Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[danzig6767]

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.

That's the problem though. Many big market teams bristle at the idea of giving lots of revenue sharing money to multiple small market teams who don't use it on players and instead the millions can often go right into the pockets of tanking small market owners.

 

There is the conundrum. It can make sense for some small market teams to basically tank for 2-3-4 years with small payrolls, but then big market owners paying the revenue sharing dollars complain saying all we are doing is putting money into the pockets of tanking/rebuilding small market owners.

 

No easy solution for that if calls for increased revenue sharing are made. Big market teams will be against it and so will the players.

[adambr2]

 

Follow that philosophy, and before long we're going to be paying $175 for a bleacher ticket and $45 for a hot dog.

 

 

 

Ticket prices and hot dog prices have absolutely nothing to do with players salaries.....at least in that if you raise payroll, that doesn't directly lead to a raise in ticket prices. If you raise payroll and you sign a guy like Darvish and you win 95 games, THAT would lead to a raise ticket prices, but only because it's what the market would bear. They can't set ticket prices at a price point that nobody is going to pay. Do you think if the players never earned the rights to become free agents and the league was still making the same amount of money, but payrolls topped out around 30 million dollars that the owners would keep ticket prices and beer prices artificially low? Of course not. They charge what people are willing to pay to maximize revenue. Same reason why Jordan's cost hundreds of dollars but only cost 10 bucks to be made. Why isn't Nike selling them for 15 bucks? Because people are willing to pay 300 for them.

 

It's the same reason that it's just asinine to "demonize" players as you put it for getting paid as much as they can, EVEN if they go on to struggle as was the case with Matt Garza.

 

We weren't the only team offering Garza, a proven winner(at the time) a large contract. He had earned that. And then his body just simply didn't allow him to live up to it. But you start demonizing people for not saying, "no...really, don't give me 50 million, just give me 25, I can't promise you I'll be healthy," and you're being totally unrealistic.

 

Garza was an intense competitor. I also realize there was a blip on his tenure here during the end of the '16 season, but nonetheless, he was an intense competitor who seemingly worked hard and just didn't have it anymore. But I hardly blame him for accepting the money.

 

And if we sign Darvish(and don't win a WS in the next 2-3 years) I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of complaining about him in years 4-5...and even 6.

 

But I don't know why sports is the only industry we're upset with the workers trying to maximize their value and blame THEM or in your words "demonize" them rather than the BILLIONAIRE owners who are making more than any player in the game...either year to year or in increasing equity.

 

 

Lets turn it around. Has Mark A "earned"...what, 750 million dollars as owner of the Brewers? Forbes valued the team at 50 million dollars more from 16 to 17. Did he earn that? Should we demonize him for that?

 

 

I don't begrudge anyone from maximizing their earning potential. I ROOT as a fan of the team for the team to make good decisions, but when the TEAM signs a guy like Garza, I don't blame him if it doesn't work out. Seems short sighted and frankly hypocritical to me as I KNOW I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

 

There are some good points here, and I certainly don't demonize guys who take top dollar and don't work out. If it's a bad deal (see: Suppan, Jeffrey), I'll blame the team for a bad business decision.

 

From an economic standpoint, I understand that owners will charge the maximum they can of what people are willing to pay to maximize profits. I do think there are ways in which their pricing can be a little more fan friendly and still maximize profits, especislly with concessions, and the Atlanta Falcons were a great example of that this past year.

 

From a personal standpoint; however, as a man working 60 hours per week to support a 5 person family, I have no patience for the violins that play on either side for either the players or owners pleading their cases anytime there is labor strife. My attitude -- fair or not is, you guys have a big enough pie to divide up made on our backs, you figure it out and don't involve us in any way. If they can't do that without a work stoppage, they won't be seeing me at the stadium anymore. Obviously, they have a lot of work to do in the next CBA.

 

I don't think it's collusion, I think its partly next year's FA class, and partly the fact that GMs these days are just much better at valuation. Free agency, for the most part, sucks, especially at the high levels. We've been shrugging it off for years that getting a sour deal for the last few years of a long contract as just the way it is, but maybe GMs just aren't willing to do that anymore. It's like taking out a 6 year loan on a car that you know will break down after 3-4 and leave you stuck with the payments and no car. Dumb, right? But it's been happening in MLB for years.

