March 10th, 2022: The Lockout Ends, Rumors, Mailbag

What was your favorite part of the 2021-22 lockout? Mine was: nothing. I hated just about every second of it. The only thing I liked was not having to reflectively check my phone for breaking news every few minutes. I’m ready to get back to actual baseball talk. I sincerely thank you all for sticking around during the lockout. I know it wasn’t always pretty. Here is Friday’s post Thursday night so I can get to work on the Collective Bargaining Agreement specific post.

1. The lockout ends. At long last, the lockout is over. MLB and the MLBPA agreed to a new Collective Bargaining Agreement earlier today, and free agency and trades may have already resumed by time you read this. The owners will vote to approve the deal at 6pm ET, according to Andy Martino. Once that happens, the transactions freeze will be lifted.

Players can report to Spring Training as soon as Friday, and Sunday is the mandatory reporting date. Cactus League and Grapefruit League games are tentatively scheduled to begin Thursday, March 17th, but the Yankees are off that day, so March 18th. Opening Day is Thursday, April 7th. The Yankees will face the Red Sox at home in the season opener.

I started to write a thing after more games were canceled earlier this week and I was annoyed. I stuck it in the content graveyard (I wasn’t finished, so it stops abruptly in some places). My plan is a separate post covering the CBA details and what they mean for the Yankees. I will try to push that out Friday, but it could be Saturday. For now, here are a few quick CBA thoughts.

- My initial thought is it feels like the MLBPA did well but also not well enough. They got significant increases to the minimum salary and luxury tax thresholds, and also a brand new form of player compensation in the pre-arbitration bonus pool. At the same time, that’s it? The annual increases to the minimum salary and luxury tax still don’t keep up with league revenues, and there’s nothing to meaningfully curb tanking or service time manipulation. Well, whatever. At least baseball is back.

- There are 38 votes in the MLBPA (the eight subcommittee members and one per team) and 20 votes are needed to approve a deal. Ken Rosenthal says all eight subcommittee members voted against the CBA, and the teams (i.e. the player reps) voted 26-4 in favor of it. The Yankees, Mets, Cardinals, and Astros players reps were against it. Gerrit Cole and Zack Britton are on the subcommittee and Britton is the team’s player representative, so he voted twice. It’s not often a union goes that much against the subcommittee, so MLB did manage to fracture the union some. Ain't my problem. I'm just happy baseball's back.

- As part of the CBA, the union dropped the $500M grievance over the 2020 schedule but kept the 2018 grievance over misused revenue sharing funds, according to Evan Drellich. That is the exact opposite of what I thought would happen. So either the MLBPA did something very stupid, or I am very stupid and don’t know what I’m talking about. I know which way I’m leaning.

- Here’s a quick reminder of where the Yankees roster stands at the moment (asterisk means the player is out of options and has to pass through waivers to go to the minors):

I’d bet the farm King will be on the Opening Day roster. For now, I have him listed on the outside looking in just because he has options remaining. Anyway, the Yankees need a shortstop, probably a first baseman, a bench, and ideally another pitcher. They have one open 40-man roster spot and Britton can be placed on the 60-day injured list to clear another spot. Maybe Yoendrys Gomez too, though I don’t know what his status is following last year’s mystery elbow surgery. The owners are voting to approve the CBA at 6pm, so expect the Yankees to sign Andrelton Simmons by 6:10pm (I kid, I kid).

- Seven-inning doubleheader games and the automatic runner rule in extra innings are gone. We are back to normal baseball. I wasn’t a fan of seven-inning doubleheader games but I am the world’s biggest (only?) automatic runner rule fan. I will miss it dearly. You will too, you just don’t realize it yet.

2. Early hot stove rumors. We have a few early post-lockout hot stove rumors. First, Mike Puma says the Yankees were among the teams to check in on free agent outfielder Michael Conforto prior to the lockout. I’m a Conforto fan, though signing him only makes sense if a) you think he can play center field, or b) there’s a Joey Gallo (or Aaron Judge) trade coming. My guess is the Yankees were doing their due diligence on a good player who fits their lineup needs and ballpark well, and not much more. And second, Brendan Kuty says he’s been told pursuing Freddie Freeman is “definitely still on the table.” I do not expect the Yankees to commit big money to a 32-year-old first baseman, even one as great as Freeman, but if they do, I already ran down what it would mean. That’s all so far. Two new-ish post-lockout rumors.

