|
Boras
Jan 26, 2018 11:36:39 GMT -5
Post by MLBDreams on Jan 26, 2018 11:36:39 GMT -5
I'm pissing off @ Scott Boras with the way he is as super agent. He really wasted everyone's time with their ability for build up a 25 man roster as strength before ST opens. We don't know whose else players DD want to signing/invite for beside JDM. This is worst & slowest off season I ever saw as lifetime RS fan. Screw Scott Boras for that situation.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 26, 2018 12:40:07 GMT -5
I'm pissing off @ Scott Boras with the way he is as super agent. He really wasted everyone's time with their ability for build up a 25 man roster as strength before ST opens. We don't know whose else players DD want to signing/invite for beside JDM. This is worst & slowest off season I ever saw as lifetime RS fan. Screw Scott Boras for that situation. 1. Scott Boras has been Scott Boras-ing for like 20 years. 2. This is the first year of the new CBA. 3. This is the slowest offseason anyone can remember. 4. Clearly Scott Boras is to blame, what other cause could there possibly be?
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 2, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
Spoiler: It isn't Boras.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 2, 2018 20:14:58 GMT -5
You mean... There are other agents?
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 2, 2018 20:15:51 GMT -5
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 2, 2018 20:15:51 GMT -5
This sounds good to me ... "No report no money" under the unfit to play clause in the contract. They could go on till all the players only get half salary for the year and I would be OK with that!!! The players don't want to play then they are going to seem like spoiled brats to the general public even worse than they are now. Even more support could fail then. And since when is total revenue all profit. The figures I keep seeing by the media seems to talk a lot about how rich the owners are and gross revenue is up but I checked by googling the sox in 15 and after expenses and salaries they made about 79 million that year in net profit. If that is true they aren't getting rich unless they want to sell the team. I couldn't find any other net profit figures disputing although there could be some somewhere I guess. I think the market is due for a big change by cit top salaries and middle of the road players get an increase as well as the younger players and Minors.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 6, 2018 14:28:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 6, 2018 14:28:15 GMT -5
Tony Clark on the slow free agent market- “Pitchers and catchers will report to camps in Florida and Arizona next 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 a statement released to Crasnick, the league rejects Clark’s characterization as an “unfair” attack on MLB teams. Arguing that many top free agents are “sitting unsigned even though they have substantial offers,” the league statement suggests that agents have failed to “value their clients” reasonably “in a constantly changing free agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics, and the impact of the new Basic Agreement.” www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22347053/mlb-players-association-executive-director-tony-clark-says-teams-signing-free-agents-in-race-bottomBasically there are a lot of teams not spending and there are a lot of unlofty demands by the agents. It's a perfect sh*t storm.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 6, 2018 14:45:28 GMT -5
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 6, 2018 14:45:28 GMT -5
Tony Clark on the slow free agent market- “Pitchers and catchers will report to camps in Florida and Arizona next 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 a statement released to Crasnick, the league rejects Clark’s characterization as an “unfair” attack on MLB teams. Arguing that many top free agents are “sitting unsigned even though they have substantial offers,” the league statement suggests that agents have failed to “value their clients” reasonably “in a constantly changing free agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics, and the impact of the new Basic Agreement.” www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22347053/mlb-players-association-executive-director-tony-clark-says-teams-signing-free-agents-in-race-bottomBasically there are a lot of teams not spending and there are a lot of unlofty demands by the agents. It's a perfect sh*t storm. My favorite quote in the article is where the MLB says the owners own teams for one reason and that is to win. Owners own teams to make money first and foremost and winning is secondary. I suppose there are some out there that might put winning higher up than other owners but at the end of the day it is still a business.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 6, 2018 14:58:50 GMT -5
Post by manfred on Feb 6, 2018 14:58:50 GMT -5
