DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)

[FVBrewerFan]

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...

 

Ok, but you won't like it. Near 100% revenue sharing, and a hard salary cap. Nothing else will come close to addressing the competitive inbalance. (Also international draft but that pales in comparison.)

[MrTPlush]

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.

 

How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.

[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.

 

How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.

 

I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...

[MrTPlush]

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.

 

How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.

 

I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...

 

Never did I say that.

 

I am saying teams are not tanking for draft position like they would in the NBA. Teams in the MLB "tank" because they are selling off their proven assets(Lucroy/Gomez). Teams aren't becoming terrible to get better draft position. What you are proposing would have absolutely zero effect on how teams rebuild. Teams would do exactly what they do now.

[Austin Tatious]

The Brewers offered Darvish in the nine figures. They paid Cain. It’s not collusion and I don’t think such a case would go anywhere. MLB could trot out loads of evidence showing how much money was blown on bloated contracts for declining players in their thirties. No one could take seriously complaints by the likes of Cobb or Lynn, and I’d imagine they will end up with nice eight figure per year deals. I don’t see those guys as nine figure investments and I don’t think a judge or jury would either. The player expectations need to be managed much better. Next year, Machado, Bryce, Kershaw et al will all get big deals. There’s nothing to see here except for unrealistic expectations.

 

Marvin Miller wanted a system where there was a limited supply of free agents every year so that teams would bid up on the few who were available. This year at least, the MLB PA thinks it hasn’t worked so well. But a nine figure offer to Darvish and loads of evidence against paying declining players will hurt any such argument. MLB is lock solid on this, IMO.

 

But, the players need to think about the long game, and the economics will benefit them over the long term.

[Eye Black]

How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.

I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...

Never did I say that.

 

I am saying teams are not tanking for draft position like they would in the NBA. Teams in the MLB "tank" because they are selling off their proven assets(Lucroy/Gomez). Teams aren't becoming terrible to get better draft position. What you are proposing would have absolutely zero effect on how teams rebuild. Teams would do exactly what they do now.

I agree that tanking is a strategy employed for several reasons beyond just draft ramifications, but it is still very much part of the equation. Beyond just a higher selection, the draft pool allotments are also affected by order of finish. The higher draft pool allotments allow teams to manipulate the draft beyond just the cut and dry order of selection. As far as I know that is unique to the baseball draft, at least as compared to other major sports.

 

Currently the incentives are influencing teams to either try to assemble a surefire playoff roster, or else try to sell off assets with down the road success in mind. I have seen some interesting suggestions for shifting focus towards incentivizing winning more for all 30 teams. Right now the worst place to be in baseball is average. One suggestion was to give the 20 teams that miss the playoffs a draft order (and pool money) in order from most wins to least. So for instance the 86 win Brewers (who are even drafting behind a playoff team, the Twins, this year) would have the #1 selection in this year’s draft for being the most successful team to just miss the playoffs. The idea is subject to plenty of scrutiny, but it would put a lot of additional value on being able to assemble an 80-win team, and would make it much harder for a team to rebuild via a complete “tear it down to the studs” rebuild/tank job... something the Brewers never really executed, but the Astros and Cubs certainly did.

[LouisEly]

Currently the incentives are influencing teams to either try to assemble a surefire playoff roster, or else try to sell off assets with down the road success in mind. I have seen some interesting suggestions for shifting focus towards incentivizing winning more for all 30 teams. Right now the worst place to be in baseball is average. One suggestion was to give the 20 teams that miss the playoffs a draft order (and pool money) in order from most wins to least. So for instance the 86 win Brewers (who are even drafting behind a playoff team, the Twins, this year) would have the #1 selection in this year’s draft for being the most successful team to just miss the playoffs. The idea is subject to plenty of scrutiny, but it would put a lot of additional value on being able to assemble an 80-win team, and would make it much harder for a team to rebuild via a complete “tear it down to the studs” rebuild/tank job... something the Brewers never really executed, but the Astros and Cubs certainly did.

