Matt Breen

What the players get is actually available: Baseball revenues were $10.3B last year. Players got 54.2% of this (this includes major league player salaries, benefits such as health care, playoff shares, and minor league salaries). This percentage has dropped in each of the last four years (the players' take was down 4% from 2017). Salaries DID fall last year (by around $115M). That’s $3-4M per team. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/#541e13db39d7 I guess the big question for me is what is ‘revenue’? What does that mean? Ticket sales, TV and radio rights, food and beer sales, luxury boxes, parking, baseball cards, etc., etc. I honestly don’t know what it all entails. But one thing it does NOT include was the $2.5+ billion the owners received for the sale of BamTech to Disney (the sale was done in two parts - $1B in 2015, and $1.58B last year). That netted each owner more than $85 million. None of that money was shared with the players. I am not saying it should have been - just stating what has happened. And then there are things like regional sports networks? Aren’t there teams that own parts of these? How much do they make? I don’t really know, but I’ve read it can be a lot. And what about sponsorships — like the new AmFam cash. Who gets that? When a bunch of new billboards go up in the ball park, who makes money from those deals. Are these things shared with the players? I really don’t know — and I'm guessing when people talk about all the money coming into baseball, that is the sort of thing they wonder about. With all of it, I’m sure players are probably wondering what's happening to all the cash coming into the game. The money isn't coming to them - as salaries are down. Perhaps it goes to ball park improvement or whatever, but we just don't know. Players just know that each of the owners got cut a $50M check last year for the second part of BamTech - and salaries still went down. I want to stress that I’m not saying these things need to be shared with the players, but we all see lots of money flowing into the game - money the players may or may not get a share of. (I will point out there is a flip side - as players get endorsement deals and personal appearance fees — I doubt they share that with the owners). As some have noted - really the best way to understand everything is to have the owners open their books. But we know that won't happen. I don't think many people feels like the owners should lose money on owning a team - but what's a fair profit is another question. Personally, I think a lot of the angst on the players part comes down to veterans getting squeezed out on jobs (which comes back to money). This is especially true of the average and fringe players. Teams are finding: a) You can replace veterans (read: expensive) with younger players (read: cheaper) who can do as good - or almost as good - of a job. At least, that's the hope. b) Teams gunning for the playoffs value veteran experience. With more teams willing to go into tank mode, that means there's less of a need your average and fringe veterans. This takes you back to the previous point. Teams not in contention will give young players a chance and pass on veterans. This makes for less of a demand for veterans. This means these guys have for fewer jobs available, which translates to lower pay - and fewer years - when a player in on the open market. While much of this affects the lower and mid-tier players - it will cascade to the upper levels to some degree. A guy who might have gotten four years as a free agent now might only get three. And perhaps at a few million less than five years ago. This happens as teams fill positions with players who might not be as good - but are substantially cheaper - and void of longer commitments. I realize that there are many other issues. But I think there's a big issue that the players see their friends and colleagues unable to get a gig that fits their skill and experience. This is new to them (and probably scary to many who know that time will come for them as well). And remember, these are their friends and buddies - guys they've been with for years at times. And another important point - the guys getting squeezed out of jobs - the mid and lower tier players - well they make up a much larger segment of the player population than the superstars. The superstars are going to do fine in any system. It's the guys fighting for a job and/or security that makes up a big part of the players' union. These guys will be looking to find a way to protect their future -- so they will likely be more of the ones to agitate for a strike down the road. Just my thoughts.

Wahl has a torn ACL in his right knee. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/brewers-bobby-wahl-suffers-torn-acl.html

You quite obviously have never been to San Diego Haven't lived there, but I've been to San Diego several times. Philadelphia is a much more interesting city than San Diego, unless you're afraid of snow. I've found that every city has its charms. As well as sucky things. I was in SD last fall and had a great time. Beautiful weather. People were nice. The food and beer scene is wonderful. There are so many craft brew places - I loved it. Never been to Philadelphia, so I can't speak about it.

