[triangle2]

DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.

It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.

One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years. 

To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.

[triangle2]

DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.

It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.

One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years. 

To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.