C.J. Wilson, the Angels left-hander who landed a five-year, $77.5 million contract through free agency in December, said the process doesn't always work out as well as the numbers suggest. He said he has a ball-playing friend who is miserable with his new team after signing as a free agent three years ago. "He told me he'd give the money back to get back on his old team," Wilson said Friday.

Get on it, gumshoes.

Jason Bay

Assuming it's a Ranger (which it might not be), it might be Marlon Byrd. That's the only Ranger free agent I could find who signed a long-term deal elsewhere in that time frame, although I was just skimming baseball reference and might've missed someone.

Mark Teixeira signed as a free agent three years ago.

Not sure who qualifies as "his old team" though.

Milton Bradley. I'm sure he and Wilson were best buds.

Any theories for the rash of pre-FA extensions? More money for smaller market clubs? Players just figuring they want more security? Market correction?

What's more interesting to me is the lack of contracts offered to older FAs the past 2 off-seasons (though particularly this past off-season).

Yeah, Byrd seems to be the only one that fits, if we assume it's a Ranger.

There is no one else from his university (Loyola Marymount) still in the majors.

If we stretch things to the limit and use all-star teams he's played on (only one, 2011), then you could look at C.C. Sabathia, but that's really pushing it too far.

If we stretch things to the limit and use all-star teams he's played on (only one, 2011), then you could look at C.C. Sabathia, but that's really pushing it too far.

CC just signed an extension rather than opting out of his contract. It's not CC.

How many years of control are these guys giving up? From what I can remember, it's never been more than 1 or 2. They'll still be free agents after that, and most will still have the talent to get a good deal.

How many players signed a free-agent contract with a new team three years ago and are still under that contract with that new team? There's hardly any.

Based on this list it is literally only Teixeira, Sabathia, and Ryan Dempster. AJ Burnett and Derek Lowe are still under their new contracts, but have been traded. I can't imagine Burnett is that nostalgic for his time with the Blue Jays. Milton Bradley isn't even "ball-playing" at the moment.

I guess Lowe could miss the Dodgers.

If "three years ago" can mean after 2009, this list has Placido Polanco, the aforementioned Jason Bay and Marlon Byrd, Randy Wolf, Brandon Lyon and two undoubtedly miserable characters, John Lackey and Chone Figgins.

There's always the possibility that Wilson is wrong about the "three years ago" thing.

Assuming it's a Ranger (which it might not be), it might be Marlon Byrd. That's the only Ranger free agent I could find who signed a long-term deal elsewhere in that time frame, although I was just skimming baseball reference and might've missed someone.

I would gladly contribute to a fund to cover airfare for Marlon back to Arlington.

There's always the possibility that Wilson is wrong about the "three years ago" thing.

Yeah when I'm talking off the top of my head I constantly say something happened "two years ago" only to find upon reflection that it was 5.

Yeah when I'm talking off the top of my head I constantly say something happened "two years ago" only to find upon reflection that it was 5.

Tell me about it.
I had to sit down when someone reminded me that the "Seinfeld" finale was almost 14 years ago.
I would have said 6 years ago (which was actually the time of the finale for "Arrested Development").

Maybe teams are considering the "his team knows more than we do" effect, and not pursuing free aganets for fear of unknown damaged goods factor? Is this a lesson painfully learned by some? Or, is it tha tteams with mega-stars realize they might as well spend $$ on their own guy instead of going after someone else?

Arrested Development isn't on any more?

Any theories for the rash of pre-FA extensions? More money for smaller market clubs? Players just figuring they want more security? Market correction?

I'm thinking the players just want some more insurance, so they go with collusion coverage. You know how rickety those bullpen carts can be.

I doubt Wilson's friend was a Ranger since C J left them. Lackey makes sense in light of reports that Wilson took less money to join LAA.

John Lackey has no friends.

Lackey makes sense in light of reports that Wilson took less money to join LAA.

Maybe. Lackey was a Texan playing in California, Wilson was a Californian playing in Texas. So they could talk about that. But Lackey took the divisional rivalry pretty seriously, as evidenced by him coming off the DL one year and immediately throwing at Ian Kinsler. It's a bit hard to imagine him being friends with anyone on the Rangers.

