Why did the Tigers make such a big deal out of the breakdown of the Scherzer negotiations?

32 Comments

Players and teams negotiate for long term contracts all the time. They reach the beginning of the season without deals being reached frequently. Also, frequently, players state that they will not negotiate during the season. There is nothing particularly unusual about any of that. So why are the Tigers making a point to throw Max Scherzer under the bus?

That’s really the only way to construe yesterday’s statement from the team about the end of its negotiations with Scherzer. It was worded more or less politely, but the clear and unambiguous message was “Max Scherzer and his agent are greedy and if he’s not a Tiger after 2014, it’s his fault, so don’t blame us, Tigers fans!”

Such a position used to be common in the bad old days when players would hold out so they could make, say, $40,000 a year instead of $35,000. Or even up through the first decade or two of free agency, when owners still routinely played off fans’ view that players are inherently greedy and are asking for unreasonable money to play a kid’s game. But even if a lot of fans still harbor those sentiments, it’s been some times since owners and general managers wised up to the business of baseball and abstained from playing that disingenuously populist card. Sure, there are always isolated examples, but it has been at least since the last contentious Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiation in 2002 that teams stopped doing that as a rule. At least as explicitly as the Tigers are doing here with Scherzer.

The Tigers are under no obligation to pay Scherzer what he wants, of course, but why the statement? Why change up things and draw such a public line in the sand with the reigning Cy Young Award winner? What do the Tigers hope to gain here? What are they accomplishing with this that remaining publicly neutral or even silent about the status of negotiations wouldn’t accomplish?

Often times I have some speculative answer to that kind of question. In this case I am totally baffled.

Wil Myers stole second, third, and home in the same inning

Jon Durr/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Padres first baseman Wil Myers hit an RBI single off of Nick Pivetta in the bottom of the fourth inning of Wednesday afternoon’s game, giving his team a 1-0 lead. He then proceeded to steal second base, then third base, and finally home on a double-steal, scoring the Padres’ second run.

Per CSN Philly’s Marshall Harris, it’s the first time a player has stolen all three bases in the same inning since Marlins second baseman Dee Gordon in 2011. Indeed, on July 1 that year, Gordon stole all three bases against Angels pitcher Bobby Cassevah.

Myers is currently batting .238/.322/.459 with 24 home runs, 59 RBI, 61 runs scored, and 14 stolen bases in 491 plate appearances this season.

The Marlins are “willing to engage” on trade talks for Giancarlo Stanton

13 Comments

Jon Morosi hears that the Marlins are “willing to engage with other teams” on a possible Giancarlo Stanton trade.

As we noted yesterday, Stanton has cleared revocable waivers, so he’s eligible to be dealt to any club. The price for Stanton is likely to be high given that he’s enjoying a career year, batting .285/.376/.646 with a league-leading 44 home runs and 94 RBI in 116 games this season. He’s also, obviously, the cornerstone of the franchise.

You also have to assume that anyone looking to acquire Stanton would want the Marlins to chip in money on his $285 million contract. If not, someone might’ve simply claimed him on waivers with the hope that the Marlins would simply let him walk, right? Which suggests that any negotiation over Stanton would be a long and difficult one. It might also involve Stanton agreeing to restructure his deal, which currently gives him an opt-out after the 2020 season. That would likely involve the MLBPA as well, which just makes it all the more complicated.

I think it’s a long shot that the Marlins would trade Stanton in-season, but it’s not hard to imagine him being traded this winter.