DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)

[DHonks]

I kind of agree with jericho. I was excited for Darvish, Cain, and Arrieta. Hosmer, Moustakas, Frazier, Lynn, etc aren't guys that I would have any interest in. They may have developed into quality big leaguers, but they aren't difference-makers. I've always advocated spending big on stars, but this group is weak.

[ZBTMP]

No it clearly isnt

 

11. How are people against labor and pro billionaire class. It is mirroring politics and its maddening. Im not even screaming im literally laying out what I got

 

You are on a Brewers fan site. The interests of the “billionaire class” in baseball tends to benefit the competitive ability of our favorite team. I won’t disagree that most of the “Competitive Balance” Initiatives are primarily motivated by cutting or controlling costs, but you also cannot deny that they help the Brewers. Hard international spending limits enabled the Brewers to sign one top 10 international prospect and another top 30 last period. That wasn’t happening when the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees could drop 9 figures in any given period. There is no more Boras clients pricing themselves out of Milwaukee with hard caps in the amateur draft. The Brewers have the largest free agent deal this winter and have been tied to many more still available free agents. That’s not happening without a luxury tax. Proposal like less team controls, higher minimum salary, more arbitration years, etc. may help the players but disproportionately hurt Milwaukee as we rely on a larger portion of the budget toward cost controlled players. And more revenue sharing is a tough sell and it should be given how certain teams behave.

 

Your interests as an agent are for maximizing player earnings. Our interests as fans are seeing the Brewers win baseball games. I could care less about distribution of wealth amongst the billionaires and millionaires. Now if you wanted to talk about reducing current overall revenue from owners to increase fan access to baseball increasing future interest in the game amongst younger generations and lower income people, then you might start to win over my sentiment.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

You are on a Brewers fan site. The interests of the “billionaire class” in baseball tends to benefit the competitive ability of our favorite team. I won’t disagree that most of the “Competitive Balance” Initiatives are primarily motivated by cutting or controlling costs, but you also cannot deny that they help the Brewers. Hard international spending limits enabled the Brewers to sign one top 10 international prospect and another top 30 last period. That wasn’t happening when the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees could drop 9 figures in any given period. There is no more Boras clients pricing themselves out of Milwaukee with hard caps in the amateur draft. The Brewers have the largest free agent deal this winter and have been tied to many more still available free agents. That’s not happening without a luxury tax. Proposal like less team controls, higher minimum salary, more arbitration years, etc. may help the players but disproportionately hurt Milwaukee as we rely on a larger portion of the budget toward cost controlled players. And more revenue sharing is a tough sell and it should be given how certain teams behave.

 

Your interests as an agent are for maximizing player earnings. Our interests as fans are seeing the Brewers win baseball games. I could care less about distribution of wealth amongst the billionaires and millionaires. Now if you wanted to talk about reducing current overall revenue from owners to increase fan access to baseball increasing future interest in the game amongst younger generations and lower income people, then you might start to win over my sentiment.

 

I agree with this completely. Yes, I know there is some frustration due to the slow-moving nature of this particular offseason, but the competitive balancing-type changes MLB has enacted have done a great job of evening the playing field. In past years, there is no way the Brewers would have been competitors for free agents like Cain, Darvish and Arrieta. Now the Brewers are arguably the most active team in MLB this offseason, and it's great! I totally get that the players are frustrated, and if we continue to see ticket price, concession and merchandise price increases that price families out of the sport, it will prove that they are right, and the owners are the greedy scumbags they are being portrayed as. But I want to see this play out a little before I make that determination because right now, teams like the Brewers are coming out ahead.

[pacopete4]

agent39, I know you are frustrated with what has taken place this offseason but I am curious if you have thoughts on if you think it was sustainable with the huge contracts that have been taking place over the last decade? I know you want to see your clients get the most possible and that these billionaire owners have lots and lots of money, but were we getting to the point where it just wasn't possible to keep handing out $20-$30 million dollar contracts to players? Especially some players who are not elite? Or players that are in their 30's and now without using HGH or other supplements, have trouble staying healthy enough or productive to earn those contracts?

