Mlb history of collusion

[agent39]

Would love to discuss here. Basic primer

 

 

[coolhandluke121]

It certainly could be happening. I have my doubts though. A lot of these owners have been impulsive over-spenders for a long time, and it seems likely that they're just being more careful because they know they have to be to remain competitive. Huge free agent contracts are constantly coming back to bite them. There's also the question of depth and flexibility being more important than pseudo-superstars like Harper and Machado. I think they're both asking too much.

 

My gut instinct is that players and people like Boras are taking advantage of past misdeeds by owners to manipulate the narrative now. You look at all the free agents who had trouble finding contracts last year, and very few of them actually proved they were worth more than what they got. On the contrary, quite a few were worth even less. On the whole, I think it's evidence that teams are becoming better judges of value in free agency. It's not putting profits before competition; it's just recognizing that competition and fiscal responsibility are symbiotic, rather than diametrically opposed. It would not require any collusion, or even any communication whatsoever, for teams to independently realize it's time to spend more carefully.

 

Lastly, it's just as hard to sympathize with the players as it is with the owners. You look at some of the teams that are saddled with terrible contracts for aging stars and just feel sorry for their fans. It feels like players get to be free agents and are entitled to unsustainable salaries. That's bad for baseball. I think something has to be done to redistribute more revenue to players, but it should involve paying younger players more or letting them be free agents sooner. I also get the sense that there's a lot of overlooking the questionable things players do too. Didn't they complain about JJ's contract, for example? How is pressuring other players to sign better contracts not a form of collusion? Stuff like that must happen all the time. It seems there's a double standard, like it's okay to game the establishment but not the individual.

[agent39]

What youre saying and collusion can coexist. It isnt neccessary for this to happen yet here we are. Im saying its possible both are true and owners could use data as a shield. No thoughts on the history of owners foing this including jerry reinsdorf who is still there!

 

 

Teams want to own guys first 6 years while shafting the back end. They want their cake and eat it too. They wont get both forever. Something is off and its not a natural evolution imo. Im in those rooms and on those calls

Its bad

[coolhandluke121]

Teams want to own guys first 6 years while shafting the back end. They want their cake and eat it too. They wont get both forever. Something is off and its not a natural evolution imo. Im in those rooms and on those calls

Its bad

 

Well I did say players should get more of the revenue and they should be paid more when they're young. I don't think they should be paid more and more when they're declining. If they were paid less when they're under team control because they're not as effective as experienced players, that would be one thing, but we regularly see MVP candidates making like 5% of what washed-up stars make.

[3and2Fastball]

Agent39 I very much appreciate your contribution here, and want you to know our family of fanatical Baseball fans are 100% behind the players in this.

[502 to Right]

There is no collusion in 2019. The players are just chapped that owners are wising up to handing out 5+ year contracts that will end in disaster.

[Eye Black]

Teams want to own guys first 6 years while shafting the back end.

Six years of team control is a long time, and it often includes the heart of a player’s prime years of production. I would be curious to know if the players union would trade the opportunity to reduce years of team control if it meant in exchange that long term free agent contracts included less guaranteed money?

 

For example what if teams had just four years of player control, but free agent signings were only guaranteed their initial signing bonus along with their annual contracted dollar value for seasons in which they remained on the 40-man roster. In that type of scenario teams could cut players and rid themselves of the financial commitments for players no longer deemed valuable to the team (or at least as valuable as their remaining contract amount).

 

I don’t think the players union would ever agree to it especially since veterans have a disproportionately heavy influence within the PA, but it would give younger players the opportunity to find fair(ish) market value much earlier in their careers.

[Jenkins5]

Not all markets are equal and baseball is the most unequal of professional sports. From this standpoint I don’t think all owners and teams would be in on it. Teams like Brewers, Pirates, Reds, and so on don’t have the market to go get those big contracts anyways. Those large market teams very well could be. Baseball structure forces small market teams to not bid and look for cheap ways to develop and win and large markets to decided how much they want to set market at. Boris and other agents are doing their job to maximize player earning so I don’t see them as the bad guys.

