2020 MLB Playoffs

[tommy]

Yeah, the "Dodgers bought their team!" trope is a really lazy one, based on how the team stacks up against other teams in terms of player contributions:

Attachment 11687

Even going by a raw player count, the Dodgers had twice as many homegrown players on their postseason roster than the Rays:

Attachment 11688

Agree. Almost all of the Dodger stars are homegrown with the exception of Betts, and then a couple of guys who were just OK before the Dodgers acquired them, like Turner and Muncey.

There are clear inequities in baseball's salary structure that need to be addressed. But that doesn't tell the whole story at all. Many of the highest payroll teams were lousy this year, and some of the much lower payroll teams, such as the Rays, were very good. Look at the list of all MLB teams in order of payroll, and you will see both good and awful teams sprinkled from top to bottom. Good management and player development still means a lot. Yes, you need the money to keep players once you've developed them, and that is where the problem lies. But claiming the Dodgers "bought a pennant" as some are doing, is not fair or accurate in my opinion.

[jv001]

Agree. Almost all of the Dodger stars are homegrown with the exception of Betts, and then a couple of guys who were just OK before the Dodgers acquired them, like Turner and Muncey.

There are clear inequities in baseball's salary structure that need to be addressed. But that doesn't tell the whole story at all. Many of the highest payroll teams were lousy this year, and some of the much lower payroll teams, such as the Rays, were very good. Look at the list of all MLB teams in order of payroll, and you will see both good and awful teams sprinkled from top to bottom. Good management and player development still means a lot. Yes, you need the money to keep players once you've developed them, and that is where the problem lies. But claiming the Dodgers "bought a pennant" as some are doing, is not fair or accurate in my opinion.

The St. Louis Cardinals, President, John Mozeliak is terrible when it comes to evaluating talent. The MVP for the Rays in the playoffs was a gift from the Cardinals. Every Redbird fan knew the Cardinal weakness was lack of hitting from the outfielders. They traded Randy Arozarena to the Jays for a AAA pitcher who had a 10+ era in extended ST. I don't know who worse MO or Daniel Snyder owner of the WFT.

[mkirsh]

The St. Louis Cardinals, President, John Mozeliak is terrible when it comes to evaluating talent. The MVP for the Rays in the playoffs was a gift from the Cardinals. Every Redbird fan knew the Cardinal weakness was lack of hitting from the outfielders. They traded Randy Arozarena to the Jays for a AAA pitcher who had a 10+ era in extended ST. I don't know who worse MO or Daniel Snyder owner of the WFT.

No contest. The Cards won a World Series under Mozeliak. Snyder turned one of the NFLs premier franchises into a joke. He is in a class totally by himself. Dolan is a better owner - yes I said it and stand by it.

[Steven43]

The St. Louis Cardinals, President, John Mozeliak is terrible when it comes to evaluating talent. The MVP for the Rays in the playoffs was a gift from the Cardinals. Every Redbird fan knew the Cardinal weakness was lack of hitting from the outfielders. They traded Randy Arozarena to the Jays for a AAA pitcher who had a 10+ era in extended ST. I don't know who worse MO or Daniel Snyder owner of the WFT.

I guess you hadn’t heard that it has officially been changed to the WTF.

[Steven43]

Agree. Almost all of the Dodger stars are homegrown with the exception of Betts, and then a couple of guys who were just OK before the Dodgers acquired them, like Turner and Muncey.

There are clear inequities in baseball's salary structure that need to be addressed. But that doesn't tell the whole story at all. Many of the highest payroll teams were lousy this year, and some of the much lower payroll teams, such as the Rays, were very good. Look at the list of all MLB teams in order of payroll, and you will see both good and awful teams sprinkled from top to bottom. Good management and player development still means a lot. Yes, you need the money to keep players once you've developed them, and that is where the problem lies. But claiming the Dodgers "bought a pennant" as some are doing, is not fair or accurate in my opinion.

Come on Tommy, are you riding another LA team to a championship?? You must be getting tired of winning, my friend. Nice problem to have. 🙄

[tommy]

Come on Tommy, are you riding another LA team to a championship?? You must be getting tired of winning, my friend. Nice problem to have. 🙄

Haha I didn't grow up here so they're not really my team, but they're my son's team so of course I have to kinda adopt them too.

