SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 7, 2019 20:50:28 GMT -5
Yankees are out. Any other offers are completely unknown. Phillies have stupid money, but they haven't signed either player. Both player's are rumored to not want to go to Philly. I hope we find out what kind of offers they got. As fans of the sport, we basically deserve to know.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 8, 2019 1:30:53 GMT -5
As regards Passan's article, I like the guy and his writing, but he needs to think this through a little more. Here's one quote I have an argument with, there are others: That's because the wealthy fools finally realized that while they were in their 20s and performing, they were paying them like they were still in high school!
Miller was unable to get the Supreme Court to overturn baseball's antitrust exemption. What he did do was slip impartial arbitration into the agreement with the players. As a longtime organizer for the steel workers he was, apparently, one of the few who really understood what that meant. The players soon found out to their amazement.
What happened next is the stuff of legend. Finley breached Catfish Hunter's contract, the agreement stipulated clearly that had to go to arbitration, the arbitrator made Hunter a free agent, he went onto the open market and the Yankees got his services. In the great tradition of killing the messenger, MLB fired the arbitrator. NY was actually outbid by two other teams, but he wanted to be closer to home. His salary more than tripled on a 5 year contract.
This, needless to say, was a revelation. The players finally understood what free agency would mean and they came together. From that emerged everything else that leads to today: limited control during pre-arb, arbitration, and then free agency. A new class of millionaires overnight.
We are at a watershed brought about by - what else - networked computing power. Fabulously rich online databases - both publically available and those MLB keeps for itself - coupled with powerful analytical software have cast a harsh light on the aging curve.
Hatfield pointed the finger at arbitration and he's right. It's past it's pull date, but even more egregious is the legacy of the reserve clause, those pre-arb years.
Miller beat Kuhn like a rented mule to get the union this far. Time for a paradigm shift, and there is nothing more difficult - for the players and the owners. If the players get with the program, they'll realize the business model has to be turned upside down. The owners will fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen. That's why this could be headed for a trainwreck.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 8, 2019 1:57:12 GMT -5
I'll tackle this one next, but you'll probably get my drift real fast from the above:
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 8, 2019 3:25:50 GMT -5
As regards Passan's article, I like the guy and his writing, but he needs to think this through a little more. Here's one quote I have an argument with, there are others: That's because the wealthy fools finally realized that while they were in their 20s and performing, they were paying them like they were still in high school! Miller was unable to get the Supreme Court to overturn baseball's antitrust exemption. What he did do was slip impartial arbitration into the agreement with the players. As a longtime organizer for the steel workers he was, apparently, one of the few who really understood what that meant. The players soon found out to their amazement. What happened next is the stuff of legend. Finley breached Catfish Hunter's contract, the agreement stipulated clearly that had to go to arbitration, the arbitrator made Hunter a free agent, he went onto the open market and the Yankees got his services. In the great tradition of killing the messenger, MLB fired the arbitrator. NY was actually outbid by two other teams, but he wanted to be closer to home. His salary more than tripled on a 5 year contract. This, needless to say, was a revelation. The players finally understood what free agency would mean and they came together. From that emerged everything else that leads to today: limited control during pre-arb, arbitration, and then free agency. A new class of millionaires overnight. We are at a watershed brought about by - what else - networked computing power. Fabulously rich online databases - both publically available and those MLB keeps for itself - coupled with powerful analytical software have cast a harsh light on the aging curve. Hatfield pointed the finger at arbitration and he's right. It's past it's pull date, but even more egregious is the legacy of the reserve clause, those pre-arb years. Miller beat Kuhn like a rented mule to get the union this far. Time for a paradigm shift, and there is nothing more difficult - for the players and the owners. If the players get with the program, they'll realize the business model has to be turned upside down. The owners will fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen. That's why this could be headed for a trainwreck. The players union introduced and wanted six years before free agency. It is the players union (and Marvin Miller specifically) who laid the ground work for this situation: baseballhall.org/discover/short-stops/free-agency-still-fuels-baseball
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 8, 2019 9:59:22 GMT -5
...and that worked for 30 years. Data has changed all of the original context. While arbitration prices are rising to reflect player value more closely, the pre-arb years are ridiculously under-valued since those are set wages with minor adjustments at the discretion of ownership. Look at what Trout was worth in his second year, look at what he was paid.
