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.
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 9:10:50 GMT -5
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 10, 2018 9:10:50 GMT -5
Sox Prospects posters: The market is slow because of Scott Boras! Also Sox Prospects posters: Why can’t they sign Cobb and Martinez? We are the Red Sox. You're probably trading salary to do both. Most likely Porcello, which could be counter productive, unless you think Cobb is better (I'm in this camp who thinks Cobb is better than Porcello). Then you have to question the return for Porcello and question whether losing draft picks and international pool money is worth the slight upgrade over two years of Porcello.It's a pretty complex scenario, to put it simply. It's totally Boras's fault that MLB has instituted a system of free agent compensation so onerous that teams don't want to sign legitimately good ballplayers. Anyway five out of six division winners are already decided, enjoy another exciting season MLB fans.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 10, 2018 9:44:50 GMT -5
www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/85013/real-or-not-special-edition-reasons-for-the-sloooow-hot-stove-seasonBoras is a big problem this year, but he's certainly not the only reason. Just adding him with so many top free agents to a market with all these conditions makes it 5X worse. You couldn't have picked a worse year for Boras to control so many top free agents. So few top spending teams have money, so I assume a bunch of agents are waiting on those teams. The agents for Morrison, Duda and Bruce could be hoping that Martinez signs else where. Then the Red Sox might increase the market for those guys. Those top guys usually set the market. If they don't sign everyone is left waiting. Same with a team like the Giants. They could be holding up a bunch of players like Cain, Gomez and Bruce. There is definitely a bunch of teams and agents involved in collusion on some level. Money might be limited, but it's not this limited. The majority of these players will get paid, but it seems teams want to lower the years and thus total dollars. Agents, especially guys like Boras won't have that or are going to try hard to prevent it. The Red Sox should use this to their advantage. If you can sign guys on the cheap to one and two year deals, that you normally wouldn't have a chance to, do it. Guys like Nunez and Reed always seemed like a luxury we most likely couldn't afford. Now maybe we can get them. We should get a starter on a one year deal. Throw some money around and build the best depth you can.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 15:17:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 15:17:52 GMT -5
Sox Prospects posters: The market is slow because of Scott Boras! Also Sox Prospects posters: You're probably trading salary to do both. Most likely Porcello, which could be counter productive, unless you think Cobb is better (I'm in this camp who thinks Cobb is better than Porcello). Then you have to question the return for Porcello and question whether losing draft picks and international pool money is worth the slight upgrade over two years of Porcello.It's a pretty complex scenario, to put it simply. It's totally Boras's fault that MLB has instituted a system of free agent compensation so onerous that teams don't want to sign legitimately good ballplayers. Anyway five out of six division winners are already decided, enjoy another exciting season MLB fans. The compensation system penalties went down from the last CBA. That whole discussion was about whether it was worth it to trade Porcello and then sign Cobb. Which it probably wouldn't have been because of the return of Porcello and the draft picks lost to sign Cobb. Who knows though, maybe the return of Porcello in a trade is worth the draft picks lost. I was just insinuating that a trade seemed unlikely. None of that had to do with Boras.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 10, 2018 15:29:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 16:54:51 GMT -5
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 10, 2018 16:54:51 GMT -5
... The compensation system penalties went down from the last CBA. ... You're missing the point. It isn't about signing compensation, it's about the luxury tax. Those taxes go from 20%, to 30%, to 50% of overage and they stay that way as long as the team can't get below the cap. But that's just the start. There are additional surcharges for being way above the tax threshold, and either your first or second draft choice will be moved back 10 places if you're $40 million over the tax. There's even this little gem that should open your eyes when it comes to penalties going down under this CBA: The takeaway is very clear from all this. Signing 6-7 year contracts for $20-$25 million for players who may be unproductive long before that contract ends is riskier than ever. A few of those foolish decisions and you'll be bleeding 10s of millions a year, while also getting dinged the young talent - including the increasingly important international talent - that could let you dig yourself out of that hole. That's what this is about. It's highly unlikely we'll see very many of those long-term deals going forward. None of the teams has a crystal ball that will let them see that far into the future and because of that they're unwilling to mortgage their budgets in that way. That is the reality that players hitting free agency are going to have to live with under this CBA.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 18:03:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 18:03:54 GMT -5
