for the present one — that is, for teams to spend more overall — we will need to see teams actually attempting to contend. To that end, I began by estimating every club’s commitments for 2019. These estimates are pretty rough, especially as they relate to arbitration. As their are several prominent free agents still available at the moment, some of these figures are likely to be outdated in the coming weeks. That said, here’s where things stand right now, with many of the numbers from Cot’s Contracts.

The Chicago Cubs, with multiple, large long-term contracts and a group of young players all making their way through arbitration, feature the highest starting payroll for 2019 — near $180 million, based on the information we have right now. The only player with an opt-out removed from the calculations above is Clayton Kershaw; add him back in, and the Dodgers would actually be first. The order and team amounts aren’t all that important for right now. What is interesting, though, is that the total spending here amounts to roughly $3.45 billion. That figure is about $150 million shy of the estimated 2018 commitments prior to free agency this offseason. Once we finish free agency this year, I suspect that $150-million gap will be closed, with perhaps a slight increase over the starting point this offseason. That is both good and bad news for the players.

So the starting point for next year’s payrolls will be similar to this one’s. If teams are truly saving up — as in, if they really do have a lot of money to spend this offseason but are opting reserve it for next year — there will be very little excuse for not using it next year. To make up for the lack of spending this offseason, however, next year’s outlay needs to be massive. Assuming that 2018 Opening Day payrolls are at 2017 Opening Day levels, that means the owners will have spent around half-billion dollars on 2018 salaries in free agency. To make up for a lost year, teams will need to double that expenditure for 2019. That’s going to be difficult, even with a great class.

The table below shows the difference between the 2019 estimates and the estimates as they currently sit for this season.

Estimated Payroll Room in 2019
Team 2019
Estimated Commitments
2017
Opening Day
2018
February 1st
Difference
Today and 2019
ATL $70.0 $122.6 $116.4 $46.4
TOR $111.0 $163.4 $151.8 $40.8
BOS $168.0 $197.0 $204.4 $36.4
BAL $88.0 $164.3 $121.2 $33.2
LAD $152.0 $241.1 $185.4 $33.4
SFG $167.0 $177.9 $194.5 $27.5
CLE $109.0 $124.1 $130.3 $21.3
KCR $90.0 $143.0 $110.2 $20.2
WAS $160.0 $164.3 $178.3 $18.3
TEX $112.0 $165.3 $129.8 $17.8
PIT $67.0 $95.8 $84.1 $17.1
NYM $121.0 $154.4 $137.1 $16.1
COL $116.0 $127.8 $131.7 $15.7
MIN $89.0 $108.1 $104.6 $15.6
HOU $137.0 $124.3 $152.3 $15.3
LAA $152.0 $166.4 $166.3 $14.3
TBR $66.0 $70.1 $79.8 $13.8
NYY $154.0 $196.4 $161.8 $7.8
SDP $63.0 $69.6 $70.3 $7.3
SEA $151.0 $154.3 $157.0 $6.0
DET $121.0 $199.8 $122.6 $1.6
STL $143.0 $148.2 $142.5 -$0.5
MIA $89.0 $115.4 $87.4 -$1.6
ARI $126.0 $93.1 $120.7 -$5.3
CHW $76.0 $97.8 $69.5 -$6.5
OAK $65.0 $81.7 $58.2 -$6.8
CIN $108.0 $95.4 $98.3 -$9.7
CHC $179.0 $172.2 $159.8 -$19.2
MIL $115.0 $63.1 $90.1 -$24.9
PHI $91.0 $100.0 $63.7 -$27.3
All figures in millions of dollars.

It’s important to note that the number in the far right column represents what a team would have to spend simply in order to return to 2018 levels. If the Braves go out and spend $50 million in free agency next year, they aren’t actually adding money to overall payroll because they have so much coming off the books at the end of this next season. A large number in that far column is good for individual free agents, as it indicates that teams certainly have a lot of money. When it comes to growing payroll for the sport overall, however, the larger numbers in that rightmost column aren’t necessarily positive.

