
The Athletic’s Jayson Stark wrote jokingly on Thursday that he is taking July 25 for the first Francisco Lindor trade rumor, and said an executive responded by cracking it might be even earlier. Trades are certain to occur before the one-time Aug. 31 deadline for 2020, but a Lindor-type blockbuster? I’m not so sure.
Yes, a team that trades for Lindor also would acquire him for his final year of control in 2021. Two executives, however, posed this question: How much would a contender give up for Lindor knowing COVID-19 might force the cancellation of the postseason?
Amid such unprecedented circumstances, a team would not simply be mindful of its chances of making the playoffs. It also would need to consider that the playoffs might not even take place. Trading top prospects for Lindor would be less appealing if a club feared he would be part of only one postseason run instead of two.
The shorter season also makes it more likely the races still will be close on Aug. 31, and increases the chance of surprising or even fluky outcomes. Back in spring training, Lindor’s Indians were not considered favorites to reach the postseason. But now, who’s to say they can’t pull it off? If they started hot, they might be less inclined to move Lindor, preferring to take one final shot with him, then revisit trade discussions in the offseason.
One last dynamic to consider: Powerhouses such as the Yankees or Dodgers might be more inclined to make a push if they anticipate unexpected playoff qualifiers will water down the postseason field, raising the possibility of at least a weaker first-round opponent.
It’s all so different, all so difficult to predict. What we’re looking at is the near-equivalent of every team in a 162-game season starting with the same record on Aug. 1, only with the threat of COVID-19 causing an interruption or complete shutdown of play. Not exactly the ideal environment for a blockbuster trade.
Before baseball’s shutdown on March 12, the Phillies appeared to stand a reasonable chance of signing catcher J.T. Realmuto to a contract extension before what would have been Opening Day. But now Realmuto is three months from free agency, and the Phillies must deal with the economic impact of the pandemic. An agreement in the near-future would appear unlikely.
Dodgers outfielder Mookie Betts, 27, looms as the top free agent this offseason. Realmuto, 29, might be the second-best player on the open market. Neither figures to get as much money as he might have before the pandemic struck, but teams will be in position to exploit a depressed market for complementary players, perhaps making them more inclined to spend big on elite talent.
That theory might be too optimistic, considering players at every ability level are likely to take a hit. But a team such as the Giants could sign Betts, and then pick and choose from the discount bin – a free-agent market possibly flooded with non-tenders, and a trade market in which some teams might be willing to pay down high-priced players’ salaries to escape as much of the commitments as they can.
One thing seems certain: Arbitration salaries are going to fall, not just this offseason, but possibly for several years. The 60-game schedule will hurt arb-eligible players in two ways – preventing them from finishing with the career numbers they might have attained after 162 games and providing too small a sample for them to point to their season as a legitimate platform year.
So, how exactly will arb-eligible players be affected?
Consider a couple of examples.
Athletics first baseman Matt Olson, who is eligible for arbitration for the first time this winter, was on pace to enter the process with 110 to 120 career homers over three-plus seasons. It will be difficult for him to reach that level now, and even if he produces a monster season, good luck finding a comparable. The A’s could simply say, “Sorry. Can’t extrapolate over 162. There is no guarantee you would have sustained your performance.”
Now consider National League MVP Cody Bellinger, who set a record for a first-time eligible player when he agreed with the Dodgers on an $11.5 million salary for this season. It will be difficult for Bellinger to build enough of a case to secure a salary similar to what Betts ($20 million) or Lindor ($17.5 million) received as second-time eligibles, unless, perhaps, he wins the MVP again.
The Dodgers also figure to save on right-hander Walker Buehler, who with a big performance over 162 games might have approached or exceeded lefty Dallas Keuchel’s $7.25 million record for a first-time eligible starting pitcher. Virtually every club is in a similar position, looking at savings not just in 2021, but beyond.
The March agreement between the players and owners includes a stipulation that 2021 salaries in arbitration cannot be used as precedent or evidence in any subsequent hearing. But the problem for players is that they will be negotiating from lower numbers initially, and each of the subsequent numbers figures to be lower as well.
An agreement on a longer season would have helped, enabling players to offer a more accurate portrayal of their true performances. The union also could have fought harder for a negotiated settlement that would have included financial protections for players this offseason. No such settlement was reached, and the league exercised its right to impose a schedule without additional benefits to either side.
