A Realistic View at 2018: Part II

[moonslav59]

Name a top RP'er who got peanuts.

 

This past winter....

$52M/3 Wade Davis

$21M/2 B Morrow

$27M/3 Jake McGee

$27M/3 Brian Shaw

 

Last year...

$86M/5 Chapman

$80M/5 K Jansen

 

 

 

[notin]

Name a top RP'er who got peanuts.

 

This past winter....

$52M/3 Wade Davis

$21M/2 B Morrow

$27M/3 Jake McGee

$27M/3 Brian Shaw

 

Last year...

$86M/5 Chapman

$80M/5 K Jansen

 

 

 

 

Even the setup guys were pulling down $7-8mill this past offseason. Imagine, you could only get 3 set up guys for the cost of JD Martinez...

[moonslav59]

Even the setup guys were pulling down $7-8mill this past offseason. Imagine, you could only get 3 set up guys for the cost of JD Martinez...

 

I certainly would not trade JD for 3 from that list!

[Kimmi]

Unless they have a good fallback plan, they better not let him walk.

 

If it's going to take more than 3 years to sign him, they have to let him walk.

[Kimmi]

Only Kimmi approves. Did I just say that?

 

If it were up to me, I'd offer him 2 years.

 

I'd be willing (grudgingly) to give him 3.

[moonslav59]

At least we can offer him a QO and reap the meager benefit.

[FredLynn]

Name a top RP'er who got peanuts.

 

This past winter....

$52M/3 Wade Davis

$21M/2 B Morrow

$27M/3 Jake McGee

$27M/3 Brian Shaw

 

Last year...

$86M/5 Chapman

$80M/5 K Jansen

 

 

 

 

Last winter is when it really started where some of the top players waited forever and didn't get what they expected. Kimbrel will make a lot of money, no doubt. But LAST year (not the year before that) I see that the guys you cited got three year deals. I am fine with signing Kimbrel for three years, but no longer than that. My guess is that given the overall climate this past winter most GMs are going to be more reluctant than in previous years to give out big long term contracts to anyone. Why would they do otherwise?

[moonslav59]

Last winter is when it really started where some of the top players waited forever and didn't get what they expected. Kimbrel will make a lot of money, no doubt. But LAST year (not the year before that) I see that the guys you cited got three year deals. I am fine with signing Kimbrel for three years, but no longer than that. My guess is that given the overall climate this past winter most GMs are going to be more reluctant than in previous years to give out big long term contracts to anyone. Why would they do otherwise?

 

The guys I cited aren't even close to the same class as Kimbrel- all but Davis weren't even closers..

 

Davis had been hurt and had a 3 year history of greatness.

 

If Davis gets $53M/3, Kimbrel gets $95M/5. Book it.

[notin]

The guys I cited aren't even close to the same class as Kimbrel- all but Davis weren't even closers..

 

Davis had been hurt and had a 3 year history of greatness.

 

If Davis gets $53M/3, Kimbrel gets $95M/5. Book it.

 

Let him get it elsewhere

[moonslav59]

Let him get it elsewhere

 

Agreed. I'd love to have Kimbrel back, but no way I offer even $85M/5, let alone the $95M/5 I think he gets.

 

Would I offer $57 to 60M/3? Close call, but probably no.

 

It's too much for any closer.

[FredLynn]

The guys I cited aren't even close to the same class as Kimbrel- all but Davis weren't even closers..

 

Davis had been hurt and had a 3 year history of greatness.

 

If Davis gets $53M/3, Kimbrel gets $95M/5. Book it.

 

I guess time will tell. It wouldn't surprise me if the owners stonewalled the players like last year. They are not stupid (ok, some are). They know what we know: the RPs are notoriously inconsistent. I would not offer Kimbrel more than 3 years or 4 if the money didn't break the bank.

[Bellhorn04]

Davis had been hurt and had a 3 year history of greatness.

 

If Davis gets $53M/3, Kimbrel gets $95M/5. Book it.

 

But Davis is not having a good season. He's more of a cautionary tale than an inspiration to go in big on a closer.

[notin]

But Davis is not having a good season. He's more of a cautionary tale than an inspiration to go in big on a closer.

 

Most big money free agents are cautionary tales...

Edited September 14, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

But Davis is not having a good season. He's more of a cautionary tale than an inspiration to go in big on a closer.

 

Why the "but?" I'm not for spending big on a closer. No "cautionary tale" needed with me.

