Free Agents Ain't Free. A Mets Shopper's Guide

[duan]

how many of those deals would you claim on waivers?
Longoria, Pedroia, Tulo (ish), D Wright, Monlina, Carlos Gonzalez, Philips ?, McCutchen, Holliday, Bautista, Cabrera, Beltre, Justin Upton.

Would probably be where I'd be at.

[Frayed Knot]

duan wrote: how many of those deals would you claim on waivers? Longoria, Pedroia, Tulo (ish), D Wright, Monlina, Carlos Gonzalez, Philips ?, McCutchen, Holliday, Bautista, Cabrera, Beltre, Justin Upton. Would probably be where I'd be at.

As noted earlier, almost all of the most attractive ones are pre-FA contracts.

[Edgy MD]

I'd gobble up Longoria's deal like a hungry hippo.

[ashie62]

And move David to SS

[nymr83]

I'd take the Andrus deal too.

[Vic Sage]

updating my earlier post:

These are the guys I would take from that list, if i had to pay the balance of their contracts (at the average annual price) from this point forward. First, i would eliminate any deal that has me paying big money [15+M] to guys into their late 30s (37+), unless i'm also getting their prime years (27-33); and i eliminate any catcher over 30, or anybody with recent chronic drug or injury problems or already showing a steady decline, unless their avg salary is under $15m and there's only 1-2 years left: YES: ANTHONY RIZZO - Wow. Take this deal in a heartbeat. ADAM JONES - YES! ANDREW McCUTCHEN - Duh. JAY BRUCE - yup. MIGUEL CABRERA - the exception to every rule JUSTIN UPTON - coming into his prime. DAVID WRIGHT - too long, but we got his prime years, too, so i'm happy to keep the captain on board. So that's 6 of the 43 deals (plus Wright, whose deal i would not otherwise take). Not a great percentage.

I would now add the Freeman deal to this list, making it 8 out of 49 deals.

Of the rest: MAYBE: EVAN LONGORIA - too long, and injuries, but I would still get his prime years BUSTER POSEY - ditto, and good enough bat to switch positions later and extend his career ELVIS ANDRUS - young, right length, maybe a bit pricey. If you think he can play, take him. I'm not sure i do. RYAN ZIMMERMAN - injuries may force him off 3B; i don't know that his bat plays well enough at 1B STARLIN CASTRO - young, right length, right price. If you think he can play, take him. I'm pretty sure i don't, but not positive. ADRIAN GONZALEZ - a little too old, too long and too much, plus injuries, but i've always liked him. JOSE REYES - $20m/yr for 4 more years (even if you don't factor in the back-loaded contract) to end up with a 35-year old speedster who is already declining in SBs is high risk investment... but it's Reyes. CARLOS GONZALEZ - Only question is if he's a Coors Field mirage; he may be. MIGUEL MONTERO - injuries, borderline age for a C; maybe. BRANDON PHILLIPS & IAN KINSLER - 2 middle-aged 2bmen with good bats and gloves; both still cheap enough to consider (Kinsler is a bit younger and a few $ cheaper). NICK MARKAKIS - seems to be declining already, but for 2 years i'd take a shot at his price. ALEX RIOS - Only 1 year left; maybe

And i would Abreu to this list. We don't know enough about him yet, but it might end up a very good deal.

So there is another 10-15 borderline deals to consider, leaving about half of the total deals as outright NOs unless the other team ate huge parts of the contract and didn't want that much in return. Not a very good ratio, as far as i can tell.

Still true, with 8 yes and 14 borderline deals, making 22 out of 49 deals worth considering (27 being an outright NO). I wouldn't touch any of those other recent deals due to their length, player age, and avg salary. However, if i thought my team was one of those players away from winning a championship this year, i would reconsider.