Now that the late career contracts are being squeezed change is needed. How can the players use data and honest valuations to get that change?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 8, 2019 10:19:22 GMT -5
...and that worked for 30 years. Data has changed all of the original context. While arbitration prices are rising to reflect player value more closely, the pre-arb years are ridiculously under-valued since those are set wages with minor adjustments at the discretion of ownership. Look at what Trout was worth in his second year, look at what he was paid. Now that the late career contracts are being squeezed change is needed. How can the players use data and honest valuations to get that change? I think an underrated aspect of this whole thing is the players themselves being the last to get the memo regarding aging curves and the marginal value of wins and all that business. I remember when Longoria was traded to the Giants last year, Buster Posey said something about how terrible all these tanking teams were, and how great it is that the Giants weren't doing that stuff... ok, well, look at the final standings for those teams. I think these guys more than anyone buy into the value of the Proven Vet, and look at the weak free agent market as purely a product of teams being unwilling to spend. That's part of it, but I don't know that they fully grok how per-arb players are delivering orders of magnitude more value per dollar spent. This is all very speculative and wishy-washy, but I get the sense that among players, there's a mentality that older players should continue to always be paid a ton, and younger players should get nothing more than they already are. Like, I hear players complaining about free agents not getting signed, I don't hear them complaining about the Mike Trout pre-arb years. I don't hear them complaining about the team-friendly extension that Jose Ramirez signed, (probably) because he didn't get a significant bonus and certainly didn't make any money in the minor leagues. And I think it's going to make it much more of an uphill battle for them if they continue to insist that players who aren't the most valuable should be treated as though they are, while ignoring their most under-compensated members.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 8, 2019 11:41:23 GMT -5
I'm sure others figured it out, and it finally dawned on me, that this was the real inefficiency, the one that Oakland and Tampa are exploiting, the Athletics for a very long time. Beane got this down and ran with it.
Post-30 performance likely hasn't been worth the going rate. That's going to be tough for the players to swallow as you say.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 8, 2019 15:10:38 GMT -5
How is Baseball different than say Basketball or Football? The best value is always young players on rookie deals. I mean yea the team control is slightly longer. Yet Betts isn't cheap either, he's on pace to make 50 million his last two years.
This excuse that it's free agency is inefficient is crazy. Yea it is, it is in every sport. Yet I don't see study after study and teams using reports in Football and Basketball to say why we shouldn't spend money on free agents. The funny thing is that the playoff teams in Baseball were filled with guys post arbitration. Do you care about winning or that maybe David Price sucks down the road? It's like get back at me when teams without post arbitration players dominant Baseball.
Baseball is Broken because of the economics of the game. For decades it didn't matter because teams wanted to win so they spent money. Yea maybe it wasn't a great investment, yet the teams that spent money won Championships. You have a few outliers here and there. Yet that still holds true even today. You can half the best farm system in Baseball but you won't win a championship with only post arbitration players.
In Basketball and Football you don't tank to make more money, you have to spend because their are spending floors that are like 90% of the salary cap. So if you have to spend, you try and win. Teams that tank take on bad contracts for assets to rebuild. It's why those sports are much more competitive.
I love how owners are making fans feel like not spending is smart and not what it really is. It's owners being cheap and wanting to increase profits. They have found out that losing and not trying to win makes more sense. It's one thing to say I'm not going to sign top free agents to massive deals. I get that. It's another thing to just sit out free agency all together. Which is what we are seeing in Baseball. Way too many teams have zero desire to spend or try and win games. Baseball is broken even with record revenue.
