2019 MLB Hot Stove Thread

[nayad]

12 minutes ago, kyle21121 said:

We made a noteable move. Doesn’t seem so bad 4/80. Anyone wanna tell me why it’s bad?

Looks like a solid deal for both sides to me. I like Roark too. 

[deltarich87]

Angels really looked at their 2nd worst pitching staff in MLB last year and decided that adding Dylan Bundy and Julio Teheran were the moves they needed to make in the offseason to address it. Cool

[sdrawkcab321]

7 hours ago, kyle21121 said:

We made a noteable move. Doesn’t seem so bad 4/80. Anyone wanna tell me why it’s bad?

Just a lot of money for a soon to be 33 year old who’s seen a lot of innings. Should be good for most of the contract though. 

[flyguy1609]

a few moves over the weekend

 

[kyle21121]

3 hours ago, sdrawkcab321 said:

Just a lot of money for a soon to be 33 year old who’s seen a lot of innings. Should be good for most of the contract though. 

That’s true. He was a couple of years older than I’d thought as well. I figured we’d have to overpay anyways. We desperately needed pitching and he was the best left and I mean the games he starts are going to be automatic sell outs. If he doesn’t completely fall off I think this is pretty solid. 

[hrubes20]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:43 PM, Slateman said:

Legit question: Is there anything in the CBA or in MLB rules for owners that prohibits an owner from paying payroll with non-team revenue?

 

For instance, Robert Nutting is the principal owner of the Pirates. In 2018, the Pirates had a revenue of 254 million. If Nutting had said screw it and had the Buccos slap a 200 million dollar payroll together, could Nutting pay for it out of pocket?

It doesn't matter where the money comes from.  The owner could start a GoFundMe page with private donations paying $220 million for the roster and it still would count towards the LT.

21 hours ago, Leader said:

This is news to no one.

The point is that teams dont have to break the bank - or to be specific about it - the luxury tax threshold - in order to be competitive.  Again - only one playoff team in 2019 exceeded the luxury tax threshold - the NYY.

Threes team total exceeded the luxury tax of 206M in 2019. The NYY made the playoffs. Neither BOS (229M) or CHI (221M) did.
The only other team to make the playoffs and exceed the 200M mark were the LAD @ 201.6M.

MKE made it spending only 135M - or 94M less than BOS and 86M less than CHI.
MN made it spending only 125M - or 104M less than BOS and 96M lesss than CHI.
OAK? LOL They've made the playoffs two years running - in the same division as HOU - and could buy a small country for the amount of money they've saved over BOS and CHI.
TPA? The lowest payroll but highest achiever in the league - spent 64M in 2019 - or 165M less than BOS and 157M less than CHI.

Again - the point is - you dont have to break the bank to be competitive - and if you're the guy writing all the checks over and above what your competition is spending and you're still failing to make the playoffs (or win it all, depending on your personal perspective of success....) you might consider making some changes.

I'm a NYY fan. Team spending has been our lifes blood ever since George took over and they'll have the largest 2020 payroll by far - with an equally good shot at winning. But the WS is guaranteed to no one - or no payroll. Just ask the 2019 NYY or BOS or CHI the three teams that exceeded the LT - only to watch the Nats - with the 7th highest payroll (172M) win it all for millions of dollars less.

I'm fine with spending - but I like teams that emphasize targeted talent evaluation / coaching that succeed as well.

Bolded #1 - But this isn't the case with the Cubs or even the Red Sox who won the WS just the year before.  The Cubs made the playoffs 4 years in a row, with 3 of them resulting in NLCS appearances and the team's first WS title in 108 years.  They missed the playoffs in 2019 for the first time in the past 5 years, but they led the division fairly late into the year before injuries and inconsistency got the better of them.  This has easily been the most successful run the Cubs organization has had in a century.

Bolded #2 - This is every team in baseball now.  It is well known that you can't win in this league without drafting and developing your own young talent.  But spending and developing your own talent should not be mutually exclusive for the large market teams.   

 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, hrubes20 said:

Bolded #1 - But this isn't the case with the Cubs or even the Red Sox who won the WS just the year before.  The Cubs made the playoffs 4 years in a row, with 3 of them resulting in NLCS appearances and the team's first WS title in 108 years.  They missed the playoffs in 2019 for the first time in the past 5 years, but they led the division fairly late into the year before injuries and inconsistency got the better of them.  This has easily been the most successful run the Cubs organization has had in a century.

Bolded #2 - This is every team in baseball now.  It is well known that you can't win in this league without drafting and developing your own young talent.  But spending and developing your own talent should not be mutually exclusive for the large market teams.   

