Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, March 29, 2021

Francisco Lindor extension rumors: Mets offer star shortstop roughly 10 years, $325 million, per report

The New York Mets have offered a deal close to 10 years and $325 million to All-Star shortstop Francisco Lindor as the two sides continue to work toward an agreement, Andy Martino of SNY reported on Monday. Such a deal would be second only to Mookie Betts’ $365 million deal with the Dodgers among extensions signed by players with between five and six years of MLB service time—i.e., those in or headed into their walk years.

It’s not certain whether the Mets’ proposed contract would begin with the 2021 or 2022 season. If agreed to, the average annual value of $32.5 million would be the ninth-largest such figure in MLB history. The deal would also tie Giancarlo Stanton’s extension he signed with the Marlins as the fourth-largest in the history of the sport.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 29, 2021 at 10:56 PM | 89 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: francisco lindor, mets

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. Jack Sommers Posted: March 29, 2021 at 11:34 PM (#6010638)
Tim Healey of Newsday reported on twitter Lindor already told the mets no on their offer and made a counter offer of 12 years, 385M. link
   2. Walt Davis Posted: March 29, 2021 at 11:57 PM (#6010639)
6th in WAR since 2015. Well behind Trout and Mookie but there's a big clump of 14 players within +/- 4 WAR of him (from Cain to Arenado).** Other than Correa, he's the youngest of the bunch. The most obvious player comps are Machado, Jose Ramirez and Correa; the most obvious contract comps at the moment are probably Arenado (9/$275 at the same age) and Manny (10/$300 at two years younger) -- ages assuming the deal does not include this year. I'd say 10/$325 sounds about right -- that's about a 9/$300 extension if it includes this year. I would pass on 12/$385 -- even if it includes this year, it would take him through age 38. But there's a lot of negotiation room between 10/$325 and 12/$385 plus deferment machinations.

Number 8-10 show the value of gambling right on your young'uns. Freeman is finishing out a 8/$135 buyout at $22 M; Yelich got his big extension (maybe not wise) but still just $14 this year on the original; Cleveland got Ramirez's arb years and first FA year for $25 M and still hold 2/$24 in options.

** That's +/- 4 WAR over 5+ seasons so a noticeable gap but not exactly a team-changing gap.
   3. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 30, 2021 at 12:17 AM (#6010641)
10/325 seems like a pretty fair offer. Not sure how much more Lindor thinks he's worth but it is more then Mookie's annual amount and Mookie is far better with the wood then Lindor which offsets the positional difference(though I think Mookie could probably play CF if he needed to)
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: March 30, 2021 at 01:03 AM (#6010644)
Twitter responses for Healey to Lindor's rejection are F. Scott Lindor, not the Mets, per the silly movie reference.

as I noted on the other thread, I believe this gets done on Thursday or the day of the Mets home opener next week.

but Cohen is the one on a honeymoon with Mets fans - if Lindor blows this off, well....
   5. . Posted: March 30, 2021 at 08:40 AM (#6010649)
I'd tell him he has 48 hours or I'm pulling the offer and he'll never see it again. It's already too high and there will be plenty of other SSs available during the season and in the offseason. A 12-year deal is beyond preposterous.
   6. dejarouehg Posted: March 30, 2021 at 08:41 AM (#6010650)
Lindor is a big union guy, so there may be (self-imposed) pressure to try and be the next standard-bearer type of thing going on here. And, this all has to play into the anticipated outcome of the CBA. Is there going to be a luxury tax going forward?

Mets fans seem to have consumed the Kool Aid that Steve Cohen will just spend indiscriminately. If Lindor thinks the market is better elsewhere, then so be it. Clearly, there will be more supply than ever before. I'd be just as happy with Trevor Story.

   7. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 30, 2021 at 08:42 AM (#6010651)

