2023 Trade Deadline

[Edman85]

14 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

So the Tigers could have not offered him arbitration and then just signed him for less money? I thought once we declined, we weren't allowed to negotiate with him?

You can re-sign him after non-tendering, but obviously it takes two to tango in that regard. As a 38-year old single person, I empathize more and more with teams when I see fanbases throw daggers at them for not unilaterally signing players. Reminds me of thanksgiving.

[Edman85]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The way Jeimer's contract is structured, there might end up being practically no difference.

If Jeimer had been paid $7 million here and we traded him with two months left in the six-month season, the new team would be on the hook for a third of that, meaning $2.33MM.

Jeimer is being paid $5 million base, so the hook for the team trading for him would be $1.67MM. However, there is a clause in his contract stipulating bonuses of $200K for five plate-appearance thresholds: 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600. He is at 325 PAs now, and he will be likely over 400 at trade time. When he hits 500 and 600, it will be the responsibility of the new team to pay that remaining $400K, which will bring the new team's total nut up to $2.07MM.

The difference between $2.33MM and $2.07MM is basically a rounding error on a big league financial sheet, so I wouldn't think that the trade value of the lower number is more favorable as to affect what would come back in return.

Rounding error on a big league financial sheet until you are up against the CBT and you are suddenly a bit more restricted in free agency if you go over. Yes, such a small overage is also on the margins tax-wise, but it is the other penalties that kick in that I do think teams are trying to avaoid.

[theroundsquare]

17 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

So the Tigers could have not offered him arbitration and then just signed him for less money? I thought once we declined, we weren't allowed to negotiate with him?

if they offer him arbitration, they are in the arb process.  in the process, there will be either an agreement between the player and team, or a binding arb decision.  If they decline arb, which they did, the player becomes a free agent.  they could negotiate, but the player is a free agent and can make his own decisions, and he may prefer to be elsewhere.

 

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Edman85 said:

ntil you are up against the CBT

But that the Tigers were anywhere near that particular problem.....

[Edman85]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

But that the Tigers were anywhere near that particular problem.....

No, but in terms of trade value, the teams buying right now are.

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

You can re-sign him after non-tendering, but obviously it takes two to tango in that regard. As a 38-year old single person, I empathize more and more with teams when I see fanbases throw daggers at them for not unilaterally signing players. Reminds me of thanksgiving.

On one level, I get the sentiment that, as fans, we should want them to go out and retain, or even overpay, players. Or even that there's some "hindsight is better than 20/20" involved here. Certainly, theoretically, I would love for the Tigers to spend infinity billion dollars on every big name free agent in every free agent cycle.

But realistically, there is a business side to this.... the game exists for the fans, but acting as a fiduciary to an organization comes with responsibilities to understand the whole scope of an organization, beyond what we know looking at it from the outside as fans. And part of that responsibility is, to the best extent possible, not paying more for players than what they are worth on the open market. Sure, we can look at it as just Candy getting a slight overpay, but if you make a habit of it, it adds up. 

What I keep coming back to is that, realistically, the only chance the Tigers had to retain him was to overpay him. I understand why they shouldn't have felt obliged to do that... I'm happy that he's an "old friend" having success elsewhere, good for him. But he wasn't worth $7 million, so it's hard for me to feel much sympathy or regret for the decision that the Tigers made. And I'm guessing most other GMs and Presidents in that same situation would have done the same thing.

[Tiger337]

30 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

But to get top tier players, you need to offer multi-year deals. I'm not sure anyone likes it except the players...lol

Sure, but you need to pick the right players to offer them too.  Ideally, a team gets their best players signed up long-term before they hit free agency.  

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

On one level, I get the sentiment that, as fans, we should want them to go out and retain, or even overpay, players. Or even that there's some "hindsight is better than 20/20" involved here. Certainly, theoretically, I would love for the Tigers to spend infinity billion dollars on every big name free agent in every free agent cycle.

But realistically, there is a business side to this.... the game exists for the fans, but acting as a fiduciary to an organization comes with responsibilities to understand the whole scope of an organization, beyond what we know looking at it from the outside as fans. And part of that responsibility is, to the best extent possible, not paying more for players than what they are worth on the open market. Sure, we can look at it as just Candy getting a slight overpay, but if you make a habit of it, it adds up. 

What I keep coming back to is that, realistically, the only chance the Tigers had to retain him was to overpay him. I understand why they shouldn't have felt obliged to do that... I'm happy that he's an "old friend" having success elsewhere, good for him. But he wasn't worth $7 million, so it's hard for me to feel much sympathy or regret for the decision that the Tigers made. And I'm guessing most other GMs and Presidents in that same situation would have done the same thing.

