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

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Passan: Scott Boras’ title of ‘Mr. January’ faces stiff challenge from MLB’s new rules on free agency

Mr. January is a nickname bestowed on Boras by owners flabbergasted by his propensity to snag large free-agent deals after New Year’s Day. Boras, long the sport’s villain, is the protagonist in this tussle, because baseball’s new rules governing the draft have destroyed the free-agent market for Adam LaRoche, Kyle Lohse, Michael Bourn and Rafael Soriano – the latter three of whom are Boras clients…

The new draft format included fixed bonus pools for teams based on the previous year’s record; the worst teams would get the most money. A separate rule transformed compensation for free agents who left. Teams would have to offer a player a one-year deal worth the average of the highest-paid 125 players in the major leagues the previous season – about $13.3 million this year. If another team chose to sign one of those players, it would forfeit its first-round draft choice and the bonus-pool money that came with it – unless it was a top 10 pick, in which case it would lose its second-rounder and the accompanying bonus value…

The pool system limits flexibility and creativity, leaving teams even more reticent to plunge into an already-inflated free-agent market when it’s tied to the draft.

“We’d love any of them if we didn’t have to give up our pick and pool money,” one GM said this week, and others have echoed his sentiment, frustrated that two disparate entities commingle in such fashion. Players are even angrier, and agents say they’ve had trouble explaining how stars in the future could be hindered by a rule that MLB promises it did not implement to create a false market…

When Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez got get-out-of-jail-free cards because they were traded midseason – only players who spend the whole season with one team are subject to compensation rules – and the interest in Edwin Jackson dwarfs that of Lohse, the system is broken. There’s a chance Mr. January weasels out of it like he has so many other problems. There’s also a chance some of the best players out there have to pull a Ryan Madson and take a one-year deal, and we saw how well that worked out.

Four players flap in the middle of this hurricane, which seems to spin with no end. Per usual, MLB and Scott Boras, the provoked and the provocateur, are in its ugly eye.

The District Attorney Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:06 AM | 61 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: adam laroche, business, cba, draft, free agency, kyle lohse, michael bourn, rafael soriano, scott boras

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.

   1. John Northey Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:17 AM (#4336702)
I think it is clear the owners did want this effect - a serious cut in salary for anyone who is non-elite who gets a qualifying offer.

Adam LaRoche - missed most of 2011, had a great 2012, but is a 1B with a 128 OPS+ last year and 114 lifetime, entering age 33 season - not worth $15+ million per year and a draft pick.

Kyle Lohse - In 2009/2010 he had ERA+'s sub 90, his peak was 112 before last years freak 134. Entering age 34 season, probably worth a 3 year deal in the $10 per year category but mix in a draft pick with demands of $15 per year and interest is minimal.

Michael Bourn - a CF who was over 100 OPS+ just once (barely) in his career, value is in his speed and defense. The type of player traditionally undervalued by teams thus making it hard for them to justify a draft pick plus $15+ mil a year.

Rafael Soriano - a closer, nuff said. OK, add in how Paplebon 'only' got $13 mil a year despite a superior record last winter and you can see why he is cooling his heels.

These 4 are quality players but teams have trouble with the idea of paying them what they are asking with the question marks each has. Bourn is the best of the batch, but defense is hard to put a solid dollar value on (a team with mainly ground ball pitchers won't have as much value for him as a team with fly ball ones for example). LaRoche I see sitting for the longest time - he should've taken the qualifying offer.
   2. bookbook Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:59 AM (#4336731)
Yeah, but draft pick compensation was actually reduced across the board for signing free agents. The problem is that you need the wiggle room on first round caps because they're a bit high (and later round caps are too low).

I think the high impact on only a few players is an unintended consequence.
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:14 AM (#4336738)
John has it right. None of these guys are worth what they're likely asking. Throw in the pick, and it's no wonder they're waiting.

LaRoche has 4.6 bWAR over the last 3 years, 10.3 in his 9 year career. If he'd take 3/25, I'd bet he'd have a deal. But, he probably wants to get paid off the one 4 bWAR season he put up in 2012.