... The compensation system penalties went down from the last CBA. ... You're missing the point. It isn't about signing compensation, it's about the luxury tax. Those taxes go from 20%, to 30%, to 50% of overage and they stay that way as long as the team can't get below the cap. But that's just the start. There are additional surcharges for being way above the tax threshold, and either your first or second draft choice will be moved back 10 places if you're $40 million over the tax. There's even this little gem that should open your eyes when it comes to penalties going down under this CBA: The takeaway is very clear from all this. Signing 6-7 year contracts for $20-$25 million for players who may be unproductive long before that contract ends is riskier than ever. A few of those foolish decisions and you'll be bleeding 10s of millions a year, while also getting dinged the young talent - including the increasingly important international talent - that could let you dig yourself out of that hole. That's what this is about. It's highly unlikely we'll see very many of those long-term deals going forward. None of the teams has a crystal ball that will let them see that far into the future and because of that they're unwilling to mortgage their budgets in that way. That is the reality that players hitting free agency are going to have to live with under this CBA. You only lose 2nd and 5th round picks and international pool money with players that have qualifying offer attached. The real penalties comes after being in the penalty for over 3 years or being 40 million dollars over. You don't lose picks for signing your own players and you won't lose picks for signing J.D. Martinez for example.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 21:23:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 21:23:01 GMT -5
In the next CBA agreement, the owners and players are going to have to control the number of years guarenteed in the future with free agency or we are going to continue to see these epic staredowns. The players and agents are overvaluing themselves because of past contracts like Crawford, Fielder, Heyward, etc. These players as teams have learned, got WAY too many guarenteed years. These were great players, but not superstars and these contracts are the kind of contracts that the agents are asking for.
Hosmer is probably sitting out for a 8 year contract, even though he has a 7 year contract on hand from the Padres (as confirmed by Jim Bowden).
J.D. Martinez is waiting for a 7 year contract even though he has a 5 year offer in hand from the Sox.
Cain is most likely asking for 5 years, even though he is worth 3 or 4 years. Same with Moustakas. Same with Greg Holland.
All of these players are asking for more years than they are worth and as teams are learning, having one albatross contract for a long period of time doing nothing for you can affect a lot in how you build your team. The Pablo Sandoval contract is affecting the Sox of fielding the best team for example.
Teams are still willing to pay through the nose for less years. Middle relievers are getting 9 million a year for 2 or 3 years. Wade Davis got a great amount of money for three guarenteed years. Even the friggen cheap Mets paid through the nose for Cespedes for 4 years.
MLB needs to adopt the NBA's model of guaranteeing so many years in free agency. 6 years for position players, 5 years for starting pitchers, 4 years for relievers. The hometown team can offer 1 year extra in an effort to keep the player. That would solve A LOT of these problems. That way no one is demanding more years than what they are worth.
That is why the system is broken, not because of the compensation system. The only team that seams to be shying away from signing free agents with QO offers attached is the Giants, who have the second highest 2nd round pick. The Padres again aren't blinking a eye at offering 7 years to Hosmer to get him.
It comes down to the players and agents overvaluing their markets (again). They want the long superstar contracts, when they aren't superstars. The superstars will get their 8-11 year deals because a lot of teams are looking for a face of the franchise, but these great players who fall short of that (especially in this free agency class), shouldn't be fit in with the superstar mold of player and what that player is worth.
Either fix the number of years you can hand out to players in free agency or get these players back on steroids again so that they are more of a bet to produce in their late 30's. That's the only solution I can see happening with this problem.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 21:34:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 10, 2018 21:34:34 GMT -5
If that's a negotiating point for MLB during the next CBA, then there will 100% be a player strike. Why would the players EVER agree to limit their future earning potential like that?