So you have to force teams to spend. You don't have to force them to give out massive deals, but they do need to spend. You can't have half the league just sitting out free agency. That isn't because free agents are a bad value.
I'm more convinced than ever that TV money needs to be split equally. It's the only way to fix the issues. Heck maybe not equally, but tax it or something. The luxury tax is killing the game. Giving rich owners an excuse not to spend. It's only there because team revenues vary to such a massive degree compared to other major sports. Only major sport where not all teams can afford the best players. Do that and you can limit the contracts lengths because the increased competition will drive up salaries. With salary floors teams like the Red Sox can dump contracts to rebuilding teams in return for assets. I'm kinda sick of the narrative that free agency is bad and that is the issue in Baseball. Or that the Marlins are cheap and that's why they are so bad. That just isn't true. In reality the Marlins might be the most successful team in the MLB since they were created. Two Championships with that revenue stream? Give the A's all the credit you want. It's not that they don't deserve it, yet they can't win any Championships no matter how smart they are. The fact they are smart, try to win most years, which should be a good thing hurts them. Without a crazy luck or all in type moves they likely don't have a chance. They have zero chance at building a consistent dominant team. No matter how smart they are, they just can't increase revenue to match other top teams. It isn't that a bunch of older free agents are killing them, they just don't have the ability to have even close to a 200 million dollar payroll.
As diehard fans of Baseball don't we want to see a somewhat equal footing? Not one where some teams can't even afford 100 million dollar payrolls and others could top 350 million? Don't we want a sport where all teams have a chance? The luxury tax was a nifty idea, but as it evolved it went from helpful to hurtful.
For so long teams wanting to win was more than enough. Those days are over. It should be a surprise. It's basically the invisible hand theory by Adam Smith that is at the core of capitalism. For some reason all these great business men overlooked what made them rich in the real world when it came to Baseball. Those days are over and teams are doing what's in their own best interests. No more George running the Yankees to win at all costs, he's been replaced by a true businessman. A guy that cares about profit first and winning second. Frankly given how many teams have changed overnight it almost feels like collusion on a massive level. Like the rich teams versus the poor teams. It's like our owner should be saying we can't spend anymore because we made a pack with other high revenue teams to limit revenue sharing to poor teams because we feel its gone too far. In response the poor teams just stopped spending all together with a we'll show you attitude.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 8, 2019 15:51:29 GMT -5
Lol I was thinking how screwed baseball is in it's next CBA. The owners and players can't even agree on a universal DH in both leagues, nevermind years of control and free agency which is the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 12, 2019 13:26:35 GMT -5
I stand by my comments about it not mattering whether guys sign in November or January. But this many guys not signed as camp starts IS bad for the game, we can agree there.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Feb 12, 2019 16:34:25 GMT -5
I wonder if there's much owner vs. owner disagreement too. We know the players can't be happy but do all the owner's see eye to eye over all this?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 12, 2019 17:22:40 GMT -5
I wonder if there's much owner vs. owner disagreement too. We know the players can't be happy but do all the owner's see eye to eye over all this? That's a really good question. It's not one we'll figure out unless CBA negotiations get so heated that owner disagreements break out into the open.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2019 20:20:29 GMT -5
I wonder if there's much owner vs. owner disagreement too. We know the players can't be happy but do all the owner's see eye to eye over all this? That's a really good question. It's not one we'll figure out unless CBA negotiations get so heated that owner disagreements break out into the open. Despite it being obviously true, I have to believe they're way too smart to let that get out.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 13, 2019 6:19:18 GMT -5
We know 100% it's true that owners don't agree. They haven't for like two decades and the luxury tax has had the rich vs. Poor teams for years and years. Every new CBA gives the poor teams more and more. The comp system had to go because it allowed the rich teams to restock. The new system favors poor teams that don't spend, only they can get the higher picks. Next was to limit spending in the draft, because of poor teams. Next up was international spending because of poor teams. The rich teams just said ok whatever. Yet the last CBA went a step too far, the luxury tax line was kept crazy low given revenues. A 50% extra tax was added for money over 40 million and moving your draft pick back if you went over also. Add to the fact that being over the luxury tax meant you get less for losing QO free agents.
