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

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Questions And Challenges Loom Over Derek Jeter

This is just stupid.

While it’s doubtful that another instance of Yankees vs. Red Sox will influence Jeter, it is a complication that is in place only because he’s Derek Jeter and trading Stanton to Boston will be perceived as a betrayal of the Yankees despite the reality he is no longer connected to the organization in any way other than as a franchise icon.

Jeter must take care not to let that affect him even in a subconscious way. The last thing he needs is the appearance of impropriety by trading Stanton to Boston to “get back” at the Yankees for whatever reason, real or imagined; or to send him to the Yankees with the inevitable backlash of Jeter turning the Marlins into a supplier to his former team.

It’s no-win.

Jim Furtado Posted: November 19, 2017 at 01:28 PM | 29 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: derek jeter, marlins

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. eddieot Posted: November 19, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5578542)
Simple. Trade him to the Phillies. I think Stanton may have a legitimate shot as 73 HRs as a RH power beast in CBP. Offer Miami Moniak and Cozens to make up the power gap and take on the whole salary. The Phils have more disposable cash than almost anyone else in the league right now. Now only if Stanton could pitch...
   2. The Duke Posted: November 19, 2017 at 02:12 PM (#5578547)
Phillies make the most sense to me as well as long as the owners are turning on the spigot
   3. JRVJ Posted: November 19, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5578552)
Phillies make sense from a financial standpoint, but (1) Stanton has to OK the trade, and there's little reason for him to approve a trade to Philly;

(2) The Phillies are going to be bad for at least one more year (probably two), so Stanton would have to be buying into a significant amount of losing for 2018.

Having said that, the Phillies could promise Stanton that they are going to be in on Arrieta and / or Darwish this year, and that they will be in on Harper and/or Machado in 2018-2019 (that last part discretely, as they can't really publicly say that).

The Phillies have the deep pockets to add Stanton's contract, plus two, maybe three of Arrieta/Darwish/Harper/Machado.
   4. John Northey Posted: November 19, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5578604)
There are 29 teams he could trade with so all that is needed is to trade him to one of the other 27 and problem solved. The Jays and O's might be in the running too so maybe 'just' 25 teams to work with. However, if I was in Jeter's shoes I wouldn't exclude any teams from a major trade. Whoever has the best offer gets him.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2017 at 10:53 PM (#5578632)
It’s no-win.

It's no win because Jeter is in way over his head. If he actually is the baseball operations decision maker, he is probably the single least qualified person to hold that job in 20 years. Maybe more like 30 years. When was Hawk Harrelson GM in Chicago?
   6. SoSH U at work Posted: November 19, 2017 at 11:35 PM (#5578642)
Jeter's a part-owner of the Marlins. He has a commitment to no other organization, just as Don Mattingly has no connection to the Yankees as manager of the Marlins or Mike Scioscia had to the Dodgers. In whatever capacity he serves, his only obligation is to do what's best for the Marlins organization.
   7. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 19, 2017 at 11:36 PM (#5578643)
Well as a Red Sox fan, I hope Jeter doesn't trade Stanton to the Sox.
   8. PreservedFish Posted: November 19, 2017 at 11:53 PM (#5578645)
7. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 19, 2017 at 11:36 PM (#5578643)
Well as a Red Sox fan, I hope Jeter doesn't trade Stanton to the Sox.


Yeah, I also would hate to acquire a guy that might hit 60 homeruns.
   9. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: November 20, 2017 at 12:47 AM (#5578650)
hoskins (.259/.396/.618) and stanton (.281/.376/.631) would be one hell of a 3-4 combo.
Phillies make sense from a financial standpoint, but (1) Stanton has to OK the trade, and there's little reason for him to approve a trade to Philly;

(2) The Phillies are going to be bad for at least one more year (probably two), so Stanton would have to be buying into a significant amount of losing for 2018.

i'm not sure it's that hopeless.

we have a lot of young and talented starting pitchers who might really benefit from a new coaching staff; relievers are always a crapshoot, so maybe that gets sorted out, too.

we have alot of cromulent young hitters and someone from that group might break out. others could be packaged or traded for upgrades wherever necessary.

as long as we're taking good players from shitty east coast franchises, might as well call up BAL and make an offer on machado.

   10. Sunday silence Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:08 AM (#5578653)
Having thought about Stanton situation some more...