Yeah he should take the 10/325 or something close to that. He’s got much more downside than upside from that number if he has a bad year or gets hurt.
   8. Rough Carrigan Posted: March 30, 2021 at 08:54 AM (#6010652)
I mostly agree with #7. Lindor just had a sort of mediocre "year". Yes, it was only a 60 game season but he put up a 102 OPS+. His OPS+ the last 3 years have gone 132, 117, 102. His power evaporated. Fair or not you have to be a little suspicious of guys with surprising power who see it disappear in the year when the uncertainty of the start of the season meant guys couldn't time their "vitamin" use the way they normally do. I think the defensive metrics show him as a pretty consistent positive in the field but not like he's a league leader or anything like that. He's got a lot of leverage but if he gets hit by a pitch in the hand or something and has another kind of mediocre year no one will consider giving him a megacontract.
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2021 at 09:03 AM (#6010653)
I'd imagine they settle around 12/350. Both sides want this.
   10. Nasty Nate Posted: March 30, 2021 at 09:10 AM (#6010654)
Isn't it unusual to have so much of this be public as it is happening? I don't remember hearing this much about ongoing extension negotiations for Trout, Betts, or Tatis. It is more common for free agent stuff to be leaked, but that is a different beast.
   11. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 30, 2021 at 10:05 AM (#6010668)
Yes, but its the Mets.
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: March 30, 2021 at 10:19 AM (#6010672)
Yes, but its the Mets.
I really wasn't trying to go in that direction! Especially because it seems like the Lindor camp is active in the publicization.
   13. The Duke Posted: March 30, 2021 at 10:49 AM (#6010679)
Mets should consider themselves lucky if he says no. If that is the “best and final”, lindor should take it or something close to it - if he is holding for 385, he’ll be hearing a dial tone soon (sorry for being pre-digital there ).
   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 30, 2021 at 01:33 PM (#6010710)
@RichardStaff
Steve Cohen should pretend Francisco Lindor is an SEC fine and pay $1.8B for him
   15. . Posted: March 30, 2021 at 01:53 PM (#6010715)
Stop it, @RichardStaff -- you're killing me!!!
   16. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 30, 2021 at 02:08 PM (#6010719)
I'd imagine they settle around 12/350. Both sides want this.
Maybe 11 years, but there looks to be middle ground between the parties that would be a win-win. If a deal doesn’t get done, it’s lose-lose. Sure the Mets will have other options next year, but they’ll be bidding against other teams, for players that they apparently like less than Lindor, while dealing with a potentially disruptive 2021 situation. Could be a tough year for Linder if he doesn’t sign, with considerable booing by those outraged that he wouldn’t take the Mets offer. If he plays poorly (by the high expectations) it could get loud, although if he does well perhaps the fans will chant “PAY HIM”.

My sense is that a deal gets done, and I’m cynical enough to wonder if the parties are just building up the suspense before the inevitable Opening Day announcement, but who knows?
   17. Walt Davis Posted: March 30, 2021 at 03:57 PM (#6010744)
Most talented Met position player since Carlos Beltran ... oh wait.

(I'm not gonna check the veracity of that claim.)
   18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 30, 2021 at 04:12 PM (#6010752)
Most talented Met position player since Carlos Beltran ... oh wait.


Wright and Beltran put up comparable peaks around the same time with the Mets. Lindor has the potential to match them I think, but it might be nice to see him play a few games in NY before anointing him just yet.
   19. . Posted: March 30, 2021 at 05:19 PM (#6010772)
Lindor is barely better than Reyes was when Reyes hit free agency. Lindor hasn't had a year within 12 points of Reyes 144 OPS+ the year before Reyes hit free agency.
   20. Walt Davis Posted: March 30, 2021 at 05:28 PM (#6010774)
I did say "talented" not "productive" or "valuable" which, in Walt-speak, means all-around talent. Lindor is fabulously talented (hits, runs, plays good defense at SS). So I meant that whether he ever steps on the field for the Mets or his stay is just one disappointing year. (It is clearly possible that Lindor's talent has already declined but impossible to tell at this point.)

My instinct was that Beltran was more talented than Wright but (a) Wright was a far, far better baserunner and stealer than I recalled and (b) Wright's Rfield numbers are so all over the f'ing place (and I have no real personal opinion) that I've got to stick him at "average." So he looks at least close enough to Beltran in talent, was probably better than Beltran by the end of Beltran's stay (Beltran was 6 years older) and he had two excellent seasons after Beltran left. So I concede that Lindor is, at best, the most talented Met position player since Wright ... which alas didn't end well.
   21. Darren Posted: March 30, 2021 at 07:07 PM (#6010787)
Seems like 10/$325M is a good deal for Lindor, but if he doesn't like it, it doesn't seem like a horrible idea to turn it down. Maybe he costs himself some money but he gets the chance to see if that's the best deal for him.
   22. depletion Posted: March 30, 2021 at 10:21 PM (#6010802)
I think a number of things have to break right for rejecting this deal to work out well for him:
a) He has to play very well (he can control this, barring injuries)
b) No more than, perhaps, one of other 2022 free agent shortstops can play "better" than him.
c) The Mets have to play reasonably well giving him opportunities to boost RBI, R and AB (=> HR, SB, H).
d) If the Mets get to the playoffs (a plus for Lindor) he most certainly has to play well in the playoffs.

The biggest risks are probably a) and b). If he's at .285 with 19 HR (with similar quality OBP), and two or more of the other available SS are substantially better, he loses a ton of money by not taking this deal.
   23. Howie Menckel Posted: March 30, 2021 at 10:49 PM (#6010806)
the potential 2021 range on Lindor and the Mets fanbase intrigues me.

utter joy upon acquiring him.
for those who didn't know the extent of his all-around skills AND his, well, zest for life, even more beloved.
eager to embrace him.
but a NO to 10 for $320. hmm.

if that holds up, as a play off Post 22, he needs to get off to a good start and ideally the team does as well.

if the mashers mash and he doesn't hit well and the team is losing - well, many Mets' fan favorite player right now is owner Cohen - who backed up the Brinks truck.

as so many athletes across the sporting spectrum have said over the decades - New York is the best place to be when you win, and the worst when you don't.

no pressure, Francisco....
   24. The Duke Posted: March 31, 2021 at 01:45 PM (#6010862)
He’ll be a real fan favorite this year if he turns down a 300+ million deal.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 31, 2021 at 02:05 PM (#6010867)
This seems ripe for some serious deferrals. Do something that headlines as 12/375, but PVs the same as 12/330.
   26. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 31, 2021 at 02:11 PM (#6010868)
Mets & Lindor reported to be at impasse - no talks, and none expected. Which grandstanding NY politician will offer to mediate?
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 31, 2021 at 02:35 PM (#6010871)
OK, here's your solution.

