Players/agents and MLB/owners feud

[Hollywood42]

Completely different situation from this year. What you quoted was meant to be in regards to aging players and how liberally there have been massive contracts in the past. Harper will be just 26, and Machado only 25. Makes it a LOT easier to sign someone to a huge long term deal than the current FAs where they're all late 20s or early 30s already. You're right, there will still be huge contracts, but my point is that teams are going to be much more careful about when and who they give them to

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Doesn't this all become moot next year when Harper and Machado sign $400m+ contracts?

Some guys might even get those this year. I highly doubt J.D. Martinez has 5/125 sitting on the table, but he, Hosmer, and Darvish could all still easily get over $100m. Next year on top of Machado and Harper, Kershaw will get $200m+. You only have to go back to 2015 to see several $150m+, plus a bunch of player options, which used to be reserved for only the very best FA. The long term mega deal is most definitely not dead.

I do know that, but I think teams are becoming less tolerant of it. Sure, the player helped you out in the first few years, but when he gets to be mid 30s, production is dropping, and you're still paying him a bunch, that's what teams are increasingly trying to avoid

Long term contracts are structured so the back half is a disaster by design. People think that if a guy is worth $X, then he signs for so many years at that rate. That isn't how it works. When a guy signs a 7/140 contract, he's expected to produce more like $35m that first year. The shorter the deal, the higher the AAV. 5/125 and 7/140 are roughly equal contracts. In fact, for a team like the Red Sox it would be advantageous to sign the longer deal because of the way the luxury tax is calculated! This is why I'm doubtful that J.D. Martinez has 5/125 sitting on the table. I posted this on my Facebook a couple of days ago;

Equivalent MLB Contracts;
5 years, $85m
4 years, $77m
3 years, $63m
2 years, $46m
1 year., $25m

Right, and I did mention that it makes no sense for a mediocre team to spend money. Why would they? I don't think that's a huge problem, it's just how baseball works. If you know you're not going to be decent, you can either add to payroll and get a few more quality players, maybe win 10 more games and still not do anything, or you can trade some guys off for assets that will help you in a few years, plus increase your draft position. I do understand where you're coming from, but again, baseball is unique. Other sports don't work like this. Baseball teams really do go through multi-year cycles, and that's just part of the cycle

I also think you're underestimating the value of "tanking". I think the term tank is a little out of place here because you're right about one player not turning a franchise around, but there is no need for a team that doesn't project for at least 75 wins to spend money. The issue IMO isn't those bottom feeders "tanking". It's when the middle class teams with solid rosters don't try and win...or even end up selling off. That is happening a bunch this year.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, some good points in here