But they don't have the financial flexibility to make this kind of deal!

This proves the Met's have hit their payroll ceiling!

11 years is a lot but that's a surprisingly low average and total. Lindor got 10/341 (with 50 million deferred admittedly), Seager 10/325

Wonder if this will get Bogaerts' phone to ring. Once you take the top guy off the list teams have got to look at whoever's left.

11 years is a lot but that's a surprisingly low average and total.

This looks a lot like an 8 year deal that they extended to 11 to spread the luxury tax hit.

11 years is a lot but that's a surprisingly low average and total.

Yea, I'm wondering if this is a way to defer a bunch of money to get under the luxury tax? Does anyone think Turner will be in a Phillies uniform for his age 40 season?

Frankly, Harper and Turner must really get along. They are going to be working together for a very long time.

Does anyone think Turner will be in a Phillies uniform for his age 40 season?

I think the odds are he's not in any MLB uniform at all, unless it's at an old-timer's day.

full no-trade clause

so Trea is never going to leeve

This looks a lot like an 8 year deal that they extended to 11 to spread the luxury tax hit.

Which is also how the Phils managed to sign Harper.

Exactly like the Harper deal - big money, bigger years, no deferred money, full NTC. Harper's deal is actually a little bit cheaper in the last 3 years, might see with Turner too.

Not that I would want Turner on this contract, but do the Dodgers have a plan for their middle infield next year? They've let two all star shortstops walk in the last two years, and Mookie has played a grand total of 16 games at 2B since 2018.

I think they'll plant Gavin Lux at 2B, but I don't know about SS.

Muncy 2B, Lux SS, Turner 3B works. I think that lineup gets a lot of run next year, unless the Dodgers sign Swanson.

A lesser glove-first guy, or the oft-injured Correa, might result in Lux at SS quite a bit.

Cheaping out on the position would really help the Dodgers reset the luxury tax. That said, I really like Correa for the Dodgers, and he seems like the kind of guy who would take a 4/$160m deal.

Not bad considering the feeding frenzy. Good deal for Phils. Makes me wonder if Correa will get his 10/325. Maybe.

Muncy 2B, Lux SS, Turner 3B works.

Does Muncy at 2B really work with the shift banned?

do the Dodgers have a plan for their middle infield next year?

Lux at SS and Taylor at 2B is my guess. Taylor said sometime in 2022 that he wanted to be back in the infield if he wasn't playing CF. Then again, with Bellinger gone, perhaps Taylor is in CF now.

I guess we can agree now that teams are spending a bit more than was projected.

I think teams (and player agents) are past the owners' whole "Oh no I lost all the money during Covid" act and are back at the tables for real. If I were trying to sign Correa I think I'd be wanting to get it done before Judge further stretches the market. Things are getting pricey, and after the one-year deal paid off so well I expect Correa to name his next child Scott. Hope it's not a girl.

At a 3% rate, the NPV calculator puts this at about $250 M which is about the same as 7/$280 which seems a bit much for Turner 30-36. He's had a 6.5 WAR season, a 5 WAR seasons and a couple of 4 WAR seasons, a total of 30 WAR. This contract would seem to project him to basically repeat his 20s in his 30s and even that is setting $/WAR somewhere around $9-10.

He's durable enough but not exactly Ripken. Over the last 7 years, the PA gap between him and Correa is only 300 while the WAR/650 gap is 5.2 vs 6.7. That's moe than enough of a performance gap for Correa to make up that small durabbility gap and Correa's two years younger.

#20 all fair although I'd note that Turner put up 2.8 WAR in 59 games during the 2020 season. Not sure how relevant what he did 6-7 years ago is at this point.

11 years is a lot but that's a surprisingly low average and total. Lindor got 10/341 (with 50 million deferred admittedly), Seager 10/325

This is where I am. I think I'd rather have Turner than Seager regardless of contract (not 100%), but definitely would rather Turner with this contract than Seager with his. I know age is the biggest difference between this deal and Seager/Lindor's, but I don't think teams are going to give Correa *that* much more that Turner. IOW, I think Correa's contract won't beat Seager or Lindor's - if he wants to beat the AAV, it'll be shorter like 7/8 years and if he wants to beat total commitment, it'll be 11 or 12 years).

