The 2018 Hot (Cold) Stove of Major League Baseball

[DeletedUser33003]

More news trickling in, that furthers the argument that a strike may be coming in next few years in MLB:

Earlier in January, Kris Bryant reached an agreement with the Cubs for 10.85 million for his 2018 contract year, in lieu of going to arbitration. This was Bryant's first year of arbitration eligibility, and consequently, the Cubs didn't want to insult their marquee player, and paid him a staggering sum, compared to the past payouts on his rookie contract, to avoid losing the pride and joy of Addison Street. Given the stakes of this year's free agent market, this is also a bargain-basement price, as a player of Bryant's caliber would easily command 26 to 29 million a year.

But, what Bryant's figure did to, is place precedent on what arbitration committees can potentially award.

Before this, Ryan Howard was the bench mark, earning a decision that paid him 10 million in his first year, but he was a total outlier, compared to all others before, and after him, when the decision was made in 2008.

Bringing this back full circle to this morning, and it's breaking that Mookie Betts, who was offered 7.5 million by the Red Sox, and whom experts listed his potential earnings to be somewhere between 8 and 8.5 million, has been awarded 10.5 million. This means that the already temperamental free agent market has more grease on the wheels of the arguments of players, when it comes to the money they are asking for.

Betts is a supreme talent in the making, there can be no doubt. He does three and half years of consistent production, albeit with a tremendous contact dip in 2017. He was hitting between .290 and .310 over his first three seasons, and then in 2017 hit .264, but kept hitting home runs, and driving in his teammates.

The Red Sox gambled on the fluctuation, which is evidence that front offices around the league are using stats to directly influence the dollars they are putting on the market. However, the arbitrators are signalling that players are worth profound amounts of money, particularly does players coming off rookie contract years, and are not signing long-term deals, because they out-played the expectations of their initial contracts.

While many rookies will not benefit from these two arbitration results, free agents surely will.

In trade news, the Pirates (that's right, the firestorm in Pittsburgh) made a move that should mean little to nothing outside of PNC Park. They've traded Daniel Zamora, a high-A prospect, for Josh Smoker, a 29-year-old reliever with a high strikeout rate, and control problems. Smoker is a lefty, and because of that, his arm has value in the league. The Mets had DFA'd Smoker yesterday, to make room on their 40-man roster for the re-signing of Jose Reyes. The Pirates, who have sold everything this off-season, except for the owner's private restroom in the executive suite, dealt Zamora for Smoker, so they would have a 4th left arm pitcher on their 40-man roster. Because of the rarity in their depth chart, Smoker will likely get a good shot at sticking on the team's roster, with routine visits to the club. But he will likely be on a training cycle, with lots of AAA appearances, as Pirates' pitching staff try to get his control issues in order.

And because of all the movement in Pittsburgh, Josh Harrison, the last good veteran standing on their roster has requested a trade, now. The Pirates have re-assured him that they do intend to be competitive for the next two seasons, and they want him to be part of those years. I'm going to guess they are lying through their fake teeth, which they also sold while I wrote this, and need Harrison to stick around so they show him off as an example of how they have spent revenue shares.

Two things in life get people in trouble more so than anything else: Sex and lies. It's even worse when either are on videotape: https://www.mlb.com/news/exploring-josh-harrison-trade-possibility/c-265613448

 

[DeletedUser33003]

There were a lot of minor league deals struck with veteran utilitymen yesterday, many of which follow the same structure as reported in earlier signings. Many of these are not worth reviewing, because they don't advance our larger conversation.

News also broke that Alex Cobb, one of this year's bigger pitching free agents is officially off the radar of Minnesota, who has decided to solely pursue Yu Darvish. They also let it be known they won't accept any terms beyond a five year contract, which is now all but confirmed to be a "lesson learned" from Joe Mauer.

This likely signals that Darvish is no longer going to talk to Minnesota, which means that the Brewers and Cubs are his strongest candidates, with the Yankees a distant third, and the Phillies stretching beyond the current atmosphere, in under-value territory.

Of course, reading all of the past week's news tell us one thing: Jake Arrieta's camp is either very, very quiet, or there are literally no teams pursuing his services.

