Darvish

[brooks_quichenick]

 

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic.

 

Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that.

 

Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract.

 

If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues.

 

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

 

Why? If the revenues are going up, which causes the salaries to go up, then the profit for the owners should stay the same. So what you're saying is that the owners may just be greedy, insanely rich guys who will arbitrarily raise ticket/concession prices because they just can't be content with their already absurd cash flow? I agree.

 

I think part of the problem with baseball fans thinking like GM's and Owners by demonizing players who demand fair market value contracts is that player's contracts are widely available for anyone to look at. We all see how many millions and years certain players get, and we can ooh and ahh at the amount of money, because it certainly is alot. But we aren't allowed to really get a peak at Ownership revenues, it's not advertised all over MLB Network and Sports pages everywhere. And what those guys are making is just astronomical compared to the players, who we all pay to see.

[Fear The Chorizo]

That's the problem for the whole system - nowhere near every team is capable of shelling out $$ based on past performance, and when years like this come along where most big market teams aren't players for the crop of available free agents while they keep their powder dry for next offseason and to stay under luxury tax penalty thresholds, guys aren't going to get paid.

 

To say that teams have to pay more money for diminishing players due to age or other issues because they were underpaid 2-3 seasons earlier is just a poor organizational management philosophy. One of the major factors that is starting to drive this correction is the fact that veteran players are having more difficulties extending their prime production years with the decline of widespread PED use. Back in the good ol' days, teams had no problem paying a star player into his 40's like he was in his late 20's, because father time kept getting pushed further out with all the little chemical helpers in the game.

[MrTPlush]

I really don’t think you are paying for past performance. You are paying for say the next 3, but you gotta pay them for 5. Saying they are paying for past performance don’t make sense. Most of these guys went to Harvard, you think they are that dumb? That being said there is risk and sometimes you don’t even get the few good years you are banking on.

[brooks_quichenick]

I really don’t think you are paying for past performance. You are paying for say the next 3, but you gotta pay them for 5. Saying they are paying for past performance don’t make sense. Most of these guys went to Harvard, you think they are that dumb? That being said there is risk and sometimes you don’t even get the few good years you are banking on.

 

It's not totally for past performance, but my point was that the system as it's set up pays players far less than they're worth production-wise when they're younger, so that when they reach FA and get their first big contract, often times it's the start of their career decline. So in essence they're recouping the surplus value of their first few years when they were underpaid in regards to their overall production.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think part of the problem with baseball fans thinking like GM's and Owners by demonizing players who demand fair market value contracts is that player's contracts are widely available for anyone to look at. We all see how many millions and years certain players get, and we can ooh and ahh at the amount of money, because it certainly is alot. But we aren't allowed to really get a peak at Ownership revenues, it's not advertised all over MLB Network and Sports pages everywhere. And what those guys are making is just astronomical compared to the players, who we all pay to see.

 

The Brewers just got done paying Matt Garza $50 million. For a grand total of 26 wins in four seasons.

 

Should we be demonizing players who demand what you are calling "fair market value"? You're dang right we should! Granted there are players who do live up to the hefty contracts they sign, but there are far more who don't. Owners are just as much to blame as players for letting it spiral to this point.

 

Matt Kemp signing an 8-year contract for $160 million and Ellsbury's 7-year, $153 million contract are not fair market. They were dumb, and the teams that hold those contracts deserve the ridicule they get.

 

And guess what ... reigning in these contracts is putting the Brewers on an equal playing field with the big-market teams. That's a good thing.

[82brewcrew82]

I really don’t think you are paying for past performance. You are paying for say the next 3, but you gotta pay them for 5. Saying they are paying for past performance don’t make sense. Most of these guys went to Harvard, you think they are that dumb? That being said there is risk and sometimes you don’t even get the few good years you are banking on.

 

It's not totally for past performance, but my point was that the system as it's set up pays players far less than they're worth production-wise when they're younger, so that when they reach FA and get their first big contract, often times it's the start of their career decline. So in essence they're recouping the surplus value of their first few years when they were underpaid in regards to their overall production.