And as for the roster composition, the facts is the facts!

[Phredd3]

Good management and player development still means a lot. Yes, you need the money to keep players once you've developed them, and that is where the problem lies. But claiming the Dodgers "bought a pennant" as some are doing, is not fair or accurate in my opinion.

I'm not sure that negates the original complaint. They didn't buy the pennant through free agency, that's true. They bought it by identifying talent they had, locking them up to long term deals, and selectively filling in around them. The Dodgers and Yankees are both well-managed teams that do this regularly. Other teams don't have the financial wherewithal to do what they do. How is that not buying a pennant?

[YmoBeThere]

I'm not sure that negates the original complaint. They didn't buy the pennant through free agency, that's true. They bought it by identifying talent they had, locking them up to long term deals, and selectively filling in around them. The Dodgers and Yankees are both well-managed teams that do this regularly. Other teams don't have the financial wherewithal to do what they do. How is that not buying a pennant?

Many would view the buying part of the phrase as a perjorative, indicating that they didn't do the underlying work needed to "earn" the pennant. Your comments indicate that some skill was applied, "buying" doesn't connote that to many people.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I'm not sure that negates the original complaint. They didn't buy the pennant through free agency, that's true. They bought it by identifying talent they had, locking them up to long term deals, and selectively filling in around them. The Dodgers and Yankees are both well-managed teams that do this regularly. Other teams don't have the financial wherewithal to do what they do. How is that not buying a pennant?

The term "buying a pennant" is often used, and appears to have been used here, as a pejorative, evoking the idea of a team building primarily from picking off talent other teams have developed as hired gun mercenaries. In other business that might be considered smart, but I can understand the resentment in sports.

That is not at all how the Dodgers have built their current run of success. The steady stream of homegrown talent their farm system has produced has been nothing short of remarkable, with more waiting in the wings. You also have to credit their scouts and player development more than their bank account for acquiring Turner, Muncy, and Taylor, and Rich Hill before that. Those guys have earned more money now but came to the Dodgers largely as castoffs. Betts is the only guy they acquired who was a star before they got him. Even then, they used homegrown talent, like Verdugo, who was the Red Sox best hitter this year, and Maeda (admittedly an international signee), who was one of the best pitchers in the AL, to swing the deal.

It's true that if the Dodgers were a cheap team they would have to keep reinventing themselves when players get to unrestricted free agency. But, if they were like the Mets and weren't good at scouting and developing talent on the front end, they would be high-priced losers.

The Braves have managed to use Jedi mind tricks to get some of their young talent to sign pre-arbitration eligibility long-term deals that will pay them well below market for years to come. That's also smart.

[El_Diablo]

Imagine Elon Musk going on Twitter and bragging that he underpays his employees so that he can personally reap a greater share of his company's value. Yet that is exactly what owners are doing when they take advantage of people like Albies and Acuna to lock them up to long term deals during their pre-arb years at rates far below their long-term market value. The fact that people take pride in teams doing that type of thing is a little odd considering how much money owners rake in (e.g., $476 million in revenue for the Braves in 2019, plus an additional $100 million in capital appreciation in the value of the team) while getting cities/counties to foot the bill for the stadiums.

Mookie Betts, the only player the Dodgers' current front office has signed to a contract over $100 million, has an extension kicking in next year that includes a lot of deferred money; his AAV for salary cap purposes will be $25.5 million (about the 10th-highest in MLB, maybe lower depending on this off-season's free agent crop). Most, if not all, teams have the financial wherewithal to absorb that, especially in light of the fact that people like Betts increase team revenue, not just ticket sales but merchandise, jersey sales, local TV rights, etc. (note that Betts had the highest individual jersey sales in 2020) and thus mitigate the sticker shock. Yet some owners prioritize profits over winning, and some spend but allocate that spending elsewhere. E.g., the Braves went out this past off-season and gave free-agent contracts to Ozuna (for $18 million in 2020), Hamels ($18 million in 2020), Smith ($13 million in 2020) and d'Arnaud ($8 million in 2020). Yet the Dodgers are the ones who bought their pennant? Please.