 

The system is broken and really needs an overhaul in the next CBA. The 6 years club control is fine and favorable to small markets, but I'd like to see more money in the early years rather than just minimum payments for 3 years, an outdated arbitration system for 3 more, and then the expectation that some dumb GM will pay you at age 30 for what you did 2-3 years ago.

 

I'd also like to see much higher wages, at least a decent living wage, for minor leaguers, which neither side really seems to give a hoot about. While they fight about 9 figure contracts the majority of their prospective players live in buses at the poverty level, most of which will never wear an MLB uniform.

[reillymcshane]

We have revenues rising and franchises making more money than ever. I can see where the players would be frustrated that their salaries aren’t going up at the same time.

 

I’ve said that there are likely many factors for the slow market (teams being smarter, not as many teams in the market to ‘win’, saving for next year, the luxury tax line, weak free agent market, poor results on past free agent signings, more guys on the trade market, etc., etc.), however, I can see where some of the owners might point at the luxury tax threshold and say, “That’s a good excuse to cut payroll to that point.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And viola, we have a de facto salary cap.

 

I also don’t think it would be hard for the owners bean counters and analytics people to sit down in front of these guys and say, “We’ve identified several areas that are really bad investments. Free agent deals over (insert number) years or (insert number) of dollars. We’d really recommend avoiding them as much as possible.” Again, all the owners look at the data, look at each other, say, “That’s a good idea.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 

Again, is all of this collusion? Or is it just smart business? Both?

 

In the end, the hard part will be proving collusion. We’ve seen those arguments trotted out. As we’ve talked about, there’s a lot of factors going on that have probably contributed to the slower market.

 

As people have noted before, baseball is a business. And the owners want to make money. And by being a bit more restrained and sophisticated, and building a team from within (such as Houston and Chicago and KC have done), they can win - plus make oodles of cash. Chasing a championship with money just seems like a much more expensive proposition - and the odds of winning with such a team is less than if you build from within. So why blow all sorts of money in such a fashion?

 

In many ways it’s hard to claim collusion since the owners can just say they are being smart business people. Is it collusion to operate more efficiently and make more money? Does the CBA say that profits have to go back to the players?

 

This circles back to the current situation. Owners making more money every year - yet the players salaries have stagnated (and might even fall). That’s frustrating for any group of employees. No one likes to see the owners make more and more, yet they don’t get a salary bump.

 

My thoughts are that the players need to take a fresh look at what they negotiated. At this time, I don’t think there is anything linking salaries with revenues - and maybe that’s where they should look at. I don’t know how that is achieved, and I don’t if it would really work, but defining revenues, and then guaranteeing themselves a specific portion of those revenues, would probably ‘fix’ any sort of collusion (if it exists) narrative. How the players are guaranteed their money is another question. Do you have salary caps? Salary floors? I don't know.

 

All of this is very difficult due to the disparity in revenues of the different teams. It’s unlike the NFL or NBA. Some teams make way, way more cash than others.

 

I'm just spitballing stuff. Personally, I see a lot of forces at work - and that very well could include tacit 'wink, wink' decision by the owners. But as we've said, how do you prove such things?

 

I think the players and owners are in for a really big fight in the next CBA if they don't really come in looking to revamp the system in a lot of ways.

[sveumrules]

Great post, Reilly.

 

There are a lot of factors at play this offseason, but for me it ultimately comes down to the MLBPA dropping the ball majorly in the last CBA negotiations.

 

From 2011 (previous CBA) to 2016 MLB front offices/teams became much more analytically inclined as a group. To assume foolish FA contracts would be handed out in perpetuity when teams were clearly becoming more aligned in their valuation methods was a yuge oversight.

 

Something resembling the NBA model with a salary cap/floor used to guarantee the players a set percentage of league revenues annually is what Tony Clark should have been angling for. Hope the players enjoy their four extra off days a year he negotiated for instead!

[bill hAll Star]

We have revenues rising and franchises making more money than ever. I can see where the players would be frustrated that their salaries aren’t going up at the same time.

 

I’ve said that there are likely many factors for the slow market (teams being smarter, not as many teams in the market to ‘win’, saving for next year, the luxury tax line, weak free agent market, poor results on past free agent signings, more guys on the trade market, etc., etc.), however, I can see where some of the owners might point at the luxury tax threshold and say, “That’s a good excuse to cut payroll to that point.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And viola, we have a de facto salary cap.

