2018 MLB Off Season Thread

[Marlins93]

What are the chances that Mike Trout signs an extension with the Angels? He would be 28 when he hits free agency. It makes so much sense for him to go to Philadelphia. The Phillies have a lot of cash to throw around, but I wonder if signing Harper would preclude them from making a play at Trout if he's available.

[BBTV]

Re: Trout - he’s told people privately (I know people in the media) that he wants to play in Phila and wants to figure out how to get here, but the Phillies obviously can’t plan on that ever happening since so many variables. They need to spend now and figure out trout if it actually presents itself. 

 

Re: Machado - Phillies were given first refusal - if they matched he would have signed. I sure as hell hope they know more than what anyone has been able to uncover regarding the Harper negotiations. For them to brag about spending “stupid money” and then turn down someone that was willing to sign, that won’t look good if they don’t get Harper. 

[Still MIGHTY]

2 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

What are the chances that Mike Trout signs an extension with the Angels? He would be 28 when he hits free agency. It makes so much sense for him to go to Philadelphia. The Phillies have a lot of cash to throw around, but I wonder if signing Harper would preclude them from making a play at Trout if he's available.

 

If the Angels are trash again this year (which... well...), then I'd say the chances are low. The Angels have to make something of themselves this year.

 

Trout does seem like a pretty loyal guy. He's done and said all of the right things as an Angel, and the primary goal of the club this year has already been stated as signing Trout. On the other hand, there's too much smoke around that Philadelphia fire. Trout even said there's not a day when he's home in the offseason when someone doesn't ask him when he's signing with the Phillies.

 

Having Ohtani around would soften the blow a little, but losing Trout would be devastating for the Angels organization. Truly, if they handle this wrong, it could set them back another decade. As it stands, I've made it a point to relish every minute of Mike Trout this season. He's a marvel, and it's embarrassing how the Angels have wasted this generation/century/millenium's greatest player so far.

[FiddySicks]

9 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Trending in the wrong direction? Machado is coming off his best season to date.

 

If anything this is the first time the Padres didn't make the signing on the wrong side of the trend. And how does putting a franchise player who drops 35+ home runs and bats .300 or so not help them competitively on the field? Particularly when his being in the lineup will do nothing but improve those around him like Hosmer and Myers? Keep in mind the Padres have pitching coming up from the minors in the next season or two. 

 

He’s been trending in the wrong direction defensively for awhile now, and the “protection” he has in that lineup isn’t much to write home about at this point. Their farm system is strong, but they’re consistently terrible at the major league level so their farm system is always relatively strong. I don’t trust a single person in that organization to actually fully develop any of the players they have. Tatis looks very promising right now, but who really knows? I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt, because they haven’t given me any reason to give them that. 

 

This move feels like like a total cash grab, and I still can’t see them competing any time soon. They’re more likely to finish 4th every year than they are to win the division. 

 

I mean, good for their fans. They get to buy some new player T’s. But I fully expect them to be as awful and incompetent as they always are. 

[rams80]

9 hours ago, dont care said:

You are delusional if you think adding Machado actually gives them a shot of even sniffing a WS.

 

I could buy a Padres trip to the playoffs in the next decade, and that's all you need for a WS shot.

[bosrs1]

59 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

He’s been trending in the wrong direction defensively for awhile now, and the “protection” he has in that lineup isn’t much to write home about at this point. Their farm system is strong, but they’re consistently terrible at the major league level so their farm system is always relatively strong. I don’t trust a single person in that organization to actually fully develop any of the players they have. Tatis looks very promising right now, but who really knows? I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt, because they haven’t given me any reason to give them that. 

 

This move feels like like a total cash grab, and I still can’t see them competing any time soon. They’re more likely to finish 4th every year than they are to win the division. 

 

I mean, good for their fans. They get to buy some new player T’s. But I fully expect them to be as awful and incompetent as they always are. 

 

Tatis and Hosmer are plenty of protection...

 

And their farm system is never this strong. It’s usually middle of the pack.

[Dynasty]

Hey... at least they're more relevant (in media terms) than they previously were.

[Sport]

I am a pretty big baseball fan and a national league one at that and I forgot Hosmer was on the Padres, I kind of forgot the Padres existed, I couldn't name one of their regulars right now, and they wear purposely dull uniforms (though that will change) so I think the franchise needed to make this move to inject some life into the team. It's a far more pleasing place for him to land than the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, or like a stupid team like the Rangers. 

