Royals Efficient in Free Agent Signing This Past Off Season
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 10:25 AM EDT
Email
PrintThis past off season Dayton was mocked heavily for signing several veterans that were not All-Stars or big difference makers. The key for Dayton and the Royals was that he did not spend much money to sign these free agents. He actually did a decent job when looking at the cost of the players and their contrbutions so far this season.
Here are the names, WAR and salaries (total and prorated) for the free agents signed this off season:
Note - I assumed that Francis would hit both of the innings ($1.2M) and GS ($0.8M) salary kickers.
| Name | WAR | Total Salary (Millions) |
Salary After 72 Games (Millions) |
| Jeff Francis | 1.3 | 4.00 | 1.78 |
| Jeff Francoeur | 1.4 | 2.50 | 1.11 |
| Bruce Chen | 0.1 | 2.00 | 0.89 |
| Melky Cabrera | 1.7 | 1.25 | 0.56 |
| Matt Treanor | 1.0 | 0.85 | 0.38 |
| Total | 5.5 | 10.60 | 4.71 |
So far this season the Royals are spending $0.85M per WAR for these players. In today's current free agent market, the going rate is $4M to $5M spent for each 1 WAR of player talent, so the Royals are getting a huge discount.
If these five players can continue to produce at their current pace, they will produce around 12.4 WAR for the season. The $10.6M spent for all these players is less than the team spent on just Jose Guillen's salary each of the last 3 seasons.
There is definitely reasons to believe that both Frenchy and Melky did not need to be signed. The main reason bing that Mitch Maier was available for similar production at a lower price, but having a backup OF is never a bad idea.
Dayton did nice job of scraping the bargain bin for a few useful players at a cheap price this off season. Congrats.
123 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dayton Moore is finally starting to get it!
As long as he keeps signing FA's like Francoeur and Melky,
this organization is going to be just fine.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 11:28 AM EDT reply actions
I know you're joking
But it really does make sense to sign cheaper FA since there is a chance they could be valuable, and if they aren’t, they are easily disposable.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 22, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, in a general sense, yes as long as we’re just talking about placeholders in rebuilding years. As the team hopefully becomes a contender, he’ll actually have to acquire some good players. In a more specific sense, acquiring cheap FA’s might not make sense if you have even cheaper players in house who can perform at approximately the same level.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
and unless we hit on a big trade for one of these guys
there’s no actual payoff for the org, the only real beneficiary is the player
if we get a good young reliever for one of those FA signings...
then that $8 million or whatever was worth it
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, they'd need around 2 WAR during their cost-controlled years, and I figured Tim Collins would
be a good example. Then I looked, and Fangraphs has him at -0.1 so far in 2011. hmm
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 22, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
The walks are killing him
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
2 WAR over the minimum salary plus arb awards for the 6+ years
most ‘good’ relievers are going to do that
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Jokaim Soria
Has managed it twice (barely).
It’s really hard for a reliver to be 2 WAR good.
Edgar knows best.
2 WAR TOTAL
not every year
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
i mean...look at farns...
he was with the royals for 2 years….nobody anywhere would argue that he was great. he was pretty decent and he put up 1.7 WAR in 2 years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Holland and Wood
And maybe Crow but I hope he doesn’t stay a reliever.
by Prime2U on Jun 24, 2011 3:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not just placeholders
Look at how the Rays have assembled pens for years -finding cheap FA, discarding the ones that suck and keeping the ones that are good…oh and netting the FA compensation they get after they get really good, then getting a bazillion draft picks.
Its fun to dream about signing the Carl Crawfords of the world but (a) we’re never going to be players for them; and (b) most times FA like that are not going to meet their contract value. Better to shop in the bargain bin and find a few hidden gems.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Look at how the Rays have assembled pens for years
I definitely agree that this works for bullpens. I don’t think it works so well for position players or starting pitchers. That is unless we’re talking about bench players and 5th starters.
