2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[harmony]

No, but the author of the article is from Seattle.

Connor Byrne is a freelance writer and editor who has written for various online outlets, most recently joining the MLBTR writing staff in March 2016. He has also written for one of MLBTR’s sister sites, Pro Football Rumors, since February 2015. The Buffalo, NY, native attended St. Bonaventure University, where he studied both journalism and English, and has been a die-hard baseball fan since early childhood. Connor’s playing days ended in his mid-teens after it became painfully obvious he was not, in fact, the next Pedro Martinez or David Cone – his favorite starting pitchers growing up – but he has been perfectly content to continue following the sport on a daily basis since. Nowadays, he’s ecstatic that he has the privilege to combine two of his longtime passions, writing and baseball, as a member of the MLBTR team.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/meet-the-mlbtr-writing-team.html

[mvp 78]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/meet-the-mlbtr-writing-team.html

 

My google search failed me.

 

It'd be easier if Mr Byrne had a twitter account.

[Bellhorn04]

On the topic of lapdogs, did Logan Morrison's agent write that piece for MLB Trade Rumors?

 

Morrison having apparently drawn such little interest seems to me one of the possible signs that something is amiss this offseason.

[mvp 78]

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-payroll-might-decrease-for-first-time-in-long-time/

 

All of the theories about why free agency is slow are probably right. There aren’t enough teams in competitive situations; teams at the top are secure, while teams at the bottom have little reason to spend. The players in this market certainly have flaws. The new CBA has emphasized the benefits of getting under the competitive-balance tax and two massive spenders are doing it simultaneously. Maybe teams have gotten a little bit smarter. Maybe Scott Boras is still going to get owners to bid against themselves at some point. Theories are boundless, but the results are pretty close to being in. The players are about to have stagnant, at best, payroll numbers next year at a time when owners are making greater profits than ever. That’s a pretty bad look for baseball.

[moonslav59]

Morrison having apparently drawn such little interest seems to me one of the possible signs that something is amiss this offseason.

 

One season wonders often are overlooked by GMs.

 

There is a glut of 1Bmen in MLB these days. There are several 1Bmen on the market, still (Hosmer, Duda...) What teams are in great need of a 1Bman?

[mvp 78]

https://www.baseballamerica.com/columnists/tank-tax-push-teams-try-harder/#Q0lv8QrEjvdTsvQM.97

 

The ‘Tank Tax’ Could Push Teams To Try Harder

 

When the 2018 season begins, roughly one-third of major league teams will be in the early or middle stages of rebuilds.

 

Baseball is a copycat league. And when we're coming off a stretch where the previous three World Series champions won after complete teardowns that led to woeful big league play, it's understandable other teams have tried to replicate that formula.

 

The current system's relatively fixed draft slots provide a benefit for the worst big leagues teams. Before the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, the difference between picking first and third, fourth or fifth was relatively modest. Every now and then a Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburg came along and made it extremely valuable to pick No. 1 overall but in other years, where there was no clear-cut No. 1 pick, the ability of each team to spend whatever they wanted in the draft meant top talents often waited to hear their names called-three of the top 10 bonuses in the 2010 draft came on players picked 28th or later. Nowadays, teams know their draft spending is fixed by their spot in the draft.

 

Front offices and owners have learned that selling hope and the future (and saving tons on payroll) is a better promotional appeal than trying to entice a fan base by adding a couple of mid-level free agents to a downtrodden team.

 

It's hard to find anyone in baseball who believes the current system is ideal for the health of the game, but general managers don't win contract extensions by making decisions that help the game overall. If you want to fix the system, you have to change the incentives so that it is preferable to win 75 or 80 games than 65.

 

Baseball could adopt a lottery for the draft, where the team with the worst record would no longer be guaranteed the top pick. Depending on how the ping pong ball bounces, a team with the 10th worst record could end up picking No. 1, although the lottery is weighted so that the worst teams have the best chances of picking at the top of the draft.

 

That's the approach the NBA has taken for decades. And if you've followed the NBA at all, you might notice that it has done very little to keep teams from punting multiple seasons (or in the 76ers case, close to half a decade). It's not that unusual to see an NBA team win less than 20 percent of its games. A lottery doesn't do much to prevent teams from tanking.

 

Another option proposed is to adopt a salary floor, something the Major League Baseball Players Association has opposed in the past. The idea is that by ensuring teams spend a minimum amount at the big league level, more veteran players will receive contracts and no team will be able to cut payroll to the bare minimum.