This is particularly important when we consider teams like the Blue Jays, Mets, Orioles, Pirates, and Royals. We don’t know yet, but it is certainly possible on or more of these teams could find themselves in a rebuilding situation and choose not to add more players. Other clubs would have to compensate for their lack of spending before payrolls overall would begin to increase.

It is true that there is about $300 million in spending this year that isn’t reflected in the chart above, but those figures have already been assumed in the discussion above. Given that most of the bigger expenditures will go to multi-year contracts for 2018 and 2019, most of the remaining expenditures will have no effect on the far-right column. Seeing teams that are expected to be in contention and competing for free agents at the bottom of the list above is a good thing for the players. That’s where a lot of the increases in spending should be coming from, like the Cardinals, Cubs, Phillies, and White Sox. The presence of the Angels and Yankees in the bottom half is also good for the players. Teams like the Dodgers and Red Sox are likely to spend a lot of money, but they have to burn through their expiring deals before they actually increase payroll.

Whether teams are actually saving money for next season is hard to say. Next year’s free-agent class is much better than this one, but teams are going to have spend an enormous amount of money next offseason to reach an average annual growth of around 5% when 2018 and -19 are combined. While that kind of spending is certainly possible, the lack of growth this offseason probably means baseball will need to have a few big offseasons in a row to make up for the Cold Stove of 2018.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

69 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Fireball Fred
8 years ago

Won’t one source of spending increases be larger awards in arbitration? We’ve seen some big ones, and now Springer’s deal. To some extent, dollars are shifting to younger players already.

ThomServo
8 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

But you’ve left out-
* $300m+ AAV that clubs are still going to spend on multi-year deals this offseason, before opening day
* $60m+ AAV that clubs are going to spend in contract extensions for young stars before opening day

You’ve distorted the data for nearly all your articles. Your 2019 estimates assume no other spending from now until the beginning of the 2019 off-season- save only arbitration under current contracts.

There is no chance at all that your 2019 projections will prove accurate, and it’s no surprise which side you are erring on given the constant Boras/CAA talking points series you are authoring.

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago
Reply to  ThomServo

Where does either the $300m+ or the $60m+ come from?

And even if you’re right, what relevance does that have to the 70+ unsigned free agents who are just looking for a $3-$4 million contract (half a WAR, in terms of this site)?

I’m not suggesting cost-cutting or collusion. But so far this market isn’t really pointing towards “competitive baseball.”

On the field. Which is what matters to fans.

Jon
8 years ago

Does it matter to fans? I’m not sure, based mainly on the success of the Astros. Purely anecdotally, I’ve noticed fans becoming *much* more accepting of complete teardown method of rebuilding, even to the point that they’re upset when their teams sign a middling free agent.

It’s hard to blame them. You ask just about any fan if they’d trade a couple years of misery (well, 80% misery/20% elation from reading about their rapidly improving farm system) in exchange for being the Astros in a couple years, and I bet almost all of them would rather have that than have their 3% chance of making the playoffs increase to 4% by signing Lucas Duda.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago

WRT the “paying people in their 30s” argument (which is probably a large part of it), check out what the free agent classes look like in 2020 and 2021. You’re going to get a ton of young guys in those classes, and we should expect to see a lot more heat then.

At the most general level, teams have probably realized that money in free agency buys less than ever before (which has been shown objectively on these pages), and teams won’t want to splurge until/unless you get more young, talented guys in there (no, Eric Hosmer doesn’t count). I think you’re going to see a lot more interest in Marcell Ozuna than Mike Moustakas.

EDIT: Went to the 2020 free agent page just to demonstrate this. Remember, this is 2 years from now, so add 2 years to each of these guys’ ages to give you a sense of what their ages will be.

