Article: Somehow, We Still Need to Keep Talking About Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery

[Matthew Trueblood]

There is a cycle on which MLB free agency operates, whereby (about halfway between any two CBA negotiations, or about twice a decade) the league engages in de facto, nearly undetectable, unpunishable collusion, as a means of putting the squeeze to the players union. It's happening right now.

Image courtesy of © Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports

This was all just this side of cute, until about the beginning of February. It still hasn't definitively worked, because Scott Boras has convinced the first three of his high-profile clients to sign this winter to do so on deals that give them opt-outs after every season. Still, we're at the point where it's inarguably troubling to see the same old playbook being run. The owners are trying to corner the players union, and soften the ground for themselves ahead of the next CBA negotiation fight. As a result, they've dug in their heels, and (as it very often is) it's two starting pitchers who are left somewhat out in the cold.

Jordan Montgomery is far less likely to be amenable to signing a short-term, opt-out-laden contract than were Cody Bellinger, Matt Chapman, or Rhys Hoskins. Unlike Bellinger and Chapman, he was traded this season and wasn't offered a qualifying offer, and that means he could have one attached to him next winter if he wanders back out into the marketplace. Unlike Chapman and Hoskins, he's coming off one of the best seasons of his career, and can't feel especially confident of being able to go back out there next winter and make any more than this.

Some of the same goes for Snell. He does have that qualifying offer hanging around his neck this winter, but he's also coming off his second Cy Young Award in the last six seasons. It would be very difficult for him to raise his stock much from here, and easy to have it sag significantly. 

For their part, teams aren't likely to like the idea of signing Snell or Montgomery to a Bellinger- or Chapman-type deal, anyway, because those contracts operate very differently for pitchers than for hitters. Carlos Rodón is the illustrative case. He signed a two-year deal worth $44 million with the Giants prior to 2022, but it included the right to opt out of the second, slightly richer season of the pact. At the trade deadline that year, the deal became a poisoned pill. Teams were too afraid that Rodón would get hurt and forego his opt-out, becoming $22.5 million in dead money on their books the following winter, to trade for him, and (since he didn't ultimately get hurt) the Giants lost him via free agency after that season.

Snell and Montgomery are both healthier and more established than Rodón was when he signed that contract with San Francisco, too, so they'd have to get something closer to $60 million over two years (or, like Bellinger, $80 million over three) to sign on to such a deal. That's going to be a tough sell on both sides, for all the reasons enumerated above.

It's fairly blatant market manipulation. It's in bad faith. In a slightly more just society, the union would be able to make a case to the National Labor Relations Board and get the owners sanctioned for this repeated behavior, which you can also spot in the offseasons entering 2013, 2014, and 2019, always with a dual goal:

1. Put pressure on agents and union leadership by frustrating players and withholding a greater share of their revenues, to establish leverage for the coming negotiations; and
2. Create a false anchor that can then be phonily pulled up in the final offseason before the actual negotiations. This move--giving richer deals right in the shadow (on either side, chronologically) of CBA deals, fighting tooth-and-nail for the last dollar in the years furthest from them--is designed to put the players on the wrong side of public opinion, once conflict (a conflict the owners are inviting, even fabricating) does burble up.

Alas, we don't live in that kind of world. So, let's briefly consider a more creative structure of contract for Snell and Montgomery, and ask ourselves whether the Cubs (hardly overcome with great options at the back end of the rotation) are in position to offer them.

Instead of a straight opt-out deal, and instead of a traditional long-term deal (which both pitchers deserve, but which sure doesn't seem to be coming at this point), the best solution available to all involved is probably some version of what Boras once dubbed the "swell-opt". In short, these would be deals similar to Bellinger's and Chapman's, but the salaries would be frontloaded, and the team would have the right to void the hurler's opt-out clause by exercising a large, multi-year option instead.

To take that from abstract to concrete, let's talk about Snell. He's the one who would give the Cubs rotation a truly different and level-changing new dynamic, but he'd cost a pretty penny. The Cubs could, plausibly, offer a three-year, $67-million deal to the two-time Cy Young winner, but $31 million of that would be paid in 2024. Then, Snell could choose to stick around for $20 million in 2025, or opt out, with the Cubs getting a chance to exercise a five-year, $150-million deal in order to prevent that. After 2025, Snell would also have the right to opt out, or else claim $16 million for 2026. The Cubs could void his opt-out by exercising a four-year, $100-million option for 2026-29.