At the end of the day the issue is that he economics are changing in a way the MLBPA didn't anticipate despite this being a larger economic trend in general. Unless they can prove collusion, and I doubt they can, then they are worth what the market says they are worth.

[brooks_quichenick]

I think part of the problem with baseball fans thinking like GM's and Owners by demonizing players who demand fair market value contracts is that player's contracts are widely available for anyone to look at. We all see how many millions and years certain players get, and we can ooh and ahh at the amount of money, because it certainly is alot. But we aren't allowed to really get a peak at Ownership revenues, it's not advertised all over MLB Network and Sports pages everywhere. And what those guys are making is just astronomical compared to the players, who we all pay to see.

 

The Brewers just got done paying Matt Garza $50 million. For a grand total of 26 wins in four seasons.

 

Should we be demonizing players who demand what you are calling "fair market value"? You're dang right we should! Granted there are players who do live up to the hefty contracts they sign, but there are far more who don't. Owners are just as much to blame as players for letting it spiral to this point.

 

Matt Kemp signing an 8-year contract for $160 million and Ellsbury's 7-year, $153 million contract are not fair market. They were dumb, and the teams that hold those contracts deserve the ridicule they get.

 

And guess what ... reigning in these contracts is putting the Brewers on an equal playing field with the big-market teams. That's a good thing.

 

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that because the players are receiving a large sum of money that they are going to produce according to that large sum of money going forward for all of the years on the contract. I'm saying that those contracts are given to them because of how they performed in the years where their salaries were suppressed due to the MLB financial structure. I see no purpose in demonizing players for trying to earn what they deserve in proportion to their production as a player up to the point of free agency.

 

I also completely disagree that reigning in contracts is a good thing because it somehow levels the playing field. It's a bad look for baseball to have an increasingly antagonistic relationship between ownership and the players. Even with these "bad contracts" you're referencing specifically, all of the owners of those teams made lots and lots of money those years! They were just fine financially, and will continue to be, especially if they can continue to convince the average fan to direct their animosity to the players on the field and not themselves.

[Point Beer Is Best]

This is getting off-topic, but I don’t think teams have suddenly realized that signing these free agent deals were a bad idea. The root cause is the much stricter Luxury Tax penalties which teams are now treating like a salary cap. Which, ironically, the MLBPA pretty stupidly agreed to. So, while revenues in total continue to climb, many of the usual suspects in terms of teams who spend wildly in free agency (or have the resources to do so) are now holding back since they can’t just shrug off a bad deal and spend more money to fix it. They are now operating more like the small market clubs have over the past couple of decades. And since revenue sharing is VERY minimal in comparison to the NFL (which has leaguewide TV deals instead of the team by team deals MLB operates with), some teams just don’t have the payroll flexibility and would be crippled financially if they made a bad move in free agency. On top of this, there is no salary floor, so teams who don’t see a chance to win that year aren’t typically going to sign a free agent to a monster deal either. Teams have seen that tanking pays huge dividends as it rewards the team with high draft picks for a number of years.

 

The system is broke. There needs to be more competitive balance and prevention or revenue sharing going into the pockets of owners.

[badger3034]

I think part of the problem with baseball fans thinking like GM's and Owners by demonizing players who demand fair market value contracts is that player's contracts are widely available for anyone to look at. We all see how many millions and years certain players get, and we can ooh and ahh at the amount of money, because it certainly is alot. But we aren't allowed to really get a peak at Ownership revenues, it's not advertised all over MLB Network and Sports pages everywhere. And what those guys are making is just astronomical compared to the players, who we all pay to see.

 

The Brewers just got done paying Matt Garza $50 million. For a grand total of 26 wins in four seasons.

 

Should we be demonizing players who demand what you are calling "fair market value"? You're dang right we should! Granted there are players who do live up to the hefty contracts they sign, but there are far more who don't. Owners are just as much to blame as players for letting it spiral to this point.

