Forum
Forum Navigation
2020 Season
#11 · March 22, 2020, 9:52 am
Quote from fenn68 on March 21, 2020, 9:56 amService time negotiation is critical to players and teams. Consider Kirby Yates who needs about 151 more days to achieve FA status ... about 5 months and even with a compacted / extended season going to be hard to achieve if the season does not resume until June.
At Yates' age, not going to FA after the season, may cost him a lot.
====
Teams (and players) such as Paddack with one year of service time are on the bubble ... does a team lose a year of control for a shorten season ... does the player's FA get pushed out a year ... again financially a big debate.
It seems "complex" on the face of it; but the "easiest" thing to do is just prorate however many games this season ends up being into a full "service year" of MLB time. So for example if it's 135 games vs 162, a player (like Yates) who's in MLB all year gets a full 1.000 year of MLB service time for those 135 games. Basically every day in MLB "counts" for more MLB service time than a normal season b/c there are fewer games. Advantageous but fair to the players. If it gets close enough to a full season: 155 games(>95%) maybe just use the old model, but SOMEONE would get negatively impacted
The flip side is it SEEMS like salaries would have to be prorated too, b/c the teams are going to lose the revenue of the lost games. So using the 135 games... lose 27 of 162 = 83.333% of a full season x Salary for the year. So Yates salary drops from $7,062,500 to $5,885,416. A min salary guy who's up all year like Tatis last year goes from $563,500 to $469,583. Many other aspects to consider, but one is that incentive based guys would lose earning power. Garrett Richards was never likely to max out his 250K/starts 21-30, but if only 135 games, it's impossible for him to. Many RP's including Stammen & Pierce Johnson have incentives for # of appearances, position players for PA, etc, etc.
#12 · March 22, 2020, 9:56 am
Quote from fenn68 on March 21, 2020, 9:44 amQuote from Brian Connelly on March 21, 2020, 9:01 amWell, there's a 40-man roster spot...
IF they end up needing one. The length of the delay may have some impact on their need (desire) to add a non-roster player ... and a shorter season may reduce the need for a later add. Impossible to predict. Note they do have Valera (out of options) as a DFA before they get to Munoz to the 60 day as an alternative.
Depending on how the league redefines 2020 for service time purposes but the debate should arise again on (at the appropriate time) Munoz to the 60 day OR just optioned to the minors. As of now, think he only has 80 days of service time and has 3 minor league options. Given as close he appeared to ML ready ... might choose to burn a minor league option and preserve the 6 control years unless they absolutely need that roster spot.
Espinosa went to the 60 day as they needed the roster spot (in their minds) after they claimed (for some reason) Valera. Note that he only has 2 minor league option years and may need both to be ML ready so Espinosa to the 60 day makes some sense.
Lawson is non-roster, so likely added next winter (potential too high to risk Rule 5), and will have 3 option years to fully recover ... should be fine and should preserve his 6 control years.
Quote from fenn68 on March 21, 2020, 9:44 amQuote from Brian Connelly on March 21, 2020, 9:01 amWell, there's a 40-man roster spot...
IF they end up needing one. The length of the delay may have some impact on their need (desire) to add a non-roster player ... and a shorter season may reduce the need for a later add. Impossible to predict. Note they do have Valera (out of options) as a DFA before they get to Munoz to the 60 day as an alternative.
Depending on how the league redefines 2020 for service time purposes but the debate should arise again on (at the appropriate time) Munoz to the 60 day OR just optioned to the minors. As of now, think he only has 80 days of service time and has 3 minor league options. Given as close he appeared to ML ready ... might choose to burn a minor league option and preserve the 6 control years unless they absolutely need that roster spot.
Espinosa went to the 60 day as they needed the roster spot (in their minds) after they claimed (for some reason) Valera. Note that he only has 2 minor league option years and may need both to be ML ready so Espinosa to the 60 day makes some sense.
Lawson is non-roster, so likely added next winter (potential too high to risk Rule 5), and will have 3 option years to fully recover ... should be fine and should preserve his 6 control years.