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 21:41:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 21:41:52 GMT -5
If that's a negotiating point for MLB during the next CBA, then there will 100% be a player strike. Why would the players EVER agree to limit their future earning potential? Because MLB will stop paying for players for years they can't produce. In fact, they ALREADY are telling the players that they aren't willing to overpay in terms of years with non superstar talent. The teams and MLB will have to give up something, like a year of control (5 years to free agency, instead of 6), but something has to give. This isn't a coincidence people in terms of what's going on.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 21:48:50 GMT -5
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 10, 2018 21:48:50 GMT -5
Owners would rather give RARE players long term deals than give up a year of control to ALL their players.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 22:06:22 GMT -5
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 10, 2018 22:06:22 GMT -5
If that's a negotiating point for MLB during the next CBA, then there will 100% be a player strike. Why would the players EVER agree to limit their future earning potential? Because MLB will stop paying for players for years they can't produce. In fact, they ALREADY are telling the players that they aren't willing to overpay in terms of years with non superstar talent. The teams and MLB will have to give up something, like a year of control (5 years to free agency, instead of 6), but something has to give. This isn't a coincidence people in terms of what's going on. But it's like saying, "I can't stop drinking this Soda. I think the government should ban it." Just because a handful of bad contracts have been signed in the past, doesn't mean MLB should ban all contracts over a certain length going forward. Players will only get what the market says they will get, and the waiting during this off-season isn't proof the system doesn't work, it's proof that it does.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 23:22:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 23:22:34 GMT -5
Because MLB will stop paying for players for years they can't produce. In fact, they ALREADY are telling the players that they aren't willing to overpay in terms of years with non superstar talent. The teams and MLB will have to give up something, like a year of control (5 years to free agency, instead of 6), but something has to give. This isn't a coincidence people in terms of what's going on. But it's like saying, "I can't stop drinking this Soda. I think the government should ban it." Just because a handful of bad contracts have been signed in the past, doesn't mean MLB should ban all contracts over a certain length going forward. Players will only get what the market says they will get, and the waiting during this off-season isn't proof the system doesn't work, it's proof that it does. Okay, then the players will continue to get less and less in free agency and not get compensated like getting 5 years of control instead of 6. I'm sure the players union would love that.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 23:27:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 10, 2018 23:27:36 GMT -5
Owners would rather give RARE players long term deals than give up a year of control to ALL their players. That's not true. If the owners can control the market and make it reasonable for them to not lose money on dead contracts, then it would be a total win for them. The last year of arbitration is being close to paid as a free agent now anyways. Players are making huge dollars in the last year of arbitration.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 10, 2018 23:54:59 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jan 10, 2018 23:54:59 GMT -5
Owners would rather give RARE players long term deals than give up a year of control to ALL their players. That's not true. If the owners can control the market and make it reasonable for them to not lose money on dead contracts, then it would be a total win for them. The last year of arbitration is being close to paid as a free agent now anyways. Players are making huge dollars in the last year of arbitration. If the last year of arbitration were a free agent year instead, the player would get wayyyyy more added to his contract because it would be in the prime of his career. A team would expect the most production in the first year of any free agent deal.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 0:13:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 11, 2018 0:13:01 GMT -5
That's not true. If the owners can control the market and make it reasonable for them to not lose money on dead contracts, then it would be a total win for them. The last year of arbitration is being close to paid as a free agent now anyways. Players are making huge dollars in the last year of arbitration. If the last year of arbitration were a free agent year instead, the player would get wayyyyy more added to his contract because it would be in the prime of his career. A team would expect the most production in the first year of any free agent deal. I'm sure teams would prefer to pay players at that point in their careers rather than pay Pujols until he's 41.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 0:25:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 11, 2018 0:25:01 GMT -5
The system is in fact broken. I don't know how anyone can say the system is working when over 80 percent of the free agent class is left unsigned in the second week of January.
Hey look Jay Bruce signed for 3 years. That's definitely not a trend happening in this free agency period....