I decided to check into what Arrieta, and his mega-agent, Scott Boras, might be feeding the media, and really, neither has said much. The Chicago Sun-Times did a mirror piece on Boras' comments from earlier in January where he was downright critical of the current free agent movement, and that it is completely unproductive to MLB for this to go on.

I then saw that the same paper, eight hours later, let off a resounding opinion piece: https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/chicago-cubs-yu-darvish-jake-arrieta-theo-epstein-alex-cobb/

The semi-hit piece on Arrieta, is suggesting that at best, he and Darvish, regarless of where they land, are due a four year contract, at best. Not a five, six, or seven year, which the writer alludes that Scott Boras is trying to capture for Arrieta.

The piece goes on to cite some indicators that Arrieta is losing his stuff: More wild pitches over the last two seasons than his entire career before. Allowing more hits. In a re-tooled 2016, he allowed more walks than ever, leading to way more runs scored. It does seem clear that Arrieta has lost control of his pitches overall, to a degree that prevents him from getting a mega-contract that he feels he's due.

This does mean that a guy like Alex Cobb is going to become very sought after, once Darvish signs wherever. And this also means that Arrieta is going to be the odd-man out in MLB's musical chairs game, when the music stops.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

In arbitration news, there are over two-dozen players left to be heard, but most are fighting with their teams over 500K or less in salary, much of those don't change the needle on player salaries moving forward.

There are two that remain that could have impacts on franchise operating budgets moving forward:

George Springer, Right Fielder for the Houston Astros, and Jonathan Schoop, Second Baseman for the Baltimore Orioles.

Both players earned out of their rookie contracts, because of their consistent presence on their team's 40-man rosters. Springer earned 3.9 million last season on his transition year, and Schoop earned 3.475 million.

Now, because they are RFA'd automatically by the league, as their rookie contracts are declared expired, they are still indebted to their teams, but are granted the power to negotiate for a bonafide contract. In MLB, most teams take this opportunity to rope their young, promising players into a one-year deal that serves as a 'starting point' for future negotiations. Springer and Schoop represent the best case scenario for these circumstances, because both have four full seasons of play on their resume that pretty much show what they're bringing to the table.

Both players are hitting for power regularly, and seem to only be growing positively in those roles. Springer has some wheels in the base paths, but gets caught a lot, without a lot of success. Neither is going to win fielding awards, but both average out as .985 or better in defensive efficiency, and to Springer's credit, he did bring a tremendously magnificent defensive performance together last season, scoring a .996 across to outfield positions. To date, it is an outlier in his history, but one would hope that it's actually a turn of improvement.

Springer is asking for 10.5 million on his 2018 season, and the Astros are offering 8.5 million. Schoop is asking for 9 million, while the Orioles offer 7.5 million.

The news of Mookie Betts actually receiving above his projection two days ago, means that Springer, who was the World Series MVP, has a very strong likelihood of landing the 10.5 million he's asking for.

Schoop, who by measured projection would naturally rise from his last salary to a figure of 8.9 million, is also very likely to receive the full 9 million he's asking for.

What this means moving forward, is that when these two arbitration awards are finalized, the current free agent class is going to have more rope to tie teams with, and that will mean they either make the deals to get these players, or they pass, and teams like the Phillies get the power of negotiating with dissatisfied players who will play for the money, not for the win. We've seen guys like Danny Tartabull who get stuck with what they feel is an undervalue deal, and how they choose to play. While not all players will, some will tank their own careers, in hopes of getting a release to go negotiate for reduced sums elsewhere, but with contracts that give them more power to negotiate for bigger incentives, which they'll aim for.

Springer and Schoop prove to be very reliable players for the future, and arbitration is in their favor. If they get the money they want, their teams will surely not suffer now. But if they are stuck in this position repeatedly, both the Astros and the Orioles are going to relieve themselves of their future.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

Shelby Miller, a low-impact pitcher with the Diamondbacks, won arbitration in what looks like a bizarre case, but is actually not.

