Scott Boras Might Need to Adjust
As you are probably aware, this offseason has delivered an unusually ice-cold start to free agency. The final months of 2017 facilitated little in the way of movement. The new year, meanwhile, has given us Jay Bruce to the Mets.
There are a variety of reasons for this — reasons that have been examined at this site and elsewhere. For starters, more teams are thinking the same way and believe that free agency is often a losing bet for the club. There are undoubtedly some teams waiting and holding cash in reserve until next year’s historic class. There is the new CBA, which has tougher penalties regarding the luxury tax. And Dave Cameron noted on Tuesday — his last real post for the site — how the presence of a few “super teams” might have removed the motivation for clubs to improve and spend.
Peter Gammons briefly outlined the perspective of clubs and agents last week for The Athletic.
Wrote Gammons:
Management has argued that agents have overrated their clients’ markets, with no Max Scherzer or Zack Greinke to establish the market. Agents feel this is an industry-wide attempt to make players wait and come down to a lesser market.
Last week, I cataloged which of Dave’s top free agents had signed thus far. Little has transpired in the meantime. As of today, Carlos Santana is the only player among Cameron’s top five to have found a home this offseason. Of Cameron’s top-10 free agents, only three have signed. Of the top 20, just six have a new contract, with Bruce representing the latest. That’s a unusually low volume of transactions.
Typically, as was the case during the previous two offseasons, the majority of top free agents have reached deals with clubs by this point in January.
It’s likely that organizations are merely trying to wait out free agents and drive down prices. It’s logical, after all, that asking prices would decline as players’ anxiety increases, the calendar moving ever closer to the opening of spring training.
While there are some whispers of collusion, a number of other reasonable explanations exist even without having to entertain conspiracy theories. And if players want to guarantee more spending — and earlier spending — in the winter months, they can do so by fighting for changes in the next collective bargaining agreement.
But there is something else of interest at the moment that might explain the ice-cold stove — namely, the significant portion of remaining free agents tied to one agency.
Scott Boras will man the steering wheel for the rest of MLB's winter. His unsigned clients:
Pedro Alvarez
Jake Arrieta
Stephen Drew
Carlos Gomez
Carlos Gonzalez
Jeremy Hellickson
Greg Holland
Matt Holliday
Eric Hosmer
J.D. Martinez
Mike Moustakas
Mike Pelfrey
Jayson Werth— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) December 17, 2017
Perhaps Boras, and his playbook (one that is surely copied by other agents), is also playing a role in this slowdown.
The aforementioned Buster Olney tweet is from Dec. 17. Nearly a month later, not a single one of the clients listed there has signed. Boras has famously said that waiting should not be a problem for players — or, at least not for premium ones. Boras has represented many premium players in the past, often waiting for (and receiving) the deal he wanted.
Said Boras in January of 2013:
“People call me all the time and say, ‘Man, your players aren’t signed yet,'” Boras said. “Well, it doesn’t really matter what time dinner is when you’re the steak.”
It’s a great quip, and Boras is always good for colorful sound bites every offseason. He’s been the most successful agent in the sport’s history. But what if this chapter from the Boras playbook is now outdated? What if this time is different? It will be interesting to see if Boras can get a J.D. Martinez a sixth year, with Martinez apparently comfortable waiting it out. Even with his poor glove and baserunning, though, Martinez is a steak. Few other players are comparable to him. It will be interesting to see how lesser free-agent contracts compare with the crowdsourced projections come March.
While the top free agents — especially the elite, under-30 talent in next year’s class — figure always to command interest, what if the vast majority of “non-steak” free agents increasingly find themselves waiting? What if unreasonably high initial asks are compounding the problem? If we’ve entered a new era in terms of how teams approach free agency, it might end up that waiting, for many players, is no longer the correct approach. Agents and players will have to adjust. Initial demands might have to be more thoughtful and realistically crafted. Complicating matters for Boras is that, with so many clients, many of them are competing against each other for jobs.
In the recent past, when waiting has become an issue for players seemingly without a market — as was the case last offseason, for example, with Matt Wieters — Boras has gone around front offices, directly to ownership. But that might not be a long-term solution, with those front offices becoming more aware of the end-around tactic.