Mailbag Questions of the Week

Dustin asks: I have a shift idea that I don't think has come up.  Given your platform to reach higher and larger audiences, this may be one you want to share. The basic premise of the idea is to allow a certain number of defensive shifts per 3 outs. For example, each team gets three shifts per inning and they need to strategize who they are used against. Once one pitch is thrown with a shift in place, it would count against the three. There are a lot of scenarios where the defensive team would need to make some key in-game decisions, which could backfire or be seen as a managerial stroke of genius. I could even see the scoreboard showing the number of shifts and fans getting excited once the "shift limit" is met. I could elaborate further, and I'm sure you could too. This idea further allows strategy to be part of the game, but also limits some player, fan, etc. frustrations, while bringing in new energy/excitement.

I like it! It’s a good compromise between banning the shift completely and third baseman Manny Machado making over the shoulder catches in the right field corner (which was rad as hell). It would create new strategy (do we shift against this guy or that guy, on this pitch or that pitch, etc.), and you could even roll them over like mound visits. Three per inning is 27 per game, and if a team wants to use six of their 27 shifts in one Joey Gallo at-bat, go nuts.

Hitters could simply take a pitch to take an available shift away from the opponent, but if he’s in a two-strike count or gets something out over the plate, he has to be ready to swing. MLB did this “available number per game” thing with mound visits, so doing it with shifts wouldn’t be unprecedented. I think MLB will rip the band-aid off and ban them all at once. I like this idea as a middle ground though. Shifts might just go away on their own with this rule.

Chris asks: It seems like the owners are much better at manufacturing leverage than the players. Anti-player tactics like tanking, service time manipulation, abusing international player pools, and probably many other actions I'm forgetting all create leverage for the owners in negotiations. They're able to encourage the MLBPA to offer concessions to solve problems the owners themselves created. Do you agree? And what can the players do to combat this and create leverage for themselves over the next 5 years to prepare for the next CBA expiration.

Yeah, it’s difficult for the players to create leverage because they play baseball when the owners tell them to play baseball. They aren’t in charge of their call ups or anything like that. Teams have manipulated service time and withheld call ups, effectively breaking the system to the point where the union has to give something up to fix these bad faith tactics. Pretty bad!

The MLBPA’s two best pieces of leverage are a) a strike (or the threat of a strike), and b) new revenue streams, like expanded postseason. They have to sign off on that and can trade it for other stuff. The players created some leverage for themselves with grievances, and they’re sticking to a 12-team postseason this time around so they can trade a 14-team postseason for something else later.

This isn’t my field but I’m not sure what the union can do to increase its leverage and improve its bargaining position between now and the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. They can’t not show up for work or throw games or anything like that. The union enters labor battles with one hand tied behind its back because MLB dictates when players play, but the players have no say on how teams operate.

Dan asks: Since we need a shortstop, and Derek Jeter has retired, how about a comeback for number 2 in 2022? (mostly joking but I'm sure Hal is mulling it over)

Jeter didn’t “retire” from the Marlins, he stepped away because he didn’t like the team’s direction. He could look to join another team in the future, and since he’s Jeter with a ton of star power and name recognition, I bet he’ll get an opportunity somewhere.

Jeter turns 48 in June and he was sub-replacement level in his final season, hitting .256/.304/.313 (75 wRC+) with -21 DRS at age 40 in 2014 (-0.7 WAR). The oldest player to play shortstop in a Major League game is Omar Vizquel. He played nine games at short at age 45 in 2012. The leaderboard in games played at shortstop among players age 40+:

1. Honus Wagner: 356
2. Luke Appling: 354
3. Omar Vizquel: 266
4. Ozzie Smith: 93
5. Barry Larkin: 70
6. Derek Jeter: 66
7. Bobby Wallace: 46
8. Craig Counsell: 35
9. Bobby Lowe: 26
10. Jimmy Austin: 14

