Some notes from around the National League:
- The Dodgers have been speculated upon as a potential candidate to acquire Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado this offseason. However, the potential roadblocks to such a deal are “monumental,” notes Buster Olney of ESPN, who feels they may be “impossible to overcome.” Indeed, MLBTR’s Steve Adams detailed the challenges of any deal involving Arenado coming together in an overview of his potential trade market. Arenado’s lofty contract could be an even bigger impediment than normal in the wake of teams’ revenue losses in 2020. The 29-year-old star had a down season offensively, and it’s anyone’s guess whether the Rockies would consider moving Arenado to a division rival.
- Mike Yastrzemski garnered some down ballot NL MVP support this past season thanks to a stellar .297/.400/.568 slash line. He has been fantastic offensively since the Giants acquired him with little fanfare from the Orioles entering the 2019 season. Not surprisingly, Yastrzemski would like to stay in San Francisco long-term, he said earlier this week (via Jessica Kleinschmidt of NBC Sports Bay Area). It’s not clear the Giants would have much urgency to work out an extension, though. Fantastic production notwithstanding, Yastrzemski’s already 30 and controllable through 2025. He’ll make just north of the league minimum in 2021 but stands a good chance at reaching arbitration-eligibility as a Super Two player next offseason.
- What free agents might the Nationals pursue this offseason? Britt Ghiroli of the Athletic examines potential targets, with infield and pitching help the most likely areas for an upgrade. A Trevor Bauer addition probably isn’t in the cards, Ghiroli feels, but the top position players on the market could be a possibility. Also still on the table, per Ghiroli: a reunion with free agent reliever Sean Doolittle. The 34-year-old southpaw was generally excellent over his time in Washington but endured a miserable 2020 season.
Yaz is the Giants’ Whit Merrifield. Except in my opinion Yaz has a better chance at being around when the Giants are competitive, as he’s here until 2025. No need for an extension and no need for a trade.
Biggest reason he won’t get an extension is age. By the time he is a FA his career will be almost over.
Yastrzemski, 30: Too old to get an extension
Springer, 31: GIVE HIM HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
Makes sense.
Springer is a FA now. Yastrzemski has 5 years to go. Giants can get him for much less if they just play out the arb system.
I know, right?
One has 7 years of mlb time to prove he’s not a fluke, one has a 1 season and a mediocre track record
Yaz won’t be an FA for another 5 years, and he’s already 30
Yaz has 2 good seasons and he is ALREADY 30. Springer has 7 season of 131 OPS+ and exceptional defense.
Yaz is going to have to show he can repeat 2020 before someone pays him more than what he can get in arbitration year to year.
@Pads Fans and even if he does that they won’t have to pay him more than what he can get in arbitration.
Yaz is not arbitration eligible for another year. There is no reason that the Giants have to give him more than the league minimum. But if he does repeat his 2020 in 2021 the Giants are going to be paying him more in arbitration than he would get if they extended him now.
I was answering why Springer will get big money as opposed to Yaz.
JohnJasonJingle
Not a smart take dude. At all. It makes perfect sense that Springer is worth millions now and Yaz is too old to get an extension. Springer is available to the open market RIGHT NOW, whereas Yaz won’t be until he’s 35. I get that you are a huge Giants homer, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use common sense.
Of course there’s no reason for the Giants to rush to extend Yaz. The thing that makes Yastrzemski so valuable is that his production only costs the league minimum. I don’t see why a value-conscious guy like Zaidi would extend a 30-year-old outfielder with 5 years before free agency.
However, my point was that people act like Yastrzemski is too old to be a building block for the Giants. It’s not just here, but all over social media. The notion that he’s 30 somehow makes him unreliable… all the while, those same fans would love to see a 31-year-old Springer in a Giants uniform and wouldn’t complain about it.
In other words, they have no issue with the Giants shelling out 100+ million for a 31-year-old Springer, but have every issue with Yaz being 30 and making literally 50 times less money than Springer, for what very well may be similar production.
The “he’s over 30” crowd is ridiculous and not using common sense. That was my point.
@JohnJasoJingleHeimerSchmidt There are two key details you seem to be missing (or more likely, deliberately leaving out)
1. Springer has been productive much longer than Yastrzemski
2. Springer actually has a choice in the matter because he is eligible for free agency. Yastrzemski does not. SF controls him for four more years (one at the league minimum). His choices are either take what he can get from SF (or whoever they trade him to) or retire. Is this system fair? Perhaps not. But it’s what he has to work with.
I am willing to buy the idea that both players can remain productive in their early 30’s. Decline years don’t mean the player goes from being an All Star to an albatross in the blink of an eye.
I don’t disagree with either of those points. Although, we can discuss this without taking silly pot shots. I haven’t done anything to you, so chill out, okay?
The general point to my initial comment was the idea that Yaz is somehow too old (a take that is littered across this site’s comments and social media), but Springer isn’t.
Of course the system is meant to favor Springer. And guys like Yaz get less money. I genuinely don’t care what teams pay players. It’s not my money. It won’t affect ticket sales or beer sales, at all. And I don’t think “fairness” is really something ANYONE should worry about when we’re talking about dudes getting paid a half-million dollars a year (at a minimum) to play a game for a living.
