Outlaws Lead Early Signings

[RonCo]

More Dominoes Fall in Top FA Class


Activity was feverish as Winter Meetings approach, but nowhere was it more furious than in San Antonio where GM Mike Calvaruso opened up the wallet to the tune of $231M, signing 26-year-old outfielder Chang-hyeok Chang from Mexico City and 28-year-old infielder Angel De Castillo from Yellow Springs. “Our fans are tired of losing,” Calvaruso said as he downed half a bottle of 20-year-old Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve.”

The infusion of talent should go a long way to creating an immediate turn-around for an Outlaw offense that was among the worst in the Johnson League last season. Of the two, De Castillo is the priciest and most risky. My guess is that he’ll pay off in three of those five seasons, and be a burden in two—but which three? Chang is a solid player who dropped a .409 OBP last year. If he repeats that, he’s worth the grub.

Bottom line: this is Calvaruso taking the bull by the horns and screaming “no risk, no reward!” into the void. I like the pure audacity of the move. It’s fake baseball, after all. Will it work? Stay tuned.

Of course, San Antonio isn’t the only team in the league to drop a boatload of cash.

Des Moines’ GM Edward Murphy wrote a $38M check to 29-year-old outfielder Aloysius Gonzaga, who most recently patrolled right field for Jacksonville. Gonzaga seems like a solid fit in Iowa. He’s been a solid 4WAR kind of player, but is sometimes overlooked because so much of that WAR comes from his elite glove. But make no mistake, Gonzaga is a solid professional hitter, something the Kernels have had a dearth of when it comes to the outfield. And the deal—while just a touch pricey—is constrained to three seasons, plus a team option. As such, the risk is at least constrained to pre-31-year-old seasons.

All boldish free agent signings are risky, but again, we kind of like this one.

Seattle is next up to the BBA FA trough, with GM Nathan Egan signing left-handed reliever Jose Souza out from under Yellow Springs for what is essentially three seasons and $21M (Souza gets an option in year three). This is solid closer money, but for the most part Souza has performed like an elite closer, often filling a stopper’s utility role while tossing as much as 140 innings once.

In context of the team’s roster, Seattle already had one of the better bullpens in the Frick League, but it was heavily weighted to the starboard. The Storm adding an elite lefty can’t be good news to Frontier competition. In addition, the team’s payroll is in pretty good shape for the next two seasons, and maybe all three that this contract would run—so if Souza’s a little bit of an over-pay, that’s not the end of the world. While not the most splashy signing, this one might be the best of the off-season to date.

Valencia’s Lee Honigsfeld dropped $9.4M on veteran reliever Felix Alvarado for two seasons, and a $5M option for a third. Alvarado is hard on right-handed batters, and has the durability to throw more innings than he has the last few seasons. It’s an interesting signing in that Alvarado has been elite the last two seasons while seeing limited innings. Given that the Star’s bullpen was effectively the worst in the league last season, he’s got to help. We’ll see how hard the team rides him. Overall, it’s a clear plus signing when it comes to need.

Hawaii GM Mike Bieschke struck again this week, signing first baseman Ricardo Guzman for $7.1M and two seasons (assuming they exercise the option), and reliever Angel Amaya for $1.1M.

Amaya doesn’t thrill me much, though at $1.1M how much damage can you do. Guzman, though, is a guy who seems like he could be useful. He’s a solid clubhouse veteran, and is one of those guys who creates his value in that sneaky get-on-base kind of way. If Hawaii can keep him hitting mostly against lefties, that will increase his value, but the fact is that he dropped a 122 OPS+ against right handed pitching last year. I like the signing for Hawaii because it’s got limited downside, and a solid upside.

In Wichita, Genius gave journeyman Juan Martinez $4.8M to pitch for the next two years. At 36, Martinez—who has been a solid starter for a lot of years—showed age last year by posting a 6.13 ERA in 123 innings. If Martinez bounces back, then the Genius will have earned his wings. My guess is that he won’t, which makes me wonder about wisdom of adding the second year on this deal. That said, never rule the Genius out. He also gave lefty starter Vincente Acevado $3M (with an option next year). Acevado was 12-6, 4.40 for Jacksonville last year. At age 42, he’s an ageless wonder. Will he have more in the tank? If nothing else, he can be Genius’s drinking buddy?