Early complaints about the schedule – and it’s not even out yet!
Major League Baseball’s imbalanced schedule creates inequities every season, but teams generally accept any perceived disadvantages, knowing a 162-game season leaves them sufficient time to compensate.
In a 60-game schedule, however, each game will be worth 2.7 times more than it is normally, and the inequities created by teams playing six games against their assigned inter-league rivals might carry considerably more meaning.
Consider the NL Central, in which the Cardinals will play six games against the rebuilding Royals, while the Cubs will play six against the emerging White Sox, the Brewers six against the defending AL Central champion Twins and the Reds six against an Indians team coming off 93 victories.
In theory, the Rays and Nationals will enjoy the same advantages as the Cardinals in their respective divisions, the AL East and NL East. The Rays’ assigned rival is the Marlins. The Nationals draw the Orioles. Meanwhile, two other likely contenders in those divisions, the Yankees and Mets, will be stuck playing each other six times.
MLB plans to schedule 10 games for each club against its four division rivals, a simple and logical enough plan. But why didn’t the league take the same approach for games against opponents in the corresponding division, with each team playing those five clubs four times each?
The reason is math.
For a 60-game schedule to work, 20 series must be played. MLB is expected to go with 12 series within each division and eight interleague. With those eight series spread among five interleague opponents, the schedule by definition will not be equitable. The more balanced interleague format also would create too many four-game series. In a 30-team sport featuring two leagues and six divisions, both with an odd number of teams, it is simply not possible for all teams to play series of the same length at the same time.
So, the interleague aspect figures to look like this: Two three-game series against your assigned rival. Two three-game series against two other teams in the corresponding division. Two home-and-home two-game series against the remaining two teams.
The reason to play for free
Players with guaranteed contracts were eligible to receive $286,500 as their share of the $170 million advance the owners paid the players as part of the March agreement. But as the Boston Globe’s Alex Speier pointed out, Red Sox right-hander Collin McHugh is among the players whose share will exceed his prorated pay. McHugh, who originally signed for $600,000, will have an adjusted salary of $222,222 for the shortened season.
By that measure, he owes the Red Sox money, but according to a memo the union sent to player agents, any player whose advance exceeded his pro-rated salary will not be required to pay back the difference to the club. The union instead will reimburse the player’s team from the MLB/MLBPA Joint International Tax Fund.
For McHugh, who is joining a new team, the odd scenario raises another question: What is the incentive for him to risk his health in a pandemic and pay rent in Boston for three months when he will not receive any additional guaranteed money?
No player is obligated to play during the pandemic, but economic incentives exist for McHugh and others in his situation. McHugh’s contract includes performance and roster bonuses he can earn on a prorated basis, and because he is a free agent again at the end of the 2020 season, he will be pitching for a job.
Less experienced players who would “play for free” also are unlikely to opt out. Those who are approaching arbitration or in the middle of the process will build their cases for 2021 by appearing in as many games and performing as well as possible. Unless they are classified as high risk, sitting out would have the opposite effect.
Scramble for jobs set to begin
Modestly talented free-agent relievers sometimes hold off signing until after spring training begins, waiting to see if injuries or poor performances create an opportunity for them to sign a major-league contract instead of a minor-league deal.
Cynical as this sounds, executives expect certain free agents to apply similar logic during Spring Training 2.0, knowing positive tests for COVID-19 might open up roster spots. Then again, veteran free agents such as Jared Hughes and Edwin Jackson also might be motivated to sign quickly after the transaction freeze is lifted at noon ET Friday.
Teams must determine their 60-player pools by 4 p.m. Sunday, and any club that subsequently signs a free agent would be required to remove a player from its 60-man list – and that player could not return this season, according to an email MLB sent to clubs.
“For this reason, clubs should consider the risks of including in their Club Player Pools a non-roster player who has an opt-out/release clause in his contract,” the email said. “A non-roster player who exercises an opt-out/release clause must be released and removed from the Club Player Pool, and cannot be added back.
“As a result, Clubs may wish to consider releasing such non-roster players prior to submitting the Club Player Pool, or otherwise wait to add such players to the Club Player Pool until after the effective date of an opt-out/release clause (when the Club will know the player’s decision).”
In other words, expect some releases before Sunday.