Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[brewcrewdue80]

What a Joke on Hosmer's part to ask for 8years if he has 7/140 offers. He's not even that good for a 1b bat. Just Defensively. So in 6 years Arcia should be getting 7 year 140million offers and declining it for an 8th year? Well at least I thought he was a good Defensive 1b with those GGs and all, but don't look at BRef on his DWar, not 1 season positive.

 

Arrieta shouldn't have had a bad season in a contract year. He's getting what that deserves.

 

The way this is going, I doubt a single Boras FA gets signed before the season begins. Kudos to the owners/GMs not bowing down to his demands and making him sweat. Every week that passes in to the season without his clients signed, must be a Hundred thousand not filling his pocket.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Harper is a Boras client, correct? I actually wouldn't be surprised if Harper sits out next season because they'll be requesting a 10yr, $500 million deal...

[MoreTrife]

Harper is a Boras client, correct? I actually wouldn't be surprised if Harper sits out next season because they'll be requesting a 10yr, $500 million deal...

 

 

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me.

[bill hAll Star]

Harper is a Boras client, correct? I actually wouldn't be surprised if Harper sits out next season because they'll be requesting a 10yr, $500 million deal...

 

 

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me.

 

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

[KeithStone53151]

Harper is a Boras client, correct? I actually wouldn't be surprised if Harper sits out next season because they'll be requesting a 10yr, $500 million deal...

 

 

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me.

 

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

From reading through this, the general consensus is the system needs to be adjusted as players decline quicker without PED support. Players should be paid more in their primes/more productive years. I don't think anyone has a good answer for how in a way that will keep all 3 parties happy(small market/big market/players). Crying foul now that teams got smarter and aren't standing in line to dole out stupid contracts anymore is a poor stance that agents/players insist on taking.

[bill hAll Star]

From reading through this, the general consensus is the system needs to be adjusted as players decline quicker without PED support. Players should be paid more in their primes/more productive years. I don't think anyone has a good answer for how in a way that will keep all 3 parties happy(small market/big market/players). Crying foul now that teams got smarter and aren't standing in line to dole out stupid contracts anymore is a poor stance that agents/players insist on taking.

 

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards.

 

Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names.

[KeithStone53151]

From reading through this, the general consensus is the system needs to be adjusted as players decline quicker without PED support. Players should be paid more in their primes/more productive years. I don't think anyone has a good answer for how in a way that will keep all 3 parties happy(small market/big market/players). Crying foul now that teams got smarter and aren't standing in line to dole out stupid contracts anymore is a poor stance that agents/players insist on taking.

 

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards.

 

Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names.

 

Fair enough, I'm sure the agents/players won't have any problem with teams overpaying for consolations prizes that everyone knows won't perform up to contract expectations.

[bill hAll Star]

From reading through this, the general consensus is the system needs to be adjusted as players decline quicker without PED support. Players should be paid more in their primes/more productive years. I don't think anyone has a good answer for how in a way that will keep all 3 parties happy(small market/big market/players). Crying foul now that teams got smarter and aren't standing in line to dole out stupid contracts anymore is a poor stance that agents/players insist on taking.

 

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards.

 

Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names.

 

Fair enough, I'm sure the agents/players won't have any problem with teams overpaying for consolations prizes that everyone knows won't perform up to contract expectations.

 

Right, but it's going to be very hard to find a happy landing spot. If you shift the pay up a few years earlier, you're going to see some teams sign themselves into oblivion with some young, relatively unproven players or teams like the Brewers having some heavy payrolls when they rebuild with prospects.

 

You might have a situation like the NFL before regulated draft pick costs when veteran QBs were angry that Jamarcus Russell negotiated $50 million while they're a 5 year productive vet that has totaled $8 million.

 

Now the pendulum has swung back. People are laughing at Stafford and Jimmy G getting record contracts while Carson Wentz and Jared Goff are making very modest amounts to be just as productive or better.

 

I'm sure there's a better solution, but in almost any situation, you'll have underpaid and overpaid players and the smart and rich teams will exploit that.

 

Personally, for the most part, I rarely associate my value or personal feelings of a player with their pay. I know that's what the market dictated in most cases. Matt Garza was not worth $12.5 million last year but he was also not worth $400k in 2008 or 2009 when he threw 180 and 200 innings with a 3.8 ERA. Also, I understand that the Brewers signed him to a substantial contract because their only other avenues of acquiring a [hopefully] good pitcher were to let one come up in their farm system (they had none) or to trade for one (would cost substantial prospects). The Brewers had a surplus/slot of salary and risked it on Matt Garza, knowing that underpaying guys like Jonathan Lucroy and Gomez allowed them to make such a move.