Twin Cities GM Scott Piccoli gave 30-year-old Ramon Vazquez $2.2M this year, and a $1.5M option for next to leave Brooklyn’s cyclone. HE also resigned his own guy, 35-year-old Jose Garcia, to a 1-season $2M deal. Bottom line is that Garcia registered a 1.40 ERA to go with 21 saves last year, and Vazquez has been putting up near-elite numbers for several seasons. Both are value guys on cheapish contracts of limited durations. This is a set of good, solid signings by a GM that’s proving to be a good, solid GM.

And, finally, Stephen Lane in Long Beach wrote a $1.25M check to reliever Robert Hansen and Vegas GM Matt Rectenwald gave RP Alphonse Salvarini $900K. At 35,Hansen is hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again. Salvarini has never really caught it the first time, but a decent lefty is always useful. Both of these are short-term value signings that can fill holes, neither will be the guy either team hangs their hats on. I love these kinds of adds. Basically, it’s two GMs just doing the work.

[usnspecialist]

Somehow I think Ted and I will have thoughts on the San Antonio splurge when we do the recap pod. I do have to say that one signing in particular stands out to me as a great one that will be hard to beat for my signing of the year, but I will save that for the pod

[bigmike13]

Somehow I think Ted and I will have thoughts on the San Antonio splurge when we do the recap pod. I do have to say that one signing in particular stands out to me as a great one that will be hard to beat for my signing of the year, but I will save that for the pod

This should be interesting

[Ted]

I'm just discovering, or rather, reinforcing that I'm cheap when it comes to FA.

[bigmike13]

I'm just discovering, or rather, reinforcing that I'm cheap when it comes to FA.

I was the same, thats why i broke out this time.
Sometimes you just gotta take chance and cross your fingers.

[RonCo]

I'm just discovering, or rather, reinforcing that I'm cheap when it comes to FA.

As more teams are realizing they need to spend their money to compete--even on the downside--then the price of poker goes up.

[Ted]

I'm just discovering, or rather, reinforcing that I'm cheap when it comes to FA.

As more teams are realizing they need to spend their money to compete--even on the downside--then the price of poker goes up.

Are you commenting about signing free agents being like gambling or spending in general? Because I completely agree that you have to spend to win. I still don't think 26 mil contacts in FA is the most surefire way to go about it.

[bigmike13]

I'm just discovering, or rather, reinforcing that I'm cheap when it comes to FA.

As more teams are realizing they need to spend their money to compete--even on the downside--then the price of poker goes up.

Are you commenting about signing free agents being like gambling or spending in general? Because I completely agree that you have to spend to win. I still don't think 26 mil contacts in FA is the most surefire way to go about it.

I would say that it's not an exact science. It depends on many factors. It may very well be a mistake but I have to do something

[Ted]

As more teams are realizing they need to spend their money to compete--even on the downside--then the price of poker goes up.

Are you commenting about signing free agents being like gambling or spending in general? Because I completely agree that you have to spend to win. I still don't think 26 mil contacts in FA is the most surefire way to go about it.

I would say that it's not an exact science. It depends on many factors. It may very well be a mistake but I have to do something

I think "mistake" would be the wrong term. High risk, high reward strategy would be more fitting, right? To be a mistake, something has to be misguided or wrong. I don't think that would describe this situation at all. It's especially not misguided. With what's happened to San Antonio in terms of injuries and lumping, you are far more lacking in high end talent than you should be. You have to get an infusion of it somewhere. It's only a mistake if the money you pay to these guys keeps you from holding onto or acquiring better talent (not necessarily in terms of individual players, but as composite picture of the players you assemble). Sometimes the FA money bomb is the best way to get that talent. I HATE when I have to operate from that position. I think in many cases it represents a lack of patience and letting your farm system work for you. I don't think that's the situation in San Antonio. You've maybe missed on a pick or two, but no worse than anyone else. It's really been bad luck and injuries. So to beat a dead horse, if you have the money, and you don't have a "better" way to leverage it, this is fine.