Miller, in RFA status, asked for 4.9 million for 2018. The D-Backs offered 4.7 million. The major reason why is because MLB teams are under no obligation to raise player rates, for later negotiations. If every team takes that attitude, I'd say it's collusion, but it's an attitude they can all have equally, and publicly.

My educated guess is that arbitrators saw the increase as negligible and so awarded it to Miller. Either the D-Backs don't really care, or they do care, Miller knows that, and he's using this to drive up his market value, however incremental, for his next employer.

Miller made four starts, giving 22 innnings of work, with 20 K's, but with a 4.09 ERA, and 12 walks......not exactly a guy you're handing the ball to beyond September.

Hopefully he bumps up his performance, because his stats look prime for a DFA spot, heading towards Albuquerque!

 

[Freshmeboy]

Yup...all this has confirmed my belief that salaries are out of control...Truly now, if all the basis for salary is what the other player in the league is getting with comparable numbers, salaries will never reach a plateau because the attitude of
"I'm better than that guy" will always raise them up, up, up. This isn't good for fans..at all. I can understand a cost of living raise but 3-4 million per year between players of relative skill sets...? With a union...? Unions set wage scales and frown on individual contracts. Time to take the teeth out of agents hands and their playing one player and/or team against another to further drive up contracts, set a cap and create some kind of balance in the game. Otherwise a strike WILL occur. And you who I will blame...? The PLAYERS....

 

[Graviton]

Out of whose control? The guys signing the checks seem to be doing okay. And again, the big story this off-season is the dearth of free agent signings, meaning the worry is that teams are being too frugal. What exactly is the problem with increasing salaries? Don't salaries increase in other professions from year to year?

 

[Freshmeboy]

Of course salaries increase yearly...we call them cost of living raises...How is an extra 3 mill a realistic cost of living raise...? The salaries are absurd and my opinion is they need some kind of control like the max contract in the NBA . What you see here is teams avoiding the luxury tax and using metrics to make decisions in signing players. Is that guy worth 28 mill per year if he will only get us three more games over his replacement...? Does this guy want a long term contract on the wrong side of thirty...? Too often teams suffer the longevity of a contract to sign a player who has just a couple years left only to throw 11 or 13 mill on the bench for a better younger player. It hamstrings teams with money and teams without large budgets simply avoid the signing because they can't afford to be competitive and carry guaranteed contracts of aging, injury laden vets in their final year in the bigs...

 

[DeletedUser33003]

One pitcher that has received no attention this off-season, and probably should is Lance Lynn. Lynn rejected the qualifying offer the Cardinals gave him, the team he has played for his entire career. And with that, any team that signs him is required to give up a draft pick to the Cardinals for compensation.

Lynn is at best a very strong 3rd starter, and at worst, a very strong 4th starter, he's been in that space for most of his career. He was out of the entire 2016 season due to Tommy John surgery, and note that virtually every free agent pitcher up for grabs has had TJ in their recent past. Lynn has still been able to pitch effectively, from a game stand point, keeping his ERA below 4.00, but his K/9, BB/9, and H/9, have trended in the directions no one wants to see.

Considering who is still on the board, there is no way that any MLB team is going to give up draft picks for Lynn, unless they become completely desperate. Lynn, without the draft pick compensation, would be an excellent pitcher for most any teams looking to improve their rotation on the cheap (you know, the Phillies), because his other stats do indicate Lynn is easier to backstop, and for defenses to support, despite the downward efficiency.

Lynn is rumored to be looking for a five year, 100 million dollar deal......even if he was the only free agent starting pitcher, that deal would only exist in his dreams. Lynn is projected for a deal that is solid for four year, ranging between 55 and 68 million, depending on which mathematician crunches the numbers and blogs about it.

The only story linking him to a deal is one from a Cardinals fan site, where they also mention his name in the same breath as Arrieta, and Darvish, as being one of the big names on the market. If you follow baseball casually, and haven't heard of Lynn, don't worry, you're not doing it wrong. He's certainly a solid rotation pitcher, but he's not a household name. In the article, they theorize that the Cardinals should offer Lynn another contract. Sounds par for the course, and that actually may be Lynn's only move. No one is going to give up a pick for his services, he's not that kind of free agent. Considering who the Brewers signed "to improve their rotation," speaks volumes to just how much Lynn is not worth a draft pick, because his stats are far superior to Jhoulys Chacin.