Mets have offered 12/325, no deferrals, that's an NPV of $227M at 6%, and an AAV of $27.1M. Instead of that, Lindor gets $20M p.a. for the 12 years of the deal, and then $14M a year for the next 12 years.

That deal headlines at 12/408, making Lindor the first "$400M player", and has the same NPV. I'm pretty sure Steve Cohen can earn 6% on his money. Lindor probably can get a nice tax arb too, by living in a no state income tax jurisdiction when he receives the deferrals.
   28. The Duke Posted: March 31, 2021 at 03:00 PM (#6010873)
Cohen tweets: Cohen commented on the negotations via his Twitter account, saying “I have made a great offer [to Lindor]. It does take two to tango.” Another tweet praised the shortstop, saying “Lindor is a heckuva player and a great guy . I hope he decides to sign.”

Meaning: Mets fans, don’t blame me, blame him
   29. Lassus Posted: March 31, 2021 at 03:35 PM (#6010876)
Which grandstanding NY politician will offer to mediate?

Giuliani?
   30. Adam Starblind Posted: March 31, 2021 at 04:22 PM (#6010884)
If he walks, I’m fine with that. We gave up little more than spare parts to get him (and Carrasco). It’s a deep SS market next offseason. If he and Carrasco are productive this year (and next for C), the Mets are well in the black on this deal unless Rosario or Gimenez turns into a star, which they won’t. The Mets have the leverage here.
   31. dejarouehg Posted: March 31, 2021 at 05:05 PM (#6010891)
If he walks, I’m fine with that. We gave up little more than spare parts to get him (and Carrasco). It’s a deep SS market next offseason. If he and Carrasco are productive this year (and next for C), the Mets are well in the black on this deal unless Rosario or Gimenez turns into a star, which they won’t. The Mets have the leverage here.


Completely agree. If all those shortstops hit the market in November, (I assume at least one of them will re-sign with their current team,) there will certainly be opportunities to sign an outstanding replacement for quite a bit less than this.
   32. Walt Davis Posted: March 31, 2021 at 06:02 PM (#6010906)
Snapper in #25 and #27 ... your logic is fine but you misread the headline ... the rumored offer is 10/$325, not 12 years, so you need to re-do the math. Of course we don't know what deferrals, if any, were in the original offer.

As I've opined elsewhere, even with covid hopefully fading via vaccination, the future is still plenty uncertain and, even in places where the economic recovery is going well, it's expected to be years before it's back where it was. Not the time to quibble over 10% on a guaranteed $325 M. Now if he/his agent are correct that they can get 12/$385 somewhere then that's a big enough difference to fight over.

Of course accepting the deal now would be "embarrassing" but that can be worked out via a mix of signing bonus and deferrals. A bigger signing bonus makes it more attractive to Lindor and protects him against a prolonged strike; give it back in deferrals so the headline number is higher than $325.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 31, 2021 at 06:10 PM (#6010909)
Snapper in #25 and #27 ... your logic is fine but you misread the headline ... the rumored offer is 10/$325, not 12 years, so you need to re-do the math. Of course we don't know what deferrals, if any, were in the original offer.

That makes the Mets offer even better, so it should make it easier to make a deal.
   34. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 31, 2021 at 06:10 PM (#6010910)
I'm pretty sure Steve Cohen can earn 6% on his money.


Sure, there are plenty of schemes any shyster of his caliber can wade into.

As I said in #3, it's a pretty fair offer and I'm not sure where/why Lindor thinks he's worth more then someone like Mookie.
   35. The Duke Posted: March 31, 2021 at 07:59 PM (#6010920)
The difference between 325 and 385 simply seems to be more money, not more value. What’s the likelihood that the last two years add value? If that’s the case it really is more like 10/325 vs 10/385 which seems quite a big gap.

Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t imagine ZIPS would have him as anything more than a marginally positive WAR player by age 38.
   36. dejarouehg Posted: March 31, 2021 at 08:15 PM (#6010923)
Sure, there are plenty of schemes any shyster of his caliber can wade into.


Not sure how much of a shyster you need to be to get 6%, but your point is an excellent one. Mets fans seem to ignore that this guy is not exactly the most savory of characters. (Similar to Yankees fans and George, I guess.)

