Offseason Discussion-2013 Edition

[Robotech]

Shocking numbers until you see what his previous contract was like.

For as many times as he's been shaky, he seems to come up big in big moments.

+ can pitch to LH and RH
+ gets groundballs
+ can pitch more than 1 inning
+ can sub in as closer
+ (from all accounts) clubhouse glue guy

just need to add a freak injury clause in his contract

3 yrs/18 million is a deal nowadays after seeing what Brandon League got. Damn Dodgers!

 

[gp956]

I saw that. It seems like an overpay, but I was swayed by someone's comment that you can't replace Affeldt with one player because of his ability to pitch to both left-handed at right-handed batters.

Many writers have claimed that the old CBA hurt the non-closer reliever market. It's looking like they were correct.

 

[filosofy29]

It made zero sense, unless as stated by El Malo, there is something we don't know. I don't think that any team should take the approach of not making a QO as a favor to a player or as enticement to future FA's. Baseball's a business and you have to do what is best for the team. Passing on making a QO on Pagan seems to be not in the team's best interests. Assuming that the market for him is as strong as has been rumored, I think we just have to let him walk because we can't afford to overpay him.

Agreed with all of the bold. Even players say "it's just a business" when things like this happen. I was more just thinking out loud than proclaiming for or against it as a way to do business. Like I said afterwards in my post, I'm confused too (which admittedly isn't hard to do).

Many writers have claimed that the old CBA hurt the non-closer reliever market. It's looking like they were correct.

lol. On an unrelated note, what's your opinion on the non-QO to Pagan gp?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Interesting. Although I was thinking only about the pick a team would have to forfeit, the compensation a team receives is not contingent on that player signing with another team. I did not know that.

I don't think that's right. I think the comp pick is awarded only if the FA signs with another team. If he tears his ACL playing basketball in November and doesn't sign by the '13 draft, the original club gets no pick.

Again, assuming the deadline is the next draft. It may be earlier.

The wording is very unclear. Although I have the (supposed) full text of the previous two CBA's (from mlb.com), for 2011 they only posted a "summary", which was supposed to outline the changes, so the wording in the actual agreement isn't available. And the summary wording sucks. The full text concerning in the summary about the new draft pick compensation is:

2. The current system of draft pick compensation will be replaced with the following system:
A. Only Players who have been with their Clubs for the entire season will be subject to compensation.

B. A free agent will be subject to compensation if his former Club offers him a guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the 125-highest paid Players from the prior season. The offer must be made at the end of the five-day free agent “quiet period,” and the Player will have seven days to accept the offer.

C. A Club that signs a player subject to compensation will forfeit its first round selection, unless it selects in the top 10, in which case it will forfeit its second- highest selection in the draft.

D. The Player’s former Club will receive a selection at the end of the first round beginning after the last regularly scheduled selection in the round. The former Clubs will select based on reverse order of winning percentage from the prior championship season.

Due to the wording and the ordering of this summary, both positions can be argued. One could argue (based on the above wording in {B} above) that a club gets the compensation just by making the offer even if he accepts it, OR that they get the compensation if he refuses and later signs with the same team (but they'd lose their 1st round pick)! (It would be an extreme interpretation and I doubt that is correct, but the wording above really is vague.)

- Does a team have to sign him to get the pick, IF he isn't signed by draft day? One could argue yes, because the team LOST the player and made the qualifying offer, it isn't the team's fault that *the player* couldn't agree to a contract. One could also argue no.
- If the new rule is "yes, he must sign to get a pick", can the pick "expire" if he isn't signed by draft day? Or does it roll over to next year (just once), similar to the "didn't sign a round 1 or 2 draft pick, so you get pick+1 in the next draft, one time only" rule they added a few years ago?

Who knows? I would love to hear a clarification of this from either mlb.com or the players association (or both). A great question for BA or BP or ESPN or CSN sports writers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Many writers have claimed that the old CBA hurt the non-closer reliever market. It's looking like they were correct.

I think that all non-star FAs are going to get higher salary than they would have last year, because of the change to compensation pick rules.

By having to offer an average of the top 125 salaries ($13.3M this year), combined with the fact the the the team losing the player only gets a compensation round pick (instead of the signing team's "lost" draft pick AND maybe a pick in the comp round) that pretty much guarantees that only the best prospective free agents will get qualifying offers. The number of compensation draft picks is going to be significantly down, and since teams will no longer lose early draft picks for signing (upper) "mid-level" guys, their salary will go up.

