Neil Walker’s one-year, $4MM deal with the Yankees seems like one of the better bargains achieved by a team in an unprecedentedly slow offseason for free agents, and Ken Davidoff of the New York Post looks back to last offseason when the infielder was discussing a longer-term pact with the Mets. At some point last winter, the Mets floated a three-year extension for Walker that would’ve been worth “about” $42MM, per Davidoff. Presumably that would include the 2017 season, during which he was already set to be paid $17.2MM, as it seems unlikely both that the Mets would offer three new years with Walker returning from back surgery and equally unlikely that Walker’s camp would reject said notion (though that’s just my own speculation). If that number is indeed accurate, Walker will obviously come out behind ($21.2MM over the first two of those three seasons), though certainly no one saw this type of free-agent freeze coming. Davidoff adds that Walker’s camp tried to reignite those “contentious” discussions later in the winter, but the Mets declined.
Regarding his own free agency this past offseason, while there were some early rumblings connecting him and the Pirates, Walker tells reporters that there’s “no validity” to those rumors and that he and his agents “didn’t hear from them once the entire offseason” — even when it was clear recently that he’d come at a rather affordable rate (via Elizabeth Bloom of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).
More out of the game’s Eastern divisions…
- Addison Reed tells Alex Speier of the Boston Globe that playing for the Red Sox and pitching at the hallowed grounds of Fenway Park exceeded his expectations in 2017, adding: “…and I expected it to be pretty damn good.” However, Reed openly admits that a return to Boston wasn’t high on his list as he headed into free agency this winter. While he had nothing against the Red Sox and spoke glowingly of the organization, his preference was to end up with a Midwest team. (Speier notes that his wife is from Ohio.) Reed achieved that feat by landing a two-year deal with the Twins, and while he took a shorter deal than most predicted, it seems possible that that outcome was in part due to his self-imposed geographic limitations.
- Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo acknowledged to reporters today that right-hander Koda Glover’s shoulder is taking longer to heal than the team anticipated (Twitter link via Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post). Glover’s uncertain status notwithstanding, Rizzo doesn’t feel the team needs to go outside the organization for additional bullpen help, Janes notes. The GM said he likes what he’s seen from right-handers Trevor Gott and Austin Adams this spring, and the Nats of course have deepened their bullpen over the past nine months with the acquisitions of Ryan Madson, Sean Doolittle, Brandon Kintzler and, earlier this spring, Joaquin Benoit.
- Janes also tweets that Rizzo was adamant that the Nationals “would never” keep top outfield prospect Victor Robles in a bench role. While many Nats fans may be hoping that the ballyhooed 20-year-old can make the roster in a reserve capacity, Rizzo’s comments further reinforce the idea that the Nats will keep Robles in a regular role with Triple-A Syracuse until an everyday opening presents itself at the big league level.
- The Orioles’ roster further took shape yesterday with the news that outfielder Joey Rickard has been optioned to Triple-A and veteran infielder Ruben Tejada was assigned to minor league camp. Roch Kubatko of MASNsports.com looks at the team’s utility infielder opening, noting that Engelb Vielma, Luis Sardinas and Danny Valencia are all candidates. While Valencia, of course, doesn’t have shortstop experience, the O’s have two viable shortstop options on the roster in Manny Machado and Tim Beckham. Kubatko adds that the O’s could take a look at Erick Aybar if he doesn’t make the Twins’ roster this spring, and he notes that Baltimore could also pursue a reunion with Ryan Flaherty if he does not break camp with the Phillies.
- Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times tackles a host of Rays roster scenarios as he strives to project the 25-man unit that’ll break camp for Opening Day. Interestingly, he paints veteran lefty Dan Jennings as a potential trade candidate and doesn’t project him to make it to the Opening Day roster, instead projecting starting pitching prospects Yonny Chirinos and Ryan Yarbrough (a fellow lefty) to crack the Opening Day bullpen. Topkin runs through playing time scenarios in the outfield and all around the infield, so Rays fans in particular will want to take a look at one of the more educated guesses you’ll come across for how things will shake out between now and Opening Day.