Better to shop in the bargain bin and find a few hidden gems
I really don’t think that the Royals can build a contender strictly with homegrown players and bargain bin FA’s. My research shows that almost every team that became successful after having a highly rated farm system added at least 1 or 2 fairly high WAR player from outside the organization. Now, this might come from trade, but also I think Moore will have to sign a FA or two. I’m not talking about necessarily the top of the top tier (like Crawford last year or Jose Reyes this coming year), but some average-to-good players in the 2-3.5 WAR area.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don’t think that the Royals can build a contender strictly with homegrown players and bargain bin FA’s.
I don’t either. They’re going to have to make some savvy trades.
I just don’t think big free agents are going to be part of the equation. How many small markets clubs – even successful ones – have signed free agents that produced 2 – 3.5 WAR?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I just don’t think big free agents are going to be part of the equation. How many small markets clubs – even successful ones – have signed free agents that produced 2 – 3.5 WAR?
I don’t know. That’s a good question. It seems doable though. They’d have to overpay of course, but perhaps not wildly so.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I have always liked the idea of getting salary dumps.
The Mets and Dodgers may be looking to get rid of a few contracts.
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
This is what I've been saying too
Salary dump trades. Except, I think we mostly need to look for pitchers. If you look at our current position players and what we have coming, I think we can fill every spot with 2-5+ players, except for catcher and maybe 2B, with what we have now and have coming.
by Prime2U on Jun 24, 2011 3:42 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Its doable
But I think you’d have to establish some success, and then you’d still be only signing mid-guys like the Twins have with Carl Pavano and Orlando Hudson. When the A’s, Marlins, Twins, Rays began their run of success, the only FAs were pretty much bit players.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
This is a strategy that the Royals can only really employ while they're not contending
One of the competitive advantages we’ve got right now is the ability to give IPs/ABs to free agents looking to rebound/break out, but once we’re contending, that advantage will disappear.
Yep..
kind of like how you can run on contact with two outs, but all things considered, you would prefer not to have that advantage to begin with.
"That's fine wood from... somewhere."
by KeepItCopacetic on Jun 22, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dayton Moore, the Vindicator
I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?
by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Jun 22, 2011 11:59 AM EDT reply actions
This violates the Royals Review terms of service
Please repose with the required sarcastic comments about The Process and/or cynicism about The Greatest Farm System Ever
by KSinDC on Jun 22, 2011 12:14 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
I honestly only read RR
For the KSinDC self-appointed tone police. God bless you sir.
by PopeSoria on Jun 22, 2011 3:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
I've always felt...
that DM didn’t know how to thrift-shop and has no ‘inner-bargain hunter’. Sure, he could buy stuff off-the-rack, at above full retail, but his ‘finding under-valued talent’ skills resulted in a Joey Gathright, Ryan Shealy, Brett Tomko, Rick Ankiel kind of thing, rather than a Jonny Gomes (two years ago), Jorge Cantu (3 years ago), Phil Humber 3.0, Jeff Francis sort of thing. So the news that DM finally is getting bang for bucks is welcome and I hope it continues; given their financial limitations, I think it’s a killer for them if the Royals can’t bargain hunt. However, I’m not so sure this is DM ‘getting it’, anymore than I thought Francouer, after one month, had suddenly turned into someone other than Francouer. After Guillen, Yabuta, Tomko, and the last 2 1/2 years of the Meche contract, the Royals were bound to have their luck change; my fear is that that is the reason for success, rather than reason being the reason for success.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jun 22, 2011 12:19 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Still say Shealy didn't get a fair shake
it’s a shame the injury occured when it did…
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
shealy's in his 3rd organization since he left the royals...
and has gotten 7 mlb abs…he’s OPS 819 in the craziest hitting environment in the minors…saying he didnt get a fair shake is like saying i didnt get a fair shake…dude just isnt good enough
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
so, we should give every shitty player 2000 ABs to figure it out b/c of one example?
oh, and there’s a reason why teams kept giving bautista a chance…they saw something in him…just didnt know what…and he was versatile defensively…shealy is just a shitty hitting 1b
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
so, we should give every shitty player 2000 ABs to figure it out b/c of one example?
