Players/agents and MLB/owners feud

Hollywood42 · 02-07-2018, 08:08 PM

This is going to be really interesting as we move forward over the next few years. This offseason has brought to light a few issues that the two sides (players and their agents, and the MLB/team owners) have with how things currently work. With so many of the top free agents still unsigned, they and many other players think that there are big problems with the current system. The owners, on the other hand, simply say the FAs have too high of demands.

Here's a statement from MLBPA executive director Tony Clark that gives a good idea at one side of the argument:

"Pitchers and catchers will report...in one week. A record number of talented free agents remain unemployed in an industry where revenues and franchise values are at record highs. Spring training has always been associated with hope for a new season. This year, a significant number of teams are engaged in a race to the bottom. This conduct is a fundamental breach of the trust between a team and its fans and threatens the very integrity of our game."

In response, the MLB released the following statement:

"Our clubs are committed to putting a winning product on the field for their fans. Owners own teams for one reason: they want to win. In baseball, it has always been true that clubs go through cyclical, multi-year strategies directed at winning.

It is common at this point in the calendar to have large numbers of free agents unsigned. What is uncommon is to have some of the best fee agents sitting unisgned even though they have substantial offers, some in nine figures. It is the responsibility of players' agents to value their clients in a constantly changing free agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics, and the impact of the new Basic agreement. To lat responsibility on the clubs for the failure of some agents to accurately assess the market is unfair, unwarranted, and inflammatory."

So, needless to say, there's some real tension between parties right now. It'll be really interesting to monitor everything. Could we be in for a strike from the players? Will they reach a new agreement that the players are more satisfied with? Or will nothing change and the players be forced to adapt or be left behind? What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------------

I'll start things off with my thoughts. First, I think both Clark and the MLB have things that are valid in their statements, and things that are blatantly incorrect. With Clark, it's true that this is maybe the first time we've seen this many top free agents still unsigned this close to spring training, and that may not be a good sign. However, I think it's pretty bold to claim that "a significant number" of teams are tanking. I don't buy that. More on that later. With the MLB's statement, I think they're definitely right in that how teams are valuing players is changing, helped by sabermetrics and having seen the result of how some big contracts have turned out in their later years. While they're partially correct in that it's common for many FAs to be unsigned at this point in the year, they're ignoring that this many quality, top FAs still being unsigned is pretty eye opening. Lastly, I'd argue that someone owns a team solely because they want to win. Yeah, that's definitely (or at least SHOULD be) a part of it, but with how much money is involved nowadays, the investment side of things is undoubtedly a large factor.

So, where does the problem lie? I think it's in several parts.

1. "Tanking". The MLBPA pointed to a large number of teams not really trying to win, and actually trying to lose to get better draft picks. I don't think that's very fair. Let's take a look.

Baseball is unique from other sports in that a single player can't turn a team around all by themselves. You need a strong group of players to do that. Let's look at the Astros. From 2009 to 2014, they had losing seasons and finished no better than 4th in their division, 3 times losing more than 100 games. Then in 2015 and 2016 they won 80+ games, and finally, last year they won 101 games and were World Series champions. This was only possible because of how bad they were for an extended period of time. Almost their entire core was acquired through the draft- Correa, McCullers, Springer, Bregman, Keuchel, . Additionally, a few players they drafted were traded for players that helped them win the WS- Mike Foltynewicz was moved in a deal for Evan Gattis, Vince Velasquez was part of a package for Ken Giles, and Daz Cameron was a part of the package for Justin Verlander.

My point is, it takes a lot to turn a team around. This isn't like the NBA where you can score with a 1st rounder and become a significantly better team. It's a multi-year process. Now, are teams trying as hard as they possibly can to win while they rebuild? No, of course not. A rebuilding team COULD sign a couple of the top free agents in any given offseason, but why would they? Chances are they won't become a playoff team, or even be that close to one. So why would a team significantly add to payroll and worsen their draft position just to have a mediocre team? All that does is lengthen the rebuild

2. The current free agency system. It's flawed. Let's look at Carlos Correa, for example, to stick with the Astros. He's one of the best young players in the game, and has been since 2015 when he debuted. Despite that, he's make league minimum, or close to it, each year he's been up, and will continue to do so until 2018 when he enters his first arbitration. What would Correa make each year if he had a contract at market value? Probably close to $20 million per year.

