Mlb history of collusion

[clancyphile]

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 is the point. Right now, I can think of nine teams that could afford to survive more than one bad contract and still be able to field a contender: The Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mariners, and White Sox in the American League, and the Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, and Mets in the National League.

 

Those are it. You have a second tier of teams that could survive one bad contract and make a run, but some teams, the Brewers included, can't. Jeffrey Hammonds, Matt Garza, Randy Wolf, Jeff Suppan, Braden Looper, Kyle Lohse... all those deals killed the Crew to one extent or another over the years.

 

Those smaller teams had to get smarter about how they built their teams, including the contracts. If they could get team-friendly extensions (like Lucroy and Braun signed), they got them. But if not... they have to make a deal - and the market is small.

 

Fixing this is essential.

[istanbultaye]

To be fair, even the Brewers can absorb one bad contract as long as it isn't egregious. Suppan was already in the tank when they made their first playoff run in '08, and his salary didn't keep the Brewers from adding more free agents in the following years. Randy Wolf, Lohse, Garza all at least provided some amount of value in a couple years of their contracts as well, so while they weren't outstanding, none of those really crippled the franchise long term. Now, if they had pulled a Pujols type deal with Prince (as much as I am a fan of Prince in his playing days), that would have crippled them for sure.

 

That said, expecting a small market team to fork out money a la old school Yankees payrolls, or to even be at the Luxury tax is pretty silly for anyone to expect.

[KeithStone53151]

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.

 

I couldn't agree more with this, very well said. If you gave us the choice of billionaires or millionaire players getting more money, almost everyone is going to choose the players. Players/agents simply have a message/strategy problem right now.

[JosephC]

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.

 

I couldn't agree more with this, very well said. If you gave us the choice of billionaires or millionaire players getting more money, almost everyone is going to choose the players. Players/agents simply have a message/strategy problem right now.

 

If there was a "neither" option, I'd bet that would take 90+% of the opinion poll. How about the owners and players both make much less and the money that used to go to them would instead go to (1) 100% privately financed stadiums and picking up all the costs associated with those stadiums (2) paying all the other people that work for MLB teams a better wage.

[logan82]

1. Minor league players 100% should get more money. I would be in favor of locking in bonus money in the draft along with going with less money for bonuses. The money taken from the draft could be rolled into minor league player salaries. I would also allow teams to retain rights to players drafted similar to the NHL where they can be drafted the still play in college.

 

2. They should go to 2 years the 4 years of arbitration for MLB players. I am not sure how smaller markets would compete if you take too much team control away.

 

3. Every team could sign any player, just not for more than a couple years. If 8/$250m was the offer to Machado then that would be the second highest per year contract in MLB history. I seems the owners are just tired of dead money. I can't blame them.

 

I am all for the players getting more money, but until all TV revenue is shared there need to be mechanisms in place to keep more teams competitive.

[brewcrewdue80]

Commish should come out with a set date to sign FAs to avoid this mess. Before Spring Training begins. Maybe they set it where by January 15th they can agree to an amount between agent and teams. After Jan 15 MLB along with Players Union puts out a yearly salary said FA should and will be earning per year. You then have a blind auction on years for teams to meet that said amount. For instance say 3 teams bid in this auction and 1 is 1year, 2nd is 3 years, and 3rd is 4years. 4 years takes the FA. No more waiting/collusion problems. Now, sure first argument is going to be said player doesn't want to play in that state. Well, buddy, you had til Jan 15th to sign with where you wanted to go. We talked with the Players Union and came to a price that should be what you're worth and teams lost the ability to sign you at or below by not coming to an agreement before Jan. 15th. Now, I'd state this rule applies to FAs who have been worth more than 6WAR combined in last 3 years. (4.5 if missed a season to injury) If you hadn't been worth this then you're just a role player, you ought to be taking a deal and glad you can play for a MLB team still. Consider an Arbitration for FAs if it comes to this.

[stalton]

There is a few places I could put this but coming from a very graph and analytical background, combined with a long week, beer and no wife tonight, led me to crunching some numbers. Like others that have expressed the same or similiar sentiment, the pay scale and the talent scale (I'm using WAR from FG, so usual caveats apply) are not matching and seem to be falling further apart. For example, I took the top 50 WAR producing catchers, 2018. I got their age, salary (either taken from FG or Spotrak) and WAR. I picked catchers, because I wanted to eliminate the most cross position players as possible, but I realize taking WAR for catchers leaves a lot of intangibles out there. I didn't expect a linear response but was surprised by a few things.