It's a bit hard to imagine him being friends with anyone on the Rangers.

It is, however, very easy to imagine him being miserable. And, frankly, it would only be fair if he was.

Marlon Byrd makes more sense to me. Any Ranger who left three years ago has basically missed the transformation of a bankrupt franchise to the model organization in the game. And he went to the Cubs.

Any theories for the rash of pre-FA extensions? More money for smaller market clubs? Players just figuring they want more security? Market correction?

Salaries have grown to the point where you can sign one of these arbitration buyout/extension contracts so early and still get "set for life" money.

When I first read the article I guessed it was Lackey, but seeing the posts here makes me think it might be Byrd.

Chone Figgins.

I don't know if CJ and Chone are friends, but I can't think of anyone whose post-free agency experience has been worse than Chone's. Financial considerations excepted, of course.

Lackey and Bay are the two guys that jump at me on that list. All that's gone on in Lackey's life certainly wasn't improved by the increased scrutiny that comes with being a member of the Red Sox while Bay probably feels some frustration going from no chance (Pirates) to playoffs (Boston) to no chance (Mets).

But I can't picture Marlon Byrd being miserable at a funeral.

Any theories for the rash of pre-FA extensions? More money for smaller market clubs? Players just figuring they want more security? Market correction?

Players are receiving big pay increases in arbitration that are determined by performance indicators that don't agree with the clubs methods of evaluating talent. This is resulting in the teams overpaying for talent in arbitration.

With out really checking in detail, it appears to me that most of these extensions are covering more arbitration years than than they are free agent years.

I had to sit down when someone reminded me that the "Seinfeld" finale was almost 14 years ago.

14 years ago! Holy c***.

"He told me he'd give the money back to get back on his old team," Wilson said Friday.

Not that I doubt the sentiment, but it's a pretty easy thing for someone to say when, ya know, you don't actually have to give the money back.

But I can't picture Marlon Byrd being miserable at a funeral.

A funeral, maybe not, but he does play for the Cubs.

But I can't picture Marlon Byrd being miserable at a funeral.

True. There was a segment during the Cubs' edition of MLB Network that had Marlon mic'ed up while the team went through basic ST stuff. Guy sounds like he's always having a blast.

Would Marlon even have a place with the current incarnation of the Rangers? He's been a pretty terrible hitter since last season and he seems to have lost a step defensively. Where would he even fit in with the Rangers now?

The Mets have been a miserable place to play the past couple seasons, but they would have been marginally less miserable if Jason Bay wasn't completely ####### terrible.

Would Marlon even have a place with the current incarnation of the Rangers?

Craig Gentry is currently playing "Centerfielder who should actually be playing CF" for Texas, and he is a lot faster than Byrd. The jury is out on whether Gentry will ever hit in the majors, but as you say the jury seems to be out on whether Byrd will ever hit again.

It was fun to see people flap their wings for Byrd. I don't know how you'd do a similar thing for Gentry: maybe mime lifting a teacup with a raised pinky?

"Give the money back to get back to his old team" sounds to me like the old team offered him much less. Bay only got a few million extra to go to the Mets. Figgins got 50% more money to sign with a crappy team.

14 years ago! Holy c***.

Did you just self-censor "crap" or was that supposed to be another four-letter word?

Players are receiving big pay increases in arbitration that are determined by performance indicators that don't agree with the clubs methods of evaluating talent. This is resulting in the teams overpaying for talent in arbitration.

Can't be. Nobody goes to arbitration anymore and only a handful are non-tendered each year (and a number of those are injured guys). If teams felt arb-year salaries are overpaid, they wouldn't settle pre-hearing and/or you'd see a lot more non-tenders (and of much better players).

It's true that a crappy .5 WAR starting SS will get overpaid in arbitration but that's the team's fault for starting such a crappy SS to begin with and these are the sorts of players that get non-tendered.

With out really checking in detail, it appears to me that most of these extensions are covering more arbitration years than than they are free agent years.