Man! How many times has walker kicked himself in the nuggets for turning down the mets offer? That is a lot of miney lost, I mean, all it took was a yes, and you had 45 million? How do you walk away from that? Did I read that wrong? Who’s his agent? I’d kick him in the nuggets and sue him. Sheesh!
The Agency is Excel Sports Mgt…Thanks for the Data Base MLBTR!!
Many Agencies/Agents and players misread the market this year.
True, but, damn! I mean, how much more is walker worrh than 14 mil per year? That right there is an overpayment.
Absolutely an overpay. Mets were crazy to have offered that much money considering he spent long periods on the DL the last 2 years.. Now if Walker were still 25-26 and not 32, you could bet on the injuries being a fluke and take the chance on a longer term deal Yankees made a smart deal for this player.
Considering he’s been worth like 2 wins per year for his whole career, it probably would have been a pretty fair contract. They had a post not too long ago on Neil walker, he’s been a model of consistency. Not a flashy player but he just gets it done and is quietly a very quality player
Agree, I always like him. The question remains, does anyone thing he’s worth more than 42 mil for 3 years, ever in his career?
He’s been worth more than that throughout his career, so yes.
$42 million, and he still get $22 million. If he rebounds this year, who knows, he might get $10 million or more next season if not over a longer term. But I agree that his agent or walker himself made the wrong decision, especially coming off back surgery.
Yikes, just yikes. 42 mil for 3 year is more money than 97% of the population will see. This is crazy to me.
Why does the player earning a few million dollars at the risk of his physical well being and not seeing his family for 8 months every year bother you more than an owner making billions of dollars to sit on his butt?
It does not bother me one bit. You must have totally disregarded my commets above. I am saying he should have taken 42 mils when the offer was there. Always want the players to make the cash. We go the the park to watch them.
Doesn’t matter who his agent/agency is,because it’s the player who makes the gamble…
That is the worst part of it. I mean, if I am neil walker, how in heavens do I think I will get better than 42 for 3 years? His agent shares plenty of blame. They are expert advisers who rep the players best interest. How can they have thought he’d get far more than that? And at the time, the Mets were really good.
He was already guaranteed 1/17 at that point. So the agent though he would be able to top 2/25 if he was healthy and not coming off surgery. Jay Bruce just got 3/39 with worse overall profile. What do you have against Walker? Lol
The only negative to Walker is his injury history. Has had back issues in the past including missing the end of the season and the WC game. Last year, injured a hamstring. Other players with hamstring injuries have had issues with their hamstring in subsequent seasons. Walker is more of a risk because of the injuries that he has had. No questions about ability. It is a question about durability. That is one reason why he had trouble getting a long term deal or any more money this off season. He may have better luck in getting a better if he can stay healthy and on the field this season.
I don’t have anything agaist him. I like him actually. My comments are about him and his advisers that declined soooo much money for a player clearly not worth that much. I would much rather have Bruce, and it isnt even close. Neil Walker just lost 30+ million on bad advise or ego or whatever the heck. This is the most bizzare news I have seen all off season. Maybe I am overreacting, but damn. He went from 42 mil to 4 mil. Worst vegas trip ever.
The Pirates were also rejected of an extension offer during the last couple years of Walker’s time in Pittsburgh. Obviously we can’t be sure of details, but it is likely that Walker was overvaluing his market then as well.
A lot of players besides Walker are kicking themselves for turning down their QO. Holland immediately comes to mind.
SMH. He must have a big head then.
Just a heads up,
the link to the Topkin piece goes to a Chelsea Janes tweet on Victor Robles
Hey Addison, Boston and Minneapolis are like the same distance from Ohio. Just sayin’. LOL… I doubt geographical location had anything to do with taking a “shorter deal than expected.”
Yeah I agree. If it was like Detroit, Cleveland, cincinatti then maybe this reason works. But MN and Ohio? I’m about to make that drive and it’s half way to Boston. But I love it. Great RP in an inflated market for them coming to the Twins “on the cheap” compared to others and skill levels.
“Just sayin” is so 1990s, dude.
In fact, Boston is closer to Akron, OH than Mpls. Maybe he really wanted to play in Minneapolis, and the few extra miles didn’t matter to him.