 

Baseball structure is just not overaly player friendly. Players have to wait usually at least a decade before a real payday.... 3-4 of those years making very little at all. Players have the least amount of power in baseball. Not sure what the resolution is. More money the large market teams will pay, the more the small teams will have to tank to compete. Until there is a way to balance the inequality more, not sure how much things can improve.

[clancyphile]

I do not doubt that collusion happened in the past - and it was wrong then. But how much of today's free marker is collusion, how much is coming from changes in baseball, how much is the fact that sabremetrics has changed the way teams are put together, how much is it because some past long-term deals went south, and how much is simply because of other factors? I think the jury is out.

 

The game of baseball is changing - and that is changing how baseball teams might value some players. Look at what the Brewers did with their pitching staff in 2018. Do you think they'd pay $25 or $30 million a year for an ace? Similarly, what they did with their defensive positioning and shifts is going to lead (down the road) to more teams seeking spray hitters as opposed to pull hitters.

 

Sabremetrics has also caused changes. Teams may not be willing to spend $25 million a year for a hitter when they can get close to that performance for $10 million a year between two players - and then they have money left over for other needs. When they introduced sabremetrics, the market changed. Some teams may be looking for a way to score runs without having to pay the big bucks.

 

And some long-term deals went south. Look at Albert Pujols. The Angels sign him for ten years and $240 million - and he hasn't posted an OPS higher then .800 since 2012. The next three years, the Angels owe him $87 million. That's money that could have gone to another player, but also... do you think that the Angels will want to sign another 10-year deal like that in the future? Look at Prince Fielder... had a career-ending injury in 2016, was released after 2017, and the Rangers still owe him $24 million a year through 2020. A-Rod also was released - and cost $21 million a year in 2017. Bryce Harper's difficulties in getting that huge deal are probably stemming from the way the Pujols and Fielder contracts went south. Any smart GM or owner would look at that and say, "Okay, I'll be more careful about length and/or the amount of money."

 

The Brewers have their own history with this, with Braun's thumb injury, and the Jeffrey Hammonds/Jeff Suppan/Matt Garza/Randy Wolf contracts. In the case of Garza, they paid $12.5 million a year from 2015-2017 for performance they could have gotten from Taylor Jungmann for a lot less.

 

Then there are other factors. Manny Machado's conduct during the 2018 post-season probably has teams shying away from paying his asking price. He might bring offensive performance, but there are now some big negatives as well. Before making a huge offer, any GM or owner will want a lot of due diligence. And what come up when teams do what is done as part of that due diligence may alter how much they will offer over how long, or even if they make an offer at all.

 

I think it says a lot that the Dodgers didn't seem to seriously try to bring Machado back, or that the Yankees have decided to pass on Machado and go with Tulo as a stopgap.

 

If I had to make a guess, I'd say the big reasons for the current stage of free agency is primarily between sabremetrics and changes in the game. Those changes are making it more likely that a big contract could go south and cripple a team's future options, and no GM would want to do that. I don't think it's collusion... I think people have realized that sabremetrics and other things are changing the game, and they don't want to be caught wrong-footed with a big contract.

[agent39]

Teams want to own guys first 6 years while shafting the back end.

Six years of team control is a long time, and it often includes the heart of a player’s prime years of production. I would be curious to know if the players union would trade the opportunity to reduce years of team control if it meant in exchange that long term free agent contracts included less guaranteed money?

 

For example what if teams had just four years of player control, but free agent signings were only guaranteed their initial signing bonus along with their annual contracted dollar value for seasons in which they remained on the 40-man roster. In that type of scenario teams could cut players and rid themselves of the financial commitments for players no longer deemed valuable to the team (or at least as valuable as their remaining contract amount).

 

I don’t think the players union would ever agree to it especially since veterans have a disproportionately heavy influence within the PA, but it would give younger players the opportunity to find fair(ish) market value much earlier in their careers.

 

 

 

 

No

[agent39]

Agent39 I very much appreciate your contribution here, and want you to know our family of fanatical Baseball fans are 100% behind the players in this.

 

Yay

[agent39]

There is no collusion in 2019. The players are just chapped that owners are wising up to handing out 5+ year contracts that will end in disaster.

