Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[jerichoholicninja]

How long do you think guys will hold out for? At this point I don't think Darvish is getting much higher of an offer. Same for the other players.

 

I imagine a lot of guys won't sign until early March. Players have their own program for getting ready and spring training is pretty pointless so missing time isn't a big deal. But I really hope the guys who don't think they're getting offered enough don't sign at all. Stand your ground and sit out the season if you truly feel you're getting low balled.

[Point Beer Is Best]

The NFL has had a salary cap structure for decades, yet still over 1/3 of its teams haven't won a super bowl...

 

The NBA has gone through many iterations of team payroll structure, but everyone basically knows who will be playing in the NBA finals before each season starts.

 

"competitive balance" is a catch phrase those two leagues actually don't have. The NFL's even field more or less muddles the distinction from bad to decent teams, while the cream still consistently rises to the top provided key players don't get hurt. To me it's less about the NFL payroll structure and more about their scheduling that allows for teams to get back into contention quicker in that league.

 

Ok I’ll bite. Over the same period of time (Super Bowl era), 8 of the 30 MLB teams are without a World Series Championship (and the two most recent winners had zero prior to those seasons in that era). That’s basically the same 1/3. The difference is that if you look at payroll/market size for the MLB teams with either zero or 1 WS championship during that era it’s pretty clear that the teams with large pocketbooks are able to compete at a high level much more consistently than those with limited resources. Frankly, if you have that level of failure in the NFL, it’s most likely due to the ineptitude of that front office because EVERYONE is on a level competitive playing field. Baseball economics are much different.

[KeithStone53151]

The NFL has had a salary cap structure for decades, yet still over 1/3 of its teams haven't won a super bowl...

 

The NBA has gone through many iterations of team payroll structure, but everyone basically knows who will be playing in the NBA finals before each season starts.

 

"competitive balance" is a catch phrase those two leagues actually don't have. The NFL's even field more or less muddles the distinction from bad to decent teams, while the cream still consistently rises to the top provided key players don't get hurt. To me it's less about the NFL payroll structure and more about their scheduling that allows for teams to get back into contention quicker in that league.

 

Ok I’ll bite. Over the same period of time (Super Bowl era), 8 of the 30 MLB teams are without a World Series Championship (and the two most recent winners had zero prior to those seasons in that era). That’s basically the same 1/3. The difference is that if you look at payroll/market size for the MLB teams with either zero or 1 WS championship during that era it’s pretty clear that the teams with large pocketbooks are able to compete at a high level much more consistently than those with limited resources. Frankly, if you have that level of failure in the NFL, it’s most likely due to the ineptitude of that front office because EVERYONE is on a level competitive playing field. Baseball economics are much different.

 

I remember looking at the last 10 years of playoff teams and comparing to payrolls. The top 3 teams in payroll in a given year made the playoffs something like 75% of the time. Boy I'd sure like it if the Brewers made it half as often as those teams. It's not even arguable really...a salary cap is clearly the most fair option from a competitive balance standpoint, coupling that with a high cap floor(say 90% of the cap) would guarantee the players a strong percentage of revenues. It's a win win for everyone except the big markets that don't want to give up their advantage.

[GAME05]

Both the players and the owners created this whole mess and I'm kinda enjoying all the frustration as it plays out. Players are mad because they're not getting offered big money to sign earlier; and owners are mad because they can't afford the contracts of the big-name players. What gets me is all the players are complaining that free agency is taking so long, yet that's been the modus operandi of Scott Boras for ages, having his client hold out to the last possible minute to get the most money. Naturally other agents copy the successful model, yet they're mad they're not signed earlier? Wasn't that the plan in the first place? It's not like Darvish and all the rest haven't already been offered contracts, so isn't holding out longer on them and not the owners?

 

The owners have a system where they can line their pockets with money, and the players have a very high effective salary cap with players already making $30M+. Despite the hiccups of this offseason, isn't this a system in with both parties profit from? Very average players are making $10M per year, so what's the problem?

[DuWayne Steurer]

Both the players and the owners created this whole mess and I'm kinda enjoying all the frustration as it plays out. Players are mad because they're not getting offered big money to sign earlier; and owners are mad because they can't afford the contracts of the big-name players.

 

 

That's actually false. Players are taking a smaller chunk of the revenue pie than they have in quite a while. The owners can "afford" the players salaries. They're just choosing not to pay big dollars in years when players are in likely decline phase.

[adambr2]

I find it absolutely hilarious that either side can claim a moral high ground or try to garner public support with the sums of money they're fighting over when essentially every player in their minor league system is living in poverty. Neither could be bothered to negotiate even a living wage for them in the last CBA with so much bigger fish to fry. So they can spare us the act about caring about people.