Xander Bogaerts: 25
Nolan Arenado: 26
Jonathan Schoop: 26
Michael Wacha: 26
Jose Altuve: 27
Anthony Rendon: 27
Shelby Miller: 27
Gerrit Cole: 27
Didi Gregoious: 27
Marcell Ozuna: 27
Alex Wood: 27

That is just the players who will be under 30 who I picked out of the list because I thought they might be good in two years (others include Nick Castellanos at 25, and Avisail Garcia at 26). Some of them might sign an extension too, but the critical mass of younger players turning down extensions is going to make a difference.

Billsaints
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

And Mike Trout 🙂

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Billsaints

This should suggest to everyone that I did not get everyone who I thought would be good in two years and will be under 30.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Billsaints

Trout is a year later than these names. He’s a free agent after the 2020 season, while the players on this list are free agents after the 2019 season.

Barring extensions, though, we’re going to have several free agency classes in a row with big star power at the top of them.

The various names after 2018 in this article. Then sadtrombone’s list after 2019. Then Trout after 2020. Then Bryant, Correa, Lindor, and Seager after 2021.

That’s not intended to be exhaustive, just the names who come to mind.

Those 2021 names are also young enough, good enough, and close enough to getting big arbitration salaries (or already getting one for 2018, in the case of Bryant) that I don’t foresee any highly team-friendly extensions for them.

Aaron (UK)
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

“Remember, this is 2 years from now, so add 2 years to each of these guys’ ages to give you a sense of what their ages will be.”

I ran the data and the r^2 is 1.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

You could have run the same exercise two years ago and gotten a list of players who are not free agents today. If past practice holds, many of these players will sign extensions before reaching free agency

tung_twista
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

I did run the exercise starting from 2016/02/08.
The following are the list of players who could have hit free agency this winter but didn’t due to signing extensions within the last two years.

Name 2018Age 2017WAR 2018SteamerProjection

Brandon Belt 30 2.3 3.0
Danny Duffy 29 3.4 2.1
Pedro Strop 33 1.0 0.6
Yadier Molina 35 2.1 2.3
— Extended after September 2017
Clayton Richard 34 2.3 2.8
Marco Estrada 34 2.6 1.0
Kurt Suzuki 34 2.7 0.6
Justin Upton 30 5.0 2.1 (Had opt-out but extended instead)

I might be missing a player or two, but probably not.
It still does not look like a very inspiring group of players, if you ask me.
Players who signed extension after September of last year probably got something very close to their FA value so I differentiated them.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

So I actually agree with you on the big picture, a few of those guys will not be on the list. However, I think that this close to free agency, the guys who are likely to sign are going to cost a freaking fortune. So it’s not likely to be much.

Looking at tung_twista’s list bears this out; Belt, Molina and Duffy were the only good guys on that list, and saying Molina is “good” is pretty generous. And only one of them was under 30 (Duffy).

And even if you take half those guys off the list (which is a pretty liberal interpretation of what will happen), you still get way more good players under 30 than in the past.

The reason why is because most of the big extensions happen earlier in the arbitration process, and those didn’t happen.

But yes, I agree with you in principle that not all those guys are going to make it.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

With Molina, I think that he is still pretty “good” (2.6 BP WARP in 2017, 4.1 BP WARP in 2016, plus highly regarded for the various pitching staff intangibles of being a catcher), but he’s also a 35.5 year old catcher with the obvious risk that he could fall off a cliff in the near future.

His extension through the 2020 season at $20 million per year almost certainly included, from the team’s standpoint, a “just get the deal done, we want him to retire a Cardinal” premium.

carterMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Alex Wood is only 27???

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  carter

I also kind of regret saying I think he’ll be good in two years, since he’s been all over the place, but he was so beastly for much of this year there’s always a chance.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Good list, thanks.

I admittedly am repetitious in making the point that “3B is a tough free agent market for any non-premium player”, and this list helps highlight that point.

Not only are so many contenders set at the position for 2018, but we can also see why a team such as the Phillies probably isn’t that excited about signing Moustakas for 4 or 5 years even if the AAV looks relatively team-friendly. Yes, they get Moustakas as a probable upgrade for 2018 – when they don’t look likely to contend anyway – but then they’ve got money committed to him for future years when there are true premium free agents available after 2018 (Donaldson, Machado) and 2019 (Arenado, Rendon).