Oh ok. Glad someone finally figured it out. Whew

[agent39]

I do not doubt that collusion happened in the past - and it was wrong then. But how much of today's free marker is collusion, how much is coming from changes in baseball, how much is the fact that sabremetrics has changed the way teams are put together, how much is it because some past long-term deals went south, and how much is simply because of other factors? I think the jury is out.

 

The game of baseball is changing - and that is changing how baseball teams might value some players. Look at what the Brewers did with their pitching staff in 2018. Do you think they'd pay $25 or $30 million a year for an ace? Similarly, what they did with their defensive positioning and shifts is going to lead (down the road) to more teams seeking spray hitters as opposed to pull hitters.

 

Sabremetrics has also caused changes. Teams may not be willing to spend $25 million a year for a hitter when they can get close to that performance for $10 million a year between two players - and then they have money left over for other needs. When they introduced sabremetrics, the market changed. Some teams may be looking for a way to score runs without having to pay the big bucks.

 

And some long-term deals went south. Look at Albert Pujols. The Angels sign him for ten years and $240 million - and he hasn't posted an OPS higher then .800 since 2012. The next three years, the Angels owe him $87 million. That's money that could have gone to another player, but also... do you think that the Angels will want to sign another 10-year deal like that in the future? Look at Prince Fielder... had a career-ending injury in 2016, was released after 2017, and the Rangers still owe him $24 million a year through 2020. A-Rod also was released - and cost $21 million a year in 2017. Bryce Harper's difficulties in getting that huge deal are probably stemming from the way the Pujols and Fielder contracts went south. Any smart GM or owner would look at that and say, "Okay, I'll be more careful about length and/or the amount of money."

 

The Brewers have their own history with this, with Braun's thumb injury, and the Jeffrey Hammonds/Jeff Suppan/Matt Garza/Randy Wolf contracts. In the case of Garza, they paid $12.5 million a year from 2015-2017 for performance they could have gotten from Taylor Jungmann for a lot less.

 

Then there are other factors. Manny Machado's conduct during the 2018 post-season probably has teams shying away from paying his asking price. He might bring offensive performance, but there are now some big negatives as well. Before making a huge offer, any GM or owner will want a lot of due diligence. And what come up when teams do what is done as part of that due diligence may alter how much they will offer over how long, or even if they make an offer at all.

 

I think it says a lot that the Dodgers didn't seem to seriously try to bring Machado back, or that the Yankees have decided to pass on Machado and go with Tulo as a stopgap.

 

If I had to make a guess, I'd say the big reasons for the current stage of free agency is primarily between sabremetrics and changes in the game. Those changes are making it more likely that a big contract could go south and cripple a team's future options, and no GM would want to do that. I don't think it's collusion... I think people have realized that sabremetrics and other things are changing the game, and they don't want to be caught wrong-footed with a big contract.

 

 

 

I know youre wrong. I also know everything you wrote does NOT excuse collusion.

[agent39]

Not all markets are equal and baseball is the most unequal of professional sports. From this standpoint I don’t think all owners and teams would be in on it. Teams like Brewers, Pirates, Reds, and so on don’t have the market to go get those big contracts anyways. Those large market teams very well could be. Baseball structure forces small market teams to not bid and look for cheap ways to develop and win and large markets to decided how much they want to set market at. Boris and other agents are doing their job to maximize player earning so I don’t see them as the bad guys.

 

Baseball structure is just not overaly player friendly. Players have to wait usually at least a decade before a real payday.... 3-4 of those years making very little at all. Players have the least amount of power in baseball. Not sure what the resolution is. More money the large market teams will pay, the more the small teams will have to tank to compete. Until there is a way to balance the inequality more, not sure how much things can improve.

 

 

 

I spelled out 3 timed in history where they did this and reinsdorf is still an owner

[RollieTime]

I don’t view it as collusion. Front offices are wising up to handing out ridiculous contracts to players that are in their 30’s. It’s also frustrating listening to people talk about how Machado and Harper aren’t signed and that there should be way more teams involved than just a handful. Small market teams aren’t going to commit $25-$30 million on one guy very often, if ever. Also, those two have turned down $475 million combined as it sits right now. I don’t feel a single bit bad for those two that turned down almost half a billion dollars.