I feel very little connection to the team owner and the finances of the owner are of no concern of mine.  The bigger the budget the better for me the fan.  I get that people like to play GM and I play that game myself sometimes, but in the end it comes down to the players.  I want the Tigers to have good and entertaining players and the owner making money or the GM being efficient just does not matter much to me.  

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I feel very little connection to the team owner and the finances of the owner are of no concern of mine.  The bigger the budget the better for me the fan. 

Believe it or not, I actually agree.

But running a baseball team and being a fan come with much different responsibilities.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Believe it or not, I actually agree.

But running a baseball team and being a fan come with much different responsibilities.

I understand that, but when the Tigers lose a player that I like (and I am not really talking about Candelario because he's not very important) I am not going to be happy even if it's the "right" financial move.  For example, if Greene becomes a star and they trade him in a few years for less than he's worth because they don't feel they can afford his contract,  I am not going to rationalize it by saying they made a smart business move.  I am just going to be disappointed that they lost him.   

[Jim Cowan]

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

As a fan, I'd root for both.  When your team increases the budget, that is generally a good thing.  The only kind of contract I worry about is a long term contract where you will be stuck watching a player for too many decline years.  As far as one or two year deals, the higher the budget the better.  

I agree, sign everybody, but Mike Ilitch was kind of unusual that way and I think it's obvious that there is a budget now.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

For example, if Greene becomes a star and they trade him in a few years for less than he's worth because they don't feel they can afford his contract,  I am not going to rationalize it by saying they made a smart business move.  I am just going to be disappointed that they lost him.   

I would be right there with you.

Moving on from Jeimer Candelario because he didn't play well enough in 2022 to justify that rich of a contract is a little different from your hypothetical though 

Edited June 30, 2023 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Rounding error on a big league financial sheet until you are up against the CBT and you are suddenly a bit more restricted in free agency if you go over. Yes, such a small overage is also on the margins tax-wise, but it is the other penalties that kick in that I do think teams are trying to avaoid.

I don’t think I’m clear on your point, then. I thought you were talking about the return on trade based on what a team would have to pay the player for the remainder of the year. 

[Tiger337]

17 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I would be right there with you.

Moving on from Jeimer Candelario because he didn't play well enough in 2022 to justify that rich of a contract is a little different from your hypothetical though 

It is different from the hypothetical, but the point remains the same.  I am a fan who wants to see the best team possible.  If they dropped Candelario so they would have money in their budget to sign a Lorenzen (have no idea if that's true), I would see that as a negative rather than a shrewd move.  

[Tenacious D]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

It is different from the hypothetical, but the point remains the same.  I am a fan who wants to see the best team possible.  If they dropped Candelario so they would have money in their budget to sign a Lorenzen (have no idea if that's true), I would see that as a negative rather than a shrewd move.  

They have a pretty low budget—I would be majorly bummed if that decision was driven by money.  They could have easily afforded both Lorenzen and Candelario, if they wanted to.

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

They have a pretty low budget—I would be majorly bummed if that decision was driven by money.  They could have easily afforded both Lorenzen and Candelario, if they wanted to.

I dont know that it actually is budget... it comes down to the value of the player. And they didn't want to pay Candelario more than they thought he was worth. If they thought he was actually worth $7 million, they probably would have paid him that. The market kinda validated that, given the deal he ended up signing.

As fans, who have all probably been through the process of buying a car and/or house, we should all be able to relate.

Edited June 30, 2023 by mtutiger

[Edman85]

Jeimer making $5M (plus incentives, but I'll ignore them for this point) versus $7M. Let's say the trade is now, at the mid-season point to make the math easy. A team picking up $5M Jeimer adds roughly $2.5M to their CBT bill. A team picking up $7M Jeimer adds roughly $3.5M to their CBT bill.

Let's say that the team acquiring has $3M left under the cap... a bit too precise for practicality based on the approximations on the margins with benefits and back-end roster machinations... but bear with me. The team picking up $3.5M Jeimer would go over the tax. Yes, the tax is only 20% of $500,000 (assuming they are a first time payer), or $100,000: chump change.

But... if they are trying to reset their tax liability, that could set them back. If they want to sign a QO free agent this upcoming offseason, it will cost extra draft picks. If they are losing a free agent this offseason, they will get a 4th rounder instead of a 1st or 2nd rounder in compensation. If they sign a QO free agent, they are also set to lose $1M instead of $500K from their international bonus pool. Remember a lot of those deals are agreed to ahead of time, so the extra money lost their could wreck their entire international signing class.

That immediately prior paragraph is why teams want to stay under. It's not just money. And that is why every little bit of salary could potentially matter in deadline deals.