If Cohen holds the line, I don't see any scenario where Lindor comes out ahead, but then again, you can never be surprised by an owner losing his mind and over-paying, whatever that really means.
   37. Howie Menckel Posted: March 31, 2021 at 09:04 PM (#6010926)
George gets the edge for being a convicted felon.

and as noted by several, this is far, far beyond being about money.

pro athletes of this caliber are competitive beyond what most of us could ever dream of.

that's why the "hometown discount" gets talked about but rarely utilized.

it's also why posters here are so dead-on about rigging the deal to get the best headline about how huge the deal is. "mine's bigger than yours," and all that. that's how it works in their world.
   38. The Duke Posted: March 31, 2021 at 09:57 PM (#6010930)
My favorite Shyster quote from will smith in enemy of the state:

“Actually, I believe the term "shyster" is reserved for attorneys of the Jewish persuasion. I believe the proper term for me is "eggplant".
   39. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 31, 2021 at 11:17 PM (#6010940)
Passan reports done deal. 10 years, $341M
   40. The Duke Posted: March 31, 2021 at 11:27 PM (#6010941)
That feels about right - and there is very limited ntc and no opt outs. So pretty team friendly if you believe he can give you ten years. Does not include 2021. So ten years starting next year.
   41. Howie Menckel Posted: March 31, 2021 at 11:28 PM (#6010942)
seemingly confirmed

Anthony DiComo
@AnthonyDiComo
·
11m
BREAKING: Francisco Lindor and the Mets have a deal, per source. Ten years, $341 million.
   42. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 31, 2021 at 11:30 PM (#6010943)
Haha, $1M more than Tatis.
   43. Howie Menckel Posted: March 31, 2021 at 11:30 PM (#6010944)
4. Howie Menckel Posted: March 30, 2021 at 01:03 AM (#6010644)
I believe this gets done on Thursday or the day of the Mets home opener next week.


(c'mon, give me this one)
   44. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 01, 2021 at 12:30 AM (#6010945)
The news broke Wednesday, Howie.
   45. Howie Menckel Posted: April 01, 2021 at 12:36 AM (#6010946)
but is it DONE?

:)
   46. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2021 at 08:08 AM (#6010954)
Now that things are getting back to normal, I'm actually convinced he's going to tank. Stupid vaccine!
   47. . Posted: April 01, 2021 at 08:11 AM (#6010955)
Big overpay. Time will demonstrate.
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 08:45 AM (#6010958)
Big overpay. Time will demonstrate.

Why should any Mets fan care? I'd rather see Lindor get the money than Steve Cohen's presumably equally sleazy children. In 2021 America, always root for billionaires to lose money.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 08:49 AM (#6010961)
This is also a lower NPV than the alleged 10/325 no deferrals offer, so the Mets actually saved money by increasing it to $341M.
   50. . . . . . . Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:05 AM (#6010967)
snapper, that depends on what discount rate you use. And when you factor in the lower tax on the deferred comp, my calcs show this as a substantially better deal for Lindor than the one on the table, which was a stupid/inefficient offer by the Mets.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:18 AM (#6010972)
snapper, that depends on what discount rate you use.

My earlier calculation had the 10/325 starting a year earlier. From 5-8% they're virtually the same. +/- $1M.

And when you factor in the lower tax on the deferred comp, my calcs show this as a substantially better deal for Lindor than the one on the table, which was a stupid/inefficient offer by the Mets

I'm looking at it from the team point of view. The NPV of $0, than ten years of $32.5M is almost identical to $21M, ten years of $27M, and ten years of $5M.

Lindor's tax situation, and rates 15 years from now are unknowable items.
   52. Nasty Nate Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:24 AM (#6010974)
Big overpay. Time will demonstrate.

Why should any Mets fan care? I'd rather see Lindor get the money than Steve Cohen's presumably equally sleazy children. In 2021 America, always root for billionaires to lose money.
Inefficient signings are more likely to make the team worse than they are to cost billionaires money. I know you are devoted to the fantasy land where the opposite is true.

But fans don't live in that fantasy land, so that's why they care.
   53. . Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:29 AM (#6010975)
Why should any Mets fan care?


Because it will use up money that could be used to pay better players. You know this.

In 2021 America, always root for billionaires to lose money.


You're way smarter than this. It would be better, indeed, if Steve Cohen gave the extra $100+ million he's overpaying Francisco Lindor to libraries or charities that help the poor -- and we can rest assured he and his "presumably sleazy children" are far more likely to do this than Francisco Lindor is. But we live in a world of fanboys applauding him giving the money to mere baseball players. There's literally no societal gain whatsoever from Steve Cohen vastly overpaying Francisco Lindor or other baseball players. If you want to drumbeat, drumbeat for Francisco Lindor to give a bunch of his money to education in Puerto Rico or underprivileged neighborhoods in NYC. Not even baseball fields in Puerto Rico or NYC -- it's stupid to encourage people to become baseball players -- but something serious.
   54. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:30 AM (#6010976)
In 2021 America, always root for billionaires to lose money.
...right up until you step into the voting booth!
   55. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:35 AM (#6010977)
Inefficient signings are more likely to make the team worse than they are to cost billionaires money. I know you are devoted to the fantasy land where the opposite is true.

