Mlb history of collusion

[bill hAll Star]

Bringing this over from the Moustakas thread:

 

First we had the "Brewers signing Grandal is everything that is wrong with free agency" article, so naturally there is a follow up with the same argument after Moose agreed to terms:

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2019/2/17/18228655/mike-moustakass-brewers-royals-free-agency-middle-tier-revenue-offseason

 

Great article. Mid-tier free agents are getting screwed because they are not getting the 80 million dollar contracts that Mike Leake and Wei-Yin Chen just got a few years ago.

 

Since signing the contract, Leake has a 4.32 ERA, 3.96 FIP, 1.30 WHIP and 95 ERA+ and Chen has a 4.75 ERA, 4.38 FIP, 1.28 WHIP and 80 ERA+. Leake will probably be about a 1 bWAR/season player over the life of this contract and Chen could easily wind up in negative bWAR territory.

 

If anything this shows that MLB owners and GMs have stopped drinking the mid-tier free agent Kool-Aid with many of these players.

 

This is the challenge of the next CBA. I agree that the owners/GMs aren't very dumb anymore and have gone with their own makeshift way of what MLB free agency will look like after the next CBA. Guys like Moustakas got stuck in purgatory because they won't get the benefit of the next CBA where young, good players are paid "fairly" and then are forced to play their 30s on 1-3 year deals like the NBA.

 

Take Leake, for example. Let's take the $8 million = 1 WAR number. You're more well-versed in this than I am so maybe you have a better number. Leake averaged a little over 1.5 WAR/year. So let's just say he should've averaged $12 million/year in production. I'm not saying he should've earned that much as a young player, but what if his rookie/arb salaries were:

$500k

$4 million

$7 million

$10 million

$15 million

$19 million

 

That would be $55.5 million over his first 6 seasons when he technically was worth about $72 million. Instead, he made $20 million. Lucky for Leake, he was there in the end of the "pay the vets" era and got an $80 million deal for the 5 years after that he probably will not earn in terms of WAR.

 

Someone like Leake could then close out his career with a series of 1/$12 or 2/$20 deals if he's still in solid shape. Or if he's a shell of his former self, maybe he'll sign a few 1/$4 deals. regardless, he'd hit that $100 million that he "deserved" and be paid when he was producing.

 

I'm not sure how you make this work. Shortening team control allows the Yankees to poach every young star. Upping arbitration values like I gave as an example for Leake can make it so some rebuilding team gets to the point where it asks "why the heck do I want Mike Leake for $19 million?" But something will have to come about that is a happy medium among all of these.

[homer]

Earlier today the Cubs owner said they have no more money to spend on players. Everyone laughed.

[KeithStone53151]

Earlier today the Cubs owner said they have no more money to spend on players. Everyone laughed.

 

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it.

[KeithStone53151]

Bill Hall, all of that is very well thought out. I see a lot of partial arguments posted in here. I've been super critical of Josh's arguments and the players general argument...as their argument is terrible. But that doesn't mean they are entirely wrong. There are 3 sides at play here. Players, high revenue clubs, and low revenue clubs. Finding a happy medium for all 3 sides will not be easy. It's really easy to say "well teams see how these long deals work out and aren't doing them". While true, not signing those long term deals eats away at players revenues as a whole...and that's not exactly fair as league-wide revenue keeps increasing. You can say "well then let's pay players more money sooner or let them reach free agency sooner". Well then there goes competitive balance for small market clubs. You can say "well let's expand revenue sharing". I'm sure high revenue clubs will be lining up to increase revenue sharing so teams like Miami, Tampa, Oakland, Pittsburgh, etc can tank their payrolls and pocket millions on millions of revenue sharing dollars.

 

I personally think a salary cap/floor that guarantees players X% of revenue is the answer...and with significantly expanded revenue sharing. That will never happen though as big markets don't want to share that much revenue...and I think players like the idea of uncapped contracts. Will be tougher to shell out $30+ million for a superstar with a salary cap/floor.

[homer]

Earlier today the Cubs owner said they have no more money to spend on players. Everyone laughed.

 

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it.

 

That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.

[BrewersSuperCollector]

Earlier today the Cubs owner said they have no more money to spend on players. Everyone laughed.

 

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it.

 

That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.

 

 

I get where your coming from. I really don't care what the amount of money made by owners of a MLB team is. The players are well compensated, and I don't feel sorry for them. In 2017 the average pay of a CEO of a S&P 500 company was 361 times the pay of an average worker. There should be more outrage in that than an entertainment business.