Munoz had the surgery prior to being optioned, so he is automatically MLB IL, pay, and service time (1 full season).
Espinoza had already been optioned & MLB and minors seasons had begun when he had the surgery in late April.
#13 · March 22, 2020, 11:48 am
Sort of a hedge on the Munoz interpretation ... sounds correct for the regular season (26 man roster) and moving him to the IL off the 26 man roster but this is the off season ... as far as I understand there is no IL (no need for one) until the season begins (60 day is a different issue) and currently this is a 40 man roster issue.
Just don't know, but I do see the potential interpretation being he can be optioned before the season. Not exactly the same but the Padres added Espinosa at the end of 2018 (injured and had not played for 2 years due to TJ) then option him in March just before having the TJ again in April 2019. Seems clear that he was "injured" when optioned.
Fair to ask if they would have done that again if they did not need the 40 man roster slot.
A very good chance they will need the 40 man roster slot ... so my guess he ends up on the 60 day DL as has Espinosa.
#14 · March 22, 2020, 12:12 pm
Nobody saw this coming to the extent that it is today but I would guess that in the future both clubs and players are going to want something in their contracts that protect either side in regard to all of the issues already mentioned. This might be one of those times that the "Act of God" language in a contract or insurance policy might not be viable.....I mean think about it.....what truly is a "Act of God" and what does that really mean or cover ?
Not trying to start anything Political or Religious but I could see how that language in any contract that was strictly boilerplate before becomes a focal point going forward....that gives me a headache just thinking about it 😉
#15 · March 22, 2020, 1:00 pm
Quote from 3fingersplit on March 22, 2020, 12:12 pmNobody saw this coming to the extent that it is today but I would guess that in the future both clubs and players are going to want something in their contracts that protect either side in regard to all of the issues already mentioned. This might be one of those times that the "Act of God" language in a contract or insurance policy might not be viable.....I mean think about it.....what truly is a "Act of God" and what does that really mean or cover ?
Not trying to start anything Political or Religious but I could see how that language in any contract that was strictly boilerplate before becomes a focal point going forward....that gives me a headache just thinking about it 😉
As it stands ... most insurance products will not pay out for a "pandemic". Saw a piece on "business interruption insurance" and, being told that I am out of luck on recouping some cancelled travel via insurance while the travel providers are not giving refunds.
Not going to be an easy negotiation in baseball to reach a balanced result for all parties since someone will have to eat more of the loss if someone is protected. Will TV demand some of their money back from the league / teams? Fans are gone but what about season tickets holders get their money back? Will players (especially on guaranteed long term contracts) be willing to give up some salary? Clubs are in the middle bouncing between wanting money to come in and not wanting money to go out.
Contract lawyers ... negotiators ... et al will be "busy" since doubt anyone will want to fund the other guy and sustain a loss of their own. The wild card is how the lawyers try to spin the loss of games as it relates to government mandates in a state of emergency ... could argue that TV must pay MLB ... season ticket holders are just out of luck ... clubs must pay their players for the full season (eat the lost revenue from loss of attendance). Maybe look at it as a lot of rainouts that will not be made up?
Ugly.
#16 · March 22, 2020, 5:23 pm
Quote from fenn68 on March 22, 2020, 11:48 amSort of a hedge on the Munoz interpretation ... sounds correct for the regular season (26 man roster) and moving him to the IL off the 26 man roster but this is the off season ... as far as I understand there is no IL (no need for one) until the season begins (60 day is a different issue) and currently this is a 40 man roster issue.
Just don't know, but I do see the potential interpretation being he can be optioned before the season. Not exactly the same but the Padres added Espinosa at the end of 2018 (injured and had not played for 2 years due to TJ) then option him in March just before having the TJ again in April 2019. Seems clear that he was "injured" when optioned.
Fair to ask if they would have done that again if they did not need the 40 man roster slot.
