2022-23 Detroit Tigers Offseason Thread

[RandyMarsh]

I also wonder how important it is for an MLB player to play for a winner? I mean sure all things being equal you'd rather be on a winner but atleast it seems like unlike other sports most notably the NBA you don't hear about guys demanding trades when they are on bad teams.

If there is any truth to that my theory is that in baseball the player's legacy isn't tied so much to the team success like it is for basketball and to some extent football. 

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I also wonder how important it is for an MLB player to play for a winner? I mean sure all things being equal you'd rather be on a winner but atleast it seems like unlike other sports most notably the NBA you don't hear about guys demanding trades when they are on bad teams.

If there is any truth to that my theory is that in baseball the player's legacy isn't tied so much to the team success like it is for basketball and to some extent football. 

good point. And I would guess there is a difference between pitchers and hitters in this regard. A hitter's performance on almost any hitting metric (except maybe RBI) is not very much limited by the quality of his team. A pitcher's is. Even something like FIP does not exist in a vaccuum to team performance because there are real effects of longer innings, extra outs given up, more time in the stretch, contstantly being under the pressure of being behind, that are very real for pitchers and don't really show up in any metric. It is harder for a pitcher to excel on a bad team - Steve Carlton being the exception I suppose!

Edited November 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I also wonder how important it is for an MLB player to play for a winner? I mean sure all things being equal you'd rather be on a winner but atleast it seems like unlike other sports most notably the NBA you don't hear about guys demanding trades when they are on bad teams.

If there is any truth to that my theory is that in baseball the player's legacy isn't tied so much to the team success like it is for basketball and to some extent football. 

I think it's more fun to play for a winning team, so all things being equal they would pick a winning team.  However, I think in the vast majority of cases, money is the biggest factor for baseball players.  If free agents tend to sign with winners, it's because winning teams have more money to spend either because they make bigger profits or because winning teams are more likely to take a risk on one player who could put them over the top.  

[Jim Cowan]

I also think that in Correa's case he might have Lindor's contract stuck in his head, and the Twins' offer was the only one that let him think that he had matched Lindor's AAV.  In my opinion the Twins wasted that money and I doubt that they or anyone else will do it again.  So what is he going to do then?  Sooner or later he is going to have to accept 3/87 (still an overpay I think).

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

He'll do it for $35 million, just like he did last year.  

Maybe not.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I think it's more fun to play for a winning team, so all things being equal they would pick a winning team.  However, I think in the vast majority of cases, money is the biggest factor for baseball players.  If free agents tend to sign with winners, it's because winning teams have more money to spend either because they make bigger profits or because winning teams are more likely to take a risk on one player who could put them over the top.  

If it were to come down to the Tigers offering, say, $37 million and the Yankees offering $35 million, which team would win him?

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If it were to come down to the Tigers offering, say, $37 million and the Yankees offering $35 million, which team would win him?

That's essentially equal.  If the Tigers offered two years at that price and the Yankees offered one year, I think he'd take the Tigers offer.  

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Jim Cowan said:

I also think that in Correa's case he might have Lindor's contract stuck in his head, and the Twins' offer was the only one that let him think that he had matched Lindor's AAV.  In my opinion the Twins wasted that money and I doubt that they or anyone else will do it again.  So what is he going to do then?  Sooner or later he is going to have to accept 3/87 (still an overpay I think).

I don't think a short-term deal at those salaries is an overpay for him.  It would be a bad idea for the Tigers because they are probably going to lose with him or without him for a couple of years.  

Edited November 5, 2022 by Tiger337

[SoCalTiger]

So based on some recent reading it seems Arizona and Milwaukee both need bullpen arms this off season. Since this is our only position of depth Do they have any players we need and can obtain for our relievers ?

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

That's essentially equal.  If the Tigers offered two years at that price and the Yankees offered one year, I think he'd take the Tigers offer.  

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

 

[Tenacious D]

39 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So based on some recent reading it seems Arizona and Milwaukee both need bullpen arms this off season. Since this is our only position of depth Do they have any players we need and can obtain for our relievers ?

Who are our tradable relievers?  Lange?  Maybe, Jimenez, but I have to believe he was dangled at the trade deadline. Soto could be a non-tender given his late season collapse. I don’t see much that would yield anything of value.  Teams typically sign relievers in the offseason and trade for them at the deadline.

[Tenacious D]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

 

Probably the Yankees.  Better team and ballpark to hit in, which would help net a better long term deal.  $2M is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

[Motor City Sonics]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

 

Yankees all day.  Contender..........Bigger Market, more attention............smaller ballpark and more home runs.   It would take a lot more than $2 million.       Anyone that pays him $35 million a year is foolish.  

The Tigers could get 2 pretty good players for that amount and, in my opinion, they need THREE good new bats in the lineup plus a renewed Spencer Torkleson.     I doubt they do much this offseason.   This seems to be about getting the organization corrected right now and so far I love what Harris is doing.   (The fences are coming in, by the way, expect that announcement soon, maybe as soon as the World Series ends, and it won't be a radical change).  

Edited November 5, 2022 by Motor City Sonics

[Jim Cowan]

7 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Probably the Yankees.  Better team and ballpark to hit in, which would help net a better long term deal.  $2M is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly, might as well make the difference 10 cents.  Correa is a guy who was already playing for a dynasty, and left it for money, so "playing for a winner" in his particular case seems insignificant.  If the difference in money is significant, he's taking the money even if it's the '61 Mets.

