Huntsville Headlines 38.025: Barrera pondering future

[HoosierVic]

By Beauregard Sawyer IV
The Huntsville Times
2038-09-19

Luis Barrera, long regarded as one of the best catchers in the Brewster Baseball Association, has been a fixture behind the plate in Huntsville since mid-2035.

Will that still be true in 2039?

Although Barrera technically is under contract until 2041, he can opt out after this season. And with the team seemingly in free fall after a woeful 74-88 showing this season, some analysts are wondering whether Barrera will exercise his option.

“He’s gotta be wondering if he couldn’t find himself a better situation on the free agent market,” said Malcolm Wilkes, Johnson League columnist for BBA Weekly. “The team stinks, it’s under a new general manager who doesn’t seem to have much a handle on things, and this might be his best shot at a big payday.”

Barrera ponders future

Barrera made $13.5 million this past season, and would get a bump to $15 million per year over the last three seasons of the contract.

“He would be 33 at the end of this current contract, which might be a little old if you’re wanting to really cash in,” Wilkes noted. “And $15 million isn't a bad salary, but a good catcher might well command more on the open market. This might be the time for him to pull the plug on Huntsville and see what else is out there.”

Barrera just smiled when asked about his contract plans.

“I like it here in Huntsville, and my family is comfortable here,” Barrera said. “But the season just ended and it was kind of a rough one, so I wouldn’t mind taking a little time to think things over. There’s still time before the free agent deadline, so I don’t need to make a decision now. We'll see.”

Phantoms General Manager Vic Caleca said he wasn’t concerned.

“Luis knows how we feel about him, and he knows we want him here in Huntsville,” Caleca said. “On the other hand, if he decides it would be best for him to exercise his option, well, we’ll be sorry, we’ll wish him the best, and we’ll move on.”

That response left Wilkes, among others, wondering just how much Caleca really wants Barrera to stay.

“You wouldn’t expect those comments out of a GM desperate to convince a guy to stay put. I mean, in essence, he said, 'if you leave, we’ll just move on.' You wonder if he’s hoping to save on the salary. Curious.”

Malcolm Wilkes

One thing that might hold Barrera back in free agency is that he’s coming off a pretty lackluster season: a .248/.322/.470 slash line with 28 homers, 76 RBIs, and 2.8 WAR. Still, scouts rate his skills pretty highly: 6/7 contact, 7/7 gap power, 7/7 home run power, 6/6 eye/discipline, 7/7 avoid K’s. His defense is still solid, too, with scouts rating his ability behind the plate at a 7 and his arm at a 6.

“His 2038 wasn’t exactly stellar,” Wilkes allowed, “but he would have little trouble attracting interest as a free agent. I think this is something to keep an eye on going forward.”

Caleca shrugged.

"Well, Malcolm is free to keep his eye on whatever he wants, but we're not worried," he said. "The Huntsville organization and fan base love Luis, and he knows it. I don't think he's going anywhere."

[indiansfan]

He'd be a fool to walk away from that kind of money. He wouldn't pull that contract in free agency even in what is looking like a poor crop of catchers.

[HoosierVic]

You would think. But I’ve given up predicting these guys ... had an outfielder walk away from a $34 million a year contract in PEBA, when everyone was telling me there was no way he’d walk away from that. Digital greed knows no bounds ...

[indiansfan]

If he stays he'd be good trade bait if you were willing to keep part of that contract.

[RonCo]

Ted did some great work looking at what decisions different players with opt-outs and player option made. I'd expect him to stick...but maybe it could depend on how bad he wants a winner. Then again, Huntsville hasn't been bad overall, just not as good as some others.

[HoosierVic]

I’m torn about what to hope for - I could use some budget breathing room, but he’s certainly a useful player. One hopeful sign - his morale perked up considerably when Imai left. Nicto’s did, too, and he signed an extension. Sign of things to come?

[RonCo]

I'd probably be hoping he'd leave, but be good if he stayed.

[HoosierVic]

Has anyone studied the effects on team performance of signing or dumping a disruptive influence, such as Imai? That would be interesting to know. My sense is they can be a fairly major factor, but that’s based on an admittedly small sample size of signing one in Mumbai and seeing some slippage in team morale and performance, and dumping one in Huntsville and seeing a decided uptick in morale and finding negotiations, etc. to be easier.

[Ted]

I'll probably end up misquoting myself, but I think what I learned shows there's a good chance he opts out. We learned that we tend to think about AAV too much and the players think in total dollars. At 30, there's no reason for Barerra to not expect to get a 6 year deal. He'd have to take a hefty pay cut to not beat out his current value remaining on a longer deal. Also, while players do not consider existing TO's guaranteed, they seem to "think" only about asking for guaranteed years, and don't consider that some year in the next deal might be options, so that makes it even more likely. Barerra will think he can get six guaranteed years, he will pick that most of the time over the two he probably sees this contract as. All in all, they considered options poorly, but I feel like I remember a trend towards recognizing existing TO's better than predicting future ones.

He's in the age group that actually performed failry sensibly. We severely underestimated how much players would get in some cases like his.

My guess is that if Barerra thinks he can get 10 mil AAV (meaning he'll equal the current contract) he'll opt out.

The thing that argues against it is last years' performance was down. Some players will heavily weigh the previous season's performance more than others. So this ones pretty tough to tell.

The last factor that I didn't analyze at all was team success. But I think it plays a big role. It's one of the huge advantages to winning all the time. Players take sweetheart extensions. No reason to think the game doesn't factor that in to opt out decision.

Still, I think there is a good chance he opts out. Who knows though.

[Ted]

Has anyone studied the effects on team performance of signing or dumping a disruptive influence, such as Imai? That would be interesting to know. My sense is they can be a fairly major factor, but that’s based on an admittedly small sample size of signing one in Mumbai and seeing some slippage in team morale and performance, and dumping one in Huntsville and seeing a decided uptick in morale and finding negotiations, etc. to be easier.

Not that I know of. But lots of us have this impression. Still, this is the exact sort of thing that just screams confirmation bias. You never think about clubhouse chemistry when it's the opposite of what you'd expect. (i.e. forgetting about "cancers" cancers when you have winning teams or ignoring that your 100 win team doesn't have a captain.)

But if I had to bet, I'd guess there's a real and measurable effect that's non negligible. How else would the dev's know it "worked"? They'd basically have to have included ratings that don't do anything. All in all, I'm solidly against this whole part of the game. Every study of clubhouse "psychology" I've ever read basically says winning teams have good clubhouses and losing teams have bad ones. Winning makes the clubhouse good. Losing makes the bad apples stick out.