Mlb history of collusion

[nate82]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

 

Just because the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 plus clubs does not equate to collusion.

[KeithStone53151]

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

 

Just because the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 plus clubs does not equate to collusion.

 

Seriously. Comments like this make it obvious that you have no concept of the big picture. You think 27 teams should be bidding on a guy that reportedly turned down $300 million? Enough said...

[CheezWizHed]

Historically, it seems like this comes up every 10-15 years or so. Teams go on a spending binge for a while, then run into a hangover cycle from overspending and back off. But then the big spending starts back up again.

 

Its really hard to know what owners are thinking, but very few of them own a baseball team to just make money and not win a WS. And since they compete against each other, I kind of doubt they would all agree to price-fix. I just don't think they would agree enough to do that.

 

As far as Machado and Harper, I'd love it if the Brewers could afford Harper. But I wouldn't touch Machado with a 10 foot pole. And it doesn't surprise me that they are taking so long to sign. After those two, its a massive drop-off in talent. And since one is a SS and one a CF, its not like they are competing with each other. So why not bide their time and see who ups the bid? There is not advantage for them to sign in December over February. Play a little chicken with the teams interested and see who breaks.

[coolhandluke121]

2 hall of fame 26 year old talents

 

I'll take that bet.

[CheezWizHed]

Out of curiousity, I looked at the opening day salaries for the MLB for the last 6 years. Looks like they are averaging a 7% increase from 2012-2018. The lowest was a decrease of 2.6% from 2015 to 2016, but that followed the largest increase of 20.7% from 2014 to 2015.

 

I'm not sure how 7% compares to the profit teams are taking in, but it certainly beats inflation.

[coolhandluke121]

So if the fact that players are getting underpaid (in the opinions of some) the last couple years is face value evidence of collusion among owners, does it follow that players getting overpaid for ~10 years is face value evidence of collusion among players?

 

Still haven't seen a response or even an acknowledgment of my inquiry about the grief you yourself admitted you got from the players union over JJ's contract. Would be interested to hear an explanation of how that's not collusion - preferably an explanation that doesn't contradict what it means for owners to collude.

[Point Beer Is Best]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

That is what I thought too. Except based on 2018 that would mean only one team is paying the lux tax. If that were the case I would have guess that he would have said something like "29 teams have room under the lux tax to add payroll."

 

 

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

 

 

Josh, you can't claim collusion without solid evidence in the same way you can't claim a small market MLB club could afford to spend up to the luxury tax threshold without evidence. The Luxury tax is a mechanism to prevent large market teams from using their resources to create super teams. Ironically it's the MLBPA's fault for allowing that to happen in the last CBA. They allowed the owners to put harsher tax penalties in, foolishly thinking that the large market teams would pay the tax (which would be redistributed to small market teams to then further spend on player salaries), but the large market teams are treating the luxury tax threshold as a hard salary cap. From their perspective, why go over the tax threshold to make their teams marginally better while then paying smaller market teams to be competitive? If anything, claim that large market teams are "colluding" against small market teams by limiting their share of revenues. Plus, it's just factual that these large multi-year contracts to superstars fail considerably more than they pan out. So why would they keep doing that? That's the definition of insanity.

 

Mark A. has never given me the impression he wants to make huge profits off the team - he definitely wants to be competitive on an annual basis. But as several people have pointed out in other threads, just because an asset appreciates significantly over a span of 10 years does not mean that revenues/cash flows increase accordingly. A much better indicator of what a team has available to spend on payroll is their individual TV contracts. You will find a much stronger correlation there between TV revenue and player payroll. For that reason, I've always felt that whatever the payroll ends up being, that's right where Mark is comfortable with with some wiggle room to make a step-change acquisition - but not something like a $3-400M contract. That's not something this market could sustain.