Moreover, agents are increasingly finding it difficult to sell players to front offices awash in data and cold, hard reason. It’s more difficult to inflate the perception of a player’s value. Agents are increasingly having to become creative, as we saw last offseason with the Yoenis Cespedes pitch. Maybe one way to become creative is to find a way to more often appeal to clubs earlier in the offseason.
What we do know is that the waiting game is becoming a more dangerous one for players and agents.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
Pictured: The type of “steak” best that best describes the appeal of J.D. Martinez
Teams have decided to quit red meat.
I’m not 100% sure that a Salisbury steak qualifies as “red meat”.
More like a “meat-based product”
I can think of several reasons teams are less interested.
– Teams are finally realizing that the best free agent available still might not be all that good and they have stopped paying out top salaries just for being the best of a bad bunch.
– Aging curves seem to have made a comeback with many players seeming to do the most before even reaching free agency. It is becoming more and more true that paying a 35 year old 8 figures is less and less of a good idea. Just 25 years ago (a time which most execs can remember) it seemed most every team had an aging slugger or two putting up .33/30/100.
– Many of the top players are not reaching free agency until even later because of the trend of players signing extensions that sell out their Arb or FA years.
– Teams are realizing they can get average production from kids on controlled contracts and do not need to pay $8M/year for a utility infielder just because he has done it before. This does not yet seem to apply to relievers.
– The perception is that the last three World Series winners won with youth and mostly home grown talent after a period of being very bad and using those down years to draft well. Other teams are following that model. It serves no purpose for a team in that situation to pay market rates for free agents and may actually hurt them by winning a few meaningless games and affecting draft position.
teams with less homegrown talent need to get it elsewhere (free agency). With caps on international and draft spending, it’s not like free agent money can be reallocated to acquiring prospects.
I agree with almost everything here, except for the part about aging sluggers being prevalent 25 years ago. In 1992, only three players age 31 or over had 30 home runs: Joe Carter, Mickey Tettleton, and Rob Deer. Only 6 others had even 20 home runs: Sandberg, Winfield, Bell, Dawson, Pendleton, and Maldonado.
And if we consider 33 to be more “aging slugger,” there were none with 30 and only 2 with 20+ (Winfield and Dawson).
That being said, I don’t disagree with your premise, just the date. I think 15 years ago is a more reasonable comparison and makes more sense as it coincides with the height of the PEDs era.
In 2002, 11 guys age 31 or older had 30+ home runs, including 4 with 40-49 (Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro, Giambi) and another with 50+ (Thome). Another 18 guys 31 or older had 20-29 home runs.
And if we look at 33 years old or older in 2002, instead of just 2 guys with 20 or more home runs, we end up with 20! And 8 with 30+, 3 of which had 40+.
The numbers for older players didn’t really get more “normal” until 2008 or even more recently.
Rather than using thresholds like “30 HRs” for every season, I’m going to count HR/600PA [AB would have been better, but PA is what is in my dataset and probably close enough for a first pass].
I’m keeping any players with enough PA to qualify for the batting title and had at least 1.9x the league HR/600 rate. This figure had an average of 20 players per season.
2017, 0 of 9 were 31+, but this one year may be an outlier, here are three year blocks going back:
2014-2016 16 of 40 (40%)
2011-2013 25 of 61 (41%)
2008-2010 19 of 57 (33%)
2005-2007 18 of 68 (26%)
2002-2004 30 of 60 (50%)
1999-2001 26 of 64 (41%)
1996-1998 31 of 79 (39%)
1993-1995 13 of 70 (19%)
1990-1992 17 of 71 (24%)
1987-1989 15 of 61 (25%)
Perhaps cyclical?
Boras’ strategy has always been boom or bust. If you just average together salaries he probably has enough Prince Fielders to outweigh the Kendrys Morales’s.
My sense is that his strategy works well when he has a painting, the one-of-a-kind item/player that teams really feel like they need to have. It works less well when he has a commodity, the kind of item/player that can be replaced or offers only a marginal improvement.
