Red Sox to sign Crawford to 7 year/$142 mil deal

[Warning Track Power]

Man...Will there ever be a day where EVERY MLB has the ability to sign two guys to the contracts GOnzalez and Crawford just got??

 

How did this sport get so far out of touch from the NFL and NBA?

Yeah, you never see an NBA team that can load up with that much talent.

 

The point is that the Indianapolises of the NFL can pay the highest salary to the best QB. The Utahs of the NBA can pay the best PG in the NBA the most money. Small markets can compete with large markets in those two sports no problem. As much as I can't stand him, LBJ took less $ to play in Miami than he could've made in Cleveland.

[kramnoj]

Do you honestly think the players would be open to full revenue sharing or a salary cap?

 

Those are two different things. I don't see a reason to believe that players would oppose full revenue sharing, as long as there was some guarantee of a percentage of revenue that goes to players.

 

 

This seems to be about the limit for the small market clubs (see Suppan, Wolf, etc).

 

The Brewers have twice offered $20M, so I don't see a reason to believe that the actual limit is half of that. I believe that the offers that the Brewers have made towards elite players haven't been enough, and the Brewers feel comfortable spending money on players that project to be average or better at positions of weakness.

 

The players know that with complete revenue sharing, there may be no club that can afford the $20+ million per year multi-year contracts

 

If MLB has $6Billion in revenue, and spend half of that on player salaries, then each team could have a $100Million payroll. Every team could afford a $20M contract, and some teams may choose to spend more on a special player.

[Patrick425]

This seems to be about the limit for the small market clubs (see Suppan, Wolf, etc).

 

The Brewers have twice offered $20M, so I don't see a reason to believe that the actual limit is half of that. I believe that the offers that the Brewers have made towards elite players haven't been enough, and the Brewers feel comfortable spending money on players that project to be average or better at positions of weakness.

 

The difference between the Brewers offering $20mil/yr and the Yankees, Boston, etc is that $20 mil is about 1/4 of their total payroll. If this player had a 6-7 year contract (which many of these guys seem to be getting at minimum), and he got injured that would kill them. This is not true for the big market teams that can go out at the trade deadline and pick up a big contract that a small market team is trying to dump.

 

The players know that with complete revenue sharing, there may be no club that can afford the $20+ million per year multi-year contracts

 

If MLB has $6Billion in revenue, and spend half of that on player salaries, then each team could have a $100Million payroll. Every team could afford a $20M contract, and some teams may choose to spend more on a special player.

See above. Perhaps every team could offer a $20million contract. Heck they could afford a $50 milliion/yr contract if they really wanted to. But considering that $20mil would be 1/5 of their payroll, I think many would soon realize (about 2 or 3 years into that contract) that it's not the smartest of moves. I think there is no doubt, under the scenario you described (every team basically having the same amount of money to spend - $100 mil), that the top paychecks would decrease.

 

How many current teams with payrolls of $100 million or less are paying anyone on the roster $20milliion or more? I really don't know the answer to this, but I'm guessing the answer is probably 0.

[kramnoj]

If this player had a 6-7 year contract (which many of these guys seem to be getting at minimum), and he got injured that would kill them.

 

That's true. It's also true that not acquiring talent isn't a great way to make a team get better.

 

I think many would soon realize (about 2 or 3 years into that contract) that it's not the smartest of moves.

 

Lots of teams that spend money do so inefficiently. It's much smarter to identify a star and pay them.

How many current teams with payrolls of $100 million or less are paying anyone on the roster $20milliion or more? I really don't know the answer to this, but I'm guessing the answer is probably 0.

 

Again, the Brewers have offered to do so twice. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist. It just means that with the current structure, players choose to go where they can get more money and win if that opportunity presents itself. And some players, like Werth, will take the most money that is offered to them when there is a vast discrepancy.

[Patrick425]

It's also true that not acquiring talent isn't a great way to make a team get better.

In a vacuum this statement is true, but when acquiring that talent (one player) takes up 20% of your payroll, then I don't think that's a valid statement. It's like putting a hood ornament on a 78' Gremlin.

 

Take a look at the KC. They signed Gil Meche to a 5 year/ $55 million contract 4 years ago. That's only $11 million/yr, but next year he will be making $13.5 million which is close to 18% of their total payroll. Given his injuries and performance over the last 2 seasons he's basically untradable and creating a big hole in their roster. So, now they are looking to dump the contract of Grienke, who is a very serviceable pitcher.

 

So, my guess is that you would say that Gil Meche was a stupid signing. They should have spent more (closer to $20mil) on a better talented player. Ok, let's say they went out that year and signed Alfonzo Soriano (who was also a FA that year) to an 8 year $136 mil deal ($17mil/year). Would this have been better? Would KC be contenders with Soriano and the rest of their roster?