[BBTV]

With all the talk about San Diego being "small market", I looked it up and was surprised that their market size was listed as only 2.4 million.

 

Where is the line drawn?  Who, other than the obvious, is the 'big market' teams?

 

[The Six]

"Big market-small market" is one of those sports canards that needs to go away. People considered the Warriors to be a small market team a few years ago. Then they become a dynasty and now they're big market. It's used as an excuse for why players don't sign with certain teams, or why teams don't compete, but when you have billionaire owners and revenue sharing, none of that's relevant.

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

With all the talk about San Diego being "small market", I looked it up and was surprised that their market size was listed as only 2.4 million.

Not that surprising, considering the San Diego media market is limited to San Diego County (even Imperial County is considered Yuma-El Centro, who knew). If you count Tijuana as part of a transnational metropolitan area, you'd add a lot of people, of course, but I don't think Tijuana figures into television quite like it does in radio, where a lot of de facto San Diego stations are licensed there so they can broadcast at higher wattage than our FCC allows.

 

Very true about teams being small-market until they're not. I believe I've referred to the Texas Rangers as "new-money trash" before.

[ninersdd]

I remember being able to hear a Padre game up here in Northern CA before at night. Guess that’s makes sense then.

[pmoehrin]

45 minutes ago, The Six said:

"Big market-small market" is one of those sports canards that needs to go away. People considered the Warriors to be a small market team a few years ago. Then they become a dynasty and now they're big market. It's used as an excuse for why players don't sign with certain teams, or why teams don't compete, but when you have billionaire owners and revenue sharing, none of that's relevant.

 

In my opinion, “small market” is little more than code for a team that doesn’t draw.

 

Want proof of this. Look no further than the A’s. They play right across the street from the third most valuable team in the NBA, and have the exact same TV market as the Giants. Other than the fact they don’t draw, how are they a small market team?

 

On the flip side you have the Cardinals who play in a small TV market in a relatively poor city, and nobody considers them small market.

 

There’s teams who spend and draw, and there’s teams who don’t. “Market size” has almost nothing to do with it.

[The_Admiral]

Relative to the other leagues, baseball doesn't even have small markets. The smallest is Milwaukee, which is as much as twice the size of Buffalo, New Orleans, Jacksonville, and assorted NBA/NHL one-team towns.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, pmoehrin said:

 

In my opinion, “small market” is little more than code for a team that doesn’t draw.

 

Want proof of this. Look no further than the A’s. They play right across the street from the third most valuable team in the NBA, and have the exact same TV market as the Giants. Other than the fact they don’t draw, how are they a small market team?

 

On the flip side you have the Cardinals who play in a small TV market in a relatively poor city, and nobody considers them small market.

 

There’s teams who spend and draw, and there’s teams who don’t. “Market size” has almost nothing to do with it.

 

I always got the sense that Oakland was considered more of a local team, while the Giants were more of the whole Bay Area's team, so while they're technically in the same market, there's not the same demand for their rights and they probably only generate a fraction of the revenue that the Giants do.  I have no numbers to support this, it's just how I've always assumed it was.

 

Regarding St. Louis, while they're in a "small market", they have the benefit of having a sprawling fan base, and I would assume (again, nothing but an assumption) that their brand is more valuable than say Milwaukee's because they (again, assuming) probably are broadcasted in more areas and market to a larger out-of-market region.

 

I think that "Small market" and "Big market" is definitely a thing, but maybe not as big a thing as it's made out to be.  If you think that Milwaukee generates as much local revenue as the Yankees, then you'd need to prove that to me.  In a larger market, everything is worth more - TV deals, RSN revenue, radio broadcast rights, local advertising, corporate partnerships, etc.  I'm curious how much "gate" really matters anymore - like, what percentage of revenue is it?

 

For an example - the Phillies haven't had a winning season in 9 years, but signed a >billion$ TV deal a couple of years ago.  Are the Pirates going to get a deal like that?  Billionaire owners don't become billionaires by throwing their own millions into losing propositions.  If the Pirates signed Bryce Harper and Manny Machado and won a WS, would they actually make money?  