The Giants aren’t going to extend Yastrzemski. There is literally zero reason for them doing so. They know that his value is largely dependent on him being paid very little. It’s to the Giants benefit.
The comment had more to do with the constant barrage of “Yaz is too old” takes that are monumentally misguided and two-faced.
Perhaps it was too ambitious of me to expect people like you to be able to understand any level of nuance in a fairly simple, tongue-in-cheek comment. If there’s anyone that completely and woefully missed the point of what someone was saying, it was YOU.
And here you are, giving veiled insults on a website when you yourself weren’t able to interpret what someone else meant.
This site has some goofy people, that’s for sure.
Yeah, but see, here’s the thing. Why not at least give him a reasonable contract worth more than what he would make over the next 5 years. He’s probably the Giant’s best player at this point and what’s wrong with paying a guy what he’s worth, or at least closer to it. I’d rather see that, regardless of team control, over what teams do, which is take advantage of young guys and the let them go when they are worth a raise. The turn around overpay a veteran in free agency who isn’t worth it. Why not offer Yaz 7 years at a more than he will make the next years. Get those last 2 years cheaper than and make him happier over then next 5.
@fansdontmatter Why would a team do that? There is literally no urgency for a long term deal to get done with Yastrzemski. If they sign him to a 7 year extension, then they will be paying him money at age 37. Very few players play well at age 37. I agree that it is kind of messed up how teams take advantage of players, but those are the rules that are agreed to by the MLBPA.
And why not wait to see what Yaz will do over next 2-3 years before giving me big money?
Over the next year really, if he does well you could throw in an extra year and pay him to keep him out of arbitration
Teams didn’t have near the revenue loss they are claiming because players took the brunt of that. Players took a $2.4 billion hit to their salaries and owners are claiming they lost $2.3 billion in revenue total. That means the players and the other team employees took on more than 100% of the lost revenue. Not only that, but all the national TV contracts are new for 2021 and they add $2.25 billion in additional guaranteed revenue for the owners in 2021. That’s $70 million per team more money in the owners pockets. They have no reason to cry poor.
I’m not sure how you’ve come to that conclusion. The players cannot lose anything because they have contracts. Owners losses are direct and the fact that they are billionaires does not mean it is a zero-sum equation each year as your scenario seems to imply. Remember, they have more employees than just the baseball players, and more constant than only contracts.
You’re wrong, he points out the nuisance, in his post. The players prorated and the owners kept TV money. I’m not sure what your point is.
Oh, and you think the owners got 162 games worth of TV money? Are the TV stations the ones taking the hit? Doubt it.
The TV money was pro-rated too and the owners got $0 from fan attendance and game day revenues all season. I’d be willing to bet the average loss per team this year was $60M. That is -$60M in net income, not a reduction of revenues compared to the year prior. A team like the Cubs lost well over $100M this year as close to 70% of their revenue comes from game day fan attendance. Not one MLB team
made money this past season, not even close.
I don’t know if I buy that at least here in SF. The ownership group has a lot of side hustles and paid off the ballpark with real estate and other investments.
I wouldn’t bet more than you can afford to lose. Those numbers simply are not public.
BTW, were you still paying your cable bill during 2020? I know I was, and they were not offering me a refund on the sports channels. So did the owners of those broadcast rights just keep the money they received from subscribers? If not, where did our money go?
I don’t pretend to know the exact terms of every contract, but I’d assume many of those contracts are written on a per game basis
So if I was a betting man, I’d say your cable company pocketed the money they didn’t have to pay the sports team.
I can’t prove it but I strongly suspect that the owners of the teams employ lawyers who are familiar with the concept of force majeure, and they probably didn’t tell those rights holders to just keep all the money they were pulling in from subscribers who weren’t getting the broadcasting they’d paid to watch. We’ll probably never know for sure, but we should know that corporations don’t walk away from big piles of money if they have any grounds at all to argue that some or all it belongs to them.
The players got paid 37% of their contracts in 2020. That means the teams saved $2.4 billion in payroll. The owners TV contracts are 100% guaranteed. Pay attention.
ALL the employees of a baseball team outside of the President and GM amount to about the cost of one average MLB contract. If you take the Braves for example it was $12.125 million including POBO and GM.
The players got paid 100% for the work they did (the games that were actually played). The owners only got a portion of the per game revenue that were played. I’m definitely not Pro-Owner and think they should take the bulk of the loss, but your logic is flawed. The players were very lucky to get 100% of the per game pay checks of games played, as every game played was a loss for owners without fans.
If his logic is flawed, yours is broken. The question here is whether the prorates paid to the players offset the revenue loses claimed by ownership, and has nothing to do with the players being “lucky.” I don’t know the true numbers, but I do know that ownership has been claiming “losses” that are probably actually reductions in revenue, and not expenses exceeding revenues. If these numbers are right and the players bore nearly all of the reduced revenues, then ownership is the lucky party.
Folks out here think the owners of the business should lose money and the employees should see no hit in pay. Comical to me. In real life, they lose their jobs.