He passed through waivers in August which tells me no one really wants to pick up his entire salary. After all stantons contract is decent value albeit not with quite a bit of risk. It's also never going to be a bargain either because Stanton can opt out if he continues to hit like babe Ruth...


So much money do the Marlin's have to take back? Surely no more than 10 or 15%. So the Marlin's take back 30 million. Ok what do the Marlin's get back in players...??

Well surely no more than a couple of prospects who are likely to produce say 4 WAR for the next couple years. Surely they can't have huge upside either cause why would you give up potential upside and not get a bargain on Stanton being Ruth for ten years..
   11. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 20, 2017 at 06:35 AM (#5578666)
Yeah, I also would hate to acquire a guy that might hit 60 homeruns.

If we are getting him for free, I would love him. But if we are picking up 300m in salary, plus dealing talent for him? Hard pass.

1. OF is a position of strength for the Red Sox. Upgrading there has much less marginal upside than at other positions.
2. You are buying high on Stanton, arguably coming off a career year.
3. He has huge injury red flags.
4. Stanton is on a ridiculous contract, that is all risk and little upside (300m with a player opt out). I HATE player opt outs. Especially with injury prone players.
5. The Sox can find good players to take their money, they don't need to give up talent to do so.

   12. geonose Posted: November 20, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5578765)
He passed through waivers in August which tells me no one really wants to pick up his entire salary.

Moot point, but I was just wondering...Let's say some team did claim him on waivers in August, and the Marlins were willing to just let him go if that team would take the entire contract. He has a full no-trade clause...would he have to go to the claiming team, or would he have the right to refuse?
   13. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5578767)
He passed through waivers in August which tells me no one really wants to pick up his entire salary.


This is usually not the correct inference to make.
   14. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 20, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5578771)
Moot point, but I was just wondering...Let's say some team did claim him on waivers in August, and the Marlins were willing to just let him go if that team would take the entire contract. He has a full no-trade clause...would he have to go to the claiming team, or would he have the right to refuse?

He can still veto a deal. Came up with Verlander this past season for example. He still had to ok the waiver deal.
   15. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5578776)
He passed through waivers in August which tells me no one really wants to pick up his entire salary.

This is usually not the correct inference to make.


Can you explain to me why not? I understand there's a degree of gamesmanship involved, but why would a serious team not make a claim if they were willing to absorb the entire contract?
   16. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5578798)
Can you explain to me why not? I understand there's a degree of gamesmanship involved, but why would a serious team not make a claim if they were willing to absorb the entire contract?

If anything, Stanton had more surplus value in August than he does now: his 2017 salary was only $14.5M and he could have impacted an additional playoff race.

Aside from the enormity of it, the main problem with the Stanton contract is the opt out. I still don't think that we have a good handle on how opt outs impact contract valuation since it substantially diminishes the upside for surplus value while not doing as much to mitigate the team's risk.
   17. McCoy Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5578811)
I don't really see how Stanton opts out after 2020. About the only way that happens is if he turns into Ruth and stays there over the next 3 seasons. He would be entering his age 31 season and would be owed 218 million for the next 7 seasons. I doubt the landscape changes enough that Stanton could top that by much or at all in 2021 and beyond.

But anyway, even with the threat of opting out after 2020 getting Stanton for just 3 years at his prime is extremely valuable. I can't see saying no on any trade that involves minor league players or a good amount of the pre FA major leaguers.
   18. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5578813)
YR, primarily I think that we just do not understand waivers. It has its own strange protocols that don't make sense to an outsider. Why put Bryce Harper on revokable waivers? What possible good does that accomplish?

Secondarily, there are any number of reasons that a team interested in Stanton wouldn't claim.

1. You can't get approval for a speculative overnight $300M expenditure. Seriously. It's not that easy to just throw $300M around willy-nilly.
2. Gamesmanship
3. You assume that the Marlins will pull him back / ask for something else
4. Want to avoid the media circus that would accomplish #3
5. You suspect he'll pass through waivers and wait to talk trade until that happens

Justin Verlander passed through revokable waivers unclaimed. So that mean nobody wants to pick up his entire salary, right? The Tigers literally couldn't give him away? A month later he was traded (with $16 million) for a bigger package than anyone imagined (prospects that any analysis would value at WAY above $16 million).