Clearly something is wrong there. Given how players are reaching high levels of performance at a younger and younger age (we've been completely spoiled lately seeing guys like Trout, Harper, Correa, Lindor, Judge, Betts, Bryant, Seager, Springer, and more, come up and dominate right away). Having such young players reach high levels of success so early in their careers is great for the game, but from the player's perspective, if someone is that good, how in the world is it fair for them to make close to league minimum for (usually) 3 years before they have the change to make anything more through arbitration in which they're stuck for an additional 3 years before being able to become an unrestricted free agent.

There's definitely a problem, but it's not an easy one to solve. For every Trout and Bryant that dominates right away while earning league minimum, you have a bunch of players with the same MLB experience that aren't good at all and also earn league minimum. Let's be honest, while there has been more and more players each year that come to the MLB and find great success immediately, that's not the norm. Usually it'll take a few years for a player to figure everything out. It's hard to make a blanket rule that changes things for all players across the board. On the flip, if you tried to split players into groups based on performance and change their contract rules that way, where do you draw the lines? I don't see the PA ever going for something like that. I do think that something needs to change, but there's not a perfect solution out there

3. Market values and smarter baseball. An undeniable part of this is simply that teams are no longer as willing to shell out massive contracts and only get comparable production for half the length of the contract. And why would they? A vast majority of teams would be crippled by dealing with the last few years of a mega contract where the player no longer is much better than average. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and maybe a few others are pretty immune to it, but for everyone else, it would certainly have at least a notable impact on things if a team got stuck with a bad high value contract

In the past, teams have been willing to deal with that in the hopes of winning in the short term. Again, this points to the cycle of how so many baseball teams work. But in today's age of advanced metrics and being more and more aware of everything, teams are becoming less and less tolerant of bad contracts. So who's to blame? Clearly it's not just a handful of teams that care about this, otherwise all the top free agents this year would already be signed. Maybe Eric Hosmer would have been able to get a 7, 8, 9 year deal if he hit free agency in his age 28 season 5 years ago. But that simply won't happen anymore

At least part of the solution to this part of the problem is going to have to be these FAs lowering their asking price. The demand simply isn't there. And no, it's not collusion. Why would any team want to be locked in to paying a player 33 and up $15+ million per year for 2, 3, 4 years? Long term mega contracts simply won't happen much anymore unless rules change and players start hitting free agency younger

All that said, I understand the argument of "owners are billionaires, stop being cheap and pay the players!". I really do get it. But how players are valued is changing, and owners aren't going to shell out giant contracts just because they can unless it makes sense for the team. I get both sides, but I'd definitely side myself more of the opinion that asking prices are going to have to drop

So, it's a complex problem. Those are my thoughts on it all, hopefully that turned out to be semi-coherent, if anyone bothers to actually read it anyways

So much of this all is intertwined with so many other things, so it's really going to be interesting to see how all this is resolved. I just hope we don't have a player's strike and don't get to see baseball!

mfw13 · 02-07-2018, 08:23 PM

Good analysis.

I'd add that the players are going to get no sympathy from the public, because most fans think the players who are still unsigned are asking way too much. Nobody is going to have much sympathy for Hosmer (sitting on two 7-year offers) or JDM (sitting on a 5-year, $125 million offer from the Red Sox).

And the argument that teams are tanking really doesn't hold much water either, since even the top draft picks in baseball are notoriously unpredictable. Even getting a top-3 pick doesn't guarantee that you will get a star player. Mark Appel, anyone?

If the players really care about tanking, then they need to insist on a salary floor (at maybe 50% of the luxury tax level), as well as a "ceiling".

