The Rookie and the Hare (2.26.40)

[jleddy]

Today Brewster players and general managers, agents, fans, members of the media, and the rest of the world awoke to the news of a huge trade between Madison and Edmonton on the eve of spring training.

However this story really starts six months ago when the Commissioner's office informed the League that Madison's long-time general manager, Chris Wilson, would be stepping down at the end of the 2039 season and taking the helm of the new expansion Portland club. Named as his replacement to oversee the Wolves was Will Gibson, general manager of the Mumbai Metro Stars of the United Middle East Baseball Association. Gibson was a great choice, overseeing the Indian ball club that eventually found their way into the United Cup and winning the series to become UMEBA champions in his first season in charge. However Madison is not Mumbai. First of all, there's indoor plumbing. And Dan Fiscus' hard drive of soft core pornography in storage.

It's one thing to make the jump from the UMEBA to the BBA, but it's another to fill the shoes of a legendary general manager like Wilson, he of two Landis titles and twenty playoff appearances. Does one keep with a winning formula? Or does one take a well-oiled machine and start tinkering with the parts to make it their own? Look no further than Doug Olmsted, keeper of the California Crusaders after taking over for future BBA Hall of Fame executive Ted Schmidt. Olmsted has made it public that running the Crusaders was a job within a job and has finally decided to put his own touch on the franchise after just wrapping up his first year.

It appears that Gibson's choice was to separate Madison's past from the present and future, and to train an old wolf new tricks. Gone was the team's manager. Then the team was sold to a new owner. After a successful run in the early 30s, Madison has had up-and-down seasons, so maybe the time was right for not only a new general manager, but a clean slate across the entire leadership of the franchise.

Which brings us to today. January 26, 2040. Gibson made Madison's biggest splash since Jon Mick did a cannonball from the high dive at a local youth summer sports camp last year. Gibson -- who had been openly shopping Mons Raider, a former Puckett Award winner and a member of the Wolves for the past nine seasons -- finally found a trading partner in the Edmonton Jackrabbits.

Here were the details of the deal as reported by Baseball News Network this morning:


In Dalrymple, Madison acquires a talented 27-year-old five-tool outfielder with one-year remaining on his contract at $11M. Dalrymple's 2039 season was a down-year (.295/.339/.493 with 19 SB) considering he put up an impressive 5.5 WAR season in 2038, slashing .331/.382/.585 with 23 steals for the Landis champion Jackrabbits. Gibson has already made it public that he's looking to flip the outfielder to potentially add to his minor league system. Tipping, 20, is just one year removed from being a second-round draft pick but the young starting pitcher has yet to live up to his draft status. Herrera, a 22-year-old righty pitcher, was also a former second-rounder back in 2035 and like Tipping, has yet to breakout in the minors.

To acquire the three players it greatly cost Madison, both in talent and retained salary. Edmonton, looking to return to the Landis after one year away, added five-time All-Star Raider, an impact player at the plate (career .415 OBP), as well as on the base paths, having led league in steals six times. Raider has missed extended periods of time throughout his career, so there is some risk for Edmonton, however any major injuries could just lead to general manager Chris Robillard releasing Raider since he's not paying him for the next three years. Additionally, Raider has been miscast as a second baseman and likely fits best at first base. Luckily Thealer, a natural second baseman, arrives in Edmonton as part of the deal, coming off a career-best season hitting .281/.419/.367 (3.1 WAR), and fills the role for recently traded away Fernando Martinez. The third player arriving in Edmonton is gloveman Machiavelli. A slap-hitter with plus-speed and game-changing defense in center, Machiavelli gives Robillard the ability to move slugger William Wood back to a corner where he is best suited.

So at the end of the day, Edmonton added multiple starters to a championship contender and will only be on the hook for Thealer's $3.75M between all three players, costing them just two mid-level pitchers and Dalrymple. On paper, Edmonton is the clear winner in one of the more shocking financial deals in recent league history, one sure to cause a stir amongst league front offices.

But perhaps in his heart, Gibson feels like a winner by shaping the Madison Wolves into his own creation.

[bschr682]

Oooo I like the graphic

[bigmike13]

Oh, that is nice!

[ThePreyingManta]

Nicely done! I do admit that it definitely looks like a loss on paper, but there was almost no market for Raider and I wanted to get something for him before his injury propensity got any worse. I figured it was either retain the salary and get something in return or pay him to play for a team that will likely not be competing.

There was no chance I was resigning Thealer or Machiavelli, but I am worried that they (specifically Thealer) could net a compensation pick in next year's draft. I bet against them, and now I'll just have to sit back and see how it plays out.

Neither of the prospects I got are ace material, but hopefully they can help me put something together that resembles a rotation.

Best of luck to the Jackrabbits!

[usnspecialist]

I actually don't hate this deal for Madison, especially if they either keep mitch long-term or are able to flip him for more prospects.

[jleddy]

I actually don't hate this deal for Madison, especially if they either keep mitch long-term or are able to flip him for more prospects.

