Mlb history of collusion

[3and2Fastball]

This issue isn't really about Machado & Harper though. I get why it might be foolish to give them a 10 year contract. I also think it's foolish to think that a team like the Brewers and a dozen other teams couldn't afford to sign Machado. Machado would make any team better.

 

The bigger issue is that it is February and there are over a hundred free agents still out there. Why isn't Mike Moustakas signed somewhere to a 3 year $50 million contract? Teams are making more money than ever. As if Moustakas wouldn't improve 90% of the rosters in MLB.

 

Situations like that make me really wonder how many teams are truly trying to do everything they can to win.

[agent39]

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.

 

 

 

 

You act like its a free market.

[Oxy]

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.

 

 

 

 

You act like its a free market.

 

One can always negotiate in terms outside of "the free market"

[CheeseheadInQC]

This is probably just a conspiracy theory from the addled brain of a dad whose five-month-old is having trouble sleeping, but might the players have become the victims in a scenario in which they weren't the targets? While there have been a few smaller market owners who have just pocketed revenue sharing checks (as the larger markets are prone to point out) a lot of the excess spending room now seems to be with the larger markets not spending as they once did. Might their thought process be not so much focused on avoiding the luxury tax as much as avoiding showing the luxury tax to not be an effective means of reducing the game's economic disparity thereby increasing calls for more substantive revenue sharing? Either way they would likely end up with a similar competitive advantage, but this way they are the ones reaping the profits.

 

Personally, I'd go for a system with full-non-stadium-generated revenue sharing, a salary floor, and an extra year of arbitration placed at the beginning (so same total number of years of control) and make the final year essentially a one-year deal at 110% of market value.

 

It will absolutely never happen, and I'll be the first to tell you I have only a cursory knowledge of baseball economics, but it seems on paper at least like this, while perhaps precluding a return to the headline-generating record contracts of the past, would increase the total percentage of the revenue going to the players.

[clancyphile]

This issue isn't really about Machado & Harper though. I get why it might be foolish to give them a 10 year contract. I also think it's foolish to think that a team like the Brewers and a dozen other teams couldn't afford to sign Machado. Machado would make any team better.

 

The bigger issue is that it is February and there are over a hundred free agents still out there. Why isn't Mike Moustakas signed somewhere to a 3 year $50 million contract? Teams are making more money than ever. As if Moustakas wouldn't improve 90% of the rosters in MLB.

 

Situations like that make me really wonder how many teams are truly trying to do everything they can to win.

 

Here's the last three years of Moustakas:

2016: Missed over 80% of the season, albeit an .801 OPS in the 27 games he did play.

2017: Monster season with 38 HR, but only a .314 OBP.

2018: Healthy season, but OPS dropped 61 points from 2017.

 

I'm not sure I'd offer him a deal on the order of $16.6 million a season with that history. Maybe three years at $11 million a season. He's struggled against lefties in the past, has trouble with power pitchers, and his OBP skills are not that good.

[agent39]

You guys are totally ignoring the cbs and labor rights which is .....not helping.

[agent39]

You guys are totally ignoring the cba and labor rights which is .....not helping.

 

 

 

DID ANYONE READ MY POST SERIOUSLY SOMEONE PRETEND TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT IS HAPPENING

 

 

Someone tell me how it isnt even likely????

[agent39]

You act like its a free market.

 

One can always negotiate in terms outside of "the free market"

 

Excellent contribution.

[brewmann04]

no players deserves a 10 year deal anymore as well giving a pitcher a 5 year deal. those days of long term deal are over

[brewmann04]

no players deserves a 10 year deal anymore as well giving a pitcher a 5 year deal. those days of long term deal are over

[trwi7]

I'd give Machado and Harper a 10 year deal right now and not think twice about it.

[jerichoholicninja]

First of all Mr. Agent, all you're doing is throwing a fit to anyone who disagrees with you. Which is also what you're doing on Twitter too. You're not going to win over many hearts and minds that way. But that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

As for all this collusion, unavoidable strike, whatever hoopla, I never see anyone talk about what is actually going to help teams be competitive. The players seem to only want more money. That's fine, I have no problem with a player getting paid as much money as they can negotiate, no matter how ridiculous that number is. The owners and a lot of other people say teams are just getting smarter with their money. I'm sure there are many owners that like that they can put a competitive team on the field and not spend a lot of money of it.

