Cliff Lee phillies throwing

The union doesn’t have a problem with Cliff Lee’s deal

14 Comments

There has been some debate about just how much one can characterize Cliff Lee’s deal with the Phillies as one in which he “left money on the table.”  On the one hand, there is the potential there for him to make more money with Philly than he made in New York. On the other hand, there was more money guaranteed in New York than Philly. On the third hand — stay with me; more than one hand is OK — we’re learning now that the first year or two of Lee’s deal will be at lower dollars before it jacks up past $20 million. The upshot: there are a lot of moving parts to this deal, and while it’s clear that he took some form of a financial hit to come back to the Phillies, it wasn’t terribly large.

But the whole affair has had a lot of people wondering about what the player’s union thinks about a top free agent at least appearing to take less money than the market would bear.  Jon Heyman asked union head Mike Weiner about whether the union put any pressure on Lee to take the best deal, and this is what Weiner said:

“Absolutely not. That’s just not our approach. We want players to make the best use of their right under the Basic Agreement … As long as a player makes an informed decision, we’re happy. There are non-economic considerations. The fact that Cliff took a deal that wasn’t top dollar isn’t a problem for us.”

I agree with Heyman on this: good for the union if what Weiner says is true. Which I believe it to be.

Which isn’t to say that there still isn’t some form of pressure working on free agents. I just don’t think it’s direct. It’s probably more cultural than anything. Players grok the dynamics of the free agent market pretty early in their careers. They know that what one guy makes will impact them. This is driven home to them in their arbitration years when a player’s worth is explicitly determined by direct comparisons to other players, by name.  They are certainly aware once they hit free agency that, in some important ways, they’re not just setting their own salary, but helping set the salaries for others.  And that’s not even taking into account the subtle pressure an agent and family members may exert.

Put differently: even if the union doesn’t send memos to players on the subject, there’s a passive pressure on guys to take the best deal.

Reds’ manager Bryan Price extended through 2017

PHOENIX, AZ - AUGUST 28: Manager Bryan Price #38 of the Cincinnati Reds looks on during the fifth inning against the Arizona Diamondbacks at Chase Field on August 28, 2016 in Phoenix, Arizona.  (Photo by Norm Hall/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

The Reds will roll with manager Bryan Price for at least one more season. Per MLB.com’s Mark Sheldon, Price has been extended through the 2017 season with a club option for 2018. He won’t be the only familiar face leading the team, as the Reds have reportedly asked the entire coaching staff to return as well.

This is Price’s second consecutive season with 90+ losses since Cincinnati signed him to a three-year contract back in 2014. While he hasn’t been able to replicate the same kind of success that former skipper Dusty Baker found in 2012 and 2013, he’s been saddled with a team that’s still in the throes of rebuilding, not one that looks on the cusp of playoff contention. It is, after all, the same team that has not seen a healthy season from Homer Bailey since Price’s arrival, one that unloaded Jay Bruce for a pair of prospects earlier this year and one whose pitching staff set a single-season record for most home runs given up by a major league team.

Justifying Price’s extension requires a different kind of yardstick, one that measures player development and individual success over the cumulative win-loss record. Here, Price has overseen solid performances from contributors like Adam Duvall, who is batting .244/.297/.506 with 2.9 fWAR in his first full major-league season, as well as young arms like Anthony DeSclafani, Brandon Finnegan, and Michael Lorenzen, among others.

From comments made by Reds’ CFO Bob Castellini, Price’s success within a rough rebuilding process appears to have cemented his place within the club, at least for the time being.

I like the young, aggressive team Walt and Dick have put together with players from within our system and from recent trades. […] Bryan has been here seven seasons now. He’s comfortable with the direction we are heading with our young players, and we are comfortable with him leading us in that direction.

Dusty Baker calls the Nationals “a baby making team.” Whatever that means.

PHILADELPHIA, PA - AUGUST 31: Manager Dusty Baker #12 of the Washington Nationals looks on before the start of a game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Citizens Bank Park on August 31, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Rich Schultz/Getty Images)
Getty Images
9 Comments

When the Nationals fired Matt Williams a year ago, it might’ve been a safe assumption that they were going to go with that new breed of young, handsome recently-retired player-turned-manager who, despite a lack of experience, allegedly knows how to deal with modern players better and knows how to handle a clubhouse. Those assumptions have proved largely off with these guys — Williams was a disaster, Matheny wins despite himself and Ausmus looks like he’s perpetually on the verge of a breakdown — but that’s the all the rage these days anyway.

Instead, the Nats hired Dusty Baker. Though Baker had tremendous success as a manager everywhere he went, he was maligned by some for some pitcher handling stuff in Chicago (which said pitchers have long denied was an issue, but let’s let that lie). He was also, more generally, thought of as a “retread.” Which is what people who prefer younger folks for jobs tend to call older people, even if the older people know what they’re doing.

And yes, I will cop to thinking about managers that way a lot over the years, so I’m not absolving myself at all here, even if I was pretty OK with the Dusty Baker hiring. I’ve evolved on this point. In no small part because of how Dusty Baker has done in Washington. Flash forward a year, the Nats are division champions and Baker may be a top candidate for Manager of the Year. That, in and of itself, should show you how wrong the haters were.

But if it doesn’t, this sure should:

I have no earthly idea what that means and Castillo gives no further context. All I know is that it sounds cool as hell and of any current manager, only Dusty Baker could say that and pull it off.

Because he’s Dusty Baker and has nothing to prove to you. And if you don’t like it, shoot, he’ll just go back home to his winery or whatever and live out the rest of his days being cooler than you.