 

I've shortened your post for space and focus.......

I dont disagree with anything you've said. I've no problem with teams spending for players. I'm a NYY fan - I might as well give up the game if that was my thinking. What I was speaking to - consistently - is that spending on high ticket items and being a top spender isnt guarantor of on the field success.

So - "high budget or big market" teams that look to cut payroll - aren't necessarily "cheapskates" (as some fans will call them) but operations looking to spend more wisely - which is good IMO.

I've been thru the days when the NYY bought many/any player(s) willy-nilly and wound up with "marquee" lineups that filled the stands and dominated the NY media sports pages - but were dysfunctional rosters. It took underlings to kind of subtly move George out of the decision making process - so better "baseball decisions" could be made till they could enhance those rosters and rebuild what was a tatters of a minor league operation.

Thats it. In a nutshell.

 

[hrubes20]

4 minutes ago, Leader said:

I've shortened your post for space and focus.......

I dont disagree with anything you've said. I've no problem with teams spending for players. I'm a NYY fan - I might as well give up the game if that was my thinking. What I was speaking to - consistently - is that spending on high ticket items and being a top spender isnt guarantor of on the field success.

So - "high budget or big market" teams that look to cut payroll - aren't necessarily "cheapskates" (as some fans will call them) but operations looking to spend more wisely - which is good IMO.

I've been thru the days when the NYY bought many/any player(s) willy-nilly and wound up with "marquee" lineups that filled the stands and dominated the NY media sports pages - but were dysfunctional rosters. It took underlings to kind of subtly move George out of the decision making process - so better "baseball decisions" could be made till they could enhance those rosters and rebuild what was a tatters of a minor league operation.

Thats it. In a nutshell.

 

I think we are talking about different scenarios.  

Scenario #1 - Your scenario, where it might not make sense for a big market team to go hog wild in free agency every year (which I think everyone would agree with); and

Scenario #2 - My scenario, where the cash cow Red Sox and Cubs are actively shopping their home grown superstars so that they can get under the LT limit, which has been a hard cap arbitrarily imposed by their billionaire owners.  

Nobody is lobbying for the big markets to carry $400 milion payrolls.  But a $250 million payroll (which would still result in profits for the owners) while being able to keep a home grown superstar around?  That's a no-brainer to everyone but the billionaire owner who isn't satisfied with $30 million in profits, and needs that extra $60 million.  

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, hrubes20 said:

I think we are talking about different scenarios.  

Scenario #1 - Your scenario, where it might not make sense for a big market team to go hog wild in free agency every year (which I think everyone would agree with); and

Scenario #2 - My scenario, where the cash cow Red Sox and Cubs are actively shopping their home grown superstars so that they can get under the LT limit, which has been a hard cap arbitrarily imposed by their billionaire owners.  

Nobody is lobbying for the big markets to carry $400 milion payrolls.  But a $250 million payroll (which would still result in profits for the owners) while being able to keep a home grown superstar around?  That's a no-brainer to everyone but the billionaire owner who isn't satisfied with $30 million in profits, and needs that extra $60 million.  

The Red Sox and Cubs got each superstar in the middle of a rebuild. If you trade them before free agency to start another rebuild, you may as well just buy a Brewers hat because you're a small market team.

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, hrubes20 said:

I think we are talking about different scenarios.  

Scenario #1 - Your scenario, where it might not make sense for a big market team to go hog wild in free agency every year (which I think everyone would agree with); and

Scenario #2 - My scenario, where the cash cow Red Sox and Cubs are actively shopping their home grown superstars so that they can get under the LT limit, which has been a hard cap arbitrarily imposed by their billionaire owners.  

Nobody is lobbying for the big markets to carry $400 milion payrolls.  But a $250 million payroll (which would still result in profits for the owners) while being able to keep a home grown superstar around?  That's a no-brainer to everyone but the billionaire owner who isn't satisfied with $30 million in profits, and needs that extra $60 million.  

Understood and as previously detailed statistically - the big spenders are seeing their "monetary efforts" (so to speak....) being bettered by lesser spending teams with sharper baseball operations - so - being wealthy, they're doing what wealthy people do - controlling their costs - which is fine with me.

Again - the only top spender thats won the WS in the last ten years has been BOS. Everybody else has spent a fortune and come up empty - on the WS ring aspect at least. Successful businesses? Certainly - but rings? Not so fortunate.

Switching gears a bit....analytics is becoming the bane of the veteran ball player. You hit 30 - there's a wealth of data proving you're statistical contribution on the team can be matched / exceeded by younger, cheaper talent.