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
8 years ago

For your 2019 estimated payrolls, are you taking into account the big spenders using 2018 to get below the luxury tax threshold? It isn’t just about saving cash today. It’s also about getting around massive payroll penalties tomorrow. Someone’s going to blow right through their previous maximum payroll when they sign Harper.

ThomServo
8 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

That is why the assessment is poor.

From any serious projection, dozens of FAs will sign for about $600m in total spend before opening day.

At the same time, a handful of young stars (Betts, Bryant, et al) will sign large extensions.

All told that will add nearly $12m to each clubs 2018 opening day payroll.

If you were to argue, ‘No, my estimates say it’ll only be $9.1m added to the average club’s payroll from now until opening day,’ and gave us assessments based on those estimates- that would be notable. But you are instead estimating zero additional spend, which is agenda-driven and absurd.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  ThomServo

These projections of yours are just that. You can repeat it over and over and it still won’t make it true until events bear it out.

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Interestingly, possibly not.

The same aging curve/WAR estimates will be there, because all 30 teams do that now. The same Luxury Tax buffers will be there.

It’s possible that a big market team will go for $40m per year over seven years, say, but it’s equally possible that they’ll go for a Kershaw or a Machado or even a couple of other big bopperoonies.

At the end of the day, it’s who you want on your team. The Royals are still pursuing Hosmer as the Face of Kansas, and I understand that emotion.

Harper would be an undeniably great acquisition … but there’s still a price on that acquisition. And that price includes the sum of other lost opportunities.

jimcalMember since 2017
8 years ago

I wonder if Fangraph twitter account run a poll to say which team is not top 5 in payroll today, and how many followers will actually click New York Yankees.

frangipard
8 years ago

Yes, “one” is a small sample size.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago

I’ve seen too many execs from too many front offices in interviews dismiss free agents who would be clear upgrades for their teams to think there’s no collusion. Sure, teams all value players similarly now — which makes it harder to explain why many players aren’t even getting low-ball offers.

Alan
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

If teams do not value the upcoming year, either because they are loaded already or see that they have no shot, adding a player on a 1 or 2 year deal just blocks someone they may want to develop, and prevents the team from finding a surprise value like Scooter Gennet.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

What makes you so sure they aren’t getting any offers, or even just low-ball offers?

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

That’s what their agents say. I’m not “sure.”

fjtorres
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

And agents are always truthful?

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

If you think an agent would say “my guy has no offers” as a sales tool, I think you should stay away from management as a profession.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

I don’t think that is correct. Hosmer has offers. Darvish has offers. Martinez has offers. Holland had at least one offer, although it may be off the table now that the Rockies signed Wade Davis. Cobb and Lynn and Moustakas have been in contact with teams, but shied away because the price is too high. Jarrod Dyson has offers, but he’s turned them down because they sucked. That’s every player that hasn’t signed in the FG Top 20 list except Neil Walker, and we don’t know for sure one way or the other with him.

I am sure there are guys out there who haven’t gotten any offers at all, but we know those guys are pretty marginal anyway.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

There are 70 of them out there. That’s a lot of marginal talent. This isn’t fantasy baseball.

Given that we have so very little actual knowledge of what’s going on, I find it interesting that so many people are so invested in claiming to know what’s going on.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

Well, this particular thread started with you being sure that a long list of players don’t have offers.

I’m somewhat surprised that we haven’t seen more signings of the lower tier of remaining starting pitchers, such as Garcia, Vargas, Cashner, and Hellickson. Usually some non-contenders will sign starting pitchers like that on 1-year deals because they need pitchers at least to fill out their rotations and throw innings, and maybe they stumble upon a player who has a decent year and nets something in a mid-season trade. I don’t know if pitchers on that level truly don’t have offers, or if there’s a pitching market logjam where they think they might get better offers from borderline contenders once deals shake out from Darvish down through Arrieta and then Cobb and Lynn.