No, we should give a prospect like Shealy regular playing time instead of a stiff like Gload.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
thats a fair statement...
but its a matter of roster building on DMs part…not on shealy not being given a chance…shealy wasnt good in the majors and wasnt all that impressive before that in the minors. And he’s been in 3 other organizations since the royals and they’ve not been impressed with him either.
shealy clearly shouldve been playing instead of gload, but i dont in any way feel like shealy has been treated unfairly by the royals or major league baseball…he just isnt good.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
i assume you're ready to cut bait on alcides escobar then
considering he’s had 400 more plate appearances than shealy in the majors and has hit significantly worse. (he also boasted an ops nearly 250 lower than shealy in the minors)
batter nine you sucky
great ss play vs meh first base play...
oh and scouting reports
what was shealy good at?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
hitting and fielding
creating a positive career WAR.
But in the Royals FO’s defense, several other teams have treated him essentially the same way – as a filler/backup plan.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 22, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody better cut any bait on Escobar
The guy is a brilliant defensive shortstop and has hit better in the past than he has so far this year. His recent warm streak has made his triple-slash slightly more acceptable than it was before.
And you gotta admit that he jacked one in the clutch the other night on a super at-bat in which he let three balls go by, fouled off six strikes, and then hit his pitch.
Agreed that he doesn’t do that often enough yet, but he’s still young and inexperienced. Wait till next year.
"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon
he's hitting something like .467 over the last 10 games
but my point wasn’t really to dump alcides
batter nine you sucky
He did find a few bargains
David Riske, Miguel Olivo, Ron Mahay – even Gload was had some value, albeit he was a bit exposed as a starter.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Betemit, Chen
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
and like Gload
he brought Chen back for more money, which totally missed the inherent lesson
given that Betemit has no place to play either, not sure what the point is/was
umm...regarding betemit....
about a full season of pretty decent 3b play, when we didnt have a 3b for a minimal amount of money…and probably some sort of prospect in return. seems like a pretty damn good signing to me
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
who shouldve been playing 3b?
and nobody’s thinking betemits bringing julio teheran back…why criticize moore for the clearly good moves when there are so many bad ones to criticize?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Because the good ones are pretty minor.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2011 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
HoRam
Yea, the problem is not knowing when to discard these guys.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Yeah, that's a real risk for Moore and his bargain bin acquisitions
He think’s they are secretly decent, so he acquires them for cheap. Then they perform well and he thinks he’s found hidden gold, so he re-signs them for more money. Francoeur and Melky are the big current risks for this.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought those were not bad signings, however...
Olivo and Mahay weren’t really ‘bargains’ with Olivo at 2 years, 4.75 M and a 2.2 WAR and Mahay, 2 years, 8 M, for a 1.7 WAR (yeesh).
Riske might be one of DM’s better moves, though, both in signing him for a decently priced $2 million for one year (and a 2.2 WAR), and then not resigning him, picking up a compensation pick (who ended up being Mike Montgomery) and avoiding Riske’s risky yo-yo career pattern and injury concerns.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jun 23, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
TREANOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Escobar pickup is paying off big time.
Treanor has been the best bargain of all these guys.
Treanor and Peña are a fairly productive combo
Between the two they’ve got like 1.5 WAR this year. Neither has a good AVG, but Treanor has a good OBP and Peña has a respectable SLG.
"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon
Question on value of WAR:
is it really a linear relationship? I mean it seams like one guy with a WAR of 5 is worth much more than 5 guys with a total WAR of 5. Are there any studies on this??