 

[filosofy29]

Mariners claim fuckfaced-asshole.

 

[Robotech]

Mariners claim fuckfaced-asshole.

I'm sure all AL West catchers took note of that.

 

[gp956]

I think that all non-star FAs are going to get higher salary than they would have last year, because of the change to compensation pick rules.

By having to offer an average of the top 125 salaries ($13.3M this year), combined with the fact the the the team losing the player only gets a compensation round pick (instead of the signing team's "lost" draft pick AND maybe a pick in the comp round) that pretty much guarantees that only the best prospective free agents will get qualifying offers. The number of compensation draft picks is going to be significantly down, and since teams will no longer lose early draft picks for signing (upper) "mid-level" guys, their salary will go up.

Sounds right. As for the reliever market specifically, I was thinking of this type of thing:

 

[gp956]

Agreed with all of the bold. Even players say "it's just a business" when things like this happen. I was more just thinking out loud than proclaiming for or against it as a way to do business. Like I said afterwards in my post, I'm confused too (which admittedly isn't hard to do).



lol. On an unrelated note, what's your opinion on the non-QO to Pagan gp?

The Giants are employing a reciprocity tactic, perhaps. Or there's a chance the league has discouraged the use of the QO system solely for the purposes of compensation. I can envision a future arbiter deciding the FA market is under compensated by pointing to QO made to players hitting FA whose performance expectation are clearly less than the average of the top 125 contracts. Sure, the league can counter by pointing to the value of the draft pick (and that's really what the team was after), but then they are relying on a third party understanding their internal value system.

 

[tzill]

Sorry, I'm trying to get it, but I can't.

Five FAs left: Leche, Moped, Oxy, Riot, Weez.

 

[Robotech]

Five FAs left: Leche, Moped, Oxy, Riot, Weez.

Ah, thanks. I'm glad Affeldt is coming back. I think we'll be outbid for Leche and Oxy, but there should be no problem bringing back the other guys. I guess the question is who will be our LF and CF next season.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Two interesting "draft" side-effects of the new CBA :

- there could be less than 30 picks in the first round for the first time in a long, long time. If all of the guys that received QOs sign with other teams (besides Ortiz), then 7 or 8 picks will be removed from the first round and added to the supplemental round. I don't know how many "carry over" picks from 2012 there are off the top of my head (Mark Appel comes to mind), but there's a good chance there are fewer than 7.

- A team may choose to use their "early" 1st round pick to over-draft a player (they don't like any of the "best player available" choices at that point) because they have a handshake agreement for lower than slot already in place, and then they can use that "saved" money to sign later picks that have "slipped". Saving $2-3M on the first pick is a lot of dough to use in the later rounds.

 

[filosofy29]

Affeldt's official 3 years $18M.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

$6M per is a bit much but I am happy Affeldt is back.
Now lets get Scutaro back

 

[sfsportsfan]

and some of you said 3 years was too many. suck it!


hahaha.

 

[gp956]

and some of you said 3 years was too many. suck it!


hahaha.

Ha! And I was just thinking three years is one year too many. Fucking Sabean is the worst GM in baseball.

 

[calsnowskier]

Ha! And I was just thinking three years is one year too many. Fucking Sabean is the worst GM in baseball.

This contract will end up being discussed along sides Zito and Rowwand.

Mark my words!!

 

[tzill]

Ha! And I was just thinking three years is one year too many. Fucking Sabean is the worst GM in baseball.

Yeah....what a JA!!

He shouldof given that monee to MijarEZ.

AI YAI YAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stokes1931]

Yeah....what a JA!!

He shouldof given that monee to MijarEZ.

AI YAI YAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just knew that Tito was one of your alts...... :eek2:

 

[SFGRTB]

Ultra trade in talks, Marlins trading Josh Johnson, Jose Reyes, Emilio Bonafacio, John Buck and Mark Buehrle to the Blue Jays for Yunell Escobar, Adeiny Hechavarria, Henderson Alvarez, Justin Nicolino, Jake Marisnick, Jeff Mathis, Anthony DeSclafani.

I knew the Marlins weren't serious last year. Literally traded away all the guys they signed.