So by your logic the players should have been payed fully for games never played? That’s the answer? Payed for work never done? That’s over the top broken thinking.
Reread for content.
Yeah it’s mind blowing to me. The players getting paid 100% per game played is a huge win for the owners. There’s a reason owners were wanting less games while paying the players 100% with no fans. They were losing money every game. And as I said before they should take on the bulk of the loss, but paying the players for games that weren’t played would be idiotic.
*huge win for the players
Doesn’t change the fact that the players were paid 37% of what they were contracts were for. They didn’t have to agree to take one penny less than their contracts guaranteed.
The owners still got 100% of their local and national TV contracts that provides more than 50% of revenue to the teams.
All revenue from fans coming to games (tickets, parking, concessions) accounts for less than 30% of revenue as we have seen from the records of the few teams that are publicly owned like the Braves.
The owners are claiming they lost $2.3 billion in revenue and the players gave up $2.4 billion in salaries.
The owners were paid fully for their TV contracts even though they only allowed 60 games to be played. They were paid for work not done.
Right, I know what it said. I’m simply pointing out that the only thing better for the players than they got was to be paid for games that never even happened. Which of course was never going to happen. Look, the situation is terrible for everyone, obviously… But all things considered the players made out as good as they could’ve with no fans and a very limited schedule. That’s whole point.
The Owners of The Rays and The A’s always cry poor.” I need help funding a new ballpark”
In 2019 MLB teams took in $9.3 B.
But not every team has the same revenue in regards to local TV and Radio contracts.
$2.8 in 2019was from ticket revenues.
So in 2020 the teams were working with $7..1 B . That’s about $236M per team..
But again not all teams have the same local TV and Radio contracts.
So let’s say $200M per team.
Tampa Bay’s Payroll is $54M
Oakland’s is $36M
Every year these teams appreciate in value by several million dollars.
Yet the owners( Who are Billionaires) Expect the taxpayers in Oakland and Tampa Bay to subsidize the construction of new ballparks..
The Exception being the owners of The Toronto Blue Jays and Los Angeles Angels.(.I’m sure there’ a few more)
So as others pointed out why are they laying off people who salaries when lumped together probably don’t even add to a million ?
No they weren’t. Owners were paid for only the amount of games played for TV too.
That’s absolutely not true. Teams for sure didn’t get 100% of their regional TV contracts for the entire season.
The national TV contracts are 100% guaranteed.
I never said they did. That’s why I use $200M as a barometer
Are there really people out there that think the owners got 162 games worth of pay from TV Networks?
The whole point is that the owners lost nothing. They got paid their TV contracts in full and even added another $455 million for the extended playoffs. They lost a total of $2.3 billion in revenue from not having fans in the stands ACCORDING THE THE OWNERS. The players took a $2.4 billion cut in pay.
Owners wanted fewer games also because of time. There wasnt enough time between Spring trg part 2 and Oct to fit the 70+ games the players wanted. They wanted to build in rest days too and contingency days due to possible covid related issues. At the end of the day, owners were right as some teams didn’t even get 60 games in
The A’s new stadium is going to be privately financed.
The owners were paid 100% of their TV contracts for 2020. Not only that, but they earned $455 million more for the expanded playoffs and signed new national TV deals that add $2.25 billion in new revenue per season starting in 2021.
you lost me when you called them billionaires. That’s the reason your bashing them, not because this is a business.
The owners were not paid 100% of their TV contract.
No the owners were not paid 100% of their TV money! Not even close. You need to research it more.
No they didn’t get their TV contracts in full. Quit saying that, it’s not true at all.
I don’t know if you are wrong or right, but apparently neither do you.
Yes, apparently Pads Fan thinks that. He keeps saying it, and it’s completely idiotic.
You are missing my point. Both of you are arguing this in exactly the same way, just from opposite sides. I’d be interested to know which argument is accurate, but nobody is supplying anything but their opinions.
You were right the first time. It was a huge win for the owners. The players did it because they didn’t want to lose a full season of what is a very short window players have to be in MLB.
@Pads Fans I thought you said the players has to be paid their full, non=prorated salaries if the season was less than 82 games????
Thanks for trying but that’s not how business works.
The owners got 100% of their TV revenue???…No they did not. The contracts are only guaranteed as far as the games played…and broadcast. And for many regional stations the amount paid is on a sliding scale based on ratings.
Pay attention.
@Bush. Read Maury Brown’s article in Forbes. The owners got paid the entirety of their $1.7 billion in national TV contracts for 2020 and an additional $450 million for the extended playoffs. The networks get most of their value from those national TV contracts from the playoffs so they not only agreed to pay 100% in 2020, but all signed new deals that increase the revenue for MLB by $2.25 billion starting in 2021.
16 teams either fully or partially own their local TV networks. No one really knows how they were paid for 2020 on those deals.
Yes, I’m aware of the National deals aspect. As indicated above I’m talking about their regional deals which they’re are many many articles discussing how they got paid per game.
