DidiFan

2018-19 Off-Season and Hot Stove Thread

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile we interrupt the world of billionaires and millionaires and greed on both sides for the latest ... well, rumor.  Okay it isn't a deal but rumors is all we have here.

 

Quote

Jonathan Mayo of MLB.com is hearing that the Marlins and Reds are still negotiating a possible J.T. Realmuto trade.

 

Mayo's sources indicate that a package is coalescing around catcher Tucker Barnhart, prospect infielder Jonathan India and one or more lesser prospects heading to the Marlins. Every day generates new rumors about Realmuto's possible destination but this is one of the more specific scenarios we have seen. Sources indicate the Reds have taken their top three prospects off the table (3B/2B Nick Senzel, OF Taylor Trammell and RHP Hunter Greene). India was the fifth overall selection in last year's Draft. He makes a natural trade candidate because he is blocked in Cincinnati by Eugenio Suarez at third base and at second base by Scooter Gennett and Senzel. The Marlins have been shopping Realmuto for years and are currently negotiating with the Padres in addition to the Reds. The Dodgers and Braves are among some other teams that are interested as well.

 

Source: Jonathan Mayo on Twitter                                                      Feb 2 - 1:17 PM

 

Jonathan India is one hot young prospect.  Hmmm, maybe it will happen.  Or not.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I’m over exaggerating the ineptitude of the Marlins’ front office but does anyone else get the feeling their offseason Realmuto plans have involved leaking potential trade scenarios followed by logging onto blogs and message boards to gauge the reactions of fans and analysts? I could just picture Jeter sitting in his office looking at the comment section of MLB trade rumors after leaking the Reds’ potential trade package. “Ok, guys, they’re crapping on the return package. Let’s keep looking.”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

Meanwhile we interrupt the world of billionaires and millionaires and greed on both sides for the latest ... well, rumor.  Okay it isn't a deal but rumors is all we have here.

 

 

Jonathan India is one hot young prospect.  Hmmm, maybe it will happen.  Or not.  :-)

 

Seems odd that after all they've turned down/requested from other teams, they would accept India and Barnhart. India looks good, yes... but Barnhart? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taobball said:

 

In short? Because it's entirely unrealistic. 

 

I tried to gear all of mine towards ultimate compromises that I thought weren't too extreme. Teams simply will not be willing to:

A.) Change the system that drastically

B.) Give up THAT much team control.

 

Like you're changing a LOT about how teams control players if you do that, and shifting the balance to the player a great deal amount more than if you adopted every single one of the compromises that I wrote on. 

 

Ultimately, I probably prefer the system you suggest to what exists. But that's irrelevant. It will never happen. It's far too far from where we are now, and the Owners would be giving up way too much. Maybe others disagree, but I think that's far too far from the realm of possibility. 

Simple switching the 6th year of control into some form of restricted FA and aboishing super 2 cut off are probably workable soultions. Redefining the how the clock works 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adifazio27 said:

 

Seems odd that after all they've turned down/requested from other teams, they would accept India and Barnhart. India looks good, yes... but Barnhart? 

 

Barnhart is a league average player for cheap at probably the hardest position to produce a league average player. He’s no winning piece but he’s also not a worthless trade piece. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well any team passing on Manny thinking they will go all in on Arendo instead next year might take pause at this:

 

Quote

Rockies owner Dick Monfort is optimistic the team can sign Nolan Arenado to a long-term deal.

 

"I think we've gotten it to the point where we're to the finals," Monfort said. "We're to the crescendo." Optimism on the part of owners isn't anything new or noteworthy, but this goes beyond that; this is something more like Phillies owner John Middleton's comment about spending "stupid" money this winter. (Not a great quote, in hindsight, unless something changes in the next few weeks.) There was a time not long ago Arenado would have been foolish to forgo free agency, almost regardless of the Rockies' offer, but the frigid climate for superstars like Bryce Harper and Manny Machado may make impending free agents think twice about a team's extension advances. Making $26 million this year, a deal for Arenado won't be cheap, chilly free agent climate or not. With the season around the corner and Arenado set to walk this fall, we'll know soon enough just how close the sides are to Monfort's "crescendo."

 

Source: Rockies.mlb.com                                                             Feb 2 - 7:05 PM

 

And if the part I bolded even remotely proves to be anywhere true, then good.  I hate to be on an endless Arendo watch for months and months next off season.  This season has been bad enough. 

 

And I'd also love to see a return to a player remaining with his team his entire career or nearly so.  Fans love their hometown team hero staying their hometown team hero.  It just feels right.

 

And I don't own him but I'm sure fantasy teams that do would love for him to stay at Coors too.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manny and Bryce came out of hiding yesterday and saw their shadow, less than 6 weeks until they make a decision on where to play.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get drafted/signed you are under control for x amount of years. No separate mlb clock. 

 

Prospects reach the bigs sooner, players reach free agency sooner, teams don't take as many shots early on raw potential so it helps the college game and makes the draft more meaningful because teams have less early busts.

 

Moniak goes to college. He develops without the pressure of being #1. Or he is exposed either way, but at least it isn't at the Phillies expense now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bigfische said:

You get drafted/signed you are under control for x amount of years. No separate mlb clock. 

 

Prospects reach the bigs sooner, players reach free agency sooner, teams don't take as many shots early on raw potential so it helps the college game and makes the draft more meaningful because teams have less early busts.

 

Moniak goes to college. He develops without the pressure of being #1. Or he is exposed either way, but at least it isn't at the Phillies expense now.

 

I don’t know that this helps the college game. A HS players service time clock would expire at 24 -25 under this system. A College FA would be 27-28. That’s reason enough to come out. 