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I know you are frustrated but at some point, these massive contracts had to come to a halt to some extent, didn't they? (and that is not because I'm pro-billionaire lol)

[agent39]

http://www.1013espn.com/mlb-agent-joshua-kusnick-joins-us-audio/

[agent39]

I think everyone disagreeing with me is misinformed and parroting talking points and opinions. I have stats that say youre wrong.

[JosephC]

11. How are people against labor and pro billionaire class. It is mirroring politics and its maddening. Im not even screaming im literally laying out what I got

 

That sir, is the exact definition of a parroted talking point.

[agent39]

11. How are people against labor and pro billionaire class. It is mirroring politics and its maddening. Im not even screaming im literally laying out what I got

 

That sir, is the exact definition of a parroted talking point.

 

 

If youre saying players are greedy this is a fact. Im aware this is a red state. It wont make me understand siding against labor. Ever.

[agent39]

Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.

[sveumrules]

As someone with first hand knowledge would you say that MLBPA leadership did the best job possible of guaranteeing their members' future prosperity during the 2016 CBA negotiations?

[adambr2]

So i have to believe all 30 teams got smart w analytics while at the same time every player got greedy and every single agent myself included misread the market (i didnt as i feared this ie JJ signed)

 

No.

 

I'm trying to reconcile the apparent implication that there is in fact collusion with the statement that you feared this so JJ was signed quickly. Particularly when the reliever market hasn't really been strongly affected. Why would one fear and anticipate collusion?

 

I also don't know that I necessarily agree that posters here are anti-labor and pro billionaire class, that certainly doesn't apply to me, and I'm a union member myself.

But when you're talking the scale of money that most of us laborers will still never see in our lifetimes, it's certainly difficult to identify with that struggle. I'm far more sympathetic to the plight of your minor league clients whom neither side seemed that interested in negotiating a living wage for in the current CBA.

[TURBO]

agent39, I know you are frustrated with what has taken place this offseason but I am curious if you have thoughts on if you think it was sustainable with the huge contracts that have been taking place over the last decade? I know you want to see your clients get the most possible and that these billionaire owners have lots and lots of money, but were we getting to the point where it just wasn't possible to keep handing out $20-$30 million dollar contracts to players? Especially some players who are not elite? Or players that are in their 30's and now without using HGH or other supplements, have trouble staying healthy enough or productive to earn those contracts?

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I know you are frustrated but at some point, these massive contracts had to come to a halt to some extent, didn't they? (and that is not because I'm pro-billionaire lol)

 

 

Clients get more, agents get more, correct?

 

Of course agents want their clients to get more if some of that "more" goes in their pockets.

[wallus]

Agents should send their complaints to Yu Darvish. Once he signs, there will likely be a flurry of activity. When a good player is mulling between 9 figure contracts but won't sign, I have no reason to believe there is collusion. There are also quite a few reports that offers have been made to many other free agents as well.

[ewitkows]

Part of the problem is only a handful of teams can scale up to the luxury tax . The Brewers are close to being a WC team if they could manage a 190M payroll then there would be more FA signings. It seems like all of the big payroll teams are at the tax and DET decided to cutback.

If teams like MKE and MN or PIT would be able to get to the tax when they are competitive then that fixes the FA market.

[KeithStone53151]

Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.

 

I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument. The general public can see how bad a large chunk of these free agent contracts end, especially the later years. Heck part of the reasons GM's have less money to work with is all the garbage contracts their books are saddled with, but agents like yourself conveniently never mention those. I personally don't want to see Arrieta or Darvish get a 6 or 7 year deal from the Brewers, the later years will be brutal. I'm sure the fans of other teams share a similar sentiment. GM's that mismanage their money/roster will show poor results and get themselves fired, so this isn't something you can narrow down to the ownership level.

 

If you framed your argument for a revamp of the system, trying to get players more money in their primes...that's a much better argument that I can get behind, and I'm sure the general public can as well.

[Outlander]

Yes, I would think the whole system needs to be revamped with everybody understanding analytics much better. The old way of paying peanuts the first 6 years and then overpaying in the free agent years and beyond isn't really going to work anymore. Having to play six or seven seasons in the majors plus however many years in the minors before hitting free agency is ridiculous. The number of years a team can keep you in the minors and number of years before free agency really needs to be reduced.