 

I also don’t think it would be hard for the owners bean counters and analytics people to sit down in front of these guys and say, “We’ve identified several areas that are really bad investments. Free agent deals over (insert number) years or (insert number) of dollars. We’d really recommend avoiding them as much as possible.” Again, all the owners look at the data, look at each other, say, “That’s a good idea.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 

Again, is all of this collusion? Or is it just smart business? Both?

 

In the end, the hard part will be proving collusion. We’ve seen those arguments trotted out. As we’ve talked about, there’s a lot of factors going on that have probably contributed to the slower market.

 

As people have noted before, baseball is a business. And the owners want to make money. And by being a bit more restrained and sophisticated, and building a team from within (such as Houston and Chicago and KC have done), they can win - plus make oodles of cash. Chasing a championship with money just seems like a much more expensive proposition - and the odds of winning with such a team is less than if you build from within. So why blow all sorts of money in such a fashion?

 

In many ways it’s hard to claim collusion since the owners can just say they are being smart business people. Is it collusion to operate more efficiently and make more money? Does the CBA say that profits have to go back to the players?

 

This circles back to the current situation. Owners making more money every year - yet the players salaries have stagnated (and might even fall). That’s frustrating for any group of employees. No one likes to see the owners make more and more, yet they don’t get a salary bump.

 

My thoughts are that the players need to take a fresh look at what they negotiated. At this time, I don’t think there is anything linking salaries with revenues - and maybe that’s where they should look at. I don’t know how that is achieved, and I don’t if it would really work, but defining revenues, and then guaranteeing themselves a specific portion of those revenues, would probably ‘fix’ any sort of collusion (if it exists) narrative. How the players are guaranteed their money is another question. Do you have salary caps? Salary floors? I don't know.

 

All of this is very difficult due to the disparity in revenues of the different teams. It’s unlike the NFL or NBA. Some teams make way, way more cash than others.

 

I'm just spitballing stuff. Personally, I see a lot of forces at work - and that very well could include tacit 'wink, wink' decision by the owners. But as we've said, how do you prove such things?

 

I think the players and owners are in for a really big fight in the next CBA if they don't really come in looking to revamp the system in a lot of ways.

 

I think this is all a good point, except I personally would take the part where you said the owners took the suggestion about long(er) contracts and said "that's a good idea" [wink wink, nudge nudge] and insert that it's more about the luxury tax.

 

Nobody was bidding on Darvish except for the Cubs, the Dodgers (but only if they got a taker to get them to fit Darvish under the luxury tax threshold), and some small market teams. That throws everything off for Darvish and the entire market beneath him.

 

I think next year we'll see long contracts again. The owners wanted to reset the number and in a sense they colluded to all [wink wink, nudge nudge] conveniently do this when they knew they'd maybe boost spending again for the big free agent crop next year.

[reillymcshane]

We have revenues rising and franchises making more money than ever. I can see where the players would be frustrated that their salaries aren’t going up at the same time.

 

I’ve said that there are likely many factors for the slow market (teams being smarter, not as many teams in the market to ‘win’, saving for next year, the luxury tax line, weak free agent market, poor results on past free agent signings, more guys on the trade market, etc., etc.), however, I can see where some of the owners might point at the luxury tax threshold and say, “That’s a good excuse to cut payroll to that point.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And viola, we have a de facto salary cap.

 

I also don’t think it would be hard for the owners bean counters and analytics people to sit down in front of these guys and say, “We’ve identified several areas that are really bad investments. Free agent deals over (insert number) years or (insert number) of dollars. We’d really recommend avoiding them as much as possible.” Again, all the owners look at the data, look at each other, say, “That’s a good idea.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 

Again, is all of this collusion? Or is it just smart business? Both?

 

In the end, the hard part will be proving collusion. We’ve seen those arguments trotted out. As we’ve talked about, there’s a lot of factors going on that have probably contributed to the slower market.

 

As people have noted before, baseball is a business. And the owners want to make money. And by being a bit more restrained and sophisticated, and building a team from within (such as Houston and Chicago and KC have done), they can win - plus make oodles of cash. Chasing a championship with money just seems like a much more expensive proposition - and the odds of winning with such a team is less than if you build from within. So why blow all sorts of money in such a fashion?

 

In many ways it’s hard to claim collusion since the owners can just say they are being smart business people. Is it collusion to operate more efficiently and make more money? Does the CBA say that profits have to go back to the players?