The real question is if teams are now colluding because the system is broken? The poor teams wanted the extra money to balance revenues, yet a system that should have produced record luxury tax money is producing all time low luxury tax money.
It seems crystal clear what is happening. Yet you won't ever prove it. Like these owners are smart enough that it should be happening at that level with no one else knowing. Type of thing that might come out 20 years from now from third party people. Yea we colluded just like the poor teams have for decades because it's crazy and they went too far.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 15, 2019 1:00:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 15, 2019 22:08:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Feb 19, 2019 14:45:41 GMT -5
Machado not going to MFY! I am tempted to say Padres are stupid on incurring a 10-year contract, at least the Yanks can afford it with their revenue stream.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 19, 2019 18:35:12 GMT -5
Machado not going to MFY! I am tempted to say Padres are stupid on incurring a 10-year contract, at least the Yanks can afford it with their revenue stream.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 19, 2019 19:18:18 GMT -5
If Harper follows with a contract of roughly 10/$300M within the next week, and Kimbrel gets some sort of solid if not unspectacular multi-year deal, does that ease at least a little bit of the whole "crisis in baseball" state?
Not that I'm saying the system isn't broken, it is, though I'm not sure it's "that" broken at the top end of the spectrum, but if these guys all wait it out and still get massive deals, then did anyone really screw up?
The far more broken part of the system is the length of time it takes for most everyone to get to free agency and start earning through a free process.
Would it be better for guys to sign earlier? Sure. It would be better for the game/fanbases if nearly everyone was signed by December or January as opposed to mid to late February. But it seemed to make zero difference with JDM last year, Machado got as much as, if not more than, the rough value he was given prior to FA, and it appears as though Harper is likely to follow suit
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2019 11:38:11 GMT -5
If Harper follows with a contract of roughly 10/$300M within the next week, and Kimbrel gets some sort of solid if not unspectacular multi-year deal, does that ease at least a little bit of the whole "crisis in baseball" state? Not that I'm saying the system isn't broken, it is, though I'm not sure it's "that" broken at the top end of the spectrum, but if these guys all wait it out and still get massive deals, then did anyone really screw up? The far more broken part of the system is the length of time it takes for most everyone to get to free agency and start earning through a free process. Would it be better for guys to sign earlier? Sure. It would be better for the game/fanbases if nearly everyone was signed by December or January as opposed to mid to late February. But it seemed to make zero difference with JDM last year, Machado got as much as, if not more than, the rough value he was given prior to FA, and it appears as though Harper is likely to follow suit I think you're more or less right here, although I don't think saying it "eases a little bit of the crisis" is correct (I almost missed your point responding to just the first sentence, fwiw). I think Passan kind of buried the lede a bit with the way he presented the quotes in that tweet - his point was, in part, that there is actually a problem given that 25 legit big leaguers and 50 XX(B) free agents (at the time) were still out there while almost half the league is $75M below the CBT, which is barely even a penalty (consider that the Red Sox made a mockery of it and paid a whopping $11M in tax). That's the problem here. The actual problem isn't "teams have smartened up about long-term, big-money free agent deals." It's that teams aren't even trying to spend money, full-stop. The Harper and Machado deals were not what was holding up Tony Sipp and Matt Wieters from signing. I'm still working through this, but I feel like the Union's priorities in the next CBA should be adding initiatives to combat tanking (including, perhaps, a salary floor and a revision to how draft pick order is determined, at least in the first round) and peeling back a couple years of team control, even if it's by instituting some kind of RFA system. At that point, concede whatever pace-of-play nonsense Manfred wants to advertise as productive changes to the game.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2019 11:57:08 GMT -5
My simple idea for the union to take up would be to get rid of tying international money and draft pool money to the previous years performance. In 1988 or whatever, you'd drop a few draft spots if you went from a 68 to a 75 win team, but there were no really notable penalties. Now, winning those extra few games is actively disincentived - it is a bad idea, based on the league entry rules, for a bad team to get better. That's harmful to the veteran players, and it doesn't help the incoming ones either. Like, there used to be a value in bringing in a second-tier type of player on the cheap in free agency and improving a little bit, wheras now that's only a good idea if you sign them to a one-year deal and flip them for something in July. There's a bigger market for, say, Craig Kimbrel if not blowing games was actually the goal for more teams. The union should push that one specifically, because they should have the rich, always-competitive teams on their side. The Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers and Cubs aren't helped (at least relative to other teams) by this structure, and they're going to be pushing their weight around during any contentious negotiations. And Manfred isn't going to have quite the same interest in propping up small market teams as Selig, who still kept such a clear interest in the Brewers.
