There has been a lot of talk about why this year's crop of MLB free agents have not been signed. From better analytics to fears of handing out long term contracts and even collusion, there seems to be a lot of smoke about why we haven't seen player XX sign for $175M for 7 years. We have not seen this before where you could realistically field a major league team of players that have note been signed...and spring training begins today.
So, what is the issue? I don't think it's anything as nefarious as owners and GMs talking in dark alleys about not paying player X or all teams instantly having the same perspective on every player. I think the answer is much more simple. there are a finite amount of team's that have the type of appetite to hand out these massive deals and even those teams have a finite amount of cap space to hand out these contracts. The Yankees and Dodgers may be flush with revenue, but how many 20+M a year contracts can they absorb? With this in mind let's look at the market a little differently. If you could have 10 STEEM today or 100 STEEM if you waited one year, which would you choose? Imagine the same question, but thsi time let's think about cars. If you could have a brand new Honda Accord today that is fully loaded or if you waited a year you could have a luxury car (BMW, Telsa, take your pick), what would you do. I think most of us may put off the decision for a year.
I believe the same is true with this year's free agency class. Teams are gun shy, because the free agency talent pool is stacked next year. Let's look at a couple of examples.
Darvish or Kershaw
Kershaw will be a year younger when he most likely goes back on the market. He also has not had tommy john surgery. Yes, he has had some back issues; but even taking into account that he lost weeks of the season while on the DL he still account for 1.2 most wins last year than Darvish. His ERA is lower, which will help his team stay competitive in games and likely add more wins and he is much more dominant. Yes, he will cost more than Darvish cost the Cubs, but if you are the Dodgers would you save money this offseason to resign Kershaw or limit your flexibility by adding another large contract.
Martinez vs. Harper/Machado
Martinez is 30 and wanted $200M this offseason. He is limited as an outfielder. Harper and Machado will both be 25 when they hit free agency wit their prime baseball years in front of them. They will both receive 10 years offers for ~$400M. Would you want to spend $40M a year for a younger (and based on stats better) player who would only be on your payroll until their 35 year seasons. Martinez has wanted $30M a year and you would have him on your payroll until his 37 season, so you'd be paying less, but you would also be getting an older player who has a lower ceiling. Harper has already established himself as a great player with Machado being a top 3B/SS. Both play better defense.
In both of these instances it seems to be that teams are biding their time and hoarding their war chests for next year. Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but unless this year's crop of free agent's asking prices come down I'd save my pennies for next year when I can get a true franchise altering player.
(All information pulled from baseballreference.com)