[Sport]

Since we're talking media markets, here's something that probably isn't on your radar if you don't live in this part of the country - Dayton and Cincinnati are getting closer and closer to each other every day and in the next census they're probably going to merge Dayton and Cincinnati into one MSA, which would mean without changing anything, the little sad small market Reds would jump the metro size rankings into the top 20. Weird. 

 

Not that that means anything. Even now they could've still afforded to throw 600 million at Harper and Machado if they wanted to. Every MLB team could. 

[pmoehrin]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Regarding St. Louis, while they're in a "small market", they have the benefit of having a sprawling fan base, and I would assume (again, nothing but an assumption) that their brand is more valuable than say Milwaukee's because they (again, assuming) probably are broadcasted in more areas and market to a larger out-of-market region.

 

You ever wonder what gave them that sprawling fanbase?

 

It’s not a new phenomenon. They were carried on KMOX radio which had a powerful enough radio antenna to be carried around the entire country.

 

You can be almost anywhere in the country and listen to Cardinal games. They were the Atlanta Braves of the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s.

 

You know who else had this same type of coverage? The St. Louis Browns. They did absolutey nothing with it.

 

The point is market size in a lot of cases is whatever you make it to be. Win games and it grows. Lose games and it shrinks. Obviously there’s a myriad of other factors involved that there’s not enough time to get into, some of which you touched on. But the most successful teams are generally the ones who can generate and take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. That has very little to do with market size, and everything to do with commitment, ingenuity, decisiveness and above all in a lot of cases, flat out luck.

 

If a team can’t make their situation work, it’s on them as I see it.

[The Six]

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

For an example - the Phillies haven't had a winning season in 9 years, but signed a >billion$ TV deal a couple of years ago.  Are the Pirates going to get a deal like that?  Billionaire owners don't become billionaires by throwing their own millions into losing propositions.  If the Pirates signed Bryce Harper and Manny Machado and won a WS, would they actually make money?  

 

Stolen from reddit:

Pirates 2017 Revenue: $258M

Pirates 2018 Payroll: $86M

Robert Nutting Net Worth: $1.1B

 

Of course that's just revenue (before revenue sharing), and doesn't take into account operating and other costs, but I think the Pirates are doing just fine financially. They could spend if they wanted to.They just choose not to.

[BBTV]

On 2/21/2019 at 6:50 PM, The Six said:

 

Stolen from reddit:

Pirates 2017 Revenue: $258M

Pirates 2018 Payroll: $86M

Robert Nutting Net Worth: $1.1B

 

Of course that's just revenue (before revenue sharing), and doesn't take into account operating and other costs, but I think the Pirates are doing just fine financially. They could spend if they wanted to.They just choose not to.

 

I think operating costs might be a little higher than you think, but another big point here is that if they had a league-average payroll of $125, then added a $30M player like Harper, they have no margin for error.  If it ends up being a bad contract, then they're totally screwed.  When a "big market" (or let's just say "high revenue") team has a bad contract like that, they still have the flexibility to just sign another guy, or buy their way out of it.

 

For the Pirates and their peers, it's not a matter of being cheap as it is a matter of risk management.  The Phillies signed Ryan Howard to a 25M/year contract right before he ripped up his achilles, and ended up paying him for a few years of garbage play since he never really recovered.  They still had the flexibility (not the intelligence though) to keep signing guys to supplement his crappiness.  A lower-revenue team would have been totally hamstrung by that deal and had no flexibility at all.

[BBTV]

According to the beat, Phillies "owner" John Middleton flew to LV alone to meet with Harper and Boras.  Not sure why he went alone and without Andy McPhail and the dorky computer nerd GM.  Not sure who's really still in this thing, and not sure I want him anymore, since it's clear he doesn't want to be here, and would likely just leave when he hits the player-friendly opt-out clause in a few years.

 

I don't care about guys making $30M/year - that's just how economics works - but I do hate that they get opt-out clauses that they can use to get even more in a few years, but the teams have zero protections.  I know the players union is super strong, but I wish there was some way that they could negotiate that all opt-outs are mutual, and arbitration is somehow an option too.  Maybe in exchange for adding the DH to the NL (which coincidentally is a reason that I wouldn't hate the signing if it happens, because even if he breaks down after a few years, he could just DH rather than having to be sent to the AL.)