Trading Manny Machado - Buster Olney Article

[wildbillhiccup]

You have to be an ESPN "Insider" to read this, but Buster Olney addressed the elephant in the room...or in Camden Yards. 

 

http://es.pn/2gTBKMn

[El Gordo]

Could we get a summary for those of us who aren't insiders?

[Machado13]

Summer 2017 might be smart cutoff point. From what we have seen lately in the trade market, it's not a bad idea to trade Britton, Machado and Jones if they know they won't be able to re-sign.

Long-term, MLB is going to have a serious problem. They need to find a way for all teams to compete. This issue where the big markets dominate with a run here or there for smaller markets just isn't good for sport. It seems like manfred's solution is to expand number of playoff spots.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Machado13 said:

Summer 2017 might be smart cutoff point. From what we have seen lately in the trade market, it's not a bad idea to trade Britton, Machado and Jones if they know they won't be able to re-sign.

Long-term, MLB is going to have a serious problem. They need to find a way for all teams to compete. This issue where the big markets dominate with a run here or there for smaller markets just isn't good for sport. It seems like manfred's solution is to expand number of playoff spots.

 

So Baltimore, Kansas City and Pittsburgh haven't fielded competitive teams lately?

The Rays and the A's haven't had nice runs in the recent past?

[Roll Tide]

They need to trade them if they can't resign them, letting them leave with a comp pick is bad management of resources

[jabba72]

For the long term they need to trade them, but short-term, I cant see Buck or Angelos going along with that idea. It really depends on what they get back too. 

[Machado13]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So Baltimore, Kansas City and Pittsburgh haven't fielded competitive teams lately?

The Rays and the A's haven't had nice runs in the recent past?

Not IMO. They get their chance for 2-3 years when they have cost controlled players and then they have to wait for their next batch of young cores and that takes a while to build back up to.

meanwhile the dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees and other big spenders just outspend the smaller teams to the point where they make the playoffs 8 of 10 years give or take.

the Yankees "down year" is them losing to the Astros in a wild card game. The Astros "great year" is beating the Yankees in a wild card game and waiting for next chance. Yes, they spent more this offseason but generally the small to mid markets get a small run here or there while the big markets like ones I mentioned spend their way to the playoffs.

the cardinals are the only "mid market" to sustain success over long term but they also have high payroll most years too.

mlb has a problem. I know the union is so strong that they won't go to a salary cap but I see issues in the future. The luxury tax and revenue sharing stuff is not the long-term answer IMO.

[esmd]

If we're not in contention this July (and by in contention I mean 8-10 games over .500 and either holding down a playoff spot or being just outside of one), then I think they have to consider trading Jones, Manny, and Britton.  If they don't win a WS this year (which seems highly unlikely), I think they have to absolutely move them during the offseason before next season.  Can't go into their walk years, IMO, it will diminish their value.

[CheeryO]

19 minutes ago, Machado13 said:

Not IMO. They get their chance for 2-3 years when they have cost controlled players and then they have to wait for their next batch of young cores and that takes a while to build back up to.

meanwhile the dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees and other big spenders just outspend the smaller teams to the point where they make the playoffs 8 of 10 years give or take.

the Yankees "down year" is them losing to the Astros in a wild card game. The Astros "great year" is beating the Yankees in a wild card game and waiting for next chance. Yes, they spent more this offseason but generally the small to mid markets get a small run here or there while the big markets like ones I mentioned spend their way to the playoffs.

the cardinals are the only "mid market" to sustain success over long term but they also have high payroll most years too.

mlb has a problem. I know the union is so strong that they won't go to a salary cap but I see issues in the future. The luxury tax and revenue sharing stuff is not the long-term answer IMO.

The Astros are not a small market team at all.  Houston is the 4th largest city in the country.  Houston's problem is that they've been poorly run over the years.  Houston might be a weak market for baseball, but if so that's their problem.  And remember they went to the World Series in 2005, and then they did little to build on that success.  

I agree there needs to be more balance in baseball, but in some sense the small market teams do have an advantage in that they are usually not as tempted to give out massive contracts that unbalance the rest of the team.  Kansas City and Cleveland avoided the trap of offering contracts the likes of Joe Mauer's in Minnesota, Giancarlo Stanton's in Miami and Joey Votto's in Cincinnati.  Those teams can't compete in no small part because there isn't enough left over for other players -- yet KC and Cleveland find themselves in the World Series.  Meanwhile the big market teams also suffer from huge, terrible contracts -- like Andre Ethier's in LA, Pablo Sandoval's in Boston, and especially Albert' Pujols' in Anaheim -- not to mention any number of terrible contracts teams like the Cubs and Yankees used to have and will have again some day soon.  You have to wonder if even the two best players in baseball -- Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw -- are something of a liability to their teams because the massiveness of their contracts obligates them to be perfect rather than merely great.  

[CheeryO]

1 hour ago, Machado13 said:

Summer 2017 might be smart cutoff point. From what we have seen lately in the trade market, it's not a bad idea to trade Britton, Machado and Jones if they know they won't be able to re-sign.

Long-term, MLB is going to have a serious problem. They need to find a way for all teams to compete. This issue where the big markets dominate with a run here or there for smaller markets just isn't good for sport. It seems like manfred's solution is to expand number of playoff spots.

 

If Manfred thinks baseball needs more playoff spots then he needs to be fired immediately.  The season is already too long as it is.  Even without more playoff spots the season should be shortened by two or three weeks.