 

Relievers are getting paid more now than ever before. Teams find it more worth their while to sign multiple solid players to $8-$10 million deals than one guy for $30 million. Is it better for the Brewers to fill 3 holes by signing a solid platoon guy to share time at second, sign a top 3 catcher in the game, and do something like sign Marwin Gonzalez for around $30 million for this season for those 3 or to sign Harper himself for $30 million?

 

I think they could work something out where the minimum for players is bumped to like $1 million and they get 4 years of arbitration. I truly don’t think it is collusion among all the teams talking together about who they want and having other teams avoid that player to not drive the price up. Money is just being spent more wisely on what the expected future production for that player is going to be without locking themselves into a huge contract on a player through his late 30’s or into their 40’s.

[Eye Black]

They want their cake and eat it too. They wont get both forever.

I am starting to get the sense both sides really like cake and want to eat it as well.

[KeithStone53151]

I think the days of the albatross contracts are gone. The vast majority wind up being terrible deals for the teams and cripple their ability to compete for years. The key is to find a way to pay players more money in their younger years while maintaining competitive balance for small market teams. The NFL model of salary caps and floors with significantly expanded revenue sharing is the best model in my opinion, but i cant see the big markets giving up their inherent advantage. I can't imagine the players not getting behind caps and floors that guaranteed them x% of league wide revenue.

[3and2Fastball]

I think most of the owners today are prioritizing turning big profits much more than prioritizing winning the World Series. They should get all the Harvard grads in their front office to crunch the analytics of the amount of extra money that comes in from winning it all.

[TURBO]

Agent39 I very much appreciate your contribution here, and want you to know our family of fanatical Baseball fans are 100% behind the players in this.

 

We are?

 

I see both sides of the arguement.

 

I'm not against owners being rich, it's why they are able to own the teams in the first place.

 

I can't feel sorry for players who make 20 million or more in their careers, I just can't. I can't feel sorry for players who only make 5 million in their careers either...In fact, ONLY Making 5 million is still an obscene amount of money.

 

 

I don't feel sorry for either side, just hope they can come to agreements, and we can continue to watch the best sport on earth, played by the best athletes on earth.

[KeithStone53151]

Also many teams employing the cubs and astros model of full tear downs and intentionally losing is factoring into the current marketplace. I generally disagree that collusion is happening, but that doesn't mean this situation is at all fair for the players

[82brewcrew82]

They want their cake and eat it too. They wont get both forever.

I am starting to get the sense both sides really like cake and want to eat it as well.

First, I've read about 3 posts today be agent 39 that have absolutely made me laugh out loud and I totally appreciate and value his insights. However, I think Eye Black's post is probably about right. To scream collusion and completely dismiss the undeniable fact that analytics is changing the game on and off the field is wrong. The people who really make it all possible, the fans, are getting completely ignored (how about taking that extra cash and lowering ticket prices instead of paying players more). Neither side is passing the smell test at this point.

[3and2Fastball]

Agent39 I very much appreciate your contribution here, and want you to know our family of fanatical Baseball fans are 100% behind the players in this.

 

We are?

.

 

I apologize, I wasn't clear. I meant my family, in our household. My wife, my kid, & myself. I can't presume to speak for anyone else here on this forum.

[clancyphile]

What youre saying and collusion can coexist. It isnt neccessary for this to happen yet here we are. Im saying its possible both are true and owners could use data as a shield. No thoughts on the history of owners foing this including jerry reinsdorf who is still there!

 

 

Teams want to own guys first 6 years while shafting the back end. They want their cake and eat it too. They wont get both forever. Something is off and its not a natural evolution imo. Im in those rooms and on those calls

Its bad

 

I agree... owners have colluded in the past. But also, any owner of GM who looks at how the Pujols/Fielder/A-Rod contracts went south, probably came up with the decision on their own not to go past a certain length or a certain average value. They probably looked at the changes occurring in baseball over the last decade-plus (sabremetrics, the Brewers use of the pitching staff, and defensive positioning/shifts), and did so on their own.