 

But a salary floor doesn't add any incentive to win. The same current structure would exist where rebuilding teams would have every reason to try to race to the bottom of the standings and the top of the draft. The only difference it would likely make is to make it much more likely that tanking teams would take on awful contracts (to reach the salary floor) while getting paid in prospects for taking the unproductive player. Imagine Jacoby Ellsbury heading to Miami with multiple quality prospects in exchange for a low level fringe prospect. The Yankees would get some breathing room under the luxury tax while the Marlins would edge just over the salary floor.

 

If the goal is to eliminate the incentives that entice a team to be terrible at the big league level for a number of years, you have to create incentives for not being awful, or disincentives that punish teams for being putrid.

 

So that's why I propose the tank tax.

 

It's relatively simple. The same draft system continues to exist. The worst team picks first, the second worst picks second, etc., with one caveat: any team that fails to win 70 games in back-to-back seasons faces a 10-spot draft penalty.

 

Have one awful season (like the Giants and Tigers 64-win teams in 2017) and your club reaps the benefits of having the top picks in the draft and the larger draft bonus pool that comes with it. But if a team wins 60-something games two years in a row, they pay the penalty. Instead of drafting first again, that team would draft 11th.

 

And the penalty escalates. Win less than 70 games three seasons in a row and it's a 15-spot draft penalty. Four straight seasons with less than 70 victories and the team pays a 20-spot draft penalty. Twenty spots would the be maximum penalty, so a fanbase unfortunate enough to suffer through five straight seasons of 93 or more losses would see their team face another 20-spot penalty.

 

But much like the luxury tax, the penalty resets anytime a team wins 70 or more games. What this would do is still allow rebuilding teams to garner better draft picks than successful teams, but much like relegation in soccer, it would also give them reasons to care about winning at the big league level.

 

Look at the currently rebuilding team like the Reds or the Tigers. Under the current system, neither team has much incentive to spend in 2018 to improve the big league club unless they see a clear path to 85 wins or more (and a potential playoff spot).

 

If the roster doesn't look ready to do that, it makes more sense to save money on payroll, try out a series of young, less-proven players and reap the benefits of another top draft pick next year.

 

But with the tank tax in place, both teams would have reason to add a free agent or two to try to ensure that they get to 70 wins. The same incentives would apply during the season. A team facing the potential penalty would have every reason to try to win in September, as a three-game winning streak could be the difference between picking fourth or 14th. Instead of rewarding failure, the system would reward (admittedly, very modest) success.

 

The 70-win threshold is a suggestion. Maybe it's too lax (75 wins would create a much stronger incentive for competitiveness, but would also be a much more difficult bar to clear). Maybe it’s a little too strict. The same is true about the 10-spot penalty. All of this is negotiable.

 

But whatever the exact details, the core idea remains the same. By creating incentives for winning, more teams will try--to the benefits of fans and baseball as a whole. More teams will also spend in the offseason to genuinely try to improve, which helps veteran players potentially. And it will add another reason to care when a fourth-place team faces a fifth-place team in an otherwise sleepy September series.

 

So how much effect would it have had? Of the 240 team seasons from 2010-2017, 44 times (18 percent) a team has won less than 70 games. Without the rule, there have been 10 teams this decade would have triggered the penalty. The Reds (2015-2017), Twins (2011-2013) and Astros (2011-2013) are the only teams that won less than 70 games three years in a row and would have faced the larger two-time offender penalty. The Orioles, Braves, Athletics, Mariners, Marlins, Rockies and Cubs would have triggered the tank tax once.

 

If the rule was in place, it likely would have given several of those teams the incentive to win more. The Orioles, Reds, Rockies, Marlins and A's all finished with 68 or 69 wins in one of their “tank tax” triggering seasons.

 

Teams would still rebuild with a tank tax in place, and some would be ensnared by the penalties. But if you want to creative incentives for teams in the baseball to try harder, it’s a pretty simple tweak that could spur teams to win more now while still focusing on the future.

 

I don't really know if I agree with this idea, but an NBA style draft wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. At least anti-tanking measures would seem to make September baseball more competitive, but I'm not sure that's really been an issue recently.

[Kimmi]

All well and good Kimmi.

 

But MLB is indeed a monopoly. History proves this.

 

For the draftees and the team controlled players, I can see that.

 

For the free agents, I don't see MLB as a monopoly.

[Natick to NC]

No not at all he plays multiple positions and may be a passable 1b ? Love to get him back here .I think there are plenty of at bats just no full time role .Responding about Nunez return .

[Bellhorn04]

For the draftees and the team controlled players, I can see that.

 

For the free agents, I don't see MLB as a monopoly.

 

For the free agents it's not a 100% monopoly, but the number of potential employers is tiny compared to most jobs.

 

And this offseason it seems like there are no potential employers at all for a lot of players.

 

I can't blame them for being concerned about the situation.