Someone will eventually sign for more than 3 years this offseason, eventually....is the key word this offseason.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 1:02:53 GMT -5
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 11, 2018 1:02:53 GMT -5
www.si.com/mlb/2017/11/07/mlb-free-agency-compensation-rules-draft-picks-qualifying-offerThis isn't even close to all just the CBA. Only 9 players have draft picks attached and only 3 teams paid luxury tax last year. They incorrectly list the Red Sox. So only 3 teams would be giving up 2nd, 5th highest picks and 1 million international money to sign a free agent with a pick attached. Everyone else is giving up their third highest pick, which is a huge improvement over the last CBA. I'd argue even the luxury tax teams are getting hit about the same. A 2nd round and 5 round pick, plus a million in international money is about equal to a first round pick. Assuming it's a late first rounder, big improvement over a mid first rounder. The international bonus money seems huge, but it was so easy to trade for that so far it's a non-issue. You could say it's an improvement even for luxury tax teams. This is clearly an improvement overall and has no bearing on what is currently happening. The small increase in the luxury tax is effecting the top spending teams. As you see them go into a spend big for 2 years, then get under and repeat type cycle. The new 20 million over tax and the 40 million over move pick back 10 spots are playing a big role. Every dollar over the tax line by 20 million jumps to almost dollar for dollar in year 3. That is a 50% increase. This is playing a role, but not a huge one. Your only talking about two teams this year. The Red Sox are going to blow past the line after resetting last year. You then have the next group of teams, well below the line, but not wanting to go over. Not a massive group of teams though. The majority of the teams have plenty of money to spend without worrying anout the luxury tax. Now add in all teams get a 50 million payment this year and TV contracts have gone wild in recent years. What is going on currently is more due to other factors than the CBA. Very weak free agent class, where most of the top players have major question marks. Boras controlling so many top free agents and doing what he does. If he really has Hosmer offer of 7 years 147 million and won't accept, that's crazy. That seems like a clear overpay and a great deal for Hosmer. I do really buy teams are getting smarter and are learning how to operate under the luxury tax. That's where I think you get teams wanting to lower the years for a little higher AAV, so you don't have Sandoval killing you for 4 years. It sure seems a bunch of lower to mid market teams are colluding in this regard. Then you have Boras leading the players agents charge of revenue is up, contracts should be increasing. We want the years and total dollar amount. This years contracts set the bar for next years massive free agent class. This is where I think Boras and other agents are doing more harm than good. The owners/teams picked a perfect free agent class to try and reset the market. Trying to lower the cost for next year, in both total dollars and years. The agents really need to just accept it and get the best deals they can. You don't want to flood next years class with a bunch of guys coming off one year deals, but I'm sure the owners do. Boras can't get top spending teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Tigers and Red Sox bidding against one another. Nevermind his free agents, while the best this years aren't crazy elite guys. Look at Bruce, wanted 5 years 90 million. Just signed for 3 years 39 million with Mets. That's is a fair deal. Maybe a little low considering revenues, but not horrible. He is risky. Take the deals and fight your battles next year agents! I'm looking at you Boras! Maybe the owners/teams win this year, but next year I'm guessing they won't. Boras you can lose a battle and still win the war!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2018 9:09:13 GMT -5
If that's a negotiating point for MLB during the next CBA, then there will 100% be a player strike. Why would the players EVER agree to limit their future earning potential? Because MLB will stop paying for players for years they can't produce. In fact, they ALREADY are telling the players that they aren't willing to overpay in terms of years with non superstar talent. The teams and MLB will have to give up something, like a year of control (5 years to free agency, instead of 6), but something has to give. This isn't a coincidence people in terms of what's going on. So let the market figure it out. Why do we need to make a new rule about this?
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 9:23:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Coreno likes this
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 11, 2018 9:23:16 GMT -5
The system is in fact broken. I don't know how anyone can say the system is working when over 80 percent of the free agent class is left unsigned in the second week of January. Hey look Jay Bruce signed for 3 years. That's definitely not a trend happening in this free agency period.... Someone will eventually sign for more than 3 years this offseason, eventually....is the key word this offseason. You said CBA changes need to happen so players don't get long term contracts. Players are already not getting those right now. The waiting is proof the market is working. Why does there need to be CBA changes for something that is already happening? It makes absolutely zero sense. Again, your impatience during one offseason isn't reason enough to blow up the whole system. Either the market will return back to normal, or the players will accept the change and sign for less years. But just because the signings begin happening in January/February, instead of November/December, doesn't mean anything is broken.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 11, 2018 9:50:58 GMT -5
I don't see any changes coming. This is like the market correction after the ARod and Manny deals, just happening before deals like that are given. Basically teams letting agents know 10 year 400 million is just not happening. Not with the luxury tax line so low.
