Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Braves Extend Ozzie Albies | MLBTR

It’s a seven-year deal that’ll promise Albies $35MM, per the New York Post’s Joel Sherman (Twitter links). The contract begins in 2019 and contains a pair of club options valued at $7MM, and each comes with a $4MM buyout. Technically speaking, Albies is promised six years and $34.425MM in new money, as he’d already been signed for a $575K salary this season. If the Braves pick up both options, they’ll owe Albies a total of 45MM over the next nine seasons — including what would have been four free-agent seasons.

That feels like an incredible bargain.

Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:17 PM | 104 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: braves, contract extensions, ozzie albies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. PreservedFish Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:26 PM (#5830924)
I don't get it. $7M for prime seasons? I don't get it.

I realize the free agent market has gone all wacky, and there's a lot of uncertainty about what things will look like in coming years, but man, I'd bet on myself to easily beat those salaries.
   2. Man o' Schwar Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:27 PM (#5830928)
That feels like an incredible bargain.

If he can return to the form of the Albies of the first half of 2018, this could be the steal of the decade.
   3. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5830935)
I pretty much always defend the player's POV with these extensions, but I don't get this one.
   4. Ziggy's screen name Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:37 PM (#5830939)
Four free agent seasons? Is Albies planning to get seriously injured? There's a pretty good chance he could have cleared that figure in his arb years alone.
   5. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 11, 2019 at 03:39 PM (#5830940)
man, I'd bet on myself to easily beat those salaries.
I'm sure you're excellent at what you do, but teams just aren't paying that much for postgame-spread chefs over 30 anymore.
   6. Walt Davis Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:18 PM (#5830999)
His agents are "SportsMeter" ... not much on the web but piecing together their Twitter feed's love of Derek Dietrich and Dietrich's agent being named David Meter, I'm guessing somebody got clever with the corporate name. Anyway, remind me not to hire them to negotiate my contract as the Cubs' new closer.
   7. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:20 PM (#5831000)
Yeah, this is bonkers. It's basically 9 years for 49m. If he just continued being the player he currently was in 2018, he'd have earned most of that in just his arb years.
   8. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:21 PM (#5831001)
Maybe Albies is actually like 25 years old?
   9. asinwreck Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:28 PM (#5831003)
Wait, is he a time-traveler from 18 years ago? Because then I could see the dollar value making sense.
   10. zachtoma Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:40 PM (#5831007)
but man, I'd bet on myself to easily beat those salaries.


Easy for you to say, but Albies is still a precarious player in the MLB hierarchy. He's very promising but he had a bad second half, one year of service time, still making the league minimum - he could get injured tomorrow and it might all be over for him. To say nothing of his family situation and background, which I don't know a lot about, but he's a Caribbean ballplayer, not a suburban prep-school kid from Orange County. That changes the calculus a bit. But sure I guess you can go ahead and spit on the hypothetical $35 million dollars that's been hypothetically offered to you.
   11. bfan Posted: April 11, 2019 at 05:55 PM (#5831011)
And this contract, unlike Acuna's, frees Albies up for another contract while he is still in his twenties, so if he performs well, that next contract can be his generational money contract (if $35 million isn't).
   12. bigglou115 is not an Illuminati agent Posted: April 11, 2019 at 06:51 PM (#5831015)
@11. My understanding was he wouldn't be a FA until 30-31 if the Braves exercise both options.
   13. PreservedFish Posted: April 11, 2019 at 06:55 PM (#5831016)
Easy for you to say, but Albies is still a precarious player in the MLB hierarchy. He's very promising but he had a bad second half, one year of service time, still making the league minimum - he could get injured tomorrow and it might all be over for him. To say nothing of his family situation and background, which I don't know a lot about, but he's a Caribbean ballplayer, not a suburban prep-school kid from Orange County. That changes the calculus a bit. But sure I guess you can go ahead and spit on the hypothetical $35 million dollars that's been hypothetically offered to you.


If I were in Albies' spot, I'd happily sign an extension that gave away my rights to one or two free agent years in exchange for some guaranteed money. I'd also expect reasonable compensation.

Albies' situation is "precarious" in the same way that every pre-arb player's situation is precarious. He's also just completed a 4 WAR season at age 21, was a major prospect, and is already off to a fine start this year. That's a potential Hall of Fame profile. Barring catastrophic injury, he's a lock to find work in the majors for the foreseeable future, even if he doesn't produce much. Infielder failures Jurickson Profar and Chris Owings are both earning over $3M this year - barely an improvement over the $5 average annual salary that Albies set himself up for. Maikel Franco, a replacement level player, is earning $5M. Very strong players, like Ozuna and Bogaerts, are earning $12M+ in arbitration nowadays. But even Kevin Gausman, Jake Odorizzi, Tanner Roark and Nick Castellanos are earning about $10M, players that Albies is already as good as or better than .

And this contract, unlike Acuna's, frees Albies up for another contract while he is still in his twenties, so if he performs well, that next contract can be his generational money contract (if $35 million isn't).


No it doesn't. If they trigger the options, they own him until he's 31.

I see that The Ringer has an article calling this the potentially worst contract ever. Some excerpts offer context:

Last spring, the Phillies signed another second baseman, Scott Kingery, to a six-year, $24 million contract with team options that could nine years and $66 million. Kingery was almost two years older then than Albies is now, and while Albies is an All-Star, Kingery had yet to play a game in the major leagues.

Indians infielder José Ramírez is on one of the most player-unfriendly contracts in baseball—five years, $26 million, with two team options that could take it to seven years, $50 million. Ramírez signed his deal in March 2017, coming off a year similar to the one Albies had last year, with similar service time, but he was two and a half years older then than Albies is now and ... got similar overall value for two years’ less commitment.


The criticism here is not that Albies is stupid to want to lock in guaranteed money. Everyone understands why he would do that. The issue is that he seems to have left a ton of money on the table.
   14. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: April 11, 2019 at 07:28 PM (#5831020)
The Braves negotiator was like, "THAT'S IT, 35 mil is our max!" It must have taken great restraint from him not to smile when the agent agreed then actually signed the documentation. It's like fleecing kids in a game of poker.

The guy who negotiated the deal for the Braves should get a $2 mil a year pay rise just for nailing down this contract alone.
   15. Howie Menckel Posted: April 11, 2019 at 09:22 PM (#5831040)
Nate Silver
‏Verified account @NateSilver538

Albies's deal is so bad that if he insisted on taking it, I'd fire him as a client if I were his agent, because I don't think the commission would be worth the damage to my reputation.
3:34 PM - 11 Apr 2019
   16. Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Posted: April 11, 2019 at 09:33 PM (#5831042)
This deal should mean these agents lose all their other clients.
   17. The Duke Posted: April 11, 2019 at 10:18 PM (#5831058)
It’s a nice chunk of change and he gets to play in a nice place for 9 years. Seems like he could have gotten more but there are plenty of guts who flame out after a couple good years. Albies falls of a cliff in 2019 and his whole profile looks different. Great deal for Braves because he ain’t going to fall off a cliff - fun guy to watch
   18. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 12, 2019 at 07:12 AM (#5831100)
If Albies' agent had countered with 9 years and $68million (50% more), the Braves would have JUMPED on that.