If I had to guess, Will's plan will be to flip Dalrymple and the recently-signed Willard Gagne at some point this season to replenish the system.

[crobillard]

I actually don't hate this deal for Madison, especially if they either keep mitch long-term or are able to flip him for more prospects.

Yeah that’s how I felt doing the deal. I like Tipping and Herrera. With how much pitchers are being valued recently I didn’t think it was a bad deal. I thought it actually made a lot of sense for both of us. I didn’t feel great about the financial portion, but it was the only way to get it done and there wasn’t too much discussion about it.

I feel like this is one of those deals that we’ll look back on in a few years and realize that it was closer than it appears on paper.

[ThePreyingManta]

I actually don't hate this deal for Madison, especially if they either keep mitch long-term or are able to flip him for more prospects.

Yeah that’s how I felt doing the deal. I like Tipping and Herrera. With how much pitchers are being valued recently I didn’t think it was a bad deal. I thought it actually made a lot of sense for both of us. I didn’t feel great about the financial portion, but it was the only way to get it done and there wasn’t too much discussion about it.

I feel like this is one of those deals that we’ll look back on in a few years and realize that it was closer than it appears on paper.

As new owner Ahmed bin Mohammed said, money means nothing to me (not yet anyway).

[bschr682]

I don’t like the deal. Too risky in my opinion and there was no rush. Could have waited til injuries hit other teams and got more. But I don’t “hate” the deal itself.

I do dislike greatly where this is leading. I’ll get more into it on the podcast tonight but just imagine this scenario. Let’s say the fighting Kwakou’s of Louisville end up stinking up the joint and it becomes obvious that Kwakou should be traded to boost the farm. Louisville signs him to the max 6 years when eligible and then trades him for quite a haul and retains all the salary. I don’t think that’s ok. The team getting Kwakou would be have an effective salary cap of like 140 million for a full 6 years compared to the other teams. And on the flip side, if the prospects don’t turn out, Louisville would be beyond screwed and would probably end up in a turnstile GM situation, the very reason we don’t allow draft pick trading. Food for thought.

[RonCo]

... just imagine this scenario. Let’s say the fighting Kwakou’s of Louisville end up stinking up the joint and it becomes obvious that Kwakou should be traded to boost the farm. Louisville signs him to the max 6 years when eligible and then trades him for quite a haul and retains all the salary. I don’t think that’s ok. The team getting Kwakou would be have an effective salary cap of like 140 million for a full 6 years compared to the other teams. And on the flip side, if the prospects don’t turn out, Louisville would be beyond screwed and would probably end up in a turnstile GM situation, the very reason we don’t allow draft pick trading. Food for thought.

The 100% scenario is one that has always made me angsty about the use of salary retention to begin with. It's a tool I think most people like, so I shrug and move on because I think these deals will be rare and really, once it's the system, it's the system. I don't give GMs a tool, then bitch when they use it.

But, yes, I'll use the process if I can work it out, and yes, one should realize that every single salary retained is effectively a boost to another team's effective salary cap without having to deal with the cash flow. Technically, it would be more "humane" (but more complex) to allow trading of budget/cap instead of salary retention.

[RonCo]

We could put a house rule in to limit the amount retained, but that would be a pain in the butt. OOTP works this by %, I think, and that seems inappropriate for small contracts. A hard cash limit would require math each time--which is workable, but just one more danged thing to manage by hand.

[crobillard]

... just imagine this scenario. Let’s say the fighting Kwakou’s of Louisville end up stinking up the joint and it becomes obvious that Kwakou should be traded to boost the farm. Louisville signs him to the max 6 years when eligible and then trades him for quite a haul and retains all the salary. I don’t think that’s ok. The team getting Kwakou would be have an effective salary cap of like 140 million for a full 6 years compared to the other teams. And on the flip side, if the prospects don’t turn out, Louisville would be beyond screwed and would probably end up in a turnstile GM situation, the very reason we don’t allow draft pick trading. Food for thought.

The 100% scenario is one that has always made me angsty about the use of salary retention to begin with. It's a tool I think most people like, so I shrug and move on because I think these deals will be rare and really, once it's the system, it's the system. I don't give GMs a tool, then bitch when they use it.

But, yes, I'll use the process if I can work it out, and yes, one should realize that every single salary retained is effectively a boost to another team's effective salary cap without having to deal with the cash flow. Technically, it would be more "humane" (but more complex) to allow trading of budget/cap instead of salary retention.

It's a really good point that Brett made that I didn't think too much about from a larger perspective. It can certainly be problematic. Do we know if this is a big issue now? A counter argument that I will make is that for a small market team like mine, salary cap retention could be another avenue to compete. Now, it should certainly be very expensive to do so and I get that I got a really good deal financially in this specific trade, but it's worth the discussion outside of this trade that if we are keeping retention, how can we still make it useful for teams that struggle with revenue while preventing it from being exploited assuming we would like to go down that route at all.