 

First off average age and mean age were similiar, pretty close to 29.5 years. I expected that.

 

The average salary was 4.4 Mil while the mean salary was closer to 2 mil flat. This induces a bell curve heavy on the right side. That seems logical to me. The top few salaries are really going to put a skew in there, combined with the min salaries as well.

 

The Average WAR was 1.2 while the mean WAR was only 0.9. That to me makes a bit of sense but in order to see that clearer, I wanted to see the quartiles. Which were 0.6 and 2. So 50% of the top 50 catchers were between .6 and 2. Choosing the Top 50 was a bit arbitrary but I had to cut off the list somewhere. FWIW the top 50 catchers had a WAR close to 60 overall and the overall total WAR for all of MLB was only 50 WAR so there were plenty of bad catchers out there. There were even 4 teams that had a negative WAR from their catching staff. The average team as a whole averaged out 1.6 WAR total. Catchers certainly don't play anywhere close to 162 so I'll believe it.

 

Crunching the initial numbers gave me 5mil/WAR for the average and only 2.1 mil/WAR for the mean. Since this is driven by salaries which are already right skewed, it makes sense that this is also right skewed.

 

Breaking down the salaries,

22 of the Top 50 made 1 mil or less and only averaged 1.0 WAR

15 of the Top 50 made between 1mil and 5 mil and averaged 1.2 WAR

6 of the Top 50 made between 5 mil and 10 mil and averaged 1.6 WAR

7 of the Top 50 made over 10 mil and averaged just only 1.4 WAR

 

A few things jump out at me. First the "2nd tier paid players" out WAR'ed the elite paid catchers. Small sample alert and all that but I would think given the "overpay" philosophy" for some of the elite players, this struck me as odd.

 

Examining the parity of the catchers combining the data,

37 catchers made under 5 million but still had a WAR around 1.1

13 catchers were paid over 5 mil but had a WAR around 1.5

 

I know others on here use different models in evaulating trades, prospects and whatnot, but looking at the Salary per WAR the parity grows stronger. Overall all for the top 50 catchers, the average Salary per WAR was almost 5 WAR. The mean was a measly 2.1 mil

 

Under a Million Salary per WAR was 0.9

1mil to 5 mil Salary per WAR was 4.0

5mil to 10 mil salary per WAR 8.1

Over 10 mil Salary was a whopping 17.4

 

Age can play alot into it was well, for all the phenoms out there you have the Molinas in the world that are still lterally outproducing catchers almost half his age. I tried getting a regression but age and WAR but the computer laughed at me. Looking at age and salary shows a different story. With a few exceptions of some older vets taking vet mins, the older you are the more money you make.

 

What all this boils down to is (in completely my opinion), numbers can you alot of things and nothing at the same time. In a performance based industry, the pay scale and performance scale just don't measure up. I don't have any solutions but whether its collusion or the Front Offices dont want to pay more for something they can much cheaper, it appears that the math can show that it might not make financial sense to unload top dollars for an elite player when the results aren't linear.

 

PS FWIW Pina and the Brewers had a catcher WAR of 1.1 while essentially just paying 1 mil in minimum contracts. Now that the Brewers signed Grandal, he certainly won't get 18 WAR but if he and the Brewers get 3WAR from catchers while paying 20 mil, is it worth it? 2.5 WAR, 2 WAR?

 

I don't know. Time for another beer.

[wntrtxn21]

Commish should come out with a set date to sign FAs to avoid this mess. Before Spring Training begins. Maybe they set it where by January 15th they can agree to an amount between agent and teams. After Jan 15 MLB along with Players Union puts out a yearly salary said FA should and will be earning per year. You then have a blind auction on years for teams to meet that said amount. For instance say 3 teams bid in this auction and 1 is 1year, 2nd is 3 years, and 3rd is 4years. 4 years takes the FA. No more waiting/collusion problems. Now, sure first argument is going to be said player doesn't want to play in that state. Well, buddy, you had til Jan 15th to sign with where you wanted to go. We talked with the Players Union and came to a price that should be what you're worth and teams lost the ability to sign you at or below by not coming to an agreement before Jan. 15th. Now, I'd state this rule applies to FAs who have been worth more than 6WAR combined in last 3 years. (4.5 if missed a season to injury) If you hadn't been worth this then you're just a role player, you ought to be taking a deal and glad you can play for a MLB team still. Consider an Arbitration for FAs if it comes to this.