That's how you know the agent was terrible.
   19. bunyon Posted: April 12, 2019 at 08:59 AM (#5831114)
I defended Acuna's. 100 million is enough to make giving some up okay in my mind.

This is crazy.

Does MLBPA have any sort of central advising group so that young players can double check their agents? If not, they should. I mean, the kid is young and I can see him getting bamboozled by a bad agent. He's an agent! Why wouldn't I trust him!

It's perhaps the difference between guys with two or three years of experience signing and guys with one year.

Again, the guy will make several times more money in this contract than I will in my life so...he's not ruined or anything. But, geez.
   20. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 12, 2019 at 11:32 AM (#5831153)
20 year old season: 110 OPS+ and 1.3 WAR in 244 PA
21 year old season: 102 OPS+ and 3.8 WAR in 684 PA
22 year old season: barely underway, but already hitting 327/389/449. 119 OPS+.

Seems like they really left a lot on the table.

I am generally a strong proponent of young guys signing deals like this, as it insures their financial freedom. But this deal stinks.
   21. bobm Posted: April 12, 2019 at 10:13 PM (#5831380)
He's also just completed a 4 WAR season at age 21

Interesting list.

Career WAR for all batters with 3.5+ WAR in age-21 season (30 HoFers out of 71 total):

                                                    
Rk              Player WAR/pos From   To   Age    PA
1          Barry Bonds   162.8 1986 2007 21-42 12606
2              Ty Cobb   151.0 1905 1928 18-41 13099
3           Hank Aaron   143.0 1954 1976 20-42 13941
4         Tris Speaker   134.1 1907 1928 19-40 12011
5          Stan Musial   128.2 1941 1963 20-42 12718
6       Rogers Hornsby   127.0 1915 1937 19-41  9480
7         Ted Williams   123.1 1939 1960 20-41  9788
8       Alex Rodriguez   117.8 1994 2016 18-40 12207
9     Rickey Henderson   111.2 1979 2003 20-44 13346
10       Mickey Mantle   110.3 1951 1968 19-36  9907
11             Mel Ott   107.8 1926 1947 17-38 11348
12      Frank Robinson   107.3 1956 1976 20-40 11742
13          Joe Morgan   100.6 1963 1984 19-40 11329
14       Albert Pujols    99.8 2001 2019 21-39 11736
15       Eddie Mathews    96.6 1952 1968 20-36 10100
16         Jimmie Foxx    96.1 1925 1945 17-37  9676
17      Cal Ripken Jr.    95.9 1981 2001 20-40 12883
18           Al Kaline    92.8 1953 1974 18-39 11596
19     Ken Griffey Jr.    83.8 1989 2010 19-40 11304
20        Joe DiMaggio    78.1 1936 1951 21-36  7672
21        Johnny Bench    75.2 1967 1983 19-35  8674
22        Sam Crawford    75.2 1899 1917 19-37 10610
23        Lou Whitaker    75.1 1977 1995 20-38  9967
24        Arky Vaughan    72.9 1932 1948 20-36  7722
25          Tim Raines    69.4 1979 2002 19-42 10359
26      Roberto Alomar    67.1 1988 2004 20-36 10400
27          Buddy Bell    66.3 1972 1989 20-37 10009
28          Mike Trout    66.1 2011 2019 19-27  4722
29     Willie Randolph    65.9 1975 1992 20-37  9461
30      Richie Ashburn    63.9 1948 1962 21-35  9736
31        Andruw Jones    62.8 1996 2012 19-35  8664
32        Jake Beckley    61.6 1888 1907 20-39 10517
33        Sherry Magee    59.3 1904 1919 19-34  8545
34         Joe Medwick    55.6 1932 1948 20-36  8143
35         Vada Pinson    54.3 1958 1975 19-36 10403
36          Joe Tinker    53.1 1902 1916 21-35  7149
37        Cesar Cedeno    52.8 1970 1986 19-35  8133
38      Orlando Cepeda    50.2 1958 1974 20-36  8698
39         Jim Fregosi    48.7 1961 1978 19-36  7403
40         John McGraw    45.7 1891 1907 18-34  4940
41          King Kelly    44.3 1878 1893 20-35  6457
42        Mike Tiernan    42.2 1887 1899 20-32  6732
43      Darrell Porter    40.9 1971 1987 19-35  6570
44       Pete Browning    40.6 1882 1894 21-33  5315
45   Giancarlo Stanton    39.4 2010 2019 20-29  4840
46          Donie Bush    39.3 1908 1923 20-35  8760
47         Fred Dunlap    37.1 1880 1891 21-32  4264
48      Bill Mazeroski    36.5 1956 1972 19-35  8379
49      Ned Williamson    36.1 1878 1890 20-32  5082
50         Denny Lyons    35.5 1885 1897 19-31  5029
51        Justin Upton    35.0 2007 2018 19-30  6808
52      Stuffy McInnis    34.3 1909 1927 18-36  8631
53       Richie Hebner    33.0 1968 1985 20-37  7027
54           Del Ennis    31.1 1946 1959 21-34  7943
55          Hal Trosky    30.5 1933 1946 20-33  5748
56          Ray Schalk    28.6 1912 1929 19-36  6240
57          Terry Puhl    28.4 1977 1991 20-34  5480
58     Garry Templeton    27.9 1976 1991 20-35  8208
59       Butch Wynegar    26.5 1976 1988 20-32  5067
60    Francisco Lindor    23.9 2015 2018 21-24  2590
61        Fred Carroll    22.5 1884 1891 19-26  3290
62       Tom Brunansky    22.0 1981 1994 20-33  7169
63       Carlos Correa    18.9 2015 2019 20-24  2083
64      Whitey Lockman    18.3 1945 1960 18-33  6591
65        Frank Snyder    15.3 1912 1927 18-33  4612
66          Greg Gross    12.5 1973 1989 20-36  4355
67        Rick Manning    11.7 1975 1987 20-32  5832
68        Curt Blefary    11.0 1965 1972 21-28  3490
69        Tom McCreery    10.9 1895 1903 20-28  3357
70      Cody Bellinger     9.7 2017 2019 21-23  1242
71        Ozzie Albies     5.7 2017 2019 20-22   982


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 4/12/2019.
   22. QLE Posted: April 13, 2019 at 05:10 AM (#5831416)
   23. dejarouehg Posted: April 13, 2019 at 09:12 AM (#5831428)
I can't believe I'm feeling sorry for him, but I do and it comes off as malpractice. Of course, who knows what the player is up against. In the big picture, I'm not sure this is good for him, his agents, or (I know this is a stretch,) the Braves. Other players may say they took too much advantage of him. (I said it's a stretch.)
   24. BrianBrianson Posted: April 13, 2019 at 10:00 AM (#5831434)
Of course, it depends a lot.