Yeah, I hear ya. I can’t believe I’m arguing for the owners at all, as I think they’re typically greedy and should have to eat most of the losses. My only point is that the players did as well as they could’ve given the circumstances. Obviously, being paid for a 162 game season when playing 60 wasn’t going to happen, and rightly so… Pads fan it is being way over the top the other way, and it’s giving me a headache. I’m done with this conversation with him.
You are wrong Pads Fan. TV revenues were pro-rated this season as well. They only got paid for games that were aired; the TV networks did not pay for a full 162 game season, they paid the pro-rated amounts for a 60 game season. There are provisions in the TV contracts that they only have to pay for games played. Just like in a strike year, the teams don’t get TV revenue if games do not get played.
@pads fans
Most uninformed comment on MLBTR. The contracts have a force majeur clause which allows owners to void the contract. The players would be contractually entitled to ZERO. They got 100% of pay for games played. Oenrrs took 100% of the loss for tickets, concessions and merchandise not sold at the stadium. I don’t know how much the owners actually lost on media deals. Playoff structure added some additional monies for both groups if I’m not mistaken. Only major sports related business that im aware of that had insurance was Wimbledon and they paid out lots of it to the players who did not play.
That is actually how the world works, have you ever noticed that companies lay off rather than cut pay to employees? Have you ever worked somewhere where when sales lull they just cut your pay and pay themselves, I don’t think so.
The players only wanted games once the owners caved to100% of pay. Let’s not be fooled by that tactic.
The players got a prorated amount in 2020. It came out to 37% of their contracts.
Yeah, nobody is disagreeing with that. I’m simply asking if you guys expect that they should have gotten paid for games that they never played? That was never realistic.
Teams make soo much money, they didn’t even take a hit
Every team lost money this year. Not a single team made $1.00 of profits. It’s financially impossible for them to do so with no fans and pro-rated tv money.
A lot may be true but you can’t take on more than 100%! 100% is all the lost money.
Keep it going Y A Z !
I am so happy for Mike Yaz. I grew up during Boston’s Yaz’s greatest yrs, and i was soooo happy for Mike he got a chance to play finally in SF. We got to see his grand dad and his reunion in Boston, and it was a really good show. Mike could never have matured and shown as a player in the shadow of his grandfather, certainly in Boston, or any AML team. He’s shining in SF and i couldn’t be happier for him.
I agree. He’s been workin his butt off for a long time, and it finally paid off
I grew up in hawaii and watched his dad on the islanders there so was really happy to see him come up as a giants fan.
YAZ ALL THE WAY
Arenado is a Coors Field product. His career home OPS is .985 (.322/.376/.609) and his road OPS .793 (.263/.322/.471). Plus at Dodger Stadium in 266 plate appearances he has a .785 OPS (.251/.312/.473).
Is he still a great player…yes. Is he the best defensive 3rd basemen in the game…yes. But at 35 million plus the prospects we will have to send a division rival…hard pass.
That’s still a conservative number. He struggled away from home in the first two years of his big league career. Look at his away numbers since his breakout 2015:
2015: .835 OPS, .346 wOBA, 119 wRC+
2016: .832 OPS, .349 wOBA, 116 wRC+
2017: .886 OPS, .368 wOBA, 126 wRC+
2018: .772 OPS, .327 wOBA, 104 wRC+
2019: .886 OPS, .355 wOBA, 118 wRC+.
He’s been a consistent .850 OPS, .350 wOBA and 120 wRC+ guy away from home for the last five full seasons. Those numbers are compareable to Jose Abreu, Jorge Soler and Gleyber Torres from 2017 to 2019. He’s far from a product of Coors Field.
I say he’s a superstar because of Coors. Without Coors he’s a small step below that (meaning he’s not clearly the best at his position, but still in the conversation). Not worth the $35 MM per year though if they can get Turner at a cheaper price.
WAR takes into account his ballpark and his defense and it says he is worth $50 million per season on the FA market.
Mlb1225 your numbers are wrong with Arenado. You might want to re-check them.
Also, compare all 3B road numbers and see where he ranks.
most players are worse on the road.
Arenado’s OPS+ was better than Seager’s, his defense was the best in baseball, and that is the choice the Dodgers are making. Its not about salary or prospects. Will they be able to sign Seager to an extension now or will they make a trade to replace him in the lineup? Seager reportedly wants nearly $250 million to sign an extension.
You sound like a Dodger fan. So you tell us. Pay Seager $30+ million AAV on an extension or trade for the much better player in Arenado?
Would have to pay Arenado even more than that because of the opt-out
Arenado would already have to agree to the trade because of his NTC. No reason to think that the Dodgers or any other team would ask him to waive his opt out as part of the trade.
Also no reason to think Arenado would ever do that if he is worth so much more than his current contract as you say.
Would NOT ask him to waive his opt out as part of the trade.
No Ryan, that is not the only reason. He wants to win and has said so. He asked to be traded last season and if he wants to be traded that is what it will take.