[Frayed Knot]

So the list of ten-year deals for players age 30+ currently looks like this:
* ARod [signed at age 32] - Deal is a disaster and continues to get worse
* Pujols [signed one month prior to turning 32] - Deal started looking bad the very first season it was signed and still has 8 years to go
* Cano [signed just after turning 31] - Just signed so obviously no track record yet, but is there anyone out there who thinks this was a smart move?

And now it looks like we can add Miguel Cabrera to that pile as Detroit is on the verge of replacing the final two years of his existing deal (let me repeat that: he was already signed through his age 32 season) with a deal reportedly for ten-years and $292 million ... plus incentives (what, the deal itself isn't incentive enough?!?)
Miggy turns 31 in mid April - but at least he's in tip-top shape ... oh wait.
Well at least he brings secondary skills to the table in case his hitting slips ... oh wait.
OK, but it's not like he has a history of off-field drug or alcohol problems or anything ... ummmm.

[Vic Sage]

amazing. is it just arrogance? stupidity? or is there some financial modeling going on that shows the short-term gain (which is speculative) is worth the long-term deficit (which is definite) of these deals? Here, there isn't even short-term gain, since they had Miggy signed for 2 more years already.

There must be some BB economist out there who can explain to us why the successful businessmen who own teams continue to make such decisions despite them NEVER working out. I mean, nobody is SHOCKED by the Pujols situation, are they? Certainly the Cards aren't. He was already starting to plateau and decline when he signed the Angels deal; it was just that he was declining from such a height that he was still excellent. But his trajectory was already defined. How do you sign a guy like that to a 10-year deal at that price? or this guy, who is even less the athletic specimen than Pujols is.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Maybe they're counting on runaway inflation and a MLB revenue stream that doubles every three years.

[Edgy MD]

It is true that $29 million in 2014 won't be $29 million in 2023.

Wow! 2023!

What are the Red Sox and the Yankees going to be bidding for Mike Trout when they get half a chance? $45 million per season? $50 million?

[HahnSolo]

And to think the Tigers were getting praise just a few months ago for unloading a big contract.

[Frayed Knot]

... I mean, nobody is SHOCKED by the Pujols situation, are they? Certainly the Cards aren't.

The only thing shocking about Pujols (and 'shocking' probably isn't the right word here -- surprising maybe) is how quickly he fell. It certainly could have been reasonable for the Angles to figure on a couple of similar seasons to what he gave StL for a decade prior to start losing it in chunks. That it came quicker than expected (and maybe some was injury related and there'll be a partial bounce-back for, say, 2014-15) is what's making look so bad, so early, but even there you would have expected that to be a bigger red flag for the Tiggers not a signal to go and top it for a similar hitter with worse secondary skills only one year younger at the time of the contract.

[Edgy MD]

"Worse" is sort of generous. Pujols is a fine fielder and a really good baserunner even while not being particularly fast. The best I can say for Cabrera's defense is that he seems indifferent.

[Frayed Knot]

I was rushed for time and didn't want to type out: 'Totally Fucking Worse to the point where they barely represent the same species'.



Pujols pre (5 years) FA deal = .324/.423/.602 // 1025 -- 620 ABs/Yr
Pujols post (2 years) FA deal = .275/.338/.485 // 823 -- 499 ABs/Yr

ARod pre (5 years) FA deal = .302/.401/.578 // 979 -- 594 ABs/Yr
ARod post (6 Years) FA deal = .279/.369/.448 // 817 -- 411 ABs/Yr

[Vic Sage]

Frayed Knot wrote: I was rushed for time and didn't want to type out: 'Totally Fucking Worse to the point where they barely represent the same species'. Pujols pre (5 years) FA deal = .324/.423/.602 // 1025 -- 620 ABs/Yr Pujols post (2 years) FA deal = .275/.338/.485 // 823 -- 499 ABs/Yr ARod pre (5 years) FA deal = .302/.401/.578 // 979 -- 594 ABs/Yr ARod post (6 Years) FA deal = .279/.369/.448 // 817 -- 411 ABs/Yr