For example, JD Martinez is the kind of player who is well-served by Boras because he is such a great hitter, teams will eventually come around for him. Even if he never clears 5/$125m, it isn’t like the offers are likely to get worse or get pulled entirely. Maybe they will, but I doubt it.
Hosmer is actually kind of similar. Both the Padres and Royals seem convinced he is a culture changer, and they’re going to sign him for the intangibles. Most likely they are either going to sign Hosmer or no first baseman at all, so he can run it up right until spring training to see if he gets a better offer. If not, it’s unlikely he’ll need to take a pillow deal.
For those players, waiting it out has relatively little downside.
The guys on that list I’d be more worried about are Moustakas, Arrieta, Gomez, and Holland (the other ones are pretty marginal, and would probably be better served by an agent who would just get them a deal…but we’ll leave them aside). Boras might be able to work some voodoo on an owner somewhere for a pitcher, but if not teams will gladly move to someone else either through trade or free agency. When your top offer is pulled because a team moved on, that’s not good, and that will happen to most players.
I wonder how much Hosmer to the Pads is hurt by San Diego’s signing
of FG’s Dave Cameron, who was really down on Hoz? (no. 1 2018 free agent landmine)
If adding Dave Cameron let’s them back out of the Hosmer offer without losing season ticket sales or other goodwill value Dave has already paid for his salary for many, many years.
Arrieta, Darvish, and Lynn will be fine and sign for 100m+, 130m+, and 70m+. The amount of quality starters available is just too thin. It seems that the super teams are built hitting first (cubs, yankees, astros) and then add big name pitchers. These teams have a ton of OF depth and prospects and don’t feel the need to do buy a JD martinez, moustakes, cain, etc.
It will be interesting to see how a team built on pitching depth spend money (braves)
Darvish will be fine. Arrieta will get that if an owner bails out Boras. I have no idea what’s going to happen with Lynn, and I don’t think anyone else does either (even his agent). He’s such a weird case, with a lousy first year back from injury in a thin FA market for starters.
I don’t see any owner “bailing out ” Boras. Most owners and GM’s probably hate him. At his age, with a drop in velocity, Arrieta is the number 1 red flag in my opinion.
GMs? Yes, they hate him. Owners? Not so much.
If Arrieta is unsigned in three weeks, check the dinner reservations in DC for Lerner and Boras.
While that can certainly happen to some players, I don’t see it happening this off-season (with the possible exception of the 3B market).
Here’s the problem that I have with the premise of this article by Travis: the idea that waiting is a problem for players is based on the idea that teams move on from free agents with high, borderline unrealistic initial contract asks and sign other free agent options or address holes by making trades. In other words, the risk is that the number of bidders declines until a free agent is left with very little demand.
Looking at the starting pitching market as an example, though, it’s not as if Arrieta is sitting out there with a high contract ask as logical landing spots go away. There’s just been very little activity. Chatwood is the biggest dollar FA SP signing so far, with Darvish, Arrieta, Lynn, and Cobb all still available and expected to get bigger deals than Chatwood. My take is that it’s something of a logjam that will result in fairly rapid activity in the market once either of Darvish or Arrieta signs: the losing bidders will then pretty quickly sign the other one of those two pitchers or move on to signing Cobb or Lynn as fallback options.
As I wrote at the start, 3B looks to me like it could be an exception because so many contenders are set at 3B. The Longoria trade to San Francisco took away a logical landing spot for Moustakas or Frazier without putting another replacement team in the mix, because the Rays don’t figure to pay up for either Moustakas or Frazier. More generally, though, I agree with Grant Bisbee’s view of skepticism toward offering Moustakas a big contract because of concerns about the aging outlook for Moustakas’ mediocre OBP, high ISO profile https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/12/11/16762178/mike-moustakas-free-agent-royals
I don’t know for sure but Moose to the Angels made all kinds of sense. Hard to imagine that Boras’ strategy of waiting out the market didn’t cost his client a real good opportunity.
Cozart made more sense for the Angels than a 3B-only player, IMO. With Cozart, the Angels also have him as depth for SS/2B with the ability to slide in Valbuena at 3B if Cozart is playing the middle infield. If the Angels added a 3B-only player like Moustakas or Frazier, they wouldn’t gain that depth.