[pacopete4]

It will really be interesting to see what Bryce Harper gets.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

 

If this is your line of evidence for collusion, then it's not even worth hearing your other points. You are probably posting this on the absolute last team's fan message board that would take it seriously. Why would the brewers make a longterm offer of $30+ M for Harper when they already have the highest opening day payroll they've ever had? Particularly when almost half of that payroll is already dedicated to their starting 3 OF, one of which just won the MVP of the league and plays the same position as Harper??? Not to mention 2 of the three current brewer outfielders have been better than Harper the last 2+ seasons.

 

Seriously.

[tmwiese55]

I'm sure every team would make Harper/Manny an offer but they view it as a waste of time and insult to him. Sure, Brewers haven't made an offer because they know what they can afford has no chance. It's insulting to them for MKE to call and offer like 6/120 and they know they'll never take it. This would apply to a bunch more teams as well.

[Warning Track Power]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

 

Just because the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 plus clubs does not equate to collusion.

While I definitely appreciate Josh's viewpoint on the subject and his insight into free agency that most, if not all, of us do not have, I think Nate's point is spot on. Why the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 teams, has nothing to do with collusion. It has everything to do with working inside the framework of a system that is fundamentally flawed and gives significant advantages to the largest of markets.

 

Imagine the Brewers, Reds, Pirates, Marlins, Padres, Royals, Twins, Indians, A's or Rays signing Jason Heyward to the contract he signed. His relative non-performance compared to his contract would have crippled that team's efforts to remain competitive. The Cubs however can endure and still sign Darvish and Hamels to $20+ million contracts. Heyward's deal is a cautionary tale that small markets have learned a long time ago (*cough* Suppan *cough*) and big markets are finally learning the same lesson.

 

Going a step further, why should the Yankees sign Manny Machado to a $35m a year contract when his 162 game average for his career is .282, 31 HR, 90 RBI and Miguel Andujar gave you .297, 27 HR, 92 RBI for the league minimum? Should the Nationals be thanking Harper for turning $30m per year down when his 162 game average is .279, 32 HR, 91 RBI and Juan Soto just gave you .292, 22 HR, 70 RBI at age 19 and for the league minimum?

 

Front offices have gotten smarter. If the players decide to strike in a few years, well then good luck to you. You didn't learn your lessons from 1994. Fans will side with ownership. Maybe you don't care. But maybe you should look at the NFL's popularity, even with a dynasty in place, where a team whose home city has 100,000 is on equal financial ground with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

[RollieTime]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

Youre right about the system being the problem. Say too bad wont resolve this. Also its odd you see 30 teams operating the same way. How anyone assumes thats natural is beyond me. You cant get 30 owners to agree on anything but analytics....sure.

 

So you think it’s impossible for 30 teams to all agree on something such as analytics for their baseball decisions, but totally possible and 100% accurate that all 30 teams are colluding with each other to avoid bidding up each other on players?

[tmwiese55]

Well said Rollie. I think that crossed my mind during one of my longer posts but I got going on something else and forgot.

 

There was also the logic that collusion doesn't happen among players/agents because it's illegal. But that it's for sure happening among owner even though it's also illegal for them.

[Ennder]

I feel like teams are finally realizing really long high salary contracts are just not worth it and large contracts to older declining players are not worth it. The players need to adjust to it. After they adjust to it they need to ask for fairer arbitration rules so they can get paid earlier.

[ctmyers]

If you want more teams to submit offers, then advocate for lowering the CBT to $150 million and create a salary floor of $80 million. I'm sure the players and their agents would love that. /s

[agent39]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

Youre right about the system being the problem. Say too bad wont resolve this. Also its odd you see 30 teams operating the same way. How anyone assumes thats natural is beyond me. You cant get 30 owners to agree on anything but analytics....sure.

 

So you think it’s impossible for 30 teams to all agree on something such as analytics for their baseball decisions, but totally possible and 100% accurate that all 30 teams are colluding with each other to avoid bidding up each other on players?