And for only $106mm more they could receive the same production from JD Martinez and play one fewer positions. Those sneaky Red Sox. I tell you..They’re on it..
How many home runs did JD hit last year?
What are you blathering about
People might disagree with me or call me a moron (it’s not like that has never happened here before), but I think the slow off season is good for the game. Player salaries cannot just continually go up and up and up. Everyone says that it’s better for the players to get the money than the owners, but the owners are still getting their money. It is the fans that are charged MORE money to pay for the rising salaries. It’s the same reason that fast food prices go up when minimum wage rises. McDonald’s still makes the same amount of money as before the hike, but you pay for the 16 year old’s raise in the form of a higher priced Big Mac. Actually they probably raise prices more than they need to and keep even more off the top. It’s a vicious cycle.
I’d check your facts again partner. For starters the federal minimum wage only goes up like once every 10-15 years and it does not correlate to McDonald’s prices. And player salaries should rise every year if the value of the franchise goes up every year. This isn’t the healthcare industry where you watch prices rise and coverage receed. We are all being programmed to accept an ever shrinking piece of the pie while the people who already have the most in this world tell you they need more for themselves. Don’t fall for it.
I’m not saying that is the ONLY time prices rise, but I am saying prices rise every time it happens. I know for a fact because I worked in fast food when I was 20 and had to raise the price on the board myself right before min wage went up. And I was told by the owner that prices were going up because of the min wage hike.
I’m not falling for anything. You seem to be falling for the fact that you are talking about millionaire ballplayers as if they were being paid like baggage handlers at the airport. Of course the billionaires are going to make money, but so do the millionaires. And the people that pay for it are non-millionaires like you and me.
Just because your boss at a McDonald’s told you the prices were going up because of minimum wage rising doesn’t mean its true man. I doubt your boss at a McDonald’s had a degree in economics. In fact, how would you explain all of the other times prices increase without a change in the minimum wage because that actually happens way more often. Why is it only the players salaries you blame when ticket prices go up? I’m not saying you don’t have a point but why are you arguing that billionaire owners deserve to keep even more money? They charge what people will pay, it doesnt have anything to do with salaries. Front row tix in milwaukee are 100 bucks. Yankee games, 10,000 dollars. But the yankess dont pay their players 10 times more so that tells you ticket prices dont directly correlate with player salaries.
Do YOU have a degree in economics? I never said it was only the player’s salaries. But why do some people here always side with the players? Players are not exactly coal miners from the 19th century. And not every billionaire owner is like Monty Burns from the Simpsons, but I think that is how some people see them. They are businessmen, so yes sometimes they are ruthless and greedy, but without them putting their money at risk up front, we wouldn’t have pro sports at all. Front row tickets in Tampa and Pittsburgh are a lot less than with the Yankees and payroll is a lot less in Tampa than with the Yankees. So don’t act like player salaries have nothing to do with the equation either.
PS – It was Dairy Queen, not McDonalds
PPS – 10,000 is 100 times 100, not 10 times 100. I guess your degree isn’t in mathematics either.
I didn’t bother reading any of this aside about wages but I in fact do have a degree in economics…
Willingness to pay is the ONLY determinant of ticket prices. If the players played for free, do you think teams would open their doors to all fans or slash ticket prices? If players made 10x what they do now, do you think a bleacher seat would cost $300?
It’s really sad to see people defend the profits of billionaires at the expense of the players earning their fare share of the industries revenues. Player salaries have NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with ticket prices
I disagree. Have a nice day.
Were it to occur that top teams (Yanks, Red Sox, etc.) had “set” outfielders next year, do you think many teams would pony up a gazillion dollars to one player (Harper) ?
I agree that it’s good for baseball. Markets go through changes. Contracts have been going through a classic bubble. You had players being paid “no-brainer” contracts because of how good they are–because they deserve it. Let’s make Pujols an example here. Did anyone really think Albert Pujols would be worth $24M/year at age 39/40/41? Of course not. You could have even guessed he’s slip a bit before then. But… He got paid what he “deserved” based upon an exceptional career to date. It is a dumb thing to do.
Los Angeles is basically gearing up to do the same with Clayton Kershaw–pay him exorbitant amounts of money until he’s 40+ based on what he’s done, even though there’s no way he’ll be that good then, if he even holds up nearly that long. Guy’s injured so much!