 

In the football example, I understand that the Lions overpaid Matt Stafford because there were no other options to keep them as a fringe playoff/longshot Super Bowl team. I also know that in 3-4 years, he will be the 10th-15th highest paid quarterback. That's how all of this stuff works.

 

In all cases, the best option for the franchise is to continue grooming young, cheap, replacements. In such cases, you are still only saving money to:

A. Make more money for your owner or

B. Likely overpay a different position of need via free agency or trade absorption

[ThisIsMyCrew]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

[pacopete4]

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game.

[KeithStone53151]

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game.

 

This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players.

[MoreTrife]

Harper is a Boras client, correct? I actually wouldn't be surprised if Harper sits out next season because they'll be requesting a 10yr, $500 million deal...

 

 

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me.

 

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

Definitely agree but that's not how things are structured now so I don't feel bad. Hope they figure out a way to pay players at their peak and balance small market interests.

 

It does bother me when my team pays an aging player who doesn't produce though. The idea of a 36 yr old Arrieta...*shudder*

[bill hAll Star]

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game.

 

This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players.

 

And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold.

 

Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground.

 

Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid.

[bill hAll Star]

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me.

 

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

 

Definitely agree but that's not how things are structured now so I don't feel bad. Hope they figure out a way to pay players at their peak and balance small market interests.

 

It does bother me when my team pays an aging player who doesn't produce though. The idea of a 36 yr old Arrieta...*shudder*

 

I'm not saying I want to feel sad for the owners if they're saddled with unforeseen $40 million bills since they can probably afford it, but consider these scenarios:

 

Option A: Players are basically on arbitration immediately and pay can skyrocket quickly.

 

What happens to a small market team if they have rookie Mike Trout and some other stud rookie when both of those guys get a 1500% raise in year 2? Can ownership afford a guy that in year 2 has bumped up from $500k to $15 million dollars without truly planning for it? Sure, you can say that the owner reaped the rewards of having a young, star player and that they could've maybe known this was coming, but that could really throw some crazy salary situations in there.

 

What happens if the player quickly gets hurt or regresses? Who loses pay to balance all of this out?

 

Option B: Young players are free agents really early.

 

Goodbye good, young players for small markets. The Yankees and Dodgers will own all of them if they don't already.

 

Option C: Players can negotiate huge deals basically when they come up to the majors or very early.

 

This is the old NFL #1 pick conundrum. Bryce Harper maybe could've held out swinging a bat in the majors until the Nats agreed to pay him $200 million over 6 years. Sure, that may have actually worked out, but what about all of the busts? Would Mark Prior or Matt Harvey or even larger highly touted busts have been worth that massive investment before they ever stepped on the diamond or after only 1 good season? How would some longstanding vet that started his career slower feel about that?

 

This isn't going to be as easy as some think.

[KeithStone53151]

 

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game.

 

This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players.

 

And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold.

 

Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground.

 

Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid.

 

I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year.

[pacopete4]

 

I'm not saying I want to feel sad for the owners if they're saddled with unforeseen $40 million bills since they can probably afford it, but consider these scenarios:

 

Option A: Players are basically on arbitration immediately and pay can skyrocket quickly.

 

What happens to a small market team if they have rookie Mike Trout and some other stud rookie when both of those guys get a 1500% raise in year 2? Can ownership afford a guy that in year 2 has bumped up from $500k to $15 million dollars without truly planning for it? Sure, you can say that the owner reaped the rewards of having a young, star player and that they could've maybe known this was coming, but that could really throw some crazy salary situations in there.

 

Option B: Young players are free agents really early.

 

Goodbye good, young players for small markets. The Yankees and Dodgers will own all of them if they don't already.

 

Option C: Players can negotiate huge deals basically when they come up to the majors or very early.

 

This is the old NFL #1 pick conundrum. Bryce Harper maybe could've held out swinging a bat in the majors until the Nats agreed to pay him $200 million over 6 years. Sure, that may have actually worked out, but what about all of the busts? Would Mark Prior or Matt Harvey or even larger highly touted busts have been worth that massive investment before they ever stepped on the diamond or after only 1 good season? How would some longstanding vet that started his career slower feel about that?

 

This isn't going to be as easy as some think.

 

But these aren't the only options out there. This is something written to show how poorly a system could be set up for small markets.

[bill hAll Star]

 

This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players.

 

And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold.

 

Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground.

 

Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid.

 

I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year.

 

Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them.

 

You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well.

[bill hAll Star]

 

I'm not saying I want to feel sad for the owners if they're saddled with unforeseen $40 million bills since they can probably afford it, but consider these scenarios:

 

Option A: Players are basically on arbitration immediately and pay can skyrocket quickly.

