Why So Slow?
The New York Times wonders why the pace of transactions has been so slow this offseason:
A review of baseball’s transaction history since 2001 showed that the only period featuring fewer signings in the first 12 days of open bidding than this year came in the 2002-3 off-season, when Jesse Orosco was the only free agent who had signed. Each of the last five free-agent off-seasons included at least six signings by this stage, led by the 2006 bonanza when Alfonso Soriano, Juan Pierre, Nomar Garciaparra, Gary Matthews Jr., Aramis Ramírez and Frank Thomas signed before Thanksgiving...
Some baseball executives have suggested that many teams, unsure of how long it will take for the economy to rebound, are reluctant to offer expensive multiyear deals.
It is unclear how well baseball is insulated from the country’s economic troubles, but it is clear that people in the sport are concerned.
It's too early to draw firm conclusions about why so few free agents have signed, but it's not too early to wonder. This article reminds me of the 2002-2003 offseason, when teams were spectacularly thrifty with certain types of low-impact talent, and the Pirates wound up signing Reggie Sanders, Matt Stairs, Kenny Lofton and Jeff Suppan for practically nothing.
In 2003, those players all exceeded expectations, but the rest of the team simply wasn't very good, and the bullpen was a disaster. This year, Neal Huntington has said he's going to wait awhile before signing free agents. Although he isn't going to be able to sign the equivalent of Sanders, Stairs, Lofton and Suppan for pennies on the dollar, waiting may turn out to be a productive strategy in this economic climate. Suppan didn't sign until the end of January, and Sanders and Lofton didn't sign until mid-March. This may be the only time in Huntington's tenure in which emulating Dave Littlefield is a good idea.
It's really a shame that the Pirates aren't in a position to take advantage of market conditions. If there's a market downturn, it probably won't affect marquee players like Mark Teixeira, and mid-level free agents aren't going to get the Pirates anywhere this year. A team like Tampa Bay, which really could benefit from some mid-market talent, might find useful players at good values this offseason.
0 recs |
18 comments
Comments
I can say
recession, depression, deflation and declining asset values.
by bolton on Nov 29, 2008 5:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In other words
great cover for collusion.
by bucdaddy on Nov 29, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sure
It seems I’ve heard the word “collusion” tossed around at some point every winter since there actually was collusion. And when teams start signing mediocre players to ridiculous contracts, the agents and columnists who suggested collusion never apologize and say they were wrong.
by bolton on Nov 29, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In fairness...
…the rumors of collusion re: Bonds appear to be 100% correct.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Recession, Depression, Deflation, Declining Asset Values"
These terms only apply to the OTHER businesses where the MLB owners actually made/make their money.
When it comes to MLB, most owners spend money like drunken sailors.
There must be an unwritten, strongly spoken “advisory” laid down by whatever powers that be that this is a time for restraint.
by thegunner on Nov 29, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
advisory
I think the economic news is the only advisory needed. But , then again, I read that teams are willing to go 6 years/$140 million on Sabathia. So maybe owners don’t know the meaning of restraint. I wouldn’t give a pitcher more than three or four years.
by bolton on Nov 29, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When teams cut back...
…they do it on mediocre vets, who aren’t much better than the minimum salary guys. Unique talents like Sabathia are always going to go at a premium.
by Vlad on Dec 1, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees
are about to open a $1 billion stadium. Think they’re gonna nickle and dime the team they put in it? Which means the Red Sox will follow suit, then the Angels, and the Cubs, and …
by bucdaddy on Nov 29, 2008 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guessing:
The Phillies, if they want to keep the champs together.
The Dodgers, if they re-up Manny.
Blue Jays, maybe? Unless they want to stay in fourth place for a very long time.
Braves seem serious about getting back in the hunt.
And, as always, the Mets.
by bucdaddy on Nov 30, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Jays have already all but said they’re phoning in 2009.
by Charlie on Nov 30, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reality is.....
Yes, the Yankess and Mets are opening new stadiums. But, they are having issues with their luxury boxes and ticket sales that they never would have expected a year ago. Teams realize that building through their farm system is a must. Sure they are going to sign marquee guys to huge contracts, but no more Giambis, Sheffields or long-term huge contracts for position players.
Just like the economic environment on Wall St. has changed permanently, the economics of MLB are undergoing a permanent change. I expect attendence to be down significantly this year. Living in NYC, I can see the impact at restaurants, shows, etc. The NBA is already seeing it. The owners aren’t idiots.
by dtoddwin on Nov 30, 2008 12:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
"The owners aren't idiots."
Fans in Baltimore, Texas, San Francisco and Kansas City want a word with you …
by bucdaddy on Nov 30, 2008 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention Seattle, Houston, and Los Angeles.
by Charlie on Nov 30, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(I agree with many of dtoddwin’s general points, though)
by Charlie on Dec 1, 2008 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly why baseball sucks
I love the Bucs………..the game? not so much Call me in 2014
by Hitman Easler on Nov 30, 2008 4:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 