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
i dont know that ive read any studies...
but it seems pretty obvious that you’d rather than the 1 5 WAR guy….b/c it gives you the opportunity for + WAR at 4 other positions…
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it might look something like this
Value = $0.42 + $2M x WAR^1.3
Your 5 WAR guy is worth $16.6M compared to your $2.42M 1 WAR guy…seems more realistic.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
by Royal Kingdom on Jun 22, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It's a matter of roster construction
The thing making one 5 WAR guy more valuable than 5 1 WAR guys is the 9-man limit on batting order, 25-man limit on the active roster, and 40-man limit on the MLB roster. So the relationship wouldn’t be linear but it wouldn’t necessarily be fixed. When we play in NL parks, we can’t have Hosmer and Billy in the lineup at the same time, so the value of their WAR is reduced. In that case, we’d rather have 2 1.5-WAR pitchers than 1 3-WAR backup 1B.
It is exactly about roster construction
which is why I brought this up in the context of this article. Everything Jeff wrote is correct in terms of how we value production, it just seems like we vastly overvalue the first few WAR for any given player.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
by Royal Kingdom on Jun 22, 2011 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think that's right
Some 1 WAR starting pitchers would be incredibly valuable for the Royals right now, and Betemit’s 1 WAR is almost worthless. I agree that $/WAR undervalues players with 4 or more WAR, but the vast vast majority of players are at 3 WAR or fewer, and within that range, I don’t think the differences in marginal wins are that great
This is impossible.
Some 1 WAR starting pitchers would be incredibly valuable for the Royals right now
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
He's right
We ain’t got shit. None of our starters are much above replacement, and several of them are well below. Luke, for example, will be lucky to have a WAR of 1 and an ERA+ of 85. SOS, Davies, Boom Boom, and company are all going to be below replacement.
"They may make cool judgements after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back" --Warren Zevon
I always look at 9 position player (AL teams) and 5 starters and 3 relievers - and hope the rest are 0 WAR players.
and see where to make the biggest and cheapest gains from there.
On the Royals, the gain from 5 1 WAR pitchers because they would take the place of negative WAR pitcher.
Team 1 Zack and the clowns
Starter 1 WAR: 5
Starters 2 to 5 WAR: -2
Total: 3 WAR
Team 2 – All 1 WAR pitchers
Starters 1 to 5 Total = 5 WAR
Total 5 WAR
The biggest gains can be seen from 1 WAR players is when they replace negative WAR players.
Right now the biggest gains could be from a improvement at 2B and SP
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
But, in general, in the open market
are you going to have to pay $4M to $5M per year for each of those 1 WAR guys
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
by Royal Kingdom on Jun 22, 2011 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
$12M if you count Guillen
In all seriousness, the lower end players (ones that you need to take a chance on), are the usually the best deals and may be closer to 2M per WAR.
Remember we are paying 3.75M for Kendall and his 0 WAR.
It is just hard to know who is or isn’t going to be a 1 WAR player
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
getz is on pace for more than 1 WAR for the league minimum...2nd base really hasnt been a problem...
its the pitching staff almost exclusively…and the 1b production in april…and whenever aviles played
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Keep in mind
WAR is a valuation of a player’s performance. Sites like Fangraphs also figure out how much teams overall pay for a win on average — around $4 to $5 million in recent years, depending on the year.
How WAR then gets valued differs depending on the context. For example, the marginal value of 1 more win for a team in contention may be greater than $4.5 million, while the marginal value for a team not in contention may be less than that. The same thing applies to acquisition cost of players — if the free agent market has, say, ten 1-win OFers but only two 5-win OFers, a team signing one of the 1-win OFers should not have to pay $4.5 million because there are 9 other options, while a team signing a 5-win OFer would be expected to pay the full $4.5 million (or more) per win.
So, when they figure value per WAR
do they just take the aggregate actually salary of free agents and divide by the aggregate actual WAR? or is there more to it?
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
by Royal Kingdom on Jun 22, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
If they include all salaries, the number is going to be way too low
due to all the young players in their pre-arb and early arb years.