 

 

What happens when MLB (low end) and players union (extreme high end) can't agree on a FA's salary? What happens when NO team wants to sign a player for the stated salary? If Jan 15th passes and no team wants to sign the guy, what happens to him? Japan, Korea? Players union would NEVER go for anything even close to an auction scenario.

[rickh150]

Just don't like it when players say, "I wish that guy gets what he deserves (in terms of salary)," or "he deserves a big contract." We know what they mean, but it comes out really badly. A typical family pays over $200 to see a MLB game. It's highway robbery. The players don't deserve their $ or time, for that matter. Be gracious and thankful for your own embarrassing riches and just say, "I hope he gets what I believer is his fair market value." Entitled cry babies one way, gracious capitalists the other....

 

A salary floor probably is part of the solution for this free agency mess..... not sure the perameters, but that would get some of these aging vets a job this season.

[JohnBriggs12]

There was no way the game could continue to sustain player's salaries growing at rates well above inflation. Eventually you reach a point where the owners can't match the salary increases by growing revenue. Ticket prices are at their limit. The idea that some baseball site can calculate a player's worth is and always has been nonsense. Players are worth what the market says they're worth. No more, no less. Compared to 10, 15 years ago, players skills are declining faster for a couple reasons. In 2009, skills showed drop offs at age 35-37. Now that's more like 32-33.

 

So what's the solution? I think there should be a tier system based on the age a player's rookie status expired. Let's say that any player who's rookie status expires before he reaches 24, would still be bound by the current 6 years to FA rule. Players who's status expires from age 24 to his 26th birthday, could be controlled just 5 years, and anyone 26 or over would only be subject to team control for 4 years.

[young guns]

So what's the solution? I think there should be a tier system based on the age a player's rookie status expired. Let's say that any player who's rookie status expires before he reaches 24, would still be bound by the current 6 years to FA rule. Players who's status expires from age 24 to his 26th birthday, could be controlled just 5 years, and anyone 26 or over would only be subject to team control for 4 years.

Thats actually a pretty good idea. Im sure the ages and years would need to be worked out, but basically the earlier you bring someone up the more use you get out of them. It would take away holding down deserving players, like the bryant situation, and allow players to hit the market during their prime, or close to it. Maybe set it to six years of control or a certain age? Im not sure why the teams would want this, or more likely what it would take for them to accept it, but it feels like it would solve most of the issues.

[xisxisxis]

So what's the solution? I think there should be a tier system based on the age a player's rookie status expired. Let's say that any player who's rookie status expires before he reaches 24, would still be bound by the current 6 years to FA rule. Players who's status expires from age 24 to his 26th birthday, could be controlled just 5 years, and anyone 26 or over would only be subject to team control for 4 years.

Thats actually a pretty good idea. Im sure the ages and years would need to be worked out, but basically the earlier you bring someone up the more use you get out of them. It would take away holding down deserving players, like the bryant situation, and allow players to hit the market during their prime, or close to it. Maybe set it to six years of control or a certain age? Im not sure why the teams would want this, or more likely what it would take for them to accept it, but it feels like it would solve most of the issues.

I suggested something pretty similar in some other thread that I couldn't find, but the idea is that a team can option a player once and still retain 6 years of control (3 Min/3 Arb). For each additional option they lose 1 year of Minimum Salary years such that:

 

1 Option = 3 Min/3 Arb

2 Options = 2 Min/3 Arb

3 Options = 1 Min/3 Arb

 

Add in a substantial increase to MiLB players salaries and a tweak to the team control without being on the 40-man and you could reduce a teams ability to stash prospects in the minors until their most productive years. If they wish to keep optioning players they will lose control years.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

This is interesting:

 

 

If owners were going to collude, it is odd that they'd do it on someone like Mark Reynolds.

[BuckyBrewer61]

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.

 

If it were under the character limit, this should be copied and pasted in reply to every player complaining on Twitter.

 

If you don’t understand why fans aren’t up in arms over the current state of free agency, then you don’t understand fans. Fans don’t care about how ownership and players split their millions and billions of dollars. At all. We just want to see our team win.

[3and2Fastball]

MLB wouldn't make a dime without the elite incredible players who are so much fun to watch. The players should get a bigger piece of the revenue.

[wntrtxn21]

MLB wouldn't make a dime without the elite incredible players who are so much fun to watch. The players should get a bigger piece of the revenue.