CliffH
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

People like you?

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago

One thing that jumps out at me from that team table is that the Braves are in the cat-bird seat for winter 2018. If their owners don’t just want to be real estate developers with a nifty little shopping complex in Cobb County and a brand spanking new ball park on the side, then they should seriously consider splashing out big, back-loaded contracts in 2018, which is as good a year as it’s going to get.

Before seeing that, my choice would have been the Phillies. But I think the Braves, with a bit of imagination, can get very big, very quick.

The imagination bit comes this year, I think. There are still a number of interesting FAs out there, and clearly they won’t help for 2018, because the team is still a bit of a bottom-feeder. But February is bargain season! (See, for example, Todd Frazier.) Pick up two or three bargains this year, and plan for next year.

As a bonus, they actually get to put a team on the field that the people of Atlanta will come out and see. I’m actually surprised they haven’t gone this way yet.

Waldan
8 years ago

Idk, looks to me like the class next year will have a whole lot more guys I would be happier overpaying or giving longer contracts. I think this year only three players are likely to get more than 3 guaranteed years (JD, YU, Hos)with maybe two others having a shot (Jake A, Moose), next year I could see that number being at least six or seven (Manny, Harper, Kershaw, Donaldson, Blackmon, Keuchel, and Kimbrel) with quite a few others who could get past three as well (Miller, Pomeranz, Mccutch, Price etc). Seems like thats where a lot of the discrepancy is between agents and front offices, how many years does a guy deserve. Pre-2017/18 I would have assumed that Frazier would get three years easy, Cobb would get four, Arrieta would get five and Hosmer could get seven. I think each of those might be reduced by two years. Also there seem to me more people I would be inclined next year to offer overpay-shorter deals like 2/40 for Murphy.

Baron Samedi
8 years ago

Is America’s Out-of-Control Capitalism and Complete Disregard for Labour Rights “just a blip”?

Baron Samedi
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

Further to that, is MLB fans not giving a shit about the players and viewing them as expendable chattal “just a blip”?

Baron Samedi
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

Judging by initial downvotes, my guess is “no.” Enjoy your blips, kids.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

They frowned on my suggestion that there’s a touch of collusion in the air, too.

Baron Samedi
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

Sadly, the only collusion is the players against themselves.

Baron Samedi
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

I assume the average Fangraphs reader possesses a net worth in excess of $5,000,000 USD to be so laissez faire about labour rights.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

Speaking for myself, my net worth does not determine my position on labor rights.

CliffH
8 years ago
Reply to  Baron Samedi

What “labor rights” are you referring to? They are in a union. They agreed to the CBA. What labor rights are implicated?

Baron Samedi
8 years ago
Reply to  CliffH

American?

Alan
8 years ago

Good analysis, I just wanted to highlight a few specific “outliers” that may “distort” any general conclusions.

I think the WAR estimate may undervalue JD Martinez if it penalizes him for defense because each AL contender needs a DH whose defensive skills are mostly irrelevant. He is one of the very few free agents I expect a serious bidding war on this year. Similarly, if WAR is looking at Zack Cozart as a shortstop, it may be overstating his expected value as the Angels third baseman.

I would also expect a lot of the 2ish win position players on the 2018 list to end up with one year contracts, making them free agents in 2019 also. Neil Walker seems especially likely to not get two years given the surplus of infielders and his spotty health record. Similarly, Josh Harrison seems fairly likely to have his option declined for 2019 and join the 2019 list unless he has a very good year.

ThomServo
8 years ago
Reply to  Alan

That critique of the Martinez projection is off the mark.

DH WAR adjusts for the fact that a player isn’t contributing on defense (neither poorly nor well). It therefore has a high standard for hitting, since anyone who can hit can DH.

Alan
8 years ago
Reply to  ThomServo

It was more of a question than a criticism, since the table shows a single WAR number and probably doesn’t automatically assume he ends up in the AL.

