So uhhhh who's going to sign all these free agents?

[Bertz]

Despite the calendar and the grousing, the offseason is pretty young.  6 of MLBTR's top 10 FAs are still on the board, 10 of the top 20, and 28 of the top 50.  Last year 41 of MLBTR's top 50 had signed by New Years, and Andrew Benintendi at #15 was the top rated player unsigned.

If you look around the league though, there does not look to be a lot of demand, so the situation might not change very quickly.  The Giants and Yankees are signaling they are likely to pull down high-end SPs, but everyone else is indicating they're focused mid-market or lower.  I've gone through each non-Cub team below based on what's out there for them (or failing that their history), and it very much looks like a lot of the same (in quotes to avoid endless scrolling)

Quote

 

Dodgers - Who horsefeathering knows anymore, but *seems* like their shopping list at this point is just a RHH bench outfielder and some relief help

Phillies & Braves - Philly was surprisingly in on Yamamoto and the Braves got whispered with Cease prior to the Sale trade, but generally both appear to have finished their shopping save for some bench/bullpen tinkering

Yankees - Definitely going to come down with a SP of substance, but they seem set on bats

Mets - Yamamoto aside, all indications are they're holding back this winter. Stearns seems ready to pounce on really good deals if they come available but not shop top of market. Would guess they pull down a DH at minimum 

Red Sox - Plenty of money available and lots of needs overlap with the Cubs. Indications from Chris Cotillo though are that they're shopping mostly mid-market (Teoscar Hernandez and James Paxton specifically)

Blue Jays - They were certainly big game hunting earlier in the offseason but they are reportedly focusing on mid-market options like Joc Pederson now

Giants - Definitely going for a major SP. Their payroll is about $30M south of where it was last year, and that's the highest it had ever been. On the offensive side, they don't have any huge holes in the lineup, but generally are too left handed and need some thump. They have lefties at all three outfield spots and 1B so a RHH 1B/DH seems likely

Rangers, Twins, Padres & Mariners - Aggressive GMs with teams on the sweet spot of the win curve. Unfortunately they're among the teams getting hit hardest by the RSN drama so it seems like they are all resigned to to bargain hunting

Astros - Generally avoid the LT and they're already right at the line. Most indications are they might actually subtract a bit (Framber Valdez' and to a lesser extent Alex Bregman's names are out there)

Angels - Lots of money available, but they're quite bad. Arte Moreno is a very involved owner and not shackled by logic so they could be in at basically any level and it wouldn't be a major shock. Have been explicitly tied to Blake Snell

Reds - Could probably still use more pitching, but with how cheap their owner is and the moves they've already made they're probably done on the SP front

Orioles - Definitely in on starting pitching, though super cheap owners mean they're probably only threats for trade options like Cease or the Sean Manaea tier of FA starters

Tigers, Dbacks, Marlins, and Nats - Teams on the upswing seemingly with a bit of money left to throw around. Probably shopping more mid-market but each has some history of splash moves

Cardinals - Might grab some relief help, but signaled they were largely done after Gray 

Royals - Their little outburst with Wacha and Lugo seems to be it. They did have brief ties to Stroman before that, so maybe they've got another mid-sized move in them

Rockies - Who knows with them, but there have been no indications yet they're planning on doing anything

Guardians, A's, Pirates, White Sox, and Rays - lol come on now

Brewers - They might do a one year deal of substance, but they generally seem on the fence of whether to tear it down or go for it one more time, so they're certainly not doing anything multi-year

 

We'll see what Jed does with his opportunity, but at this moment waiting out the market looks like it could pay off.

[Illiterate Scholar]

Good breakdown. As you mentioned previously, Jed is probably in a good spot for the position players. There's enough competition for the top remaining starting pitchers that I'm not super confident that free agency will solve that need. Hopefully that's where he can finally get creative in a trade and not just settle for a Hosmer/Mancini starting pitcher equivalent. 