@Pads Fans if that is the game you want to play, you said the exact same thing about James Shields 4.5 years ago and guess what? He didn’t waive his opt-out. Regardless of how much you said he wanted to play for a contender. And Nolan has WAY more to gain from the opt-out than James Shields did at that point. He is not waiving any opt-out with a whole season left to play. What would be the point in even asking for it if you are just going to waive it? That is a lot of leverage right there. He isn’t going to give up all that leverage just like that. Best case scenario for you is the Dodgers trade for him and agree to pay him a lot more money in exchange for him waiving the opt-out.
Arenado was willing to waive it last offseason in exchange for a trade. What has changed?
@Koamalu no he wasn’t.
Read his interview with Nick Groke in the Athletic.
@Koamalu Of course you don’t drop a link and bring up some article that is behind a paywall.
He was willing to waive his no trade clause to move to a contender but not his opt out provision.
What Seager “reportedly wants” and what journalists speculate are two very different things.
What Seager “reportedly wants” and what journalists speculate is exactly the same thing. The only place we see what he wants is from reports from journalists.
Clearly you don’t understand the term “speculation.” The two are not the same thing at all. That is just basic. You are simply making some really ignorant comments. One indicates that it is coming directly from Seager, the other is just what people think he may want. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.
Should lock up yaz with a deal for around what his arbitration would cost but spread out over the 5 years instead of a big pay day at the end. It will be seen as a good move for a guy who is already pretty old and could probably use some more of the money up front, and would be beneficial for both parties.
why would SF do that? that just locks them into paying him if his numbers go south.
I say do it if you can get an Albies-type deal. They have all the leverage since he’s under control for so long and he is older and probably would jump on the opportunity of a significant payday. You could even front-load the contract.
So 5 years – $30 MM, take it or leave it. I think he would take it.
Oh man this just reminded me of that terrible contract Albies signed.
@Rbase, Yaz would take it immediately. There’s a decent chance that he is too old to ever make “real” money in the game. He’s got to keep producing into his mid-30s before he makes a million, or two, or three in arbitration. Thus, if he could land 30MM for the next five years guaranteed, Yaz would sign that contract immediately.
And, I love Yaz and would be happy for him. But, that would be stupid for Farhan and Co.
to guarantee him that much when they can just take it year by year and see how it goes (likely never having to pay near 30MM to him over his time in a Giants jersey).
The Royals paid an older Whit Merrifield when he still had years of control left. It’s not unheard of for teams to do this, especially for older players who become team leaders. It sends a great message to other players that the team is willing to take care of important guys even when they are not forced to do so.
@Dorothy, I’d be psyched for Yaz if you’re correct. He rose to become a leader in the clubhouse overnight this year, and in a way, with so many vets on the Giants roster about to “contract- expire” Yaz became the face of the franchise. Giants have handed out plenty of good contracts to aging players in the past, but haven’t done so yet in the Zaidi era. I’d love for Yaz to be the first!
The Dodgers and Rockies will complete a trade by this time next month if not sooner.
#1 He wants to play for the Dodgers
#2 The Dodgers have the wherewithal to make it happen.
#3 The Rockies need to get something otherwise risk getting nothing should he evoke the clause that allows him to walk after 2021.
Arrenado is going to the Mets for non-prospects. You can bank on it.
Then he will leave the Mets after 2021 for the Dodgers.
if the Dodgers feel like paying up
Rockies are not giving up Arenado for non-prospects. They can get a very good prospect if he opts-out by offering a QO.
In 4-6 years that may never be anything
In 4-6 years it could be a Major League starter and a non-prospect is nothing from the beginning. A pick from a QO has a better chance of being a MLB player than a non-prospect. Not sure why you are trying to argue that point with him.
@Pads Fans they will if they don’t think he actually will opt-out and just want to be free of his contract.
You have said that before. Not sure where you get that from.
He is Ryan and he thinks he knows all. He will continue to argue the point long after everyone proves he is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
@Koamalu since you’re not him, what do you think of Giancarlo Stanton’s opt-out clause? Do you think it benefited both Stanton and the Yankees? Or do you think it only benefited Stanton?
I think that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. It is a different situation entirely. But please, enlighten us.
@Pads Fans see? You also used the phrase “argue the point” and your ridiculous “Ryan” schtick on Koamalu. Keep up buddy.
@Koamalu it’s a simple question. Who do you think benefited from Giancarlo Stanton’s opt-out clause? What about JDM and Eric Hosmer’s opt-out clauses?
Ryan, just because I used a common phrase that somehow means the rest? We all know you are Ryan. You have tried to use the same arguments as long as I have been on this site. They were wrong every time and the players actions that were the opposite of what you said had to be done showed you were wrong every time.
Not just that. Also the “Pinche Verde” thing, the “brown unis look like the inside of a toilet” thing, telling those ridiculous stories about speaking to insiders and always claiming to have heard stuff and then telling people to Google it when they ask for a link. Plus there’s the fact that you have the same opinions, attitude and commenting style. Even your buddy Spackles knows that you are Koamalu.
Wrong every time? You mean like how you said James Shields agreed to waive his opt-out clause? And that the Padres would extend Freddy Galvis? And that the Padres would QO Tyson Ross? And that Stephen Strasburg would sign with the Padres because he’s from San Diego?
This can stop whenever you want it to buddy.