 

But when you have one side saying "Collusion! Pay us more!" and on the other side you have teams like Milwaukee, Oakland, and Tampa Bay on shoe string budgets being competitive and getting all star performances at clearance prices while teams like Baltimore, San Francisco, and the Angels have albatross contracts on teams going nowhere, I'm going to side the with those that are at least giving the illusion of trying to be competitive.

 

Having said that, players need to be getting paid more early in their career, if they deserve it. The fact that in his first two full MLB seasons Mike Trout OPS'd near 1.000 and was paid only $1M is beyond ridiculous. Even Travis Shaw, back to back 30 HR seasons, OPS around .850 and he's not even making $5M this year. Pay the guys when they are in their prime and are worth it.

[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 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.

 

[KeithStone53151]

The biggest problem i have with the collusion theory is that some guys are still getting the big contracts. Hosmer, Darvish, corbin, eovaldi are some examples im the last 2 offseasons of guys getting the big contract. Those contracts don't jive with prior instances of proven collusion at all. It makes far more sense that it's simply an unfortunate set of circumstances ffor players causing their overall percentage of the revenue to go down. IM NOT SAYING THIS IS OK. it is in fact not ok. I just don't think collusion is the right explanation.

 

I'll also add that agents are always going to be biased to some degree. I don't believe agents have any interest in working out a fair deal. They simply want more, and more, and more, and more. If they could work the system to where they get 100% of the revenue... they would.

 

And players are at least partially to blame for teams not wanting to hand out the big contract to declining players. Too many guys sign that guaranteed deal and coast. Treat it like a 9-5 and become an albatross for their team.

[agent39]

no players deserves a 10 year deal anymore as well giving a pitcher a 5 year deal. those days of long term deal are over

 

 

 

Deserves lol

 

 

Its a job not a merit scholarship

Free market says get what you can. Owners make more. Payroll doesnt affect ticket prices. Please dont make me go down this hole.

[agent39]

First of all Mr. Agent, all you're doing is throwing a fit to anyone who disagrees with you. Which is also what you're doing on Twitter too. You're not going to win over many hearts and minds that way. But that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

As for all this collusion, unavoidable strike, whatever hoopla, I never see anyone talk about what is actually going to help teams be competitive. The players seem to only want more money. That's fine, I have no problem with a player getting paid as much money as they can negotiate, no matter how ridiculous that number is. The owners and a lot of other people say teams are just getting smarter with their money. I'm sure there are many owners that like that they can put a competitive team on the field and not spend a lot of money of it.

 

But when you have one side saying "Collusion! Pay us more!" and on the other side you have teams like Milwaukee, Oakland, and Tampa Bay on shoe string budgets being competitive and getting all star performances at clearance prices while teams like Baltimore, San Francisco, and the Angels have albatross contracts on teams going nowhere, I'm going to side the with those that are at least giving the illusion of trying to be competitive.

 

Having said that, players need to be getting paid more early in their career, if they deserve it. The fact that in his first two full MLB seasons Mike Trout OPS'd near 1.000 and was paid only $1M is beyond ridiculous. Even Travis Shaw, back to back 30 HR seasons, OPS around .850 and he's not even making $5M this year. Pay the guys when they are in their prime and are worth it.

 

 

 

You keep pointing out the outliers and adding a giant grain of salt w i know guys need yo get more early....i mean its a paragraph yet an understatement. Its not even disagreeing for its own sake. Telling me just because isnt an answer. 3 times clubs have had fiscal restraint. 3 times it was collusion. Sure though....everyones smarter and the player side is greedy and dumb? You think i dont have the same numbers the clubs do?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Well, MLB attendance dropped below 70 million for the first time in 15 years. Usually when a business is in decline it equals layoffs. Since MLB isn't going to start playing with fewer players on the field or shorten the size of rosters, the logical reactive step is to tighten spending. I realize revenues from TV and broadcasts are still growing but the declining popularity of the sport doesn't scream "keep raising payroll". They sure can't raise ticket prices and expect attendance to actually increase. Scream collusion all you want but no business gives raises when the sale of the product is in decline.

 

Maybe you'd see the type of spending you'd like to see if the big spenders didn't have to guard against the luxury tax. That's a big part of your problem. On the flip side, it there was no luxury tax and the disparity between the big markets and small ones got even bigger, the sport would die an even faster death.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

And to get directly to the accusation of collusion, you're going to need proof, not anecdotal history. Especially when there are readily apparent business climate excuses for teams to point to as I did above with attendance and the luxury tax.

[KeithStone53151]

And to get directly to the accusation of collusion, you're going to need proof, not anecdotal history. Especially when there are readily apparent business climate excuses for teams to point to as I did above with attendance and the luxury tax.

