Interesting bidding strategy, but perhaps the exact opposite of what Dave Cameron suggested as a way to make a favorable "opt out" for a team.

Interesting bidding strategy, but perhaps the exact opposite of what Dave Cameron suggested as a way to make a favorable "opt out" for a team.\

Yes, the Dodgers' strategy seems to guarantee you only keep him if he sucks or is injured.

That siad, I think the Dodgers offers goes about as high as you could sanely go (7/160).

It's nice 29 teams maintained sanity this week. Frankly, the Prince deal is within reason. That is if you ever want to land a premo FA talent in MLB. If you aren't up for it, that's fine, then there are other ways to win.

I would love, just love BTF to get a franchise to manage. Our roster would be hilarious.

I would love, just love BTF to get a franchise to manage. Our roster would be hilarious.

It would be so massively conservative, that we would never sign one player of note. We would be stuck with overpaying for the Scutaro's of the world. About the only position that BTF seems to have a handle on is second base, utility player and maybe number three pitchers. Every other position BTF seems to undervalue relative to the real market.

The bid was designed not to discourage Fielder from opting out and possibly moving to the American League where he could DH after the first four years.

Not to discourage? So they wanted him to opt-out? aren't they the same team that cried when JD Drew did it?

I don't really understand why teams and players don't have contracts that are front-loaded more. Seems like the player would like the money up-front, and the team would like the financial flexibility down the road.

I don't really understand why teams and players don't have contracts that are front-loaded more. Seems like the player would like the money up-front, and the team would like the financial flexibility down the road.

The teams would like to have the money upfront for the same reasons that the players do...

I actually think this is the only way opt outs can work for a team (other than by complete accident). They offered him an aggregate package he wouldn't ordinarily accept, but made it more attractive by giving the player upside on the front end and the back end in return for accepting the downside risk.

I don't really understand why teams and players don't have contracts that are front-loaded more. Seems like the player would like the money up-front, and the team would like the financial flexibility down the road.

from what i can gather from comments here and elsewhere, GMs don't really care that much about a contract that costs money at the back end because if they don't win now, they could be gone. so who really cares if they're still paying alfonso soriano a bucket load of money at the end of the contract? if they win a WS during the front of the contract all is forgiven, if they don't then the gm might not be around anyway. i realize there are exceptions.

Every other position BTF seems to undervalue relative to the real market.

isn't that because all anyone focuses on here is on-the-field value?

Mauer's deal was in between: a flat $23m for all years.

isn't that because all anyone focuses on here is on-the-field value?

Mostly, that along with trying to guarantee that each and every year of the contract is at least a probable break even or better from the teams perspective. BTF GM would never sign a guy for one year longer than he is likely to be good. Even if they are going to be underpaying in the front end of the contract. (and of course BTF GM would more than likely be overly conservative on the potential performance of any player)

I don't really understand why teams and players don't have contracts that are front-loaded more. Seems like the player would like the money up-front, and the team would like the financial flexibility down the road.

phredbird(post 9) answered it perfectly. Add in that inflation means 20 million in 2020 is more than likely worth less than 20 mil in 2012, and you can see why the owners also prefer the flat(relatively) contracts.

I think the idea that the BBTF commentators would have a consensus on roster construction is one of the more hilarious things I've ever read here.

It's nice 29 teams maintained sanity this week. Frankly, the Prince deal is within reason. That is if you ever want to land a premo FA talent in MLB. If you aren't up for it, that's fine, then there are other ways to win.

The Fielder deal is a terrible value. If Ilitch wants to overpay b/c he's old, that's his right, but he could have improved his team more by spending 4/50 on Edwin Jackson and 1/10 on Carlos Pena.

I dunno ...

BTF would have signed Longoria to that contract in a second; we'd probably pay Zobrist more than the Rays do.
We'd have signed the first Braun contract but maybe not the extension.
We'd happily have Halladay, Lee, Felix and maybe even CC at those prices (CC was a bit controversial, none of the others were)
Most here (not me) thought the Beltre deal was fine.
We had no major problem with the Mauer contract. Or Adrian Gonzalez. Or Hanley.
We'd probably have Starlin Castro under long-term contract already.
We'd have committed suicide rather than trade for Wells.
We'd have never given Howard that extension.
We'd never shy away from high-priced top draft picks.
We'd corner the market on fat pitchers.
We'd have avoided Werth, Dunn, Soriano, Zito, AROD II (especially after he opted out), or Burnett.