Lohse has average 1.1 bWAR over the last 5 years (using 5 b/c 2010 was soooo bad, -2.4 bWAR). If he wants to be paid based on 2012's 3.9 bWAR, I can see why there are no takers.

Soriano would be a perfectly cromulent signing at 3/24, but I'm sure he wants double digit AAV. Big money deals to closers rarely ever work out for the team. It's pretty funny TFA cites the Madson deal, but doesn't draw the obvious connection.

The market is being shockingly rational here. That said, I'm sure Boras will pule 4 rabbits out of his hat and sign them each to eleventy billion dollar deals.
   4. OCD SS Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:15 AM (#4336741)
I remember January Man; it was a pretty bad thriller that the video rental box, poster, and other advertising tried to paint as a comedy in the vein of A Fish Called Wanda (obviously hoping to capitalize on the success of said movie).

As far as FA compensation goes, this was already a pretty drastic alteration to the arbitration rules and it's a decent improvement as we're seeing only 4 players who've had their markets affected (it seems like we always had more than that in previous years). If the players really wanted to keep every FA's market from being affected, they should've pushed to completely uncouple FA compensation from the draft, but then the MLBPA wouldn't have had any input on the rules for the draft and IFA signings. The impingement on the markets for these players is the cost the collective pays for continuing to have input on rules about players they don't represent.

I think their is a disagreement between different factions of owners, as some probably really want to keep compensation (small market teams with a tendency to lose good players to larger markets) and others would like to see it done away with as well (the large market teams that are active in FA). I get the sense that Selig tends to negotiate with an idea that he has to keep spending down at all costs, rather than looking for well rounded rules that make sense.

If there's a value in giving teams that developed talent compensation if they can't afford to keep it (which is a bit dubious IMO; the savings over the first 6-7 years of control should cover that) then a system that only offers compensation for elite players coming into their first period of unrestricted FA might make sense.

   5. OCD SS Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4336746)
Yeah, but draft pick compensation was actually reduced across the board for signing free agents. The problem is that you need the wiggle room on first round caps because they're a bit high (and later round caps are too low).


Overall Selig forced draft spending down by kicking the legs out from under amateur players and their "advisers." This money went straight into the free agent market to the benefit of the players. The players could probably have let go of the draft entirely and known that Selig would further drive down that spending (thus freeing up more money to go to the players they do represent), but they also can't plan that for life after Selig, and they know that once they've given up that right of control they'll never get it back.
   6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4336749)
The market is being shockingly rational here. That said, I'm sure Boras will pule 4 rabbits out of his hat and sign them each to eleventy billion dollar deals.
Just three rabbits - LaRoche isn't his client. I'm expecting that Bourn and Lohse will get paid like Boras clients. I have grown increasingly skeptical on Soriano, as it seems like there really is a lot of rationality going around at the top end of the relief market.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4336762)
I'm expecting that Bourn and Lohse will get paid like Boras clients.

I think Bourne could be a good signing for someone. Texas would be pretty obvious.

But man, I wouldn't give Lohse much more than 2/20. This is a guy who had a career 4.79 ERA (93 ERA+) in almost 1600 IP, before the last 2 years. I don't know how you project him with any confidence.
   8. Dale Sams Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4336773)
January Man did have some comedic elements. Kind of like Red Dragon with more normal sex and some yuks thrown in*

*Yeah, I couldn't come up with a decent analogy. Which is probably one of the reasons the film failed. Audiences couldn't figure out if they were supposed to laugh or not...."Running Scared" with a semi-psychic detective?
   9. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:04 AM (#4336774)
I wouldn't either. But pitchers like Lohse have been getting paid for years, especially when they have the right representation. I doubt the draft picks thing can prevent some owner from overpaying for a starting pitcher with good enough recent numbers.
   10. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4336784)
Is Soriano going to be kicking himself for not taking the 1/$13m deal?

edit: also aren't there more players who have benefited from the new rules than have been hindered? I'm thinking of people like Anibel Sanchez and Mike Napoli.
   11. DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4336803)
I've heard "sign and trade" rumors on all players. Is that what breaks the stalemate?