The Phillies had 2,276,736 in home attendance in 2022. During the peak of their previous good run (2010), they managed 3,777,322 in attendance.

It's no secret that the Phillies managed to reengage the Delaware Valley during the cinderella 2022 playoff run. Signing Turner is not just good from a baseball standpoint: it's good from a revenue standpoint, as it will keep an energized fan base ever so energized.

22. Correa already got one year of $35 right. If he hits 10/300, he's still beating everyone

I think I'd be happy with this if I were a Phillies fan. Turner is one of the most exciting players in baseball (and one of my personal favorites). He's a throwback who hits .300! And steals bases! Very few players nowadays do either, let alone both. Turner is an old school all star middle infielder in the Jeter/Larkin/Alomar/Trammell/Biggio mold who hits .300 with 20 homers and 30 stolen bases. I've missed those guys.

At this point Seager is owed about 9/$292 which is essentially the same as 11/$300 when you consider those extra 2 years are Turner's age 39-40. To prefer Turner, you essetially have to think he's going to produce as much WAR in the next 7 years (through 36) as Seager will in the next 9 (through 36). That's obviously possible (he's well ahead over the last 3 years for example) and I'd probably take Turner over the next 4-5 years.

In trying to think of a good comp for Turner -- whose main strength is being a very good all-rounder without being great at anything -- the first guy who came to mind was Larkin. Pretty similar hitters, Larkin the better runner but few were as good as him, pretty similar by Rfield. Barry of course was not dureable so that's a big difference so far. From 30-40, Larkin put up 36 WAR which would have Philly dancing in the streets. Yount's not a terrible comp but he started so young and was already not a SS by this age. Jeter with average defense would be a very positive comp, lapping Larkin.

Beyond that, you might have to look at other positions for good comps. Raines as a solid SS would have been in the low 30s in WAR at least. Tony Phillips at SS would be amazing. Rolen's dWAR in his 30s probably profiles as better than an average SS but of course he'd been fragile before and after -- 24 WAR.

There are no doubt twice as many comps for "looked kinda like Turner in his 20s then fell apart" but not a lot are coming to mind. I guess the 2B -- Alomar in particular, Sandberg maybe (he's a weird case because of the whole retirement thing) -- and even so, thanks to that weird 2B early 30s peak thing, Alomar made it to 24 WAR and Sandberg to 30. Philly's assumption that he'll repeat his 20s may not be far off at all despite my initial skepticism.

so Trea is never going to leeve

This deserves a golf clap.

Reportedly, the Padres made a higher offer to Turner. San Diego wasn’t that bad off at shortstop, but if true that might be good news for the remaining Big 3 SS.

Reportedly, the Padres made a higher offer to Turner. San Diego wasn’t that bad off at shortstop, but if true that might be good news for the remaining Big 3 SS.

Never mind the other free agent shortstops, Clapper, if the Padres are willing to throw well over $300M at Turner, then what's stopping them from going after Judge?

In the article on Fangraphs, they include the 11 year ZIPS projection for Turner, which comes out to about 30 WAR. A little high, maybe, but probably in line with spending will be this year.

One interesting thing is the large difference of opinion on Turner between ZIPS and Steamer. ZIPS has him at 6.1 WAR in 2023, Steamer says 4.6. The biggest difference appears to be his 129 OPS+ in ZIPS and 119 OPS+ in Steamer.

Wonder if this will get Bogaerts' phone to ring. Once you take the top guy off the list teams have got to look at whoever's left.

Correa is still on the board, so the top guy is still there, but I get the point, there are still plenty of teams looking for middle infield help and taking one name away helps create urgency for the remaining as long as there are more teams hunting than available players.