So he said it is difficult for Royals to sign FA
How difficult is it actually? Do players rather die instead of signing with the Royals?
Is this why there are so many former Braves because perhaps if not for owing DM some favors in the past, no one would consider coming?
I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?
by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Jun 22, 2011 1:04 PM EDT reply actions
because there is no direct evidence of it being true
sure, the royals lose out on the “fuck it, I’m getting a ring” FAs who will sign for discounts with the Yankess or whatnot. that’s a small percentage
the fact is, the royals can’t sign most FAs because they dont have the budget for it
its good for the team to subtly send out the message that players dont want to sign here, rather than just saying “we cant afford it”
fact is, the royals have signed plenty of guys. they are no different than the bottom 10 most generic/losing/small market clubs out there
The difficulty of signing guys only applies to players with multiple suitors
The only guys I can think of that we beat other teams for, we had to offer more money (Guillen), more years (Meche), or a guarantee of starting (Melky).
And that’s all that’s ever been alleged — that the Royals will have to overpay to bring in guys via free agency, so trades and bringing up our own prospects is the more efficient way to go.
but thats how a free agent market works for everyone
the team that offers the most, gets the player
most of the time, by definition, someone is overpaying/paying more than anyone else
Do you have direct evidence of that being true?
I’m not just talking about Cliff Lee, but it seems like the Yankees would be getting more free agents than they have been if it was just money.
there's only so many roster spots and attractive FAs out there
and the yankees have decent young players at a number of spots
I really think players almost always take the best offer (in terms of salary and years)
The Yankees do usually get the FA’s they target. It is very rare that they don’t, and usually when they don’t it is become another team offered more money. What happened with Cliff Lee is very rare.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't profess to be an expert on offseason transactions
But it seems to me that the Yankees are not getting the free agents they target. There are anecdotes, like last offseason, where they missed out on Crawford and Lee, but there’s also the fact that they allowed their rotation to get to the point where they’re signing multiple guys like Colon, Garcia, and this 30-year-old AAA journeyman who’s been starting for them lately. Unless they’re tying one hand behind their back, how has it gotten this bad if they’re getting the guys they target?
Plus, the larger point is that I don’t think we have any evidence either way.
There are anecdotes, like last offseason, where they missed out on Crawford and Lee,
Lee took less money. Crawford took a better, bigger offer.
but there’s also the fact that they allowed their rotation to get to the point where they’re signing multiple guys like…
They went out and got CC and Burnett when they were arguably the top two FA SP’s on the board. Last offseason they went after Lee and when they didn’t get him, they showed no interest in the next tier of SP’s. I didn’t even hear a rumor of them making an offer to De La Rosa, Pavano or any of the decent SP’s remaining after Lee rebuffed them.
Plus, the larger point is that I don’t think we have any evidence either way.
I wouldn’t say we don’t have any evidence. We don’t have conclusive evidence. But I very rarely hear even suggestions that Player X signed with a team for less money than another team offered. On the other hand, I hear very often that Team A got a certain player because they outbid Team B.
And, quite frankly, there’s good reason to believe that players take the best/biggest contract they are offered.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
There are plenty of anecdotes the other way as well
Player B signs with team X because they want to play for a winner / have a chance at a world series / etc.
The last statement is surely false. We know that players value playing for contenders, and we know that they don’t take the best/biggest contract they are offered. We know this because of the existence of no-trade clauses. Every player with a full or limited no-trade clause in their contract is a player that has traded away money for playing for certain teams.
Player B signs with team X because they want to play for a winner / have a chance at a world series / etc.
Few anecdotes which include those things plus “and he turned down less money from another team.”
We know that players value playing for contenders, and we know that they don’t take the best/biggest contract they are offered. We know this because of the existence of no-trade clauses. Every player with a full or limited no-trade clause in their contract is a player that has traded away money for playing for certain teams.
