Transmogrified Tiger

The Nationals are notorious for doing deferrals that go beyond the years of the contract, Bobby Bonilla style. That doesn't change the luxury tax calculations though, because the total contract amount and the duration the player is under contract remain the same.

I can see the logic, but that also takes a lot of money and still leaves you with a SP need. I'm also a bit skeptical that the Marlins, payroll slashing as they are, would trade Yelich for Javy/Russell, who have the same time to FA and only provide marginal savings through arbitration(especially for Russell). More likely I think you would see a deal for Machado and then one of the infielders going for a controlled SP, it would have to basically be Archer or Stroman for me to be excited about the prospect. You lose infield depth when Machado leaves(especially if it's Happ going for Machado), but you also get a temporary upgrade at SS, a Darvish caliber pitcher without the dollar cost, which means that when the temporary SS upgrade(and his arb salary) disappears you can go after Harper unfettered. Machado (1 year) + Harper (increased likelihood) + Archer v. Darvish + Happ + Alzolay + Russell/Baez + remainder of Archer/Stroman package

Luhnow seems to worship at the Friedman/Mozeliak altar of efficiency, so color me skeptical he's going to do what it takes to be the top bid for a 31 year old free agent SP.

Brett with a good look at Cishek's 2017: http://www.bleachernation.com/2017/12/19/steve-cishek-was-all-universe-after-midseason-trade-to-rays-this-year-cubs-getting-that-guy/ The TL;DR is Cishek was amazing after he was traded to the Rays(and made particular strides against LH hitters), and that's probably in large part to the pitch mix and release point changes they implemented. Probably not a surprise they pulled the trigger on him with Hickey on board then.

My understanding is that what you've described would lower the luxury tax value of the contract, but in that extreme an example MLB would almost certainly not approve the deal. You're allowed to frontload a contract(Zobrist's is frontloaded, for example), but if you're doing so with an opt out that makes it a certainty those other years aren't going to be used, MLB would step in. You could maybe get away with it if the dollar amounts after the opt out were a high enough proportion of the total contract, but there's also a reason you haven't seen this in the luxury tax era like the NHL did.

The luxury tax difference between 6/130 and 4/100(or 6/150) isn't all that great. The teams that are hesitant to give a 25M AAV aren't going to be sprinting to offer 20M with a longer duration.

I don't think that part is his opinion or analysis. The Astros and Twins are just the other teams rumored to be interested, IIRC. Yeah, if you look at MLB Trade Rumors, the Twins seem to want to make a move for him, but everyone else's pursuit is pretty lukewarm. There's enough teams out there that his market isn't going to fall to 3/60 or something silly like that, but there's probably a sweet spot of AAV and years that scares off most of those teams that are keeping tabs but is still a fair bit less than what Darvish was expected to get in September.

For those missing Len and JD, this is mostly innocuous but JD gets a couple quality zingers in. [tweet] [/tweet]

You add prospects as necessary to sell off the final year of Zobrist's deal. That's pretty much it, pending discoveries from the season(e.g. Morrow's arm explodes and RP need reinforced). The assumption here is that they don't care about exceeding the luxury tax up to the 40 million threshold in which they start hurting draft picks.

so this is the version of Theo we're gonna get this year, I ain't mad about it

Out of curiosity, what do you think of plays like this, where there is firm possession(if only momentarily) before getting the ball jarred loose?

This article makes the argument that shifting is not actually helpful and may actually be hurting teams. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/36733/baseball-therapy-burn-shifts/

I'd explore it. But, only if its at the league minimum. He was awful last year obviously and lost close to 2 MPH off his FB. Is it real or did his pitching coaches horsefeathers him up? My guess is its the former and he may justbbe at the stage where he's not a ML pitcher anymore. But, I'd take a look and find out, I guess. It looks like he's lost about 1 mph from his Cubs days, he was 89-90 as a starter and 91-92 as a reliever, and last year it was more 88s as a starter and 90s as a reliever.

Everyone just realized this offseason that Lance Lynn is actually a pitching machine stolen from a Pennsylvania batting cage, modified to throw with a little movement, and then stuffed with pillows to look like a person.

It could be either, my mind went to a lefty first. Probably because if it's a lefty you're seeing their face, and if it's a righty you are seeing the back of their head.