 

 

Try calling 2 agents and get them to talk to each other much less agree on anything. I dont care about what other agents do as long as my guys are fine. There is no love lost between any of us as were all stealing from each other as the player pool of earn were s are finite. So yes the two bodies are opposed but not the same at all. My side isnessentially 100s of independent contractors and the teams are one mlb body. These are not equal and opposing sides. Now if you askef me if mlb meets w other keagues and if the pa met with other pas totally different story. But no agents dont collude because it would serve any purpose. Find me an agent who ever put the leagues health above the needs of a client. Ill wait.

[KeithStone53151]

Wouldn't it be fair to consider it tampering for all the agents to cry to the media about how unfair and broken the system is in the midst of serious contract negotiations? Isn't it also incredibly hypocritical for the players union to complain about teams allegedly leaking rumors through the media...when agents have been doing it for way longer and continue to do it? The actions of players/agents right now, are simply not going to garner any sympathy from anyone...and rightfully so. Try approaching this situation like professionals and adults...you'll garner more sympathy and probably be more successful.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-manny-machado-bryce-harper-and-other-free-agents-have-reason-to-be-upset-over-leaked-contract-values/

[tmwiese55]

Again, 2 agents can't agree but 30 owners have apparently. And that's ignoring how player openly talk about needing to hold ground, set market for other etc. Moreover, agents work together under agencies together so as if they're not communicating to each other. They're not all operating independently and I think that's more than 2 agents.

[jerichoholicninja]

Wouldn't it be fair to consider it tampering for all the agents to cry to the media about how unfair and broken the system is in the midst of serious contract negotiations? Isn't it also incredibly hypocritical for the players union to complain about teams allegedly leaking rumors through the media...when agents have been doing it for way longer and continue to do it? The actions of players/agents right now, are simply not going to garner any sympathy from anyone...and rightfully so. Try approaching this situation like professionals and adults...you'll garner more sympathy and probably be more successful.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-manny-machado-bryce-harper-and-other-free-agents-have-reason-to-be-upset-over-leaked-contract-values/

 

Agents complaining about teams leaking information... oh please. I think the majority of people agree with a lot of the complaints the players/agents have, myself included. But they couldn't be handling it any worse. On Twitter, Josh is calling people who don't agree with him morons and just being a general troll. Is that really how a professional should be handling this?

[KeithStone53151]

Wouldn't it be fair to consider it tampering for all the agents to cry to the media about how unfair and broken the system is in the midst of serious contract negotiations? Isn't it also incredibly hypocritical for the players union to complain about teams allegedly leaking rumors through the media...when agents have been doing it for way longer and continue to do it? The actions of players/agents right now, are simply not going to garner any sympathy from anyone...and rightfully so. Try approaching this situation like professionals and adults...you'll garner more sympathy and probably be more successful.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-manny-machado-bryce-harper-and-other-free-agents-have-reason-to-be-upset-over-leaked-contract-values/

 

Agents complaining about teams leaking information... oh please. I think the majority of people agree with a lot of the complaints the players/agents have, myself included. But they couldn't be handling it any worse. On Twitter, Josh is calling people who don't agree with him morons and just being a general troll. Is that really how a professional should be handling this?

 

I tend to agree with you that the current market conditions are unfavorable and unfair for players, but I just think the argument the agents/players are bringing to the table is wrong. They are calling collusion simply because they aren't getting their way, teams have grown smarter and they can't adapt. Every fan that pays any attention sees how these big deals work out for teams, and don't want to see their team signing a player to a bad contract. How screwed would the Brewers be if Cain turned out to be like Heyward? Cain, who was signed to a market value contract in the middle of this so-called "collusion"...by the way. The big long term contracts are super risky and can cripple a franchise for half a decade if the player fails. The right argument should be to get players money earlier in their career...in their more productive years.

[brooks_quichenick]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

That is what I thought too. Except based on 2018 that would mean only one team is paying the lux tax. If that were the case I would have guess that he would have said something like "29 teams have room under the lux tax to add payroll."

 

 

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

 

Because the majority of Americans seem to see themselves as just a couple of steps away from being a filthy rich billionaire like the ones that are hoarding MLB revenues. It's a really incredible boot-licking phenomenon.

[wntrtxn21]

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.