This is interesting. The challenge with the draft is that those players won't make an impact for 2-3 years (college picks) or 4-5 years (high school). I'm thinking more like the NBA, where you have exemptions that don't count towards the cap. Perhaps something like the top two teams that miss the playoffs get a voucher towards signing free agents the next offseason. MLB will pay up to a certain amount ($10M? $15M? $20M?) towards free agent signings, but it's not cash that the team can pocket - it's use it or lose it. Because it's not a huge amount it encourages teams to sign non-premiere free agents (a.k.a. "gumballs") instead of holding out for premiere free agents (a.k.a. "candy bars"). The NBA has injury exemptions that don't count towards the cap; I think that's a good start too.

[MrTPlush]

Yah I don’t see that backwards draft order really making sense either. Takes too long for a MLB draftee to make an impact. I also don’t understand you guys trying to give incentives to teams that close to making the playoffs. As we can see with the Brewers after just missing the playoffs they are trying very hard to be there next year. Obviously it’s a different case because they are at what they feel is the start of a window vs. the end.

 

You would want to give incentives to teams that are fringe contention...that are winning 70-80 games. Give the #1 pick to the team with the most wins under 77. That would be interesting because even when rebuilding a team might be interested in dishing out deals to be mediocre. Problem is then maybe young guys aren’t getting as many opportunities, that wouldn’t be good.

 

I think these incentives to win would be terrible in practice though. Either teams won’t bite because it really isn’t that big of a bonus or it would just make a ton of mediocre teams some of which would be blah for years on end. Teams bebuild for a reason, it works. I bet they would still do the same and give young guys a look.

[Eye Black]

Yah I don’t see that backwards draft order really making sense either. Takes too long for a MLB draftee to make an impact. I also don’t understand you guys trying to give incentives to teams that close to making the playoffs.

We are simply sharing ideas/thoughts here. I suggest avoiding the urge to insert the phrase “you guys” into an otherwise perfectly fine statement. It detracts from the point you are making and sets a combative lens for the reader.

 

 

As we can see with the Brewers after just missing the playoffs they are trying very hard to be there next year. Obviously it’s a different case because they are at what they feel is the start of a window vs. the end.

 

You would want to give incentives to teams that are fringe contention...that are winning 70-80 games. Give the #1 pick to the team with the most wins under 77. That would be interesting because even when rebuilding a team might be interested in dishing out deals to be mediocre. Problem is then maybe young guys aren’t getting as many opportunities, that wouldn’t be good.

The Brewers and the Cardinals were the anomaly last year as the only two teams with a winning record that missed the playoffs. In 2017 a total of 18 teams finished below .500. The goal of the reverse draft among non-playoff teams isn’t necessarily to ensure they will be better at the MLB level the next year, but more to motivate organizations to put together a competitive roster even if it isn’t necessarily likely to be a World Series contender.

 

Part of the premise here was, “what factors could continue motivate a larger number of teams to submit offers to free agents?” This was just one interesting idea being shared, it would obviously be a drastic measure that would attract plenty of fair criticism. It could also be argued that the market may correct itself if too many teams try to rebuild at the same time and diminish their overall likelihood for success via the rebuild process.

 

 

I think these incentives to win would be terrible in practice though. Either teams won’t bite because it really isn’t that big of a bonus or it would just make a ton of mediocre teams some of which would be blah for years on end. Teams bebuild for a reason, it works. I bet they would still do the same and give young guys a look.

If you don’t think teams should be incentived to be average, and prefer the system the way it is, I completely understand that and agree there are plenty of virtues to the current the system. The idea was simply brainstorming a way to change the dynamics that encourage rebuilding in its current form.

 

I agree with LouisEly’s thoughts that there may be other ways to alter market variables and encourage teams to sign free agents that either present a more immediate payoff, or else reduce the risk associated with an albatross contract. Allowing exceptions to the luxury tax similar to the NBA’s salary cap exemptions would be interesting, but likely wouldn’t do any favors for small market teams.