But fans don't like in that fantasy land, so that's why they care.


I see no evidence teams spend to a fixed budget. If a signing markedly improves their chance of winning, owners (except for the few bottom dwellers) spend more. If it doesn't, they don't spend.

if Steve Cohen gave the extra $100+ million he's overpaying Francisco Lindor to libraries or charities that help the poor -- and we can rest assured he and his "presumably sleazy children" are far more likely to do this than Francisco Lindor is.

Billionaires almost never actually give money away. They give it to foundations they continue to control and reap benefits from for generations.

There's literally no societal gain whatsoever from Steve Cohen vastly overpaying Francisco Lindor or other baseball players.

Sure there is. Cohen is a terrible person. I want as much of his wealth as possible dissipated in buying good baseball players for Met fans to enjoy.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:37 AM (#6010978)
...right up until you step into the voting booth!

Please, billionaires are more likely to support your party than mine. Crony capitalism ensures they prosper even more with increased Gov't spending and regulation. The political divide in this country hasn't had an economic class element since before Bill Clinton. D's win all the richest ZIP codes.
   57. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:38 AM (#6010979)
Rationalize it however you want. It’s still a ridiculous statement given your track record. Anyway, didn’t want to hijack, but some things are just too absurd to go unnoticed. That’s all.
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:43 AM (#6010982)
Rationalize it however you want. It’s still a ridiculous statement given your track record. Anyway, didn’t want to hijack, but some things are just too absurd to go unnoticed. That’s all.

It's not ridiculous if you realized it's not 1970 anymore. The oligarch class has almost completely bought into the left wing message, probably to distract people from their ever soaring wealth and power. Your party has zero plans to address the issue. I'll stop posting in this thread now.
   59. Nasty Nate Posted: April 01, 2021 at 09:53 AM (#6010983)
Inefficient signings are more likely to make the team worse than they are to cost billionaires money. I know you are devoted to the fantasy land where the opposite is true.

But fans don't like in that fantasy land, so that's why they care.
I see no evidence teams spend to a fixed budget. If a signing markedly improves their chance of winning, owners (except for the few bottom dwellers) spend more. If it doesn't, they don't spend.
I didn't say they had a fixed budget and they don't need to have one for what I said to be true. Your second sentence is completely false ... unless you accept the premise that inefficient signings are likely to make the team worse.
   60. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2021 at 10:05 AM (#6010984)
Please, billionaires are more likely to support your party than mine.

Well, not that you care, but, no
A recent Gallup poll shows that 28% of Americans identify as Republicans, 27% identify as Democrats and 42% identify as independents. Our billionaire cohort skewed farther right: 43% Republicans, 24% Democrats and 33% independents.
Disclosure, the article also says the billionaires are more likely to vote Biden this election; but try and remember that Trump's a fucking pathetic lunatic and it will at least take care of that. But your OP quote? No.
   61. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2021 at 10:07 AM (#6010985)
BUT back to baseball.

Weren't people thinking the Mets' original offer wasn't too crazy? Other than 'zop, was it seen as crazy-go-nuts?
   62. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 10:39 AM (#6010987)
I think it’s a bit of an overpay, but not crazy. And it’s not my money.
   63. . Posted: April 01, 2021 at 10:51 AM (#6010989)
The oligarch class has almost completely bought into the left wing message, probably to distract people from their ever soaring wealth and power.


There's no "probably" about it, but it's not the entire oligarch class, really; it's primarily the oligarch class that heads our major corporations. By going full-on woke, they've successfully divided and conquered all the reformist zeal and deflected it away from their salaries and prerogatives. Entirely true.

Your baseball stuff, though, sounds more than a little drunk uncle. Every team in the league spends to a budget; the Red Sox traded Mookie Betts FFS to stay within budget. You don't think the oligarchs *should* have a baseball budget, that we know -- but empirically, they obviously do.
   64. . Posted: April 01, 2021 at 10:58 AM (#6010995)
The former vice president of San Francisco’s school board is suing the district and her colleagues after they voted to strip her of the position because of tweets she wrote in 2016 that said Asian Americans used ‘’white supremacist” thinking.

Alison Collins filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court, alleging violation of her constitutional rights including free speech, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

She is seeking $12 million in damages from the school district and school board members and $3 million additionally from each of the five board members who supported the vote. She declined to comment to the Chronicle on Wednesday.

Collins, who is Black, came under fire after critics unearthed tweets she wrote in 2016. Many Asian Americans, she wrote, “believe they benefit from the ‘model minority’ BS’” and “use white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead.‘”

Near the end of the thread, Collins called for Asian Americans to speak out against then-President Donald Trump’s policies, saying that her daughter stepped in to stop Asian American boys who were bullying a Latino student.