I have to assume that's correct, otherwise you'd start to see a huge uptick in deferrals. Also counting deferral years doesn't follow the logic of how similar mechanics are handled like signing bonuses or option years.

This is going to sound worse than I mean it, but what problem does Machado solve? He likely gives you plus defense at SS, but the Cubs get less marginal benefit from that than maybe any team in recent memory. He should be a good hitter(elite for his position), which is an improvement. But he hasn't been steady in that regard so we can't play up certainty as a benefit either. He's obviously not a long term solution either. It seems like trying to wedge Machado in simply because he's available and not because he actually improves the team in proportion with his cost. Let someone else trade for him and then pounce on Gausman/Britton, which would move the needle more for this team, have longer term benefits, and probably have similar costs.

The only person under contract beyond Bryant's arbitration years is Heyward. There's definitely some risk with all of Bryant, Baez, Russell, and Schwarber hitting FA the same year, but that's so far away as to not be a concern impacting today's decisions, because they may extend, trade, or not care about the non-Bryant guys by that point. Also, predicting the composition of the rest of the roster in 4 years is impossible.

This really gets so undersold. "What if we can't keep all the position players through arbitration?" "You mean what if we have to trade Baez or Schwarber so we can have Bryce Harper for the back half of his 20's, plus the return from that trade?"

Smyly's contract is no greater than that of a glorified Duensing. They aren't going to tie their hand behind their back for this year's rotation just because he might look like a rotation candidate next year in his first full season back from TJS. I'm not saying that means Darvish, but there's no reason to shy away from a multi-year solution. Any of the starters could fall on their face or have their arms explode, or most likely, Smyly doesn't look like a guy worth guaranteeing anything but relief innings to. As far as Harper goes, I'm thinking the bite of the luxury tax plus a plethora of top of market options keep him from going that high. I could be wrong though. Its more Chatwood than Smyly, for me. Again, they COULD make it work, but the Chatwood move seems odd to me, if Darvish is the other addition. I do think Corbin would have been a better tag team partner, in this scenario. Of course, Corbin is still in Arizona currently too. I can appreciate the desire for maximum flexibility, but they're going to try to win the world series next year. I don't know how better to say it than they aren't going to tie their hands behind their back this year for theoretical flexibility next year. There's probably a point in a hypothetical Darvish contract where they cross a threshold where they have to consider next year more strongly, but Darvish is the highest dollar option and only a proxy for 'multi-year SP' for the point of this argument.

You aren't going to limit yourself to injury rehabs and rentals for this last rotation spot simply because you guaranteed Smyly 5 million next year. You probably couldn't offer Harper a 40 million AAV, but I'm skeptical his market goes that high, and even that isn't so difficult with a move of any consequence. I think it'll go over 40 personally. But, its not just Smyly and his 5, its Chatwood and his 12.7 too. To me, it'd seem more realistic to have found a Corbin or something like that, on a smaller trade, to fill that 5th spot and save the added money for next year. Smyly's contract is no greater than that of a glorified Duensing. They aren't going to tie their hand behind their back for this year's rotation just because he might look like a rotation candidate next year in his first full season back from TJS. I'm not saying that means Darvish, but there's no reason to shy away from a multi-year solution. Any of the starters could fall on their face or have their arms explode, or most likely, Smyly doesn't look like a guy worth guaranteeing anything but relief innings to. As far as Harper goes, I'm thinking the bite of the luxury tax plus a plethora of top of market options keep him from going that high. I could be wrong though.

You aren't going to limit yourself to injury rehabs and rentals for this last rotation spot simply because you guaranteed Smyly 5 million next year. You probably couldn't offer Harper a 40 million AAV, but I'm skeptical his market goes that high, and even that isn't so difficult with a move of any consequence.

i'm blanking. what is BAM? It was the technology arm that created MLB.tv but has expanded to provide streaming technology to other sports and also some movie/TV streaming stuff after it was spun off/sold.

A report out of Japan seems to be indicating in a brief blurb that the Cubs have emerged as the leader on Darvish. https://www.nikkansports.com/baseball/mlb/news/201712150000763.html

I haven't thought about this very hard, but my initial reaction is you do what it takes to buy out a year or two of Bryant's free agency as a first step. Doubt Boras allows that to happen. Boras isn't going to refuse out of spite, and ultimately it's not his decision. It'll just be expensive.