A very good chance they will need the 40 man roster slot ... so my guess he ends up on the 60 day DL as has Espinosa.
I think I wasn't clear making my point. LAST year Espinoza was first optioned, THEN Injured while practicing or playing in the Minors he had already been assigned to. So he went on the MINORS DL, he did not accrue MLB service time or get paid MLB Salary. The same thing happened with Pedro Avila after his 1 spot start in MLB; got hurt subsequent to being in MLB, so (aside from that one day MLB service time), he was on MINORS DL. You are correct that a team CAN select guys in this situation to MLB, put them on 60-day IL, and open a 40-man roster spot... but they have to do so retroactively to the injury date, which would have given Espinoza and Avila (nearly) a full year of MLB service time AND, more relevant to the player, MLB PAY.
Whether Munoz would or would not have made the 26-man O.D. roster is irrelevant. He got hurt in ST prior to being optioned, so he is treated as a MLB player; receives MLB pay & service time. Team can't say "oh, we were just about to option him down" after a player gets hurt. Allen Cordoba was near 100% to be optioned to minors season after his Rule 5 year, but got badly hurt in the car accident in offseason; he was on MLB IL until he was healthy enough to play, THEN was optioned down.
#17 · March 22, 2020, 5:27 pm
Quote from 3fingersplit on March 22, 2020, 12:12 pmNobody saw this coming to the extent that it is today but I would guess that in the future both clubs and players are going to want something in their contracts that protect either side in regard to all of the issues already mentioned. This might be one of those times that the "Act of God" language in a contract or insurance policy might not be viable.....I mean think about it.....what truly is a "Act of God" and what does that really mean or cover ?
Not trying to start anything Political or Religious but I could see how that language in any contract that was strictly boilerplate before becomes a focal point going forward....that gives me a headache just thinking about it 😉
You're right 3finger. The easy solution is to change from the old parameters of "games", "appearances", or "plate appearances"--which are all assuming a 162 game season-- to %. That's what I love about %; adapts to all #'s. Yup, add some more pages to those contracts for the incentives.
#18 · March 26, 2020, 1:14 pm
Disclaimer ... I was not giving full attention to a Bob Nightengale interview on the 2020 season developments on pay and service time ... apparently a deal between the league and union will be finalized as soon as tomorrow.
This is what I thought I heard:
- Players will not get paid for games not played
- Players will get a full year of service time for a shortened (or totally eliminated) season with some conditions.
So, the "trade-off" for not getting paid is continuing on the current pace to FA. Good for some ... no so much for others.
So, if I interpret this correctly .... if there is only 1/2 a season, then the Padres only play 1/2 of the salary commitments. (save a bunch on Myers, Hosmer, and Machado) while they don't get their contracts extended another year. Yates, Richards, and Profar are still FA after 2020.
On the other hand, Tatis, Paddack, Lamet, et al will be a full year closer to arbitration and FA without playing. Note: I think he said the service time earned for 2020 would be based on the service time earned in 2019 .... so if not a full year in 2019 ... not a full year in 2020.
=====
I guess LAA (Pujols) and Detroit (Cabrera) have to be pleased not having to pay them for low productivity and still dumping them on schedule but teams with elite young players such as Soto, Acuna, et. al have to be bummed losing their production in their pre-arb years. Teams who held on a player thinking the trade deadline would be active .. first may not be and if it actually exists ... would players carry the trade value after not playing much in 2020?
#19 · March 27, 2020, 7:51 am
Strat-O-Matic is sim’ing the season!
http://www.strat-o-matic.com/2020-season-simulation/
Padres’ off to sim-bad start …
https://2020seasonsim.s3.amazonaws.com/March26th/COL%40SD.htm
Classic that Myers gets hurt PH'ing on Opening Day ...
#20 · March 27, 2020, 9:19 am
The Padres released infielder Gordon Beckham earlier this month, as first indicated on the Pacific Coast League’s transactions log. The move came back on March 14, it seems, although there was never a formal announcement from the club.