Hey Koamalu! I know this is off topic, but what do you think of Derek Norris throwing out baserunners in 2015? Do you think he did a good job or do you think they tried to run on him too much?
Lol when you say “We all know you are Ryan” are you referring to yourself, Koamalu, outinleftfield, websoulsurfer, WatermelonMtnScout and the Padfather?
but since prospects are a numbers game….2 leaders may be better.
#lessers
I disagree with #3, rockies gave him his money and locked him up but have no control over his opt out choice. Unless he seriously values winning over money, I dont think he does opt out and will instead manipulate the no trade clause he has to facilitate a trade. The rockies, I believe, would love for him to opt out cuz the salary relief is more beneficial to them than anything else. Also the public backlash could go both ways. One way blaming the franchise for not spending more and enticing him to stay. Or Aranado taking the heat for opting out for more money and a team that spends (which is how I would spin it as the rockies) during this pandemic that has caused every team to take a haircut and drastically reduced payroll spending across the league.
It the Rockies would love for him to opt out then you can completely forget about him actually doing that.
Why would the teams need to drastically reduce payroll? All their TV contracts are 100% guaranteed and they just got new national TV contracts that will be $2.25 billion more than they were before. That is $70 million per team more money coming in.
$2.25 billion per season more.
No one knows if the local TV contracts are guaranteed. The national deals are. You also didn’t mention that MLB.tv subscriptions went up 30% in 2020. That is a huge increase in revenue for the teams.
We do know that at least some of the local TV contracts were guaranteed because it was reported in the LA Times that the Dodger’s was.
They are not guaranteed if the games are not played. I have no idea where you are getting this information but you are flat out wrong about it. If the season is shortened or cancelled, the TV networks only have to pay for games that are available to televise. Same with the NFL, NBA, etc. The guarantee comes in handy when to MLB when viewership is down 30% as you are right the contracts are guaranteed, but only for games played. Cancelled games = cancelled TV revenue.
everyone assumes he needs to opt out. Did JD? Stanton?
Look, Arenado is currently paid market value. 35M. Rendon got 36. You opt out to get a higher aav or more years
Since then, there’s been a massive disruption in revenues
*maybe* Arenado gets another year or 2 in FA, but do you really think he increases his AAV?
I don’t. So add in he’s going to a team he wants to play for in a winning environment PLUS he gets to avoid the lockdown-FA that is coming next year… why wouldn’t you think he at least *considers* opting in
While Arenado may want out, there’s less than a 5% chance he chooses to opt out next year even if the Rockies lose 100 games. He knows that no other team will come close to offering him the amount of money Colorado did, so he’ll just continue to play out his contract and earn his $200+M in Denver.
It is my hope, that the Rockies get stuck with Arrenado and lose him to the opt-out. It is a such a bad contact that they signed, it will serve them right. Maybe we will start to see the end of the Opt-out clauses.
If it’s such a bad contract why would he opt out of it?
It was a bad contract for the Rockies. He will opt-out because they aren’t going to win.
There’s no way he’s giving up that money as no other team would pay him more than 50% of what he is currently owed. David Price was miserable in Boston but he knew he couldn’t opt out of his $32M per year, so he stayed there to collect his cash. There’s no way Arrenado opts out of that deal. The best he can hope for is a trade and if the Rockies are lucky enough to find some team to take him, they’ll be on the hook to pay down at least 20% of his remaining salary if not more. No team is taking on his full salary these days.
@dpsmith22 people keep saying that? But how often does a player actually do that? Besides AJ Burnett with the Phillies (6 whole years ago), I can’t think of any.
Arenado to the Cards. I don’t know how or why, but Arenado just feels like a player that fits the Cardinals, much like Goldschmidt did.
I hope when the Rockies trade Nolan it is to the Cards, as their fans deserve to see the greatest glove ever. Plus he gets to go back to Denver at least annually.
why do people keep talking about an extension w Seager?
he’s a borass client so zero chance
Boras clients do sign extensions. Every year in fact.
@Pads fan Would you like to bet he doesn’t sign one?
EVERY. Single. Year. Boras clients sign extensions. That includes some that are high profile. So give one reason he why Seager would not.
@Pads Fans Even the cockiest player has a price.
Xander Boegarts is a Boras client and he signed a 5 year / $100M extension last season. He could have received more in free agency but he loves Boston so he told Boras to get it done. If Seager wants to stay in LA, he’ll tell Boras to do the same and he’ll get it done for him. That’s why he is the best agent in the game, as unlikable as he is.
The Dodgers should forget about Arenado and call Cleveland. If you want one of the best 3B in the game who is signed for 3 more years way below market value then Ramirez is your man. It won’t be cheap so don’t even think about low level prospects or castoffs. You would basically have to pry him away from Cleveland, but he is exactly who you should be inquiring about IMO.
cdav45:
The trouble with your suggestion is the Indians are absolutely not trading Ramirez, unless it’s a huge overpay. Ramirez is the Indians ideal player. They still have the pitching to compete, so why would they trade their best offensive player, who’s a good defensive 3B, and also happens to be able to play multiple positions, and who is dirt cheap? No way they even think about trading him.
