2036 Frick FA Podcast

[Ted]

So this more or less covers the signings up to Spring training. (Was being recorded as the preseason sim was being posted) We missed a couple for Des Moines and San Fernando that happened as we were recording and so they are discussed in the Johnson podcast. As always, we're just two know it all who've been drinking, and there are plenty of good reasons to do things that I'll never come up with.

Des Moines 1:17
Madison 10:48
Omaha 12:11
Twin Cities 17:26
Yellow Springs 18:49

California 21:43
Long Beach 23:40
San Fernando 25:26
Valencia 28:23
Hawaii 30:39

Boise 37:37
Calgary 42:37
Edmonton 47:39
Seattle 53:33
Vancouver 57:32

[usnspecialist]

these were an absolute blast to record, especially back to back. I hope everyone enjoys them and while some feathers are likely to be ruffled I dont think we crossed any lines.

[Lane]

I'm sorry that I can't sign Ken Jenkins every year, guys.

[RonCo]

I'm sorry that I can't sign Ken Jenkins every year, guys.

Sure you can, Stephen. Just try harder.

[Lane]

I'm sorry that I can't sign Ken Jenkins every year, guys.

Sure you can, Stephen. Just try harder.

Yeah, I guess I could have given Harsnett a Jenkins type contract!

[RonCo]

I always love these FA podcasts.

[Ted]

I always love these FA podcasts.

I'm glad to her it. When we're doing them, they always feel really boring. Unless I get all ranty about something, and then I feel bad for probably sounding like a jerk. Having a strong opinion without coming across as know it all is tough.

[agrudez]

Transactions (FA signings, trades, etc.) make the best conversation fodder, imo. And Ted always does a good job with the material.

[RonCo]

Having a strong opinion without coming across as know it all is tough.

I don't know what you mean.

[Spiccoli]

lol... Twin Cities discussion is less than 2 minutes... I'm still so hesitant to go all in for Free Agency. I usually just end up getting role pieces to fill gaps.
'
Knowing what I know now (always true right?), I'd would have went all in early on while I still had my young star players on their cheap contracts. For two or three seasons, I wasted money the opposite direction because our payroll was so low and the owner was making $15 million to $30 million per season and all that extra money was just getting flushed to the ether because our bonus cash was maxed.

Now, all those young guys are getting paid and there isn't much room left... lol. Oh well.

If I could have landed a star pitcher back in 2032 or so... maybe we could have a made a run. But I was just starting and didn't really know what I was doing

And still don't I guess.

[RonCo]

Also...since it keeps coming up. Among the reasons why you might not want to give options to certain players is the existence of compensation draft picks. This doesn't apply to every player, of course, but a good 1-year contract that overpays a true performer a little bit can sometimes be thought of as a deal that brings the team a season's performance and a late first or late second round draft pick.

Same thing for opt outs and player options.

Some GM's hate opt outs...and I get that. They're a pain to plan around sometimes. But worst case for a guy who's truly productive you get what is usually a decent draft pick.

[RonCo]

YS9 example from last year, we had Alvarado on an expensive 1-season deal that expired and Macias and Fajardo opt out.

So effectively, we traded them for a late first round pick and two late second rounders. Not bad...and since we have reasonable back-up plans for each, it's almost like getting free candy at the liquor store. Add in the fact that options you don't intend to use can clog up your ability to make offers and you've got a series of reasons to decide not to tack an option onto the back of contracts.

[RonCo]

Our "reward" for not overpaying J.J. McQuade last year was Andy McKinney. No certainty that he'll pan out, but he had a nice enough SA season last year, and if he bumps even a little he'll have something to offer.

[Ted]

Also...since it keeps coming up. Among the reasons why you might not want to give options to certain players is the existence of compensation draft picks. This doesn't apply to every player, of course, but a good 1-year contract that overpays a true performer a little bit can sometimes be thought of as a deal that brings the team a season's performance and a late first or late second round draft pick.

Same thing for opt outs and player options.

Some GM's hate opt outs...and I get that. They're a pain to plan around sometimes. But worst case for a guy who's truly productive you get what is usually a decent draft pick.

The comp pick thing is a good point. On the other hand, I still think I'm pretty sure I'll take another cheap year of a decent player now, than a pick later. I suppose a lot depends on how much you expect the guy you picked up on the cheap to rebound.

[RonCo]

The comp pick thing is a good point. On the other hand, I still think I'm pretty sure I'll take another cheap year of a decent player now, than a pick later. I suppose a lot depends on how much you expect the guy you picked up on the cheap to rebound.

Yeah. Maybe. The overall point is that there are no firm rules of thumb and almost everything is dependent on your situation, the player, and the way you view risk.

Also, a team on the upside of the curve is never going to draft in the top 10, so adding additional solid bumper candidates is like playing the roulette wheel. I'm willing to bet one of the three guys I'll get as comp picks is worth future value, and given our situation I'd rather have that future value than any of the three players. If two of them hit, it's a huge windfall.

------

We often talk about comp picks and which players are worthy of them, but almost no one wonders why there aren't more comp picks. I think it's because many of us weekend GMs don't even consider their value in the decision making process. If we did, my guess is we'd be seeing many more comp picks. This is the evolution path that the MLB guys have grown along. Without going to the gooogle, I think there were something over 30 comp picks in last season's major league draft.

[RonCo]

Taking this a different direction from offering options...this comp pick thinking can go into deadline deals, too. A team that has a true star on an expiring contract should already assume that he's getting a 1st-round comp pick if he make no deal...so any deal offered has to start with that floor. You're hurting your team if you give him away for less.

Sometimes I hear people say "well, I couldn't keep him so at least I got something," though. And I think, well, what you got wasn't worth a late first round pick. But that's also a question of valuation and season. Sometimes late first round picks are sensational, and sometimes not so much.

[agrudez]

Hopefully the drafts are more steady state talent-wise from now on so those decisions can be weighed more appropriately. A type A comp pick wasn't very useful last year, but it's going to net a tremendous prospect this year.