The great collective BTF (of which apparently you two are not members despite regular posting here) doesn't have a problem with big contracts -- the great collective BTF has a problem with big contracts for guys who are quite likely to stink over the second half of that contract and, generally, aren't worth what they're being paid in the first half. The great collective BTF gets the call right about 75% of the time and would never make some of the ginormous blunders we've seen over the last few years.

And where is the long list of huge money contracts that were such a bargain early that they didn't hurt late? Which of those were widely objected to here?

Seriously, before y'all go patting yourselves on the back and telling us how dumb we are, you might want to wait for Prince to actually put up a 2012 in line with the value you claim we should expect. If you don't think there is a greater risk of a collapse from Prince than you do from another similarly-aged, quality player, you're not being very smart.

EDIT: And of course we'd see through all of Boras's flim flam and, after pointing out the Wizard is just a poor old man behind a curtain, he'd grovel before us and beg us to take his clients at league minimum.

I think the idea that the BBTF commentators would have a consensus on roster construction is one of the more hilarious things I've ever read here.

That's true.

It would be so massively conservative, that we would never sign one player of note. We would be stuck with overpaying for the Scutaro's of the world. About the only position that BTF seems to have a handle on is second base, utility player and maybe number three pitchers. Every other position BTF seems to undervalue relative to the real market.

But, I don't think this is right at all.

Of the multi-year, and/or decent size deals handed out this year, I think the collective (depending on need and budget) would have rated the contracts as follows:

Acceptable to Good: Beltran, Reyes, Rollins, Willingham, Furcal, DeJesus, Crisp, Barmes, Pena, Sabathia, Wilson, Darvish, Kuroda, Buehrle, Madson (and likely Jackson and Oswalt when they sign)
Bad: Fielder, A. Ramirez, Kubel, Cuddyer, Papelbon, Bell
Highly debated: Pujols

I think the "BBTF GM" would have been in on the fast majority of decent FAs.

If you tell us we're foolish for prefering Beltran + Kuroda, or Wilson + DeJesus to Fielder, then I think you're nuts.

The great collective BTF (of which apparently you two are not members despite regular posting here) doesn't have a problem with big contracts --

I think long term is when they get more squemish. Big not so much of a problem with.

I think Walt pretty much nailed what the consensus on here would have been (and BBTF gm would have also landed Napoli) with the possible exception of his avoiding Dunn comment.

Seriously, before y'all go patting yourselves on the back and telling us how dumb we are, you might want to wait for Prince to actually put up a 2012 in line with the value you claim we should expect. If you don't think there is a greater risk of a collapse from Prince than you do from another similarly-aged, quality player, you're not being very smart.

Not saying the consensus is dumb or that I'm right. I'm just saying that the consensus would be ultra conservative with long term contracts around here. It's not a claim to being dumb, it's a claim of being cautious.

If you tell us we're foolish for prefering Beltran + Kuroda, or Wilson + DeJesus to Fielder, then I think you're nuts.

I actually agree with the Beltran/Kuroda deal is preferable to Wilson/Fielder deal. I generally think any two or three year contract is always a safer bet than a 7year or longer contract.

Highly debated: Pujols

i was going to mention this. but wasn't it that most thought it was a bad-to-terrible contract, for various reasons? that is, nobody thought it was a good contract, and certainly not a 'very good' contract?

for myself, invoking my point in post 9, i would say it is a good contract if one is also factoring in the potential for pujols to deliver value off the field. he is poised to be a giant star and a draw in the anaheim area whether he plays well or not at the end of his contract. but that calculus is sort of off point in BTF, which is fine. this off-the-field stuff is not as easily quantifiable as stuff like VORP etc.

Dunn, Walt? Wasn't the conventional wisdom this time last year that the Dunn signing was the best deal of the off-season?

It would be so massively conservative, that we would never sign one player of note. We would be stuck with overpaying for the Scutaro's of the world. About the only position that BTF seems to have a handle on is second base, utility player and maybe number three pitchers. Every other position BTF seems to undervalue relative to the real market.

The irony is BTF would reject so many FA's that we would need to rely on our scouts to secure all of our players (and trade bait).

The Fielder deal is a terrible value. If Ilitch wants to overpay b/c he's old, that's his right, but he could have improved his team more by spending 4/50 on Edwin Jackson and 1/10 on Carlos Pena.

I get the point. There's no guarantee this would come true. I don't even know if it is probable. I also think "terrible" is a little abusive.

There is always some dream combination of scrap heap scrubs that breakout and could have turned $5 million into $20, like Berkman or Colon/Garcia. We won't know which ones will hit until we play out the year.