[Tbadder]

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. (This problem is so bad it borders on immoral, you’re more than 1000% correct)

 

Some ideas:

• 
  -Add the DH or use Doug Melvin's idea of only 8 batting in NL. (Ugh! DH drives up the price on inferior layers and hurts small market teams)
  -26 or 27 man rosters (absolutely, long overdo)
  -expand to 32 teams (you bet)
  -create a system (like has been proposed) that doesn't incentivize teams keeping players in the minors to open a season (Kris Bryant rule) [yeah, it’s ugly ]
  -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 (really trying to hurt the small market teams)
  -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 (really trying to hurt small market teams)
  -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. ( really interesting)
  -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. (Agreed)
   
  The changes coming down the pike are really going to hurt the Milwaukee’s and KCs of the world. They are inevitable because the players union and the owners have no actual respect for the game. And because these changes will decimate teams like the Brewers, enjoy these last couple of competitive years because it’ll be another 25 years before they get lucky for a tiny window. Long live the Yankees.
  

[KeithStone53151]

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it.

 

That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.

 

One thought I had, what do you all think the bottom line looks like? Do you think there's more than $30 million at the bottom line? The owners have so many millions at risk. I know the franchise values are appreciating like crazy right now, but that might not last forever. They still have a ton at risk and many franchises may not have $30 million in profit in a given year...which is notable because a handful of players/employees would then make more than the owner(s). I know it's easy to say "rich greedy billionaires", but there's so much risk to owning a sports franchise. What if for example, the NFL concussion issue causes interest in football to wane over the next 10-20 years? Those owners could be out hundreds of millions.

[jjgott]

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it.

 

That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.

 

One thought I had, what do you all think the bottom line looks like? Do you think there's more than $30 million at the bottom line? The owners have so many millions at risk. I know the franchise values are appreciating like crazy right now, but that might not last forever. They still have a ton at risk and many franchises may not have $30 million in profit in a given year...which is notable because a handful of players/employees would then make more than the owner(s). I know it's easy to say "rich greedy billionaires", but there's so much risk to owning a sports franchise. What if for example, the NFL concussion issue causes interest in football to wane over the next 10-20 years? Those owners could be out hundreds of millions.

 

If the risk is too great in owning the team, then the owner should sell and invest in something more stable like treasury bonds.

[tmwiese55]

That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.

 

One thought I had, what do you all think the bottom line looks like? Do you think there's more than $30 million at the bottom line? The owners have so many millions at risk. I know the franchise values are appreciating like crazy right now, but that might not last forever. They still have a ton at risk and many franchises may not have $30 million in profit in a given year...which is notable because a handful of players/employees would then make more than the owner(s). I know it's easy to say "rich greedy billionaires", but there's so much risk to owning a sports franchise. What if for example, the NFL concussion issue causes interest in football to wane over the next 10-20 years? Those owners could be out hundreds of millions.

 

If the risk is too great in owning the team, then the owner should sell and invest in something more stable like treasury bonds.

 

 

Or they can run it properly like a business and not willingly lose dozens of millions per year, which is what they're doing.

[KeithStone53151]

One thought I had, what do you all think the bottom line looks like? Do you think there's more than $30 million at the bottom line? The owners have so many millions at risk. I know the franchise values are appreciating like crazy right now, but that might not last forever. They still have a ton at risk and many franchises may not have $30 million in profit in a given year...which is notable because a handful of players/employees would then make more than the owner(s). I know it's easy to say "rich greedy billionaires", but there's so much risk to owning a sports franchise. What if for example, the NFL concussion issue causes interest in football to wane over the next 10-20 years? Those owners could be out hundreds of millions.

 

If the risk is too great in owning the team, then the owner should sell and invest in something more stable like treasury bonds.

 

Wow, what a ridiculous comment. No less ridiculous than Josh's twitter. How about it's their business and they run it how they want? Because, ya know...its theirs. Not yours, but theirs. They are putting their money at risk to turn a profit, just like every other joe schmo that has extra money to invest. Except for you I guess, you probably take on significant risk and just hope to break even right?

[KeithStone53151]

How exactly does this signing prove collusion? Or that the players are getting screwed? I don't understand this guy.

 

[wallus]

How exactly does this signing prove collusion? Or that the players are getting screwed? I don't understand this guy.

 

 

.

[RollieTime]

How exactly does this signing prove collusion? Or that the players are getting screwed? I don't understand this guy.

 

 

How is this guy an agent?