Bubbles are bad for business. It’s best that they pop. The longer they go on growing, the more trouble teams could find themselves in down the line re: debt, fielding consistently competitive teams, etc. The only “collusion” taking place is teams realizing, perhaps relatively collectively, that things can’t keep going the way they’ve been going. It’s not really sustainable. I mean, how is it that ratings fall while players’ salaries continue to rise? Doesn’t seem to make sense.
I trust the owners more than I trust the players, the union, the fans, and especially the sports writers for determining what course of action is best. They are far more likely to know what they are doing, to know what is sustainable, to balance all factors, and to make rational decisions. Besides, every owner I can think of doesn’t even count their team as their primary business venture. It’s a side venture because they love the game. They don’t buy a baseball team to line their pockets. It’s not the most efficient way to do that. That’s what their primary industries are for.
While I agree with you that this offseason is good for the game, we may disagree as to the reasons.
For example, player salary hikes don’t result in fans paying more for tickets and merchandise–at least not really. You can only charge what people are willing to pay. For example, Progressive Field and PNC Park are the cheapest parks to buy tickets (I think). Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium are the most expensive (again, I think…), That is based upon supply and demand; the willingness to pay.
If the Pirates signed Darvish, Arrieta, JD Martinez, Lorenzo Cain, and Zack Cozart this offseason, would they raise the ticket prices to compensate for all of that money they are spending? The answer is no, not really. Would people be willing to pay a bit more to watch that team? Yes, that is probably true–however, there are only so many people available and willing in the Pittsburgh metro area to come to a Pirate game in the first place. The Pirates cannot price tickets to the point where they cannot sell out games–it gets complex. In short, ticket prices may increase a LITTLE, only because more people would be interested in coming. But the team could not increase ticket prices to pay for the signings of those players–NOT BY A LOOOOOONG SHOT.
It is the same thing with merchandise. Let’s say jerseys sell for $80. It’s not as if jerseys are now going to be $120. I’m sure jersey sales would increase as Darvish and Martinez jerseys would fly off the shelves faster than Taillon, Bell, and Rivero, but that extra revenue is just a drop in the bucket. Doesn’t pay for the signings.
If costs could just be passed on to fans, then teams wouldn’t have to worry about signing free agents, after all.
On a separate note, minimum wage deniers are always funny. Of course price floors result in higher prices–it can’t NOT happen. It’s hilarious how people will defend their political position to the point of lying about facts. I’m not arguing against a minimum wage or a minimum wage increase, as that’s a topic for another time and another place. All I’m saying is that there is a lot of propaganda out there on both sides–denying on this side and exaggerating on the other. Suffice it to say that increases in minimum wage (price floors) DO produce increases in costs and prices in one way or another. It cannot be denied.
“Player salaries cannot just continually go up . . . “
Why not, haven’t revenues continually gone up? Shouldn’t the players expect to share in the largesse produced by the sale of teevee and internet rights? Barring an unexpected deflation, your initial premise is false, or at the very least unproven, both by MLB and you.
It’s called inflation. MLB will not change inflation. That’s all.
any fan who wants their top prospect to come up and play a “reserve role” belongs in the corner with a dunce hat
Apparently there are more plane flights from Minneapolis to Ohio than from Boston as they’re both about the same distance from Ohio.
Really will not miss reed anyway!
If Smith and Thornburg can’t bounce back from their injuries they will
Red Sox beat Houston if Farrell replaces sale with reed in the 8th in game 4…
Unleash the trolls!
Thats lots of ifs. What IF some other guy just kills this year out if ghe bullpen. Happens every year on every team that some guy does better than you expected.
FYI Steve, it was reported and confirmed that the $42 million offer was intended to replace 2017. The Mets also wanted to defer a portion of that $17 million from 2017, to later years. Not sure how much they wanted to defer, but all the above was directly reported during that offseason in question.
I’m a Mets fan so I distinctly remember it.
The Nats are comfortable with Austin Adams? You have to be kidding me. Lacks control and walks way too many guys. They better look for some help because it’s this year or never for the Nats (at least not for a very long time).