 

 

Moustakas turned down $15.3M already. He thinks he is worth far more. He is a career .251/.307 hitter. Teams are finding cheaper options.

[PlayerHader]

 

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

 

Just because the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 plus clubs does not equate to collusion.

While I definitely appreciate Josh's viewpoint on the subject and his insight into free agency that most, if not all, of us do not have, I think Nate's point is spot on. Why the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 teams, has nothing to do with collusion. It has everything to do with working inside the framework of a system that is fundamentally flawed and gives significant advantages to the largest of markets.

 

Imagine the Brewers, Reds, Pirates, Marlins, Padres, Royals, Twins, Indians, A's or Rays signing Jason Heyward to the contract he signed. His relative non-performance compared to his contract would have crippled that team's efforts to remain competitive. The Cubs however can endure and still sign Darvish and Hamels to $20+ million contracts. Heyward's deal is a cautionary tale that small markets have learned a long time ago (*cough* Suppan *cough*) and big markets are finally learning the same lesson.

 

Going a step further, why should the Yankees sign Manny Machado to a $35m a year contract when his 162 game average for his career is .282, 31 HR, 90 RBI and Miguel Andujar gave you .297, 27 HR, 92 RBI for the league minimum? Should the Nationals be thanking Harper for turning $30m per year down when his 162 game average is .279, 32 HR, 91 RBI and Juan Soto just gave you .292, 22 HR, 70 RBI at age 19 and for the league minimum?

 

Front offices have gotten smarter. If the players decide to strike in a few years, well then good luck to you. You didn't learn your lessons from 1994. Fans will side with ownership. Maybe you don't care. But maybe you should look at the NFL's popularity, even with a dynasty in place, where a team whose home city has 100,000 is on equal financial ground with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

 

I'd like the agent to address the bolded above specifically. Preferably without the condescension of most of his previous posts...

[tmwiese55]

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

 

Because the majority of Americans seem to see themselves as just a couple of steps away from being a filthy rich billionaire like the ones that are hoarding MLB revenues. It's a really incredible boot-licking phenomenon.

 

 

 

No, its because fans want to see their teams win and they know a contract like that will hinder their teams chances of winning because they know the reality is that ownership teams aren't just going to willingly lose dozens of millions of dollars per year. If was going to stomp my feet and demand billionaires just give away money just because they can, I'd prefer them to just give it to me straight up, not some other guy who already has tens of millions in the bank. Even if that guy was going to do his best to entertain me, I'd rather have the money. It's even worse once I realize giving that contract probably actually ends up hurting my entertainment value as it doesn't help the team win long term.

[jerichoholicninja]

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

 

Because the majority of Americans seem to see themselves as just a couple of steps away from being a filthy rich billionaire like the ones that are hoarding MLB revenues. It's a really incredible boot-licking phenomenon.

 

 

 

No, its because fans want to see their teams win and they know a contract like that will hinder their teams chances of winning because they know the reality is that ownership teams aren't just going to willingly lose dozens of millions of dollars per year. If was going to stomp my feet and demand billionaires just give away money just because they can, I'd prefer them to just give it to me straight up, not some other guy who already has tens of millions in the bank. Even if that guy was going to do his best to entertain me, I'd rather have the money. It's even worse once I realize giving that contract probably actually ends up hurting my entertainment value as it doesn't help the team win long term.

 

This right here is why fans are "siding" (not even close to the right word but you know what I mean) with ownership. The owners are at least giving the appearance of making smart baseball decisions to try and run a successful organization - i.e. not throwing gobs of money at free agents when many pre-arby and arby players can give you similar production for pennies on the dollar allowing the money not spent on free agents to be used to extend players or fill holes with lesser free agents or even devote the money to player development.

 

On the other hand, the player's argument is "stop hoarding the cash and pay us more." No part of that has anything to do with helping a fan's favorite team win more games. It's not really hard to see why the players aren't getting sympathy from fans, especially the fans of small market teams that are winning despite their financial limitations. What the player's want in no way improves a fan's experience.