“Don’t Asian Americans know they are on his list as well?” Collins wrote, using asterisks in place of a racial slur. “Do they think they won’t be deported? profiled? beaten? Being a house n(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)r is still being a n(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)r. You’re still considered ‘the help.’”


I support her case to the fullest, even though what she wrote is dumb as ####. Maybe the fact that she isn't white will free up the courts to uphold her free speech rights, which were obviously badly traduced here and then that will then trickle down and we'll finally get some sanity. It's kind of ... funny ... that we seem to always hear that what American "really needs" is a "real conversation about race." Of course this is beyond silly because America has been having a conversation about race on Twitter and similar things for like seven years now -- these dumb af tweets are part and parcel of said conversation -- and all it's brought is division and silliness and Twitter mobs.

What America really "needs" now is one big long conversation about the weather.
   65. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 11:23 AM (#6011001)
I see no evidence teams spend to a fixed budget. If a signing markedly improves their chance of winning, owners (except for the few bottom dwellers) spend more. If it doesn't, they don't spend.

Your baseball stuff, though, sounds more than a little drunk uncle. Every team in the league spends to a budget; the Red Sox traded Mookie Betts FFS to stay within budget. You don't think the oligarchs *should* have a baseball budget, that we know -- but empirically, they obviously do.


Just want to reiterate this. Teams very clearly do have budgets and will do incredibly stupid #### that costs them wins in order to get under whatever their budget may be.
   66. Nasty Nate Posted: April 01, 2021 at 11:37 AM (#6011007)
Just want to reiterate this. Teams very clearly do have budgets and will do incredibly stupid #### that costs them wins in order to get under whatever their budget may be.
Yup. Just because the budgets are not "fixed" and have some flexibility from the owners doesn't mean they don't exist and don't matter.
   67. sunday silence (again) Posted: April 01, 2021 at 08:09 PM (#6011168)
I dont even think its an overpay. Given reasonable inflation if he only produces 30 WAR through his first 7 or 8 seasons under this contract, I think its a fair price. At say $11M/war? What do you think he needs to produce in order for this to break even?

Who does he most resemble statistically? Barry Larkin? Joe Cronin?

Looking at selected SS...
Ozzie got like 55 WAR through age 37
Appling almost 46 through age 36 and then went to war
Larkin about 42
Trammell 41.5
Banks 38 through age 37
Aparacio about 30 through age 37
Boudreau 27 but not really effective after age 31
Cronin 25 through age 34 then not much
Vaughan 22 but lost 2 maybe 3 seasons to the war;probably gets at least 28 or so
Tulo 17.4 through age 34, not likely to add much to this
Nomar 17 through age 32, not good after that
Fregosi 11, essentially useless after age 28
   68. formerly dp Posted: April 02, 2021 at 08:53 AM (#6011210)
I've been excited about Lindor from the day this deal happened, and was exuberant about the extension yesterday AM. But then I remembered Bonilla and Coleman and #LOLmets and am now fully expecting 2020 to be his new level of performance. Which is not worth $30M/year right now, let alone 6 years from now.
   69. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2021 at 09:23 AM (#6011212)
See #46
   70. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 02, 2021 at 09:31 AM (#6011213)
I think its a fair price. At say $11M/war?
That’s nowhere near a fair price. You can make just about any contract look good of you set the $/WAR baseline that high.
   71. formerly dp Posted: April 02, 2021 at 09:50 AM (#6011216)
Yep, it's not out of the realm of possibility. And we have a 1B playing LF. And a DH playing 3B. And a LF playing CF. James McCann has a career OPS below .700. Pete Alonso strikes out too much, Andres Gimenez is a future Omar Vizquel, and the Nats gave deGrom COVID. Don't get me started on the bullpen.
   72. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 02, 2021 at 10:08 AM (#6011218)

ZiPS projects him to put up 5.1, 4.9 and 4.6 WAR over the next three years. Assuming he continues to decline at 0.3 WAR per season after that, he'll put up 35.5 WAR over the life of this contract. That's $9.6 million per WAR, but with all of the deferred money it's more like $8.5 million per WAR. That's why I said it seems like a bit of an overpay, but not completely nuts.
   73. sunday silence (again) Posted: April 02, 2021 at 11:12 AM (#6011224)
the WAR numbers I posted were from age 28 to 37, I should have made that clear.

.
That’s nowhere near a fair price. You can make just about any contract look good of you set the $/WAR baseline that high.



Im assuming there's inflation in the base price of $11/WAR I just dont know how to calculate it. Thats what I was trying to say.

Does Dave factor inflation into his numbers in no. 72?
   74. GregD Posted: April 02, 2021 at 01:29 PM (#6011243)
I support her case to the fullest, even though what she wrote is dumb as ####. Maybe the fact that she isn't white will free up the courts to uphold her free speech rights, which were obviously badly traduced here and then that will then trickle down and we'll finally get some sanity. It's kind of ... funny ... that we seem to always hear that what American "really needs" is a "real conversation about race." Of course this is beyond silly because America has been having a conversation about race on Twitter and similar things for like seven years now -- these dumb af tweets are part and parcel of said conversation -- and all it's brought is division and silliness and Twitter mobs.