Hollywood42 · 02-07-2018, 08:30 PM

Both are great points that I wanted to include in the OP, but didn't want it to get any longer. If reports are true, Hosmer and JD both sure don't seem very bright for not having already signed. Hosmer I really don't think he's even a top tier player. Solid, sure, but not great. 7 year deal is more than generous for him. And given JD's age, 5 years is more than fair for him too, especially at $25 million per year, and ESPECIALLY since it seems like there's only one team really that interested in him near his prices

And draft picks, absolutely. It's so, so much harder to find a premier player in the draft than it is in football, basketball, etc. You only need to look through the first round results from the past 10 years to see that. I bet there's a much higher percentage of players that aren't even in the majors if you compare it to the NBA. MLB draft picks have so much more variance, and even if they do turn out to be a stud, again, you still need to have many other solid players for it to matter. See Trout and the Angels over his career so far

A salary floor is something I'm not sure about. It makes sense in theory, but again, why force teams to spend money to be mediocre? I feel like if you're going to suggest a floor, you have to have serious evidence that team's aren't putting any effort into winning. Salary floor sounds fine in theory, but I'm pretty skeptical of it

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfw13

Good analysis.

I'd add that the players are going to get no sympathy from the public, because most fans think the players who are still unsigned are asking way too much. Nobody is going to have much sympathy for Hosmer (sitting on two 7-year offers) or JDM (sitting on a 5-year, $125 million offer from the Red Sox).

And the argument that teams are tanking really doesn't hold much water either, since even the top draft picks in baseball are notoriously unpredictable. Even getting a top-3 pick doesn't guarantee that you will get a star player. Mark Appel, anyone?

If the players really care about tanking, then they need to insist on a salary floor (at maybe 50% of the luxury tax level), as well as a "ceiling".

enbambam6986 · 02-07-2018, 10:08 PM

Obviously not the case for everyone, but Correa did get a $4,800,000 signing bonus at 17. Easily could've been a bust

RandysHobby · 02-07-2018, 10:11 PM

Who would sign anyone to a 7 year deal in today’s game? (Only a small handful of guys) I don’t blame these teams.

hairysasquatch · 02-07-2018, 10:30 PM

Al Avila says hello.

JWBlue · 02-07-2018, 10:48 PM

The system has to change. There is going to need to be creativity. It is complicated.

I would be in favor of a percentage of revenue going to players. Then payers are paid a percentage of revenues. All teams should share revenues. I have no idea how to convince big market teams to agree to this.

ridgerider · 02-07-2018, 10:57 PM

First off nice analysis you accurately summarized the current environment of the free agent market this year.
IMO, I think long contracts w/ high AAV are given because teams want the player and are afraid of loosing them to competitors. That is not the case this year and the agents and players need to recognize this and stop trying to force teams to over pay. Instead agents and Tony Clark have resorted to manipulating the media in attempt to politicize a non existent problem (given the current contract the Union signed regardless of the unwritten rule) in an effort to force teams to over pay.

marino13 · 02-07-2018, 11:01 PM

(just my two cents)

Why would the Yankess paid $17 millions for two years for Todd Frazier when they can have BOTH, Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar for around $1 million?

A simple math, if you ask me.

If anything, the owners are much smarter this off season - not throwing away money like yesteryear (which is a great thing, by the way).

Ray27Ray52 · 02-07-2018, 11:19 PM

I honestly cannot think of one at least somewhat reasonable reason that the common person, i.e. you and I on this forum, would ever side with the players. They are all, even young major leaguers making the league minimum, grossly overpaid. Baseball is a business and as with any business the Owners should keep the bulk of the profits.

Hollywood42 · 02-07-2018, 11:24 PM

Obviously even $500k/year would be a dream for you and me, but that's really not being overpaid at all in the MLB. Odds are that there's so much more money per person in your favorite baseball team than the company you work for (likely true for anyone on the forums). Besides that, the market for MLB players has been set, and it's much more than $500k for the average player. And I would argue that owners already do keep a bulk of the profits

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I honestly cannot think of one at least somewhat reasonable reason that the common person, i.e. you and I on this forum, would ever side with the players. They are all, even young major leaguers making the league minimum, grossly overpaid. Baseball is a business and as with any business the Owners should keep the bulk of the profits.