Yeah, Dunn looked pretty good a year ago. I'm still okay with it; it was a bad beat and totally unpredictable. Dunn was about as consistent as can be: OPS+ 133 over 10 years, range 116 to 146, with no signs of decline.

#14, Walt....nice post, but not once did you talk about winning the World Series. BTF wants to win the deal, the battle, not the war. Go get a job on Wall Street if that is the focus.

19. Lots. The point from 14 and 15yes is that there are tons of FA deals the BBTF collective like.

We might not sign too many 6+ year deals, but we'd have lots of players to target every year deals

and don't get me wrong, if we got a good negotiator/salesman in our group, I do think a bbtf GM would be average or above average. We wouldn't be able to compete in the AL East at all, but the other five divisions would surrender a few titles to us.

BTF gets the call right about 75% of the time and would never make some of the ginormous blunders we've seen over the last few years.

And where is the long list of huge money contracts that were such a bargain early that they didn't hurt late? Which of those were widely objected to here?

Seriously, before y'all go patting yourselves on the back and telling us how dumb we are, you might want to wait for Prince to actually put up a 2012 in line with the value you claim we should expect. If you don't think there is a greater risk of a collapse from Prince than you do from another similarly-aged, quality player, you're not being very smart.

This is a contradiction. You tell us to wait til Prince ages and the back end of the deal arrives...then let's talk. Point taken. But above you endorsed many long term deals for PITCHERS!!! Deals that aren't even close to ending and you claim in your next breath BTF would NEVER make huge mistakes.

BTF can't even come close to predicting the market for FAs (I mean not even close), what makes anyone think we have a handle on any other aspect of the game?

Here's the Adam Dunn signing thread - there's me saying that's what I predicted he'd get, which is a pointless comment, there's Walt calling him a perfect fit.

Other big signings BTF generally liked:

CJ Wilson to the Angels, 5/75
CC Sabathia to the Yankees, 5/122
Adrian Gonzalez to the Red Sox, 7/154
Roy Halladay to the Phillies, 3/60

I could easily go on, but I think LotS is borderline trolling, at best, and I don't need much more to show that he's simply wrong about the broad tendencies of posters on this site.

He's back to trolling; don't rise to the bait.

I dunno ...

EDIT: And of course we'd see through all of Boras's flim flam and, after pointing out the Wizard is just a poor old man behind a curtain, he'd grovel before us and beg us to take his clients at league minimum.

Boras would have gotten in line after a few Sam neck-stabbings.

We would not be without our advantages.

On the flip side, though -- I suspect quite a few GMs wouldn't return our calls, not based on ripping them off, but based on us "being mean" to them publicly...

Off the top of my head - Colletti, Sabean (maybe), and whats-his-debacle in Anaheim... the old Beatagan... Ed Wade...

BTF can't even come close to predicting the market for FAs (I mean not even close), what makes anyone think we have a handle on any other aspect of the game?

disagree, BTF can't come close to predicting the market for a Boras free agent. Many other times we are a little low but not out of the realm of reality.

This is a contradiction. You tell us to wait til Prince ages and the back end of the deal arrives...then let's talk. Point taken. But above you endorsed many long term deals for PITCHERS!!! Deals that aren't even close to ending and you claim in your next breath BTF would NEVER make huge mistakes.

I'm not sure it's a contradiction, he is saying to wait at least one year before declaring any type of victory. I don't see what the problem is. He isn't saying wait until the back end of the contract(at least the words

Seriously, before y'all go patting yourselves on the back and telling us how dumb we are, you might want to wait for Prince to actually put up a 2012 in line with the value you claim we should expect.

pretty clearly spells out to at least wait one season before declaring victory.

He isn't even calling the deals he lists victory or defeats, just pointing out that there is probably a consensus among the group, which was what someone was claiming isn't likely.

Here's the Adam Dunn signing thread - there's me saying that's what I predicted he'd get, which is a pointless comment, there's Walt calling him a perfect fit.

We'd have pulled that trigger in a heartbeat -- and it's solely with the benefit of hindsight that one can call it a bad deal. Not knowing how awfully he flailed, I'd still do it again 99 times out of 100.

Post #15 and #14, (and #23) I get you are citing deals and offering yea or nay....but that's not how player acquisitions work. Don't you think most MLB GMs can do the same thing. Look at a deal and say, "Oh, wow, Willingham was a steal for Minnesota", or "Nice move NYY with Kuroda."

I'm 2 for 2!!!

We only get to sign a few guys....and we don't get to see the number the player will settle for in advance nor do we know if the winning team in this case would stay at the poker table and outbid us and reach a level we deem uncomfortable. So it's not this easy to say, see, look, we could of had any of those guys.