Wow, I don’t agree with this at all. How does the existence of no-trade clauses prove that players don’t take the best/biggest contracts they are offered. Yes, there are teams they don’t want to play for (or at least want to have the right to refuse to play for them, or waive the clause if they are willing to) but those clauses don’t preclude them from taking the best/biggest offers that are made to them.
Every player with a full or limited no-trade clause in their contract is a player that has traded away money for playing for certain teams.
No we don’t know that a players trade away money to get such a clause. Also, such clauses can often be used to leverage more money out of the team attempting to try to trade for the player. That’s why many players include the largest market teams in their no-trade clauses.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand how this could work
The player and team’s interests are diametrically opposed here. The team’s interest is in maximizing the trade possibility and minimizing the cost. If the player wants to limit the trade possibility, he’s going to have to give some on the cost to the team.
I know we disagreed on how the Moustakas promotion affected Betemit’s trade value, so obviously we’re coming from different frameworks on how markets/negotiations work. We may be just talking past each other, but I seriously don’t understand how a negotiation involving a no-trade clause could not cost a player money.
We may be just talking past each other, but I seriously don’t understand how a negotiation involving a no-trade clause could not cost a player money
Because I don’t think most teams are signing bigtime FA’s (the ones who can get no-trade clauses) with the intention of trading them. Therefore I believe that teams are willing to give these clauses very easily. I think if a team wants a FA, they are willing to give the NTC on top of the money, not only if the player backs down on salary or years.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2011 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, we're just coming from different places.
I don’t think I’d be aware of no trade clauses if it weren’t for the situations where a player is being offered as trade bait, but the player has a limited or full no trade clause, so the idea that the team doesn’t care about the ability to trade the player seems short sighted at best.
But the true confirmation that our basic frameworks are totally different is the idea that the team would just throw in the NTC on top of whatever $ / years are already agreed to. I think (I think) we both agree that an NTC has significant value, and in my framework, everything of value is part of the negotation — gaining one thing of value means losing something else (money? years?) of value. It sounds like your framework is just different, but I think we can each see where the other is coming from.
I think I’d be more inclined to agree with you if I’d heard many instances of a NTC being a major sticking point in negotiations or if I’d ever heard that a team lowered its offer when the player demanded a NTC. We hear lots of information/rumors during FA contract negotiations and contract extension negotiations. While we often hear that a player wants a NTC, it is only occasionally described as a major deal and potentially a deal breaker. And I certainly don’t hear about the NTC leading to lower salary or fewer guaranteed years. It seems like I’d hear that.
And I’m not saying that your point of view is ludicrous or without merit. It is certainly logical. It just seems to me that in practice, NTC’s aren’t major deals which necessitate the player getting less money.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2011 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s a very lucid explanation of your framework.
I’m usually a facts-over-theory guy, so your perspective is compelling, but I’m just not clear on whether the abasence of info on NTC’s role in negotiations represents the abasence of NTCs as a bargaining chip or an absence of information in general on how negitations play out.
And it seems like almost every front office has been squeezed by a NTC at some point, so it seems like they’d value the flexibility fairly meaningfully. So I don’t know what to think.
And it seems like almost every front office has been squeezed by a NTC at some point
I wonder how often teams are squeezed by a NTC. First of all, for large market clubs, I think it is mostly a non-issue. They aren’t signing players with the thought that when/if things go bad, they can trade the player for prospects. That just isn’t how they operate. Second, NTC’s are very often waived. Teams looking to trade a talented player are doing so because things have gone very badly for them either in terms of W/L record or payroll or both. Very often a player is happy to get of such a situation and move to a contender (and it is usually contenders who are looking to acquire such a player). And the existence of a NTC gives the player leverage with the team looking to acquire him. The player sometimes will only waive the NTC if they can negotiate a contract extension with the other club.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2011 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
"No trade list" certainly gets plenty of media attention
As a quick google search can attest.
The Royals have faced NTC issues with both Greinke and Soria, and there are at least a dozen other examples (King Felix, Dan Haren, Michael Young, Oswalt, Peavy, etc) from the last year of NTC’s playing major roles in trade negotiations.