But if I were given a choice today between a 100% chance of earning $35 million, and an 80% chance of earning $35 billion, I'd definitely take the former. Maybe I'd be a terrible client too; I suppose I've been lucky to never be in a position where I had to negotiate on salary, so I can't fault a man if he's also averse to that sort of thing. Firing him as a client because he wanted to take the offer isn't necessarily good - especially if the likely outcome was him trying to take the deal on his own.
   25. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: April 13, 2019 at 10:22 AM (#5831437)
I don't know how an agent lets their player sign this deal. The agent does work for the player and if the player wants to leave money on the table then I can understand an under market deal. But this is ridiculous. At the very least, those option years should have been mutual options. I highly doubt this agency ever signs another prominent player again.
   26. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: April 13, 2019 at 10:54 AM (#5831442)
But if I were given a choice today between a 100% chance of earning $35 million, and an 80% chance of earning $35 billion, I'd definitely take the former.

In a pure either/or situation, I'd feel the same way, but that's not what this is. Even if he declines the extension, he's a very safe bet (much closer to 100% than 80) to make it through his arb years and make a bunch of millions. Look at that list above. It includes a total of one person who both debuted post-1900 and didn't play into his thirties. Also, he can hedge his bets if he wants. I'm sure there are people out there who would happily pay him $10 or $20 million in exchange for a chunk of his future earnings.

And beyond all that, even if Albies was absolutely determined to sign an extension, is there any doubt he could have negotiated a significantly better one than the one he got?
   27. BrianBrianson Posted: April 13, 2019 at 01:38 PM (#5831475)
Perhaps it depends a bit, but if the Braves knew he was willing to sign this extension, then presumably he couldn't have gotten a better one.

And, of course, agents are probably obliged to do what their clients want. If the Braves made an offer, and he wanted it, it's really not their place to decide what he does. They could recommend negotiating, but he could always overrule them. I thought near on everyone here is a lawyer ... I hope you don't represent your clients with total disinterest and disdain for their wishes.
   28. A triple short of the cycle Posted: April 13, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5831487)
Agents get paid a percentage of the contract right? Then it is definitely in their best interest to negotiate the best deal. Sounds like Braves made a take-it-or-leave-it offer and the player chose the security.

Beverage to BB
   29. BrianBrianson Posted: April 13, 2019 at 02:34 PM (#5831496)
I'd say I'm also skeptical of the idea this was really the Braves' theoretical best offer, unless there's some bit of information we're not privy too. I'm just also skeptical of the assertion that agents should be calling the shots, rather than players.

It is seemingly a pretty large premium to pay for security of income. I'm merely saying it's one I'd be liable to take.
   30. Greg Pope Posted: April 13, 2019 at 03:14 PM (#5831506)
In a pure either/or situation, I'd feel the same way, but that's not what this is. Even if he declines the extension, he's a very safe bet (much closer to 100% than 80) to make it through his arb years and make a bunch of millions. Look at that list above. It includes a total of one person who both debuted post-1900 and didn't play into his thirties. Also, he can hedge his bets if he wants. I'm sure there are people out there who would happily pay him $10 or $20 million in exchange for a chunk of his future earnings.

Agree. What are the chances that he makes less than $10M over his career? They have to be really, really small. He's already had good years in the majors. Two other prospects jump to mind: Delmon Young and Ben Grieve. Both were high prospects that made the majors and succeeded early. Then did virtually nothing. Young made $14M over his career and Grieve made $12M.

So you take out an insurance policy* that gets you $10M guaranteed. Then you go through arbitration. Actual worst case is $10M. Most likely bad case is you only earn $25M. Most likely overall case is you earn close to the $35M through arbitration years then hit FA jackpot.

In that case, the team has to come in way higher for me to sign.

*could be actual insurance, or loan, or sign against future earnings, or whatever
   31. BrianBrianson Posted: April 13, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5831514)
Delmon Young and Ben Grieve really aren't worst case scenarios. Mark Fidrych was 21 when he put up 9.6 WAR, and his career path would leave you with ~$2 million when you retired. Joe Charboneau wasn't as good or as young, but he was ROY and basically fell apart because of a back injury (detectives might suspect other factors too, but the back injury was a big deal, and never healed right). Alfredo Griffin only put up 2.5 WAR in his age 21 Rookie of the Year effort, not quite Albies' total, but it was more than 80% of his total career WAR; he'd struggle to get a paycheque today.

Maybe the chance he'd make less than $5 million is only 5%. But, back at the 100% to get $35 million, 95% to get $35 billion roll of the die, that $35 million would be real tempting.
   32. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 13, 2019 at 03:54 PM (#5831518)
Delmon Young and Ben Grieve really aren't worst case scenarios. Mark Fidrych was 21 when he put up 9.6 WAR, and his career path would leave you with ~$2 million when you retired. Joe Charboneau wasn't as good or as young, but he was ROY and basically fell apart because of a back injury (detectives might suspect other factors too, but the back injury was a big deal, and never healed right). Alfredo Griffin only put up 2.5 WAR in his age 21 Rookie of the Year effort, not quite Albies' total, but it was more than 80% of his total career WAR; he'd struggle to get a paycheque today.


Albies isn't a pitcher. Career ending injuries are rare for young position players, but they can happen, like with Tony Conigliaro. So maybe that's your worst case. How much would Alibies earn if he had Conigliaro's career?
   33. BrianBrianson Posted: April 13, 2019 at 04:10 PM (#5831522)
Fidrych was the only pitcher I used as an example. Conigliaro's injury - hard to say. I'm not at all sure how arbitration would handle someone who missed a year due to injury. Could approach $10 million, but that's a fairly wild-ass guess. Charboneau was an outfielder, and his career track would be Albies injures his back this year, never makes anything beyond the $1 million he's made so far.

[EDIT]
Rocco Baldelli actually made $6 million, and is a plausible injury comp.
   34. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 13, 2019 at 04:21 PM (#5831526)
30 players have amassed 5 career war through age 21 since 1960. About half are HOFers or HOF caliber players. Most of the rest were very good regulars for a long time, like Cesar Cedeno, Vada Pinson, Andruw Jones, Buddy Bell. Some are current young players like Acuna and Correa. The worst players (or worst careers) are Conigliaro, Claudell Washington, and Rick Manning. Washington wasn't all that good, but he did get a big FA contract from the Braves. Maybe he wouldn't today. Manning played for a long time, but aside from his age 20 and 21 seasons, he wasn't very good.