 

This circles back to the current situation. Owners making more money every year - yet the players salaries have stagnated (and might even fall). That’s frustrating for any group of employees. No one likes to see the owners make more and more, yet they don’t get a salary bump.

 

My thoughts are that the players need to take a fresh look at what they negotiated. At this time, I don’t think there is anything linking salaries with revenues - and maybe that’s where they should look at. I don’t know how that is achieved, and I don’t if it would really work, but defining revenues, and then guaranteeing themselves a specific portion of those revenues, would probably ‘fix’ any sort of collusion (if it exists) narrative. How the players are guaranteed their money is another question. Do you have salary caps? Salary floors? I don't know.

 

All of this is very difficult due to the disparity in revenues of the different teams. It’s unlike the NFL or NBA. Some teams make way, way more cash than others.

 

I'm just spitballing stuff. Personally, I see a lot of forces at work - and that very well could include tacit 'wink, wink' decision by the owners. But as we've said, how do you prove such things?

 

I think the players and owners are in for a really big fight in the next CBA if they don't really come in looking to revamp the system in a lot of ways.

 

I think this is all a good point, except I personally would take the part where you said the owners took the suggestion about long(er) contracts and said "that's a good idea" [wink wink, nudge nudge] and insert that it's more about the luxury tax.

 

Nobody was bidding on Darvish except for the Cubs, the Dodgers (but only if they got a taker to get them to fit Darvish under the luxury tax threshold), and some small market teams. That throws everything off for Darvish and the entire market beneath him.

 

I think next year we'll see long contracts again. The owners wanted to reset the number and in a sense they colluded to all [wink wink, nudge nudge] conveniently do this when they knew they'd maybe boost spending again for the big free agent crop next year.

 

You mention something important here that I think should be noted - without direct proof of collusion - let's see how this plays out next year. This may be one of those years where the forces have combined for a perfect storm and suppressed the free agent market. In the long run, it may be blip. By next year, perhaps money will be flowing a lot more freely.

 

This does nothing to assuage the feelings - and pocketbooks - of the players this season - especially those who are free agents and are taking contracts they feel are below market. But maybe this is the weird offseason where things just aligned badly for the players. Just speculating.

[sveumrules]

My prediction for next winter is the big names all get paid & most will think that means everything is back to normal, but the middle class of free agents (which is pretty much where everyone in this class falls) will still get frozen out because there's no reason to pay market rate for average-ish players when there are so many cheaper options to provide similar value & increasingly fewer teams trying to compete in the present.

[splitterpfj]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

[KeithStone53151]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

Every year many guys that had decent seasons the year before end up getting replaced by younger options. There's also generally a top down approach keeping middle-class guys like cashner from getting contacted. I'm sure he's talked to teams, but the Brewers/Twins/Phillies/other teams are targeting Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta/trades first with Cashner as a backup plan. Also, I'm not sure why a team needs to discuss anything but money with an agent. These teams have information coming out their ears on every single player, they know every single stat and attribute of every player before they call an agent.

 

I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

[bjkrautk]

 

I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

 

Not a huge fan of Boras, but I'd suggest a player deserves the largest amount that a team is willing to pay. That's what his players expect when they hire him, after all.

[JosephC]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

Arrieta had a six year offer but hasn't signed because he wants a minimum of 26.5 million per season (159 million)? Hosmer has two offers near 140 million dollars but he's refused those because he wants at least an 8 year deal?

[MoreTrife]

If the players want to get PAID$$$$, they need to:

 

1. Negotiate less years of team control into the next CBA so elite players are hitting free agency around the 26-28 yr range when they are still going to perform on the tail end of the contracts.

2. Institute a salary cap (can be high, as long as revenue sharing balances playing field) so small markets who benefit the most from longs of team control of their prized prospects can still compete with the big boys without those years of team control.

 

I could care less about rich owners staying rich. There will always be the uber elite 1% rich . Can't stop that. I care about my team getting hamstrung paying 35-38 year olds. I'm glad teams are wising up and not taking huge risks paying these geezers (I'm older than them haha).

 

ALBERT PUJOLS. The horror.

[reillymcshane]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

Arrieta had a six year offer but hasn't signed because he wants a minimum of 26.5 million per season (159 million)? Hosmer has two offers near 140 million dollars but he's refused those because he wants at least an 8 year deal?