[RonCo]

Are you commenting about signing free agents being like gambling or spending in general? Because I completely agree that you have to spend to win. I still don't think 26 mil contacts in FA is the most surefire way to go about it.

I guess a combination of the above.

Let me ramble a bit...I apologize in advance if this is too pedantic or whatever...I'm just letting things in my brain fall out.

This is an interesting season, of course, because you're seeing a fairly strong contingent of serious players in the free agency pool at the same time that GMs are getting better armed with the idea that to get ahead you have to create revenue (rather than simply make a profit), and to create revenue, you need real players.

I can argue that the lack of $25M players in the past has been because the OOTP extension algorithm was artificially depressing top talent (they were signing extensions for far less than they could get in the open market if they had just been patient). California's own superman Ricardo Diaz even at $17.5M most of his career was deeply underpaid given that if the algorithms were done well back then he'd have made $20-$25M in Free Agency. Certainly you would agree with that statement. So Diaz gave California a $3M-$8M per year legacy discount to stay. This is pretty unrealistic when you look at it from the human point of view. I mean, only in 2032 (at $27M) was he paid something around market value (note, market value is not necessarily "what he's worth.")

Blah, blah, blah...

Anyway...

My point here is that if players are really going to go to Free Agency like this for the foreseeable future--and if teams at the bottom end are going to actually spend their budgets (or more), then that means the economy of the league is going to change to drive prices for good players up. Where that next plateau is going to be is anyone's guess. Perhaps having a $20-25M player or two on your your roster will become a requirement for competing. Dunno. You have to also bake in the fact that we've got such a glut of young/cheap talent gushing up from 5 or more pretty solid draft seasons, that some teams will have the kind of budget/cap space available to make those deals without taking great risk.

Of course, there's always the chance that the players will begin signing team-friendly extensions again, and all this will settle back down to a market that we feel is more familiar. Again, dunno.

Despite the fact that this change is threatening to rip up my own YS9 plan, I think it's a great thing for the league that more real players are going to FA, and that they are holding GM's feet to the fire to pay them something closer to true market value (Tyler's pre-FA extension of Noboru and Justin's of Morales are looking more reasonable every minute). Yes, it's risky for GMs. But that risk makes the game theory harder, and therefore (to me) more fun. I'm also thrilled to see more GMs understanding nuances of the game and understanding the risks they are taking--but not being afraid to take them if it makes sense for them. Joshua's work in Atlantic City is a great exhibit. Everyone said he was ruining his club for the long run with the Correa/Lopez contracts back a couple seasons ago, but he made the playoffs in 2036. He took a risk, and managed the process. Yes, he got lucky with Lopez's retirement. But that was always in the probability field. Those were ballsy signings, and it turned out to be a risk he handled pretty danged well.

While the BBA is already one of the more competitive leagues in existence (meaning we see a relative churn of teams in the post season), my view is that the more this continues, the more churn we'll see. And I think we agree that part is, at least, a good thing.

[RonCo]

Another thing for GMs to consider is to wonder how the market will oscillate over the next few seasons if the FA pools continue to be filled with good players. Is the first wave bigger and more pricey than those who will follow? Will this wave soak up budget/cap so far that next year's guys will come at a prices that are more of a bargain, or will there always be a pile of cash out there that will keep top talent fed with big dollars? And if so, will that hollow out the middle of the market? Will there be more value signings in February for teams that let the big sharks feed first?

I don't know, but I'm excited to see it all unfold.

[agrudez]

Lots of talk about spending vs. not and reasons to and not. Beyond that, what's the collective expectation for Chang's production? He was 9/3/4 for 2 years and has been 9/4/4 for 2 years and posted -0.7, 1.2, 1.6 and 3.4 WAR in those 4 years. -23.4 ZR over those 4 years in the corner OF. 55.% SB rate over those 4 years. The bat, barring 2033, is okay (even if you believe last year was an aberration, he posted .835 and .805 OPS' in the two years prior), but a lot of that number is empty, imo, because he's a slap hitter (even in his career year last season his ISO was only .137). He's not going to fix his bad defense, but maybe he can fix his bad base running? He was marginally better (but still a net negative) at 64.4% last year, I suppose.