Also, the "Good" is filled with just as many long term risks BTF dislikes. A lot of the "Good" deals are 1 year deals. Which is exactly the kind of roster BTF would paste together. With so much turnover, we would be on the FA market every year needed to sign several players.

I still say BTF's roster would be more dependent on scouting than any other team in the game. The irony.

I'm not sure it's a contradiction, he is saying to wait at least one year before declaring any type of victory. I don't see what the problem is. He isn't saying wait until the back end of the contract(at least the words

You clearly missed the point. Walt is declaring a list of freshly minted long term deals with PITCHERS all good deals....(ie not waiting til the end for those players) then in the next breath lecturing us to wait on Prince.

I say you probably should wait on all of these players til you get deeper into the deal. But of course that's too obvious for Walt.

BTF would have signed Longoria to that contract in a second;

This is pointless.

Longoria was never a FA.

Every team in the game would have taken the exact same deal. That said, I'm sure not every team in the game would have been savvy enough to negotiate such deal. I'll set aside whether or not BTF would be. This proves nothing. It provides us with zero differentiation or proof that BTF would be above average.

Textbook troll behavior.

You made a false statement in defense of an inflammatory claim, and then when it was refuted, you switched to an illogical statement in defense of the same inflammatory claim. Deflect, and keep the conversation focused on yourself.

You are good at it, I'll give you that much.

Similarly, the Adrian Gonzalez "deal" is dependent upon A) having Kelly/Rizzo in your system to give up, and B) having a GM on the other end willing to make that trade - before you can begin to get into evaluating the value of the extension Gonzalez signed.

That said, I'm squarely in the Walt/snapper camp on this. The BBTF GM could have damn near put together a full roster with league-average or better guys at every position just using guys acquired in the last couple of years that were picked up for assets that basically any team could have put up. LotS will continue to claim that we're using the benefit of hindsight to pick and choose, despite evidence to the contrary offered by MCoA. Who here didn't approve of the series of moves that ended up with Napoli in Arlington? You'd have him. You'd have Kelly Johnson. Ian Stewart. You'd have a bunch of guys that would have McCoy in fits, and you wouldn't overcommit, and you'd make a big-time splash in free agency once a year or so. Would you have hired a manager that didn't make running Yunel Escobar out of town a necessity? Maybe. You'd have to break in a new closer every couple of years probably, and you'd spend a lot of money in arb, but you'd also buy out a lot of early FA seasons. You'd spend a lot of money on the draft and internationally, and you'd have Kim Ng in your organization.

All of these things, broadly, would be the result of whatever consensus-or-close-to-it the BBTF hivemind came up with, and they'd all be consistent, broadly, with the range & run of dominant opinions observed in the commentary at this site over the years.

i know we're smart and all, collectively, not necessarily including me, but i feel that somehow a BBTF GM would be scott boras' special little bee yatch.

the only one of us i could see giving him trouble would be maybe harveys.

I am quite confident that I would be a very bad GM. If baseball were my job and not my hobby, I'd have no interest in putting in the hours that GMs work. I'm also not trained in managing workers, and I'd probably not be very good at that. None of my workers would have any idea who I was, and wouldn't have much reason to trust me.

I don't know of any team that's ever contracted a committee of hundreds of people to make its decisions, and I can't imagine a literal "BTF GM" would ever get anything done. Leadership needs to be concentrated in some way - even the anarchists at OWS had a steering committee.

An entirely theoretical human, skilled in management, having already the respect of people in baseball, who also made decisions that would be likely to be approved by BTF, that person would be a good GM. That person has been called, at different times, "Theo Epstein", "Andrew Friedman", "Billy Beane before 2005 or so", and so on. A whole bunch of GMs make moves that are mostly BTF-approved, and they've been more successful than not. So surely that theoretical BTF GM could do a good job.

i know we're smart and all, collectively, not necessarily including me, but i feel that somehow a BBTF GM would be scott boras' special little bee yatch.

I think bbtf just doesn't bother to negotiate with Scott.

All of these things, broadly, would be the result of whatever consensus-or-close-to-it the BBTF hivemind came up with, and they'd all be consistent, broadly, with the range & run of dominant opinions observed in the commentary at this site over the years.

This is a theoretical discussion of course, but basically what you do is look at what players are out there, what is the hive mind on whether to pursue the player (based upon team needs) and the range of offers that the hive mind would consider acceptable, add in a couple of mil for negotiating range, and if a player is signed by a real life team in that range, then bbtf matches the real world thinking.