I guess I would say, is this true? Does Hosmer really have two 7 year/$140M dollar offers?

 

And no one knows what Arrietta has been offered. The number quoted was what he reportedly asked for. Is that number true? And what has he really been offered?

 

I say this because there were lots of earlier reports that Darvish was going to get $25-30M per season. Those never panned out. The best offer he got was $21M/year - still a ton of money (and years) - but not the $150M+ many thought he'd get. And all the supposed interest and offers from other teams - Twins, Brewers - was a lot less than reported.

 

Perhaps it's all true. Perhaps Arrieta is holding firm for a $25M+ offer for five or six years. And Hosmer does have a couple of $140M offers on the table. We shall see what happens. I guess I'm not going to believe stuff until we actually see what they sign for.

[markedman5]

 

I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

 

Not a huge fan of Boras, but I'd suggest a player deserves the largest amount that a team is willing to pay. That's what his players expect when they hire him, after all.

 

Ultimately every free agent will get the largest amount a team is willing to pay......unless he turns down a better offer.

 

"Deserve" makes me laugh.......what somebody "deserves" is not some cut and dried figure that an agent gets to decide. Each club will have a different interpretation......assuming they are interested at all.

 

Did Cain get what he deserved? Depends if he stays healthy and performs well in the next 4 or 5 years. Clubs are trying to evaluate the future......not pay for the past.

[KeithStone53151]

 

I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

 

Not a huge fan of Boras, but I'd suggest a player deserves the largest amount that a team is willing to pay. That's what his players expect when they hire him, after all.

 

Ultimately every free agent will get the largest amount a team is willing to pay......unless he turns down a better offer.

 

"Deserve" makes me laugh.......what somebody "deserves" is not some cut and dried figure that an agent gets to decide. Each club will have a different interpretation......assuming they are interested at all.

 

Did Cain get what he deserved? Depends if he stays healthy and performs well in the next 4 or 5 years. Clubs are trying to evaluate the future......not pay for the past.

 

Boras doesn't try to get what he thinks is fair based on a players performance/stats/age/etc. He manipulates every data point he can to get his player the best possible deal he can. Which I understand is what an agent should do, but the extremes he goes to end up hurting players sometimes(Rafael Soriano anyone) and end in terrible deals for the teams more often than not. So you tell me if it's fair that he get his player far more money than he's worth and said player doesn't put up nearly the results expected? In the end, he's made a career of taking advantage of dumb GM's/owners that cave to the pressure to win. Well now a good chunk of those GM's that he screwed over with awful deals don't have jobs anymore(gee...I wonder why) and are replaced by much smarter GM's that see through his nonsense and aren't going to risk their jobs making bad signings. I believe this offseason would be much different if he didn't have any marquee free agents. I hope some of his more greedy free agents sit out half a season waiting for their fantasy land contract demands to be met...and cave to 1/2 year deals after firing Boras and try to reset their value for 2019.

[jerichoholicninja]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

Every year many guys that had decent seasons the year before end up getting replaced by younger options. There's also generally a top down approach keeping middle-class guys like cashner from getting contacted. I'm sure he's talked to teams, but the Brewers/Twins/Phillies/other teams are targeting Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta/trades first with Cashner as a backup plan. Also, I'm not sure why a team needs to discuss anything but money with an agent. These teams have information coming out their ears on every single player, they know every single stat and attribute of every player before they call an agent.

 

I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

 

With those middle to bottom tier free agents, the only thing you're paying for is certainly. For example, why would the Brewers pay $5-10M a year for Andrew Cashner when they could possibly get the same production from dirt cheap Brandon Woodruff. Woodruff could be a total disaster this year and Cashner is probably a guaranteed 4.25-4.5 ERA with middling K numbers. Is Cashner's production worth 10x the cost of taking a chance on Woodruff? I'm sure the Brewers and most other clubs would say no.

[agent39]

Its not true

[rickh150]

A salary floor (100 mil range) and cap (200 to 210) makes the most sense. That would force small markets to take on some more FA, currently unsigned. It would increase competition throughout the league.

The biggie would be Increasing the revenue sharing so small markets could afford yearly FA. I believe Bob Costas came up with a formula where each MLB team's home game's revenue is shared with the visiting team, whether it's TV, radio, tickets, whatever. The big markets still come out ahead because their 81 home shares are much more than 81 home small market shares. The huge divide in team revenue that is now so apparent would be much less then with this plan, and smaller markets would have to use their added revenue on players. Plus, fan bases would be given hope almost yearly because of the acquisition of new or proven talent to the roster.