Ray27Ray52 · 02-07-2018, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Obviously even $500k/year would be a dream for you and me, but that's really not being overpaid at all in the MLB. Odds are that there's so much more money per person in your favorite baseball team than the company you work for (likely true for anyone on the forums). Besides that, the market for MLB players has been set, and it's much more than $500k for the average player. And I would argue that owners already do keep a bulk of the profits

I love baseball. Live and breathe it. But to say that baseball players are performing an essential task for which they "deserve" 500K or more a year in compensation is beyond absurd. They aren't doing anything but playing a kids game. They have been overpaid for decades.

That's like me going up to the owner of my company and saying, "I see on our annual quarterly summary that our gross revenue was 2 million dollars. I'd like half of that please." That's not how it works in any business. And it isn't how it should work in the business of baseball.

SDcardguy24 · 02-07-2018, 11:38 PM

I can understand why some players are mad though. I mean teams hold back minor leaguers so they have less service time and then basically get the player's prime production years for a lot cheaper than it would cost them on the open market. So I can see why a player finally hitting free agency may want to ask for that huge paycheck

msink28 · 02-07-2018, 11:47 PM

I never understand the overpaid argument. Lorenzo Cain just signed a 5 year, 80 million deal with Milwaukee. Milwaukee was not required to sign Cain, but they must feel he is worth this amount to them or they wouldn't sign him. If Milwaukee doesn't think Cain is overpaid I don't care. They sign his checks, not me.

ridgerider · 02-07-2018, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDcardguy24

I can understand why some players are mad though. I mean teams hold back minor leaguers so they have less service time and then basically get the player's prime production years for a lot cheaper than it would cost them on the open market. So I can see why a player finally hitting free agency may want to ask for that huge paycheck

I agree the length of team control is an issue as are a couple of other things but the Union did not address it in the last CBA and have to wait until 2021 to fix it. The players should be mad at Tony Clark!! As for a player asking for big money because it is deserved is ludicrous self entitlement. If a player is valued and a team sees a long term asset they can earn an extension getting paid more AAV before hitting FA.

dhendrix1303 · 02-07-2018, 11:50 PM

I'm going to agree with one of the posters up top.

These high draft picks get millions in signing bonuses before they even play.

base set · 02-07-2018, 11:58 PM

There are a lot of what will prove to be "Sunset" cards in Series One this year. Very nice of Topps.

Update will have Rookies/Traded and an ever increasing share of a new type of card - Former Hot Prospect Surprise 30s Comeback Guy that read on the back "The club knew they had nothing to lose when they signed _(sentimental nickname here)__ to a minor league deal this past off-season and their miserliness was rewarded quickly when injuries hit and he came up and raked 5 RBI in just his first 33 AB". These will be popular with Player Collectors wanting one last card of "their guy" - and Topps will oblige - I'd grade all the parallels you can pull.

After J.D. Martinez/Darvish/Arrieta/Hosmer/Moustakas - what other man-I-wish-my-team-could-get-that-guy players are left? (I'm surely missing at least one good name?)

When you can get sufficient Power from Eugenio Suarez and Scooter Gennett it's "Sorry J.D." - 117 players hit 20 or + HR last year. Will the Reds ambush more teams than the Red Sox?

On the other side of the equation, since Pitchers can barely grip the extra slippery Gopher Ball they have to throw these days, maybe those sneaky AI Terminator GMs we have now figured out somehow that Tyler Chatwood has stronger fingernails than Yu Darvish. Will Osteo-Biflex Shark Cartilage become a PED? Can't let the balance tip back to the defense now - that's bad for business. And business is so good that Power is in the utility infielder, too. Sorry, J.D.

Hollywood42 · 02-08-2018, 12:01 AM

Innocent question, what point are you two trying to make?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhendrix1303

I'm going to agree with one of the posters up top.