This strategy is becoming increasingly common. Rays, Cubs, Cleveland, Dodgers have all gotten a lot of added value out of positional flexibity in these days of big pitching staffs and short benches.
Sorry but I strongly disagree with your pitching analysis. Darvish will get big money. Period. The others will have to settle for a lot less than they were asking. Did anybody ever ask themselves why the team that knows Arrieta best (the Cubs) don’t want to pay him anywhere near his asking price. Boras will be screwed this year…..times are changing. When the Yankees and Dodgers want to get under the soft cap, you know times are changing.
I agree that an asking price of $200 million for Arrieta was absurd taken at face value, but I think that he’s going to end up with something right around the pre-offseason predictions of Dave Cameron (4 / $96) or the median from crowdsourcing (5 / $110). There have been reports that the Cubs would sign Arrieta at around 4 / $110.
From what I can gather, Boras’ sky-high opening offers look to combine two negotiating strategies: both anchoring and not undercutting a potential outlier high bid. On the former, a commitment of a bit over $100 million to Arrieta can be a lot more psychologically appealing when (1) it’s so much less than his initial ask and (2) it reflects his initial ask moving far more than half the distance to the team’s initial offer. As for the second, if some front office (or owner) would actually offer Arrieta something like 5 / $130, then Boras’ sky-high ask keeps that on the table rather than coming up short of it.
The risk with those sorts of asks – in any negotiation – is that the other party decides that you’re simply unrealistic in making such a sky-high opening offer and that it’s a waste of time to deal with you. That appears to happen on occasion to some of Boras’ lower-tier free agents – most prominently Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales – but his strategy has a good track record for free agents who are above average (or better) starting-caliber players.
There are some busts to the Boras strategy, but there are also occasions that the result has been more middle of the raod.
For example, Kyle Lohse didn’t sign until March 2013 but still got 3 / $33 as a 34-year old with a QO attached to him. That same offseason, Michael Bourn signed for 4 / $48 million (with a QO attached) in February.
I actually think those eventual outcomes could have made Boras overconfident the next year, as it was in 2014 that both Drew and Morales didn’t sign until late May and June, respectively.
I just picked Morales and Fielder as the cases where Boras’ strategy was least and most successful. There are lots of guys who signed pillow deals over longer offers, and that seemed like a mistake at the time and was definitely a mistake in hindsight.
When you play chicken like that, sometimes you win big and sometimes you lose out entirely.
A lot of this is players/agents simply asking for unreasonable contracts. Hosmer at 7 years is absurd. Who signs average players for 7 years. Martinez is too fragile to get more than 5, unless he takes an AAV discount to get the 6th (e.g. 6/165 vs 5/150).
What’s perhaps crazier is that both the Padres and Royals have reportedly offered 7 years to Hosmer, though quite likely at lower total dollar amounts than the $140 to $147 million that’s been reported – https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/01/eric-hosmer-multiple-7-year-offers-royals-padres-rumors-free-agent.html
Correct Dave T They should pull their offers asap. There is no need to pay Eric Hosmer that much money. You can have Logan Morrison (more power but less all round skills for LESS than half the price.
…and even if you think Myers can play OF his contract is long enough he’ll eventually have to move back to 1B.
If there were any players on that list worth signing they’d have signed already. Half the guys on that list are projected for 0 WAR. Can’t imagine why teams aren’t jumping to have their pick of players who are likely to cost money and produce nothing or players with significant red flags.
Good post Buhner. A lot of those players may get shut out completely because they are not even average. I understand the top players going with Boras, (and even that may change), but why would these low value players sign with Boras and listen to his bullshit about the time he will spend on them, and the good contract he will get them. My prediction ? Boras will have a real reduction in clients next year. Times are changing.
OK, so maybe waiting for dinner works if you are the “steak”, i.e. Martinez or Arrieta. But what is Pedro Alvarez? Because if you offer me Pedro Alvarez, I think I can find something better at the 7-11, thank you…..
Pedro Alvarez and Stephen Drew are the slushies. You can get them whenever you want, but they don’t fill you up and give you cavities.