 

Matt Kemp signing an 8-year contract for $160 million and Ellsbury's 7-year, $153 million contract are not fair market. They were dumb, and the teams that hold those contracts deserve the ridicule they get.

 

And guess what ... reigning in these contracts is putting the Brewers on an equal playing field with the big-market teams. That's a good thing.

 

I guess my mindset is that at some point you're going to have to pony up some cash in order to compete. Even if you were to build some amazing farm system and were able to make a world series with a low payroll and players from your own system, most of those players are going to want to get paid at some point, and you're going to have to let some of them go. Do you think that in this 3-4 year window we will have a Yu Darvish type pitcher come up from our own farm? It is entirely possible, which would more than likely be Burnes. At the same time, how many of your good pitchers are going to want to get contracts before that 3-4 window is up? Can the Brewers compete right now with whats in their farm and who they currently have? I guess you could, but if you have a window as a small market team, it would be my opinion that you should try and get these big profile guys. These big teams are only waiting until next year when there is a totally stacked free agency pool and they won't get wrecked by the luxury tax.

 

My question would be, are any of the top 4 pitchers better than what we currently have? And if so, what place would you rank them? If Nelson comes back the way he was last season, I guess I'd rank Arrietta and Darvish at #2/3 in our current rotation (including Nelson), and Cobb/Lynn a pretty solid #3, unless Davies has an incredible break out season. Best case scenario is that Davies does that, Nelson is awesome, and you have one of the best pitching staffs in baseball on top of an already stellar offense, competing for a world series. When you're a small market team, you have to jump all over that. You're not mortgaging your future on these guys because more than likely, if you're not competing, a team that IS competing will want to trade for an asset like that.

[Madhawk23]

I'd be curious - calling HH19 , if the Brewers FO still feels that the chances are slim that Darvish signs with us? Does he really still think that he's going to get a 6-7 year deal from someone, and is he willing to hold out until that type of deal presents itself? Or, is he just hung up on not wanting to play for a team in the Midwest and is waiting for a team like the Dodgers or Rangers to figure out a way to make him an offer?

[FVBrewerFan]

I'd be curious - calling HH19 , if the Brewers FO still feels that the chances are slim that Darvish signs with us? Does he really still think that he's going to get a 6-7 year deal from someone, and is he willing to hold out until that type of deal presents itself? Or, is he just hung up on not wanting to play for a team in the Midwest and is waiting for a team like the Dodgers or Rangers to figure out a way to make him an offer?

 

Mr. Heat is gone for good. Again. Maybe?

 

I don't know that Darvish doesn't want to play for a MW team, or small market team, etc. As I said earlier, my guess is his agent realizes the Brewers are offering X, only a matter of time before one of the big boys tops that offer. So it's worth waiting, no downside.

[badger3034]

I'd be curious - calling HH19 , if the Brewers FO still feels that the chances are slim that Darvish signs with us? Does he really still think that he's going to get a 6-7 year deal from someone, and is he willing to hold out until that type of deal presents itself? Or, is he just hung up on not wanting to play for a team in the Midwest and is waiting for a team like the Dodgers or Rangers to figure out a way to make him an offer?

 

Mr. Heat is gone for good. Again. Maybe?

 

I don't know that Darvish doesn't want to play for a MW team, or small market team, etc. As I said earlier, my guess is his agent realizes the Brewers are offering X, only a matter of time before one of the big boys tops that offer. So it's worth waiting, no downside.

 

I think there is a downside. If Yu were to greatly outperform Cobb/Lynn, you missed out on a chance to get a really good pitcher. I don't think there is much of a downside in the opposite direction if Mark A doesn't mind shelling out the money. It's his money, he can spend it to his hearts desire, and we aren't even in the realm of the luxury tax. Now does Yu really outperform Cobb/Lynn over a 3 year span for say? My answer is yes

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

So it's worth waiting, no downside.