My radical idea is to reverse the draft order entirely. Maybe you snake it like a fantasy draft, but the best teams get first shot at the best entry players. Baseball would be better off if, to use one example, Casey Mize is on the Astros and probably in the majors this year (and maybe pitching in the 2018 playoffs), rather than playing service-time games into May 2020.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 20, 2019 12:22:12 GMT -5
My simple idea for the union to take up would be to get rid of tying international money and draft pool money to the previous years performance. In 1988 or whatever, you'd drop a few draft spots if you went from a 68 to a 75 win team, but there were no really notable penalties. Now, winning those extra few games is actively disincentived - it is a bad idea, based on the league entry rules, for a bad team to get better. That's harmful to the veteran players, and it doesn't help the incoming ones either. Like, there used to be a value in bringing in a second-tier type of player on the cheap in free agency and improving a little bit, wheras now that's only a good idea if you sign them to a one-year deal and flip them for something in July. There's a bigger market for, say, Craig Kimbrel if not blowing games was actually the goal for more teams. The union should push that one specifically, because they should have the rich, always-competitive teams on their side. The Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers and Cubs aren't helped (at least relative to other teams) by this structure, and they're going to be pushing their weight around during any contentious negotiations. And Manfred isn't going to have quite the same interest in propping up small market teams as Selig, who still kept such a clear interest in the Brewers. My radical idea is to reverse the draft order entirely. Maybe you snake it like a fantasy draft, but the best teams get first shot at the best entry players. Baseball would be better off if, to use one example, Casey Mize is on the Astros and probably in the majors this year (and maybe pitching in the 2018 playoffs), rather than playing service-time games into May 2020. I might tweak that to have a reverse draft order for all teams not making the playoffs and then a lottery for the the teams that do. But that would be incentivize the teams that don't think they'll really make the playoffs to actually try to win as many games as possible. I think that's more likely to get support than a complete reverse draft order.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 20, 2019 12:24:21 GMT -5
My radical idea is to reverse the draft order entirely. Maybe you snake it like a fantasy draft, but the best teams get first shot at the best entry players. Baseball would be better off if, to use one example, Casey Mize is on the Astros and probably in the majors this year (and maybe pitching in the 2018 playoffs), rather than playing service-time games into May 2020. How would a bad team acquire talent? Do away with the draft then. Give everyone equal grounds to sign amateur talent. Then watch the league get monopolized by 2 teams like soccer, it's going to be awesome. I have a different idea. Give drafted players bonuses based on how much the top 30 free agents available that offseason signed for. Add it all up and divide it by 30 and give them a fixed percentage based on that, don't even scale it. But, here's the kicker, a common money pool controlled by the league pays a larger amount of that bonus based on how well your team did. Let's assume the bonus is 30 bucks, the league pays that full 30 to the World Series champion. The worst team would have to pay for the entire bonus. And it goes like that for every round.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2019 12:26:52 GMT -5