El Toro is literally raw steak.
Mike Ilitch was Boras’ favorite owner-patsy. Other than Lerner and Angelos, is there anyone else left? Boras will sucker Lerner next year into overpaying for a Harper replacement. Waiting for a near-inevitable spring training injury will likely bail him out regarding Arrieta and Holland. Other than that, the environment has shifted against him.
I don’t see that a “bailout” is needed regarding Arrieta or Holland.
For Arrieta, there are plenty of teams who still want to add starting pitching, and Tyler Chatwood is the biggest starting pitcher contract signed so far. Darvish, Lynn, and Cobb are also still out there also, so it’s not like logical landing spots for Arrieta have gone away. If Arrieta was willing to sign for Dave Cameron’s prediction for his contract (4 / $96), I believe that Arrieta would be signed already.
As for Holland (and Addison Reed, for that matter), it’s true that there has been quite a bit of activity signing relievers. There are also still plenty of candidates to spend more on relief pitchers, though: Cardinals, Mets, Giants, Twins, maybe the Astros, maybe the Cubs, maybe the Diamondbacks.
I do think that some players are not yet used to the fact that many teams aren’t willing to give out long deals (5+ years) to players that will certainly be in deep decline by the end of the contract.
On the flip side, there will still be times when teams add in an extra year or two to get the AAV down, for luxury tax reasons. (At least until a new CBA changes this calculus.)
So, for J.D Martinez and the Red Sox, there may be a dollar number that has 6 years attached, if only to get the AAV down to a level where the Red Sox can get under the threshold.
Great article. There is an old episode of “Will & Grace” where Jack goes to his old acting teacher to brag about his turning down a role in a low budget TV commercial on principle.
Jack says to her, approximately, “You always taught us to think about how taking a role will affect the rest of our careers.” Upon hearing this, she becomes furious and replies, “You turned down a paying job???” adding “That advice was for people who actually have careers!” and “Go back to whomever was dumb enough to make you that offer and beg for your job back.”
In addition to the good points Mike S made above, I think part of it is that most of the remaining free agents are only slightly above average.
Only seven had a WAR above 3.0 last year: Hosmer, Cain, Martinez, Darvish, Morrison, Santana, Frazier. Morrison and Hosmer just aren’t believable to most teams as being 3+ WAR guys going forward, and Martinez and Frazier have huge weaknesses to their game (defense and batting average, respectively). Even though value is value, teams seem to not want to pay a ton for a player with a huge weakness. And Darvish just got lit up throughout the playoffs.
So there are a bunch of slightly above average players who are 30+ and projected to be worth fewer than 3 wins next year (except Darvish and Cain). No wonder they aren’t getting huge contracts.
I think Cain is the best value of the ones left, even with the QO attached.
I agree with quite a bit of this, but I wouldn’t say that Darvish got lit up “throughout the playoffs”. He had two very poor starts in the World Series that were preceded by two good starts in the NLCS and NLDS – http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/32055/yu-darvish
I think that Martinez will ultimately get a pretty good contract, even if it ends up being 5 years rather than the 6 / $156 predicted by Dave Cameron. I agree that his defense is a problem, though, because it seems awfully tough for an NL team to get comfortable signing a player for 5 or 6 years when he’s already been such a bad defender in the corner OF prior to the age of 30. There’s a good case that Martinez should be a DH now, and I think that a team almost certainly wants to have that option for him 2 or 3 years into his contract.
Putting aside the issue of whether I actually like Scott Boras, if I were a top free agent–a real star–you can’t ignore the fact he’s achieved some very high-dollar results. But if I were just a decent player, or an older star now in my decline phase , I would be very wary of hiring him. He has too many clients, and must have some internal plan for marketing all of them that might not meet my needs. There are only so many dollars out there, and only so many slots, and some GMs who might have their eyes on a Boras client to fill a hole may not be willing to go with the uncertainty.
I don’t she how the idea of collusion can be seriously entertained without considering that the very size of Boras’s stable represents a collusion of it’s own.
I wonder if we’ll see some self-correction in the form of younger players signing fewer team-friendly extensions. They won’t be able to bank on that second big contract when they hit free agency at 30, so they’ll want to get there asap, so teams will buy their prime years. There’s still the risk of losing value and wanting to be set for life, but less of a future reward.