 

I lived through '94 even though I was 12, and at this point I really don't have any sympathy for either side. You can talk about economics and all that, but at the end of the day you've got billionaires and millionaires fighting over pieces of a multi billion dollar pie that they make on massive TV deals and by charging regular schmos like us just trying to pay our bills $20 for a spot to park in for 3 hours and $10 for a beer. So at this point I just throw my hands up and say you guys figure it out but don't look to the public for support, we provide the revenue and if you can't figure out how to divide it, I've got nothing.

 

If there's a work stoppage of any sorts I hope attendance and TV ratings drop by 50% and then they can fight over half a pie instead of a full one.

[trwi7]

They're just choosing not to pay big dollars in years when players are in likely decline phase.

 

And that's the thing that agents need to get through their heads. Front offices are much smarter now, they are just not going to go out and give those insane contracts in free agents. You might be able to get a high AAV contract but you're going to have to go low on years to mitigate the risk for the team. Or you can get more years but you're going to have to take less AAV so if the player does decline in the last couple of years, they don't have $20+ million of wasted payroll.

 

In the next CBA players should push for higher wages for MiLB players (they won't) and a higher minimum salary and earlier arbitration (they probably won't).

[stoutdude04]

They're just choosing not to pay big dollars in years when players are in likely decline phase.

 

And that's the thing that agents need to get through their heads. Front offices are much smarter now, they are just not going to go out and give those insane contracts in free agents. You might be able to get a high AAV contract but you're going to have to go low on years to mitigate the risk for the team. Or you can get more years but you're going to have to take less AAV so if the player does decline in the last couple of years, they don't have $20+ million of wasted payroll.

 

In the next CBA players should push for higher wages for MiLB players (they won't) and a higher minimum salary and earlier arbitration (they probably won't).

 

I agree with your points. Well stated.

[MadThinker88]

 

And that's the thing that agents need to get through their heads. Front offices are much smarter now, they are just not going to go out and give those insane contracts in free agents. You might be able to get a high AAV contract but you're going to have to go low on years to mitigate the risk for the team. Or you can get more years but you're going to have to take less AAV so if the player does decline in the last couple of years, they don't have $20+ million of wasted payroll.

 

In the next CBA players should push for higher wages for MiLB players (they won't) and a higher minimum salary and earlier arbitration (they probably won't).

 

I agree, well stated.

 

But here is the larger question for the player side: what items are they willing to either give up or give in to? A CBA is full of give & take and each one is built upon the one preceding it. They do not go back to a blank sheet of paper & start over each time. Yes the Players needs to approach certain areas and try to make changes but the Owners will need to get something in return for each of those items.

 

The International draft - that will cause even larger headaches due to the large Latin American contingent (& their groups not wanting it).

Pace of Play - a large aspect of that will be in place before the next negotiations & if its helpful for the fans, the players will not want to be seen as against the fans

 

Where can the Players give up something (something of value in the owner's eyes) to get changes in other areas?

[jjgott]

I imagine this will be a non-starter but I'd bet the owners would be willing to tweak the 6-year control rules in exchange for non-guaranteed contracts?

[KeithStone53151]

 

And that's the thing that agents need to get through their heads. Front offices are much smarter now, they are just not going to go out and give those insane contracts in free agents. You might be able to get a high AAV contract but you're going to have to go low on years to mitigate the risk for the team. Or you can get more years but you're going to have to take less AAV so if the player does decline in the last couple of years, they don't have $20+ million of wasted payroll.

 

In the next CBA players should push for higher wages for MiLB players (they won't) and a higher minimum salary and earlier arbitration (they probably won't).

 

I agree, well stated.

 

But here is the larger question for the player side: what items are they willing to either give up or give in to? A CBA is full of give & take and each one is built upon the one preceding it. They do not go back to a blank sheet of paper & start over each time. Yes the Players needs to approach certain areas and try to make changes but the Owners will need to get something in return for each of those items.

 

The International draft - that will cause even larger headaches due to the large Latin American contingent (& their groups not wanting it).

Pace of Play - a large aspect of that will be in place before the next negotiations & if its helpful for the fans, the players will not want to be seen as against the fans

 

Where can the Players give up something (something of value in the owner's eyes) to get changes in other areas?

 

I don't think the owners should have to get something to give higher salaries in earlier years. If the players can show proof that their percentage of revenues is decreasing, the owners should be reasonable and allow for increased wages earlier on to get players back to historical percentages. Not to sound overly entitled, but it's absolutely fair for players to maintain X percent of revenues. I don't know what that percent is or what is fair, the players and owners can figure that out. But also, keep in mind that giving players more money in their team control years(or reducing team control) damages competitive balance...so small market teams won't want that.