It's pretty clear to me that LaRoche and Soriano should have taken the qualifying offers since they were both offered more than they're worth. I don't think Soriano makes more unless it's on a 3 year deal. I would value him at 2 years $18M if there was no compensation. Take the offer and he probably gets $20M over the next 2 years. Likewise, LaRoche is probably maxed out at 3/$30M without the draft pick messing things up. Now he's looking at $26M if he really wants the third year.

Lohse would get Edwin Jackson money but a year shorter due to his age. He may only get this shot at one last big deal so he was probably smart to turn down the offer and look for a long term deal. I think he still gets 3/$30M which is better than the downside risk of taking the qualifying offer.

Bourn is young enough and good enough that he's going to get a long term deal and the draft pick isn't what messed things up. What hurt Bourn is asking for too much money and seeing all his suitors go with Plan B (Span, Revere, Upton, etc).
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4336818)
I've heard "sign and trade" rumors on all players. Is that what breaks the stalemate?


I've also read speculation that sign-and-trades will happen in the future. But I am not sure how often that would be appealing to the necessary parties. For players like Hamilton, the former teams aren't going to take a return that is less valuable than the draft pick out of the goodness of their hearts just to get the player a better deal. For players like Mike Napoli, if a team correctly predicts that he would not get an offer, they have no motivation to send his old team something in addition to offering him a contract. A sign-and-trade could be useful as a hedge for some borderline cases, but even then it would be difficult to complete the negotiations in the short time span: the teams would have to negotiate with each other in addition to the player negotiating his new contract.

I can see some sign-and-trades happening after a player accepts a qualifying offer which was made in hopes of getting a draft pick.
   13. Bourbon Samurai Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4336829)
These players no longer have the option of accepting their qualifying offers, correct?
   14. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4336835)
The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4336838)
These players no longer have the option of accepting their qualifying offers, correct?

Correct.

The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

Or, it could be a team with a protected first round pick.
   16. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4336847)
The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.


Ah, I see.
   17. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4336891)
The "sign and trade" that I heard floated was that one of the teams who has already lost a pick (Cleveland, Angels or Braves) signs the player and then trades him to the team that wants him.

It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.
   18. OCD SS Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4336914)
January Man did have some comedic elements. Kind of like Red Dragon with more normal sex and some yuks thrown in*


That was the problem with a sh!t ton of those movies, too much in the mediocre middle to be either a comedy or a drama/ thriller. (I remember the box, not the movie or actors, of a movie that had 2 different covers: one with them actor/ actress smiling to advertise it as a comedy, and one in the same pose where they looked stern, and it was re-branded as a drama/ thriller. Sucked either way.)

Sign and trade sounds like something players who (or who's agent) misevaluated the current state of the market are floating to get their pay day.
   19. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4336940)

It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.


Then every trade where a player agrees to waive a no-trade clause is illegal collusion.
   20. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4336958)
It's my understanding that the commissioner's office would consider such a deal to be illegal collusion.


Then every trade where a player agrees to waive a no-trade clause is illegal collusion.


Just because it is collusion, doesn't mean that the powers-that-be consider it illegal collusion.
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4336959)
Best movies with months in their title:

The January Man
Summer in February
The Ides of March
Pieces of April
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Henry & June
Born on the Fourth of July
August Rush
Four Days in September
The Hunt for Red October
Sweet November
A Warm December
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4336974)
Just because it is collusion, doesn't mean that the powers-that-be consider it illegal collusion.

Gotcha. We're going with Soviet-style justice. Everything is against the law, but only what's prosecuted is illegal.
   23. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4336981)
Gotcha. We're going with Soviet-style justice. Everything is against the law, but only what's prosecuted is illegal.


I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?

"Collusion" is just shorthand for teams breaking certain rules, it doesn't mean that all collusion in the literal sense is illegal or immoral, otherwise teams couldn't even trade with each other.
   24. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4336988)
I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?