[KeithStone53151]

Thank you both. Glad I could find some sanity.

[502 to Right]

Is agent39 Joshua Kusnick?

[CheezWizHed]

Is agent39 Joshua Kusnick?

 

Yes, he has disclosed that before.

 

General comment to the thread: Regardless of how you feel about Josh's opinions, please refrain from personal attacks like being "unstable".

[wallus]

Is agent39 Joshua Kusnick?

 

Yes, he has disclosed that before.

 

General comment to the thread: Regardless of how you feel about Josh's opinions, please refrain from personal attacks like being "unstable".

 

I'll delete, my apologies.

[jerichoholicninja]

How exactly does this signing prove collusion? Or that the players are getting screwed? I don't understand this guy.

 

 

How is this guy an agent?

 

His default response to anyone who disagrees with him is "moron". And then throw some expletives in there. I think I would be embarrassed if I was one of his clients.

[tmwiese55]

Yea if anything this shows he's had offers the whole time and was holding out for every last penny and/or a better situation to come up. Makes you think back that maybe years ago during the years of ridiculous contracts if agents could've played hardball and got even more.

[jjgott]

One thought I had, what do you all think the bottom line looks like? Do you think there's more than $30 million at the bottom line? The owners have so many millions at risk. I know the franchise values are appreciating like crazy right now, but that might not last forever. They still have a ton at risk and many franchises may not have $30 million in profit in a given year...which is notable because a handful of players/employees would then make more than the owner(s). I know it's easy to say "rich greedy billionaires", but there's so much risk to owning a sports franchise. What if for example, the NFL concussion issue causes interest in football to wane over the next 10-20 years? Those owners could be out hundreds of millions.

 

If the risk is too great in owning the team, then the owner should sell and invest in something more stable like treasury bonds.

 

Wow, what a ridiculous comment. No less ridiculous than Josh's twitter. How about it's their business and they run it how they want? Because, ya know...its theirs. Not yours, but theirs. They are putting their money at risk to turn a profit, just like every other joe schmo that has extra money to invest. Except for you I guess, you probably take on significant risk and just hope to break even right?

 

They can run it how they want it. But as a fan who wants to win, why would I care about their profit margin? In a perfect world I'd want the team run as a nonprofit and to sign as many good players as possible. I'm just glad you admit they are running the team to earn a profit as opposed to winning championships.

 

What I was getting at is there is close to a zero percent chance teams are running close to a break even point, absent an owner being highly leveraged like Frank McCourt. Teams are profitable before the first pitch is even thrown with all the TV and BAM money. Hell, the Padres just signed Manny to 10 years $300 million a year after signing Hosmer to a $144 million and they have not been relevant since 1998. How could they "afford" it?

[KeithStone53151]

How exactly does this signing prove collusion? Or that the players are getting screwed? I don't understand this guy.

 

 

How is this guy an agent?

 

His default response to anyone who disagrees with him is "moron". And then throw some expletives in there. I think I would be embarrassed if I was one of his clients.

 

I wonder if whoever employs him notices stuff like that. His twitter is incredibly toxic, but at the same time I can't bring myself to not look at it. It's toxic but so interesting. Maybe he's actually a genius...

[KeithStone53151]

They can run it how they want it. But as a fan who wants to win, why would I care about their profit margin? In a perfect world I'd want the team run as a nonprofit and to sign as many good players as possible. I'm just glad you admit they are running the team to earn a profit as opposed to winning championships.

 

What I was getting at is there is close to a zero percent chance teams are running close to a break even point, absent an owner being highly leveraged like Frank McCourt. Teams are profitable before the first pitch is even thrown with all the TV and BAM money. Hell, the Padres just signed Manny to 10 years $300 million a year after signing Hosmer to a $144 million and they have not been relevant since 1998. How could they "afford" it?

 

Your expectations of teams/owners are wildly ridiculous and fantasy land. It's not worth having a serious conversation with you.

[jerichoholicninja]

I wonder if whoever employs him notices stuff like that. His twitter is incredibly toxic, but at the same time I can't bring myself to not look at it. It's toxic but so interesting. Maybe he's actually a genius...

 

I'm pretty sure he's his own boss so he can do whatever he wants. Like last spring training when he would walk around and live broadcast from team facilities and talk crap about autograph seekers. I know his problem is with the people who do it to turn around and sell it but that just seems like such a petty thing for a person in his position to do.

[MrTPlush]

Maybe he is going the Boras route. Attract as much attention as possible with off the wall claims and statements. Works for Boras all the time.