So, how much does Albies earn if he has a career path like these three worst cases? I'd guess a lot more than $35 mil if it's Washington or Conigliaro, and probably less if it's Manning. Trying to come up with a modern equivalent to manning. Maybe John Jay? Jay had made $30 mil.
   35. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 13, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5831529)
Rocco is a good comp for a suddenly chronically injured Albies. Ages and approx. values line up.
   36. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 13, 2019 at 04:52 PM (#5831540)
Conigliaro's injury - hard to say. I'm not at all sure how arbitration would handle someone who missed a year due to injury. Could approach $10 million, but that's a fairly wild-ass guess.


A modern day Conigliaro would make way more than 10 mil. I'm assuming he doesn't get service time for the injury year, so he's 1st year Arb in 1967, 2nd year in 1969, 3rd year in 1970, when he hit 36 HR and drove in 116. Even if he didn't get much of a raise in 1969 following the injury, he certainly would get a nice bump after proving he could still play, and a huger bump after that 1970 season. Yes, he immediately fell off the cliff after that, butI think his his 69-71 paydays would come to way more than $10 mil.
   37. Greg Pope Posted: April 13, 2019 at 06:13 PM (#5831564)
Maybe the chance he'd make less than $5 million is only 5%. But, back at the 100% to get $35 million, 95% to get $35 billion roll of the die, that $35 million would be real tempting.

Sure. And I don't know what the odds would have to be for me to accept that. But that's not anywhere near what Albies is looking at. Why do you keep coming back to $35 billion? Let's say at the top end he could earn $90M over these same years (since it's not just arb, he signed away some FA years).

The question isn't:

A) 100% chance of $35M
B) 80% chance of $90M, 20% chance of $0

It's:

A) 100% chance of $5M
B) 80% chance of $90M, 10% chance of $50M, 5% chance of $25M, 3% chance of $10M, 1.5% chance of $4M, 0.4% chance of $1M, 0.1% chance of nothing more than this year's salary.

Or something like that. People with more knowledge of arbitration, etc can weigh in. The 0.1% is a truly catastrophic injury where the team just cuts him. Like a literal amputation. If he just has a serious back or shoulder injury, the team keeps him on at least another 3 years to see if he can rehab.
   38. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 13, 2019 at 06:14 PM (#5831565)
Washington wasn't all that good, but he did get a big FA contract from the Braves. Maybe he wouldn't today.


Washington is a fairly good comp for Jason Heyward. Both had big years at age 20 but never built on them. Washington did come back with one more all-star season at the age of 29.
   39. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 13, 2019 at 07:13 PM (#5831587)
where the team just cuts him. Like a literal amputation.


Talk about unfair labor practices!
   40. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 13, 2019 at 07:45 PM (#5831604)
So you take out an insurance policy* that gets you $10M guaranteed. Then you go through arbitration. Actual worst case is $10M. Most likely bad case is you only earn $25M. Most likely overall case is you earn close to the $35M through arbitration years then hit FA jackpot.


I'm pretty sure if he guaranteed he'd go through Arbitration and get to FA young, he could sell 20% of his future earnings for $10M right now. There are securitization markets for this stuff.

he'd be set for life, and be headed for a likely extra $80M over the next 10 years.
   41. Greg Pope Posted: April 13, 2019 at 08:19 PM (#5831619)
Talk about unfair labor practices!

Good point. I should have used different words there. :)
   42. greenback slays lewks Posted: April 14, 2019 at 12:10 AM (#5831673)
I'm pretty sure if he guaranteed he'd go through Arbitration and get to FA young, he could sell 20% of his future earnings for $10M right now. There are securitization markets for this stuff.

This doesn't sound right. I can't find anything about baseball salary securitizations on Google, and I have a hard time believing anybody with the capital wants a slice of a single, bespoke $10 million transaction, or even a slice of ten such transactions. And there isn't much more than ten such transactions. Anyone buying into this would need to know how the securitization works (who gets paid first, how the payments are secured, etc.) and understand how the underlying "assets" (the players' performances essentially) are likely to develop. That's a thin market.

A private loan with various terms of repayment seems a lot more suitable for this kind of arrangement.
   43. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: April 14, 2019 at 11:21 AM (#5831696)
I believe Meg Rowley called this "easily the worst contract we've ever seen". I thought she was exaggerating, so I looked it up, and now I feel like she was understating things.
   44. Greg Pope Posted: April 14, 2019 at 11:50 AM (#5831699)
I have a hard time believing anybody with the capital wants a slice of a single, bespoke $10 million transaction, or even a slice of ten such transactions.

I'm not in the industry or anything, but I'm pretty sure you can get an insurance company to sign off on just about anything if you're willing to pay enough. They do single transactions all the time.

There's a furniture store in my area that does "buy any furniture the first 2 weeks in January and if it snows 3 inches or more on Super Bowl Sunday, it's free". They have insurance. The insurance company figures out the odds of snow, and the store pays them some percentage of all sales.

It doesn't have to be a loan, either. It can be "If player X doesn't make $50M by the age of 32, then the company pays them $10M". Obviously it would be a lot more detailed than that, but that's the gist of it. I think Scherzer got insurance before his free agent year.
   45. Omineca Greg Posted: April 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM (#5831700)
Ozzie's father died when young Ozzie (Ozhaino) was 16; his dad, Osgarry, was only 40. Things like that change the way you think about your time, your responsibility, your legacy. Or maybe in this case, it didn't, we have no way of knowing.

It's a horrible deal, but we don't know what Ozzie's motivations were. Even if the player is on the extreme side of wanting to lock in guaranteed pay now at the expense of potential earnings later, you would think his agent could have done better for him.
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 14, 2019 at 01:01 PM (#5831708)
Ozzie's father died when young Ozzie (Ozhaino) was 16; his dad, Osgarry, was only 40. Things like that change the way you think about your time, your responsibility, your legacy. Or maybe in this case, it didn't, we have no way of knowing.


At his age he could probably buy $20M of 20 year Term insurance for like $10,000 a year. Not more than $20,000. Insuring against early death is ridiculously cheap.
   47. . Posted: April 14, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5831734)
Utterly irrelevant to anything that matters, and you can't really pure "expected value" these things because the value of the first $40M is so much higher than the next $40M. First $40M makes you set for life and really, really, really rich, second $40M does nothing close. A layman spending a bunch of words and time on this is just more opinionating for opinionating's sake. Not a great deal for Ozzie based on the prevailing market but at the end of the day, he's highly-skilled in a rather frivolous pursuit and should thank the fates for being born in 1997 rather than 1927 or 1897.

Or maybe that's part of why he took the big guarantee.

   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 14, 2019 at 03:47 PM (#5831748)
Utterly irrelevant to anything that matters, and you can't really pure "expected value" these things because the value of the first $40M is so much higher than the next $40M.

It's totally relevant because their are capital markets and insurance companies that allow you to offload risk.