 

What happens to a small market team if they have rookie Mike Trout and some other stud rookie when both of those guys get a 1500% raise in year 2? Can ownership afford a guy that in year 2 has bumped up from $500k to $15 million dollars without truly planning for it? Sure, you can say that the owner reaped the rewards of having a young, star player and that they could've maybe known this was coming, but that could really throw some crazy salary situations in there.

 

Option B: Young players are free agents really early.

 

Goodbye good, young players for small markets. The Yankees and Dodgers will own all of them if they don't already.

 

Option C: Players can negotiate huge deals basically when they come up to the majors or very early.

 

This is the old NFL #1 pick conundrum. Bryce Harper maybe could've held out swinging a bat in the majors until the Nats agreed to pay him $200 million over 6 years. Sure, that may have actually worked out, but what about all of the busts? Would Mark Prior or Matt Harvey or even larger highly touted busts have been worth that massive investment before they ever stepped on the diamond or after only 1 good season? How would some longstanding vet that started his career slower feel about that?

 

This isn't going to be as easy as some think.

 

But these aren't the only options out there. This is something written to show how poorly a system could be set up for small markets.

 

OK, you propose one. I'm going to guess that I can find a way to either exploit loopholes or how it could be unreasonable/not feasible/really flaky within minutes.

[KeithStone53151]

 

OK, you propose one. I'm going to guess that I can find a way to either exploit loopholes or how it could be unreasonable/not feasible/really flaky within minutes.

 

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage.

[bill hAll Star]

 

OK, you propose one. I'm going to guess that I can find a way to either exploit loopholes or how it could be unreasonable/not feasible/really flaky within minutes.

 

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage.

 

Yes, that one I'd classify as decent but probably not feasible for a few reasons.

 

As you state, the larger markets would cry.

 

However, that is a practical sticking point. This isn't so much like the NBA or NFL. Markets matter a bit more in the MLB and it could truly hurt the league's earning power if the Yankees are continuously hamstrung. The NBA is a bit of a closer example though not perfect. The Knicks are stupid and the league is doing fine, but I do think that if all of the huge markets cannot pay bigger players in the MLB how much it would thrive financially if the league's goal is to keep upping profits/revenues every season.

 

Player salaries would also be drained a bit by this so the players also may not like it. Huge markets bid and set major asking prices on players which drives up cost in the absence of a harder salary cap. A floor helps a bit, but in theory, the players could probably have a bit of a gripe there. They have to like the idea that Bryce Harper will have 10 suitors driving up the price on him and in turn, on player salaries down the line for the teams that miss out on him.

 

How is the cap enforced? Is it like the NBA where the teams can keep going further and further into the luxury tax zone as long as they're willing to pay and keeping their own players? To an extent, that's what the large markets have already done the past few years.

[KeithStone53151]

 

I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year.

 

Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them.

 

You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well.

 

It's the agent's responsibility to properly assess the market and help players make the best decisions. That doesn't seem to be what's happening, mostly just whining/complaining/cries of collusion with nothing getting done. It's hard to know who's specifically at fault with the delayed market without knowing actual offers. Based on what Darvish signed for and what's been reported about him and others, the offers seem significant enough and not wildly unreasonable low balls. Also Boras has a reputation for being a "jagoff" as you put it, and there have been reported asking prices for his clients specifically that are wildly ridiculous. I imagine teams would line up to offer 1 year deals or even 2 year deals with an opt out after year 1 so these players can get in on the 2018-19 frenzy. The 2 year option mitigates some injury risk and lets players bet on themselves for one more year and hope to maximize their earnings.

[bill hAll Star]

 

I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year.

 

Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them.

 

You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well.

 

It's the agent's responsibility to properly assess the market and help players make the best decisions. That doesn't seem to be what's happening, mostly just whining/complaining/cries of collusion with nothing getting done. It's hard to know who's specifically at fault with the delayed market without knowing actual offers. Based on what Darvish signed for and what's been reported about him and others, the offers seem significant enough and not wildly unreasonable low balls. Also Boras has a reputation for being a "jagoff" as you put it, and there have been reported asking prices for his clients specifically that are wildly ridiculous. I imagine teams would line up to offer 1 year deals or even 2 year deals with an opt out after year 1 so these players can get in on the 2018-19 frenzy. The 2 year option mitigates some injury risk and lets players bet on themselves for one more year and hope to maximize their earnings.

 

That remains to be seen. Obviously you're taking the "I'm a sensible guy" approach here, but while I think Jake Arrieta will be vastly overpaid in a baseball sense, this is his one chance to cash in. I won't cry over him only making $40 million instead of $130, but it does hurt the players at large if he just gives in. What if he gets hurt?