[kramnoj]

KC would have been much better off not spending money on either player, instead spending that money on international free agents, increasing scouting, or saving money to offer to truly elite talent.

 

There isn't a magical number that prevents teams from having a portion of their payroll devoted to one player. The Rockies in 2007 made it to the World Series with an opening day payroll of $54M and Helton was making $16.7M that year. The Giants just won the World Series with an opening day payroll of under $100M and spent $18.5M on Zito and $12M on Rowand. That's around 30% of the payroll and they got 4 PA out of Rowand in the WS and Zito didn't make a postseason appearance.

[topper09er]

"It's also true that not acquiring talent isn't a great way to make a team get better."

 

"KC would have been much better off not spending money on either player, instead spending that money on international free agents, increasing scouting, or saving money to offer to truly elite talent."

 

 

These 2 points seem to be contradicting each other

[CheezWizHed]

We should probably split the cap discussion off on its own thread, but my $0.02 on the $100M cap per team example:

 

You are correct that there would be less HUGE salaried players. Less of the top of the top end. But overall, caps have shown to raise the price of the bottom end. So there is less disparity from player to player.

 

Then, after some time, the cap totals start to go up. As more teams are actually able to compete for the WS, it raises general interest. Fewer stadiums with 1000 fans in attendance. Fewer meaningless games. Better rivalries make more rabid fans, who spend more money on games and team stuff. The NFL is a great example of this. NBA is less so, but there is no way teams like OKC, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Orlando, Cleveland, compete with BOS and LAL without the cap...

 

No link to back that up, just my $0.02.

[kramnoj]

These 2 points seem to be contradicting each other

 

Not really. There are still ways to spend money. The Brewers did well with Cameron, Branyan, Kapler. The trick is in being a smart front office that can take calculated, measured risks that have a decent chance of paying off. Spending money just to fill a budget isn't the answer.

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]]KC would have been much better off not spending money on either player, instead spending that money on international free agents, increasing scouting, or saving money to offer to truly elite talent.

 

There isn't a magical number that prevents teams from having a portion of their payroll devoted to one player. The Rockies in 2007 made it to the World Series with an opening day payroll of $54M and Helton was making $16.7M that year. The Giants just won the World Series with an opening day payroll of under $100M and spent $18.5M on Zito and $12M on Rowand. That's around 30% of the payroll and they got 4 PA out of Rowand in the WS and Zito didn't make a postseason appearance.

Well, you kind of made my point with KC. That's pretty much what I'm arguing - although with the international FAs, they are still going to get outbid by the larger mkt teams.

 

You are correct, there is not a "magical number" and you brought up two very valid examples. However, doesn't it just make sense that a team with a $200 million payroll is more likely to spend $20+ million on a player than a team with a a payroll of $100 million? Yes, a team with < $100 million dollar payroll could spend $20 million on one player, but as far as I know it has not happened yet (possibly Twins -Mauer? - but I think thier payroll may go above $100 mil this year). The reason it hasn't happened is because it does not make a lot of fiscal sense.

 

Think about it. A car salesman is trying to sell a $60,000 luxury vehicle. He has 10 people to try to sell to that have a collective salary of $700,000. If you give him the option of 10 people with an equal salary of $70,000 or the option where 3 are making about $130,000 and other 7 are making about $45,000, don't you think he would have a better shot with the second option? Do you have the ablilty or willingness to buy the same things a person making 2 or 3 times as much as you does? Yes, having a new Mercedes would be nice and would be more reliable vs. a car that cost's $15,000 or less, but if it means you have to move to a studio apartment and live on mac & cheese, does it make a lot of sense?

 

[logan82]

Cap is a bad idea. The owners of bigger teams would just be pocketing more money. Any solution needs to start with a massive overhaul of profit sharing.

[kramnoj]

The reason it hasn't happened is because it does not make a lot of fiscal sense.

 

You can repeat that, but I have provided evidence that teams can succeed by doing so. It shouldn't be a deterrent to sign good players to contracts worth their value. It definitely shouldn't be a reason to spend the same amount of money but spreading it out to inferior players.

[The Truth]

The Red Sox overpaid bigtime.

 

Last I checked it was the Giants vs the Rangers in the World Series ... not ready to panic

 

The Red Sox will be stuck with that contract for 7 years with a guy who relies on his speed. When Crawford is 34-35-36 years old he will not be much more valuable than a Mike Cameron type.

 

I say let teams like the Nationals & Red Sox overpay for corner outfielders. Pitching wins championships anyways.

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]]It definitely shouldn't be a reason to spend the same amount of money but spreading it out to inferior players.