If you have an asset with an expected value of $100M, but too much risk for your liking, you don't have to sell it to the guy who bid $35M. Lots of people will pay more than that. $50M of risk, over 10 years, is virtually nothing to large insurers.
   49. PreservedFish Posted: April 14, 2019 at 07:17 PM (#5831838)
#47 - the important thing is that you've found a way to communicate your superiority.
   50. greenback slays lewks Posted: April 14, 2019 at 08:49 PM (#5831855)
I'm not in the industry or anything, but I'm pretty sure you can get an insurance company to sign off on just about anything if you're willing to pay enough. They do single transactions all the time.

Yes, I'm aware those kinds of guarantees are available, but that's old-fashioned insurance, not securitization. Bespoke arrangements that you described require a significant investment in underwriting (detailed physical and mental testing), which don't lend themselves well to capital markets, as snapper puts it.
   51. Howie Menckel Posted: April 14, 2019 at 09:10 PM (#5831860)
supposedly Kimbrel even 2 weeks ago still wanted 5 years, $100M.

finally, the anti-matter to Albies' agent who wants way LOWER than his client is worth.

funny thing: both agents have the last name of "Meter"
   52. . Posted: April 14, 2019 at 09:15 PM (#5831862)
#47 - the important thing is that you've found a way to communicate your superiority.


Don't know about that, but it's certainly pretty much the reality (what I wrote that is, not the superiority.) Just took another look 6 hours later or so ... yeah, it works.
   53. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 14, 2019 at 09:50 PM (#5831867)
Wrong thread.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 14, 2019 at 09:55 PM (#5831870)
Yes, I'm aware those kinds of guarantees are available, but that's old-fashioned insurance, not securitization. Bespoke arrangements that you described require a significant investment in underwriting (detailed physical and mental testing), which don't lend themselves well to capital markets, as snapper puts it.

Either way. If Albies expected earnings are $100M over the next 8 years, somebody out there will pay him at least $25M for 50% of them. If he did that, he'd be way ahead of where he is now.
   55. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 06:37 AM (#5831882)
Either way. If Albies expected earnings are $100M over the next 8 years, somebody out there will pay him at least $25M for 50% of them. If he did that, he'd be way ahead of where he is now.


Conclusion doesn't follow from premise. If there was in fact the robust securitization market for young MLBers projected earnings, and it didn't pay Ozzie what you think it should have, it means you're overvaluing his expected earnings. If no one paid him at least $25M for half his earnings, it means his expected earnings aren't $100M over the next eight.
   56. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: April 15, 2019 at 07:56 AM (#5831886)
In both the Albies and Kimbrel threads, it is noted that they have the same agent (and that both, for different reasons, appear to have been put in a suboptimal place with poor advice). Dave Meter of SportsMeter is the agent, and these are his clients:

Albies
Kimbrel
Nick Castellanos
Derek Dietrich
Francisco Lindor
Jesmuel Valentin of Phily

Lindor appears to be going year-to-year, although on paper he is a classic "buy out some free agent years for more money up front" candidate. Besides that, I don't really see a pattern in this relatively small data set of clients...
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 09:14 AM (#5831895)
If no one paid him at least $25M for half his earnings, it means his expected earnings aren't $100M over the next eight.

No, it means his incompetent agent didn't try hard enough, if at all. We know he doesn't even seem to have bothered negotiating with the Braves. Everyone knows this deal is way below market. There have been about 50 articles proving it.
   58. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 11:21 AM (#5831964)
No, it means his incompetent agent didn't try hard enough, if at all. We know he doesn't even seem to have bothered negotiating with the Braves. Everyone knows this deal is way below market. There have been about 50 articles proving it.


But the marketplace you cited obviously doesn't think so, or it would have acted the way you outlined in 54.

Everyone knows this deal is way below market.


Doubtful. It's an efficient market with nearly perfect knowledge of comps. Accordingly, it's not structurally the kind of market from which you would expect materially "below market" results. A slight hometown discount might be baked into it, but other than that, it's a very efficient market. And frankly, once you account for the "I like this organization, city, and the way they've trained and treated me so far" factor and the "I'll take the sure thing" factor, it's not even clearly a discount from whatever "market" you and the "50 articles proving it" are imagining.

For whatever reason, the herd mentality has found itself herding around this, "The market is rigged and unfair and the owners are making too much money" idea -- but that's all it really is. A herd glomming on to herd opinions solely for the purpose of having an opinion.

There's something to the idea that capital is making too much money relative to labor, but if that's your perspective, there are better avenues for outrage and action than the baseball labor market. So my beefs with all of this are: (1) it's not really true other than maybe episodically and doesn't stand up to analysis and markets change; and (2) hearts and heads maybe in the right place, but badly aimed/wasted energy. Hope that clarifies.
   59. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 11:30 AM (#5831976)
But the marketplace you cited obviously doesn't think so, or it would have acted the way you outlined in 54.

There's no such thing as a "marketplace". There are a bunch of potential bidders (hedge funds, insurance cos., etc.) that might be interested, but Albies agent would need to 1) signal an openness to such a deal, and 2) do the hard work of negotiating.
   60. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 11:39 AM (#5831984)
There are a bunch of potential bidders (hedge funds, insurance cos., etc.) that might be interested,


That's a marketplace.

Albies agent would need to 1) signal an openness to such a deal, and 2) do the hard work of negotiating.


Who said he didn't? If the answer is, "Because he could have sold the earnings for at least $25M," as you did before, you're simply assuming the conclusion.

   61. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 11:47 AM (#5831986)
The Ringer gets at what's really going on here:

Albies, in an absolute worst-case scenario, could have walked away with nothing, and part of the calculus of contract negotiations in baseball is that the team, which has billions of dollars and hundreds of players in the organization, has less to lose than the player. That clubs—and businesses in general—are willing to use that as leverage is as detestable as it is inextricably woven into the normative fabric of capitalism, which is itself inextricable from American identity.


So the agon people have set up in their heads in all this, it's quite clear by now, is "talented employees versus the detestable features of American capitalism and identity." (*) And so Ozzie Albies didn't just sign a contract he's really happy with and that will make him very rich and will set him up to get even richer at a still young age. Oh, no -- instead he lost a battle in "the struggle" against the normative fabric of capitalism and American identity. What a ... sell-out.

As I've said about a whole bunch of all this -- it has nothing to do with baseball. Those of us with perspective and who just want to follow a sport we like and enjoy the games and the competition can't possibly be expected to sign on to such nonsense, and we don't. Nor did Ozzie Albies ever sign up for such nonsense. It might be best to just leave him alone and let him enjoy the sport he's very good at and obviously gets great joy from -- joy that is probably even greater now that he's ensured a sound financial future for himself and his family. But leaving people alone to enjoy things they want to enjoy is far too much for far too many people.

(*) I will say that if this is some kind of psychological thing, wherein the thought process is "Well, if really talented people with a lot of leverage are getting shafted by capitalism, what hope is there for the rest of us?," I could get behind that. But I've seen no real evidence that that is the thought process, and if it is it could just be stated and admitted more explicitly.