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, Bertz said:

Despite the calendar and the grousing, the offseason is pretty young.  6 of MLBTR's top 10 FAs are still on the board, 10 of the top 20, and 28 of the top 50.  Last year 41 of MLBTR's top 50 had signed by New Years, and Andrew Benintendi at #15 was the top rated player unsigned.

If you look around the league though, there does not look to be a lot of demand, so the situation might not change very quickly.  The Giants and Yankees are signaling they are likely to pull down high-end SPs, but everyone else is indicating they're focused mid-market or lower.  I've gone through each non-Cub team below based on what's out there for them (or failing that their history), and it very much looks like a lot of the same (in quotes to avoid endless scrolling)

We'll see what Jed does with his opportunity, but at this moment waiting out the market looks like it could pay off.

Nice breakdown. Yes, it could pay off. It also can be an epic failure as each player finds one team to actually give them a contract at market rate. He does run the risk of being shut out with this philosophy. And I don’t know why the Cubs feel the need to operate like this. I don’t feel they have to play this game. But they are, so hopefully it ends well. 

[jersey cubs fan]

The answer in descending order is:

Yankees

Dodgers

Giants

Mets

Red Sox

Atlanta

Cubs

Phillies

Cardinals

Padres

Angels

Dodgers, again

Diamondbacks

[Stratos]

Who might be in on Bellinger?  Jays are out.

[Bertz]

37 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Who might be in on Bellinger?  Jays are out.

I think for both Bellinger and Chapman their options look like Cubs, hope the Mariners secretly have money, hope the Angels are willing to spend to paper over the embarrassment of the Ohtani debacle, or hope the Tigers or someone else from that group decide to play mystery team.  Never count out Boras but honestly it looks bad for him right now.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, Bertz said:

I think for both Bellinger and Chapman their options look like Cubs, hope the Mariners secretly have money, hope the Angels are willing to spend to paper over the embarrassment of the Ohtani debacle, or hope the Tigers or someone else from that group decide to play mystery team.  Never count out Boras but honestly it looks bad for him right now.

That would be great for us.

[Bertz]

Move the Reds from "probably done" to "definitely done"

[imb]

lol baseball is so cooked. everyone sees what the dodgers and the yankees are doing and have just given up

[Rob]

3 hours ago, imb said:

lol baseball is so cooked. everyone sees what the dodgers and the yankees are doing and have just given up

That has nothing to do with it.

As I said endlessly during all the rule changes, making the playoffs this large disincentivizes teams from trying to win 100+ games. With this many short series, the playoffs are very nearly a crapshoot.

If an owner is looking to maximize their investment, they'll put up a payroll just good enough to sneak into the playoffs and hope the team rides a hot streak, like the Diamondbacks nearly pulled off last year.

Some franchises (Dodgers, Mets, Yankees) are run like baseball teams. But most of them, including the Cubs, are run like investments. The word from ownership is maximize the investment. Jed is doing exactly what he ought to do with a directive like that.

[imb]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

That has nothing to do with it.

As I said endlessly during all the rule changes, making the playoffs this large disincentivizes teams from trying to win 100+ games. With this many short series, the playoffs are very nearly a crapshoot.

If an owner is looking to maximize their investment, they'll put up a payroll just good enough to sneak into the playoffs and hope the team rides a hot streak, like the Diamondbacks nearly pulled off last year.

Some franchises (Dodgers, Mets, Yankees) are run like baseball teams. But most of them, including the Cubs, are run like investments. The word from ownership is maximize the investment. Jed is doing exactly what he ought to do with a directive like that.

shut the horsefeathers up rob

[imb]

"as i said endlessly" ok dan patrick keep us updated 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Picking the three teams that have a big revenue advantage over the other 27 as the 'actually tries to win at baseball' dividing line is very funny.  Also, the Dodgers are not blowing out their payroll like the Cohen Mets, they are spending big but are closer to 3rd in the NL than they are to 1st.  Their offseason is a combination of being well run(FAs know they'll compete), having a huge revenue advantage over everyone else(their TV deal is a near 9 figure head start on 2nd place), losing a bunch of money off their payroll(Bauer + Kershaw + Urias alone is ~57 million), and having a built-in geographical advantage(LA is "close" to Japan and rich people love living there).