 

The ideal system is obviously a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing, but the big markets won't want that. Keeping all 3 sides happy is going to be very difficult next CBA.

[Oldcity]

Yes, pushing for free agency after 4-5 years instead of 6 would significantly alter free agency, and you'd see a lot more spending in that way. You could argue, though, that this creates a pretty big disadvantage for small market teams who really rely on that cheap labor.

 

If that isn't changed, you'll probably see a different approach by agents; more will be likely to take extensions with teams to buy out free agent years rather than wait until they hit free agency past their prime.

 

Or this could all just be teams focused on next winter's FA class.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Yes, pushing for free agency after 4-5 years instead of 6 would significantly alter free agency, and you'd see a lot more spending in that way. You could argue, though, that this creates a pretty big disadvantage for small market teams who really rely on that cheap labor.

 

That's why any change in arbitration/team control would require an increase in revenue sharing to even the financial playing field. I want to see free agency after 4-5 years instead of 6, because it will lead to players getting paid what they're worth in the prime of their career, not forcing teams to pay that rate based on past performance typically at the start of their decline.

 

Revenue sharing has to improve, which is where small and big market club owners have issues with each other (let alone the players/players' union). Perhaps getting rid of the luxury tax is a carrot big market teams would like in exchange for significantly more revenue sharing, or at least capping how much of certain revenue streams teams can use on player payroll that tend to be the biggest financial differentiators based on market size alone (i.e., TV deals).

[madbad2000]

I think a lot of the public posturing that we are seeing now is relevant to this off-season first and foremost. Tony Clark/Boras are trying to scare teams into signing the remaining free agents because that is for who they work (Union/Agents looking out for players). Players expect each year to have their comparables increased through new, record setting deals because it affects salaries from other free agents on down the line to include arbitration. That is not happening this year due to the perfect storm of players available, team strategies (rebuild/go for it/stay under luxury tax) and the massive class for next year. Their arguments will be blown out of the water next year as we will (likely) see multiple $30M+ deals signed across the board for OF, IF and SP.

 

As for give and take, that is a tricky situation. You have two different battles. Internally amongst owners (usually small/large market) and then the collective owners vs. players. Internally there is that debate of the compeitive landscape financially to include revenue sharing. If large market owners are giving money to smaller market teams they want to see those teams use it for payroll and not pocket it. The whole point is to make the lower end more competitive. Smaller market teams want a more balanced landscape and that will likely only come from a cap. Players likely don't want a cap because it stifles their earning potential. But in the current landscape there is too much incentive to complete rebuild because that is the best way to compete against the money for an extended window of opportunity. And that hurts the players because it removes teams from the market.

 

What I would like to see:

 

Raise the salaries for Minor Leaguers already. Stop forgetting where you came from (Major Leaguers) and do the right thing.

 

International Draft. It really only benefits the incredibly young Latinos (usually) that make a life altering check with few fulfilling that promise. The system is already proven to be exploited by advisors (crooks) taking advantage of these kids. Similarly, MLB should make a big investment by improving facilities and networks throughout all of these major hotspots for talent to help these kids out.

 

Increase in minimium salary at Major League level.

 

Guarantee a certain % of revenue to players based on end of year figures. Gross, not Net. The amount over and above allocated salaries for the year will be paid out to players based on amount of games actively played and this payment does not affect salary cap as that is a flat rate for every player regardless of team.

 

Have a salary cap with penalties for not spending to a certain percentage every year.

[Boomer5]

Teams all have the same data these days. They know that only foolish teams sign 5 year deals to FA over 30 unless they are incredibly unique and the $8M per WAR model is really about half that.

 

The problem for the players is they need to become FA earlier than 6 years so they can cash in on their prime years.

[MVP2110]

I really think part of the problem is how much minor league control teams have. Not the six major league seasons. I personally would like to see an option year cut out and maybe one less year of minor league control for players coming out of college

[KeithStone53151]

I really think part of the problem is how much minor league control teams have. Not the six major league seasons. I personally would like to see an option year cut out and maybe one less year of minor league control for players coming out of college

 

I'd agree this is a valid point. Teams can still delay a player in the minors to try and get their peak seasons with the team control. Drafted players can be held in the minors and on the 40 man with options until they are 26-27, add in the team control and their primes are completely gone...you still are deciding how many years this 32-33 year old player will be good before he falls off a cliff.

 

I don't really have an idea for a solution for that specifically. I agree it's a fair point to review minor league control.

[NievesNoNO]

I used to be a, "we need a salary cap" person. I'm likely in the extreme minority, but I actually like the system as it is. I don't like all the average teams that a cap and floor creates. I think it DOES create a more level playing field but I'd argue that that doesn't necessarily make for a better game. There have been quite a few teams over the years that have essentially tried to compete in that way and done so unsuccessfully.