These high draft picks get millions in signing bonuses before they even play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enbambam6986

Obviously not the case for everyone, but Correa did get a $4,800,000 signing bonus at 17. Easily could've been a bust

enbambam6986 · 02-08-2018, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Innocent question, what point are you two trying to make?

The owners are taking on all the risk. Why shouldn't they be rewarded by Correa panning out? I dont think Mark Appel is complaining about his $6 million dollar signing bonus.

enbambam6986 · 02-08-2018, 01:22 AM

If the young controllable players become expensive, how would any team survive?

How can the Astros afford Verlander if Correa, Bregman, Altuve and Springer are making a ton?

rman112 · 02-08-2018, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enbambam6986

If the young controllable players become expensive, how would any team survive?

How can the Astros afford Verlander if Correa, Bregman, Altuve and Springer are making a ton?

All owners are swimming in money.

rwperu34 · 02-08-2018, 02:22 AM

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

Quote:

Long term mega contracts simply won't happen much anymore unless rules change and players start hitting free agency younger

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.

Quote:

An undeniable part of this is simply that teams are no longer as willing to shell out massive contracts and only get comparable production for half the length of the contract. And why would they? A vast majority of teams would be crippled by dealing with the last few years of a mega contract where the player no longer is much better than average.

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

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.

rwperu34 · 02-08-2018, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enbambam6986

If the young controllable players become expensive, how would any team survive?

How can the Astros afford Verlander if Correa, Bregman, Altuve and Springer are making a ton?

That's the way the (veteran) players have set it up. The young guys don't make as much as they produce so the veterans can make more than they produce. The way the team would survive their young guys making market value is market value would be much lower for everybody. Instead of Correa making $500k and Verlander $30m , they'd both make $15m (or whatever, you get the point).

Quote:

The owners are taking on all the risk. Why shouldn't they be rewarded by Correa panning out? I dont think Mark Appel is complaining about his $6 million dollar signing bonus.

You are correct here. The question is how much reward should they get for that investment? There is an argument that they are getting a little too much right now. If it were me, I'd try and quadruple the minimum salary. That's the easiest way for the players to raise the share of revenue coming their way.

VeedonFleece · 02-08-2018, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwperu34

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

....

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.

Excellent post, start to finish.

(Go my Brewers btw. They're not even middle class and still going for it!)

AnthonyCorona · 02-08-2018, 06:59 AM

I've been waiting for this thread. For the first time ever, I agree with management here. For so long teams have paid for past performance instead of projected future numbers. While obviously not a perfect math, paying for future numbers makes a whole hell of a lot more sense. I heard the S word on MLB Network a few days back, but I gotta believe cooler heads with prevail, I can see no way baseball survives another strike. While I believe no one should work for less than they're worth, I think players might need to accept their world is changing.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

