.
How many of you amigos do check out BJOL? How many pay the $3 per month? Got no idea. And why in the world does the guy not charge $4 per month. 33% more revenue and WHO would swing their decision based on that?
An interesting business question. Would really like to hear somebody's answer to that. :- ) ... maybe it's about swelling your audience in Phase One. Bill's like me, though. He ain't in his twenties any more.
Anyway, this is (momentarily) in front of the paywall, as is always the case with the last few day's worth of "Hey Bill's" ...
White space, numbers, and emphasis are mine. James' prose was in one paragraph.
....
.
Bill, I'm hoping you can answer this question based on your experience during the years when you were a consultant regarding arbitration or free agency--and thus avoid any concerns about your current employer.
(1) When agents are negotiating with teams regarding a free agent, do they put on the table what the competing "bid" is? Hypothetically, "the Dodgers are at 5 years at $20MM per, so you have to do better than that." Or is it more vague--"You've got to do better than that."
(2) I also wonder if the teams compare notes, either before or after. The latter practice would normally have some pretty bad antitrust implications--not sure how that plays out in the baseball world.
Asked by: tkoegel
Answered: 11/13/2014
.
My understanding is that for teams to co-ordinate their offers in any manner might possibly be a violation of labor law; I'm not sure about that.
The agent behavior you ask about is dealt with differently in different situations. The agent has the right to share whatever information he chooses to share about other offers, unless he has promised not to. [Picture an interview for a job. The current admin's were always too polite to ask about paywall results at Detect-O-Vision, though we volunteered it when the subject came up. IF negotiating with (say) ESPN about a gig, a writer has many reasons he might or might not want to push his current rates at the new employer. So it works exactly the same way with Hanley Ramirez -- Jeff]
In some situations. . .well, most situations. . . he might feel that it is in his client's best interest to be vague, so as to pressure other teams to step up; in other cases he might almost conduct an auction. [Think Scott Boras, who is ruthless about extra money but apparently quite straightforward in his tactics -- Jeff]
The one thing that he really shouldn't do, would not normally do, is lie about offers. If he lies to one team about the offer he has received from another team, it's a matter of time until that catches up with him, and damages his ability to conduct his business for other clients. Suppose the agent claims that he has received a $70 million offer from Team A, and then later he signs with Team B for $40 million; everybody knows that he was lying about the $70 million offer. That does happen occasionally.
EARLY in the process, you're almost always dealing with vague, general information, much of it not correct. LATE in the process, the team has a pretty good idea of where the negotiations with other teams are and what they're going to have to do to sign the player.
....
.
Dr. D sez,
That last paragraph, it gives a good idea as to the "checks and balances" against a Paul Allen-style approach, with the team giving its generous offer but a deadline along with it.
The Mariners in particular seem especially likely to see this result in an agent shopping the offer without accepting. Prince Fielder drove the M's up the wall this way. But it worked with Cano... it's going to cost you money to get it done early. But if you don't? Another sheepish January in which you protest "we kept our powder dry" and you lose another 95 games.
....
I don't say Matt Kemp is my dream date. :- ) But supposing you did think that Kemp was going to perform at a HOF level for the next 4-5 years, which I think very possible, maybe even probable.
You can push a big offer at the Dodgers and say "or else we're moving on" but ... For one thing, they're likely to give you a blank stare. And for another thing, you need their permission to talk to Kemp about playing RF/LF instead of CF. (It says here the reason he wants to play CF is probably that he genuinely sees the ball badly in the corners, and winds up humiliating himself in front of 40,000 people. Can you relate?)
Back on topic: how do you reconcile those two things? Your desire to be proactive this winter, with the need to meet with Kemp before you firm up your intentions on him? No WAY the Mariners let him play center. Michael Saunders?
....
Same with Ramirez. Nobody at SSI is calling him Robinson Cano.
A few things came to Dr. D's attention about Hanley Ramirez' glovework. :- )
Looking at the chess position more and more, so to speak, the more you suspect that Ramirez looks worse than he actually performs. As well, his big weakness is in the hole, to Kyle Seager's left ... but Kyle Seager is getting better and better at that very thing, sucking up some of the balls that the SS would usually need to go for broke on.
Per UZR -- a questionable system -- and per the eyes, Ramirez is awful. But per Dewan's plus-minus, Ramirez is actually only 10-15 plays a year below average -- all to his arm side. So there are two sources who dissent about Ramirez' need to move off SS: John Dewan, and (probably) the Seattle Mariners. For me, those are the top two sources. That's kind of like saying eighteen of the top 20 pundits think that the next Hobbit movie will have a wizard in it, but the two who don't think so are Peter Jackson and Ian McKellen.
Just floating a thought: I bet you the Mariners intend to play Ramirez at short for 2-3 years, and I bet you they think that in Safeco he'll be perfectly serviceable on defense there.
We were talking about negotiation. My wild guess about this is .... remember Bill James' last paragraph, above? Where (in November) you are whistling in the dark about what any other team is going to do? We're guessing that the Mariners are planning to cut across this with an offer along the lines of "If we make this a blockbuster, can we get you up here this weekend?" and then "If we intend play you at SS for about 3 years, provided you hit these internal stats ... and if we are talking 6/$120, would we have your business right now?"
Or more than 6/$120. He's going to be a lot more of a risk than Cano was, no doubts there. But at least he's not a pitcher, babe.
...
Because it seems the M's -- who have a lot better data than we do -- are a lot less cautious about El Nino than we are. That fact is intriguing, isn't it?
And if (IF) they were right, they'd be talking about two 5-WAR cleanup hitters turning double plays. I wonder when was the last time a team had a DP combo, one left and one right, batting #3-#4. (Oh, and the #5 hitter is your 3B. Outrageous.)
Enjoy,
Jeff
........
Cano is a reliably 5-7 WAR player long term. Ramirez is a reasonably likely 4-5 WAR player mid term. Nobody's calling the two equivalent. Heh.