 

I think you can't just impose a salary cap without a floor and you can't just increase revenue sharing without a salary floor. The mid market and smaller market teams have started to figure out that spending 80-100 million to win a few extra games doesn't make baseball or financial sense, especially when the team down the road just spent 30 million for the same end result.

 

My suggestion would be to start arbitration years a year sooner and for MLB to take a good look at team locations and ownership. The Marlins have been under horrible ownership and haven't drawn an adequate number of fans for years. Why was that allowed to continue? Front offices and owners are starting to realize that 7-8 years mega deals don't typically end well. Why pay for players injured/crappy seasons and not only take up payroll but also a roster spot? I have a strong feeling most GMs and owners would be willing to hand out shorter term deals worth more AAV. To me that seems like a fair compromise.

 

Baseball just isn't the same as other sports with the need for feeder minor league systems and what seem like an increased development period. If you start allowing FA after 4-5 seasons, I think franchises will really start keeping players in the minors longer than necessary.

 

I'm not sure what all the answers are but, it's such a expansive system\game that it will definitely take a multi-tiered approach to come up with something workable for everyone.

[Fear The Chorizo]

100% agree something also needs to be done with teams gaming the current minor league control system. The difficulty MLB has is that there are often 3-yr gaps in ages that players get drafted/signed (18 out of high school, 20-21 out of college). Reducing minor league control for a kid who signed out of high school in the mid rounds that needs 5-6 seasons of development isn't really fair to both the organization and the kid. Same goes for the college senior who signed and could potentially be in the minors until he's almost 30. I wonder if they could set up some sort of tiered system of minor league control based on the age a player was when he signed. Signed out of high school, change nothing. Signed as a junior in college, 4 yrs. Signed as a senior in college, 3 yrs.

 

Truth is, the minor league control rule only becomes an issue with the small percentage of minor leaguers who actually get to MLB and have extended careers. Where it's an issue in terms of MLB free agency is when a premium player is intentionally held back from MLB when he's obviously ready for the show. A player like Kris Bryant was in the minors probably 1 season longer than he needed to be simply because the Cubs wanted to delay starting his service time clock while their MLB team was horrible. Most premium prospects tend to be called up a bit late based on their development to optimize arbitration control.

[KeithStone53151]

I used to be a, "we need a salary cap" person. I'm likely in the extreme minority, but I actually like the system as it is. I don't like all the average teams that a cap and floor creates. I think it DOES create a more level playing field but I'd argue that that doesn't necessarily make for a better game. There have been quite a few teams over the years that have essentially tried to compete in that way and done so unsuccessfully.

 

So you'd prefer the teams with the most resources to continue to have a significant advantage and end up with all the best players? The "great" teams that get created by a cap/floor are almost always going to be larger market teams due to them having a significant advantage.

[Boomer5]

I'm all for sanity in salaries to help keep ticket prices in check and for teams to not carry dead money on the back of idiotic FA deals.

 

But I also think teams should not play games with the 6 year clock like we did with JJ and Davies.

[Boomer5]

Baseballs finances are a mess. We have these past their prime guys collecting way too much money relative to performance while we have young stars held back for loopholes and minor leagues making peanuts.

 

That needs to change.

[NievesNoNO]

I used to be a, "we need a salary cap" person. I'm likely in the extreme minority, but I actually like the system as it is. I don't like all the average teams that a cap and floor creates. I think it DOES create a more level playing field but I'd argue that that doesn't necessarily make for a better game. There have been quite a few teams over the years that have essentially tried to compete in that way and done so unsuccessfully.

 

So you'd prefer the teams with the most resources to continue to have a significant advantage and end up with all the best players? The "great" teams that get created by a cap/floor are almost always going to be larger market teams due to them having a significant advantage.

 

I do think there could be more done with revenue sharing, but I don't like the idea of forcing teams to spend on somebody. I don't like the NFL or NBA models where the floor is so close to the cap it creates all sorts of ridiculous transactions and paying average players ridiculous amounts of money because they had to spend on somebody. I DO think there's a compromise somewhere. I could see a floor and cap system working with a larger spread between them and some other modifications. I guess my point is restricting things and trying to make things equal doesn't always have the results that people might be looking for. Baseball is just such a different animal with the international players and minor league systems that there's so much to consider.

[MrTPlush]

You know who would just a love a cap floor? Neil Walker types and relievers.

[KeithStone53151]

You know who would just a love a cap floor? Neil Walker types and relievers.

 

And about 3/4 of the league's teams as they'd finally be on a somewhat level playing field.