[jerichoholicninja]

Agents seem to think that teams aren't making fair offers and are crying foul, collusion, whatever. I hope those same agents would also tell their clients to reject any offer that is above what they feel they are worth. Fair is only fair if it's fair for both sides.

[SRB]

Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union.

 

So complaining about the size of the 1-2 megacontracts that get signed every offseason is not really relevant.

 

Agents seem to think that teams aren't making fair offers and are crying foul, collusion, whatever. I hope those same agents would also tell their clients to reject any offer that is above what they feel they are worth. Fair is only fair if it's fair for both sides.

 

This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.

[DHonks]

This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.

 

This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.

[LouisEly]

Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union

No, I think the opposite - the point is that, to quote an infamous poster in other threads, "you don't spend your nickels on gumballs when you think you can get a candy bar". You don't sign the lower tier guys if you think you have a decent shot at a Darvish, JD Martinez, Hosmer, etc.

 

For example - just throwing names out there, don't judge the names or $ amounts - why would you sign Jose Bautista for a hope-he-bounces-back 1-year $6M deal when you have an offer out for JD Martinez? Those guys play the same position, so you can't sign Bautista until you know you can't get Martinez. Why would you sign a Mike Napoli or Mark Reynolds on a one-year deal if you have a legitimate offer on Eric Hosmer? Why would you sign a Jaime Garcia on a one-year bounce-back deal when you have offers out on Arrietta or Lynn? You don't, until you those guys make a decision.

 

Also, to quote Doug Melvin, "Free agents know where they want to play."

[MadThinker88]

This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.

 

This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.

 

I know some on this board would disagree with you DHonks, but I would not be part of that group. The CBA was fairly bargained. The merits on how well each side did can (& will be) debated over and over.

 

That said, in the next round of negotiations for the players to get changes or concessions from the owners, they will need items to bargain with or areas they can agree to give back some ground. Each CBA is built upon the one before so there is always give and take.

 

Are there any areas you think the players would be able "to give" in order to receive either additional salary earlier in the career (in minors and the 6 control years) or earlier free agency or lessening of a penalized ceiling/ creation of a minimum floor???

[SRB]

Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union

No, I think the opposite - the point is that, to quote an infamous poster in other threads, "you don't spend your nickels on gumballs when you think you can get a candy bar". You don't sign the lower tier guys if you think you have a decent shot at a Darvish, JD Martinez, Hosmer, etc.

 

For example - just throwing names out there, don't judge the names or $ amounts - why would you sign Jose Bautista for a hope-he-bounces-back 1-year $6M deal when you have an offer out for JD Martinez? Those guys play the same position, so you can't sign Bautista until you know you can't get Martinez. Why would you sign a Mike Napoli or Mark Reynolds on a one-year deal if you have a legitimate offer on Eric Hosmer? Why would you sign a Jaime Garcia on a one-year bounce-back deal when you have offers out on Arrietta or Lynn? You don't, until you those guys make a decision.

 

Also, to quote Doug Melvin, "Free agents know where they want to play."

 

There are like 3 teams in baseball that are seriously considering JD Martinez or Eric Hosmer. This argument makes no sense to me. I guess it will be interesting to see if things move now that Darvish has signed.

 

This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.

 

This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.

 

There's nothing "fair" about it when one side in the transaction operates a legally sanctioned monopoly. The MLBPA has done a great job getting players paid, I don't disagree, but to act like the teams do not have 95% of the leverage is to deny reality.

 

And yes, the MLB free agency model is generous to compensate for the 7-year-team-control model. Which is why the union and the agents are so angry at their perception that owners are deliberately trying to restrain the free agency model!

[DHonks]

This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.

 

This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.

 

I know some on this board would disagree with you DHonks, but I would not be part of that group. The CBA was fairly bargained. The merits on how well each side did can (& will be) debated over and over.

 

That said, in the next round of negotiations for the players to get changes or concessions from the owners, they will need items to bargain with or areas they can agree to give back some ground. Each CBA is built upon the one before so there is always give and take.