I think bbtf would have nearly matched exactly the Beltran deal. I think that the Dunn deal also matches what bbtf would have done, I think Walt correctly pointed out that bbtf would attempt to sign pre-arby year guys that look to be good bets, your Longoria, Starlin Castros, Andrew McCutchen's etc. When a team does make a deal like the Longoria deal, it's not hard to believe that is something that BBTF Gm would have attempted.


Walt pretty much clearly nailed how a bbtf gm would react to various situations. Of course this is just theoretical, the nuts and bolts of actually running the team includes more than just player evaluation, but it's the one aspect that the board can comment on. Who knows if we would agree on buying a state of the art training facility, weight room etc. Or how would we set up the concessions or ticket prices and advertising etc. But those aren't issues worthy of discussing most of the time anyway, and a lot of that could be delagated.

The problem with using the BBTF consensus is that it is formed based on fewer constraints than actual GM's face. For example, if a GM doesn't like the asking prices of the SS's they still have to put a SS out there on opening day. If a player doesn't want to play in BBTF-home-city, or another asks for a trade, or maybe BBTF team ownership interferes with the process, then these seemingly sound BBTF consensus decisions don't actually materialize.

You'd spend a lot of money on the draft and internationally, and you'd have Kim Ng in your organization.

I don't know, man. How hot is she?

I would love, just love BTF to get a franchise to manage. Our roster would be hilarious.

It would be so massively conservative, that we would never sign one player of note. We would be stuck with overpaying for the Scutaro's of the world. About the only position that BTF seems to have a handle on is second base, utility player and maybe number three pitchers. Every other position BTF seems to undervalue relative to the real market.

Without reading the rest of the thread, how'd this meme get started? We would have picked up CJ Wilson this offseason, probably Yu Darvish too. Maybe Adrian Beltre last offseason. We'd pick up a whole lot of 2 and 3 win players, cheap, and we'd understand the importance of shelling out a few million to make sure we had decent 5th, 6th, and 7th starters. A lot of primates thought the Adrian Gonzalez deal was a good one. We probably would have traded what Minaya did for Johan Santana (ouch). This is also a good crowd for recognizing the value of marginal wins. If we had a team in the 80s, you'd better believe we'd spend. The fact that most of us aren't fecking stupid enough (no offense) to overpay Fielder by 50m somehow doesn't strike me as a handicap.

I don't think we'd have any problem winning 90 games with a payroll around 120-130m. Oh,

I don't know, man. How hot is she?

you decide.

I don't know, man. How hot is she?

you decide.

You whiffed there. That was on a tee for a Albright link. That was the BBTF Hive GM application test. Since you failed, you will not become part of the cabal. Sorry.

I don't think we'd have any problem winning 90 games with a payroll around 120-130m. Oh,

I would hope so, it's whether we could win semi-consistently with a 70-80 mil payroll that would be the test.

I absolutely think that bbtf gm(we need to give him a name) would be able to consistently get average performance out of most positions(and probably above average out of catcher and secondbase) no matter what the budget constraints are. It's whether we could turn that 75-80 win team into a 90 win team that would be the true test. Would we attempt to bring up the kids too soon? Would we jettison talent too soon/late? Would the bullpen be consistently good with the frequent changing of the roster? Would our there are no such thing as 4A players plea's fall on deaf ears with our field manager and fans?

we need to give him a name

Brocktoon

I absolutely think that bbtf gm(we need to give him a name) would be able to consistently get average performance out of most positions(and probably above average out of catcher and secondbase) no matter what the budget constraints are. It's whether we could turn that 75-80 win team into a 90 win team that would be the true test. Would we attempt to bring up the kids too soon? Would we jettison talent too soon/late? Would the bullpen be consistently good with the frequent changing of the roster? Would our there are no such thing as 4A players plea's fall on deaf ears with our field manager and fans?

LET THE CALL GO OUT!

Surely one of our resident geniuses can come up with a way for the community to build a roster, although playing in a league of one poses some problems. It might take a few years to build a proper team given that not every position offered a lot of choices this offseason, but it shouldn't be that hard to get started. Not sure how we'd build a farm system--maybe a draft or lottery from the existing minor leagues to get started.

Fwiw, I would have signed: Wilson, Beltran, Kuroda, FRod; Buehrle'd be tempting if I had to fill out a rotation.

I would not have signed: Pujols, Fielder, Reyes

edit: yeah, phredbird. What could you have been thinking.

She's not appealing to me. I'll bet she's ok with that.