This is possibly the most anti-free speech comment I've ever seen. All the free speech advocates and attorneys I follow are horrified by her lawsuit.

The idea that government officials could sue other government officials for criticizing them would be an extraordinary chilling of free speech, far more so than anything else out there. Perhaps far more sweeping than any free speech restrictions in our nation's history.

Free speech is not meant to protect public officials from hearing mean things from other elected officials. It's supposed to protect that speech!

Thankfully it's also a truly terrible lawsuit, filed for PR or to inspire fear.

Many things are uncertain or debatable, but it's clear that every person who favors free speech is cheering for her suit to be dismissed.
   75. . Posted: April 02, 2021 at 01:43 PM (#6011246)
No idea what you could be saying. She got fired by a state actor because of the content of her speech.
   76. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 02, 2021 at 01:53 PM (#6011250)
No idea what you could be saying. She got fired by a state actor because of the content of her speech.
No, she lost her elected leadership position on the school board because the other members found her comments offensive (or didn’t want to take the political heat for being associated with them). She’s still on the school board. There isn’t a serious 1st Amendment or Free Speech case here.
   77. GregD Posted: April 02, 2021 at 01:57 PM (#6011253)
No idea what you could be saying. She got fired by a state actor because of the content of her speech.
as clapper says, you are completely and 100% wrong.

She holds her school board seat.

She had been elected an honorary vice chair and had been assigned to elective committees.

The board voted to elect a new vice chair in replacement of her and to not seat her on elective committees.

That's not "fired."

It's hard to imagine a more anti-free speech position than cheering on elected officials suing each other to prevent the other from speaking. That's not even in shouting distance of a hard call, whatever you think of the merits of any of the people involved.
   78. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 02, 2021 at 02:04 PM (#6011257)
Im assuming there's inflation in the base price of $11/WAR I just dont know how to calculate it. Thats what I was trying to say.
I don't think the assumption that $/WAR for these kinds of contracts will rise forever, especially to that extent, is consistent with what we've been seeing in the actual market.
   79. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: April 02, 2021 at 02:07 PM (#6011258)
What could possibly go wrong? It is not like the Mets have a history of acquiring a middle infielder from the Cleveland Indians and having it work out horribly.

All joking aside, I am not really sure I love any ten-year deal for any player who is not a clear superstar but that appears to be the cost of doing business at this point.At the end of the day the team should be able to afford it.
   80. . Posted: April 02, 2021 at 02:25 PM (#6011260)
No, she lost her elected leadership position on the school board because the other members found her comments offensive


Yes, exactly. Suffering adverse employment consequences because of the content of your speech, at the hands of a state actor, is quintessential 1st Amendment stuff. Totally bizarre that you think otherwise.

Not re-litigating these obvious principles.
   81. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 02, 2021 at 02:37 PM (#6011262)
Does Dave factor inflation into his numbers in no. 72?

I was just posting what the implied price per WAR is. If you think there’s going to be big inflation in the coming years then $8.5M per WAR might look better to you than it does to me. I don’t see a reason to believe that there will be, outside of the risk of inflation in the US dollar more broadly.
   82. GregD Posted: April 02, 2021 at 06:15 PM (#6011319)
Yes, exactly. Suffering adverse employment consequences because of the content of your speech, at the hands of a state actor, is quintessential 1st Amendment stuff. Totally bizarre that you think otherwise.
The vice chair is not paid employment. Members are elected to the board. The officers are elected from within the board to unpaid positions as chair and vice chair. The idea that no one could ever lose a position of vice chair--an unpaid slot--is completely bizarre and not related to how bodies operate.

But by all means, make politicians suffer huge economic penalties for saying unkind things about other politicians. What a huge win for free speech!
   83. sunday silence (again) Posted: April 02, 2021 at 06:44 PM (#6011322)
I don't think the assumption that $/WAR for these kinds of contracts will rise forever, especially to that extent, is consistent with what we've been seeing in the actual market.


I think you're right about that, it just hasnt risen much at all although I dont follow it all that closely.
   84. Adam Starblind Posted: April 02, 2021 at 07:42 PM (#6011327)
Within reason, I don’t care how much per WAR they are paying my 5 WAR shortstop. What I want is for my team to develop some cheap young stars and bullpen arms and economical fourth and fifth starters to join up with them. Failing to do that, not paying $11 million/war, is how you make a bad team.
   85. sunday silence (again) Posted: April 03, 2021 at 01:00 AM (#6011368)
Im not saying they're paying him $11M/War.

If he gets to say 30 WAR over the life of the contract. And inflation is 2% annual, what would be the effective pay rate?