 

Thats as a whole the biggest reason why with no caveats this system probably wouldn’t work: HS players can’t be reaching FA at 24-25. And how do you deal with 16 yo Dominican players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@taobball forgive me if someone already asked but are you doing your top 250 again this year? I know it was a cluster last year but your analysis is always a good read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Baur10 said:

@taobball forgive me if someone already asked but are you doing your top 250 again this year? I know it was a cluster last year but your analysis is always a good read. 

In short, yes. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, taobball said:

 

I don’t know that this helps the college game. A HS players service time clock would expire at 24 -25 under this system. A College FA would be 27-28. That’s reason enough to come out. 

 

Thats as a whole the biggest reason why with no caveats this system probably wouldn’t work: HS players can’t be reaching FA at 24-25. And how do you deal with 16 yo Dominican players?

I went both ways but my thinking was, in general, college players reach the majors sooner. Some may prefer the college experience to the rookie ball experience.  Since teams, in theory, would move players along  faster when possible, skip the low level stuff for quick MLB entry? 

 

Could be totally wrong. I'm sure there would be unintended consequences though. 

Edited by Bigfische
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just checking out roster-resource page...fun fact about Rays, 7 out of 9 projected in line-up were acquired via trade...1 was FA signing (Avi Garcia) and 1 was their actual draft pick (KK)...entire projected bench was from trade. Rotation has only 1 draft pick in it (Snell).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us get some signings done already.  Good grief the Red Sox equipment truck left for Florida today.   Nine days until pitchers and catchers report.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bigfische said:

I went both ways but my thinking was, in general, college players reach the majors sooner. Some may prefer the college experience to the rookie ball experience.  Since teams, in theory, would move players along  faster when possible, skip the low level stuff for quick MLB entry? 

 

Could be totally wrong. I'm sure there would be unintended consequences though. 

 

Ofc (the following is more of a general reply about the system than a reply at you, if that's not clear)

 

Look, ultimately we're all probably underqualified to have this discussion. But I think even for a casual baseball fan that does THIS (fantasybaseball), it's becoming more and more relevant. Because a work stoppage seems more imminent the longer players go unsigned. Whit Merrifield's camp has even said and structured his contract to avoid a potential loss in salary for a work stoppage. 

 

Plus I just like to talk about these theoreticals. Sue me. 

 

The biggest thing about any potential solution is that I think it for one needs to be very close to what we currently have, and I also believe you can't take away too much from the owners. Problem with giving uncapped Minor league service time is that a team can theoretically get ZERO major league service time out of a player, and they just won't accept that. I don't think they'll accept limiting those first three years at 500k. That's a HUGE profit margin for teams, and is so focused on the beginnings of a player's career that it makes sense for even the players in mymind to accept it IF they are getting to market earlier. 

 

Slatykamora's RFA system is one of the most realistic in my minds. You would essentially be removing one year of arbitration, and replacing it with the ability to match any contract the player signs, if they deny an offer of Tender. And if the player desperately wanted to leave on a long term deal, he's only restricted from doing so for one year. He can sign his Tender or a short-term contract that is matched, and leave soon there after in Free Agency. It's a small tweak, but it is factually better for the players, as they'll be able to get a good sense of their market value, and financially have the opportunity to capitalize a full year earlier. 

 

My system is a bit more complicated, and doesn't include RFAs, but instead IS about accruing Service Time in the Upper Minors and through personal achievement at the MLB level. But both of those have stipulation that I think make them more realistic. I have service time accruing at AAA at about a 0.5 Days per 1 Day ratio, not starting to accrue until about a full season of AAA, and being capped at about a year and a half to two years. Similarly, I have personal achievements capped at about a year to year and a half of earning service time. And no matter what, don't mess with a team's ability to get those first three years for league minimum. My thought process is that it is rare that a player will spend enough time in AAA to accrue serious service time AND immediately have personal achievements that eliminate service time. So most likely, you are both aiding a late-breakout player, and allowing him to get to market at least at a somewhat reasonable age, and are also giving instant stars like Mike Trout or Bryce Harper the ability to earn their way into the FA market a bit sooner. 

 

Anyone talking non-guaranteed contracts can gtfo with that noise. Firstly, because you absolutely have to have a salary cap if you do that, which isn't going to happen. But secondly, non-guaranteed contracts just suck and are anti-player. Maybe if we're just talking about mutual opt outs, which to me is something different entirely, but when I think non-guaranteed contracts I think the NFL, and that's just a terrible way of doing things IMO. It's ridiculous to give someone a contract that means nothing for the Team. "Here's a five year contract that you have to live up to, but we can terminate essentially when we want." Which is why, by the way, you need a Cap to do so. Otherwise contracts will get terminated willy-nilly. Dead Cap is what keeps teams from cutting players. Dead Cap can't exist without cap. 

 

Anything that takes major service time off or revamps the system I don't think they'd go with. And I do think we see legitimate change by 2021. Because you can call it "Smarter" if that's the verbiage you want to use, but right now team's are getting better and better at manipulating service time and forcing players to sign what two years ago would've been considered VERY far under worth. Regardless of what owners may think, Revenues increasing and payrolls going the opposite way is not going to make the MLBPA happy. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oswald737 said:

 

Is he willing to take a massive paycut too? It's the luxury tax that the Yankees are being ridiculous about, not the position.

 

Well... technically speaking I don't think there's much to cut there in regards to Judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, taobball said:

 

Well... technically speaking I don't think there's much to cut there in regards to Judge. 

 

Yeah, I know. Even if he were zeroed out, the Yankees would still not want to give Bryce 25+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF is in on Bryce now?!??! Do they have a secret gold mine under the stadium? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having "Hot Stove" in the thread title is just a falsehood at this point. Come on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.