According to MLBTR Nick Castellanos, 25, former good prospect and established 110 OPS+ hitter, cleared waivers. Why? Wouldn't you want to the Yankees to give him a shot? AJ Ramos cleared waivers just days after the Mets traded two prospects for him. Why did that happen? Joey Votto cleared waivers. Justin Upton cleared waivers and then weeks later was traded (along with a scant $1 million) for a prospect.

For all we know there is waivers etiquette - like, that it would be rude to claim Stanton.

Basically we just don't understand the process. I certainly don't, and anyone that makes superficial deductions doesn't understand it either.
   19. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5578827)
There is a distribution of possible future surplus value for Stanton. The opt out eliminates the right tail, thereby lowering the mean/median in expected value (i.e., probability-weighted averages).

Now the probability of the opt out being exercised is negatively associated with Stanton's health/performance, which is why the existence of the opt out lowers the expected value while increasing the variance (despite the dynamic described in the first paragraph). It's non-intuitive, because in most investments when you lower the return, the upshot is decreased volatility. But that isn't the case with opt outs in baseball contracts.

If I were the team trading for Stanton, then I'd insist on either him agreeing the exercise the opt out at the time of the trade in exchange for some relatively nominal consideration like a guarantee of his 2028 buyout for $10M or that he would waive the opt out in exchange for a guarantee of his 2028 option year. Per Fangraphs, the guy was worth $55M in 2017, $14M in 2016, and $31M in 2015... so basically he's Forrest Gump's proverbial box of chocolates.

And then I would adjust what I was willing to part with in terms of talent based on whether it was a guarantee of just 3 years of a guarantee of 11 years. As you noted, he'd be a far more valuable asset with only a 3 year guarantee at $26M/yr plus the $10M buyout. But the point is that his current situation with the buyout means that he's worth *less* than if the opt out didn't exist and even if his option year was guaranteed. This is because the presence of the opt out means that the expected surplus value is not some simple linear combination of two scenarios, one in which he takes the buyout and one in which he doesn't because probability of opting out will very much be a function of his performance.
   20. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5578828)
There's a difference between the revocable waivers (that we see in August) and irrevocable waivers.

If a player passes through irrevocable waivers, it usually does indicate something about teams' unwillingness to take on the contract.
   21. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5578841)
There have been a couple of players that have been dumped on teams that claimed them on the August waivers.

I know the Jays dumped Alex Rios on the White Sox when they put a claim on him to stop him from being traded to another team.
The Jays simply let him go to the White Sox without getting anything back (and thus dumping his contract as well).

I'm pretty sure Jose Canseco ended up in New York because they put an August waiver claim on him to stop him from getting traded to another team, and Tampa simply let him go.
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 20, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5578843)
There have been a couple of players that have been dumped on teams that claimed them on the August waivers.


Randy Myers was a famous one.
   23. Sunday silence Posted: November 20, 2017 at 03:06 PM (#5578906)
Ok that helps explain what is going on.
   24. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2017 at 03:19 PM (#5578917)
#18, point 1 -- sure but you know it's coming weeks in advance (really before the season even starts). Teams surely are deciding who they are willing to claim because they want to acquire, who to claim to block and who to pass on well before anybody's name hits the wire.

Verlander traded for a bigger package than anybody could imagine? They got a guy currently ranked #40 but is a 19-year-old pitcher and two guys outside the top 100. The Tigers also gave up a lottery ticket. That's basically what all us naysayere were suggesting to go with the $16 M. Sure, that's more than $16 M in value (2 whole WAR) but not by much -- Perez will play in the majors if he stays healthy, has the chance to become a star but is still probably at least 3 years away from being effective.

It's fine to make the point this shows that Verlander was worth something but it was a blah package and the Tigers had to eat money not "bigger than could be imagined."
   25. DCA Posted: November 20, 2017 at 03:50 PM (#5578935)
I think there's also a roster space cost?

As in, you need an open space on the 40-man to claim Stanton, and then he's in limbo 2 days and you can't use that open spot to claim someone else during the interim.

Or does that only kick if when the waiving team declined to pull him back?
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5578940)
I have to assume that you can make claims without a corresponding number of open roster spots.
   27. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2017 at 04:21 PM (#5578950)
It's fine to make the point this shows that Verlander was worth something but it was a blah package and the Tigers had to eat money not "bigger than could be imagined."


My memory of it was that it was generally thought to be a larger package than what most observers thought the Tigers could realistically hope for.