[Lane]

I think the size of the contract has a lot to do with his age and his leadership ability. His performance may not live up to the contract, but the age minimizes the risk and the leadership provides value regardless of performance.

Outside of those, he's a .370 OBP guy with just enough doubles. He's probably not worth the $18 AAV but how often do we see 26 year olds in free agency.

And he should definitely be playing LF. That would help.

[RonCo]

Good questions. Chang was brought to the BBA at age 19, and was still probably growing. He's 26 now, and theoretically entering his peak/stable seasons. The last two seasons he's lost maybe half a WAR to his defense...so it would be good to get him a defensive replacement on the roster to limit that weakness. His stolen base rate has gotten better, but is still a negative. I shut De Castillo's running off, and he got better. Interesting call on Chang.

All total, I think it's fair to look at a 26-year-old and discount a few of his younger years as his ratings were probably growing inside the scale.

He'll be playing in a batter park for offense in San Antonio than he was in Mexico City. It's not out of line to suggest he'll get on base at a .380 clip and slug .450 as a minimum (he's a doubles hitter, not a slap hitter--which I read as a singles dinker), which puts his floor OPS at .830, which doesn't suck. I can see him at .900 with a little luck, which makes him more than a solid contributor.

[RonCo]

-0.7, 1.2, 1.6 and 3.4 WAR is a very nice little growth pattern for a guy going through his age 23, 24, 25, and 26 ages. I agree with Stephen in general that he won't fully earn his $18M. Per my own rule of thumb he'd have to turn 7-8 WAR to make that happen. But you pay bigger numbers for reliability, and right this minute Chang looks reliable enough for something between 3.5-5.0 across those next four seasons.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

That's part of why the game is fun for me.

[Lane]

I'm very happy to have Hansen back on board. He continues to be death to lefties (.441 OPS against last year) and if he can stay healthy I'm happy to have him in the pen for $1.25 million.

[RonCo]

De Castillo is a bigger over-pay than Chang, IMHO. But depending on a few things both could wind up being very good signings. Mike is rolling dice here. But he's still got some cash left, and it seems like he's got a few pretty interesting young kids who are going to fill the roster for the next couple years (including one of the best young arms in the league in Carpenter), so his risk isn't as big as it might look. If there's a time to go all-in on a couple names that might accelerate the process for him, now's not a horrible time.

[agrudez]

-0.7, 1.2, 1.6 and 3.4 WAR is a very nice little growth pattern for a guy going through his age 23, 24, 25, and 26 ages.

It looks like a throwaway young year, 2 steady seasons and then one career year to me. His BABIP was 40 points higher last season than his career average (including last season in the average) over 3500 ABs. I expect his career at large to look significantly more like 2035 than 2036.

I'm very happy to have Hansen back on board. He continues to be death to lefties (.441 OBP against last year) and if he can stay healthy I'm happy to have him in the pen for $1.25 million.

I assume you meant OPS there? Lol. Hansen is great, wish I held onto him a couple years ago - grats on a great deal, imo.

[Lane]

I'm very happy to have Hansen back on board. He continues to be death to lefties (.441 OBP against last year) and if he can stay healthy I'm happy to have him in the pen for $1.25 million.

I assume you meant OPS there? Lol. Hansen is great, wish I held onto him a couple years ago - grats on a great deal, imo.

Ha, yeah OPS.

thanks

[RonCo]

It looks like a throwaway young year, 2 steady seasons and then one career year to me. His BABIP was 40 points higher last season than his career average (including last season in the average) over 3500 ABs. I expect his career at large to look significantly more like 2035 than 2036.

Using numbers created at ages 19-23 to project where a guy's skill is at in his age 26-29 years is questionable. Chang's BABIP is probably .350ish now, and he's in a better hitter's park. His power (as it is), seems to have come...not hard to see 10 HR in San Antonio. The question for this signing isn't about his career at large, but what his numbers will be in his prime--which I can see being represented by last year. Or not. We'll just have to see. If Mike can limit his defensive exposure a bit and cut down on his running issues, I can see his WAR edging higher.