How is the luxury tax line not tied to revenue? That's the real issue, as it seems it should be about 20 million higher, if not more.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 10:06:20 GMT -5
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2018 10:06:20 GMT -5
How is the luxury tax line not tied to revenue? It's because the owners want more money, and because Tony Clark is bad at his job.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 10:10:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 11, 2018 10:10:48 GMT -5
How is the luxury tax line not tied to revenue? That's the real issue, as it seems it should be about 20 million higher, if not more. This is the exact question we should be asking, and the main part of the CBA that needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 11:55:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 11, 2018 11:55:11 GMT -5
The system is in fact broken. I don't know how anyone can say the system is working when over 80 percent of the free agent class is left unsigned in the second week of January. Hey look Jay Bruce signed for 3 years. That's definitely not a trend happening in this free agency period.... Someone will eventually sign for more than 3 years this offseason, eventually....is the key word this offseason. You said CBA changes need to happen so players don't get long term contracts. Players are already not getting those right now. The waiting is proof the market is working. Why does there need to be CBA changes for something that is already happening? It makes absolutely zero sense. Again, your impatience during one offseason isn't reason enough to blow up the whole system. Either the market will return back to normal, or the players will accept the change and sign for less years. But just because the signings begin happening in January/February, instead of November/December, doesn't mean anything is broken. Then we wait until spring training and then maybe the regular season to see signings. Which means, yeap things are broken in order to sign players before the season starts. Do you think the players union is loving the fact that players are having to wait the whole off-season and into spring training to get players signed? This isn't just my impatience. This is getting noticed all around baseball and is getting talked about all around baseball. Fixing the number of years a player can sign to in a max deal would help fix all of this. Imagine the kind of stupid years a player like Gordon Hayward would of asked in the NBA if that league let him ask however many years he wanted in a contract.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 12:15:47 GMT -5
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2018 12:15:47 GMT -5
You said CBA changes need to happen so players don't get long term contracts. Players are already not getting those right now. The waiting is proof the market is working. Why does there need to be CBA changes for something that is already happening? It makes absolutely zero sense. Again, your impatience during one offseason isn't reason enough to blow up the whole system. Either the market will return back to normal, or the players will accept the change and sign for less years. But just because the signings begin happening in January/February, instead of November/December, doesn't mean anything is broken. Then we wait until spring training and then maybe the regular season to see signings. Which means, yeap things are broken in order to sign players before the season starts. Do you think the players union is loving the fact that players are having to wait the whole off-season and into spring training to get players signed? This isn't just my impatience. This is getting noticed all around baseball and is getting talked about all around baseball. Fixing the number of years a player can sign to in a max deal would help fix all of this. Imagine the kind of stupid years a player like Gordon Hayward would of asked in the NBA if that league let him ask however many years he wanted in a contract.Why am I supposed to care?
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 11, 2018 12:16:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 11, 2018 12:16:37 GMT -5
You said CBA changes need to happen so players don't get long term contracts. Players are already not getting those right now. The waiting is proof the market is working. Why does there need to be CBA changes for something that is already happening? It makes absolutely zero sense. Again, your impatience during one offseason isn't reason enough to blow up the whole system. Either the market will return back to normal, or the players will accept the change and sign for less years. But just because the signings begin happening in January/February, instead of November/December, doesn't mean anything is broken. Then we wait until spring training and then maybe the regular season to see signings. Which means, yeap things are broken in order to sign players before the season starts. Do you think the players union is loving the fact that players are having to wait the whole off-season and into spring training to get players signed? This isn't just my impatience. This is getting noticed all around baseball and is getting talked about all around baseball. Fixing the number of years a player can sign to in a max deal would help fix all of this. Imagine the kind of stupid years Gordon Hayward would of asked in the NBA if that league let him ask however many years he wanted in a contract. But what you're describing is not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. The NBA has capped contact length, but they also tie revenue to their salary cap (not to mention they have a salary floor). Some NBA players make more in their five year contracts than most MLB players will ever get in their lifetime. So if there is a problem, it's that MLB has artificially capped spending at a place nowhere close to their level of revenue, and some teams refuse to enter the market for no reason. The market is adjusting. That takes time. It might even take this whole offseason. But that doesn't mean sweeping changes need to be made to the CBA.
|
|
|