Wagner played in the early 1900s and Appling in the 1930s to 1950s. The next four guys on the leaderboard are fairly recent, though even Ozzie retired close to 20 years ago now. We don’t see 40-year-old shortstops often and we’ve never seen a 48-year-old shortstop. Here are the worst defensive seasons at shortstop in the DRS era (2002 to present):

1. 2005 Michael Young: -32
2. 2009 Orlando Cabrera: -29
3. 2007 Hanley Ramirez: -27
4. 2005 Derek Jeter: -27
5. 2013 Eduardo Nunez: -27
6. 2004 Michael Young: -27

If you’re a terrible defensive shortstop, you usually don’t get to stay at shortstop, unless you’re a Jeter or Young type and a franchise icon. Seeing how Jeter was at -21 DRS in his final season and had several other -20 DRS seasons in his career, I think we can assume 48-year-old Jeter would be a -40 DRS defender. That might even be generous because it’s not that much worse than the worst season on record.

Vizquel hit .244/.276/.295 (51 wRC+) in his age 44-45 season. Vizquel was never a good hitter (only twice in 24 seasons was even league average), so let’s say 48-year-old Jeter is as good a hitter as 44-45-year-old Vizquel. 48-year-old Jeter being as good as 44-45-year-old Vizquel is not some kinda knock! That would be a graceful decline for Jeter given where he was at age 40.

Our hastily cobbled together assumptions say present day Jeter is a 50 wRC+ hitter and a -40 DRS defender at short. My back of the envelope math puts that player at -7.3 WAR in 600 plate appearances (assuming league average baserunning). The worst position player season on record is -4.0 WAR by Jerry Royster in 1977 and Jim Levey in 1933.

I know we’re supposed to bow at the altar of Jeter, but I don’t think saying 48-year-old Jeter would be a -7 WAR player is blasphemous. He was cooked at age 40 in 2014, and age-related decline is often drastic, not gradual. When it goes, it goes quick (see: Soriano, Alfonso). Put present day Jeter at short full-time and yes, -7 WAR is absolutely possible. He might even be worse.

Jeter at short would obviously make the Yankees worse than running Andrelton Simmons or some other crummy stopgap out there. The question is would the revenue increase Jeter brings (tickets, merchandise, sponsorship because of increased television ratings, etc.) be worth the hit on the field to Hal Steinbrenner? Maybe! This won’t happen but it is a fun hypothetical.

Rob asks: Given we are in the austerity Yankees era, if the Yanks re-signed Robbie Cano when he became a FA, do you think the Yanks avoid paying Cole?

No. The Yankees offered Cano seven years and $175M, and had he accepted that, they would not have signed Jacoby Ellsbury (seven years and $153M). Brian McCann (five years and $85M) and Carlos Beltran (three years and $45M) signed smaller contracts that winter, and I think the Yankees would have signed Masahiro Tanaka (seven years and $155M) no matter what given his age (just turned 25 at the time) and pedigree.

Ellsbury’s seven-year contract expired after 2020. He and Cole were on the books together that year*, so I assume the Yankees would’ve been willing to carry Cano and Cole. Also, the Yankees made the Giancarlo Stanton trade with Ellsbury on the books, so I don’t think re-signing Cano would have meant no Stanton. I think it would have meant no Ellsbury and that’s it.

* The Yankees did not actually pay Ellsbury in 2020. They withheld his $21M salary and $5M option buyout as part of their grievance claiming he received medical treatment without their permission. Ellsbury still counted against the luxury tax that year, so I think the Yankees would have been okay with carrying Cano and Cole. I don’t think the $26M in real dollars they didn’t pay Ellsbury was the difference between giving Cole $324M and not.

The caveat is Cano signed a 10-year, $240M contract with the Mariners and would’ve had to take a huge discount to return to the Yankees. Had the Yankees matched that 10-year, $240M deal, then there’s no Ellsbury and I think there would have been no Stanton either, because the Yankees would have had to assume Cano would be their DH through 2024. I think they still sign Cole even with Cano, and instead there’s no Ellsbury and Stanton.

Ray asks: Let’s say with a shortened offseason Correa doesn’t get his long term deal. Yankees offer 2 yrs at $90 million with an opt out next off season. Hypothetically, is that a good short term deal for both?