To be clear, I like your proposed version of putting some sort of cap in place for retained salaries, but I would add the provision or up to the league salary cap. So 10 mil for retained salaries each season or up to the league salary cap of 110 mil. Does that make sense?

[RonCo]

To be clear, I don't consider these things to be exploitative in themselves. Others will disagree, but we're a salary cap league--so every financial tool we give ourselves has some kind of influence on that...which, to me, is part of what it means to be a general manager. If I were king, I'd just outlaw the practice (mostly because I just don't find it fun), but if the gang wants to put admin in place, I'm good with whatever the gang wants to do.

At the end of the day, you can often run a very competitive team at $80M-$90M anyway.

[handaspencer]

This deal will be fun to review in a couple years. I see the logic for both sides but I think one side will be the clear winner and only time will tell which side comes out ahead.

[RonCo]

From my view this is a great deal--not because either side "wins" or "loses," but because it seems to me to be a good case of each team achieving their current goals.

I mean...look at this from Will's situation for a minute ... (speaking for him, of course) ... Paying Mons Raider's salary means he's now decided to run on an effective salary cap of $95M. If he was actually worried about that, he could have just released Raider--still eating his $15M/3Yr, but doing it off-cap. If he does that, though, he's effectively losing budget--which at this moment for him is like losing cap, anyway. Madison's payroll is way down right now, and he's probably going to make $115M in revenue this year.

So he's got money, but nothing to spend it on, and to be blunt, since Raider really has no position, he's no longer worth his salary (as a 1B, his bat has limited value, and his wheels, while still pretty good, are fading and fragile...so at least there's a lot of risk there), so Will's probably going to have to pay something to move him. At the end of the day, if he can find a 2-WAR 1B/DH, he can replace Raider's production--and he should be able to do that without great angst.

I should note the team has $10M in bonus funds, so there's no real danger there, either.

Thealer is a good 2B, but Dalrymple is a good LF. Both are in their last seasons so financially they are essentially a wash--though Thealer is younger, hence more valuable overall. At question here is what Machiavelli is asking in extension. If Madison could resign him on the cheap, they lost something of value there (remember Ted's guide--once a guy is paid what he's worth, he no longer has _financial_ impact as part of his trade value). Otherwise, things get dicier. Tipping and Herrera are not elite chips, but both are good young arms who are mostly developed and will give 6 cheap years each, and--to be direct--Herrera has been bumping, which can get a guy pretty excited. One of these guys becomes a real impact arm, and the value proposition swings pretty quick.

So, basically Will traded $15M of salary cap that he can't use this year (and $3.5M more in Machiavelli--who was probably also not going to be with the team for the long term) to move Raider. Given his recent liquidity, that cap space is probably also meaningless next year, too. It might pinch him in year three, but we'll see. He also moved a soon-to-be pricey solid CF and a quality 2B who is also soon to be paid. For this, he got a pricey and quality LF and two young arms. Could Will have gotten more? Maybe. But, again, Raider has been kind of available for the picking for a while time now.

In the view of near-term quality, certainly Edmonton wins, but Madison loses almost nothing they care about in the process (most likely really just the value gap between Thealer and Dalrymple), and moves in a direction toward long-term stability.

[bschr682]

Like I said I don’t “hate” this deal in particular although I think he could have done far better just hanging on to those guys for awhile.

I hate where this is leading. I think a simple solution is just cap it at 2 years. If a player has a contract longer than 2 years remaining, can’t use salary retention. 2 years or under, go nuts.

[jleddy]

Seems pretty fair and simple to enforce while reducing risk for GMs.

[udlb58]

I don't care about this deal one way or the other. However, I've made my feelings clear in the past and I DESPISE 100% salary retention deals. There should be some sort of cap on what can be retained. Ideally, I'd say that cap is 50%, but even as high as 70% is palatable to me.

[7teen]

Im in agreement with Brett here. While I understand Will's logic of wanting to move away from these old pieces of mine, I just don't understand the timing and willingness to retain the salary.

I've had several GMs reach out to me on inquiring about some of the guys I drafted with big contracts and ask for salary retention. Unless I"m getting a prospect in return I know can help down the road, I don't understand the hurry to retain a salary.

Then again, I see a lot of value in Raider. Yes, I used him in a bad defensive position to maximize my offense, but I see him as one of the top 5 leadoff men in the league. You put him at 1B or DH and he's still a top 5 leadoff man. I see value in that. But again, not my team.

I can't help but thinking of the line from Moneyball where Beane tells David Justice that the Yankees thought so much of him they were paying him to play for another team!

[bcslouck]

I don't care about this deal one way or the other. However, I've made my feelings clear in the past and I DESPISE 100% salary retention deals. There should be some sort of cap on what can be retained. Ideally, I'd say that cap is 50%, but even as high as 70% is palatable to me.

I don't mind the 100% retention on a rental. Anything beyond a season is dicey.