 

It's not just relief pitchers, but most big signings fail or are a disaster. With the fickleness found with almost all RP'ers, even more reason to pass on Kimbrel.

 

[Larry Cook]

Why the "but?" I'm not for spending big on a closer. No "cautionary tale" needed with me.

 

It's not just relief pitchers, but most big signings fail or are a disaster. With the fickleness found with almost all RP'ers, even more reason to pass on Kimbrel.

 

 

I agree with what you said earlier. We give Kimbrel a qo and if he stays a year, great. The kid from tcu we drafted will be ready for 2020.

 

If he leaves, we sign Herrera and hope he has one good year in him.

[notin]

Why the "but?" I'm not for spending big on a closer. No "cautionary tale" needed with me.

 

It's not just relief pitchers, but most big signings fail or are a disaster. With the fickleness found with almost all RP'ers, even more reason to pass on Kimbrel.

 

 

I’d rather spend free agent dollars on a closer than an elite starting pitcher. Closers typically accept shorter deals..

[moonslav59]

I’d rather spend free agent dollars on a closer than an elite starting pitcher. Closers typically accept shorter deals..

 

While true, there are more choices than spending big on either a SP'er or a closer.

 

I may be wrong about Kimbrel getting the biggest/longest RP'er contract of all time, but even if I'm wrong, he's going to be grossly overpaid.

 

I'm fine with overpays. They are needed some times, but not for a RP'er. He's certainly going to get 4 years, if I'm wrong about 5. At near $19-20 M per- I pass.

 

We need to find better ways to get some pitching without spending top dollar (Price) or trading the entire farm away to obtain a starter (Sale) and closer (Kimbrel).

 

I know, i know, easier said than done, and IMO a lot depends on winning a ring or not this year. I'd love to see us win this year and immediately change our spending choices and farm building priorities.

[Station 13]

Agreed. I'd love to have Kimbrel back, but no way I offer even $85M/5, let alone the $95M/5 I think he gets.

 

Would I offer $57 to 60M/3? Close call, but probably no.

 

It's too much for any closer.

 

Market might not be there for Kimbrel. There's lots of s*** teams that are rebuilding and most contenders have closers sign already. 4/65M seems good if he finish the playoff strong.

[moonslav59]

Market might not be there for Kimbrel. There's lots of s*** teams that are rebuilding and most contenders have closers sign already. 4/65M seems good if he finish the playoff strong.

 

There are too many teams who just reset their luxury tax. I know the yanks and Dodgers already have expensive closers under multiple year contracts, but somebody is going to pay Kimbrel for 4-5 or more years and top dollar per season for a closer. maybe the Cubs, Nats or Cards? Guardians, Braves, Giants or Phillies?

[S5Dewey]

I'm certainly not in favor of offering Kimbrel a 5 year contract unless we could get him 'dirt cheap'. However, we shouldn't forget what someone else posted here some months ago when we were talking about this same thing. "Having a lights-out closer isn't important... until you don't have one."

 

I don't usually like these opt-out contracts that are becoming popular now because when the player opts out the FO has to try to find someone else who'll be as effective as the guy they just lost, but at less money. It's counter-intuitive to think that's going to happen. But... given our 'window' - which IMO we have probably one more year in - I see Kimbrel as a prime candidate for one. If we're going to be going into mediocre rebuilding mode after 2019 or 2020 there's no point to our paying our closer$18-$20MM year while we're doing it.

[Bellhorn04]

Why the "but?" I'm not for spending big on a closer. No "cautionary tale" needed with me.

 

It's not just relief pitchers, but most big signings fail or are a disaster. With the fickleness found with almost all RP'ers, even more reason to pass on Kimbrel.

 

 

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about MLB front offices.

 

Supposedly, MLB front offices are having player acquisition decisions influenced more and more by the stat geeks.

 

The stat geeks should be telling them that fat deals for closers are one of the worst investments.

 

That might depress Kimbrel's market.

 

We'll see.

[S5Dewey]

Speaking of being realistic, and completely off the current topic(s)...

 

What ever happened to enforcing the rule that a hitter has to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitch? I understand that it's difficult to have time to make an effort to get out of the way of a 100 mph FB - but players always do. However, when I see a player standing there and allowing himself to get hit with a 70 mph curve I find myself wondering why that rule doesn't get enforced.

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking of being realistic, and completely off the current topic(s)...