Grandal has started 100-113 games the last four seasons. Barring injuries, I don't see that changing a bunch. Let's say he starts 100 games. That leaves 60 for Manny. At 4 ABs a game, that's 240 ABs for the year. Add in some pinch hitting and he's looking at a 250+ ABs for the season. He's had about 300 each of the last two years - so that's not that much of a change for him. I don't see the reason to get rid of Manny as his role won't change that much. We are looking at trying to win a World Series, and having quality depth will help us get there. Manny and Grandal give us an outstanding tandem - and I don't want it changed.

At this point, the only two big dollar items left on the shelf are Kimbrel and Keuchel. With Harper and Machado gone, it's time for those guys to get final offers from teams and make a decision. I guess they could hold out and hope for an injury or something, but most teams are going to have their budgets set soon. It's unlikely someone is going to suddenly find $20M available. Come March, it's bargain shopping for most clubs.

I thought Bledsoe would get around $20M - so this works out pretty good. Glad to have him back.

Imagine what Trout gets in two years (assuming he stays healthy and keeps producing a 1.000 OPS).

As for what's better - the 10-year $300M deal or 13 year $330M deal - I look at this as a 10-year, $300M deal for his age 26-35 season. Plus an extra 3-year, $30M deal for his ages 36-38 seasons. Now, is signing away your ages 36-38 seasons away for $30M a bad idea? I doubt it, but you never know. PS - this doesn't mean they'll actually pay Harper $10M a year in the final three years - I'm just framing it in that context.

Phillies lineup is looking pretty good this year. C: Realmuto 1B: Hoskins 2B: Hernandez or Kingery SS: Segura 3B: Franco OF: McCutcheon OF: Harper OF: Herrera Pretty good.

Keuchel is a quality left-handed pitcher. He would be a nice addition to our staff. If we sign him - great - if not, so be it.

Whelp, Harper to Phillies probably means they won't add Keuchel (at least, that's what I've read).

So much for my bold prediction of the Giants. I'll lock this post. Go over to ML forum for discussion. viewtopic.php?f=63&t=38159

I think for Keuchel the hope is that he can squeeze one extra year and maybe an extra million or two out of someone. At age 31, this is likely his last chance at a big pay day. If teams like the Brewers are floating a 3-year deal in the $15-18M range, I'm betting he wants Philadelphia to top that with an extra year and/or maybe a more cash. This is his big payday and he's potentially looking at an extra $20M if Philly gets involved.

I'm guessing Harper ends up in San Francisco. No proof or anything, I just think it happens. For some reason, he just doesn't seem to want to be in Philadelphia. He wants 10 years on his deal, which isn't happening for most teams. However, I think the Giants will convince themselves it will be worth it. For the Giants, Harper represents a superstar caliber player that they do not possess in the majors or minors (Joey Bart has all star potential, but it several years away). The club can build around Harper - a process that will probably have more losing than winning in the next few seasons. But if the club plays things correctly, they could be retooled in a few years. For the Giants, they were bad last year, but they had a ton of injuries. Going into 2019, their rotation is questionable, with a bunch of guys coming off injuries and/or ineffectiveness (the likely candidates are MadBum, Derek Holland, Jeff Samardzija, Dereck Rodriguez, Drew Pomeranz and some filler types), but the bullpen was excellent last year. The hitters are aging and many coming off injuries: Crawford, Posey, Panik, Longoria, Belt, Cameron Maybin, Gerardo Parra. Even adding in Harper you have a questionable lineup. But having Harper would be huge for them. This teams really lacks a power bat. In the end, the Giants can hope and pray their old players stay healthy and produce, and with luck, they could sniff at the playoffs this year. But the more likely scenario is that the team falters and the club trades away any decent veterans for young players - guys who can be part of the rebuild. It's not an ideal scenario for Harper, but he seems to want to be on the west coast (he's from Vegas), and this gets him there with his 10 year contract. And for the Giants, it gives them a guy to build around. All just a guess.