 

Again, I'm not crying for Arrieta, but Boras has to at least try to get his client the standard, long contracts. He always does this by driving an obscene bargain, but if he gives in this offseason, what's to stop the owners from doing this every year? Obviously the market works out on the other end that eventually some owner would say "screw your collusion, I'm ponying up for Harper" but it will affect players down the line. I think you let things like "big market bias" and "this guy is a jagoff" cloud your judgment a bit.

 

It may end up that he has to give in this offseason, but it isn't without consequence and while there is risk to it, he may have to try for his clients.

[KeithStone53151]

 

OK, you propose one. I'm going to guess that I can find a way to either exploit loopholes or how it could be unreasonable/not feasible/really flaky within minutes.

 

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage.

 

Yes, that one I'd classify as decent but probably not feasible for a few reasons.

 

As you state, the larger markets would cry.

 

However, that is a practical sticking point. This isn't so much like the NBA or NFL. Markets matter a bit more in the MLB and it could truly hurt the league's earning power if the Yankees are continuously hamstrung. The NBA is a bit of a closer example though not perfect. The Knicks are stupid and the league is doing fine, but I do think that if all of the huge markets cannot pay bigger players in the MLB how much it would thrive financially if the league's goal is to keep upping profits/revenues every season.

 

Player salaries would also be drained a bit by this so the players also may not like it. Huge markets bid and set major asking prices on players which drives up cost in the absence of a harder salary cap. A floor helps a bit, but in theory, the players could probably have a bit of a gripe there. They have to like the idea that Bryce Harper will have 10 suitors driving up the price on him and in turn, on player salaries down the line for the teams that miss out on him.

 

How is the cap enforced? Is it like the NBA where the teams can keep going further and further into the luxury tax zone as long as they're willing to pay and keeping their own players? To an extent, that's what the large markets have already done the past few years.

 

A floor would ensure players get x% of the revenue. I'd be open to letting teams go over the cap line with severe penalties, like 100% for the first 20 million and 200% beyond that...something like that. At least that way the Dodgers might be spending $200-220 million while most other teams are between $145 and 155 million. That's a far cry from 2017 when the Dodgers had an opening day payroll of $247 million while 7 teams opened under $100 million and league average was $138. The big market advantage would be significantly diminished.

 

And honestly if baseball becomes less profitable because the Yankees and Dodgers and Cubs aren't always in the playoffs to drive up ratings, too friggin bad. The argument that the most profitable teams should have an advantage is crap. How much less money would be in baseball if the small market teams weren't part of the league?

 

Your point that guys like Harper/Machado/Kershaw/whomever would make less money is probably accurate to some degree as teams would still have to fill out the rest of their roster, but it wouldn't matter at all to the players side as a whole as they would still be getting x% of the profit...there would be no way for owners to collude or manipulate anything as they would be entitled to x%. I read somewhere that players salaries have steadily been at 56% of revenues. Maybe set the floor for 53% of revenues and the caps at 60% of revenues. You'd think the end result would be around 56%.

[bill hAll Star]

And honestly if baseball becomes less profitable because the Yankees and Dodgers and Cubs aren't always in the playoffs to drive up ratings, too friggin bad. The argument that the most profitable teams should have an advantage is crap. How much less money would be in baseball if the small market teams weren't part of the league?

 

Where do you think the pool of your proposed increased revenue sharing comes from?

 

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage.

Also, with significantly less team control, players will still probably flock to the larger markets and/or build superteams even if pay is the same or slightly less. Also, with baseball being different with half of your MLB roster in a given year being guys that go up and down from the minors, how do you manage that with very small team control? You'd have teams getting every ounce of production they can out of guys in the majors while they should be developing in AA. That's good and bad for the players. You'd have a watered-down level of play for some teams because teams would be developing more guys in the majors.

 

It would be just a strange mess of developing a player for 5 seasons in the minors and then, depending on payroll/cap situation, having to know that he's gone in 2-3 years via free agency or being forced to look for a trade because you're at the cap. Of course some teams might not be, but there would be a lot of weird situations where teams can't even keep the guys they've developed.

[brewcrewdue80]

Just hand every player the Super 2 status. You get a player for 7 seasons, unlimited options Day 1 starts his clock and runs continuously even as optioned, which you can make unlimited rather than the current way. Only part being, is his Minors stats he accrues counts towards the arbitration figures.

 

The one and only exception to this is September callups. A player/team are allowed 1 callup after a team has lost 81games and those days not count as a way to give fans in a lost season a chance to see their prospect play when a team wouldn't call him up otherwise.

 

So no 9 days and gain an extra year of team control. You have team control of a player 6.001 to 6.181 and like I said the clock runs whether in majors or minors once he plays first game in Majors.