Players/agents and MLB/owners feud

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by morningrushnc

Is there any truth to this part? I can't imagine a labor negotiation of this caliber getting passed with this type of unwritten understanding between parties. Especially when it usually involves the player switching teams and expecting the new team to pay him for his past performance with the old team.

It's the underlying structure of rookie contracts, arbitration years and free agency. If owners had their druthers, free agency wouldn't exist. The system they've fallen into now is the compromise. If they were starting a league from scratch right now, it definitely wouldn't be set up like this. But the progression of the league from the days of the reserve clause to now is due to incremental changes through the years that have led us to today.

I'd be happy if they just blew it up and started from a blank slate but that is very improbable.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

We've gone over all of this. Owners should keep more. This is how running a business works. You hire employees who make you money. You disperse a percentage of that amount to your employees for their services while keeping most of the profits for yourself.

So the employees who are responsible for your increasing profits aren't rewarded for their efforts. Congratulations, you're a crappy boss. Good thing you have an anti-trust exemption so you don't have to worry about your employees finding a better opportunity.

It's not an employer/employee setup. It's a partnership where both sides need each other. Right now, the owners are gleefully taking advantage of the players without realizing it may come back to bite them in the ass down the road. All because their greed is allowed to run unfettered.

As for your last couple of sentences I am mostly in agreement with you there. The cost of merchandise and tickets should be reduced due to the fact that operating expenses will theoretically be lower. That being said the initial rise in said ticket prices and merchandise is almost a direct causation of the explosion in player salaries over the last two decades. When you are paying a (generic example) utility infielder who bats .250 $12 million dollars a year, yeah that's getting passed on to the consumer to help with padding the bottom line.

Can you cite this claim? I'm curious if maybe it wasn't the other way around, where teams could afford to pay higher salaries because there was more revenue to be spent. Could be a chicken/egg thing. It's also important to consider the supply/demand element. If a team is performing better, the tickets will be more sought after, thus commanding a higher price. But what are the odds the Marlins or Reds or Royals are going to reduce the prices of their offerings?

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Yes. Or really we just need to define competitive. To me, if you've got 75 win MLB talent (ie top 25 in the league, or top 4 in your division), obvious holes to fill, and an at least an average farm system, you should probably be looking to improve your squad for that season. Baseball has so much variance and you have so many opportunities to improve (or sell off) during the season that you almost need to put yourself in a better position. The NBA/NFL comparison is apt here as well. Weaker post season teams have a much better chance of winning in MLB than the other sports.

I suppose it should depend on which way your team is headed as well. A team on the way up should be a lot more aggressive than a team on the way down (although it doesn't play out like this in the real world) with teams in their peak window should be the most aggressive.

You also have to keep in mind that baseball is a closed system...i.e. for every game one team records a win, and another team records a loss.

What I'm getting at is that in a 30-team league, there should be only 8-12 teams "going for it" in any given year, especially given that only eight teams make it to the division series.

In other words, it's completely normal for 10-15 teams each year to figuratively "tank" by not trying to compete for a playoff spot.

Only player agents are clueless enough to expect all 30 teams to try and contend every year....

[rwperu34]

Yu Darvish 6/126 with player option. So much for the death of the megadeal.

Originally Posted by mfw13

You also have to keep in mind that baseball is a closed system...i.e. for every game one team records a win, and another team records a loss.

What I'm getting at is that in a 30-team league, there should be only 8-12 teams "going for it" in any given year, especially given that only eight teams make it to the division series.

In other words, it's completely normal for 10-15 teams each year to figuratively "tank" by not trying to compete for a playoff spot.

Only player agents are clueless enough to expect all 30 teams to try and contend every year....

I might agree with this...at the trade deadline. Even then I think it's more than 12 teams that should be going for it. At the start of the year? This is absurd. The talent differential between team #5 and team #25 is just not that much and the variance in this game is huge, even at the team level over a full season.

[babybull]

Originally Posted by JWBlue

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.

Communism rocks!

[Hollywood42]

Originally Posted by babybull

Communism rocks!