Keibert Ruiz, Dustin May, and Edwin Rios for Ramirez?
Why would the Dodgers do that, cryptonerd? That package gets Arenado, and Arenado would be a lock not to opt out if he was in Dodger Blue.
But honestly, I think the Dodgers would rather have Ruiz, May, and Rios than either of those guys for that package, and send Ruiz out for a smaller piece later.
DB, You think Arenado is getting Ruiz and May?? PLUS 5 years of a 40 HR potential 3B? Hahaha you’re kidding right?
No. A starting pitcher who might be a really good starting pitcher, plus a couple of valuable position-player prospects? No.
Doolittle was awful in 2020 and for half of 2019. His hard hit ball rate has gone crazy, there’s no reason to re-sign a reliever with sharply declining velocity on his only good pitch in his 2 pitch mix. People like him because of his personality but it makes no sense to give him anything but a minor league deal.
To Pads Fans, while I have no sympathy for billionaire owners, who most years are at least somewhat profitable. I think the rising value of franchises is where a great deal of their profit is stored. Certainly this last year they have lost money. But your idea that the players taking a 2.4 billion hit to salary covered more than the owners 2.3 billion in losses, is truly faulty. If the owners had paid the 2.4billion it would have added to their losses, increasing them to 4.7 billion.
The Braves made $142 million in profit according to Liberty Media’s released numbers. They are far from the most profitable team.
I think you are mistaking Revenue and Profit. The total REVENUE the owners claimed they lost was $2.3 billion according to Manfred.
About $76 million per team. Teams that have made dollar figure announcements have claimed from a $20 million loss in revenue to a $145 million loss in revenue.
That is REVENUE, not profits. What is paid to the players is an Expense, a COST, not income for the teams, and would only affect profits.
Profit is Revenue minus Expenses and Taxes.
Again, you are completely wrong Pads Fan. Liberty Media did not report that at all. In 2019, (the last year Liberty has reported financials on) the Braves made just under $40M in operating profits before interest, taxes & depreciation. After those were added in, the Braves lost over $30M in 2019 (Net income was ~ -$30M). This was on annual revenues of over $450M. So far this year, Liberty has only reported quarterly revenues (not income). The team brought in $142M in revenues during its busiest baseball quarter, which was down over 40% from 2019. So they are on pace to lose real money for 2020 (negative cash flow) not to mention a net income that will probably be well past -$100M for the year. Their 2020 financials should be out in March if they are on the calendar year. Please go back and re-read what you saw. You are grossly misinformed.
@Dorothy_Mantooth Being wrong is just what he does. That’s why he has at least half a dozen backup accounts to “agree” with himself.
The problem with your theory is that baseball franchises are businesses, and business are valued based on their profitability. The franchises increase in value because their profitability is increasing. Equity value reflects return on investment.
The Marlins claimed they lost money and still went up in value and sold for $1.3 billion.
Which should tell you everything you need to know about that claim. When the Dodgers sold out of bankruptcy no less a lot of people were shocked by the selling price, three times what some expected. Then the new owners immediately turned around and signed a new media contract worth more than $6B. So there’s your return on investment.
Prior to the pandemic, most baseball teams lost money on an annual book basis but they generated positive cash flow. These teams all have tons of debt and large assets (like their ballpark) to depreciate, so while they are cash flow positive, the non-cash charges actually make them lose money on the books, therefore they don’t have to pay taxes. That’s why these franchises are so valuable. They have valuable real estate attached to them and generate $10’s of millions in positive cash flow, yet that money goes untaxed due to the non-cash charges they incur. (Amazon follows a similar model). The problem with 2020 is that every team lost cash flow this past season and that’s what really hurts them. No team made any money from an EBITDA perspective this year and they had to pay out way more cash than they brought it. This is why owners are worried. They can’t endure another season of negative cash flow. These teams depend on annual revenues to fund their baseball operations and this year they weren’t able to do that. They don’t have $100’s of millions in liquid cash laying around either. They have a rainy day fund I’m sure but those were depleted quite a bit this year. If 2021 follows the same path as 2020, teams are going to be in big trouble. They’ll need to take out sizable loans to cover operating expenses and when that is done, then the valuation of their asset (team) will actually go down. That is what most owners are worried about the most.
Vague and unsubstantiated claims. All businesses carry debt, some more, some less. When exactly does it turn into tons? And one thing we know about big debt carriers is they almost never have to worry carrying too much. They become too big for the lenders to allow them to fail. Some teams do in fact have access to hundreds of millions of dollars. The depth of their pockets depends entirely on the ownership. You have no idea whether any or all teams turned a profit this year. You simply don’t have access to the information needed to make claims one way or another. And so on.
On the last point, you are obviously wrong. Exhibit A: The New York Mets.
Yastrzemski’s going to have to make his money in arbitration as he’ll already be 35 by the time he can be a free agent, which means he’ll need to duplicate his 2020 over a 162-game schedule.
The Giants should seriously be gauging the market for his value and explore trading him. He could be around for the Giants next run, or he could be a bench piece. A trade could get the Giants closer to being a more serious contender near term.