[jabba72]

2017	25	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$20,083,000	5.070
2018	26	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,083,000
2019	27	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,083,000
2020	28	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,085,000

I would be tempted to extend Manny to this same deal, but i understand if others dont. He'll likely get similar dollars in '19 anyway. .

[Hallas]

32 minutes ago, Machado13 said:

Not IMO. They get their chance for 2-3 years when they have cost controlled players and then they have to wait for their next batch of young cores and that takes a while to build back up to.

meanwhile the dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees and other big spenders just outspend the smaller teams to the point where they make the playoffs 8 of 10 years give or take.

the Yankees "down year" is them losing to the Astros in a wild card game. The Astros "great year" is beating the Yankees in a wild card game and waiting for next chance. Yes, they spent more this offseason but generally the small to mid markets get a small run here or there while the big markets like ones I mentioned spend their way to the playoffs.

the cardinals are the only "mid market" to sustain success over long term but they also have high payroll most years too.

mlb has a problem. I know the union is so strong that they won't go to a salary cap but I see issues in the future. The luxury tax and revenue sharing stuff is not the long-term answer IMO.

The competitive balance pick, while janky, helps them have more cost-controlled players.

The Yankees have missed the playoffs 3x in the past 5 years.  The O's have missed them 2x.  I don't think a wildcard game is a down year for them.

The luxury tax is pretty stiff and functionally acts as a cap that you can exceed for no more than 3 years consecutively.  The penalty for being in the hole more than 3 years is astronomical.  Teams with money still have an advantage, but they are essentially forced to reset the cycle on occasion, which either leads to down years or years of success that are the result of their farm.  This is probably the best you can do, because teams with money will always have an advantage, and a hard salary cap that is actually useful is just going to result in more money in the owner's pockets.

Furthermore, market size is not 100% correlated with revenue, as the Cardinals and Athletics have demonstrated.  Hell, the Mets are usually an afterthought, despite being in NYC.  The real disadvantage of the AL east isn't the market size of the powerhouses, it's their overall revenue potential, which isn't really 100% correlated with their market size.  If you consider the combined statistical area, which I believe roughly approximates the population of the area where local sports channels have coverage, the Baltimore/Washington area is behind only NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  By this measure, Boston shouldn't really be considered a "large market team," and the White Sox should be a powerhouse, being in the 3rd largest metro area and having a very long franchise history.

tl;dr: the problem is complicated, and a salary cap isn't going to solve the issue as neatly as you'd like.

[CheeryO]

21 minutes ago, Hallas said:

The competitive balance pick, while janky, helps them have more cost-controlled players.

The Yankees have missed the playoffs 3x in the past 5 years.  The O's have missed them 2x.  I don't think a wildcard game is a down year for them.

The luxury tax is pretty stiff and functionally acts as a cap that you can exceed for no more than 3 years consecutively.  The penalty for being in the hole more than 3 years is astronomical.  Teams with money still have an advantage, but they are essentially forced to reset the cycle on occasion, which either leads to down years or years of success that are the result of their farm.  This is probably the best you can do, because teams with money will always have an advantage, and a hard salary cap that is actually useful is just going to result in more money in the owner's pockets.

Furthermore, market size is not 100% correlated with revenue, as the Cardinals and Athletics have demonstrated.  Hell, the Mets are usually an afterthought, despite being in NYC.  The real disadvantage of the AL east isn't the market size of the powerhouses, it's their overall revenue potential, which isn't really 100% correlated with their market size.  If you consider the combined statistical area, which I believe roughly approximates the population of the area where local sports channels have coverage, the Baltimore/Washington area is behind only NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  By this measure, Boston shouldn't really be considered a "large market team," and the White Sox should be a powerhouse, being in the 3rd largest metro area and having a very long franchise history.

tl;dr: the problem is complicated, and a salary cap isn't going to solve the issue as neatly as you'd like.

Great post.  It's not all about metro area market size, however.  Boston may be a smaller market than the combined Baltimore/DC area, but the Red Sox have pretty much all of New England's 14.5 million population as its fan base (minus western Connecticut, which are mostly New York fans).  So, the Red Sox might have a larger geographical fan base than the O's and Nats combined.

[scOtt]

40 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

2017	25	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$20,083,000	5.070
2018	26	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,083,000
2019	27	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,083,000
2020	28	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	$34,085,000

I would be tempted to extend Manny to this same deal, but i understand if others dont. He'll likely get similar dollars in '19 anyway. .

Is that Trout's contract? I'd do that. Big Peter might do it too, for someone as special as Manny.

[Hallas]

7 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

Great post.  It's not all about metro area market size, however.  Boston may be a smaller market than the combined Baltimore/DC area, but the Red Sox have pretty much all of New England's 14.5 million population as its fan base (minus western Connecticut, which are mostly New York fans).  So, the Red Sox have might have a larger geographical fan base than the O's and Nats combined.

I don't really subscribe to this theory.  People in Maine probably don't really care that much about baseball, and carriage fees on cable tv are becoming less important.  This logic could stretch pretty far to nonsensical positions, such as the Blue Jays media market being the largest of them all, with the entire ~35 million person population of Canada being counted as part of its region.

edit to add: I don't doubt Boston's revenue potential, but it's not because of its market size.  It's because the Red Sox are a founding member of the AL, and they've had many more years to develop a following, and because their century of marketing efforts by the team have resulted in the team becoming part of Boston's cultural fabric.