   62. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: April 15, 2019 at 11:55 AM (#5831990)
Go away.
   63. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:00 PM (#5831995)
Go away.


No one's interested in this cliquish crap. Stop ruining people's enjoyment with it. The ignore button is right in front of you.
   64. RoyalFlush Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM (#5832003)
Didn't that same Ringer article state that Albies was hedging against an unrealistic worst-case scenario? Isn't that what's really going on here?
   65. bunyon Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:27 PM (#5832010)
Ozzie's father died when young Ozzie (Ozhaino) was 16; his dad, Osgarry, was only 40. Things like that change the way you think about your time, your responsibility, your legacy. Or maybe in this case, it didn't, we have no way of knowing.


At his age he could probably buy $20M of 20 year Term insurance for like $10,000 a year. Not more than $20,000. Insuring against early death is ridiculously cheap.


I don't think life insurance is the point. He's 22 years old and, as far as I can tell, has no children.

He's already missed a season (in the minors) to a freak thumb fracture (edit: I misread a date, he only missed about a month). If he really thinks he might be dead by 40 (and, hey, he might, who can say?) then he'd want the money, for himself, sooner. Life insurance is great and all if you have dependents but it doesn't buy anything for the policyholder.

Everything I've read on him suggests that he's sort of the perfect storm of risk-averse, which may well explain all of this. Especially given that the Braves know him better than anyone.
   66. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:31 PM (#5832012)
Bunyon, that's not the point. Nobody here is criticizing Albies for his apparent priorities. The point is that even granting that Albies wanted the money and the guarantee, THE DEAL IS STILL HORRIBLE. He should have gotten more money for fewer years.
   67. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:38 PM (#5832017)
And if Albies were truly desperate to sign an extension for some private reason, then the Braves are contemptible for not putting forward a competitive offer.
   68. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:44 PM (#5832019)
Bunyon, that's not the point.


It is the point, and it's a very good one. You and yours just don't want to listen to it. High risk aversion, and hometown discount explain virtually the entire difference between Ozzie's K and the so-called "market" -- which is also being badly misread around here.(*) People differ in their risk tolerances.

It's just beyond bizarre that people have taken up a guy's baseball contract that guarantees him like $45 million as part of an injunction of capitalism. To use your caps: NO ONE SHOULD TAKE SUCH NONSENSE SERIOUSLY.

He should have gotten more money for fewer years.


He took more years because he's risk-averse, maybe highly so. His choice, not yours.

(*) The market now isn't "the market two years ago plus a big inflation factor." Markets don't work that way. People are just pretending they do to make their non-persuasive points.
   69. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM (#5832020)
And if Albies were truly desperate to sign an extension for some private reason, then the Braves are contemptible for not putting forward a competitive offer.


You mean like the competitive offers the Moneyball A's were obligated to make? Please. Rule of Holes. Do you have it in you to reassess the entire argument you're putting forth if it depends on statements like the one above?

What's next? That the offer is "racist"? As long as people are in with "the contract is an indictment of American capitalism and identity" and "contemptible," might as well go all in.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:01 PM (#5832028)
"the contract is an indictment of American capitalism"

Well, that's true, in the sense that modern American capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with free markets. It's "capitalism" in name only.

MLB is a great example. It's a Gov't protected cartel that retains total control over its employees through their prime earning years. That's no more capitalism than State Tractor Factory 163 was.
   71. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:04 PM (#5832030)
Well, that's true, in the sense that modern American capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with free markets. It's "capitalism" in name only.


Sure, and it's also true that ownership in American capitalism screws over employees. Not sure why baseball is being used to make the point though, and I've said for a long time that ultimately a lot of "sabermetric" thought has little to do with baseball. This is yet another example. No reason at all that this, of all things, should be a cause celebre. Misguided energy. You'll note that not a lot of people on your current "side" are on the side of American workers, generally. So why baseball players?

   72. BrianBrianson Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:07 PM (#5832033)
And if Albies were truly desperate to sign an extension for some private reason, then the Braves are contemptible for not putting forward a competitive offer.


They're owned by a large corporate conglomerate. It's quite possible they're not able to sign players for way more than they're willing to sign for. Burning stockholder value in a giant bonfire is typically not okay.
   73. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:08 PM (#5832034)
Plus Ozzie is represented by a union and an agent. His bargaining position was stronger than probably 99% of those who work for American companies. He doesn't need the neo-woke "concern," and who knows, is probably laughing at it. I hope he is.
   74. bunyon Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:22 PM (#5832038)
Plus Ozzie is represented by a union and an agent.

Who I do think let him down.

Acuna signed a deal favorable to the Braves but got a ton of money and, I think it's arguable that that was the best the Braves were willing to do.

The Albies deal is horse of a different color. It looks to me like the Braves took advantage of a guy who they knew to be extremely risk-averse and the agent and union didn't do much to help him out. We're always speculating in these situation, it's never 100% clear what was offered and when, and, yeah, the market has changed in favor of ownership the last couple of year but, geez, it seems obvious to me, a better deal could've been made.

It is certainly true, no one should fret too much for Albies. He's a fantastically fortunate young man in all respects that matter. But this is still a horrible deal, even if it's understandable why he'd go for it.
   75. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:30 PM (#5832040)
Who I do think let him down.

Acuna signed a deal favorable to the Braves but got a ton of money and, I think it's arguable that that was the best the Braves were willing to do.

The Albies deal is horse of a different color. It looks to me like the Braves took advantage of a guy who they knew to be extremely risk-averse and the agent and union didn't do much to help him out. We're always speculating in these situation, it's never 100% clear what was offered and when, and, yeah, the market has changed in favor of ownership the last couple of year but, geez, it seems obvious to me, a better deal could've been made.

It is certainly true, no one should fret too much for Albies. He's a fantastically fortunate young man in all respects that matter. But this is still a horrible deal, even if it's understandable why he'd go for it.


I can co-sign this, ex-the adjective "horrible." It can't be horrible in a negotiating sense, because the market is efficient, transparent and fair. I guess it can be horrible in a baseball sense, but then what are we to make of deals that are horrible in a baseball sense the other way, like e.g. Chris Davis or Ryan Howard?? If people are permitted to get all political about Ozzie's deal, what separates them from lugs who prattle on and on about Chris Davis being overpaid? Or for that matter the school of thought that holds that it's absurd to make that kind of money playing a kid's game? There's certainly a case to be made for that school of thought, right?
   76. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:42 PM (#5832045)
It can't be horrible in a negotiating sense, because the market is efficient, transparent and fair.

There was not one iota of a market in this situation. It was a strict two party negotiation. Expecting those results to always be fair is beyond naive.
   77. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:47 PM (#5832047)
There was not one iota of a market in this situation.


Seriously? It's entirely a market and even better for the player, all the comparable contracts were known. What other workers have this advantage? Even professionals don't. I've negotiated in those markets and had little idea what the comps were. And I didn't have an agent. Totally biased in favor of the other side. And it cost me.