Yes, but if you look at Pujols' last year with St.L, you can see his decline already starting. He hit under .300, and with less than 100rbi, both for the first time in his career. It was still an excellent season for a mortal, with an OPS+ of 148, but that was also the lowest OPS+ he'd ever put up. At age 31, it was not hard to think the arrow may have begun to point down; certainly St.L was smart enough to realize it and they were unwilling to give him stupid long-term money even though he may have been their best player since Stan Musial, and could've been a similarly iconic lifer for the franchise. But that is why they are a consistently successful franchise; they looked at that and said no, Al, if you want a 10-year deal, go to Anaheim. And now he's the Angels' AL-batross.

[Frayed Knot]

Yes, but if you look at Pujols' last year with St.L, you can see his decline already starting. He hit under .300, and with less than 100rbi, both for the first time in his career. It was still an excellent season for a mortal, with an OPS+ of 148, but that was also the lowest OPS+ he'd ever put up. At age 31, it was not hard to think the arrow may have begun to point down; certainly St.L was smart enough to realize it and they were unwilling to give him stupid long-term money even though he may have been their best player since Stan Musial, and could've been a similarly iconic lifer for the franchise. But that is why they are a consistently successful franchise; they looked at that and said no, Al, if you want a 10-year deal, go to Anaheim. And now he's the Angels' AL-batross.

All true. My only point was that Pujols didn't merely continue his shallow decline of the previous few seasons upon hitting Anaheim, he fell off a fucking table relatively speaking.
And StL did offer him a big deal (I believe it was for eight years) so it's not like saw what was happening and knew it was time to get out of the Albert business entirely, they were just smart enough not to overboard in some kind of vain attempt to top what someone else was willing to do. Same could be said for the Yanx & Cano.
In Detroit's case though it's even worse as there was neither an outside bidder nor a time table that required them to do anything for at least 18 more months.

Weird.

[Zvon]

How are the Tiggers attendence numbers? Do they expect a bump at the gate due to this? I can't see how doing this now makes any sense at all.

[Frayed Knot]

I can't see how either current or projected attendance has anything to do with this; Cabrera was going to be there this year and next with or without a contract extension.
Essentially what the Tiggers are doing here is saying that the thought of possibly losing Cabrera after his age-32 season was so scary that they were willing to take a bet on him (two years before being forced to) still being worth top-flight hitter money for a good chunk of his age 34-40 seasons.

I don't think many would bet that way but, like they say, it only takes one.

[ashie62]

Pujols, Cano, Cabrera.. maybe these type of contracts are the new normal...

[Edgy MD]

Well, three out of 1,200 is a far cry from normal.

[Frayed Knot]

It didn't take more than a few minutes after the Cabrera deal was announced that speculation began about what this means for Mike Trout.
Well, it took less than 24 hours before we had an answer: 6 years / $144.5

Totally different situations of course; Trout won't turn 23 until August and while the Angels had control of him anyway for the next three seasons beyond this one (the deal goes into effect starting with the 2015 season) this buys out those three years of arbitration plus the first three years of FA-gency.
Trout was still pre-arb this year and will make an even $1mil. Next year he gets a slight raise up to just north of $24 million. He'll be eligible for FA the year he turns 29

Somewhere, Bryce Harper is smiling.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

And that's the bad part -- one horrible deal by one owner sets the market sets standards that the rest of the team has to live up to. How long before the average all-star commands $20 million?

[Frayed Knot]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: How long before the average all-star commands $20 million?

Y'know what, if the owners have the money -- and it certainly appears that they do -- then who cares?

OK it'll matter if and when either teams start to go out of business or fans start to stay away because they're priced out of their seats in order to pay for these contracts - but not only is neither happening right now (despite decades of dire predictions that such scenarios were just around the corner) but the trends for the most part are marching in exactly the opposite direction.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: How long before the average all-star commands $20 million? Y'know what, if the owners have the money -- and it certainly appears that they do -- then who cares? OK it'll matter if and when either teams start to go out of business or fans start to stay away because they're priced out of their seats in order to pay for these contracts - but not only is neither happening right now (despite decades of dire predictions that such scenarios were just around the corner) but the trends for the most part are marching in exactly the opposite direction.