 

What ever happened to enforcing the rule that a hitter has to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitch? I understand that it's difficult to have time to make an effort to get out of the way of a 100 mph FB - but players always do. However, when I see a player standing there and allowing himself to get hit with a 70 mph curve I find myself wondering why that rule doesn't get enforced.

 

In all the time you've been watching MLB-and I know it's a long time, like me-how many times have you seen that rule enforced?

[oldtimer]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about MLB front offices.

 

Supposedly, MLB front offices are having player acquisition decisions influenced more and more by the stat geeks.

 

The stat geeks should be telling them that fat deals for closers are one of the worst investments.

 

That might depress Kimbrel's market.

 

We'll see.

 

Generally speaking, the front office will be limited to what they have to spend. Priority one will be to resign and/or pay arbitration costs the core of our field position players.

 

Pretty easy to see who they intend to return:

 

1. Moreland at 1B

2. Pedey at 2nd but will probably need a lot of help to manage 162 games. I believe his contract was one signed from the heart, not the head.

3. Bogaerts at SS

4. Devers at 3rd but will need a backup player if he again isn't really ready to contribute.

5. Beni LF

6. JBJ CF

7. Betts RF

8. JDM as DH

9. Leon or Vaz as primary catcher

 

That leaves room for 4 utiliity players.

 

I see Nunez as one of those as he can play 3rd and 2nd and is a professional hitter, largely over his knee problems

I see Swihart as another as he can fill in at catcher and/or fill multiple slots

If Michael Chavis is ready, he might well offer an inexpensive up and coming player at either 3rd or 1st.

Kinsler is likely to be too expensive to resign for part time use at 2nd. He may actually be a superior player to Pedey at this point but the die is cast.

Pearce will probably not be resigned although having a player that can hit lefties might be helpful

Possibly we could find a more complete catcher to go with whichever we keep and do it for reasonable money.

For shortstop support we might have to call up a person like Lin as needed.

 

What to do with our pitching is more fluid at this time. We are only locked in to a few and I have made a list but am not ready to put it forth as yet. Want to see a few more auditions for guys like Eovaldi.

[Kimmi]

Most big money free agents are cautionary tales...

 

Ha. I was going to post the same thing.

 

This is especially true with relief pitchers.

[Kimmi]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about MLB front offices.

 

Supposedly, MLB front offices are having player acquisition decisions influenced more and more by the stat geeks.

 

The stat geeks should be telling them that fat deals for closers are one of the worst investments.

 

That might depress Kimbrel's market.

 

We'll see.

 

Stat geeks have been warning GMs and owners against the big contracts for a while now. Owners and GMs just haven't seemed to caught up with this idea yet. It's like they know they shouldn't be doing it, but they have to have that shiny new toy.

 

Someone will likely give Kimbrel a fat contract.

[S5Dewey]

In all the time you've been watching MLB-and I know it's a long time, like me-how many times have you seen that rule enforced?

 

NEVER. And unfortunately it's bleeding down to college ball too, but I do see it frequently called in high school ball, at least in my neck of the woods.

 

And that's my issue. If they're not going to enforce it then they should admit it and take it out of the rules.

[S5Dewey]

Stat geeks have been warning GMs and owners against the big contracts for a while now. Owners and GMs just haven't seemed to caught up with this idea yet. It's like they know they shouldn't be doing it, but they have to have that shiny new toy.

 

Someone will likely give Kimbrel a fat contract.

 

It's like the PED thing. The owners know they shouldn't be signing those guys for the good of the game but they know they can't trust the other owners not to. They can't pass up that toy!

[sk7326]

Stat geeks have been warning GMs and owners against the big contracts for a while now. Owners and GMs just haven't seemed to caught up with this idea yet. It's like they know they shouldn't be doing it, but they have to have that shiny new toy.

 

Someone will likely give Kimbrel a fat contract.

 

It's not a rational market - because there are not a lot of quality players. Teams play a premium to win the process. Now while this is long run inefficient - flags fly forever, and the early part of the contract can justify the net worth of the deal in general. And with the owners having been found guilty of collusion before, any mass reduction is looked at (correctly) with suspicion.

[Bellhorn04]

Stat geeks have been warning GMs and owners against the big contracts for a while now. Owners and GMs just haven't seemed to caught up with this idea yet. It's like they know they shouldn't be doing it, but they have to have that shiny new toy.

 

Don't you think this past offseason indicated that things might be changing to a certain extent?

 

JDM got much less than expected.

 

Moustakas almost got shut out completely.

 

A bunch of teams just sat back and did nothing.