My simple idea for the union to take up would be to get rid of tying international money and draft pool money to the previous years performance. In 1988 or whatever, you'd drop a few draft spots if you went from a 68 to a 75 win team, but there were no really notable penalties. Now, winning those extra few games is actively disincentived - it is a bad idea, based on the league entry rules, for a bad team to get better. That's harmful to the veteran players, and it doesn't help the incoming ones either. Like, there used to be a value in bringing in a second-tier type of player on the cheap in free agency and improving a little bit, wheras now that's only a good idea if you sign them to a one-year deal and flip them for something in July. There's a bigger market for, say, Craig Kimbrel if not blowing games was actually the goal for more teams. The union should push that one specifically, because they should have the rich, always-competitive teams on their side. The Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers and Cubs aren't helped (at least relative to other teams) by this structure, and they're going to be pushing their weight around during any contentious negotiations. And Manfred isn't going to have quite the same interest in propping up small market teams as Selig, who still kept such a clear interest in the Brewers. My radical idea is to reverse the draft order entirely. Maybe you snake it like a fantasy draft, but the best teams get first shot at the best entry players. Baseball would be better off if, to use one example, Casey Mize is on the Astros and probably in the majors this year (and maybe pitching in the 2018 playoffs), rather than playing service-time games into May 2020. I might tweak that to have a reverse draft order for all teams not making the playoffs and then a lottery for the the teams that do. But that would be incentivize the teams that don't think they'll really make the playoffs to actually try to win as many games as possible. I think that's more likely to get support than a complete reverse draft order. I like the lottery aspect. 10 playoff teams get the first 10 picks. Random lottery determines the order. Lottery is held 20 minutes before the draft, creating total mayhem. The other 20 teams pick in the order they finished in descending order of finish. Owner of the worst team has to conduct the lottery, and sit on stage for the first 29 picks, as punishment for his team being so bad. How would a bad team acquire talent? Good scouting and smart transactions. Also, and this would be the MLBPA's angle - spend money on acquiring talent. No more gutting the payroll to get worse to get better. It's one thing to rebuild, it's the another to make losing the goal. I mean, preaching to the choir on that one. I just don't think we're getting rid of the draft, so let's just not make it this reward for sucking. Soccer seems to be doing fine, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 20, 2019 13:07:28 GMT -5
Good scouting and smart transactions. Also, and this would be the MLBPA's angle - spend money on acquiring talent. No more gutting the payroll to get worse to get better. It's one thing to rebuild, it's the another to make losing the goal. Good scouting can't beat sheer brute force. To be fair, smart transactions are what led us to this situation. Create a minimum payroll, that way teams still have some concrete number to upheld and therefore maintain an honest relation with the fanbase. And the MLBPA can suck a lemon with that motto, they need to stop being so fixated on how much money the owners have and worry about maximizing it as much as possible among everyone. People don't buy that class conflict sh*t anymore, especially not in sports. I mean, preaching to the choir on that one. I just don't think we're getting rid of the draft, so let's just not make it this reward for sucking. Soccer seems to be doing fine, for what it's worth. Soccer is doing fine because the sport is awesome, I'm not sure how every league being balls deep into money laundering schemes would qualify as "fine" though. The top games are good sure but what kind of Unit 731 existential nightmares is it probably allowing to exist? That's not even mentioning that Messi and Neymar are tax fraud linchpins or that Cristiano Ronaldo is a rapist. Besides, the Athletics and Braves were atrocious as recently as 2017 and they were pretty good last season. The Brewers in 2016 were scary bad and they were the best team in the NL last season. You can't beat that competitive balance, Levante against Girona is going to f*cking suck for the next 100 years. Sure Real and Barcelona is pretty good TV, but that's like watching NASCAR for the car crashes. Sure the adrenaline pump is cool and you never know what kind of messed up thing you're going to watch, but the overall experience is shallow.
|
|
|