[Uwfootball1]

Both of these of statements are made to create tension. Mlb and MlbPa are both playing chicken atm and trying to set the table for the next round of negotiations. I have a feeling the non signed players spring training doesn't last that long as they will quickly run outta guys to play for them.

[Uwfootball1]

Originally Posted by RossOK

It's the underlying structure of rookie contracts, arbitration years and free agency. If owners had their druthers, free agency wouldn't exist. The system they've fallen into now is the compromise. If they were starting a league from scratch right now, it definitely wouldn't be set up like this. But the progression of the league from the days of the reserve clause to now is due to incremental changes through the years that have led us to today.

I'd be happy if they just blew it up and started from a blank slate but that is very improbable.

Blank slate would most likely put together something pretty similar to what we have. All there needs to be is a way to increase salaries for pre arbitration players which would then have them going higher into arbitration thus solving some of both problems.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I might agree with this...at the trade deadline. Even then I think it's more than 12 teams that should be going for it. At the start of the year? This is absurd. The talent differential between team #5 and team #25 is just not that much and the variance in this game is huge, even at the team level over a full season.

The real question is what does "going for it" actually mean? A lot depends on whether or not you've got a realistic chance at winning your division, because the Wild Card game is largely a crapshoot...and last year the gap between the division winners and the 2nd place teams in most divisions was huge.

Even going into this year, the Dodgers, Cubs, Nats, and Indians are prohibitive favorites to win their divisions, with the AL East being a Red Sox/Yankees duopoly, and the AL West an Astros/Angels fight.

So in the AL, you've got five teams that are prohibitive favorites to make the playoffs, and in the NL three teams that are prohibitive favorites to win their divisions, with a few other teams competing for the Wild Card but with very little chance at winning their division (Brewers, Cards, Rockies, D'Backs, Giants).

[Uwfootball1]

Originally Posted by mfw13

The real question is what does "going for it" actually mean? A lot depends on whether or not you've got a realistic chance at winning your division, because the Wild Card game is largely a crapshoot...and last year the gap between the division winners and the 2nd place teams in most divisions was huge.

Even going into this year, the Dodgers, Cubs, Nats, and Indians are prohibitive favorites to win their divisions, with the AL East being a Red Sox/Yankees duopoly, and the AL West an Astros/Angels fight.

So in the AL, you've got five teams that are prohibitive favorites to make the playoffs, and in the NL three teams that are prohibitive favorites to win their divisions, with a few other teams competing for the Wild Card but with very little chance at winning their division (Brewers, Cards, Rockies, D'Backs, Giants).

It only takes a bit to catch up and hopefully get on a hot streak to move from a wildcard spot to a division win. Imo if your competing for a wild card spot you have the chance to win a division and should be considered going for it.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Uwfootball1

It only takes a bit to catch up and hopefully get on a hot streak to move from a wildcard spot to a division win. Imo if your competing for a wild card spot you have the chance to win a division and should be considered going for it.

Except right now, that's simply not true. Last year, four out of the six divisions were won by 10+ games, including three by 15+ games.

Only the AL East, where the Red Sox finished two games ahead of the Yankees, and the NL Central, where the Cubs finished six games ahead of the Brewers and nine games ahead of the Cards were remotely competitive.

Or to put it another way, aside from the six division winners, only three other teams finished withing ten games of their division winner.

That's 9 competitive teams out of 30....

[Uwfootball1]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Except right now, that's simply not true. Last year, four out of the six divisions were won by 10+ games, including three by 15+ games.

Only the AL East, where the Red Sox finished two games ahead of the Yankees, and the NL Central, where the Cubs finished six games ahead of the Brewers and nine games ahead of the Cards were remotely competitive.

Or to put it another way, aside from the six division winners, only three other teams finished withing ten games of their division winner.

That's 9 competitive teams out of 30....

That is true however, imo last year was an anomaly as 3 teams finished with over 100 wins, the last year that happened was 2003, with 2 teams winning 101 games and 1 team winning 100 exactly.

[mfw13]

Yes, but this year it's the teams that are already good that are getting better.