 

Are there any areas you think the players would be able "to give" in order to receive either additional salary earlier in the career (in minors and the 6 control years) or earlier free agency or lessening of a penalized ceiling/ creation of a minimum floor???

 

The union should look at forming a MILBPA, with support and funding from the MLBPA. MLBPA is the strongest union the world has ever seen. They’ve never lost a labor dispute. As we’ve previously read, last time they were more interested in negotiating benefits, off days, etc than fighting for more pay. I’d like to see more guys qualify for the pension, a taxi squad (of 2-3 guys), the DH for all teams, a salary floor tied to performance (you can spend lower, but if you don’t win sufficiently you forfeit draft picks), the dropping of draft pick compensation in its current form (I’d prefer to see an NFL-like system where a team’s net roster churn results in extra picks from the league, not from a team), etc. I don’t feel sorry for most players in their early years like many others—they get $500k+ their first year before proving themselves. I wish MLB would tweak their process for years 2 and 3 for more transparency with auto-renewals, though. Arbitration or buying out years are powerful rewards for those that have good starts to their careers.

[LouisEly]

Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union

No, I think the opposite - the point is that, to quote an infamous poster in other threads, "you don't spend your nickels on gumballs when you think you can get a candy bar". You don't sign the lower tier guys if you think you have a decent shot at a Darvish, JD Martinez, Hosmer, etc.

 

For example - just throwing names out there, don't judge the names or $ amounts - why would you sign Jose Bautista for a hope-he-bounces-back 1-year $6M deal when you have an offer out for JD Martinez? Those guys play the same position, so you can't sign Bautista until you know you can't get Martinez. Why would you sign a Mike Napoli or Mark Reynolds on a one-year deal if you have a legitimate offer on Eric Hosmer? Why would you sign a Jaime Garcia on a one-year bounce-back deal when you have offers out on Arrietta or Lynn? You don't, until you those guys make a decision.

 

Also, to quote Doug Melvin, "Free agents know where they want to play."

 

There are like 3 teams in baseball that are seriously considering JD Martinez or Eric Hosmer. This argument makes no sense to me. I guess it will be interesting to see if things move now that Darvish has signed.

Bolding the part that you missed.

 

What teams want to be in on Harper, Machado, or the other free agents next offseason? Why give a 2-3 year deal to a player when you want those guys? The point is, why spend money on lower-level free agents when you really want the top-tier guys at that position?

 

The analogy here is the Milwaukee Bucks. This year they are spending a combined $41.3M on Dellavedova, Snell, Teletovic, and Henson. Wouldn't they be better served spending $30M on a star player, two journeymen and a rookie? The Bucks spent their nickels on gumballs when what they need is a candy bar.

[CheezWizHed]

*Challenge Flag Thrown*

 

Guys, there is a perfectly good thread on collusion and baseball finances going on in the Major League forum.

 

Given that this thread is more intended to be on DDSM and their Brewer players, I would ask that you take the discussion to the other thread.

 

Thanks,

CWH

[agent39]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

[KeithStone53151]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/02/12/mlb-union-camp-free-agents/329194002/

 

Looking simply at opening day 2017 salaries vs current projected salaries for 2018...average payroll for OD 2017 was $138 million vs current 2018 projections with an average of $120 million. The $120 million doesn't include the Cubs signing Darvish, it is also missing some arbitration numbers and a large number of league minimum salaries. Factor those things in, and many of these free agents inevitably signing for big $/year amounts...average opening day payrolls will probably go up by a decent amount when all is said and done.

[agent39]

Will be in mil fri....doing standup fri 11 pm too

[agent39]

https://twitter.com/JoshuaKusnick/status/988334507605442560?s=19

 

 

This was the best trip of my life. You fans are special and JJ and I love you all!

[agent39]

Follow me on twitter jj game worn jersey giveaway!!

[nate82]

Did you represent anyone who were drafted this year?

[agent39]

He made it!