02-07-2018, 08:08 PM	#1
Hollywood42 Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Minnesota Posts: 39,575 Hollywood42	Players/agents and MLB/owners feud This is going to be really interesting as we move forward over the next few years. This offseason has brought to light a few issues that the two sides (players and their agents, and the MLB/team owners) have with how things currently work. With so many of the top free agents still unsigned, they and many other players think that there are big problems with the current system. The owners, on the other hand, simply say the FAs have too high of demands. Here's a statement from MLBPA executive director Tony Clark that gives a good idea at one side of the argument: "Pitchers and catchers will report...in one week. A record number of talented free agents remain unemployed in an industry where revenues and franchise values are at record highs. Spring training has always been associated with hope for a new season. This year, a significant number of teams are engaged in a race to the bottom. This conduct is a fundamental breach of the trust between a team and its fans and threatens the very integrity of our game." In response, the MLB released the following statement: "Our clubs are committed to putting a winning product on the field for their fans. Owners own teams for one reason: they want to win. In baseball, it has always been true that clubs go through cyclical, multi-year strategies directed at winning. It is common at this point in the calendar to have large numbers of free agents unsigned. What is uncommon is to have some of the best fee agents sitting unisgned even though they have substantial offers, some in nine figures. It is the responsibility of players' agents to value their clients in a constantly changing free agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics, and the impact of the new Basic agreement. To lat responsibility on the clubs for the failure of some agents to accurately assess the market is unfair, unwarranted, and inflammatory." So, needless to say, there's some real tension between parties right now. It'll be really interesting to monitor everything. Could we be in for a strike from the players? Will they reach a new agreement that the players are more satisfied with? Or will nothing change and the players be forced to adapt or be left behind? What do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------ I'll start things off with my thoughts. First, I think both Clark and the MLB have things that are valid in their statements, and things that are blatantly incorrect. With Clark, it's true that this is maybe the first time we've seen this many top free agents still unsigned this close to spring training, and that may not be a good sign. However, I think it's pretty bold to claim that "a significant number" of teams are tanking. I don't buy that. More on that later. With the MLB's statement, I think they're definitely right in that how teams are valuing players is changing, helped by sabermetrics and having seen the result of how some big contracts have turned out in their later years. While they're partially correct in that it's common for many FAs to be unsigned at this point in the year, they're ignoring that this many quality, top FAs still being unsigned is pretty eye opening. Lastly, I'd argue that someone owns a team solely because they want to win. Yeah, that's definitely (or at least SHOULD be) a part of it, but with how much money is involved nowadays, the investment side of things is undoubtedly a large factor. So, where does the problem lie? I think it's in several parts. 1. "Tanking". The MLBPA pointed to a large number of teams not really trying to win, and actually trying to lose to get better draft picks. I don't think that's very fair. Let's take a look. Baseball is unique from other sports in that a single player can't turn a team around all by themselves. You need a strong group of players to do that. Let's look at the Astros. From 2009 to 2014, they had losing seasons and finished no better than 4th in their division, 3 times losing more than 100 games. Then in 2015 and 2016 they won 80+ games, and finally, last year they won 101 games and were World Series champions. This was only possible because of how bad they were for an extended period of time. Almost their entire core was acquired through the draft- Correa, McCullers, Springer, Bregman, Keuchel, . Additionally, a few players they drafted were traded for players that helped them win the WS- Mike Foltynewicz was moved in a deal for Evan Gattis, Vince Velasquez was part of a package for Ken Giles, and Daz Cameron was a part of the package for Justin Verlander. My point is, it takes a lot to turn a team around. This isn't like the NBA where you can score with a 1st rounder and become a significantly better team. It's a multi-year process. Now, are teams trying as hard as they possibly can to win while they rebuild? No, of course not. A rebuilding team COULD sign a couple of the top free agents in any given offseason, but why would they? Chances are they won't become a playoff team, or even be that close to one. So why would a team significantly add to payroll and worsen their draft position just to have a mediocre team? All that does is lengthen the rebuild 2. The current free agency system. It's flawed. Let's look at Carlos Correa, for example, to stick with the Astros. He's one of the best young players in the game, and has been since 2015 when he debuted. Despite that, he's make league minimum, or close to it, each year he's been up, and will continue to do so until 2018 when he enters his first arbitration. What would Correa make each year if he had a contract at market value? Probably close to $20 million per year. Clearly something is wrong there. Given how players are reaching high levels of performance at a younger and younger age (we've been completely spoiled lately seeing guys like Trout, Harper, Correa, Lindor, Judge, Betts, Bryant, Seager, Springer, and more, come up and dominate right away). Having such young players reach high levels of success so early in their careers is great for the game, but from the player's perspective, if someone is that good, how in the world is it fair for them to make close to league minimum for (usually) 3 years before they have the change to make anything more through arbitration in which they're stuck for an additional 3 years before being able to become an unrestricted free agent. There's definitely a problem, but it's not an easy one to solve. For every Trout and Bryant that dominates right away while earning league minimum, you have a bunch of players with the same MLB experience that aren't good at all and also earn league minimum. Let's be honest, while there has been more and more players each year that come to the MLB and find great success immediately, that's not the norm. Usually it'll take a few years for a player to figure everything out. It's hard to make a blanket rule that changes things for all players across the board. On the flip, if you tried to split players into groups based on performance and change their contract rules that way, where do you draw the lines? I don't see the PA ever going for something like that. I do think that something needs to change, but there's not a perfect solution out there 3. Market values and smarter baseball. An undeniable part of this is simply that teams are no longer as willing to shell out massive contracts and only get comparable production for half the length of the contract. And why would they? A vast majority of teams would be crippled by dealing with the last few years of a mega contract where the player no longer is much better than average. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and maybe a few others are pretty immune to it, but for everyone else, it would certainly have at least a notable impact on things if a team got stuck with a bad high value contract In the past, teams have been willing to deal with that in the hopes of winning in the short term. Again, this points to the cycle of how so many baseball teams work. But in today's age of advanced metrics and being more and more aware of everything, teams are becoming less and less tolerant of bad contracts. So who's to blame? Clearly it's not just a handful of teams that care about this, otherwise all the top free agents this year would already be signed. Maybe Eric Hosmer would have been able to get a 7, 8, 9 year deal if he hit free agency in his age 28 season 5 years ago. But that simply won't happen anymore At least part of the solution to this part of the problem is going to have to be these FAs lowering their asking price. The demand simply isn't there. And no, it's not collusion. Why would any team want to be locked in to paying a player 33 and up $15+ million per year for 2, 3, 4 years? Long term mega contracts simply won't happen much anymore unless rules change and players start hitting free agency younger All that said, I understand the argument of "owners are billionaires, stop being cheap and pay the players!". I really do get it. But how players are valued is changing, and owners aren't going to shell out giant contracts just because they can unless it makes sense for the team. I get both sides, but I'd definitely side myself more of the opinion that asking prices are going to have to drop So, it's a complex problem. Those are my thoughts on it all, hopefully that turned out to be semi-coherent, if anyone bothers to actually read it anyways So much of this all is intertwined with so many other things, so it's really going to be interesting to see how all this is resolved. I just hope we don't have a player's strike and don't get to see baseball! __________________ Collecting the Twins All my PC wants/haves available at hollywood42cards.com