If he was paid lump sum of $280 on day one, that's equivalent to just about $340 over ten years. Correct? So in todays dollars 280/30 = $9.3/WAR

OK? So given normal recent inflation, if he creates 30 WAR it works out a little over $9M/WAR.

What if inflation is 3%? That's not normal, but given the situation its likely inflation will be above normal at least in the short term.

at 3% inflation, a lump sum of $252 = $340 over ten years.

So that's like $8.4M/WAR if Lindor creates 30 WAR.

What if Lindor creates 35 WAR and 2% inflation?

That's $8M/WAR. Dave in post 72, gets to $8.5M/WAR but I dont see his calculation so maybe he can explain.

So ZIPs predicts 35 WAR (I assume he's 50% likely to reach that, its maybe somewhat optimistic). 2% is normal recent inflation. $8M/WAR is about what they pay, it maybe slightly more than that (at least Walt has said that).

I dont see that as an overpay in fact it seems right on target.

NOTE: I have not expertise in finance, the numbers I am using are by plugging in values into this calculator:

https://karvyvalue.com/website/calculators/future-value-calculator.aspx

NOTE 2: if there's deferred money than its even less per WAR.


   86. Adam Starblind Posted: April 03, 2021 at 08:51 AM (#6011382)
My point was not to criticize your math. It was to say it makes little difference. “My star players cost a couple million too much per war” is little more than a form of blaming your best player if the team underperforms. if the star performs in line with expectations, there’s no real winners curse— a five win player is rare and you can’t replace with with two 2.5 win players. It’s the *other* the players who need to perform well without disproportionate salaries.
   87. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 03, 2021 at 11:43 AM (#6011402)
My point was not to criticize your math. It was to say it makes little difference. “My star players cost a couple million too much per war” is little more than a form of blaming your best player if the team underperforms. if the star performs in line with expectations, there’s no real winners curse— a five win player is rare and you can’t replace with with two 2.5 win players. It’s the *other* the players who need to perform well without disproportionate salaries.

Right. With the salary structure of MLB you have to "overpay" veteran stars if you want to be good. There's a ton of players that are systematically underpaid relative to their production. To improve your team, you need to invest those savings in "overpaid" veterans.

If the overall average value of a win in MLB is $6M, but 60% of the WAR is locked up in the reserve clause, and early extensions, and earning $3M/WAR on average, then the value of that remaining 40% is going to be way over $6M. It's inefficient vs. the "marginal team-win product of WAR", but it's impossible to simply buy wins at the league average rate.
   88. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 03, 2021 at 01:14 PM (#6011414)

Someone can confirm, but I believe the $8M per WAR number frequently cited is only for post-arb players. So it already takes into account what you’re describing above, snapper.

That being said, I agree that if Lindor only puts up, say, 30 WAR instead of 35, and this contract ends up being more like $10M per WAR instead of $8 or whatever, that’s not terrible and shouldn’t be too concerning to a team like the Mets. It’s the Carl Crawford or Albert Pujols contracts that really hurt — I.e. where you’re expecting a 5-WAR guy and the player is just average or worse.
   89. sunday silence (again) Posted: April 03, 2021 at 02:29 PM (#6011421)

My point was not to criticize your math. It was to say it makes little difference.


yeah I see that. more than that, i just wanted to try to do the math to see what it actually works out to once you factor in inflation.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFree agent Albert Pujols, Los Angeles Dodgers agree to major-league contract
(6 - 9:07am, May 17)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(3219 - 9:05am, May 17)
Last: spivey 2

NewsblogReds fan helped Nick Castellanos troll Rob Manfred in TV interview
(1 - 9:02am, May 17)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogLos Angeles Angels designate slugger Albert Pujols for assignment
(188 - 7:06am, May 17)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogJoe Girardi, Jean Segura have confrontation as Philadelphia Phillies lose to Toronto Blue Jays
(3 - 6:36am, May 17)
Last: Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre)

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER! for May 15-16, 2021
(54 - 6:04am, May 17)
Last: TomH

NewsblogNew York Yankees 3B coach Phil Nevin, 1B coach Reggie Willits positive for COVID-19
(39 - 11:56pm, May 16)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogThe Detroit Tigers Should Be Better Than This By Now
(2 - 11:05pm, May 16)
Last: GregD

Sox TherapyTap the Brakes
(19 - 9:31pm, May 16)
Last: Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Spring is in the Air
(464 - 4:57pm, May 16)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13077 - 2:52pm, May 16)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogThe Caray legacy revisited, 30 years later
(33 - 9:08am, May 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogESPN, MLB announce seven-year extension running through 2028
(3 - 12:45am, May 16)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPadres players Fernando Tatis Jr., Wil Myers test positive for COVID-19, at least 3 other players out for contact tracing
(46 - 11:53pm, May 15)
Last: Lowry Seasoning Salt

NewsblogMilwaukee Brewers ace Corbin Burnes sets record for strikeouts without a walk to start season
(10 - 10:01pm, May 15)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

Page rendered in 0.6424 seconds
48 querie(s) executed