It was a strict two party negotiation.


That doesn't mean there isn't a market for baseball talent, as there obviously is.

Expecting those results to always be fair is beyond naive.


Never said the results would always be fair. I said the market was fair, and it is in every sense. It's fairer than the vast majority of labor markets. In terms of structure, it's arguably the fairest labor market in America.
   78. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5832050)
Seriously? It's entirely a market and even better for the player, all the comparable contracts were known. What other workers have this advantage? Even professionals don't. I've negotiated in those markets and had little idea what the comps were. And I didn't have an agent. Totally biased in favor of the other side. And it cost me.

You could have gone to work for any other company in your industry. Albies can't.

That doesn't mean there isn't a market for baseball talent, as there obviously is.

There's no market for the first 7 years of their careers. None at all.


Never said the results would always be fair. I said the market was fair, and it is in every sense. It's fairer than the vast majority of labor markets. Arguably it's the fairest labor market in America.


It's not a market at all, except for a tiny number of FAs each year.
   79. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5832051)
Players can and have "securitized" their future earnings*, but it's not a well functioning market in any sense of the word, and the options available are probably very bespoke and difficult to compare against each other for someone who is inexperienced in complex financial instruments. (This is not an excuse for his agent, who should be knowledgeable about these things or be able to find someone who is.)

*One of the articles about the Acuna contract mentioned that Acuna had previously borrowed $10 million against his future earnings, with what appeared to be little downside risk to himself, for example.
   80. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 01:56 PM (#5832057)
You could have gone to work for any other company in your industry. Albies can't.


So? Albies had perfect knowledge of every relevant comp. I didn't. Ozzie had a union that had already negotiated a bunch of favorable provisions on his behalf. I didn't. Etc.

There's no market for the first 7 years of their careers. None at all.


Yes, there is and they still sell their labor in it. Negotiated values in that market, even circumscribed by the team monopsony, vary widely. And the threat of free agency down the road is obviously a factor in negotiating leverage. As is the threat of arbitration.

It's not a market at all, except for a tiny number of FAs each year.


The whole thing's a market. Some people are bound to a single employer by contracts beyond the current year, but that's true of a lot of industries and the multi-year contracts were themselves the product of negotiation. You're confusing "not everyone is free to leave their employer at any given point" with "there is no market."
   81. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 02:02 PM (#5832064)
Players can and have "securitized" their future earnings*, but it's not a well functioning market in any sense of the word,


There's your opportunity. Go for it.
   82. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 02:07 PM (#5832066)
Does current saber orthodoxy still support the draft? Hard to see how or why it should.
   83. bunyon Posted: April 15, 2019 at 02:32 PM (#5832078)
I guess it can be horrible in a baseball sense, but then what are we to make of deals that are horrible in a baseball sense the other way, like e.g. Chris Davis or Ryan Howard??

Yeah, I think this deal is as bad as Davis' or Howard's. Just in the other direction. No one is dying from it and all concerned come away far richer than I will ever be. But they're bad deals in context.

   84. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 02:40 PM (#5832079)
Yeah, I think this deal is as bad as Davis' or Howard's.


Right, but there was no sense beyond baseball in which Davis's or Howard's deals were averred to be "bad." And if those were bad because the team paid more than it needed to, then why isn't Ozzie's deal "good" because the team paid less than it needed to? The only reason is because people have things other than baseball in mind when deconstructing Ozzie's deal.
   85. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 02:44 PM (#5832082)
Because some people are capable of considering multiple perspectives?
   86. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:07 PM (#5832092)
They definitely are, and often insightfully and virtually always intelligently. But sometimes there are obvious inconsistencies in how those perspectives hold together, and sometimes they don't hold together at all. When that happens, something more is afoot and I'm trying to identify and describe what that might be.

Billy Beane obtained some baseball assets for less than they were worth and they made a movie about him. Liberty Media just did the same thing and it's like they unleashed a new strain of polio or something.

If you really stop to think about it, American sports GMing really comes down to obtaining assets for less than they're worth -- particularly in the salary capped sports, i.e., every one besides baseball. If all you do as a GM is pay what's sort of being sketched out in these threads and the various other Ozzie-related articles as "real" value (*), you aren't really adding value and you'll never be able to build a championship roster.

(*) Defined loosely as the difference between what the Braves will pay Ozzie and what he's deemed to be really "worth."
   87. BrianBrianson Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:18 PM (#5832096)
I guess it's mostly run it's course, but MLB is exactly how market capitalism plays out. There are other baseball leagues you could sign with, but MLB provided the best product and out-competed the other leagues to an enormous degree, and as such have achieved enormous market dominance.
   88. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:20 PM (#5832098)
86. You are being weaselly about the word "worth."

When Billy Beane signed Scott Hatteberg as a free agent, he did so by offering him a top-of-market contract. When he promoted Chad Bradford, he was giving him an economic opportunity that most other teams would not. In these cases he was not guilty of the sins that the Braves are here - or that the Cubs were in gaining a year of control of Kris Bryant by using a ridiculous pretense, or other teams are in making an early promotion wink-wink-contingent on signing a contract extension. Some behavior is both smart and shitty, and people in this community are able to acknowledge that. You haven't uncovered some deep critical hypocrisy in the heart of the stathead ethos.
   89. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:28 PM (#5832101)
If all Billy Beane did was pay players their "real" value, as that term is being used w/r/t Ozzie, he didn't accomplish anything of note. Of course, he did no such thing -- and so he did. The whole point of Moneyball is buying "undervalued" players and therefore they can't be by definition being paid their "real" value. If the other teams didn't value OBP properly and Beane did and paid less for OBP than it was worth, he didn't do anything more ethical than the Braves are being accused of doing with Ozzie. He took the players' lost OBP financial value, that the baseball industry was screwing them out of, for himself and the A's.

In these cases he was not guilty of the sins that the Braves are here


He's guilty of the very same sins -- paying players less than their "real" value. If anything, he's more "morally" culpable because he's doing it intentionally -- indeed as virtually his entire GMing philosophy.
   90. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:32 PM (#5832102)
Should've stayed out of this. Enjoy your hobbyhorse with someone else.
   91. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:42 PM (#5832107)
Not sure why you'd accuse me of being weasally (*) and then get huffy when I explained my position more. But whatever.

The position you and the others are advocating simply doesn't hold together well. So two options for people holding that position. Listen only to the echo chamber, compliment each other, ignore or try to internet-shame any dissent. Or do essentially the opposite. Their call. Doesn't matter to me. My background and outside-the-net life revolves around engagement and I spend most of my work and outside time with people of like mind on that front. There's no analogue to internet-shaming in that life. I usually learn a lot from the engagement, and engaging undoubtedly helps improve my thinking. Pretty clear by this point that it's not for everyone.

