FanPost

Why all the unsigned FAs?

This is something I don't believe can be easily proven or disproven, so I wanted to throw it out there to see what people think.

It seems that there are a lot of middling FAs that no one's willing to sign. Take Kyle Lohse for example. Just last year he started almost 200 innings, the Phillies thought he was valuable enough to trade for, but no one has signed him in his first FA year. Careerwise he's a touch below league average but he's only 29. And steroids aside, Bonds would be useful to some teams from a pure performance standpoint.

It seems to me that teams are less willing to pony up the $ for FAs. Is that just me? This guy doesn't think so:

http://umpbump.com/press/why-so-many-out-of-work-free-agents-ill-tell-you-why/

This guy thinks it's because there is an explosion of young talent (quoting Bill James, bitch).

My theory is that it's not just because the young talent is there, but also because, even if some young player would give them less production than signing a FA, teams would rather 1) save the money even if it means less production and 2) (more importantly) keep flexibility with their 40 man and active rosters.

We are just one year removed from signing Kenny Lofton and he's still a FA. How does a guy go from signing a decent contract and getting traded for a nice return now not be able to get a job?

To me, it seems that no longer are players retiring but instead baseball is saying they're no longer interested in their pay/production. Granted, this may be a short term change, but it seems like a change to me. [ed.] Forgot this. It seems that all the teams (including the Rangers) are only going to pay for that truly great FA that's going to make a serious difference. Problem is, so is everyone else. Which is just going to escalate salaries.