Yes with a catch. These one-year pillow contracts with what amounts to a player option insurance policy include multiple player options these days, not just one. Three recent examples:

Two years and $90M for Carlos Correa might be a year short given the current trends. It could take something like three years and $110M to get his attention. Could this structure work?

• 2022: $35M salary plus $5M signing bonus
• 2024: $35M player option ($10M buyout)
• 2025: $35M player option ($10M buyout)

Correa’s best case scenario is  $50M total in 2022 (signing bonus plus salary plus option buyout), then hitting free agency at age 28. Worst case is he’s got $110M coming to him over the next three years, which probably isn’t as much as he could make this offseason, but is still enough that he and his kids and his kids’ kids will never have to work again.

Corey Seager signed a 10-year, $325M contract and is entering his age 28 season. Correa will be at the same point in his career next offseason, and if he gets the same 10-year, $325M deal as Seager, that’s 11 years and $375M spanning 2022-32, his age 27-37 seasons. That’s the upside of a short-term pillow deal. The downside is still set forever money, just not quite as much.

If you’re Correa, you want either a one-year contract with player option insurance policies, or a long-term deal. A medium-term four of five-year contract doesn’t make sense because that puts him back into free agency at age 32 or 33, and free agents that age usually don't get paid top dollar. A one-year deal gives Correa a chance at a huge free agent contract at age 28, and a long-term means he’s set for the rest of his career.

Correa strikes me as the type who would be willing to bet on himself with a one-year deal, but who really knows? If a team comes in with, say, 10 years and $330M after the lockout, I have to think Correa would go that way. The one-year deal with player options would be a fallback plan. I wouldn’t expect the Yankees to get involved, but yeah, it sure would make sense.

C.J. asks: If the Yankees made a big splash at 1B to boost the offense, what would your thoughts be on then acquiring Taylor Walls or Willi Castro to play shortstop? Both have become somewhat blocked with their current teams and could bring some much needed athleticism to the roster.

We’ll cover the two switch-hitters alphabetically. Castro, 24, went from Cleveland to the Tigers in the Leonys Martin trade at the 2018 deadline. He debuted in 2019, had an incredible shortened 2020 season (.349/.381/.550 and 152 wRC+) thanks to .448 BABIP*, then he slipped down to .220/.273/.351 (69 wRC+) in 2021. Detroit signed Javy Baez to replace Castro at short.

* Highest BABIP among the 310 players with at least 100 plate appearances by 36 points!

Castro’s underlying numbers were almost identical in 2019 and 2020. His strikeout rate improved a bit (27.1% to 24.2%). Otherwise it was the same swinging strike rate (15.2% to 15.3%), same walk rate (5.1% to 5.0%), same average exit velocity (85.3 mph to 85.6 mph), same top 45% exit velocity (99.6 mph to 99.0 mph), etc. This is mildly interesting:

• 2021 vs. RHP: .193/.256/.337 (60 wRC+) with 27.7 K% in 314 PA
• 2022 vs. LHP: .281/.311/.383 (89 wRC+) with 16.2 K% in 136 PA

Small sample against lefties, but maybe Castro should drop switch-hitting and hit from the right side exclusively? Cedric Mullins stopped switch-hitting last year and had an MVP caliber season. That’s a best case scenario outcome, but maybe hitting righty only would allow Castro to be a league average bat? Otherwise there’s not much to see here offensively.

The numbers (-13 DRS and -6 OAA) say Castro is a liability at shortstop and Baseball America (subs. req’d) said he has a “ceiling of a second-division regular or a utility option” two years ago, the last time he was prospect eligible. Unless there is untapped potential in a non-switch-hitting version of Castro, I think the Yankees need to aim higher than this at short. Castro looks like a dude who had a BABIP-fueled short season hot streak and nothing more.

As for Walls, the 25-year-old figures to be Tampa’s next “plays all over the infield guy” now that Joey Wendle has been traded and Wander Franco is locked in at short. He made his MLB debut last season and it didn’t go well in limited time (.211/.314/.296 and 80 wRC+), though Walls has always performed in the minors, and he’s regarded as an excellent defender.