 

The players, especially those that never make a 40-man roster or the majors, are being shafted.

 

But teams in smaller markets are also getting shafted, too. The majority of major-league clubs that really have become at-large AAAA affiliates for teams in very huge markets - and we know which is which.

 

Baseball needs to find a way to get players more compensation, but they also need to ensure that small-market teams can also compete.

 

I think that the minor-league salaries should be bumped up pretty high ($60,000 for rookie league, $75K for A, $90K for A+, $120K for AA, $150K for AAA). Maybe it is time to go from 40-man rosters and 25-man active rosters to a 50-man roster and a 30-man active roster.

 

I don't have answers to all of that. But casting aspersions will only delay fixing the problems.

[Oxy]

The more freedom that consumers have, the more they will choose the best. The longer the best is in business, the more time they have to undercut their competition.

[clancyphile]

I do not doubt that collusion happened in the past - and it was wrong then. But how much of today's free marker is collusion, how much is coming from changes in baseball, how much is the fact that sabremetrics has changed the way teams are put together, how much is it because some past long-term deals went south, and how much is simply because of other factors? I think the jury is out.

 

The game of baseball is changing - and that is changing how baseball teams might value some players. Look at what the Brewers did with their pitching staff in 2018. Do you think they'd pay $25 or $30 million a year for an ace? Similarly, what they did with their defensive positioning and shifts is going to lead (down the road) to more teams seeking spray hitters as opposed to pull hitters.

 

Sabremetrics has also caused changes. Teams may not be willing to spend $25 million a year for a hitter when they can get close to that performance for $10 million a year between two players - and then they have money left over for other needs. When they introduced sabremetrics, the market changed. Some teams may be looking for a way to score runs without having to pay the big bucks.

 

And some long-term deals went south. Look at Albert Pujols. The Angels sign him for ten years and $240 million - and he hasn't posted an OPS higher then .800 since 2012. The next three years, the Angels owe him $87 million. That's money that could have gone to another player, but also... do you think that the Angels will want to sign another 10-year deal like that in the future? Look at Prince Fielder... had a career-ending injury in 2016, was released after 2017, and the Rangers still owe him $24 million a year through 2020. A-Rod also was released - and cost $21 million a year in 2017. Bryce Harper's difficulties in getting that huge deal are probably stemming from the way the Pujols and Fielder contracts went south. Any smart GM or owner would look at that and say, "Okay, I'll be more careful about length and/or the amount of money."

 

The Brewers have their own history with this, with Braun's thumb injury, and the Jeffrey Hammonds/Jeff Suppan/Matt Garza/Randy Wolf contracts. In the case of Garza, they paid $12.5 million a year from 2015-2017 for performance they could have gotten from Taylor Jungmann for a lot less.

 

Then there are other factors. Manny Machado's conduct during the 2018 post-season probably has teams shying away from paying his asking price. He might bring offensive performance, but there are now some big negatives as well. Before making a huge offer, any GM or owner will want a lot of due diligence. And what come up when teams do what is done as part of that due diligence may alter how much they will offer over how long, or even if they make an offer at all.

 

I think it says a lot that the Dodgers didn't seem to seriously try to bring Machado back, or that the Yankees have decided to pass on Machado and go with Tulo as a stopgap.

 

If I had to make a guess, I'd say the big reasons for the current stage of free agency is primarily between sabremetrics and changes in the game. Those changes are making it more likely that a big contract could go south and cripple a team's future options, and no GM would want to do that. I don't think it's collusion... I think people have realized that sabremetrics and other things are changing the game, and they don't want to be caught wrong-footed with a big contract.

 

I know youre wrong. I also know everything you wrote does NOT excuse collusion.

 

Okay, let's assume you're Bryce Harper's agent, and I'm a GM.

 

One question I would ask you is, "Why should I tell the owner of this team that we should pay Bryce Harper $35 million a year for the next ten years when he has missed at least a quarter of the season in three of the seven years he has played major league baseball?"

 

What's the answer?