Which makes sense. The team has leverage during the arb years since the player knows they can't go anywhere else. But the leverage isn't so great they can get the career at a major discount.

But also while it's true that usually only 1-2 FA years are bought out, it seems increasingly the case that there are 1-2 team-friendly option years after that. Assuming health and effectiveness, Bumgarner isn't an FA until 2020. Of course that's still only his age-30 season so he'd still be in line for another nice payday in that case.

Lackey was a Texan playing in California, Wilson was a Californian playing in Texas.

And Lackey has a secretary named Wilson and Wilson has a lackey named John. Also Lackey got peanut butter on Wilson's chocolate and Wilson got chocolate in Lackey's peanut butter.

Ooh, this article does not start well:

For nearly four decades, Major League Baseball has been the last citadel of unrepentant capitalism in sports.

Paging Mr. Redneck, Mr. Yankee Redneck, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Did you just self-censor "crap" or was that supposed to be another four-letter word?

chit

It's a reaction to Seinfeld, so the answer is "Coco." Too short to be "chucker."

More from the article:

Another incentive for teams: It's far easier to secure an insurance policy on a baseball contract for a younger player who has yet to suffer an injury than a 30-year-old free agent who already has some trips to the disabled list on his résumé.

If true (it's reasonable but no evidence is offered), this is a good point.

Michael Weiner, executive director of the MLB Players Association, said he doesn't believe any collusive behavior is taking place. But he acknowledged that if too many of the game's best players forgo free agency it will create problems. For one thing, he said, it will be impossible to know the true market value of the best player at each position. "I don't think that's where we are headed," he said, calling the extensions given to stars like Cain (six years, $127.5 million) and Votto (10 years, $225 million) "more player-friendly than club-friendly."

I think a form of "collusion" is going on but it seems legit (or within the spirit of the rules). For example, every young pitcher is signing pretty much the same contract (with some variation for the quality of the pitcher). But the entire arb system is based on service time and comparables -- i.e. these pitchers would be getting comped to each other and receiving similar salaries in their arb years anyway. But it is reminiscent of the (mild) collusion of a few years ago when every decent but not great FA outfielder was getting a 3/$9 contract.

The point about the market not being set (and Zimbalist is also quoted saying something similar) seems correct as well but, as they both point out, it's not clear that will happen anytime soon. CC, Lee and Halladay have set the market for pitchers; Pujols, Fielder, AGon, Tex for slugging 1B. As Weiner notes, neither the Cain nor Votto extensions have much of a discount in them.

But I've raised before that I think this, along with the possible decline in the older FA market, does pose an issue for the MLBPA. True, nobody's going to cry for the $50 M buyout player but teams seem to be (finally!) catching onto the idea that they get great value for money early. Players were already stuck giving the first 6 years of service to one team; they are increasingly choosing to give teams control over the first 7 to 10 years ... and they're all signing the "same" contract. The players aren't really getting much out of the Union in that scenario. MLB has always had the informal equivalent of "slotted" salaries for the first 6 years; they've now added true slotted draft bonuses and, via extensions, are creating the informal equivalent of "slotted" salaries for service years 7-10. Marvin Miller must be fuming on the phone to Chass on a daily basis.

If that's the future, then MLBPA's best outcome might actually be revenue sharing/salary cap or even a fully "slotted" system with that guaranteed share of revenue. That would be quite a shift. Alternatively, they need to fight to greatly increase the minimum salary (and slot that -- say 1/2/3 based on service time and probably playing time (i.e. for relievers and bench players)) and shorten the arb years.

Anyway, it's possible the owners, after 40 years, have finally realized that they don't need to cheat to make this system work for them.

Allow me to be the first to go on record saying that the pendulum has swung way too far. A lot of these long term deals will come back to bite teams. I mean I like Jon Niese and all, but he has at least a pretty good chance of being out of baseball (thru injury or ineffectiveness) by the time his deal is up.