A GM who values him as a 30-year-old 2.7 win player is not going to win the bidding for him. Such a valuation suggests he is nearly identical to Moustakas without the draft pick cost, which seems to wildly undervalue JDM.

ThomServo
8 years ago
Reply to  Alan

Martinez’s projection does not notably change whether he plays OF or DH.

As an OF, his poor defending is factored in, as a DH his non-defending is factored in. DH’s tend to field like DH’s (i.e. -10 runs or more at any corner spot), so playing in the field doesn’t have a big impact on production.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Alan

I broadly agree with your second point, and it’s to some degree true on any free agent with multiple bidders due to the “winner’s curse”. The most optimistic team generally offers the most money and therefore generally signs the player.

A relevant point is that using the typical free agency valuation math that we often see at Fangraphs (0.5 WAR per year aging decline, ~$9 million per WAR, 5% annual salary inflation) comes up with a contract for Martinez of about 5 years / $80 million. So reports such as the Red Sox offering him 5 years / $125 million are already starting off Martinez at a 3.5 WAR projection for 2018 (and/or assuming that he ages better than average, or valuing WAR higher).

To get to Martinez’s reported asking price of 6 / $180 million, you have to start him in 2018 at about 4.25 WAR under standard contract value math.

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Alan

Regarding Martinez, his 2018 Steamer / Depth Charts projection of 2.7 WAR includes Def (which combines positional adjustment plus fielding) of -15.4 runs in about 630 PA’s. The positional adjustment for a DH is -17.5 runs, so putting him at DH doesn’t help his value. If anything, it appears to make him slightly worse, but it’s close enough that I’d call it basically a wash.

There’s also the DH hitting penalty, which isn’t in Martinez’s projection. That’s been observed to be 14 points of wOBA on average ( https://mglbaseball.com/2013/12/09/pinch-hitter-dh-and-other-penalties-revisited/ ). It’s essentially a milder version of the pinch hitter penalty – of playing the game somewhat “cold – and it could be confounded a bit by the tendency of position to players to DH when they’re tired or have a minor injury. If I’m doing the math correctly, 14 points of wOBA was about 7 runs per 600 PA’s in 2017, so roughly 0.7 WAR.

Mike NMN
8 years ago

Likely you are seeing a secular shift in the way teams view player values, especially mid-tier value. Why pay a vet high seven figures or low eight figures for a 1-2 WAR improvement over someone either a lot younger and cost controlled, or a journeyman who comes cheap? Unless you are a mid-80’s win or more team filling a position that was a black hole for you last year.

RWinUT
8 years ago

What’s missing from this assessment? Teams are not only saving for next year they are aiming below the $197 MM luxury tax threshold so they can buy next year without having to pay as much in taxes for it. The effective tax on what a $200, $300 or $400 MM contract will do to overall payroll is huge. Not chump change. It’s the tax, stupid… Get below the threshold this year and pay less next year…

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  RWinUT

Sorry, but it is chump change to teams in the upper tier.

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

Apart from the rather drastic hits on draft choices and international signing funds, of course.

Oh, wait …

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago

There is no luxury tax penalty to draft choice or international signing bonuses. That’s for signing free agents.

RWinUT
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

That’s the voice of someone who doesn’t understand money.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  RWinUT

Quite the contrary. While it’s certainly nice to save it when possible, it’s immaterial to the bottom line of a team like the Dodgers, with revenue of $462M, if, in addition to a $200M payroll they fork over a $30M competitive balance tax. Indeed, if they stop doing so, baseball will have to come up with a new revenue-sharing mechanism, because this one will have stopped working.

What were you saying about money?

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

The amount of the CBT that goes to revenue sharing is not a very big number.

Under the latest CBA, the first $13 million of luxury tax goes to reducing teams’ obligations to contribute to player benefit plans. Those expenses are divided equally between all teams, so the savings for each team are minimal (about $433k per team) and don’t depend on a team’s revenue or spending.

Over that amount, 50% of the luxury tax proceeds fund contributions to players’ IRA’s.

The other 50% over that amount is split among all teams that are not over the luxury tax.