Sure you're always going to have the marquee name and top tier talent -- but if you can bypass an extended contract for a guy like Harper and invest an eighth of that outlay scouring the baseball fields of VZ or the DR and developing the next Soto....where would you invest your money?

These are good developments IMO.

I'm a NYY fan - i.e. big market, big profit, big spender - in favor of the it being run as a sharp baseball operation. That certainly doesnt mean cheap - but it does mean smart.

 

[hrubes20]

Just now, Leader said:

Sure you're always going to have the marquee name and top tier talent -- but if you can bypass an extended contract for a guy like Harper and invest an eighth of that outlay scouring the baseball fields of VZ or the DR and developing the next Soto....where would you invest your money?

These are good developments IMO.

I'm a NYY fan - i.e. big market, big profit, big spender - in favor of the it being run as a sharp baseball operation. That certainly doesnt mean cheap - but it does mean smart.

 

And my point is that they shouldn't be mutually exclusive for the big market teams.  Their already stupid rich owners make loads of money each year.  All the big market revenues could support payrolls consistently over the top tier of the LT, while simultaneously running a top of the line scouting and development department.  It's just a matter of the billionaries being ok with only a few million in profit each year.  There are obviously no guarantees of winning WS, but your chances of making the playoffs increase and it's just a crapshoot from there.

 

13 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The Red Sox and Cubs got each superstar in the middle of a rebuild. If you trade them before free agency to start another rebuild, you may as well just buy a Brewers hat because you're a small market team.

Exactly.  I get if you can't resign them as a free agent.  It happens and is not  entirely within your control.  But trading any season of team control over a Betts or a Bryant, with payroll being a main consideration, is inexcusable.

[Leader]

Just now, hrubes20 said:

And my point is that they shouldn't be mutually exclusive for the big market teams.  Their already stupid rich owners make loads of money each year.  All the big market revenues could support payrolls consistently over the top tier of the LT, while simultaneously running a top of the line scouting and development department.  It's just a matter of the billionaries being ok with only a few million in profit each year.  There are obviously no guarantees of winning WS, but your chances of making the playoffs increase and it's just a crapshoot from there.

Understood and I've heard/read it often enough here to recognize it.

It's the "general revenue" theory. They're rich so whats the cost of money to them? To listen to some around here - nothing.
They shouldnt care - which is antithetical to running a smart business and probably what made them rich to begin with.

Again - why spend $300M when its been proven that lesser spending teams can be just as successful as you on field?

Thats the disconnect that never gets resolved or answered by the "they're billionaires and general revenue/profit" theory.

I can provide evidence up the ying yang of lesser spending teams out performing the big spenders till I'm blue in the face - but it wont budge the concept that money means less the richer or more successful you become.

Which is a fallacy.

Alright. Fine. I've resigned myself that the concept wont go away....but it should. Baseball operations, actual spending versus on the field success indicate it should....but it wont. 
 

[redsoxsuck05]

There is zero justification for a Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs fan to favor “targeted spending.” Framing this as anything other than cost-cutting for the owners is laughable.

The Yanks’ payrolls throughout the 2000s propped up an aging core to playoff status when they otherwise had no business there.

Nothing “guarantees” a World Series, but it’s Hal’s fiduciary responsibility to the fans to try and put the best roster on the field. There’s no way to really enforce this responsibility in the age of TV contracts though, and many fans are content in treating franchises like Fortune 500 companies, despite receiving no dividends or joy from an increase in profitability.

Capitalism is supposed to increase prosperity and freedom, not exist for its own sake.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

There is zero justification for a Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs fan to favor “targeted spending.” Framing this as anything other than cost-cutting for the owners is laughable.

The Yanks’ payrolls throughout the 2000s propped up an aging core to playoff status when they otherwise had no business there.

Nothing “guarantees” a World Series, but it’s Hal’s fiduciary responsibility to the fans to try and put the best roster on the field. There’s no way to really enforce this responsibility in the age of TV contracts though, and many fans are content in treating franchises like Fortune 500 companies, despite receiving no dividends or joy from an increase in profitability.

Capitalism is supposed to increase prosperity and freedom, not exist for its own sake.

I receive "dividends" and joy in being a NYY fan. Sorry you cant (or dont) have the same experience.

[redsoxsuck05]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

I receive "dividends" and joy in being a NYY fan. Sorry you cant (or dont) have the same experience.

Pretty dumb comment tbh

I’m definitely happier being a Yankees fan now because Hal finally decided to spend his yacht money on an ace. I find no joy in complacency. Why else do you play the game?

Edited December 23, 2019 by redsoxsuck05