- This topic has 291 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
An MLB proposal to push signings sooner is shot down by the Union. Of course, Boras has his own ideas…
Major League Baseball proposed a signing deadline for multi-year contracts, to be put in at the winter meetings. The MLBPA rejected the proposal. Why: https://t.co/MKHfD0qr30
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) October 31, 2019
I totally agree with the owners on this one. Having these signings drag out until February or March or later is absurd. I didn’t read the article because I didn’t renew my subscription to The Athletic so I don’t know what the proposed deadline was. I would think December 31 or January 15 would be reasonable.
As it said above (thought worded clumsily), the deadline in the proposal was the Winter Meetings, which is the second week in December. Maybe MLB hoped the players would compromise with end of year or January 15, but they flatly rejected the idea.
Of course, ownership motivation is to force players to take lower offers on multiyear deals or settle for one-year contracts.
My opinion is that I don’t care about a deadline. If free agents want to wait to sign, why stop them? Who does it hurt more than them?
I think this idea could have been negotiated in a way that is best for players and for teams. Some players,
and some teams, have been getting hurt by not coming to terms until sometime in March or later. Setting up some kind of deadline, would prevent agents from holding up a signing while they wait for comps on other players as they are signed. Players would have to decide how much they should hold out for, and teams would have less time to to make up their minds about if they want to go with a relatively sure thing in a veteran player, or take a chance on an unproven player. It would bring more order into the whole free agent process. There could be a signing deadline of, say, December 21. And then open things up for unsigned players again on March 15. Free agency has changed. I think the MLBPA has made a mistake by not opening up to change.If free agents want to wait to sign, why stop them? Who does it hurt more than them?
I think bunching all of the signings into a smaller time frame would generate huge fan interest, which is what the NBA does in late June/early July. The winter meetings could become a huge event instead of just watching the same broadcasters trying to find something interesting to talk about for four days.
Some may argue that stretching the signings out over the entire winter keeps fans engaged but I would say those are mostly the hard core fans.
Of course I am assuming the owners and players even care about fan interest in these signings which may be a very naive assumption.
I would rather see more pay go to the minor league players than looking for how to make billionaires out of the multi-millionaires. At least pay them for spring training.
And wasn’t it sad that Washington lost Bryce Harper to free agency after offering him 300 million.
Harper and Machado holding out as long as they did caused a lot of the late signings.
Heck of a time to stop doing this.
MLB usually presents The Belt this morning at the GM meetings. But they have now decided against doing so, telling team execs today it is not in their best interest to keep doing so.https://t.co/kf08AI06yU
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) November 11, 2019
Manfred said there is “not going to be a deal where we pay you in economics to get labor peace" and "maybe Marvin Miller’s financial system doesn’t work anymore.”
Gear up, folks. A big labor fight is brewing. https://t.co/gHIQ0hJoOn
— Craig Calcaterra (@craigcalcaterra) November 20, 2019
New players union chief negotiator Bruce Meyer told agents off-the-record at meeting last Thursday that in CBA talks w/MLB they weren’t looking to do any horse trading, meaning they seek net gains rather than a give and take. Things aren’t encouraging. The good news: 2 yrs to go
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) November 20, 2019
The fact Manfred invoked Marvin Miller’s name is troubling. It really shows the mindset of MLB owners that players are property. This is the reason Miller or Flood aren’t in the HOF and probably never will be.
What do you think the fans reaction to a strike will be? Rabid fans like us will be less understanding I predict. Hard to defend millionaires playing a kids game who don’t even want to recognize their entry level (minor league) players. Unfortunately the owners have a lot to lose and the players can live on their past millions for a long time. Might be a time for minor leagues to be ‘the show.’
So far, it’s just posturing, ‘sabre-rattling’ as they say.
I don’t know what’s fair regarding who gets what money. But I do know that attendance is dropping year to year, and I believe that if something isn’t done to turn that around, MLB will be forced to tank. IMO, the game lacks intensity. It needs more players who play like Tommy Edman and Harrison Bader.
But I do know that attendance is dropping year to year, and I believe that if something isn’t done to turn that around, MLB will be forced to tank.
How much of that is due to teams tanking, though? Of course, having some teams be uncompetitive is not new, but having them be purposefully uncompetitive and announce it seasons in advance seems to be. I don’t really know the answer, but I’d be curious.
Also, while attendance may be down, revenues are up…so it hasn’t hit the bottom line yet. I’m sure they’re interested in keeping it that way however they can.
Physical attendance at games is becoming a less and less important measure of fan interest as well as team revenue. Still, if these guys aren’t careful, the golden goose will again be on the chopping block. Those who remember 1994 should want to do everything possible to avoid that recurring, but as we know, it is all about the money, lots and lots of it.
Teams are not paying players once they reach free agency. Now, they’re opting not to pay when they reach arb. That line is moving backward, and as it does, further from labor peace. https://t.co/E3glzeRQfw
— Jeff Jones (@jmjones) December 3, 2019
BHC, please explain the concern as you see it. I see the arbitration system working as intended. The good players are getting paid and the below average ones are not.
Take the Cards as an example. They kept Gant, but decided that an estimated $1.6 million for a marginal pitcher like Leone was not a good idea, so they let him go. It would be hard for me to disagree with that.
I see the arbitration system working as intended. The good players are getting paid and the below average ones are not.
Tell that to Jonathan Villar and several other guys aren’t below average, as you say. And you can make the argument that the the system is working for everything when you have veteran players not getting signed until after the MLB Draft to avoid loss of draft picks. The thing is this does nothing to solve labor peace. This only makes it more volatile because its forcing players into a bigger pool, making them take less money than what they would make in arbitration. You can say the system is working all you want but the facts don’t support that claim. The system is only working for the owners.
I don’t see why anybody has to pick sides in this. Both the owners and the players are taking in a scandalous amount of money from the game of baseball. It doesn’t always have to be this way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.