I think shenanigans have to be allowed if there's not a specific rule against them. It's more damaging for the sport for MLB to step in and disallow something that there is no prohibition against.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4336989)
I agree with allowing players to waive their no-trade clauses, but not allowing shenanigans to circumvent the new compensation rules. Do you not agree with that?

If the sign-and-trade doesn't violate any actual rules, I think it should be allowed.

If they don't want to allow sign and trades, make an actual rule against it.

Edit: coke to JJ
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4336991)
I think shenanigans have to be allowed if there's not a specific rule against them.


If they don't want to allow sign and trades, make an actual rule against it.


Fair enough.

But if the case is that the actual rule is ambivalent or too vague about theses shenanigans, I have no problem with the league not allowing them based on the spirit of the compensation rule.

Was there ever sign-and-trades under the old system? Was there a specific rule against it?
   27. Swoboda is freedom Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4336998)
Best movies with months in their title:

Martha Marcy May Marlene


7 Days in May was better
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4337000)
Was there ever sign-and-trades under the old system? Was there a specific rule against it?

Historically, a player had the right to free agency if he was traded in the first year of a long-term contract. Don't know if this is still true.

So, sign and trade couldn't happen unless the player wanted it.
   29. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4337003)
Don't know if this is still true.


I believe it's been eliminated.

Rafael Soriano was sort of signed-and-traded a few years ago, so I don't think it was against the rules.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4337008)
Rafael Soriano was sort of signed-and-traded a few years ago, so I don't think it was against the rules.

Arb guys have been signed and traded repeatedly. The only question is how a long-term contract impacts it. In any case, it seems that if the player consents, the sign and trade is technically allowed.
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4337011)
I thought there was a rule that a free agent signee couldn't be traded til May 15.


Historically, a player had the right to free agency if he was traded in the first year of a long-term contract. Don't know if this is still true.

So, sign and trade couldn't happen unless the player wanted it.


I do know this was eliminated, but that still wouldn't prevent a sign-and-trade, it would just let the player become a free agent at the end of the year.
   32. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4337012)
Or, it could be a team with a protected first round pick.

Helps some but not completely - that still costs the team a pick in the 30's and (perhaps more importantly) the associated draft cap dollars.

Seems to me that if nothing changes over the next couple years with this part of the system, we'll see a lot more qualifying offers and a lot more potential FA's accepting the qualifying offers and then being shopped - in effect a sign and trade that takes on some 'gentlemens' aspects in much the way August deals currently have. Players will see how badly the associated draft penalty hurts their market value and be more inclined to take the bird in the hand knowing they can negotiate an extension with the new team, while the re-signing team makes up much of the value of the pick in certainty.
   33. Harlond Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4337017)
Best movies with months in their title:

The Ides of March
Not March of the Penguins? Cheating, I suppose.
   34. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4337019)
I thought there was a rule that a free agent signee couldn't be traded til May 15.


I found this from the old CBA:

Teams can't normally trade a newly signed free agent until after June 15 of the following season, unless the player gives written consent.


Don't know if it's still current.
   35. DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4337028)
It would be awesome to see a team like the Indians (protected 1st, spent the 2nd on Swisher) make some money facilitating these deals. Who cares if they lose their 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th rounders if they get C+ prospects or cash in return.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4337038)
I do know this was eliminated, but that still wouldn't prevent a sign-and-trade, it would just let the player become a free agent at the end of the year.


That would be a de facto prevention because in most cases the teams wouldn't want to give their signees opt-outs.

   37. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4337039)
The June 15th no-trade for free agents signed after the end of the Quiet Period (5 days after the World Series) still exists.


(a) Any Club signing a contract with a Player under this Section
B after the expiration of the Quiet Period described in subsection
2(b) above may not assign his contract until after the next June 15.
However, notwithstanding the foregoing, such contract may be
assigned for other Player contracts and/or cash consideration of
$50,000 or less prior to the next June 16 if the Player gives written
consent to such transaction.


That's from the new CBA.