The Yankees traded for Stanton, the Astros traded for Cole, the Cubs signed Darvish away from the Dodgers (who may be the only 100-win team that has gotten worse), the Angels got Ohtani, Upton, and Kinsler, making them a favorite for a Wild Card spot along with the loser of the Red Sox/Yankees battle in the AL East, and nobody in the NL East or AL Central has made any moves to challenge the Nats or Indians.

Only the Giants and Brewers have made moves that improve themselves in 2017, but in both cases they're still likely to do no better than a Wild Card spot, if that.

[rwperu34]

I pretty much agree with UWFootball here and would like to add, last year the good teams ran hot. It's just as likely that they run cold and end up in the 80s in wins as it is they end up with over 100 wins. The variance in this game should not be underestimated. One standard deviation on projected win totals is 8 games, two is 16. If a team is within 15 games of 1st, they've got a shot...especially if there are multiple teams chasing.

The sole reason the top is so consolidated going into this year is precisely because the middle class is not trying (in some cases actively hurting themselves). I personally think this is a one off event, but if it became the norm then yes, something must be done.

[Nitsujkanvor]

This thread was an interesting read, with far fewer knee-jerk reactions and talking points than I would have expected. Without trying to draw anyone's ire, I'll fully admit that I think RossOK has hit about every salient point I would have made, and done it quite eloquently. I really only have 2 things to add--

The whole "kids' game" argument is tired. Are there occupations that are more essential to society than playing baseball? Absolutely. But what you see as playing a game, the players and owners see as an extraordinarily lucrative partnership. The reality of the situation is that there are few, if any, less replaceable employees than professional athletes, and their share of revenues--their slice of said partnership- has dropped precipitously over the last 10-15 years. A strong union won't stand for that, and frankly, they shouldn't. Over the course of the last couple CBA negotiations, we've seen the MLBPA willing to bargain away financial rights for some quality-of-life concessions. All that is about to change.

I also have to point out that the idea of rising player salaries causing rising attendance cost is simply not true. You may see correlation, but that certainly doesn' imply causation. They will charge as much as they can without impeding demand. Rational pricing.

[dbpsooner]

Demand increases with a better product so ticket sales will absolutely go up for teams that are successful. So teams have to decide what their best option is to improve their product. Through fee agency or farm system...

[Nitsujkanvor]

Originally Posted by dbpsooner

Demand increases with a better product so ticket sales will absolutely go up for teams that are successful. So teams have to decide what their best option is to improve their product. Through fee agency or farm system...

This. Very true. The public's seemingly insatiable appetite for sports is what causes rising costs. Less successful teams will just have a more linear increase than competitive ones.

Edit to say: Linear is probably the wrong term. Graphically speaking, a smaller but still positive rate of change.

[Uwfootball1]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

The sole reason the top is so consolidated going into this year is precisely because the middle class is not trying (in some cases actively hurting themselves). I personally think this is a one off event, but if it became the norm then yes, something must be done.

Most of the upper end of the middle class teams underperformed last year so I certainly understand them standing put and seeing where the chips fall come trade deadline.

Will take quite a few years to determine if this is a new norm however.

[packman80]

So report out that Arrieta turned down a offer from Cubs that was around what Darvish got. These players are crying owners are trying to keep prices down on players but yet when aging players get 20+ million a year offers it's not good enough. Arrieta almost 32 years old and likely on the downhill. He should have run to sign that deal. Arrieta will be lucky now to find a 4 year deal that pays 17-18 a year.

[base set]

It's high-stakes poker between the GM(s) and the player, with a biased, 3rd person in the middle of the decision. To a fan, it doesn't sound like a hard decision on 120 Million Dollars vs 150 Million Dollars - but there is a person in the middle who only gets a small % of that - the agent.

[Hollywood42]

I honestly think Scott Boras is a huge part of the problem. Check this out- Of the top 30 FAs this offseason, 7 are represented by Boras and none have signed. 23 are not represented by Boras and 18 have signed

https://twitter.com/heathcummingssr/...41937463930880