Tony Clark on the slow free agent market- “Pitchers and catchers will report to camps in Florida and Arizona next 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 a statement released to Crasnick, the league rejects Clark’s characterization as an “unfair” attack on MLB teams. Arguing that many top free agents are “sitting unsigned even though they have substantial offers,” the league statement suggests that agents have failed to “value their clients” reasonably “in a constantly changing free agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics, and the impact of the new Basic Agreement.” www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22347053/mlb-players-association-executive-director-tony-clark-says-teams-signing-free-agents-in-race-bottomBasically there are a lot of teams not spending and there are a lot of unlofty demands by the agents. It's a perfect sh*t storm. My favorite quote in the article is where the MLB says the owners own teams for one reason and that is to win. Owners own teams to make money first and foremost and winning is secondary. I suppose there are some out there that might put winning higher up than other owners but at the end of the day it is still a business. Winning is good business, though. These two things cannot fully be peeled away from one another. Sure, there are teams like the Marlins that are ready to take the money and run. But if that were such a great model, I think you'd see more of it. In a way, one could as easily say the same to players -- if the union is suggesting that this off-season threatens the integrity of the game, I'd be curious to know why. After all, for many teams, signing this batch of free agents is a poor decision -- in their quest to win. Is paying a 36-year-old Yu Darvish $25 million good for winning? I seriously doubt it. I just keep coming back to the same thing: between Moneyball and the fact that this is just a very poor group of free agents, this off-season doesn't strike me as a big deal.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 6, 2018 15:05:43 GMT -5
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 6, 2018 15:05:43 GMT -5
Oh I agree that winning and making money aren't mutually exclusive and that fielding a winning team consistently will help a teams bottom dollar, I just had a good laugh at the MLB basically claiming that winning is the owners number 1 goal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 6, 2018 15:40:15 GMT -5
My favorite quote in the article is where the MLB says the owners own teams for one reason and that is to win. Owners own teams to make money first and foremost and winning is secondary. I suppose there are some out there that might put winning higher up than other owners but at the end of the day it is still a business. Winning is good business, though. These two things cannot fully be peeled away from one another. Sure, there are teams like the Marlins that are ready to take the money and run. But if that were such a great model, I think you'd see more of it. In a way, one could as easily say the same to players -- if the union is suggesting that this off-season threatens the integrity of the game, I'd be curious to know why. After all, for many teams, signing this batch of free agents is a poor decision -- in their quest to win. Is paying a 36-year-old Yu Darvish $25 million good for winning? I seriously doubt it. I just keep coming back to the same thing: between Moneyball and the fact that this is just a very poor group of free agents, this off-season doesn't strike me as a big deal. Trying to win right now when your team is projected to be 70-92 is not good business. It's just dumb.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 7, 2018 9:49:17 GMT -5
My favorite quote in the article is where the MLB says the owners own teams for one reason and that is to win. Owners own teams to make money first and foremost and winning is secondary. I suppose there are some out there that might put winning higher up than other owners but at the end of the day it is still a business. Winning is good business, though. These two things cannot fully be peeled away from one another. Sure, there are teams like the Marlins that are ready to take the money and run. But if that were such a great model, I think you'd see more of it. In a way, one could as easily say the same to players -- if the union is suggesting that this off-season threatens the integrity of the game, I'd be curious to know why. After all, for many teams, signing this batch of free agents is a poor decision -- in their quest to win. Is paying a 36-year-old Yu Darvish $25 million good for winning? I seriously doubt it. I just keep coming back to the same thing: between Moneyball and the fact that this is just a very poor group of free agents, this off-season doesn't strike me as a big deal. So is slashing payroll, soaking up revenue sharing money, and waiting for your franchise valuation to increase. And if you own a team like the Rays, it's a much safer bet than actually investing money in the on-field product. Winning is good business, but it's not necessarily the best business for a lot of teams, and that's a big problem.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 7, 2018 10:46:48 GMT -5
Is it so hard to understand that owners and GMs would finally come to the conclusion that these long deals paying big money to players in to their mid 30s is bad business? And that they would finally act on that information. Yes the new CBA has given them even more incentive to be smart about it but isn't it about time?