The structure would be different for Montgomery, who is older and doesn't have the QO attached to him this winter, but that's the general idea. It's a deal that includes some substantial risk on both sides, but there's also tremendous upside for both parties. At this point in the spring, it's something Boras should be open to. The Cubs should be willing to simply pay either Montgomery or Snell upward of $150 million for five or six years, but since they clearly aren't (and have the backing of a collusive market in that respect), this is the kind of happy medium place where they could meet Boras.

According to Baseball Prospectus, the Cubs' offense is just fine. The PECOTA system projects them for a 102 DRC+, meaning the offense is above-average, as-is. They fall short because they're also projected for a 102 DRA-, meaning the pitching staff is almost exactly as below-average as the hitters are above that line. Montgomery and Snell are the remaining ways they could address that before the season begins. This kind of deal is how that would, in all likelihood, need to look.

---

What do you think of this contract structure as a compromise between the Cubs and the top remaining free agent arms? Do you view the owners' behavior as legitimate? Sound off below.

View full article

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Fangraphs crowdsourced estimates are far from gospel about true market value, but they are at least a consistently applied estimate.  Of their Top 25 estimated contracts in total value, 22 of those players have signed, the 3 remaining unsigned are Snell, Montgomery, and Clevinger.  Of those 22, the only ones who did not exceed the estimate in AAV, total value, or (in most cases) both are Kershaw, Stroman, Soler, Chapman, and Bellinger.  So setting aside the obvious cases where there are external factors(Clevinger being a pariah, Kershaw's injury and Dodger history), you have 6 players who are underperforming contract expectations, with 4 of them being Boras clients.  So this is either extremely targeted collusion, or Boras had a beyond the pale valuation on his big clients, decided to wait out for desperation to set in, and other GMs decided they couldn't wait and largely spent their money(of which there were fewer surprise players because of the Bally implosion) elsewhere.

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Fangraphs crowdsourced estimates are far from gospel about true market value, but they are at least a consistently applied estimate.  Of their Top 25 estimated contracts in total value, 22 of those players have signed, the 3 remaining unsigned are Snell, Montgomery, and Clevinger.  Of those 22, the only ones who did not exceed the estimate in AAV, total value, or (in most cases) both are Kershaw, Stroman, Soler, Chapman, and Bellinger.  So setting aside the obvious cases where there are external factors(Clevinger being a pariah, Kershaw's injury and Dodger history), you have 6 players who are underperforming contract expectations, with 4 of them being Boras clients.  So this is either extremely targeted collusion, or Boras had a beyond the pale valuation on his big clients, decided to wait out for desperation to set in, and other GMs decided they couldn't wait and largely spent their money(of which there were fewer surprise players because of the Bally implosion) elsewhere.

Superintendant Chalmers:
Good Lord, what is happening in there?

Scott Boras:
Collusion?

Superintendant Chalmers:
Collusion? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your client list?

Scott Boras:
Yes.

Superintendant Chalmers:
May I see it?

Scott Boras:
No.

[WhyCantWeWin]

I'm increasingly wanting the Cubs to add Montgomery, way too many question marks in the rotation right now and going with an complete unproven at the 5th starter seems too risky if they have actual playoff aspirations 

[LBiittner]

6 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

I'm increasingly wanting the Cubs to add Montgomery, way too many question marks in the rotation right now and going with an complete unproven at the 5th starter seems too risky if they have actual playoff aspirations 

He does fit jeds way, no compensatory pick. 

Is there such a thing with have too many lefties in the rotation. Or do we just be satisfied we have good pitcher regardless their handedness?

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

I'm increasingly wanting the Cubs to add Montgomery, way too many question marks in the rotation right now and going with an complete unproven at the 5th starter seems too risky if they have actual playoff aspirations 

I have absolutely no expectation of them adding Montgomery. I just do not remotely think that is even an option for them. And I am fine with that. They are not going over the $257M LT line and I can’t get that worked up about that decision. If they do feel they need another pitcher, maybe they do it in a trade. But, IMO that pitcher will not be making more than $14M a year. That would put them over the first line but comfortably under the second line. I don’t know if they need to do this, but if they did want to add another pitcher that is how I think they would do it. 

[mul21]

If there's any truth to the Yankees offer of 6/$150 to Snell I think the collusion argument is entirely out the window.  There's enough red flags in his profile to justify not going beyond that in AAV or years IMO.