Anyway you get my point. That nobody claimed Verlander or Stanton on revokable waivers does not prove that their teams literally could not give them away for nothing.
   28. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 20, 2017 at 05:03 PM (#5578983)
I think there's also a roster space cost?

I don't believe that's the case. From a technical perspective, the 40 man roster has to be comprised a players whose contracts are assigned to the MLB club or one of its minor league affiliates. If the Giants or whoever had claimed Stanton in August, then he would have remained on the Marlins roster until (or if) the claim was executed and his contract was reassigned. A player continues to play for his original team while he's on waivers, regardless of whether he's claimed; he only ceases to be part of that organization if/when the waiver claim is executed. If he's on the Marlins' roster, then he can't simultaneously be on the Giants' (or whoever).

I think the previous poster had it right: teams didn't submit a waiver claim because it was virtually impossible that the Marlins wouldn't have pulled him back had he been claimed on revocable waivers.

Whether he has any surplus value seems idiosyncratic to each team, since the size and structure (i.e., presence of the opt-out) of his contract negates the exchange value (i.e., his value is driven by use value). I agree with the previous poster that there aren't very many teams able/willing to take on a $300M payroll obligation (literally, the size of the commitment may run afoul of MLB's debt limits for some teams). So for a select number of teams, he may be worth trading for. But for most teams, he's not an asset given his contract.

Count me in the camp that the Marlins are asking for far more than what a reasonable team should be willing to pay in terms of young talent, unless the Marlins are picking up a substantial portion of the backend of the contract. If I were the acquiring team, then if I couldn't eliminate the opt-out (as proposed in previous post), then I would see if I could make the Marlins' contribution contingent on the opt-out being exercised.

Final thought: setting the latter idea aside, it would be more luxury tax efficient for a team like the Giants to send a bad contract back (e.g., Span or Pence) in lieu of any sort of direct cash subsidy to offset part of Stanton's contract. So that might be a further complication (also idiosyncratic, as it only affects teams pursuing Stanton who are near the luxury tax threshold) to getting a deal done. What is interesting is that I'm pretty sure that the Marlins takehome from revenue sharing is partly driven by luxury taxes, so they have an additional incentive to resist that sort of offer (or leverage it for more young talent). If nothing else, it's an interesting game theory problem for them to work through.
   29. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 20, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5579050)
What is interesting is that I'm pretty sure that the Marlins takehome from revenue sharing is partly driven by luxury taxes,


That is not correct. .luxury tax money goes into a secret slush fund administered by the league in the absence of external oversight. It has long been my suspicion that the office of the commissioner does allocate some of this money to favored franchises as a reward for doing the league's bidding or to offset revenue sharing costs, but "officially" luxury tax money and revenue sharing money are entirely different in origin and allocation.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 11 December, 2017 - GOP strategist: Moore would have 'date with a baseball bat' if he tried dating teens where I grew up
(320 - 6:05pm, Dec 11)
Last: Count

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1904 - 5:53pm, Dec 11)
Last: Fourth True Outcome

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(315 - 5:47pm, Dec 11)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogJack Morris, Alan Trammell elected to Hall | MLB.com
(115 - 5:44pm, Dec 11)
Last: RMc's Unenviable Situation

NewsblogTexas Rangers: Shohei Ohtani or not, Rangers still considering nontraditional 6-man, 4-man rotations next season | SportsDay
(9 - 5:29pm, Dec 11)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(339 - 5:22pm, Dec 11)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Sox TherapyA Container of Milk, A Loaf of Bread and a Dude Who Can Hit Home Runs
(9 - 5:17pm, Dec 11)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(313 - 5:03pm, Dec 11)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-11-2017
(19 - 4:49pm, Dec 11)
Last: TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember

NewsblogMets have talked to teams about trading Matt Harvey: sources - NY Daily News
(6 - 4:21pm, Dec 11)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(324 - 3:41pm, Dec 11)
Last: Kiko Sakata

Hall of MeritBattle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)!
(375 - 3:36pm, Dec 11)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogPeter Gammons: Splashes and notes from the Orlando Winter Meetings - GammonsDaily.com
(11 - 3:22pm, Dec 11)
Last: Batman

NewsblogTrade secrets: The key to covering baseball’s winter meetings is an adjoining door – The Athletic
(3 - 3:12pm, Dec 11)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot
(19 - 2:22pm, Dec 11)
Last: ronw

Page rendered in 0.2500 seconds
47 querie(s) executed