If the big markets cannot stomach giving up so much revenue, I suggest added benefits to small markets (45 man rosters for bottom half revenue teams, no 1st round pick for top third revenue teams, an uneven schedule where small revenue teams play more small revenue teams, big markets play more bigbmarket teams, etc.). Basically, level the playing field. I mean the Brewers are considered as "going for it" now, and their payroll is still half of Big market teams..... what a joke.

[tigerbrew]

There are several quotes here from Joshua Kusnick, our own, “Agent39”:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

 

Sounds like prices are crashing even for the Boras clients. Stearns doing the right thing by waiting out for bargain buys opportunities in pitching.

[Fear The Chorizo]

so let me get this straight...

 

JD Martinez is apparently the "King Kong" of slug, but 2015 was basically his 1 season in his career that he's played a full slate of games. His 2017 season was so off the charts good compared to his career average, and even his 2014-2016 production - makes you wonder what stuff Boras had him on during his contract season, doesn't it? Of course, Boras cherry picks 2017, where he hits like Lou Gherig and therefore he's deserving of 6-8 years at 25 million per. You simply don't pay that kind of coin to a 30-yr old corner outfielder who can't play defense with a career OPS in the mid-800's.

 

But because he's not signed, apparently MLB owners are screwing the players??

 

I maintain that the current CBA has proven to be a dinosaur, a product of many years of rampant PED use to turn what has always proven to be a young man's game into something mid-late 30-somethings could still excel at even if they weren't generational talents. The players' union had no problem keeping the current aribitration/team control system in place because they knew good players' primes were going to extend beyond when they normally do. Now that PEDs are at least somewhat in check, you can see the shift and steep decline across the league in the number of veteran players that produce anything close to what their free agent contracts state they are worth on the field. The players simply didn't see this coming when the last CBA was negotiated and have been slow to adjust how they should prioritize getting years of team control reduced to get more younger players to free agency, but I'd be willing to bet that alot of the owners/management structures did.

 

This offseason, the tables have sort of turned - at least temporarily...to me it's not that the owners are screwing the players, it's that they're refusing to be screwed by certain free agents that end up stagnating the overall market. Lesser free agents will have a much harder time finding work when better options at their position are still available - even if those better options are being insane with contract demands.

[DuWayne Steurer]

For a long time, it seems that players have at least partially been paid for past performance. NOBODY expected Pujols to be a .950 OPS player in even the last half of that contract. NOBODY. Yet he got almost a quarter of a billion dollar contract, and the Reds turned around and gave almost the same thing to Votto. When Votto got that deal, EVERYONE said "by the end of that deal that's going to be a lot of dead payroll."

 

So... owners/GM's are not paying for past performance anymore. Did they ALL suddenly figure it out in the same offseason? Nah. I think that some teams have been shying away from these contracts for a while now. More and more teams are going with stat-minded GM's in the last 5-10 years, and if they don't, they have analytics people on their payrolls.

 

Teams don't want to go over the luxury tax to pay 33 year old aging superstars for things they did 3 years ago. If players are upset about this, they NEED to look at where they stand with 6 years of cheap team control, the arbitration process, and guys like Chris Bryant getting a "record" 1 million dollars (or whatever it was) assigned contract coming off of an MVP season. Look at the way teams screw guys out of service time (JJ Hardy, Zach Davies) to save a few bucks, or get an extra year of team control.

 

The players agreed to these terms...... and that's what's screwing them over now. When you don't hae to pay guys for their first three years, and then pay them sparingly for the next three, of COURSE teams will use and abuse that system to their own benefit in every way that they can. Is it collusion? Nah. Teams are just finally figuring out that paying guys over 30 the biggest dollars over several years makes very little sense. Something will have to change in the next CBA, or the only guys that are going to make the huge paydays are going to be guys like Trout, Harper, and Machado, the guys that hit FA while still in their prime years.

[KeithStone53151]

so let me get this straight...

 

JD Martinez is apparently the "King Kong" of slug, but 2015 was basically his 1 season in his career that he's played a full slate of games. His 2017 season was so off the charts good compared to his career average, and even his 2014-2016 production - makes you wonder what stuff Boras had him on during his contract season, doesn't it? Of course, Boras cherry picks 2017, where he hits like Lou Gherig and therefore he's deserving of 6-8 years at 25 million per. You simply don't pay that kind of coin to a 30-yr old corner outfielder who can't play defense with a career OPS in the mid-800's.