 

Weird, I actually agree with you for a change. Strongly agree in fact, at least on this point.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Weird, I actually agree with you for a change. Strongly agree in fact, at least on this point.

 

The things I've said that you disagree with just haven't happened yet. You'll come around.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The problem with the constant hand-wringing over "x" veteran FAs remain unsigned by February, or whatever date people want to throw around is - what if a vast majority of them aren't the "great" caliber of talent that deserves to be paid a mint to keep being a baseball player well into their 30s? What if many teams actually do have better in-house options that are younger? Are they supposed to just sign veteran FAs to contracts because they're out there, and then force younger and potentially more talented players to stay in the minors and wait their turn to start their MLB careers? I firmly believe that years of team control need to be reduced, both at the MLB level (6 to 5, by reducing a year of arbitration), and at the minor league level (reducing #years a team can keep a guy in the minors if they were drafted/signed out of college, for example). But players can't have it both ways - they can't cry collusion when they are griping young talented prospects are held back to maximize team control through their prime while also griping that good to average veteran FAs aren't signing longterm contracts that would otherwise give fewer MLB jobs to the talented youngsters.

 

Baseball has always been a young man's game - aside from the truly transcendent talents, you don't see productive players into their late 30's/40's. The PED era largely clouded that distinction at a time when MLB revenues soared pre-luxury tax, and organizations went bananas throwing $ around and exploding payrolls while still not focusing on farm system development (i.e., "homegrown talent" to build an entire MLB roster wasn't considered a realistic strategy to winning a title). In 1998, the highest payroll in the league was $71 Million dollars. By 2005, just 7 seasons later, the Yankees' payroll eclipsed the $200 Million dollar mark. That's a crazy increase, and it was largely driven by how many quality veteran players were deserving of big dollar deals well into their 30s and even 40s...gosh, I wonder how all of a sudden the whole league was full of "late bloomers".

 

With at least a reasonably effective drug testing program in place for a generation across MLB (remember, they basically tested for nothing until after the Mitchell report), MLB GMs have largely appeared to adjust their FA spending habits to the game's best production coming from younger players again in recent years - the premier guys largely still get the contract value on a per year basis that reflects market values, as long as they're not greedily looking for an absurdly high # of years with only player friendly opt-out clauses. It's the FAs that are essentially replaceable by younger, cheaper players that are getting burned by the current system. That's not collusion, that's just the changing financial landscape of the game.

[502 to Right]

I'd say agent39 is pretty unbiased.

[KCBrewerfan34]

This is comical, an agent crying about collusion. What’s your agenda Josh? Good grief.

 

I can list quite a few horrible contracts handed out by the teams, it’s just not going to continue to happen. What’s changed you ask? Analytics!!!!

 

Josh please unblock me from Twitter after I destroyed you 2 years ago on this very topic. Please

[igor67]

I certainly haven't seen any compelling evidence of collusion at this point, I think it is far more relevant to look at this and say the players have some substantial blame for putting all their hope and faith in the casino of free agency. Once the owners looked at the data and realized those big deals rarely paid off. And the union's own long term willingness to ignore minor leaguers systematically has increased the rationality of a player signing one of those early career deals. Why? well you just spent a number of years more or less earning sub minimum wage before getting a very substantial salary. Injuries could easily send you back to that life real quick. If the alternative to the team friendly deals on the downside risk wasn't so dire it would change the balance of players willing to go year to year.

[jjgott]

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.

 

This is a big component of the "collusion." I can't remember where I saw this one article, but it said teams make around $60 million from national and local TV revenue. Teams get an equal share of national TV rights, regardless whether they are shown on national broadcasts or not. There is currently no disincentive for a greedy owner to field a team that has no chance of winning but is profitable to the ownership. You can say you'll alienate the fanbase, but an owner could theoretically still turn a profit with attendance under 20k per game. Therefore, if the players want teams to shell out the $$$ in FA, they need to work with the league to make the owners feel a need to spend $ on veterans vs. trying their luck with their minor leaguers. Draft picks or bonus $ could be tied to making the playoffs or conversely picks or revenue sharing could be taken away from teams that chronically underspend.

 

I don't think the players have much leverage on trying to get the vets more $. I think that ship has sailed with the greater use of analytics to model how players will perform as they age. I think the MLBPA needs to get the minimum salaries raised and have an arbitration process based on player comparisons vs. an adversarial process between the team and the player. It may also make sense to bring the minor leaguers into the union and get player raises there. I think all baseball players in affiliated ball should have some labor protections.