[pacopete4]

Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.

 

I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument. The general public can see how bad a large chunk of these free agent contracts end, especially the later years. Heck part of the reasons GM's have less money to work with is all the garbage contracts their books are saddled with, but agents like yourself conveniently never mention those. I personally don't want to see Arrieta or Darvish get a 6 or 7 year deal from the Brewers, the later years will be brutal. I'm sure the fans of other teams share a similar sentiment. GM's that mismanage their money/roster will show poor results and get themselves fired, so this isn't something you can narrow down to the ownership level.

 

If you framed your argument for a revamp of the system, trying to get players more money in their primes...that's a much better argument that I can get behind, and I'm sure the general public can as well.

+1

[adambr2]

Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things;

 

1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year.

 

2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks.

 

3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation.

 

4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration.

 

5) Team salary floor based on annual total revenue.

 

6) Performance based arbitration based on modern analytics and not outdated statistics. Players are guaranteed a percentage of all revenue agreed upon in the CBA. Arbitration salaries are based on performance for each individual player based on the division of the player's share of revenue after deductions of all free agent contracts and minimum $1M contracts (pre-arby players, arbitration eligible players who do not meet performance requirements for more than $1M.)

[KeithStone53151]

What if you had a lottery system for the draft? Not like the NBA, say every team the doesn't make the playoffs goes into a pool and are basically drawn out of a hat. The 84 win team that just missed the playoffs has the same chance at a high pick as the 62 win tanking team. There's no way you can tank for 3-4 years and guarantee a top 5 pick each time. Maybe you get lucky, but you might as well try to compete as there would be no incentive to tank.

[agent39]

Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.

 

I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument.

 

 

The cba says youre wrong.

[ZBTMP]

Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things;

 

1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year.

 

2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks.

 

3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation.

 

4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration.

These all disproportionately hurt the Brewers. Lets say the Brewers have 200 million in revenue and the Dodgers have 480 million in revenue. Probably not far off.

Currently those expenses are currently average 80 million for both. And these proposal raise it to 120 million. The Brewers discretionary spending is far more hit than the Dodgers. Obviously the math is more complex as these expenses are larger to the Brewers because they have to use those cost control vehicles more than the Dodgers, so reality is probably worse.

If you can get the Dodgers to share local TV revenue, cool.

[FVBrewerFan]

Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things;

 

1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year.

 

2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks.

 

3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation.

 

4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration.

 

5) Team salary floor based on annual total revenue.

 

6) Performance based arbitration based on modern analytics and not outdated statistics. Players are guaranteed a percentage of all revenue agreed upon in the CBA. Arbitration salaries are based on performance for each individual player based on the division of the player's share of revenue after deductions of all free agent contracts and minimum $1M contracts (pre-arby players, arbitration eligible players who do not meet performance requirements for more than $1M.)

 

All of those things would be good for the players, but I don't see how any of them would help the Brewers compete against the big money teams.

[KeithStone53151]

Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.

 

I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument.

 

 

The cba says youre wrong.

 

The CBA says teams have to meet agents asking prices if revenues increase? Really? I find that hard to believe. Players/agents have a legitimate beef, but trying to strong-arm owners into giving Darvish/Arrieta their reported 6-7 year asking prices that are almost certainly going to be albatross contracts by the end of them isn't going to garner public support. I've seen that you are frustrated that public opinion is almost unanimously against you, maybe regrouping and attacking the injustice differently makes more sense. More money in their primes, less team control, more money for minor leaguers. Those arguments are more likely to garner public support.

[adambr2]

Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway.

 

Would love to hear some alternatives...

[KeithStone53151]

Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway.

 

Would love to hear some alternatives...

 

Salary cap/floor, with significantly increased revenue sharing. Best way to guarantee players X% of the revenues. Players have been opposed to a cap for some reason, I don't know why...and big markets would hate this as they wouldn't have a significant advantage over the small markets anymore.

 

If you stick to a similar system, I like bumping the min salary up to $1 million and draw a hard line in the sand that every player can become a free agent at age 28 or 29 no matter where they are in the team control process. Prevents teams from keeping X player in the minors for longer than they should.