02-07-2018, 10:30 PM	#6
hairysasquatch Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: In the Woods, Central NY Posts: 36,981	Al Avila says hello. __________________ I am going signature-free

02-07-2018, 11:50 PM	#16
dhendrix1303 Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 9,711	I'm going to agree with one of the posters up top. These high draft picks get millions in signing bonuses before they even play. __________________ Buying: 1995 Atlanta Braves autos Pre-80's Atlanta Braves PSA Vintage

02-08-2018, 06:59 AM	#25
AnthonyCorona Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Modesto, CA Posts: 11,499 bwoodcollector	I've been waiting for this thread. For the first time ever, I agree with management here. For so long teams have paid for past performance instead of projected future numbers. While obviously not a perfect math, paying for future numbers makes a whole hell of a lot more sense. I heard the S word on MLB Network a few days back, but I gotta believe cooler heads with prevail, I can see no way baseball survives another strike. While I believe no one should work for less than they're worth, I think players might need to accept their world is changing. Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk __________________ Julio better

02-07-2018, 08:23 PM	#2
mfw13 Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 17,936	Good analysis. I'd add that the players are going to get no sympathy from the public, because most fans think the players who are still unsigned are asking way too much. Nobody is going to have much sympathy for Hosmer (sitting on two 7-year offers) or JDM (sitting on a 5-year, $125 million offer from the Red Sox). And the argument that teams are tanking really doesn't hold much water either, since even the top draft picks in baseball are notoriously unpredictable. Even getting a top-3 pick doesn't guarantee that you will get a star player. Mark Appel, anyone? If the players really care about tanking, then they need to insist on a salary floor (at maybe 50% of the luxury tax level), as well as a "ceiling".

02-07-2018, 10:08 PM	#4
enbambam6986 Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 12,476 enbambam	Obviously not the case for everyone, but Correa did get a $4,800,000 signing bonus at 17. Easily could've been a bust

02-07-2018, 10:11 PM	#5
RandysHobby Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,362 NickFolesEaglesQB	Who would sign anyone to a 7 year deal in today’s game? (Only a small handful of guys) I don’t blame these teams.