Now, one thing that I do find interesting is the next section:


(b) There shall be no restriction or interference with the right of
a free agent to negotiate or contract with any baseball club outside
the structure of organized baseball, nor shall there be any compensation
paid for the loss of a free agent except as provided for in this
Section B


I'm actually not finding anything in the CBA that would technically prevent a free agent from signing a one-day contract with a Japanese team and clearing the draft pick compensation. Though no doubt it would lead to a big fight on interpretation and even if unsuccessful, can probably only be attempted once before the rule is changed.

   38. JJ1986 Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4337041)
Someone (I think it was Shannon Stewart) recently signed a minor league deal after turning down arb.

edit: also, do not google search for "Shannon Stewart" at work.

edit 2: Stewart's contract was purchased in March and there was no compensation.
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4337042)

That would be a de facto prevention because in most cases the teams wouldn't want to give their signees opt-outs.


You could solve that by backloading. If you were going to give Michael Bourn 5/75, instead of $15M each year, pay him $9M in yr. 1 and $17M in years 2-5.
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4337047)
The June 15th no-trade for free agents signed after the end of the Quiet Period (5 days after the World Series) still exists.


But for this no-trade to be a prevention of the kind of sign-and-trade described in #14, it would not give the player the ability to waive it.

(b) There shall be no restriction or interference with the right of
a free agent to negotiate or contract with any baseball club outside
the structure of organized baseball, nor shall there be any compensation
paid for the loss of a free agent except as provided for in this
Section B




I'm actually not finding anything in the CBA that would technically prevent a free agent from signing a one-day contract with a Japanese team and clearing the draft pick compensation.


Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4337056)
You could solve that by backloading. If you were going to give Michael Bourn 5/75, instead of $15M each year, pay him $9M in yr. 1 and $17M in years 2-5.


Interesting. That could work.

But that brings me back to my earlier question: why didn't this happen under the old system?
   42. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4337061)

But that brings me back to my earlier question: why didn't this happen under the old system?


Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4337070)
Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

Yes. But also, in the old system, the team could give up its 1st or 2nd rounder, and simply spend the money on signability guys later. You could get 1st and 2nd round talent much later in the draft. With the bonus slotting, that no longer works.
   44. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4337073)

Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.


What about last offseason?

edit:
in the old system, the team could give up its 1st or 2nd rounder, and simply spend the money on signability guys later. You could get 1st and 2nd round talent much later in the draft. With the bonus slotting, that no longer works.


Thanks, that makes sense.
   45. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4337128)
Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.

I'm unaware of any direct precedent. I wouldn't be that confident about no loophole - Travis Lee and Bobby Seay weren't supposed to end up as free agents, after all.
   46. Nasty Nate Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4337175)
Was there anything that said a player signing a contract with an entity outside of MLB 'clears' the compensation? Otherwise there is no loophole to close.


I'm unaware of any direct precedent. I wouldn't be that confident about no loophole - Travis Lee and Bobby Seay weren't supposed to end up as free agents, after all.


I just read the relevant section (I think). I don't think that any interpretation would suggest that compensation is eliminated if the player signs an intervening contract with a Japanese team (or the Newark Bears etc). The only thing that clears the compensation is the next year's draft; i.e. the player can wait it out if he wants.
   47. Squash Posted: January 02, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4337181)
What I find most amazing from this is that the average salary of the top 125 players in the game is $13.3 million. I mean, wow.
   48. Squash Posted: January 02, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4337215)
Teams didn't value draft picks that highly. I mean, the A's once gave up the 20th pick in the draft to acquire Mike Magnante.

That remains one of the great mystery moves of Beane's tenure, as the A's were one of the teams that did value picks - they were the team that started the practice of trying to game the system by acquiring/letting go vets who would garner compensation, the Ray Durham deal being the one that broke the whole thing open. Although that might have actually been the deal that clued them into the inefficiencies of the system - after sacrificing that pick in 2000, they then had multiple first round picks in 2001-2005. Unfortunately they were all pretty much in the 20s.