Not only did Lynn pick the wrong time to exit St. Louis, but he picked the wrong time to bet on himself, despite his overall value. Teams like the Braves, Pirates, Mets, White Sox, and Rangers, would see instant impact from Lynn in their weak rotations. But with the impending draft class, they could likely get those same results in two or three years, when they have all the pieces to support a very strong 3rd or 4th starting pitcher.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

Today was more minor league free agent signing, the biggest news was that Miguel Montero signed a deal with the Nationals.

Montero, who had one of the quickest exits from a team (the Cubs) last season, after being roundly critical of Jake Arrieta being slow to pitch, causing Montero to lose pick-offs to second base. At the time, Montero was hitting a superb .286, incredible for any defensive-oriented catcher, but was immediately shipped to Toronto after his outburst to the media, where he went ice cold to .138.

Toronto non-tendered him, leaving him free to find a new home. The Nats, who are starting to make moves much like their bigger brother, the Redskins, signed Montero, telling him he would compete for roster "access" with Pedro Severino, the young prospect that is still trying to cement his position on their 40-man. All of this is because the Nats, who went out last season and signed Matt Wieters, a power hitting, lumberjack-sized catcher, who's contact rates fluctuate, but was mostly in the upper .250's for his career.

His worst season was with the Nats in 2017, and they signed him for two years, for 10.5 million each season. Before you cringe, Baltimore QO'd him in 2016 for 15.5, he batted .243 that year. My guess is that the Orioles saw something in that 2016 year that the Nats should have seen, especially with how close DC and Baltimore are to one another. However, he hit 17 HRs, and had 66 RBIs, and the Nats were not worried about contact rate, so much as they needed a bat that could hit some runs in every once in awhile, just to take pressure of their prized possession, Bryce Harper. Wieters did not deliver, at least not in the way the Nats felt he should have, he had 10 HRs and 52 RBIs. Since they have one more year to go, it is perhaps a sign that bringing in Montero means Wieters will be on the market next season, with the Nats prized possession, Bryce Harper.

Montero has led some great pitchers over his lenghty career, and has even pitched himself, in 2016 and 2017 in relief for the Cubs. He brings a lot of options to any club. Hopefully, catching Max Scherzer, and Stephen Strasburg will lead to less outbursts about responsibility. The Nats already have a complicated dugout and clubhouse, the last thing they need is another attitude getting into the mix. Jonathan Papelbon is famous for strangling the Nats prized possession, Bryce Harper, during a game in their dugout. He was still brought back the next season, because Dusty Baker, then Nats Manager, has always liked Papelbon. Papelbon requested his release in 2016 when he hit the 15-day disabled list, the request was granted, and he's never played baseball again, and many attribute his assault on Bryce Harper as the reason.

If Montero starts complaining about the Nats pitchers, he'll have no friends in Washington DC in no time. The only thing DC sports fans have left at this point is watching the brilliant combination of Scherzer/Strasburg completely annihilating 90 percent of all batters they face every year, and no one is going to listen to Montero when it comes to those two.

 

[Graviton]

Of course salaries increase yearly...we call them cost of living raises...How is an extra 3 mill a realistic cost of living raise...?

It's not my business to say what's realistic and what's not. It's relative to the marketplace for those skills. If somebody's paying it, then by definition it's realistic.

But if we want these numbers to mean anything we have to define them. The MLB minimum salary last year was just over $500k. The 2017 average salary ($4.47 million) increased less than 2% from 2016 ($4.4 million). So there's your cost of living raise: 1.7%. That's less than I got last year, and my company's terrible.

But even that's not a great way to look at it because there is no salary scale like there is in my business. There is no table to show the pay range for all second basemen, for instance. While position value does play a factor, baseball is a meritocracy. The better you play, the better you'll get paid, that's how it's supposed to work. A cap would undermine that.