[Spudboy]

For the draftees and the team controlled players, I can see that.

 

For the free agents, I don't see MLB as a monopoly.

 

Oye. A Monopoly is a monopoly. There is no gray area here.

 

Are things better for some players than they were before the Anti-trust was tested? Yes.

 

However MLB still enjoys a monopoly.

[notin]

Oye. A Monopoly is a monopoly. There is no gray area here.

 

Are things better for some players than they were before the Anti-trust was tested? Yes.

 

However MLB still enjoys a monopoly.

 

It's not a monopoly.

 

To fans, it's one source of entertainment to spend your cash on. To players, it's not the only league; just the highest paying one...

[Spudboy]

"The United States currently has antitrust laws in order to prevent businesses from monopolizing a given market. However, throughout its history, major league baseball has monopolized the baseball market, preventing upstart competitors from ever really getting off the ground. And the Supreme Court has upheld MLB’s right to their monopoly several times. In many ways, major league baseball is the only true monopoly in the United States, and has been since its inception."

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s

 

 

I have not read this essay. However I did wright a paper on the subject while at Cornell in 1973. "The History Of Anti-trust In Baseball".

 

Anyone here can say whatever they want. Facts are facts.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Spudboy

[Natick to NC]

Frazier for peanuts to the mets 2 years 17 mill 500 k SB.....so I'm saying now we get Nunez. Back and within 24 hours . Edited February 6, 2018 by Natick to NC

[moonslav59]

Frazier for peanuts to the mets 2 years 17 mill 500 k SB

 

He's been in serious decline and is getting old.

 

BA: .273> .255> .225> ,213

 

SLG: .498> .454> .428

 

OPS+ 121> 117> 107> 105

 

The .344 OBP in 2017 was a career best and possibly an outlier.

 

He turns 32 next week.

 

It's not a bad signing, but there's too much downside risk.

 

At least his defense seems to be holding up nicely.

[harmony]

He's been in serious decline and is getting old.

 

BA: .273> .255> .225> ,213

 

SLG: .498> .454> .428

 

OPS+ 121> 117> 107> 105

 

The .344 OBP in 2017 was a career best and possibly an outlier.

 

He turns 32 next week.

 

It's not a bad signing, but there's too much downside risk.

 

At least his defense seems to be holding up nicely.

Todd Frazier is projected to post 2.3 to 2.5 WAR in 2018 after posting 20.5 fWAR over the past six seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=785&position=3B

 

J.D. Martinez is projected to post 2.3 to 2.7 WAR in 2018 after posting 14.6 fWAR over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6184&position=OF

 

Frazier posted 14.8 fWAR over the past four seasons.

 

It's interesting to compare the lines for Frazier and Martinez over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2017&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=5,d

 

Perhaps most remarkable is the 94-point difference in BABIP (.264 for Frazier and .358 for Martinez) rather than Frazier's narrow edge in home runs.

 

Frazier, who is only 18 months older than Martinez, has remained healthier, averaging 154 games a year over the past five seasons.

Edited February 6, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

Todd Frazier is projected to post 2.3 to 2.5 WAR in 2018 after posting 20.5 fWAR over the past six seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=785&position=3B

 

J.D. Martinez is projected to post 2.3 to 2.7 WAR in 2018 after posting 14.6 fWAR over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6184&position=OF

 

Frazier posted 14.8 fWAR over the past four seasons.

 

So, based on your chosen methodology, you'd call them even,

[harmony]

So, based on your chosen methodology, you'd call them even,

My gut tells me Todd Frazier is undervalued ... I won't go beyond that.

 

FanGraphs offers its take on the Todd Frazier signing:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-add-todd-frazier-at-bargain-price/

 

This offseason I have yet to cite the Marcel projections, which give Martinez this edge over Frazier in hitting:

 

TF 555 PA, 71 R, 29 HR, 75 RBI, 8 SB, .230/.319/.462/.781

JM 496 PA, 73 R, 31 HR, 81 RBI, 3 SB, .290/.358/.570/.928

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/frazito01.shtml

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martijd02.shtml

Edited February 6, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

My gut tells me Todd Frazier is undervalued ... I won't go beyond that.

 

FanGraphs offers its take on the Todd Frazier signing:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-add-todd-frazier-at-bargain-price/

 

One thing that always bugged me about Frazier was his late season swoons:

 

Career:

April, May & June all above .805

July, Aug, Sept all below .760

 

1st half: .825

2nd half .727

 

Post season .561 (58 PAs)

 

 

 

[notin]

 

It's interesting to compare the lines for Frazier and Martinez over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2017&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=5,d

 

Perhaps most remarkable is the 94-point difference in BABIP (.264 for Frazier and .358 for Martinez) rather than Frazier's narrow edge in home runs.