 

But because he's not signed, apparently MLB owners are screwing the players??

 

I maintain that the current CBA has proven to be a dinosaur, a product of many years of rampant PED use to turn what has always proven to be a young man's game into something mid-late 30-somethings could still excel at even if they weren't generational talents. The players' union had no problem keeping the current aribitration/team control system in place because they knew good players' primes were going to extend beyond when they normally do. Now that PEDs are at least somewhat in check, you can see the shift and steep decline across the league in the number of veteran players that produce anything close to what their free agent contracts state they are worth on the field. The players simply didn't see this coming when the last CBA was negotiated and have been slow to adjust how they should prioritize getting years of team control reduced to get more younger players to free agency, but I'd be willing to bet that alot of the owners/management structures did.

 

This offseason, the tables have sort of turned - at least temporarily...to me it's not that the owners are screwing the players, it's that they're refusing to be screwed by certain free agents that end up stagnating the overall market. Lesser free agents will have a much harder time finding work when better options at their position are still available - even if those better options are being insane with contract demands.

 

The agents of players will tell you the stuff being reported isn't accurate. Then offer no facts or evidence to the contrary, but trust them...the players are all getting screwed.

[agent39]

so let me get this straight...

 

JD Martinez is apparently the "King Kong" of slug, but 2015 was basically his 1 season in his career that he's played a full slate of games. His 2017 season was so off the charts good compared to his career average, and even his 2014-2016 production - makes you wonder what stuff Boras had him on during his contract season, doesn't it? Of course, Boras cherry picks 2017, where he hits like Lou Gherig and therefore he's deserving of 6-8 years at 25 million per. You simply don't pay that kind of coin to a 30-yr old corner outfielder who can't play defense with a career OPS in the mid-800's.

 

But because he's not signed, apparently MLB owners are screwing the players??

 

I maintain that the current CBA has proven to be a dinosaur, a product of many years of rampant PED use to turn what has always proven to be a young man's game into something mid-late 30-somethings could still excel at even if they weren't generational talents. The players' union had no problem keeping the current aribitration/team control system in place because they knew good players' primes were going to extend beyond when they normally do. Now that PEDs are at least somewhat in check, you can see the shift and steep decline across the league in the number of veteran players that produce anything close to what their free agent contracts state they are worth on the field. The players simply didn't see this coming when the last CBA was negotiated and have been slow to adjust how they should prioritize getting years of team control reduced to get more younger players to free agency, but I'd be willing to bet that alot of the owners/management structures did.

 

This offseason, the tables have sort of turned - at least temporarily...to me it's not that the owners are screwing the players, it's that they're refusing to be screwed by certain free agents that end up stagnating the overall market. Lesser free agents will have a much harder time finding work when better options at their position are still available - even if those better options are being insane with contract demands.

 

The agents of players will tell you the stuff being reported isn't accurate. Then offer no facts or evidence to the contrary, but trust them...the players are all getting screwed.

 

 

Media owes evidence not agents. I have a job and the burden isnt on me. Also those reported offers are bull. Source. My 15 years as an agent. Also commish citimg his own network.

[Oxy]

Its not true

 

What's not true?

[KeithStone53151]

The agents of players will tell you the stuff being reported isn't accurate. Then offer no facts or evidence to the contrary, but trust them...the players are all getting screwed.

 

 

Media owes evidence not agents. I have a job and the burden isnt on me. Also those reported offers are bull. Source. My 15 years as an agent. Also commish citing his own network.

 

Do you know definitively that they are bull? Most of these aren't your clients, do agents have a network where they share what they are being offered with other agents?

 

I get why agents don't want to share negotiation information with the general public, and you absolutely don't owe us anything. But trashing owners in the media and calling collusion with no evidence to support your claims other than owners aren't meeting outlandish contract demands isn't going to do much to get public support.

 

Almost every article related to the slow offseason sites the 2018-19 free agent class as part of a reason for the slow market. There are probably 6-7 players better than the very best player available in this FA class, including the likely $400 million dollar man. Do you disagree with the notion that teams want to get under the luxury tax this year and save some money to spend on some of these star players?