Same goes for other guys like Derek Holland, Brandon Phillips, Salvador Perez, Billy Butler, Alex Gordon. Giving pitchers in their 30s 5 year deals is not and will never be the new market inefficiency. The 10 year deals for 1B'men into their late 30s are an obvious WTF? Did we learn nothing from Todd Helton? Hell Erick Aybar is out there asking for 5 years. He might get it at this rate.

I really think teams overreacted to what can be a bargain for some type of players in some situations. I would think that especially the small market teams prob looked at the Rays and Longoria and said, "see thats what we need to do". But the pendulum has swung way too far. When was the last 2 or 3 year deal for a middle of the road guy given out? The Mike Hampton era wasnt that long ago, when teams were doing this kind of nonsense with some level of regularity. We then went through a correction phase where teams did whatever they could to get out from under the weight of bad deals. Has everyone forgotten?

I dont think any pitcher really needs to get locked up prior to arbitration kicking in. I mean Matt Moore is a great prospect, but is he really any different from Mark Prior at the same point in their careers? He even throws upside down like Prior (although not as severely). Its short money so not a huge risk if it falls through, but thats for the best pitching prospect in baseball, and you're not even saving that much money in the long run in a reasonable best case scenario. Even hitters I'd be wary of. The shear number of long term deals given out over the last 2 years is actually pretty staggering.

All that aside, as a fan, I really do like seeing teams lock up their core. Makes it fun for a team to keep its identity, so to speak, over a longer period. And I sure as hell aint complaining about rising salaries or anything, I'll throw my lot in with the millionaires over the billionaires any day. I'm just coming at this from a organizational intelligence point of view and I think the state of baseball contracts is off its rocker a bit right now.

I mean Matt Moore is a great prospect, but is he really any different from Mark Prior at the same point in their careers? He even throws upside down like Prior (although not as severely). Its short money so not a huge risk if it falls through, but thats for the best pitching prospect in baseball, and you're not even saving that much money in the long run in a reasonable best case scenario.

Strongly disagree with the bolded part. Moore is going to earn $15m in his arb years (and the third year at $7m is a team option). As a Super-2 Lincecum requested $13m in arbitration (and settled for 2/$23). I know you said reasonable best case scenario and Lincecum was a pretty extreme case but a reasonable outcome for Moore could easily be seen as a top of the rotation starter by the time he reaches arbitration. That would be hugely expensive for the Rays, he'd likely earn over $15 million in the third year alone. Now they're positioned perfectly if he becomes great and even if he flames out they're only out $14m total with the only big hit being $5m in 2016 with a $2.5m buyout for the 2017 option.

Cant disagree too strongly with your take. Not really trying to argue it wasnt or wont be a good deal for the Rays, my point is thats for the best pitching prospect in baseball, and I'm not sure even in this case it makes a whole lot of sense. Wouldnt it make more sense for the Rays to use the three years at min salary to make sure they've got a legitimate star and hedge against infant mortality type injuries, then lock him up for arbitration and FA years? You'd have to pay more AAV, but its likely he would be a Ray for longer and you'd be more sure of him turning into a star. I suppose it all came down to how you assessed the risk.

But the reasonable best case scenario I have in mind is him being worth roughly $15M on the free agent market, and if you were to draw the bell curve of possible Matt Moore outcomes, I doubt it would be centered on him being a $15M/year player. I dont think it would for any pitcher.

Kind of irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, so prob shouldnt have brought up Moore anyways.

"He told me he'd give the money back to get back on his old team," Wilson said Friday.

Not that I doubt the sentiment, but it's a pretty easy thing for someone to say when, ya know, you don't actually have to give the money back.

I'm sure if John Lackey wants to be released from his contract, so he can sign a minimum deal with the Angels, the Red Sox will be happy to oblige.

Didn't read the thread so this might've been said, but: how do the extensions compare to FA contracts now, and how did they in the past? I.e., is one side or another giving up more money or years than they used to, in proportion to FA contracts for the same year?

That would seem to be vital info, because without knowing who which side (if any) or both has changed their behavior, we can't decipher motivations.