 

Frazier, who is only 18 months older than Martinez, has remained healthier, averaging 154 games a year over the past five seasons.

 

Frazier's defensive superiority will give him better fWAR than Martinez, but won't help the Sox at DH...

[notin]

One thing that always bugged me about Frazier was his late season swoons:

 

Career:

April, May & June all above .805

July, Aug, Sept all below .760

 

1st half: .825

2nd half .727

 

Post season .561 (58 PAs)

 

 

 

 

Or his last two seasons in general. Reportedly he modified his approach at the plate to take advantage of launch angle and exit velocity Stat Cast data. In the process he traded BA and OBP for home runs...

[Bellhorn04]

"The United States currently has antitrust laws in order to prevent businesses from monopolizing a given market. However, throughout its history, major league baseball has monopolized the baseball market, preventing upstart competitors from ever really getting off the ground. And the Supreme Court has upheld MLB’s right to their monopoly several times. In many ways, major league baseball is the only true monopoly in the United States, and has been since its inception."

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s

 

 

I have not read this essay. However I did right a paper on the subject while at Cornell in 1973. "The History Of Anti-trust In Baseball".

 

Anyone here can say whatever they want. Facts are facts.

 

I believe you're 100% correct spud. We can look at it however we want, but the American legal system has deemed it to be a monopoly.

[Natick to NC]

Todd is a country strong low average high power pull hitter and very good glove he's a very good get by the mets and would have been welcomed here .I love the guys attitude the glove the teammate the power he gives and he can play 1st and 3rd .I personally would have much rather picked up Todd bs Mitch ....but he comes with a low average sure .

[moonslav59]

Or his last two seasons in general. Reportedly he modified his approach at the plate to take advantage of launch angle and exit velocity Stat Cast data. In the process he traded BA and OBP for home runs...

 

He had his highest OBP of his career. He did not trade OBP for HRs. He may have traded BA for HRs, though.

[moonslav59]

Frazier's defensive superiority will give him better fWAR than Martinez, but won't help the Sox at DH...

 

Unless, they moved Devers to DH and let Frazier play 3B.

[harmony]

Frazier's defensive superiority will give him better fWAR than Martinez, but won't help the Sox at DH...

But Todd Frazier at third, Mitch Moreland at first, Rafael Devers at DH and Hanley Ramirez as a non-vesting backup would have improved the Red Sox defensively.

Edited February 6, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

But Todd Frazier at third, Mitch Moreland at first, Rafael Devers at DH and Hanley Ramirez as backup would have improved the Red Sox defensively.

 

Frazier is very good vs LHPs, as is HRam (except for 2017).

 

Moreland and Devers bat lefty.

 

3 positions: 4 players.

 

HRam & Frazier hit vs all lefties.

Moreland & Devers vs all righties.

 

HRam or Frazier play vs some RHPs.

Devers vs almost all LHPs.

[mvp 78]

I'm not going to cry that Frazier went somewhere else. If the Sox signed him instead of JD, it would have been very underwhelming.

[oldtimer]

Todd Frazier is projected to post 2.3 to 2.5 WAR in 2018 after posting 20.5 fWAR over the past six seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=785&position=3B

 

J.D. Martinez is projected to post 2.3 to 2.7 WAR in 2018 after posting 14.6 fWAR over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6184&position=OF

 

Frazier posted 14.8 fWAR over the past four seasons.

 

It's interesting to compare the lines for Frazier and Martinez over the past four seasons:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2017&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=5,d

 

Perhaps most remarkable is the 94-point difference in BABIP (.264 for Frazier and .358 for Martinez) rather than Frazier's narrow edge in home runs.

 

Frazier, who is only 18 months older than Martinez, has remained healthier, averaging 154 games a year over the past five seasons.

 

At 2 years and $17.5 mil total, that seems like a reasonable signing and further sets the tone of the market for older FA sluggers.

[harmony]

I'm not going to cry that Frazier went somewhere else. If the Sox signed him instead of JD, it would have been very underwhelming.

Todd Frazier may have had no interest in the Red Sox. Or vice versa.

 

But the public is obsessed with lists: the top free agents, the top universities, the top travel destinations.

 

In the eye of the public, the entity at the top of the list immediately becomes worth two or three times the worth of the entity ranked 10th when in fact the drop-off is less drastic.

[moonslav59]

I'm not going to cry that Frazier went somewhere else. If the Sox signed him instead of JD, it would have been very underwhelming.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm glad we did not sign Frazier, and would still be, if we miss out on JD.

 

I'd rather have Moose, LoMo or Duda.