Especially after they see the $$ that Harper and Machado get.
My prediction: by the end of this offseason, we’ll see that most free agents have signed for pretty close to what was originally expected in the predictions from Dave Cameron and Fangraphs crowdsourcing ( https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2018-top-50-free-agents/ ). So far that’s generally been the case.
In part I’m basing that on various reports where sources have put FA’s asking prices well above the numbers from Dave/crowdsourcing. Boras clients (Martinez, Arrieta, Hosmer) are notable and unsurprising examples, but there are also reports such as Alex Cobb asking for close to $20 million per year, compared to a 4 / $60 contract prediction from Dave. That’s undoubtedly in part the normal process of negotiations, and I expect we’ll see some movement once Darvish or Arrieta signs and helps clarify the market while also taking away a logical landing spot for a SP.
If any FA sees his market crater to well below predictions, I think it will be Moustakas (who Dave predicted for 5 / $95). I’m not sure if we can truly blame that on waiting, however, as it could just be that no team was ever willing to make an offer close to that number with Longoria available in a trade, Machado potentially available in a trade, and both Frazier and Cozart initially out there as other FA options. In other words, Moustakas could sign a contract for well less than 5 / $95 that still matches the best offer he could have gotten in November or early December.
At least this is better than the penalty box article.
In the way that a punch to the face is better than a kick to the crotch? Or that a screaming toddler is better than a loudly cackling old hen? Meg Rowley’s hiring is FG’s new Casey McGehee FA signing, except that at least McGehee got a mid-season DFA.
I too hate fun and entertainment in the offseason.
Bring back #NotGraphs?
This isn’t the first time Boras has waited it out for a very long time with a superstar client with a big spotlight on him and a lot at stake, Max Scherzer’s prolonged wait coming to mind, and Boras wins nearly every time. He has an incredible record in free agency; everyone knows he’s scored some massive deals, but what’s really amazing is there are not many examples of his clients suffering from his doggedness.
Boras is meticulous, he’s well aware of baseball revenues and teams’ budgets, and this is his modus operandi. He sets incredibly high baselines in the beginning of the off-season and simply doesn’t budge for a very long time, only to come around a little bit in the end, giving an owner the satisfaction of a seemingly fruitful negotiation.
And even if he rejects a really nice offer in the beginning of free agency, it will be hard-pressed for teams to punitively revoke it later in the off-season because they know they will be constantly dealing with him in the future. He maximizes the leverage generated by his expansive clientele in each negotiation.
Last year, he got Matt Wieters, coming off a terrible year, a nice 2 year deal in late February, with the 2nd a PLAYER OPTION. Holland signed late as well and got a really solid deal, coming off TJS.
Sorry man, but you are so far behind in what is happening in baseball. Boras is in big trouble. His old M.O. no longer works. He has WAY overplayed his hand this year. He will NEVER get good contracts for all those guys. Maybe he gets lucky on one, but his reputation is about to take a big hit.
It’s widely reported both that Martinez has a 5-year offer in hand from the Red Sox (and probably at least one other team) and that Hosmer has a couple of 7-year offers in hand. Seems like the final staredown on each is whether Martinez can get a 6th year and what AAV Hosmer can get.
There’s also next to nothing to indicate that Arrieta’s market is going to crater to below the expectations for him prior to this offseason (right around $100 million guaranteed on either a 4 or 5 year deal).
The only higher-end Boras client who looks like he could be in “big trouble” relative to expectations is Moustakas. And “expectations” on all of these players aren’t Boras’ opening asks, they’re the sorts of contracts the Dave Cameron predicted back in November, which logically are going to be somewhat higher than the opening offers that teams make in contract negotiations.
Boras’ M.O. looks to drive toward “find a high outlier contract if there’s one to be had, but get a fallback deal that’s more of an expected ‘market’ deal if not”. By the end of this offseason, I predict that will have worked for at least Martinez, Hosmer, and Arrieta.
