This topic contains 218 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I could see the cap being in the range that CC predicted but I don’t think the floor would be that high. Some of the tankers would have to double or triple their payroll. I don’t see that happening.
I agree, a 160 to 180mil floor is our player budget, and i believe we were 10th?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the current floor 25 times the minimum?
160mil is at least 10 times that.
I don’t see a spending floor that high. A spending floor of $100-$120 million would be more likely. I’m tired of seeing teams like Miami, Tampa Bay and a few others of having $30-40 million dollar payrolls. That’s ridiculous when you have a 25-man roster.
You could field a potential wild card team with the remaining free agents still available.
Basically three weeks from the start of spring training, and you could field this 25-man roster from the free agent pool … pic.twitter.com/fpbbulJXXh
— Drew Silva (@drewsilv) January 24, 2019
Bulcholz is a guy who I’ve heard almost nothing about this Winter. Sucked in 2017 but was a 3 WAR pitcher in just 98 innings with a 215 Era+ in 2018. I’d love to have him if he would agree to work out of the pen if that is where he is needed.
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
CariocaCardinal.
I agree that my floor estimate was too high. It could end up based as a % of revenues while the top end would most likely be a stated number.
I find this to be interesting. I would be very much in favor of going back to the 15 day DL. The 10 day DL is a joke.
MLB proposes rules changes including return to 15-day DL, pitch clock https://t.co/0Ca3pMHwLZ
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) January 24, 2019
A % of revenues would help allow for the difference in attendances.
The problem I have with changing the DL and option time rules is the timing. If I am a gm I am considering those things when I structure my team depth. It affects who I might sign. Rule 5 picks and exposure, who I offer arbitration to. I would want to know at the end of the previous season.
A very interesting hire of a respected veteran sportswriter.
Some personal news: I’m joining the Major League Baseball Players Association in the new role of senior advisor for player, agent and media relations. @MLB_PLAYERS.
— Jerry Crasnick (@jcrasnick) January 25, 2019
Wow that is a coup for the MLBPA!
Rather than just complaining about cheap owners, I suggest reading this Tom Verducci article on the “gig economy” in baseball. The shift to younger, more versatile players means older players are having a harder time in free agency. A lot of data is presented to emphasize the point.
To me, this would suggest a strategy for the players union of either earlier free agency or an acceleration of the arbitration process or both. Allow the more valuable players to earn more money sooner.
The more I think about this, the more I like it – even more than a spending floor, which could force teams to sign suboptimal veteran players. Instead, let teams sign who they want, but ensure the desired players get more money. And perhaps giving younger players more money would make some of the older players look like a better deal as free agents.
Baseball is increasingly becoming a gig economy: Talent is young, inexpensive and versatile. That means veteran players must adapt or die (by Tom Verducci) https://t.co/nWNzX41znh
— SI MLB (@si_mlb) January 28, 2019
Brian Walton
To me, this would suggest a strategy for the players union of either earlier free agency or an acceleration of the arbitration process or both.
Yes this is exactly what the players need to be moving towards and I’m sure it will be heavily debated in the next CBA. But the owners can’t have it both ways. On the one hand they are now saying “we can’t pay you big money after age 30 because the analytics say that you are no longer worth it” but then say ” well we also can’t pay you big money from ages 20-26 because you haven’t proven yourself yet and we want to maintain team control.”
So basically that means the only chance a player has for a big contract is ages 27-29. That doesn’t seem fair to me considering the amount of revenue flowing through the game. Sure the big names like Harper, Machado, Trout, Betts, etc… are going to get paid but they only represent a small percentage of players.
The owners will keep the upper hand as long as the union lets them. The union needs to set a strategy, communicate it externally to get fan buy-in and use the two or three years before the next agreement to pound the owners into negotiating on their terms.
Instead, this random general grumbling with a lack of focus or plan going on now is ineffective and frankly, kind of irritating to me. Stop whining and get to work on how to fix the fundamental problems.
Shaming is not an effective strategy. Fans who think they are going to get action by calling owners cheap and threatening to boycott the team are wasting their time and efforts, IMO. That isn’t how change occurs.
Maybe the hiring of Jerry Crasnick is a good first step in the communication process to the public.
Early arb or free agency only rearanges the deck chairs of who gets paid how much. It does nothing to incentivize owners to increase overall payroll dollars and will possibly have negative affects on player development.
It is relative CC. Player salaries as a % of revenue may never again be what it was a few years ago but at this point the players are just trying to stop the bleeding. Having earlier arb and free agency at least compels the owners to spend more on the front end of a player’s career than they do now since spending towards the end of a player’s career seems to be gone forever. What the players don’t want is to get squeezed on both ends, which is what is happening now.
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
gscottar.
Which brings me right back to my point from earlier – what DO the players want (other than generic more money)? We can guess their priorities, but they had better be forming their game plan now.
While I remain sympathetic to the players’ plight, in recent agreements they have been their own worst enemy.
Subscription required..
Latest for The Athletic: Inside the frayed relations that could lead to baseball players and owners “walking off a cliff together.” https://t.co/Iq5P7Mn8z0 $
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) January 29, 2019
The owners like most business owners will stay millionaires/billionaires no matter what. The players have much more to lose so they better get someone on board that speaks billionaire language and can actually negotiate for them. I see very clearly where the players are coming from the numbers don’t lie but anger or outrage won’t help them. A sound argument backup by real numbers and a plan on how to make it a better system will.
A couple of thoughts to consider:
– The investment required to buy a major league team has increased dramatically over the past 40 years
– This increased investment requirement has changed who owns teams – more investors or groups of investors – owners who expect a return on their investment (very few Gussie Busch’s now days)
– Focus of ownership has changed as to how rosters are constructed … the George Steinbrenner days are gone … Data shows that signing older players to long-term deals does not always work (e.g. Pujols) and signing younger players to long-term deals does not always work
(E.g. Heyward)
– I am convinced that a significant reason for the delay in signings the past two off seasons can be attributed to the negotiation tactics of Scott Boras. Other players and agents hold out to see what Boras clients sign for.Not sure what the answer is for the MLBPA.
Ny, all of the players who are millionaires will stay millionaires unless they throw their guaranteed money away. Those are the ones who are complaining, not younger players who are enjoying were they are and what they’re getting.
The owners are making more money than ever and yet ticket prices go up and payrolls down. I have no sympathy for millionaires fighting billionaires over our money but blaming the “greedy” players as the main reason for the higher costs of attending games is not correct.
Part of the problem the players have is that there is not a lot of incentive to get a bigger slice of the pie. During the first 30 years or so of the Marvin Miller led union, there were huge gains to be made. Players went from having no rights, to making unheard of salaries.
Now the manner of being set for life is no longer an issue. It’s just numbers now. Do you want to be super rich, or even richer than that?
The thing that sets professional sports apart from other industries, is that it can generate huge revenues despite having very few employees. Everyone gets rich, so it becomes a matter of how to split the spoils among relatively few participants.
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.