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I dont know that it actually is budget... it comes down to the value of the player. And they didn't want to pay Candelario more than they thought he was worth. If they thought he was actually worth $7 million, they probably would have paid him that. The market kinda validated that, given the deal he ended up signing.

As fans, who have all probably been through the process of buying a car and/or house, we should all be able to relate.

But if I had as much money as they do, I could buy any car or house I wanted.  I know it's a business and they don't have all their money budgeted on the team, but I don't think their situation is comparable to mine.  If I was a billionaire with a wife and three children and I bought a two room house because it fit my business budget, I don't think my hypothetical wife would see that as a shrewd move.  

[RatkoVarda]

The Rangers announced they’ve acquired Aroldis Chapman from the Royals. Left-hander Cole Ragans and outfield prospect Roni Cabrera are going back to Kansas City in return.

[Edman85]

What if Candelario was a bit of a malcontent who was interfering with the development of players? Interfering with instruction and casting doubt on the regime's development methods. Bringing him around was only going to hinder the rebuild. I'm not saying that is true, but that's the type of stuff we don't know.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

What if Candelario was a bit of a malcontent who was interfering with the development of players? Interfering with instruction and casting doubt on the regime's development methods. Bringing him around was only going to hinder the rebuild. I'm not saying that is true, but that's the type of stuff we don't know.

LOL - maaaaybe......

actually if I had to take a WAG about a clubhouse issue it would be that if anything Jeimer seemed like he might have been a bit of a stick in the mud and maybe Hinch enjoys a looser clubhouse and Jeimer wasn't always comfortable with that.

Edited June 30, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, Edman85 said:

Jeimer making $5M (plus incentives, but I'll ignore them for this point) versus $7M. Let's say the trade is now, at the mid-season point to make the math easy. A team picking up $5M Jeimer adds roughly $2.5M to their CBT bill. A team picking up $7M Jeimer adds roughly $3.5M to their CBT bill.

Let's say that the team acquiring has $3M left under the cap... a bit too precise for practicality based on the approximations on the margins with benefits and back-end roster machinations... but bear with me. The team picking up $3.5M Jeimer would go over the tax. Yes, the tax is only 20% of $500,000 (assuming they are a first time payer), or $100,000: chump change.

But... if they are trying to reset their tax liability, that could set them back. If they want to sign a QO free agent this upcoming offseason, it will cost extra draft picks. If they are losing a free agent this offseason, they will get a 4th rounder instead of a 1st or 2nd rounder in compensation. If they sign a QO free agent, they are also set to lose $1M instead of $500K from their international bonus pool. Remember a lot of those deals are agreed to ahead of time, so the extra money lost their could wreck their entire international signing class.

That immediately prior paragraph is why teams want to stay under. It's not just money. And that is why every little bit of salary could potentially matter in deadline deals.

I am impressed that you know how all that stuff works and I am sure there are lots of stuff teams do that I don't think about.  However, there is a large variation among teams in budgets and how they approach contracts.  Teams with larger budgets still have to be careful, but they have a lot more freedom.  The Yankees and Dodgers are going to worry less about adding a 7 million salary than the Rays and Athletics.  Last year, the Rangers went nuts signing everybody.  A couple of years ago, it was the Padres.  I am not suggesting the Tigers do something similar, but making the point that teams operately differently.  

[Edman85]

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am impressed that you know how all that stuff works and I am sure there are lots of stuff teams do that I don't think about.  However, there is a large variation among teams in budgets and how they approach contracts.  Teams with larger budgets still have to be careful, but they have a lot more freedom.  The Yankees and Dodgers are going to worry less about adding a 7 million salary than the Rays and Athletics.  Last year, the Rangers went nuts signing everybody.  A couple of years ago, it was the Padres.  I am not suggesting the Tigers do something similar, but making the point that teams operately differently.  

Very true, but in the aggregate if one team in need of a 3B is put over the tax by Candelario, his value decreases because of his salary, even if the penalty is small. That is the point I wanted to make.

[mtutiger]

39 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

But if I had as much money as they do, I could buy any car or house I wanted.  

That doesn't change the fact that humans, by nature, are not inclined to pay more for a product than it is ultimately worth. Nor does it change the fact that humans are always going to try to bargain for the best possible deal.

As a fan, I wish they could just pay for every free agent and give them whatever they want. But that isn't necessarily rooted in the real world.

Edited June 30, 2023 by mtutiger

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That doesn't change the fact that humans, by nature, are not inclined to pay more for a product than it is ultimately worth. Nor does it change the fact that humans are always going to try to bargain for the best possible deal.

As a fan, I wish they could just pay for every free agent and give them whatever they want. But that isn't necessarily rooted in the real world.

But baseball is my escape from the real world. 😃