(*) Especially when I'm doing the exact opposite: taking the value of "worth" being propounded by the other "side" and exploring its ramifications. If OBP was worth more than everyone in the industry thought, then Beane wasn't in fact paying "real" value for it. And intentionally so. So now why again are we supposed to be concerned about Liberty Media not paying Ozzie his "real" worth?


   92. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 15, 2019 at 03:53 PM (#5832112)
Right, but there was no sense beyond baseball in which Davis's or Howard's deals were averred to be "bad." And if those were bad because the team paid more than it needed to, then why isn't Ozzie's deal "good" because the team paid less than it needed to? The only reason is because people have things other than baseball in mind when deconstructing Ozzie's deal.

No, Albies' deal is good for the team and bad for the player. Maybe it won't turn out that way in the end, but that's how it looks today.

To the extent that some people are more upset about a bad deal from Albies' perspective than a bad deal from the team's perspective, I can't say for sure, but I would suspect that it's because the teams employ many players and are owned by extremely wealthy people -- they are diversified and a single bad contract isn't as meaningful or harmful to them. Whereas a player like Albies is affected much more by a bad financial decision.

Likewise, a player in free agency may have a bit of negotiating leverage but it's going to pale in comparison to the leverage that teams have over players like Albies and Acuna where they're 21-22 years old, have earned relatively little to date, can only negotiate with one team, and are likely not very financially savvy. I feel some sympathy for them as they have to worry not only about the teams trying to take advantage of them, but also unscrupulous agents and other "advisors" (witness Lonzo Ball whose family friend convinced him and his father to set up their own sneaker company rather than take a deal from Nike, then embezzled money from said company).
   93. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2019 at 04:12 PM (#5832116)
SBB, if you could comment without your characteristic nauseating arrogance, I might consider engaging more.
   94. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 04:17 PM (#5832121)
To the extent that some people are more upset about a bad deal from Albies' perspective than a bad deal from the team's perspective, I can't say for sure, but I would suspect that it's because the teams employ many players and are owned by extremely wealthy people -- they are diversified and a single bad contract isn't as meaningful or harmful to them. Whereas a player like Albies is affected much more by a bad financial decision.


I don't really even disagree with that reasoning, but I hearken back to the fact that the reasoning has nothing to do with baseball. We're into the realm of things like distributive justice and the relationship between capital and labor. Which is fine, but it isn't baseball or baseball analysis; it's politics and political analysis. And the very same reasoning applies to the general American worker far more and has far more ultimate impact.
   95. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 04:28 PM (#5832129)
SBB, if you could comment without your characteristic nauseating arrogance, I might consider engaging more.


OK, when I think it through I honestly don't see the difference between Beane taking the OBP guys' lost value for himself and the Braves taking the value Ozzie gave up for themselves. An argument can be made that Beane's conduct was ethically worse. It was intentional and more wide-ranging, impacting more players.

One argument re Beane is that other players were getting money they didn't deserve because their skills were overvalued, but the direct analogue to that in the Ozzie case are the contracts like Davis and Howard. If that's a defense to Beane, it's a defense to Ozzie. So I don't see that a meaningful distinction can be made there, either.

I don't believe either course of conduct was unethical.
   96. Eddo Posted: April 15, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5832168)
Bunyon, that's not the point. Nobody here is criticizing Albies for his apparent priorities. The point is that even granting that Albies wanted the money and the guarantee, THE DEAL IS STILL HORRIBLE. He should have gotten more money for fewer years.

Exactly. I might be desperate to sell my car to make rent. If someone offers me $500 for it, I shouldn't take it just because I'm desperate, if I could counter with $1000 instead and get them to still pay.

And if Albies were truly desperate to sign an extension for some private reason, then the Braves are contemptible for not putting forward a competitive offer.

I don't know if I feel this strongly, though - if I'm foolish enough to accept the initial offer, I don't think the car buyer is "contemptible". I imagine negotiations often start with each side offering something they "know" the other party won't accept, and then working towards the middle ground. It could very well be the Braves offered this initially as a "baseline" or whatever, assuming Albies would decline like anyone else would. EDIT: I could see feeling this way if Albies hadn't hired an agent - they'd be taking advantage of someone in over their head - but that's not the case here.
   97. bunyon Posted: April 15, 2019 at 07:14 PM (#5832190)
But we DON'T KNOW what offers were made and rejected. What if the Braves offered this and said if he refused they'd just let him ride through arbitration year to year.

Sure, that probably makes him more money but, then again, maybe it doesn't. Everyone seems to think he could have negotiated something better. I do too. But we don't KNOW.
   98. Baldrick Posted: April 15, 2019 at 07:18 PM (#5832192)
STOP TALKING TO THE TROLL.
   99. . Posted: April 15, 2019 at 07:25 PM (#5832194)
STOP TALKING TO THE TROLL.


I'm not going to talk to you and never have -- don't worry. No need for all caps.

Who are you, anyway?
   100. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2019 at 04:38 PM (#5832568)
OK, when I think it through I honestly don't see the difference between Beane taking the OBP guys' lost value for himself and the Braves taking the value Ozzie gave up for themselves.
That's because you're really really stupid. (In addition, of course, to being a troll.) Beane paid them their market value. Nobody else was willing to bid more for Hatteberg or Bradford or the like. The Braves did not pay Albies his market value. Rather, they exploited the fact that they were monopsony players in the market for his skills.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April 2019)
(443 - 3:24am, Apr 24)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogJake Arrieta upset with Bryce Harper for ejection, sounds off on 'flat' Phillies
(36 - 2:32am, Apr 24)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(310 - 2:21am, Apr 24)
Last: If on a winter's night a baserunner

NewsblogYo Mama's so big, she fills up OMNICHATTER!, for April 23, 2019
(115 - 1:32am, Apr 24)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogFor the third time this season, the Orioles have put a position player on the mound
(14 - 1:08am, Apr 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Gonfalon Cubs2019 Season Predictions
(123 - 12:20am, Apr 24)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread, v.2019
(1290 - 11:15pm, Apr 23)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

Sox TherapyA Weekend of Necessity
(12 - 10:30pm, Apr 23)
Last: Chip

NewsblogJustin Verlander wants to be the Tom Brady of baseball
(90 - 10:27pm, Apr 23)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogOne player, four drafts: The remarkable tale of Dave Winfield's draft history
(5 - 8:52pm, Apr 23)
Last: RMc accompanies the Griffmen to Augusta

NewsblogHow The Rays Are Surprising Baseball Again
(5 - 6:43pm, Apr 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogGio Gonzalez fires Scott Boras
(14 - 4:19pm, Apr 23)
Last: Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-22-2019
(19 - 2:34pm, Apr 23)
Last: The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1915 Ballot
(1 - 12:52pm, Apr 23)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogArenado homers for 1,000th hit, Rockies rally past Nats 7-5
(3 - 11:52am, Apr 23)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Page rendered in 0.7388 seconds
48 querie(s) executed