[imb]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Picking the three teams that have a big revenue advantage over the other 27 as the 'actually tries to win at baseball' dividing line is very funny.  Also, the Dodgers are not blowing out their payroll like the Cohen Mets, they are spending big but are closer to 3rd in the NL than they are to 1st.  Their offseason is a combination of being well run(FAs know they'll compete), having a huge revenue advantage over everyone else(their TV deal is a near 9 figure head start on 2nd place), losing a bunch of money off their payroll(Bauer + Kershaw + Urias alone is ~57 million), and having a built-in geographical advantage(LA is "close" to Japan and rich people love living there).

no kidding, its almost like 27 teams see 3 teams with a huge revenue advantage and are saying whats the point. great point man

[Soul]

If those three teams are the model for how to run a baseball team then I’d say the model needs an overhaul.  The last one to win a (real) WS was NYY in 2009. 

[Rob]

3 hours ago, imb said:

shut the horsefeathers up rob

If you want to complain about how things ought to be, I'm right there with you. It's absolutely horsefeathers infuriating to see teams like the Pirates who could absolutely compete if their ownership wasn't more concerned about making a buck. But the reality is absolutely nobody sees what other teams are doing and decides it's not worth bothering trying to win.

If you'd rather sit here doing Portnoy style hottakes, be my guest. But it's lazy nonsense, and you know better.

Edited January 3, 2024 by Rob

[imb]

10 minutes ago, Rob said:

If you want to complain about how things ought to be, I'm right there with you. It's absolutely horsefeathers infuriating to see teams like the Pirates who could absolutely compete if their ownership wasn't more concerned about making a buck. But the reality is absolutely nobody sees what other teams are doing and decides it's not worth bothering trying to win.

If you'd rather sit here doing Portnoy style hottakes, be my guest. But it's lazy nonsense, and you know better.

we're all saying the same thing, you just don't realize it because you're too busy cosplaying your objection your honor lawyer horsefeathers on nsbb 

outside of the few and the proud, no one wants to win because you can make easier money not trying. some teams are Capital T trying because their org is in better shape thanks to smart FOs or sexy coastal locations that can lure big names. the cubs would have gladly paid ohtani $500m or whatever, not because they would win with him but because they'd turn that $500m into a bil. When he poofed they said nevermind. It's not like they were in win-now mode when they were chasing him, he would have been good for the bottom line.

we're talking about why no one is signing these FAs. no ones signing them because it literally doesn't matter whether you win 78 games or 86 games, and there's no difference between winning 68 games and 78 games. go back and find the part where i said no one wants to compete with the dodgers and yankees payroll, counselor. i said no one wants to bother spending $20m for marginal improvements when all the stars will only go to 2 or 3 locations. what's the point when the money flows regardless

 

[Rob]

17 minutes ago, imb said:

we're all saying the same thing, you just don't realize it because you're too busy cosplaying your objection your honor lawyer horsefeathers on nsbb 

outside of the few and the proud, no one wants to win because you can make easier money not trying. some teams are Capital T trying because their org is in better shape thanks to smart FOs or sexy coastal locations that can lure big names. the cubs would have gladly paid ohtani $500m or whatever, not because they would win with him but because they'd turn that $500m into a bil. When he poofed they said nevermind. It's not like they were in win-now mode when they were chasing him, he would have been good for the bottom line.

we're talking about why no one is signing these FAs. no ones signing them because it literally doesn't matter whether you win 78 games or 86 games, and there's no difference between winning 68 games and 78 games. go back and find the part where i said no one wants to compete with the dodgers and yankees payroll, counselor. i said no one wants to bother spending $20m for marginal improvements when all the stars will only go to 2 or 3 locations. what's the point when the money flows regardless

 

No, what you said was other teams had "given up."