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 11:26:11 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 7, 2018 11:26:11 GMT -5
Is it so hard to understand that owners and GMs would finally come to the conclusion that these long deals paying big money to players in to their mid 30s is bad business? And that they would finally act on that information. Yes the new CBA has given them even more incentive to be smart about it but isn't it about time? And that's where the war will be. If you can't (and shouldn't) force owners into paying for a player's decline then it's natural that the union should push to have free agency granted much, much sooner. Teams shouldn't be getting $25 million/year type performance from a 24 year old getting paid $700K or $2 million or whatever they're getting. I think even most teams would feel this is logical, but the problem is this would strip small market teams of their one way of winning - cheap young talent. It's going to morph from a player vs team to a big market vs small market type of thing. There's no real simple solution. You don't want to reward "tanking" but you can't make it where teams that can spend a ridiculous amount (like LA or NY) are allowed free reign to do so. I don't see how this gets resolved quickly or easily. I think when they strike in 2021 in could wipe out one or two seasons.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 12:25:53 GMT -5
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 7, 2018 12:25:53 GMT -5
And that's where the war will be. If you can't (and shouldn't) force owners into paying for a player's decline then it's natural that the union should push to have free agency granted much, much sooner. Teams shouldn't be getting $25 million/year type performance from a 24 year old getting paid $700K or $2 million or whatever they're getting. I think even most teams would feel this is logical, but the problem is this would strip small market teams of their one way of winning - cheap young talent. It's going to morph from a player vs team to a big market vs small market type of thing. There's no real simple solution. You don't want to reward "tanking" but you can't make it where teams that can spend a ridiculous amount (like LA or NY) are allowed free reign to do so. I don't see how this gets resolved quickly or easily. I think when they strike in 2021 in could wipe out one or two seasons. Salary Cap, Luxury Tax and Salary Floor ... This will then be the response to the strike from the owners maybe. Young players get more money with quicker free agency, older players get less and the issue of salary not being high enough will be addressed just like in the NBA with exception for certain team player etc. Spread the wealth with they players but the owners still can have a year to year net profit. Baseball is a business it needs to be able to show an annual net profit margin around the 20 to 30% with the players getting their piece of the pie. either that or it is going to come to those 200 million contracts but only guaranteeing 70-80 million and the rest tied to actual performance. The strike may cause that upheaval but in the end the people holding the purse strings will only go so far.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 12:30:36 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 7, 2018 12:30:36 GMT -5
And that's where the war will be. If you can't (and shouldn't) force owners into paying for a player's decline then it's natural that the union should push to have free agency granted much, much sooner. Teams shouldn't be getting $25 million/year type performance from a 24 year old getting paid $700K or $2 million or whatever they're getting. I think even most teams would feel this is logical, but the problem is this would strip small market teams of their one way of winning - cheap young talent. It's going to morph from a player vs team to a big market vs small market type of thing. There's no real simple solution. You don't want to reward "tanking" but you can't make it where teams that can spend a ridiculous amount (like LA or NY) are allowed free reign to do so. I don't see how this gets resolved quickly or easily. I think when they strike in 2021 in could wipe out one or two seasons. Salary Cap, Luxury Tax and Salary Floor ... This will then be the response to the strike from the owners maybe. Young players get more money with quicker free agency, older players get less and the issue of salary not being high enough will be addressed just like in the NBA with exception for certain team player etc. Spread the wealth with they players but the owners still can have a year to year net profit. Baseball is a business it needs to be able to show an annual net profit margin around the 20 to 30% with the players getting their piece of the pie. either that or it is going to come to those 200 million contracts but only guaranteeing 70-80 million and the rest tied to actual performance. The strike may cause that upheaval but in the end the people holding the purse strings will only go so far. The union will never allow a salary cap.....EVER, regardless if the owners bring it up or not.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 12:49:08 GMT -5
Post by Gwell55 on Feb 7, 2018 12:49:08 GMT -5
Salary Cap, Luxury Tax and Salary Floor ... This will then be the response to the strike from the owners maybe. Young players get more money with quicker free agency, older players get less and the issue of salary not being high enough will be addressed just like in the NBA with exception for certain team player etc. Spread the wealth with they players but the owners still can have a year to year net profit. Baseball is a business it needs to be able to show an annual net profit margin around the 20 to 30% with the players getting their piece of the pie. either that or it is going to come to those 200 million contracts but only guaranteeing 70-80 million and the rest tied to actual performance. The strike may cause that upheaval but in the end the people holding the purse strings will only go so far. The union will never allow a salary cap.....EVER, regardless if the owners bring it up or not. If the strike comes and the union refuses any type of salary cap then my belief is that the owners will push for the partial (NFL type) guarantee to contracts. Change is going to come with the shape that baseball is in today and the near future. That strike (if it comes) will cause more revolt from the fans also so the union better realize that too. Revenue streams start drying up in every market at some point and sports are going to take individual hits for sure IMO.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 14:16:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jimed14 on Feb 7, 2018 14:16:46 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know how the cable deals are written in regards to a strike/lockout.
The easiest way out of this mess is to make the luxury tax figure tie in to revenues. It’s pretty insane that it isn’t, though I guess the small/mid market teams are running everything.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 7, 2018 17:29:11 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 7, 2018 17:29:11 GMT -5
Their will need to be more mechanisms in place to balance the needs of all the parties involved. Salary caps, floors, sharing and taxes, not exactly based on supply and demand but maintaining some competitive balance is the most important thing. The bottom line is they need to distribute a certain percentage of revenues to keep the union happy while protecting the teams from making bad decisions that lead to bad contracts thus ultimately wasting money. Guaranteed contracts are a problem that needs to be addressed, imo.
|
|