What you see here is teams avoiding the luxury tax and using metrics to make decisions in signing players. Is that guy worth 28 mill per year if he will only get us three more games over his replacement...? Does this guy want a long term contract on the wrong side of thirty...? Too often teams suffer the longevity of a contract to sign a player who has just a couple years left only to throw 11 or 13 mill on the bench for a better younger player. It hamstrings teams with money and teams without large budgets simply avoid the signing because they can't afford to be competitive and carry guaranteed contracts of aging, injury laden vets in their final year in the bigs...

I feel your pain on bad long-term contracts offered to aging players, it seems every team has an albatross or a story about one. The most egregious example is the fact that the Mets will be paying Bobby Bonilla until 2035. But the answer to that isn't to hamstring GMs, it's to allow them to learn their lessons and stop doing it. Sign better deals. Improve your scouting, improve your analytics department, improve the front office staff who are negotiating contracts. These GMs aren't being held at gunpoint to sign these deals, it's their own damn fault, it's not due to the absence of a league-wide, artificial limit on salaries. I don't see why limiting salaries, effectively punishing the players, is the proper response to perceived front office negligence. Plus...it ain't your money, so who cares?

I'll say it again, we are seeing right now a resistance to signing 30-somethings to megadeals, which means the market is adjusting without any interference. As it always does.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Unions in this country establish pay scales in almost every type of job out there and non-union employees will get as close to that wage as possible. MLB has a union for bargaining but no union scale at the high end..that is done by agents. Which is against everything an actual union stands for. Specialized jobs are recognized and paid appropriately but workers don't pay agents to garner better money than their fellow players because they are better in one facet or another. If John can nail 25 nails more an hour an hour than Bill does he get a more...? What if Bill is more safety concious...? What if Bill has more knowledge...? Shouldn't a utility infieder get more money because he can play several positions...? Or a pitcher get more because he has a better reportoire of pitches..? Pitching at Pac-Bell is easier than at Wrigley...Hitting is easier in Colorado than in Pittsburgh but pitchers and hitters want money based on the BEST players newest contracts compared to their baseball cards...It's ridiculously out of control and needs to be revamped if baseball will survive. I'm glad to see these FAs sitting out of work. It means general managers are thinking more like football teams.....throw the young players onto the field and get a piece or two that doesn't break the bank or become an albatross around their neck in two years...

 

[Graviton]

I could argue your point that unions establish pay scales for "almost every type of job", but that's way too far off-topic I think. Playing baseball ain't hammering nails, but if John can hammer more nails than Bill then he certainly does deserve to earn more because he's producing more. I know that's not how a trade union works, but the MLBPA (any players' union, really) operates differently from a trade union for a myriad of reasons.

I get the feeling this is just about the fact that you think players are overpaid, regardless of context or market forces, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

Baseball is screaming. Agents, players, union representatives, general managers, operations staff, they're all screaming.

But none are screaming as loud as this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-threatens-spring-training-boycott/300994002/

Brodie Van Wagenen, the lead agent at CAA and respresents eight of the more respectabe free agents left on the market right now has dished up some stir for us, suggesting that a strike is looming. Earlier today, Ken Rosenthal reported that union reps from MLBPA called league offices about the possibility of a work stoppage this morning, and that MLB stated if it were to happen it would be an unauthorized strike, suggesting that they would take legal action against players, which is most likely via a lawsuit.

Van Wagenen must have been briefed about that call, and decided to go Twitter on all of us, calling out the entire MLB ownership group for collusion, and making very pointed remarks concerning the level of effort by owners that he claims to be seeing in the market.

While there is a lot of debate around the issues of pay, the recent cost cutting trends, led by the Detroit Tigers, who did cut their payroll by nearly 80 million this off-season, has taken over as the dominant trend in a dozen clubhouses. This alone likely represents why so many free agents are stuck with offers that don't quite capture what they are demanding they be given.

The perspective of players seems to be that they performed their rookie contracts, made the league, not just their team, a lot of money, so they should be getting "paid out" on their final contracts. This may also account why so many 30 plus year-olds in the league are asking for six and seven year contracts. They know the end is near, and their perspective is that they played for cheap when they were young, and a lot of people made a lot of money off them, and this is their due.

While I can appreciate that, there's only a few situations in business where that happens, and it usually involves performance bonuses paid through stock options and ownership stakes.