You want to complain people aren't reading actual content into your lazy hottakes, go ahead. And I get that, since being a (damn good) journalist is your primary job, reliably putting forth the same effort to post here would defeat the fun, escapist quality of NSBB. So I don't blame you for being a lazy bugger. But we aren't mind-readers.

That said, we seem to be largely in agreement now that you've actually said something worth saying, so let's just drop the personal horsefeathers. I'll let you have the last stab at me, if you're feeling so inclined.

Edited January 3, 2024 by Rob

[imb]

what do you call not trying to sign good baseball players because it doesn't matter if you win or lose genius. look, at the end of the day im horsefeathers around for laughs and im still right and you're trying too hard

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

That has nothing to do with it.

As I said endlessly during all the rule changes, making the playoffs this large disincentivizes teams from trying to win 100+ games. With this many short series, the playoffs are very nearly a crapshoot.

If an owner is looking to maximize their investment, they'll put up a payroll just good enough to sneak into the playoffs and hope the team rides a hot streak, like the Diamondbacks nearly pulled off last year.

Some franchises (Dodgers, Mets, Yankees) are run like baseball teams. But most of them, including the Cubs, are run like investments. The word from ownership is maximize the investment. Jed is doing exactly what he ought to do with a directive like that.

The Dbacks winning 84 games, getting into the playoffs, and getting to the WS isn't good for the game.  They still had the odds stacked against them but teams not trying 100% shouldn't be a winning strategy, like tanking.  I agree they need to reduce the playoff randomness more.

Edited January 3, 2024 by Stratos

[squally1313]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

The Dbacks winning 84 games, getting into the playoffs, and getting to the WS isn't good for the game.  They still had the odds stacked against them but teams not trying 100% shouldn't be a winning strategy, like tanking.  I agree they need to reduce the playoff randomness more.

But they can't. You want to make it more likely that the best teams win the World Series, you either go Premier League style and just give it to the team with the best record, or you have two, maybe four teams make the playoffs and make them play like 21 game series. Both of which will obviously never happen. They aren't going to lengthen the playoffs and they aren't going to cut into regular season games. They tried to give the best teams an advantage with a bye and you had idiots like Brandon McCarthy talking about how the week off was actually a disadvantage. Ultimately if you're going to make every team play at least three series and you realize that in a best case scenario the favored/best team has a 65% of winning each series (probably high), that's at most a 27% of winning it all. 

There's no real good answer here, and IMB and Rob both made good points in their own ways. Unless you run a perfect farm system and/or you luck into Acuna/Albies/etc and the deals they signed, winning 100 games is horsefeathers expensive (and/or impossible, if you're a small market team that FAs will never sign with). Winning 75-85 games, staying competitive into late summer to pump the attendance and subscription numbers, is way easier and cheaper. 

[CubinNY]

IMB is correct. Collusion is hard to prove, but that's what we are seeing. It's probably tacitly being done, but they are all doing it. They can change the rules of the actual games all they want. But the way they are doing business is hurting the sport from a fan perspective. The currency in baseball should be wins, but it's not. 

[Rob]

9 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

IMB is correct. Collusion is hard to prove, but that's what we are seeing. It's probably tacitly being done, but they are all doing it. They can change the rules of the actual games all they want. But the way they are doing business is hurting the sport from a fan perspective. The currency in baseball should be wins, but it's not. 

Collusion implies some secrecy. This was all done right out in the open, with the full consent of the MLBPA. Tony Clark is an embarrassment.

[Bertz]

Sounds like they are probably gonna be wrapped up after they close a deal with Joc Pederson.

 

[CubinNY]

If I'm the union, I'm calling every union rep to try to get the players on board to pay a % for a huge strike fund or at least tell them to set money aside because they are going to war in a few years.