 

 

Every player, elite or not, is free to withhold his services from MLB and seek another occupation. ANY free agent is free to sign with any league (MLB-Korea-Japan-independent teams) that he wants to. Nobody forces players to sign with MLB. If they don't like the salary they are free to seek more money else where.

[BrewFan130]

I think team owners are finally acknowledging the fact that 7-10 year deals pretty much never work out and end up handicapping teams for several years in the final years of the contract. The players salary far exceeds his contributions at the end of his career and I think it may even create some resentment amongst some of the teammates.

[markedman5]

In other news

 

[markedman5]

Sigh.......so I guess we can all breath easy now......the world isn't ending after all

 

[jerichoholicninja]

This is interesting:

 

 

If owners were going to collude, it is odd that they'd do it on someone like Mark Reynolds.

 

It's a common tale, according to Jayson Stark, it didn't just happen to Mark Reynolds. [sarcasm]There must be a google doc out there with the dates that all the teams agreed on for when they will start offering minor league deals to players.[/sarcasm]

[KCBrewerfan34]

I saw Josh’s contribution (or lack of) to an athletic article regarding collusion. Josh your thought process on this topic is completely out of whack. Since you’re an agent go ahead and look at 5 year deals and above and give me the percentage of positive deals for the clubs. It would be an eye opener even for a narrow minded biased agent who thinks player salaries should just keep escalating.

 

Here’s an idea to protect the clubs. On 5 year + deals allow teams to opt out after year 3. Would need to be bargained but players want some concessions in other areas this would be a good get for the clubs. Also, there needs to be a worldwide draft covering all players.

[KeithStone53151]

I saw Josh’s contribution (or lack of) to an athletic article regarding collusion. Josh your thought process on this topic is completely out of whack. Since you’re an agent go ahead and look at 5 year deals and above and give me the percentage of positive deals for the clubs. It would be an eye opener even for a narrow minded biased agent who thinks player salaries should just keep escalating.

 

Here’s an idea to protect the clubs. On 5 year + deals allow teams to opt out after year 3. Would need to be bargained but players want some concessions in other areas this would be a good get for the clubs. Also, there needs to be a worldwide draft covering all players.

 

I appreciate Josh's baseball related insights, but it really needs to stop there. He's tweeting about how there is no finite amount of money because there is no cap...which if there isn't a finite amount of money in his view, that means he thinks there's an INFINITE amount of money. It literally blows me away how little this guy knows about the business he operates in...but talks as if he knows everything. I believe that in his mind, every free agent should literally be able to name their price and teams should be lining up to pay that price or offer more...and if they don't, then it's collusion.

[jjgott]

Bob Nightengale

‏@BNightengale

 

Cubs owner Tom Ricketts on why the Cubs didn't spend more money this offseason on the free-agent market: "Pretty easy. We don’t have any more.''

[tmwiese55]

Bob Nightengale

‏@BNightengale

 

Cubs owner Tom Ricketts on why the Cubs didn't spend more money this offseason on the free-agent market: "Pretty easy. We don’t have any more.''

 

And why don't they? Because they handed out a terrible 8/184 mil contract that's giving them next to nothing. Then throw in over 100+ mil on Darvish that got them nothing so far. At least his was only 5 years (if I remember correctly). Gee, I wonder why teams don't want to do that anymore?

[DHonks]

The Ricketts have been "tight" with money for a couple years (relative, of course). Doesn't it have to do with the Wrigley renovations?

 

MLB can fix this. But before they do it, they need to pay minor leaguers better.

 

Some ideas:

• 
  -Add the DH or use Doug Melvin's idea of only 8 batting in NL.
  -26 or 27 man rosters
  -expand to 32 teams
  -create a system (like has been proposed) that doesn't incentivize teams keeping players in the minors to open a season (Kris Bryant rule)
  -I'd almost like to see a system where owners guarantee players a set share of revenues. If MLB player revenues fall below the threshold, all players receive a share of the extra revenues needed to reach that threshold.
  -MLB veterans over 30 signed to 1 or 2 year deals count less towards the luxury tax threshold
  -less punitive luxury tax
  -tanking is pointless in baseball. Teams tanking rather than re-investing in their on-field product at the MLB level should be fined draft picks or money
  -MLB should create an extra AAA team, managed by MLB or MLBPA, that contains only veterans with MLB service time. This keeps them playing and in shape, only a step away from their contract being purchased.
  -draft pick free agent compensation needs to be replaced with an NFL system where the league weighs the added players in addition to the lost players, resulting in extra picks being awarded. the system shouldn't hurt a player.