[rasputin]

The term "buying a pennant" is often used, and appears to have been used here, as a pejorative, evoking the idea of a team building primarily from picking off talent other teams have developed as hired gun mercenaries. In other business that might be considered smart, but I can understand the resentment in sports.

That is not at all how the Dodgers have built their current run of success. The steady stream of homegrown talent their farm system has produced has been nothing short of remarkable, with more waiting in the wings. You also have to credit their scouts and player development more than their bank account for acquiring Turner, Muncy, and Taylor, and Rich Hill before that. Those guys have earned more money now but came to the Dodgers largely as castoffs. Betts is the only guy they acquired who was a star before they got him. Even then, they used homegrown talent, like Verdugo, who was the Red Sox best hitter this year, and Maeda (admittedly an international signee), who was one of the best pitchers in the AL, to swing the deal.

It's true that if the Dodgers were a cheap team they would have to keep reinventing themselves when players get to unrestricted free agency. But, if they were like the Mets and weren't good at scouting and developing talent on the front end, they would be high-priced losers.

The Braves have managed to use Jedi mind tricks to get some of their young talent to sign pre-arbitration eligibility long-term deals that will pay them well below market for years to come. That's also smart.

Ignorant people used to say the same thing about the Yankees from 1996-2000. The core of that team was home-grown: Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettitte.

[Steven43]

Many would view the buying part of the phrase as a perjorative, indicating that they didn't do the underlying work needed to "earn" the pennant. Your comments indicate that some skill was applied, "buying" doesn't connote that to many people.

Ahh, there is the salient point. 👍🏻

[Phredd3]

Ahh, there is the salient point. 👍🏻

Yes, and that's a fair point. The Dodgers and Yankees both have gobs of money, but both have spent it wisely (while the owners still have plenty to take home). Internationally, it's pretty similar to how Barcelona has traditionally done business.

[JasonEvans]

Imagine Elon Musk going on Twitter and bragging that he underpays his employees so that he can personally reap a greater share of his company's value. Yet that is exactly what owners are doing when they take advantage of people like Albies and Acuna to lock them up to long term deals during their pre-arb years at rates far below their long-term market value. The fact that people take pride in teams doing that type of thing is a little odd considering how much money owners rake in (e.g., $476 million in revenue for the Braves in 2019, plus an additional $100 million in capital appreciation in the value of the team) while getting cities/counties to foot the bill for the stadiums.

I dunno that your Musk example is an accurate one. The Braves total payroll, the amount they pay their players, will probably stay fairly consistent regardless of how much they pay certain individual players. The team has not systematically underpaid everyone, as your example implies, it has found a way to underpay** a couple stars which will allow the team to retain those players versus being unable to afford them in future years.

**-- And I am not so sure I agree that Acuna and Albies are truly underpaid. Both of them will make much more than they would have in their arbitration years as a result of these contract signings. They will also make far less in their first few free agent years. By smoothing out the salary over many years (flattening the curve, so to speak) the team ensures it can afford these players down the road and the players ensure they will get massive payouts without any risk of injury or performance impacting that payout. If Albies goes into a slump and suddenly cannot his curves or Acurna ruptures an Achilles and is never the same, those players are big winners in these deals.

[YmoBeThere]

Imagine Elon Musk going on Twitter and bragging that he underpays his employees so that he can personally reap a greater share of his company's value. Yet that is exactly what owners are doing when they take advantage of people like Albies and Acuna to lock them up to long term deals during their pre-arb years at rates far below their long-term market value. The fact that people take pride in teams doing that type of thing is a little odd considering how much money owners rake in (e.g., $476 million in revenue for the Braves in 2019, plus an additional $100 million in capital appreciation in the value of the team) while getting cities/counties to foot the bill for the stadiums.

This an interesting point. The Reds did this successfully for a few years but weren't able to hold on to players in the long run when those player finally were able to take advantage of their full market value(Aroldis Chapman). On a personal level, I'm not sure I can fault a team and a player for agreeing to a contract that essentially takes care of that player for life in their early to mid 20s. Sure, they may be leaving money on the table, but with the average MLB'er having only a 5 to 6 year career, it doesn't seem like a bad option.