However, players can't negotiate for those things, because MLB franchises are not publicly traded (wouldn't that be a mess), and no ownership group is going to negotiate an ownership stake to a player, especially when said player may actually be on that team for four years. MLB rules state that if you're working for one club, you can't own another, and that would cause a major problem with how players move on in free agency.

Van Wagenen points out in his tweet that the media value all 1,200 MLB players provide is the focus of his problem with owners, and it may represent what MLBPA has a problem with to. He correctly points out that over any given season, there are 4,881 games, televised through traditional and web means, which are bringing in billions upon billions of dollars.

In fact, MLB continues to out-pace the NFL in media grab, which is based on the increase in total viewership, across all platforms. MLB was smart when they started their .TV brand, and while they control that feed, and surely benefit from it, no one else is.

And while Van Wagenen is calling out owners, it does seem as though the bigger problem, at least if my reading between the lines is correct, is that the MLB ought to be placing a revenue stake into MLBPA, the opinion of players.

That does seem reasonable, on the surface. But I hope players do not turn this festering situation into a battle with MLB. They won't win this fight. Most professional sports leagues, like MLB, have a pension sytems, and MLB's is actually the marquee system.

To highlight the keys: With just one day of MLB service, a player locks in lifetime medical care. After 43 days of major league service, that player earns a minimum annual pension of $34,000. A player who marks ten years of league service will have an annual payout of $100,000.

Other leagues have better financial payouts in certain circumstances. The NBA for example tops their pension out to 1.9 million annually, for players that achieve 11 years in the league.

But, no other league has the minimum thresholds that MLB has, and it would seem that the MLB is backstopping these pension promises by their MLB.tv platform.

Whether the MLB, or owners, are holding back money would be immaterial when this issue goes to court, which is where this will land if a strike happens. The fact that these kinds of benefits are afforded to as many as 2,000 players every year (dependent on roster moves of course), makes a convincing case that whatever spoils are left, are not for the players to automatically have.

There is a way for players to fight this, to be clear. But if the tip-toes are finally turning into a slam dance, and players are wanting web broadcast money, my advice to them is simple.......sign the undervalued contracts, and start your own podcasts about life in the MLB. Teams can't stop you from spouting off, and they may not like you for saying your piece, but the first time all 30 deny signing one of you at that point, you'll have proven your collusion claims.

 

[DeletedUser]

To highlight the keys: With just one day of MLB service, a player locks in lifetime medical care. After 43 days of major league service, that player earns a minimum annual pension of $34,000. A player who marks ten years of league service will have an annual payout of $100,000.

You know that argument for the high salaries about how they only have a few productive years? Well, these facts shoot that right out of the water. I was in the workforce (year round) for over 30 years and I get nowhere near what they get after 43 days in the majors. Ridiculous. I'd be happier not knowing that.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

Yes, I do get what you're saying. Two things to keep this in perspective: Some of these thresholds are developed based on the rate of debilitating injury the league had, not necessarily has. There was a time when guys were blinded by beans to the head. That league doesn't exist anymore, but the danger for it still exists as broadly as it did when it was actually happening.

Also, owners are billionaires. They're always billionaires. In fact, the owners of the modern era are way more well off than the "ol' cowboy types" like Steinbrenner, who sunk their whole fortune into a team. Team owners now own the land the stadiums get built on, the hospitality ventures surrounding them, the parking lots, the commercial buildings near them......these owners, as much as they are clear this time around, I have no sympathy for them. If anyone should be getting hand over fist rich, it should be the guys that suffer injuries so badly that they can no longer use their arms to sign their own checks, for the remaining fifty plus years of their life.

And while we could say those are great health benefits, which they are, we have no idea what the claims process is. MLB may be denying claims left and right, and that also could be a reason why current players are arguing this.

 

[DeletedUser]

these owners, as much as they are clear this time around, I have no sympathy for them.

Oh, I don't have any sympathy for them, either. I have sympathy for the yokel making that minimum wage that is below poverty level. It would be nice if he could go to a ballgame now and then, and still be able to eat that next week.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

In transactional news: The White Sox signed Bruce Rondon to a minor league deal. Rondon is a guy who throws 98 mph, but can't exhibit anything resembling control, and is only bouncing around the league because of the speed of his fastball.