Yes, exactly. They don’t start real games until April 1st, why should Boras not give himself the full off-season to negotiate? He does his best to prevent teams from leveraging free agents’ anxiety about their next employer/paycheck.
Justin Upton is a big-time hitter that also plays the field adequately, yet he immediately signed for 105M. Boras is probably holding out for 150M+ right now, 50% more than what Upton got, and if he ends up taking 120-130M, J.D still will crush Upton’s deal.
He has two monster offers for Hosmer in hand, despite several solid 1B available for way cheaper (140M for Hosmer rather than 10-20M for Morrison?).
Waiting w/ Arrieta makes sense; Darvish is clearly the more valued guy right now and until he signs, teams won’t be motivated to make their strongest offer to the former.
Moustakas is up against what has been a tough market for 3B recently (see: Justin Turner) while coming off a .314 OBP.
Greg Holland will be interesting. If he turned down something similar to the money Wade Davis signed for, then Boras might be challenged to find a similar deal. Then again, the Rockies could have strongly preferred the latter’s recent track record.
What good does less waiting? The problem isn’t really an information advantage of the front offices or a disadvantage of the agencies. Player projections and aging curves are pretty simple and open for anyone now. Even I could gauge the value of almost any contract rather correctly now.
Problem is that now anyone has the same information and it is hard to get an edge now. Thus teams don’t need to overpay because there is a cheap army of “labor slaves” (pre arb guys) doing the job.
Anyone has realized most value comes pre 31th birthday or so so players need a way to get paid before they turn 31.
One thing players could do is shoot for higher AAV shorter deals. Maybe a 27 yo top free agent could sign a 5/200 contract. That way teams just have to pay one decline year or so. Sounds bad but it really isn’t.
Let’s use a 5 win base.
28:5
29:5
30:5
31:4.5
32:4
That is 23.5 wins and a value of 210 millions.
Now of you prefer more years but that isn’t really bad.
Teams should also be interested in that because that means no albatross contract.
I mean wouldn’t it be great to giv harper 8/380 instead of 13/500?
AAV is a little higher but you only have him through age 32 and not 38. That is a huge plus for a team but the luxury tax makes the higher aav harder.
I think in the future players won’t get signed past age 35 and once you are 32 it will be mostly 2-3 year contracts, maybe rarely 4. So players need to get paid before that.
I can’t imagine how you arrived at that progression for age 28-32, but it has no foundation in recent history. You expect a guy worth 5 WAR at 27 to yield 4.6 times that amount over 28-32? Recent returns are more like 2.7 times the base figure.
Realizing that MOST players are in decline by age 28 is just as important as knowing that most are worth little by age 35.
(Study of the 50 position players worth at least 3.0 bWAR at age 27 from 2007-12, all of whom have now completed age 32. That group averaged 4.8 bWAR at 27, and 13.0 over age 28-32, which is 2.7x the base rate, despite using 4.2x the base PAs. All but one played through age 32, and all but two got at least 1,500 PAs in those 5 years. Just 11 of those 50 produced at least 4x their base WAR over age 28-32; the median multiple was 2.4.)
No regression till age 30, from then on minus half a win per year. I think that is pretty much standard model.
Of course that is assuming player is a true talent 5 win player which is pretty rare.
Josh Donaldson says hi
I have no clue why you even bothered to write something
I may be an amateur, but I think my study is sound. So instead of citing “the standard model,” why not point out the flaw(s) in mine?
Again, I can’t imagine how anyone looking at baseball player performance of the last 10 years could arrive at a statement like “no regression till age 30.” What?!?
Lastly, can you please explain your last statement in terms of how it would change the selection pool of a study? What is the difference between a “true talent 5 win player” as measured at age 27, and one who merely happened to log 5 wins at that age?
True talent would mean that he actually is projected for 5 wins next year not having huge babip or hr fb luck.I usually use next year projection and not last year result to remove noise. If a
Players has 5 war while outperforming his xwoba by 30 points it is usually not real. players decline some before age 30 but it is only a little bit.