[MChambers]

I dunno that your Musk example is an accurate one. The Braves total payroll, the amount they pay their players, will probably stay fairly consistent regardless of how much they pay certain individual players. The team has not systematically underpaid everyone, as your example implies, it has found a way to underpay** a couple stars which will allow the team to retain those players versus being unable to afford them in future years.

**-- And I am not so sure I agree that Acuna and Albies are truly underpaid. Both of them will make much more than they would have in their arbitration years as a result of these contract signings. They will also make far less in their first few free agent years. By smoothing out the salary over many years (flattening the curve, so to speak) the team ensures it can afford these players down the road and the players ensure they will get massive payouts without any risk of injury or performance impacting that payout. If Albies goes into a slump and suddenly cannot his curves or Acurna ruptures an Achilles and is never the same, those players are big winners in these deals.

All the analyses of the contracts signed by Acuna and Albies concluded that they signed at way below their value, even taking into the lower salaries they'll get in arbitration. Here's a thoughtful example. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/ozzie-al...2435%20million.

Their agents blew it.

[El_Diablo]

And I am not so sure I agree that Acuna and Albies are truly underpaid. Both of them will make much more than they would have in their arbitration years as a result of these contract signings. They will also make far less in their first few free agent years. By smoothing out the salary over many years (flattening the curve, so to speak) the team ensures it can afford these players down the road and the players ensure they will get massive payouts without any risk of injury or performance impacting that payout. If Albies goes into a slump and suddenly cannot his curves or Acurna ruptures an Achilles and is never the same, those players are big winners in these deals.

They are definitely underpaid. They are #1 and #6, respectively, in all of MLB in terms of expected production vs. cost:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2020-trade-value-1-to-10/

More detailed discussions are here:

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/4...ract-extension
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/4...atlanta-braves

As for going into a slump or getting injured, you could make a similar argument for anyone under any contract.

On a personal level, I'm not sure I can fault a team and a player for agreeing to a contract that essentially takes care of that player for life in their early to mid 20s. Sure, they may be leaving money on the table, but with the average MLB'er having only a 5 to 6 year career, it doesn't seem like a bad option.

I don't fault them either. The players get financial security faster, and the team could in theory deploy the money left on the table long-term elsewhere (or, as is often the case, use that money to further line owners' pockets). I just find it hypocritical to say that the Dodgers bought a pennant. It's especially ironic to hear complaints about competitive team-building advantages from Duke fans.

[Duke79UNLV77]

All the analyses of the contracts signed by Acuna and Albies concluded that they signed at way below their value, even taking into the lower salaries they'll get in arbitration. Here's a thoughtful example. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/ozzie-al...2435%20million.

Their agents blew it.

In my view their agents committed malpractice. I don't blame the Braves. It doesn't hurt to ask. Who knew the agents would say yes.

[Phredd3]

In my view their agents committed malpractice. I don't blame the Braves. It doesn't hurt to ask. Who knew the agents would say yes.

Why are folks categorically blaming the agents? It is the players who said yes, not the agents. There are any number of reasons why someone in that position could have signed a long term deal, even at less than maximum rates. Why is more money necessarily the defining condition? There are any number of reasons why the player themselves, when all is carefully explained to them, could have made the decision they did. Just because you might have chosen differently, that doesn't make the decision irrational nor the agents malfeasant.

I don't know what happened. If you do, please link it up so we all can read how the decisions were made. Until then, I'm not willing to throw either side under the bus.

[YmoBeThere]

Why is more money necessarily the defining condition?

Because society has conditioned us to focus on the money and it can be used to second guess as the player's value changes over time?

I'm think I'm on the same page as you, if you can sign a contract that pretty much guarantees financial security for you and your family, how does that factor in to the equation? While we may hope for ARod numbers in stats and salary, the reality is most wont't achieve them. And if you can get to the majors early enough you can time the next contract with your peak stat years in your later 20s. My critique of Albies contract would be in the club option years, those I think could have been negotiated more aggressively.