Insider Roundtable: How to make deals in a weak market

ByESPN MLB INSIDERS
December 2, 2016, 7:51 AM

— --

Heck, Yoenis Cespedes, who is no lower than No. 2 in our trio of free-agent rankings for this offseason ( Jim Bowden | Keith Law | Dan Szymborski), has already re-signed with the Mets for four years and $110 million.

That doesn't mean there is no intrigue. This market has players who can help a mid-level team make a push or help solidify a contender. But there's also some validity about the old adage in regard to a front office sitting on its hands: Sometimes the best move is the one you don't make.

So, what should teams do? Dive in or stand pat? Our experts take a swing at questions about the market this offseason.

Considering this free-agent market, is it better to wait for a stronger crop of free agents, e.g. as the Yankees did before the 2009 season, when they went after Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia?

David Schoenfield: The problem with saving your money is there's no guarantee you're going to get the guys you want, especially if everyone else is also saving their money for that monster free-agent crop after the 2018 season, when Bryce Harper, Manny Machado and others hit the market. That said, I'd be wary of spending big on Kenley Jansen and Aroldis Chapman. We saw Chapman struggle in the postseason with extended outings, so his postseason upside is somewhat limited. Jansen is great, but relievers can also burn out quickly, and his career save percentage (88 percent) isn't anything special.

Dan Szymborski: The fundamental problem with waiting is sometimes you can't wait for an ideal situation. Take the Kansas City Royals for 2017. They don't have the luxury of waiting for a more promising year -- something like two-thirds of the team's WAR in 2016 hits free agency after next season. So their window is fairly definable and their choice comes down to whether or not they want to use the open window. Teams at the extremes, early on in a rebuild -- such as the Cincinnati Reds -- or teams that are already contenders may have the ability to wait for a better free-agent market. A lot of teams don't.

2. Between the limited options on the open market, is a year like this one especially dangerous for GMs, and do you entertain more risk in a year like this when your options are limited?

Bowden: It really depends on the individual player. There is not a lot of risk on players such as? Edwin Encarnacion and Yoenis Cespedes from this class, but certainly higher risk for the middle and back end of this particular free-agent class. In a year like this, you shouldn't take more risk just because it's a weaker class. Instead, teams should focus on acquiring better players by trades instead of looking at free agency to solve their problems. The best way to build a team is through the draft or international free-agent signings, then by trades and lastly by free agency. Championships are rarely won via free agency in baseball.

Schoenfield: There's always risk. Heck, last year was supposedly the greatest free-agent year ever, but look at the $100 million-plus contracts. Jason Heyward, Justin Upton and Jordan Zimmermann all flopped;? Chris Davis and Zack Greinke disappointed; and David Price had a 3.99 ERA. Only Johnny Cueto matched his 2015 season. Wei-Yin Chen, Mike Leake and Alex Gordon, all signed from $72 to $80 million, were also huge disappointments.

3. With essential tools like Jim's read of the market or Dan's performance-driven model, we have different ways to anticipate value and contract length/size, but we're also talking about billion-dollar businesses paying contracts they can afford to pay. Do we spend too much time arguing -- or complaining -- about what players get paid?

Bowden: I do think fans and the media spend too much time arguing or complaining about how much players get paid. Since the fans and media don't have to write the checks, they should be pleased that their team hopefully got better. Here's the bottom line: Players get paid such outrageous money because the industry is doing very well, and they've actually earned it based on those revenues.

We can argue about a player's worth, or how much he should get paid or what he will actually get paid, but the only thing that matters is the one team that actually signs the player. They are the only ones setting the market and they are only spending the money because they have it -- and because of the great performances of the players as a whole.

Schoenfield: Well, payrolls are still a foundation of how teams are built, so it has to be part of any smart discussion. I'd say your average fan is more willing to discuss contracts and salaries than a lot of the sabermetric numbers, so even they enjoy this talk. Plus, when else are we going to talk about Brett Cecil?

Szymborski:?The Hot Stove League is for arguing, right? And besides, pundits are gonna pundit. ZiPS has actually gotten better at predicting final valuations over the past decade, and it's not as though I made some brilliant changes to improve it. Teams are definitely looking at this kind of analysis, either from public sources or their own data, and players and agents know that. There will always be contracts that look absolutely insane, but I think there are far fewer of them today than 20 or even 10 years ago. Even for the front offices that are less sabermetrically inclined, they've seen enough contracts that have just been awful.