Here’s what Baseball America (subs. req’d) said about Walls in their midseason Rays prospect update last summer:

Walls is a plus defender at shortstop whose steady reliability and sticky hands are matched by above-average range and an above-average, accurate arm. Walls manages to slow the game down with an excellent internal clock. Walls can play other infield spots, but the Rays haven't had him work much at second or third because he's so reliable at short. Offensively, Walls is more likely a bottom-of-the-order hitter than someone who tops a lineup. He's a switch-hitter who is comfortable against lefthanders and righthanders. Walls is an average hitter with below-average power. He's best as a pest whose bat control makes it hard for pitchers to strike him out. His above-average speed is a useful bonus … (T) more scouts from other teams have seen him, the more convinced they are that he'll be a starting shortstop.

That guy interests me. At worst, Walls will play shortstop and play it well (we can’t say the same about Castro), and take enough walks to be more than a total zero at the plate. At best, he’s a Gold Glove glove type whose bat gets better with experience, kinda like Brandon Crawford. I would much prefer Walls to Isiah Kiner-Falefa or Andrelton Simmons.

Can the Yankees make a trade with the Rays to get Walls? The intradivision thing is always tricky and the Rays are said to love Walls – there’s a reasonable chance Franco winds up at third base in a year or two, clearing a path for Walls to play short – so even if the Yankees could get him, they’d probably have to give up a nice little package. I’m not opposed to it.

Castro doesn’t really interest me. I’d take him as a buy-low utility guy and see whether hitting righty only helps him, but not as an everyday shortstop. Walls would be preferable to the stopgap names being thrown around. Can the Yankees actually get him? Sure, there’s a point where the Rays would say yes. How likely are the Yankees to go there? Ehhh.

Mark asks: Here’s a hypothetical case for you. I suspect my opinion differs from the majority view! Let’s say you’re clairvoyant, and you’re presented with the following choice: 1) If we trade away Jasson Dominguez, the Yankees are guaranteed to win the 2022 WS, BUT, we do this knowing that Dominguez will soon become a Mike Trout-like generational talent. 2) OR, you keep the Martian, with that same certainty that he’ll be an inner-circle hall of famer, but also with the certainty that we do NOT win the 2022 WS. Which do you choose? I choose 2. I know flags fly forever, but I want to see the Martian mash in pinstripes, and I trust the NYY to eventually build a winner around him. You?

Two and I wouldn’t think twice about it. The way I see it, knowing the Yankees are guaranteed to win the World Series this year would be boring as hell. The fun is in the journey and riding out the highs and lows of the long season. If I knew ahead of time that nothing matters and the Yankees will win the World Series anyway, what keeps me engaged? I think I'd lose interest with no mystery.

Of course, knowing the Yankees won’t win the 2022 World Series would be even more boring because there’s no reward coming. But I’d get to watch Dominguez be a Trout-like player after that, and that’s pretty great. Surely the Yankees can build a roster around Dominguez that’s good enough to win a World Series or three, right?

The two main considerations for me are, in order, not knowing what will happen and watching Dominguez be this inner circle Hall of Famer. In my younger days I’d say take the guaranteed World Series. Now, I’d rather not know what happens and go along for the ride, and be surprised every step of the way. I’m not sure I’d enjoy a season with a guaranteed outcome, good or bad.

Paul asks: Maybe they'll juice the ball this season to drive interest after all the lost games? A guy can dream.

Gosh I hope so. In all seriousness, there needs to be a conversation about what baseball will do to bring fans back to the game after the lockout. I will say it again: fans are not a given. You have to earn them, and MLB has spit in our faces these last few months. They can’t just wipe it off and expect everyone to say thank you, and come back to the sport. Incentivize me.

I don’t know whether that means discounted tickets, more promotions, juiced balls, whatever. You kinda gotta do something to show the fans you appreciate them though, right? It took a while for baseball to recover after the 1994-95 strike (attendance was on the way up before the home run chase in 1998, for what it’s worth) but it did recover. Would be nice if MLB did something to help promote that recovery rather than just sit back and expect it to happen.

(Send your requests for Tuesday's random Yankee series and questions for Friday's mailbag to RABmailbag at gmail dot com.)