[StatikIEV]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

 

Expected homeruns in Comerica last year for Judge: 51 (that is good for last place ...by SEVEN HRs)

...unless you are giving him 10 years to guaranteed the end of his baseball career, he ain't coming. 

Even if he gets an offer for way more money from the Tigers...the implied future cost to take that deal for him is off the chart.

/move wall in dummies

Edited November 5, 2022 by StatikIEV

[chasfh]

41 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Yankees all day.  Contender..........Bigger Market, more attention............smaller ballpark and more home runs.   It would take a lot more than $2 million.       Anyone that pays him $35 million a year is foolish.  

The Tigers could get 2 pretty good players for that amount and, in my opinion, they need THREE good new bats in the lineup plus a renewed Spencer Torkleson.     I doubt they do much this offseason.   This seems to be about getting the organization corrected right now and so far I love what Harris is doing.   (The fences are coming in, by the way, expect that announcement soon, maybe as soon as the World Series ends, and it won't be a radical change).  

The Tigers can also get two pretty bad players for that. See Baez, Javier; Rodriguez, Eduardo.

At least with the $35 million you'd be paying Carlos Correa at this stage of his career, you can be pretty confident you're getting a good player.

Some here pooh-pooh the idea, but if the going market rate for a win above replacement as suggested in this article is roughly $8 million for a 2+ WAR player, then by that measure, Correa was worth the money. Sure, it would have been worth a lot more to the Dodgers or Mets than the Twins, but just because his teammates, especially his pitchers, couldn't help him pull his team into the playoffs, I don't think that should detract from the value his performance provides.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

 

All things being equal (what those two offers essentially are) he would probably pick the winning team.  If it was 4 million versus 2 million, a player would probably take the 4 million over winning.  

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tenacious D said:

Probably the Yankees.  Better team and ballpark to hit in, which would help net a better long term deal.  $2M is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly. People like to say that players are all about the money, and will always take the higher bid, but we know that's not true. At a certain level, especially when you already have well into nine figures guaranteed to  be coming to you anyway, a few million doesn't mean so much. Players want to get paid, but players are wired to win.

I'm not saying Correa would never ever take an offer from the Tigers over an offer from the Yankees. He very well might if the difference were substantial enough. You and I agree that the difference between $37 and $35 wouldn't cut it.

Personally I don't think $40 would cut it, either.

$45? Now I think you're getting his attention, bu-u-u-t ... I don't know.

$50? I think Correa could be talked into taking $50MM from the Tigers over the $35MM over the Yankees and put up with the losing for a couple years, as long as he gets that opt out if the Tigers don't fulfill the promise of getting better enough to contend by that time.

That's the kind of overpay I can't imagine the Tigers having to make to keep him from taking an offer from a current contender.

[chasfh]

22 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

All things being equal (what those two offers essentially are) he would probably pick the winning team.  If it was 4 million versus 2 million, a player would probably take the 4 million over winning.  

I wouldn't think that's enough, but you may be right, since this is all conjecture, anyway.

Point is, we agree that the pay is not the only thing. Number of offers fielded, number of years, teams involved, cities involved, known winning culture, respectfulness of the offer—all those criteria are in the mix and could lead a player to take less money from one team over more money from another. When it comes to that possibility, I think the main criterion is the matter of degree in the differences among the offers.

Edited November 5, 2022 by chasfh

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Jim Cowan said:

Exactly, might as well make the difference 10 cents.  Correa is a guy who was already playing for a dynasty, and left it for money, so "playing for a winner" in his particular case seems insignificant.  If the difference in money is significant, he's taking the money even if it's the '61 Mets.

Or the '61 Astros! 😅

EDIT: Correa didn't leave the Astros for the money so much as he left them for the years. Yeah, yeah, I know, he took only "three" years from the Twins, but that was a contract he would sign only with escape clauses after each season, to position himself to get all those years he really wants this time around. Will it work? Stay tuned ...

Edited November 5, 2022 by chasfh

[casimir]

4 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

I also think that in Correa's case he might have Lindor's contract stuck in his head, and the Twins' offer was the only one that let him think that he had matched Lindor's AAV.  In my opinion the Twins wasted that money and I doubt that they or anyone else will do it again.  So what is he going to do then?  Sooner or later he is going to have to accept 3/87 (still an overpay I think).

I don’t know if I agree that the Twins wasted that money.  The ALC was a winnable division.  Maybe they misunderstood their chances or maybe they simply didn’t play up to reasonable expectations.  If they thought Correa gave them a realistic shot at the playoffs last season, they ultimately acquired him to chase that possibility.

[chasfh]

Considering the contracts Trout, Rendon, Arenado, Stanton, Lindor, Seager, Machado, Springer, Altuve, Harper, and Freeman are working off of, if any team can get Correa for only three years at a $29MM AAV, especially after putting up a five-spot in wins on his own 3/105, I think they'd be getting a huge bargain.

[Jim Cowan]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Or the '61 Astros! 😅

EDIT: Correa didn't leave the Astros for the money so much as he left them for the years. 

If "the money" is $340 million, it's hard to get there without "the years".  He should be playing in the World Series right now. 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Jim Cowan said:

If "the money" is $340 million, it's hard to get there without "the years".  He should be playing in the World Series right now. 

Not sure what you’re trying to disparage with the quotes, but Correa didn’t take the offer because he was never going to accept a five-year deal from the Astros.

[Jim Cowan]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Not sure what you’re trying to disparage with the quotes, but Correa didn’t take the offer because he was never going to accept a five-year deal from the Astros.

Why not?