How about this idea: Players are granted Free Agency: a) At the age of 28 after serving at least four full seasons in the majors (you could tweak the age - 28 is just an idea) or b) At the age of 30 - no matter how many years of service or c) After six full seasons (so basically how it is now). This allows guys who come up early to become FAs prior to age 28. The team will control most players for at least four full years, and it gets a lot of players to free agency earlier. Also, it gets late bloomers to free agency at a point where they still have chance to score a decent contract. Also, teams will have no incentive to keep a 23 year old player in the minors an extra month or two since he will be a FA in six years anyhow. It doesn't really help the guys like Machado or Harper - who came up at age 19-20 - but that's okay. Those guys will be fine. The most they will have to play under their original team will be 6 years (but less than 7). Just an idea. Pick it apart. Show me the downsides and upsides and sideways!

Opt outs in contracts almost NEVER favor the team. The only situation I can see it helping a team is if a player opts out early is if the club isn't forced to pay for the later career years (which are often not that good). As for players not using opt outs -- David Price did not use his this past off season. He had $127M over 4 years left on his deal - no way he got more than that in free agency. And Masahiro Tanaka did not opt out of his contract after the 2017 season (he had 2 years and $67M on his deal remaining). He potentially could have gotten more, but coming off a bad season, that's debatable. So it happens - but it usually means the player has dealt with some injury or performance issues. Again, an opt out pretty much only protects the player. I'm guessing the Red Sox would have been okay with losing Price this off season in exchange for shedding $30M+ in salary.

I'm betting Keuchel is waiting until Harper signs. He's hoping a team such as Philly misses on Harper, and decides to chase him with a nice offer. Once Harper is off the board, Keuchel is the last top free agent other than Kimbrel. I do believe that Philadelphia is the wild card here, as they want impact players and have the money to spend - but only if Harper signs elsewhere. I don't see the other teams going after Harper (LA, SF -- even SD or ChiSox) as being super motivated to giving Keuchel a big contract. That leaves Philly as his best hope.

Eight years is a long time for any contract, but I can see this working for Colorado (assuming Arenado doesn't opt out in three years). Arenado is almost 28, meaning his contract runs through age 35. While those later years might not be that good, it's not like you're going into the late 30s or even age 40 range (as with Pujols or Cabrera). Those are years where guys can really break down. So, good for Arenado and the Rockies. Nice to see it work out. I love the consistency that Arenado provides. And while he isn't as good outside of Coors field, he's not bad (the last three years: 1.057 OPS at Coors, .830 OPS on the road). And it should be noted that he plays a ton of games in LA, SD and SF - all parks that aren't particularly hitter friendly.

Boston sports writer Nick Cafardo died at age 62 today. I always thought Cafardo was a pretty decent writer. While he obviously was a Boston guy, he didn't always wear him home-team goggles, so I appreciated reading his stuff. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26048827/nick-cafardo-long-boston-globe-baseball-writer-dies-62

$2M plus the opportunity to get an addition $1M in incentives. Solid signing. If he plays like he did in 2017 the Tigers will have done well. Otherwise, they can cut ties and not be out too much cash or tied to him for more than one year.

The TYME machine is such a classic it's actually got a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TYME TYME is money!!! The TYME Machine was strictly in Wisconsin - but it was all over the state. As far as I realized, all ATMs were TYME machines.

My in-laws still call the couch a davenport. Absolutely brilliant.

Yep, it was thongs as well for me when I was younger (I'm 54). I had forgotten about calling them that.

My in-laws still call the couch a davenport. Even after telling them it's a term hardly anyone uses anymore, my father-in-law (age 70) still says it to people. I heard him on the phone talking to a cable or phone person - and he was saying to them, "The connection is behind the davenport" or something like that. He repeated that about five times until he finally said sofa. And then he acts all bewildered that no one understands what the heck he is saying. My son, who's 19, loves to tease his grandfather whenever he says 'Davenport'. "What, grandpa? What's that? The what? The city in Iowa?" He just goes on and on until his grandpa acknowledges the 'davenport' as a couch or sofa.

I don't see any real downside in this. It's a minor league deal. No one is expecting Lawrie to be a major league player come April. After not playing for two years, he's doing to need to some playing time to get back into playing shape (mental and physical). If Lawrie does well, he gives you a versatile right handed bat. If he fails - well, such is life.