Didn't read the thread so this might've been said, but: how do the extensions compare to FA contracts now, and how did they in the past? I.e., is one side or another giving up more money or years than they used to, in proportion to FA contracts for the same year?

It's hard to say.

In the past, I don't recall a single case similar to Longoria or Moore where a guy is bought out before establishing himself. The Indians then the A's were the first teams I recall doing a lot of this. My memory is most of those contracts were pretty good and some (Hudson) worked great.

Then, in line with #42, they seemed to get a bit out of whack where I didn't think the teams were getting enough of a discount on the arb years for taking the risk of guaranteed salary.

But then, somewhere in the last 5 years, they seemed to start including a lot more FA years and a lot of truly pre-arb buyouts. Bumgarner could get hurt tomorrow but the Giants also have $12 M option for 2018 and 2019 (that could go up to $14 based on performance). In 2018, how many WAR are you gonna get for $12 M? Almost certainly less than 2. The Rays have Longoria through 2013 and he never makes more than $6 M. Then they have three club options at $7.5, $11 and $11.5 -- Aramis Ramirez got more than that this offseason.

That's really the part I don't understand. If Longoria flopped, the Rays were only on the hook for $17.5; if he turned into a star, they not only got a big bargain on the arb years, they get a ginormous bargain on the first 2 FA years. If Longoria's options were for $15 M, I could see the attraction to him; or if they had large buyouts (the first does have a $3M buyout) I could see it. But right now players seem to be giving discounts on the arb years and discounts on the FA years with (some of) the FA years being club options at that. Longoria would easily get $20 M and 25-30 is not out of the question. The Rays will then have the "option" to use that leverage to negotiate an extension around 2015 -- look, we've got you for $22 for 2 years but we'll bump that to $28 if you'll give us another 4 years at ...

Votto's different but they're only buying out 1 year really. It's silly to give him a contract that long but, barring catastrophe, he was gonna get that or more when he hit the market in 2014. Anyway, that is priced close to an FA contract.

Wouldnt it make more sense for the Rays to use the three years at min salary to make sure they've got a legitimate star and hedge against infant mortality type injuries, then lock him up for arbitration and FA years?

I know you said you don't want to make this about Moore, but: if they wait three years as you suggest, and Moore turns becomes the next Lincecum, now how much are they paying? 5/100? (Assuming conservative inflation) So really, 8/101? OK, that's a bold prediction, so what if Matt Moore is only Jon Niese over the next three years? I believe his was 5/25. So let's say 5/30 in three years, for a total of 8/31. Is that better than what they have now? Of course, if Moore busts tomorrow, they've lost all $15, but that seems like a small price to pay when compared to the possibility of saving $85M in case he's Lincecum.

But right now players seem to be giving discounts on the arb years and discounts on the FA years with (some of) the FA years being club options at that.

The money's just too big to turn down, and a lot of these guys don't want to endure the year-to-year acrimony, risk, and uncertainty just to eke out a little more money that probably wouldn't have any impact on their lifestyle anyway. The difference between $2M and $3M in the '80s was big; the difference between $25M and $30M now is perceived not to be. The atmosphere and finances are much different than they were just a decade or two ago, when the average salary was much lower and when the vast majority of the MLBPA membership not only remembered but lived through the labor wars. Now, those days are a distant memory for anyone not named Moyer.

Also, I believe the agent business has had an impact on the proliferation of these deals. Without doing any research, it seems like a disproportionate number of the longer-term pre-FA deals — especially the ones that have been panned the most — have been done by smaller agents/agencies. Agents will never admit this on the record, but with client-poaching such a major issue over the past decade, there's been a growing incentive for agents to get deals done — and lock up commissions — rather than go year to year to maximize a player's pre-FA earnings, only to watch big-money clients head to Mr. Boras or CAA in their FA year.

Yeah, the Longoria and Moore examples being extreme ones of the trend, its hard to look at any deal for such talent and say its bad, when the worst case risk you are dealing with is still short money. But the long term deals to all the mediocre players who have as much chance at being out of baseball at the end of the deal than being worth the salary. Those are the ones that tell me the pendulum has swung too far.