Moneyball Baseball Contract Thread

But that impact applies across the board to all teams and didn't affect your drafting then. Phil's unintentionally misleading comments applied to 5th year players, and may have caused teams to avoid 5th year guys to a greater degree than they otherwise would have. That doesn't mean you junk the rule that was there from the beginning for all other player types.

no we had many talks about 3-4 year players and 1-2 year players as well. Forget the whole 5th year player thing. I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the several times Randy or I brought up options for 3-4 year guys as well.

Tell me what is wrong about this. you have a guy that right now has 3 years of service and his SOM card is 1.55 lets say.



so your options are:
1. sign him to an extension at top50%
2. take him to arb1 where you will either get him for $2 (win) or next year's SOM price (lose) whichever is higher.
3. this 9.6 which gives you him for $2 (so basically like a arb win)

then, the next year he is now a 4-year guy (and again on an expiring contract), your choices are:
1. sign him to an extension at top50%
2. take him to arb2 where you will either get him at $3 (win) or the next year's SOM price (lose) whichever is higher.
3. this 9.6 rule again, which gives you him for $3 (so again an arb win.....again assuming a good player)

then the next year he is now a 5-year guy (and again on an expiring contract), your choices are:
1. sign him to an extension at top25%
2. take him to arb3 where you will either get him at $4 (win) or next year's SOM price (lose) whichever is higher.
3. this 9.6 rule again, which gives you him for $4 (another result = to a win in arb)


Do I have anything wrong here? if not, then it does look like you've effectively avoided arb by continually "winning".

I dont think you have it wrong. What I'm saying is this result is created by the rule, and is a good result not a bad one. Why? Because we are trying to mimic real life salary structures.

In real life if you strike gold with your scouting acumen and draft Wander who hits the big leagues at 20 and is an instant stud, you still only need to pay him minimum salary for 3 years. 500k or thereabouts. Then once he hits arb years 4-6 you have a progressively escalating structure where you have to pay him much more than 500k, but not nearly as much as if you had to bid for his his free agent services on the open market. Then finally when he hits free agency, if you haven't bought out his arb years by extending him yourself (as our rules provide, mimicking real life), you have to pay a premium if you want to keep him by bidding against the league.

Rule 9.6 creates this exact phenomenon that we see in real life. We dont have actual arbitration hearings with officers and the like, but the impact of the rule is... Wander at .5 ,.6, .7 in years 1-3, like real life, then 2-4 mil in years 4-6, again similar to real life, then 10s of millions to lock up as a FA.

Without Rule 9.6 what happens is you have a guy entering arb, putting up monster seasons in years 4-6, and then you're stuck "losing" arbitration and paying full FA salary. 7-10 million per, whatever. Not a realistic result at all. Players dont have leverage during arb to earn FA level AAV's, and the arbitration result doesn't depend on how they perform the following year"


Rule 9.6 doesn't perfectly mimic real life because as you say there is no uncertainty about what Garrett will cost, but when combined with the minimum salary structure it still makes you pay progressively more for him, while not getting annihilated with FA level salaries for the likes of great 3rd players, like Matt Chapman.

"Without Rule 9.6 what happens is you have a guy entering arb, putting up monster seasons in years 4-6, and then you're stuck "losing" arbitration and paying full FA salary. 7-10 million per, whatever. Not a realistic result at all. Players dont have leverage during arb to earn FA level AAV's, and the arbitration result doesn't depend on how they perform the following year"

this being the key point

Don't see anything wrong with this analysis myself but we'll see. If this was just about the 5yr guys I wouldn't be happy but I could probably live with it. But it also applies to the 3-4s. I'm too tired today to try to figure out which teams would benefit from applying this new option and by how much. My gut tells me anyone with a mid range (4-5.5mil) 5yr guy would benefit. God knows how it affects the 3-4s given how many there are. I haven't tried to figure out arbitration but I take Paul's word on it. And I do understand TN's points about it being more realistic. But guys I just read through the chat thread and the first half of it are full of the contract options on 3-4 yr as well as the 5s. No word of this option. I know it wasn't intentional and the rule was there all along, But I know I would have drafted differently. To me again, just for the sake of being fair, I vote to scrap the rule. If we're allowed to call for a vote, then I'm calling for one. Like I said I'm not jumping ship over it but a vote is fair at least.
Sorry guys won't be posting anymore till late tonite or tomorrow (some might see that as a positive lol). Have a good one.

By junking Rule 9.6 you increase risk that people will shoot over salary cap depending on how their players perform. With Rule 9.6 you obtain cost certainty. If you want to gamble on arbitration then that’s on you.

ok, here's my first attempt. would definitely appreciate any help/questions after I post this.

Scottsdale Sluggers Contracts for 2020

6+ year guys
1 Matt Carpenter 2 years at $1,300,000
2 Mike Trout 5 years at $10,540,000
3 Bryce Harper 6 years at $7,150,000
4 Carlos Carrasco 2 years at $1,000,000
5 Kyle Hendricks 5 years at $4,500,000
6 Max Scherzer 3 years at $5,500,000
7 Brock Holt 3 years at $2,000,000
8 Joc Pederson 4 years at $3,310,000
9 Will Harris 1 year at $3,790,000

5 year guys
10 Kris Bryant 1 year at $6,910,000 (rule 9.6)
11 Javy Baez 1 year at $7,290,000 (rule 9.6)

3-4 year guys
12 Mitch Garver 4 years at $4,010,000 (top50%)
13 Harrison Bader arb1
14 Aaron Judge 4 years at $7,160,000 (top50%)
15 Luke Weaver 4 years at $5,110,000 (top50%)
16 Taylor Rogers 4 years at $3,920,000 (top50%)
17 Marcos Gonzales arb1

1-2 year guys
18 Kevin Cron $2,150,000
19 Michael Chavis $1,230,000
20 Brandon Lowe $2,820,000
21 Luis Urias $1,830,000
22 Zach Collins $950,000
23 Bubba Starling $600,000 (or 500,000 if I can but I think he moves up to 600,000)
24 Lourdes Gurriel Jr $2,230,000
25 Ryan McBroom $2,180,000
26 JP Crawford $2,580,000
27 Cole Tucker $600,000 (or 500,00 same as Starling)
28 Cole Irvin $960,000
29 Patrick Sandoval $800,000
30 Brendan McKay $750,000
31 Yusei Kikuchi $600,000
32 Austin Adams $2,780,000
33 Lucas Sims $2,530,000
34 Casey Sadler $2,420,000
35 Tanner Rainey $1,220,000

no contracts offered
David Freese
Robinson Chirinos
Rich Hill
Hyun-Jin Ryu
Tyler Duffey


plus I will have 6 prospects at $500,000 each for an extra $3 million to count against the cap.

and I see myself utilizing rule 9.6 A LOT next couple years with all those 1-2 year guys I have.

At quick first blush it seems accurate