I agree with this take. He’ll be entering his mid-thirties by the time San Francisco is legitimately able to next compete. His value will more than likely never be higher than it is right now. If the Giants were offered the right package of young talent for him, they should absolutely pull the trigger.
The Giants were a game out of the playoffs this season.
Needed the expanded playoff field to even come that close and just lost 51 and a third innings of 3.33 ERA ball from Drew Smyly and Trevor Cahill to free agency.
A game out of 8th place, after losing 3 in a row to a Padres team that was practically conceding games.
A game out of 8th place after 60 games, which any other year is 4 places away from the Wild Card game and there’s still 100 games to go.
The Giants weren’t/aren’t as close as you think they are.
I don’t know why, but I just have this feeling the Nationals are going to sign Corey Kluber.
Of course those guys would sign him…… Expect deferrals for 20 years too. Smh I can’t wait until the day comes when they owe 10 and 15 per season to stras and max, when they won’t even be playing for them anymore. Throw Corbin deferrals on top and you Have got yourself a great laugh. Hope it comes back to bite them and they are stuck in the purgatory of mediocrity for a while.
Friedman go get Lindor.
The Rockies won’t trade Nolan for market value to the Dodgers.
Extend Seager and move him over to 3rd.
I don’t understand why Dodgers fans are so anxious to trade away significant prospects for basically a redundant player in Lindor. Corey Seager is at least 90% of the player Lindor is, if not 95% and he plays a great defensive short stop too. Why would LA trade away 2 or 3 of their 10 best prospects to get one year of Lindor and possibly alienate one of their best players in Seager by forcing him to move positions? The only way this would make sense to me is if they know for sure that Seager does not want to re-sign with LA next year and they are able to work out a multi-year extension with Lindor before making the trade. They did the Betts deal because the needed to improve their OF. The Dodgers really don’t need to improve at SS. They have a Top 5 SS already. Their best move would be to re-sign JT for a couple of years and slowly work in Rios at 3B. Then they can either re-sign Seager to a long term deal or sign Lindor as a FA after the 2021 season is over. It makes no sense for them to trade away so much young, affordable talent for one year of Lindor. The Dodgers are so good now because they held onto and developed their good young players. They need to stick to that script.
No need to generalize. Some of us Dodgers fans have been saying Lindor is unnecessary for a year now. The solution you suggest is probably the best one, though at some point they will have to decide what to do with Lux.
I really enjoy watching these late bloomers thrive in baseball or at sports in general. It’s a rarity in a young man’s game. However, I hate they way they are so under compensated financially. I really hope Mike does well and gets paid better as a result.
Here’s a sign of truly different times –
In 1971 at age 32, Carl Yastrzemski signed what was then the richest contract in MLB history for 3 years and $500K total. He’d already won three batting titles up to that point. At about that same time, the St. Louis Cardinals re-signed the ace of their pitching staff, Bob Gibson, to a new one year $150K contract.
At age 29, Mike Yastrzemski made just under $382K in his first year in MLB and almost $600K during this most recent shortened season.
Age says you don’t invest to heavely in Yaz. As great a story as he was in 2019 if he was half the hitter his grandfather was he wouldn’t have been in the minor leagues til he was 29.
Springer, whether you like the Astros or not has had a good career so far and while he may get overpaid he still should have at least four more good seasons a head of him
There’s zero reason to believe that Mike Yastrzemski doesn’t have four good seasons ahead of him either.
The point I made was to note the silliness in fans treating Yaz’s age like he’s not going to be valuable any longer, but also, they should sign an older player for 100M+.
Yaz may have four more good seasons a head of him but they will all be while under Giants control. Still not a reason to extend him
Of course it’s not. The Giants are getting incredible value out of Yastrzemski’s contract. The ONLY reason I could see them extending him would be to ensure that they can get his arbitration years cheaper now than they will be later on.
I’m 100% in agreement that they shouldn’t extend Yastrzemski. And it has far less to do with his age than it does that he still has 5 years of team control.
Him being 30 is completely irrelevant when teams will shell out 100M+ contracts to guys like Springer and Realmuto.
JohnJasoJingleHeimerSchmidt:
It isn’t entirely up to the Giants. Team control doesn’t mean they entirely control what a player is paid. Once Yastrzemski reaches arb he and the team have to agree on the contract amount, otherwise it goes to a hearing. If the Giants try to lowball him and it goes to arb, they’ll wind up paying more.
That won’t happen because the Giants don’t let it get as far as arb hearings. They will agree on a contract amount, and it will probably equal, at least, his projected arb salaries. But they aren’t getting him for anything cheaper than that. No way Yaz agrees to that.
Not sure if someone brought this up, but one thing people seem to be missing, is that the Giants are one of those teams that do not take their players to arbitration. The procedure creates a lot of bad feelings between the team and the player. Team reps are in the hearings with the player, and have to cite all the reasons why the player isn’t worth what he asking for. Some player really resent the team diminishing their contribution.
I can’t remember when the Giants last took a player to arbitration. They absolutely will buy out his arb years starting next season if he is a super-two.