EDIT: This subject has reminded me how much fun BB-REFs team draft pages are - and reminds me how crazy MLB drafts work out. It's incredible how few players who are drafted actually make it to the majors, and then how few of those have any significant impact. It's amazing how many busted drafts even what we think of as smart-drafting teams have - drafts where only one or two guys make it and end up with something like a combined 0.4 WAR. Or negative.
   49. Nasty Nate Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4337878)
This subject has reminded me how much fun BB-REFs team draft pages are - and reminds me how crazy MLB drafts work out. It's incredible how few players who are drafted actually make it to the majors, and then how few of those have any significant impact.


I agree. It's great fun to look at old drafts and see the stars right next to guys who never played an inning.
   50. JJ1986 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4347642)
First win for Boras - 2y/$28m for Soriano from Washington.
   51. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4347651)
oooooooooooovvvvvveeeerrrrrpppppaaaaayyyyyy
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4347658)
First win for Boras - 2y/$28m for Soriano from Washington.

Man, Boras must have a J Edgar Hoover sized collection of incriminating pictures.
   53. Jay Seaver Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4347663)
There's just really no explanation for how good Boras is at his job besides "Jedi Mind Trick", is there?
   54. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4347665)
So Soriano turned 3/33 into 4/49 right? That decision worked out OK for him.
   55. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4347671)
There's just really no explanation for how good Boras is at his job besides "Jedi Mind Trick", is there?

Blackmail?
   56. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4347674)
So Soriano turned 3/33 into 4/49 right?


what do you mean?
   57. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 15, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4347695)
Didn't he sign his deal with the Yankees as a 3/33 with an opt-out originally? So basically by exercising the opt-out he has gotten 2/21 so far, and will get 2/28 now turning the deal he signed after 2010 into a 4/49. (I think).
   58. DL from MN Posted: January 15, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4347704)
> will get 2/28 now

And another $14M vesting option. Could end up as 5/63.

Are they really going to keep Storen and Clippard as setup guys or is one of them getting dealt?
   59. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4347741)
Didn't he sign his deal with the Yankees as a 3/33 with an opt-out originally? So basically by exercising the opt-out he has gotten 2/21 so far, and will get 2/28 now turning the deal he signed after 2010 into a 4/49. (I think).


If he had accepted the Qualifying Offer, his time since 2010 would have been 3/35.8 I think. He has bumped that to 4/49 plus gotten to be the anointed closer so you are right: everything worked out for him.

This all turned out fine for the Yankees too. Less than a year ago, it seemed they would be stuck with him for 1/$14m for 2013, and now they don't have to pay that and get a draft pick to boot.
   60. The District Attorney Posted: January 15, 2013 at 04:56 PM (#4347799)
So Soriano turned 3/33 into 4/49 right? That decision worked out OK for him.
But would it have if Mariano hadn't missed a year?
   61. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4347801)
So Soriano turned 3/33 into 4/49 right? That decision worked out OK for him.


But would it have if Mariano hadn't missed a year?


He probably wouldn't have opted out, his lacking any recent glow of closer mystique would have stunted his free agent desirability.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4884 - 7:56am, Dec 19)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogJerry Crasnick on Twitter: "Jake Peavy has agreed on 2 yr deal with
(3 - 7:47am, Dec 19)
Last: Drexl Spivey

NewsblogMax Scherzer not a realistic option, New York Yankees' Randy Levine says - ESPN New York
(1 - 7:29am, Dec 19)
Last: Drexl Spivey

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(709 - 7:19am, Dec 19)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(62 - 5:55am, Dec 19)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogPadres Acquire Derek Norris – MLB Trade Rumors
(17 - 4:58am, Dec 19)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(9 - 4:21am, Dec 19)
Last: baerga1

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(26 - 3:58am, Dec 19)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(59 - 2:45am, Dec 19)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1352 - 2:09am, Dec 19)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogSaint Pete City Council Tells Rays NYET!
(3 - 1:57am, Dec 19)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9159 - 11:35pm, Dec 18)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(42 - 9:34pm, Dec 18)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(41 - 9:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: Jeff Frances the Mute

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(103 - 8:09pm, Dec 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 0.5176 seconds
48 querie(s) executed