 

Not necessarily. In theory, the Brewers or one of the other Darvish suitors could say "We're tired of waiting," and sign or trade for a different pitcher/pitchers. If they pull their offer, it decreases his leverage, and if there are only 1-2 other teams after him, then he's hurt his market by dragging his feet.

[KeithStone53151]

I'd be curious - calling HH19 , if the Brewers FO still feels that the chances are slim that Darvish signs with us? Does he really still think that he's going to get a 6-7 year deal from someone, and is he willing to hold out until that type of deal presents itself? Or, is he just hung up on not wanting to play for a team in the Midwest and is waiting for a team like the Dodgers or Rangers to figure out a way to make him an offer?

 

Mr. Heat is gone for good. Again. Maybe?

 

I don't know that Darvish doesn't want to play for a MW team, or small market team, etc. As I said earlier, my guess is his agent realizes the Brewers are offering X, only a matter of time before one of the big boys tops that offer. So it's worth waiting, no downside.

 

There has to come a point where Darvish won't even be ready for opening day and therefore contract offers will actually drop. And I think it's been thoroughly noted at this point that a variety of factors are resulting in the "big boys" not partaking in the spending spree. Maybe that changes if/when a SP goes down and needs Tommy John at some point in spring training. Honestly the longer this goes on, the worse the players will look.

[FVBrewerFan]

So it's worth waiting, no downside.

 

Not necessarily. In theory, the Brewers or one of the other Darvish suitors could say "We're tired of waiting," and sign or trade for a different pitcher/pitchers. If they pull their offer, it decreases his leverage, and if there are only 1-2 other teams after him, then he's hurt his market by dragging his feet.

 

True, that would be the downside. Except the Darvish camp knows darn well that isn't going to happen. At least not yet. If 2-3 suitors move on to get a deal done with Cobb, Lynn etc. they will know about that and finish up a deal with someone.

 

I can't imagine Darvish is just left hanging and has to eat a lessor contract due to waiting too long, that's not going to happen.

[homer]

There is already a collusion thread going on the Major League forum. I suggest you take your discussion there and keep this one on Yu Darvish.

[brewmann04]

I will not give more than 4 years to YU but would not mind a 2 year deal for like 30 Million

[badger3034]

I will not give more than 4 years to YU but would not mind a 2 year deal for like 30 Million

 

Not gonna happen, guaranteed someone will outbid that

[OnTheBlack]

 

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.

[badger3034]

 

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.

 

+1, thanks for sharing your opinion

 

I don't think that this plays into the idea of collusion, and this post fits this topic well. It has to do with the idea of how much the Brewers are willing to pay Darvish. At some point, a small market team will have to pay to attempt to win, and at the time that the Brewers signed Garza, I'm not sure there were TOO many people complaining. There are always going to be a few people who are against a large contract like that. You have to take chances, and that was a chance the Brewers took. I think it was more calculated than most people think though, just look at their payroll over the last number of years, its been tiny

[tigerbrew]

I think the longer this drags, the price will go down for these free agent SPs. I'm fine with waiting and letting the price drop.

[82brewcrew82]

Seeing on twitter that the Brewers have the best offer out to Darvish but it isn't enough.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Seeing on twitter that the Brewers have the best offer out to Darvish but it isn't enough.

 

Got a link? I see a retweet from Brewers Farm saying that the team has the top offer, but that "it will take a lot to lure him to Milwaukee." I know we are probably talking about semantics, but that doesn't appear as absolute as you make it out to be.

[82brewcrew82]

Seeing on twitter that the Brewers have the best offer out to Darvish but it isn't enough.

 

Got a link? I see a retweet from Brewers Farm saying that the team has the top offer, but that "it will take a lot to lure him to Milwaukee." I know we are probably talking about semantics, but that doesn't appear as absolute as you make it out to be.

Yeah, that's the one.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'd love Darvish on the Brewers but if they're the best offer and he's delaying because it's Milwaukee you have to wonder if this is a guy you want in the clubhouse.