If Rondon can learn something from the White Sox development staff, which currently manages the deepest, and most talented farm system seen in 20 years, thanks to the destruction the Braves faced through league sanctions, he could find himself with the club regularly, for at least 2018 and 2019, while the team develops every piece they have, planning for a 2020, and 2021 run up the division.

At best, Rondon will likely get a league minimum salary if he makes the team in 2018. If he performs well, they could give him a one year, somewhere in the range of four or five million, but it would have to be an incredible 2018 for him to secure anything substantial.

The Orioles traded for Andrew Susac, who was DFA'd by the Brewers earlier in the month. The complaint is that his bat is not very strong. But I have a bone to pick with that notion. He was placed in the Milwaukee line-up inconsistently, which would choke up any player's production. But he hit .232/.299/.396, with a very high strikeout ratio, and low walks. Sure, he chases pitches at the majors that no one else is regularly chasing. That's not good, and it's worth improving. However, we just got down talking about a 34-year-old Miguel Montero getting yet another shot to play, after hitting .182 for the second half of the season. Susac, who is 27, at least has the time to turn this around, and again, the inconsistent role may be a factor, because rhythm matters.

The move is interesting, because as of today, Susac makes the fourth catcher on their 40-man roster, and because they grabbed him off of the Brewers 40-man, they can't DFA him until after the season starts. The spot on the roster is mostly a technicality, but he will for sure be the back-up catcher on opening day in Baltimore, which is another day in his MLB service calculator.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

Near perfect solution to how these owners operate: make them move in all the affordable housing possible around the stadium, and allow the tenants to possess tickets which they can sell at their own rates.

Some may go, others may supplement their income. But I assure you, virtually all will out spend the proceeds. History tells us so.

 

[DeletedUser33003]

The biggest transaction news of the past 72 hours just came in, as the Yankees, yes the Yankees signed.........





.......Danny Espinosa.

Not the big moves everyone is dying for, but Espinosa is at least a bonafide MLB veteran, albeit a bottom tier one. Espinosa plays all infield positions, and left field. His defense is elite, and his speed was once excellent, is now sub-par. His bat........ehhh, can we talk about anything else?

I've watched Espinosa in person, and I've never seen someone work a count so well, only to strikeout. And he strikes out, a lot. For reference, in 2014, Espinosa had 333 at-bats, and struck out in 122 of them.....WAY TOO MANY!

It's guys like Espinosa that don't make sense to me. He's an eight year veteran of the MLB, with his first seven with the Nats, who scouted, and developed him. They let him go at the end of 2016, and he signed with the Angels, who traded him to Mariners, who traded him to the Rays. He played in eight games for Tampa, and it was the first stint of his entire career where he had a batting average above .250 (at .273).

In short, Espinosa couldn't hit water, if he dove off a cruise ship.

Espinosa's deal is a minor league deal only, and his incentives to break into the roster are either undisclosed, or he'll be earning the league minimum for veterans.

The Yankees have been saying they want to shore up second base, and Espinosa can definitely play the position. With the recent playing experience he has, this seems to fly in the face of the news that the Yankees were trying to sign Neil Walker.

Either way, it's my biased opinion the Yankees are wasting their time. Espinosa is not going to develop his bat at age 30.

Arbitration hearings news:

Justin Bour, one of those young guns remaining in Miami was awarded his 3.4 million request, compared to the Marlins' offer of 3.0 million. One would think the 400 K addition would be enough for the Marlins ownership to claim bankruptcy, but I'm sure they'll find it under Jeter's mattress.

However, his teammate, and fellow young gun, JT Realmuto's hearing did not go well, and received the Marlins offer of 2.9 million. Realmuto is a guy the Marlins want to keep, and certainly the price fits their cheap-creep ways but after the drama that occurred in Marlinland last week, and with Realmuto already asking for a trade, it may be that this hearing will push him to demand one.

 

[DeletedUser31440]

I've watched Espinosa in person

DC area?