I agree that NTCs are a non-issue for large-market teams, to the extent that they’re all (Cubs exlcuded) perennial contenders. The whole reason I brought up NTCs was to illustrate the importance to players of playing for contenders rather than for top dollar. The fact that NTCs mainly hurt teams like the Royals reinforces my impression that teams like the Royals will find bringing in free agents more difficult than contending teams making similar offers.
This Post-Dispatch article says KC is one of the most common places blocked by NTC
They’re looking at Cot’s and finding KC and Toronto repeatedly appearing as places players can block trades to. More evidence that KC will find it uniquely tough to sign free agents here.
andy pettite is one i can think of off the top of my head
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure there are examples. But they are exceptional. Exceptions that prove the rule.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 23, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
didnt we offer more money to hudson?
and its out there that in order to get meche to sign with us instead of fucking 4th place toronto we had to go 1 yr and 15 million more to sign him…thats come from both ricciardi (toronto GM) and DM
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 22, 2011 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
you can't disagree
that, all things being equal, we are most usually never chosen. this is why we over pay – if any other team offers an equal amount, and that’s fair market value, we most always have to exceed that.
that puts us at a constant disadvantage, straining our budget even further.
it isn’t overblown, but it isn’t black and white either.
by Professor Stephanie Willbanks on Jun 23, 2011 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Dynamite.
If the money’s equal…a player will choose the non-Royal organization?
Wonder why they'd do that.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I think it is difficult
(1) Franchise with a long history of losing; (2) Franchise with a long history of being cheap – will they spend what it takes to win if you sign here; and (3) Smaller midwestern city perceived to be boring.
Aside from Ewing’s last few years, KC has never been a hot free agent target.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I think it's as simple as players would rather play games that matter
Yes, they’re getting paid to play a child’s game, but it’s not fun competing in an event you have no chance of winning. These guys are competitive, they want to win. To get them to come play for a loser is going to cost more — in money, years, or playing time guarantees.
are any players really looking at lifestyle for where they sign?
MLB is dominated by personalty-less good ole boys who live in AZ/FL/TX in the offseason already. I dont think they are turned off or on by location.
I didn't say anything about lifestyle
I don’t figure most players even move to the city they sign with.
I think #1 and #2 are the big ones
But #3 is a factor I’m sure. Not necessarily because of lifestyle but just that players know nothing about KC and we fear what we don’t know. I guess my evidence is that from 1977-1990, the Royals were one of the most successful franchises in baseball – and signed one free agent – utility infielder Jerry Terrell. It wasn’t from a lack of trying either.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Then of course we were major players
And that’s because we started offering batshit crazy money. $3.25 million per year to Mark Davis?!??!!?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Francis signing was generally praised at the time
For the others, I don’t recall anybody really complaining about the money, just that the players were not very good. And at least with Frenchy and Cabera, it was noted that Moore was at least starting to sign guys under the age of 30.
The frustrating part is that it took four years for Moore to figure this part out.
two different signings for my money
Francoeur was… well… Francoeur. A whole nother ball of wax.
Cabrera was more just pointless. Just another one of Dayton’s non-solutions to the non-problem in CF that he’s pursued for the last, what, 4 or 5 years? That he then acquired Cain a few weeks later made it even more annoying.
OT: can someone quickly tell me how to post pics to a fanpost...
I don’t see the little tree…the pizzaconey must be revealed!!!
Don't be lonesome for your heroes. Be your own hero.
nevermind...figured it out...its off to the right
Don't be lonesome for your heroes. Be your own hero.
Don't get used to it.
It may have been caused by the coffee I am living off of after getting 2 hours of sleep last night
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jun 22, 2011 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you must have some kind of neuro-virus
You should get that looked into.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 22, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
This site is turning into a mouthpiece for this organization
Must have been that blogger night they hosted!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