Oh, we're paying for it. It's just in the cable bill not (just) the ticket prices.

The amount of money Verizon gets from me a month could probably pay a mortgage in some parts of the country.

[batmagadanleadoff]

In 1980, the Payson family sold the Mets -- the NYC NL franchise, ferchrissakes! -- for 21 million dollars. Last year, Johan Santana, inactive and past his prime even if healthy, made 25 million dollars in baseball salary alone -- and the NY Mets were valued at two billion dollars in a Bloomberg Report. So yeah -- things keep going up. And MLB will continue to explore new untapped revenue streams, including expanding PAY TV, pay internet and international expansion. They'll put a Major League Baseball franchise on a mountaintop in Afghanistan if their money guys tell them that the move'll make boffo money. They'll also put more American cities into baseball and more teams into the playoffs. Whatever it takes to make more $$, and they won't give a shit if MLB starts to resemble the NHL a little bit.

The NYT $$ article I posted yesterday in the Finance thread stated that the Mets ability to acquire Free agents was improved because every team received an additional many millions more from MLB's new TV contract. I don't agree with that reasoning because increasing the money supply without increasing the quantity of available goods will only raise prices (salaries here). If the Mets are getting an additional $20M, then so is every other team. So where's the competitive advantage? This'll help the players more than the teams. If you wanna lower salaries, increase the number of quality free agents available (goods) instead of the money supply. Because if everyone was a millionaire, you'd need 10 million dollars to buy a starter home in an average neighborhood.

[Frayed Knot]

Oh, we're paying for it. It's just in the cable bill not (just) the ticket prices.

Of course we're paying for it (in one form or another).
The point is that baseball fans have proven themselves to be quite willing to pay for it* and until they show otherwise this conversation of 'I can't believe how much Player X is getting' hasn't changed since the favored complaints were about how criminal it was that backup infielders were making 50K.





* something which has to be a surprise for those at ESPN who keep telling me that the set of baseball fans in America now is down to Bob Costas, George Will, plus seven or eight guys in a nursing home somewhere, and despite the fact that their network just re-upped a deal with MLB for double the money they were previously paying

[Edgy MD]

With this much value flying around (and yes, value due to people paying lots of $$ for their beisbol), it's amazing the independent leagues don't just say, "Fuck it" and start parking teams in these ridiculous exclusive territories MLB is declaring for themselves.

When the St. Paul Saints outdrew the Twins one dark year, it should have been a rallying cry. Instead it's this quaint novelty. It in fact helped MLB soak municipalities for more free ballpark money.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Oh, we're paying for it. It's just in the cable bill not (just) the ticket prices. Of course we're paying for it (in one form or another). The point is that baseball fans have proven themselves to be quite willing to pay for it* and until they show otherwise this conversation of 'I can't believe how much Player X is getting' hasn't changed since the favored complaints were about how criminal it was that backup infielders were making 50K. * something which has to be a surprise for those at ESPN who keep telling me that the set of baseball fans in America now is down to Bob Costas, George Will, plus seven or eight guys in a nursing home somewhere, and despite the fact that their network just re-upped a deal with MLB for double the money they were previously paying

Because we haven't actually been priced out, at least in part because of cable deals. Without which, would prices for seats reach NFL/NBA levels?

[Edgy MD]

Which "why" is your "because" in response to? Because I'm not following.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Which "why" is your "because" in response to? Because I'm not following.

why fans have shown they're willing to pay for it?

Because we haven't been priced out.

Why? because a lot of the onus is on the cable companies and spread among many customers, some of who doesn't even watch baseball.

Because cable deals are paying teams huge amounts of money.

Why? Because the sport is thriving and fans are watching.

Because baseball is awesome.