02-07-2018, 10:48 PM	#7
JWBlue Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 10,257	The system has to change. There is going to need to be creativity. It is complicated. I would be in favor of a percentage of revenue going to players. Then payers are paid a percentage of revenues. All teams should share revenues. I have no idea how to convince big market teams to agree to this.

02-07-2018, 10:57 PM	#8
ridgerider Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: West Virginia Posts: 944 furtherjohn	First off nice analysis you accurately summarized the current environment of the free agent market this year. IMO, I think long contracts w/ high AAV are given because teams want the player and are afraid of loosing them to competitors. That is not the case this year and the agents and players need to recognize this and stop trying to force teams to over pay. Instead agents and Tony Clark have resorted to manipulating the media in attempt to politicize a non existent problem (given the current contract the Union signed regardless of the unwritten rule) in an effort to force teams to over pay.

02-07-2018, 11:01 PM	#9
marino13 Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Home Of The Big Apple Posts: 2,963	(just my two cents) Why would the Yankess paid $17 millions for two years for Todd Frazier when they can have BOTH, Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar for around $1 million? A simple math, if you ask me. If anything, the owners are much smarter this off season - not throwing away money like yesteryear (which is a great thing, by the way).

02-07-2018, 11:19 PM	#10
Ray27Ray52 Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Posts: 22,687	I honestly cannot think of one at least somewhat reasonable reason that the common person, i.e. you and I on this forum, would ever side with the players. They are all, even young major leaguers making the league minimum, grossly overpaid. Baseball is a business and as with any business the Owners should keep the bulk of the profits.

02-07-2018, 11:38 PM	#13
SDcardguy24 Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 9,265	I can understand why some players are mad though. I mean teams hold back minor leaguers so they have less service time and then basically get the player's prime production years for a lot cheaper than it would cost them on the open market. So I can see why a player finally hitting free agency may want to ask for that huge paycheck

02-07-2018, 11:47 PM	#14
msink28 Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,401	I never understand the overpaid argument. Lorenzo Cain just signed a 5 year, 80 million deal with Milwaukee. Milwaukee was not required to sign Cain, but they must feel he is worth this amount to them or they wouldn't sign him. If Milwaukee doesn't think Cain is overpaid I don't care. They sign his checks, not me.

02-07-2018, 11:58 PM	#17
base set Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: NW Michigan Posts: 9,612	There are a lot of what will prove to be "Sunset" cards in Series One this year. Very nice of Topps. Update will have Rookies/Traded and an ever increasing share of a new type of card - Former Hot Prospect Surprise 30s Comeback Guy that read on the back "The club knew they had nothing to lose when they signed _(sentimental nickname here)__ to a minor league deal this past off-season and their miserliness was rewarded quickly when injuries hit and he came up and raked 5 RBI in just his first 33 AB". These will be popular with Player Collectors wanting one last card of "their guy" - and Topps will oblige - I'd grade all the parallels you can pull. After J.D. Martinez/Darvish/Arrieta/Hosmer/Moustakas - what other man-I-wish-my-team-could-get-that-guy players are left? (I'm surely missing at least one good name?) When you can get sufficient Power from Eugenio Suarez and Scooter Gennett it's "Sorry J.D." - 117 players hit 20 or + HR last year. Will the Reds ambush more teams than the Red Sox? On the other side of the equation, since Pitchers can barely grip the extra slippery Gopher Ball they have to throw these days, maybe those sneaky AI Terminator GMs we have now figured out somehow that Tyler Chatwood has stronger fingernails than Yu Darvish. Will Osteo-Biflex Shark Cartilage become a PED? Can't let the balance tip back to the defense now - that's bad for business. And business is so good that Power is in the utility infielder, too. Sorry, J.D.

02-08-2018, 01:22 AM	#20
enbambam6986 Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 12,476 enbambam	If the young controllable players become expensive, how would any team survive? How can the Astros afford Verlander if Correa, Bregman, Altuve and Springer are making a ton?