I'm confused as to why the Padres are in on all these shortstops. Kim has looked fantastic defensively and they have Tatis, still.

Well the latest rumor is that the Padres only were serious about Trea, and aren't pursuing the other shortstops. Rumors are rumors, though.

The link in #33 (updated) also indicates that the Padres offered more than $341M, which would have made Turner the highest paid infielder, surpassing Francisco Lindor of the Mets. Being in the DC area, I saw a lot of Turner when he was with the Nationals, and he’s a heck of a player that any team should want. The dollar figures are on the high side, but every indication is that MLB is awash in dough.

every indication is that MLB is awash in dough.

I'm coming around to this thinking too. Well, we always knew they were awash in dough but they do look willing to spend it. The threshold is up to $233 so that's part of it but (surprising to me) the new, harsher penalties for violations don't seem to be having a huge effect. Of course those are really only aimed at the Yanks and Dodgers so we'll see how far they push it.

I can't imagine why Turner would turn down an additional $41 M. SD is competitive, maybe they wanted him to move off SS. But heck, I'd move off this couch for a mere $1 M, $41 M to shift positions seems more than fair. I've got doubts as to the veracity of that $ figure. (Or there was one hell of a lot of deferment.)

The difference in stars and local would have to be 12% for all 365 days a year. I don't think that can be the case. So the padres had a much better offer

I can't imagine why Turner would turn down an additional $41 M.

Turner’s wife is from NJ, and there has been some suggestion that he may prefer an east coast location. San Diego is supposedly pretty nice, so I’m not sure everyone would share that preference (if it’s even really the case).

Phanatic >> Chicken

I read somewhere else that the state and local tax difference is 6% so that could account for half the differential. The other 20 million is maybe the NTC plus his desire to be closer to his wife's home

I read somewhere else that the state and local tax difference is 6% so that could account for half the differential. The other 20 million is maybe the NTC plus his desire to be closer to his wife's home

CA's tax rate is 13.3% over $1M, so that could certainly be true. In SD he'd pay that not only on his home games, but also road games vs LAD and SFG.

I found one article that compares the tax rates of a bunch of star athletes. They list Machado at 52.5%. They don't have anyone from Philadelphia, but they have Roethlisberger 42.3% in Pittsburgh. So, it could be a huge difference.

Yeah, Degrom has a sweet deal. If I were him I wouldn't travel with the team on off days and just fly in for his starts - could save a ton of money each year not allowing the greedy bastards in the other 49 states steal his money.

Yeah, Degrom has a sweet deal. If I were him I wouldn't travel with the team on off days and just fly in for his starts - could save a ton of money each year not allowing the greedy bastards in the other 49 states steal his money.

It's got to be calculated on when you actually play, right? I can't imagine if the team takes a quick road trip to Cali, and DeGrom never pitches he would owe California taxes.

It's got to be calculated on when you actually play, right? I can't imagine if the team takes a quick road trip to Cali, and DeGrom never pitches he would owe California taxes.

MLB Players get paid whether they play or not, so I suspect the tax collectors want their share, too. I doubt it matters whether the player even shows up for the game, but perhaps someone will litigate that.

MLB Players get paid whether they play or not, so I suspect the tax collectors want their share, too.

Yeah, I can't see the tax collectors missing that trick. Otherwise all SPs could spend 150 days of the MLB season in Florida or Texas, and only pay state taxes on 1/6th (30 GS/180) of their salaries.

It's got to be calculated on when you actually play, right? I can't imagine if the team takes a quick road trip to Cali, and DeGrom never pitches he would owe California taxes.

I think it's about if you are in the state at the time for work related reasons. It would make no sense for it to be if you played. Everyone who travels with the team must pay including coaches, doctors and trainers.

Edit: although I'm reading an article now that says that it's game played, not sure how accurate that is, but it seems to be a good article. Although it does seem fishy that a relief pitcher would be able to get up and warm up, but then not pitch and not be taxed.