Well, they can continue to overpay the "non-inferior" players, but there is a huge difference between paying 1/5th of your payroll to one player and paying 1/10th of your payroll to one player. If you can't see the inequities this causes between the big and small market clubs, I'm not sure what to say.

 

 

[GAME05]

define 'superior' and 'inferior' player, though. a team could save up money to spend extra on a superstar but still wind up with Soriano or Pavano.

 

maybe the players have the power, but the owners haven't exactly banded together to try and do anything about it. the current system is perfect for most of them, too. either you can spend money and compete or field a garbage team and collect $20M in revenue sharing. if you threw me $20M per year i could care less if people complained that my team wasn't competitive. and now, the Yankees (and their type) will win the WS, but Selig still gets to say "see, the Devil Rays made it, so every small-spender can do the same!"

 

nothing is going to change until a problem reaches the level of extreme, but with revenue sharing (or MLB loaning you money) no owner has to lose money long-term. so why change the system?

 

this is why i'm rooting for the Yankees to win 10 World Series' in a row (provided the Brewers don't get there). then the fans and even the players will finally get fed up of playing in a corrupt system and demand some changes.

 

what's sad is that if any change in the system were to be made, the bottom-level players would most likely all get a big bump in pay. for all they have to deal with, just making one season of the Major Leagues deserves a heck of a lot more money than $350,000.

[Patrick425]

define 'superior' and 'inferior' player, though. a team could save up money to spend extra on a superstar but still wind up with Soriano or Pavano.

 

Kind of my point. The big market teams can afford to make a superstar mistake and still have 9/10ths or 8/10ths of their payroll paid to players who are earning their pay. Or, they can always prey on the small market teams at the trade deadline that are looking to cut payroll.

 

if you threw me $20M per year i could care less if people complained that my team wasn't competitive.

 

This reminds me of the Rob Dibble argument. Whenever small market and big market inequities are brought up to him by caller to XM radio, he complains that the small market teams are not using their revenue sharing money wisely or are "pocketing it". A) How does he know...maybe they are investing it in the farm system. B) So, if Pittsburgh has a normal payroll of $50 million and they add $20 million to that, does that mean they can realistically compete with the Yankees and Red Sox when it comes to the Lee's, Sabathias, and Gonzalezes of the baseball world? It's like I'm sitting at a poker table with $200 and all the other players have thousands and someone gives me another $100 and says "Here you go, does that help?"

 

this is why i'm rooting for the Yankees to win 10 World Series' in a row (provided the Brewers don't get there). then the fans and even the players will finally get fed up of playing in a corrupt system and demand some changes.

 

Yes, unfortunately, I think this is what is going to have to happen. In the mean time people will point to Tampa Bay and Colorodo and say "see?, they did it." Yeah, Colorodo did it. They mortgaged the farm for one or two years of sucess and then will spend the next 5-10 year rebuilding in hopes for another miracle. Or, as we are seeing in TB, they spent many years cultivating and building a farm system until the players got past the arby years and took off for greener pastures.

 

 

what's sad is that if any change in the system were to be made, the bottom-level players would most likely all get a big bump in pay. for all they have to deal with, just making one season of the Major Leagues deserves a heck of a lot more money than $350,000.

 

Not sure I understand. This statement seems contridictory. "sad that .....bottom-level players will get a big bump" vs. "they deserve a lot more than $350,000". Is the latter part meant to be sarcastic?

[kramnoj]

but there is a huge difference between paying 1/5th of your payroll to one player and paying 1/10th of your payroll to one player. If you can't see the inequities this causes between the big and small market clubs, I'm not sure what to say.

 

I haven't been talking about teams paying 10% of their payroll to one player. If you don't understand that, you haven't read my posts.

[dlk9s]

Not sure I understand. This statement seems contridictory. "sad that .....bottom-level players will get a big bump" vs. "they deserve a lot more than $350,000". Is the latter part meant to be sarcastic?

I think he means that it's sad that the players/players' union isn't considering this possibility (probability?) when fighting against any sort of salary cap system.

[GAME05]

i feel that the current structure mostly benefits the extreme elite players in baseball like Lee and Crawford. if any change were to happen, i'd like to see teams not quite being able to offer Lee $25M, and more money going to the mediocre players of the League, who represent the vast majority of players in the Union. i think overall, if an elite player gets less for five scrubs to get more, that's an overall win for the Union.

 

i DO think young players deserve a lot more than $350,000. NBA and NFL players make that, but they make it straight out of college. most baseball players play years making a pittance in the minor leagues never to see a ML contract. for the success rate and the time it takes to get there, they deserve a lot more than what they get.

[endaround]

Superstars get the most money because they are the most valuable. And they tend to actually be the bargains. Its the mid level players that tend to be too highly paid.