For 2017, five teams were over the CBT and paid total combined tax of $61 million ( https://www.apnews.com/245ac5e3fe864a94aa432359b2a5ce7a/APNewsBreak:-Dodgers-hit-with-%2436.2M-tax,-Yanks-with-%2415.7M ). Go through the math, and that’s a payment of just under $1 million for each of the 25 teams under the tax. It’s simply not a big number in the context of baseball teams.

The big revenue sharing money, where some of the low-revenue teams get tens of millions of dollars each year, is from a completely separate revenue-sharing plan. It’s somewhat complicated, and it is also spelled out in the CBA. The concept is that there’s a total pool equal to 48% of every team’s Net Local Revenue divided evenly among all teams. What each team pays into that pool or receives from it is based on weighted average of its Net Local Revenue over the past 3 years, except that 13 teams are disqualified from receiving revenue sharing due to market score (essentially a calculation of market size).

CliffH
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

It was never a revenue-sharing mechanism, that’s why it’s call the Competitive Balance Tax and there’s a totally separate thing called revenue sharing

Dave TMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Alby

I’m going to categorically disagree with Alby that any business sees an annual expense that’s ~6% of revenue as “immaterial”. They may well see it as justified as a reasonable cost of doing business, but it’s a notable expense.

ThomServo
8 years ago

Another poor article in this Travis/Nathaniel/Craig series.

MLB average payroll is likely to break a new record, with 1-3% growth up to $138m or so by opening day.

The author distorts the information in this article- citing correctly that the market is historically slow, but then twisting this slow-market evidence into an argument about overall spend. This apples-to-lemons comparison technique has been regular throughout these articles.

A slow market doesn’t mean a lack of MLB spend, it instead signifies the shift that most all fans support- money going out of aging FA deals and into extensions for young star players.

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago
Reply to  ThomServo

And that money going into extensions for young star players is in evidence in some obvious way that we have all for some reason missed?

ThomServo
8 years ago

Yes, any serious model will project new extensions.

Last year, $50M were handed out in extensions to young players from today’s date through opening day. That is typical. This year’s class is a bit stronger, and ‘spring extension’ totals have risen and set new records in almost every recent season.

AlbyMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  ThomServo

So your position, basically, is that we can’t say this is an atypical year until opening day, because until then you’re standing by your projections based on past seasons. That’s circular logic.

BobbyJohn69
8 years ago

I believe the thing that has fundamentally changed is that the owners have stopped blinking in the annual Free Agent Stare-Down Game, and the players/agents were not prepared for it.

Jon
8 years ago

It’s a blip. It’s the perfect storm of:

– a very weak free agent class, where even the top players have serious questions
– teams getting smarter about valuing defense and adjusting for aging curves
– a remarkably strong free agent class next year
– the two richest teams striving to stay under the cap
– the teams with money to spend not being competitive enough to make an aggressive move
– fans’ greater acceptance of poor on-field performance and low payrolls in exchange for the promise of future dominance (e.g. the Astros)

Guess who’s not complaining? All of the middle relievers who deserved (and got) $8M a year or more. And Lorenzo Cain, Carlos Santana, and Wade Davis, who are among the few bigger names without serious questions.

tung_twista
8 years ago

Cherry-picking fun fact.
When Cozart has the second highest projection for next season (and is basically tied at first with 0.1 war difference), you know it is a weak FA class.

RainmakerMember since 2016
8 years ago

I don’t think its been mentioned elsewhere, but another factor to consider is that this free agent period comes on the heels of the NFL seeing meaningful declines in viewership. While many like attribute causality, the broad consensus in the media industry is that less folks are watching TV in general and that is impacting overall viewership; its not just an NFL problem, the NFL just being one of the largest audiences makes it stick out. With that I’d argue that there may be some caution among teams and owners as to whether there is risk to the upward trend in baseball revenues continuing as well. If you view there is some risk to the TV revenues in say 3-4 years, you might want to be more cautious in signing long-term contracts.