This article here states the 0.5 wins per year decline after age 30
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/the-beginners-guide-to-aging-curves/
And that idea of starting decline at 30 doesn’t jibe with the Jeff Zimmerman aging curve graph shown in that article. The graph shows 2006 to 2013 wRC+ aging curves beginning a steady decline at age 25/26. It’s hardly controversial to make the case that aging curves look different in the post-PED testing era.
I question the use of projections to form the base pool of a study, but never mind that.
There aren’t enough true-talent 5 WAR players to draw a statistically-significant aging curve in the post-PED era. So I tried with true-talent 4-WARs.
I took everyone who played all of 25-27 during 2003-12 who (a) averaged at least 4.0 bWAR per 650 PAs and (b) totaled at least 10 bWAR. That’s 37 guys.
— From 25-27, that group averaged 4.7 WAR and 605 PAs per year, for 5.1 WAR/650.
— From 28-32, they averaged 3.4 WAR and 544 PAs per year, for 4.0 WAR/650.
— Their total WAR for 28-32 was 3.6 times that of their 25-27 average.
— They averaged 3.4 WAR at 30, 2.9 at 31 and 2.5 at 32.
The curve you’re using can’t be justified.
At least one player seen as a truly top-tier, relatively young free agent has already done something similar via a contract with a player opt-out structure: Heyward. His deal with the Cubs pays him 3 / $78 million prior to his first opt-out and 5 / $106 million thereafter. It doesn’t really matter now that there looks to be basically zero chance that he exercises his opt-out, but the concept clearly is that he could get $26 million per year in the early years and then have the ability to do better than the $21.2 million AAV remaining on the final years of his contract.
One of the issues with this idea is that the teams signing the very top-end free agent deals tend to be near or over the luxury tax, so deals for fewer years at higher AAV aren’t as attractive for these teams as one might intuitively assume. That’s even more the case in the new CBA with additional surtax penalties for amounts $20 million over the tax and then a higher surtax on amounts $40 million over the tax.
I think that there are also more subtle aspects to why teams are OK with these structures over shorter-term but higher AAV contracts. Even when a free agent contract relatively speaking “works” for a team, there’s an understanding that the team will in essence underpay the player for current production in early years with an expectation of overpaying for current production in later years. That can in essence be a play on maximizing a contention window and trading away “later for now” value just like trading away prospects for major league players.
The players that have signed have done OK. Maybe a bit short on years by AAV as expected or higher. Of course the earlier signings tend to be on high side relative to market
Not many will be in on Harper or Machado next year. Donaldson will be too old for some, Keuchel too inconsistent for others. I think that the wait till next year meme is over blown.
Between BamTeks 50 million, national TV money, etc teams are flush with cash. 7 teams have not spent a dime. Went from 1.6 billion in 2014-2015 (1.8 billion Adj for payroll inflation) 2.4 billion 2.6 billion adj for PI) in 2015 -2016 to 1.4 billion (1.5 billion adj for PI ) in 2016-2017 to 600 million so far in 2017-2018. I reckon we have at least another 1 billion to be spent unless there is collusion
As players ramp up their workouts preparing for ST and reporting injuries, or ticket sales show stagnation, some teams will blink.
If not then Tony C just needs to start yelling collusion and talking tough to get MLB owners attention
If Tony C started yelling collusion, the owners would ignore him like they do on every other topic. The MLBPA really needs to get someone else to head it that’s a little more forceful and adept in labor negotiations.
PLEASE just stop with collusion. Maybe, just maybe, front offices are smarter. Each long term high dollar contract you name that worked and I’ll name 15 which didn’t.
Come on you didn’t have to bring my Angels into this!
A lot of teams have just stopped trying to win and that eliminates a lot of buyers creating a supply-demand imbalance
This is also a very mediocre group of candidates at suspect ages. Aging curves post-PED world are killing free agency
I think the salary cap issues may be a micro issue this year as well.
Having said that, there’s a ton of money in baseball so water will find it’s level
You can not beat the good old fashioned banquet TV dinner.
Well maybe,a 99.cent Pet-Ritz Banana Creme Pie!
Thanks for your opinion, Scott.
Eventually he’ll screw his clients. GM’s and ownership are getting smarter, they are assigning value to every player. Boras may not screw his players out of AAV, but he will screw them out of years. It’s only a matter of time.