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 pedrofanforever45 on Feb 3, 2018 14:51:58 GMT -5
I'm looking at the Phillies, Braves, Orioles, Jays, Cardinals, White Sox, Mets, and Twins.
These teams in particular have money to spend and aren't spending it. 3 of them is in a rebuild but could add more additions to help the young players. One of them is the Cardinals who were willing to overspend on Heyward two years ago and got Fowler instead for a lot less and haven't spent a ton since then. The Jays's management refuses to overspend on anyone in general and the Orioles might have the one of the 3 worst owners in baseball. The Mets are the laughing stock of the league with the way they cry poor in the middle of New York City.
These fan bases outside of maybe the White Sox (because they have done a great job rebuilding so far), should be mad at their direction of their teams and the unwillingness to spend.
The Pirates were in a similar situation where they went to the playoffs 3 straight years and their biggest acquisitions were Friese and Kang.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 3, 2018 14:56:46 GMT -5
For me you really can't understand what's going on without knowing the offers. So far the guys that have signed got very good deals. Reported offers on Martinez and Hosmer have been big legit offers. So the agents and players anger seems misplaced.
At the same time the number of teams doing nothing is crazy. Especially given every team got an extra 50 million. That being said I think a bunch of players were expecting way more than they should have. I mean if Harper was a free agent he would get 200 plus million. This wasn't a great class and yet it seems everyone wants top dollar. At the same time you would think clubs that might not have wanted to get involved, would for great deals. Even if just to trade the guys at the deadline. There have been almost none of those type of deals. A's adding guys like Hill or Plouffe. Are teams not interested ? Or agents not willing to accept anything but huge deals?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 3, 2018 15:59:10 GMT -5
I'm looking at the Phillies, Braves, Orioles, Jays, Cardinals, White Sox, Mets, and Twins. These teams in particular have money to spend and aren't spending it. 3 of them is in a rebuild but could add more additions to help the young players. One of them is the Cardinals who were willing to overspend on Heyward two years ago and got Fowler instead for a lot less and haven't spent a ton since then. The Jays's management refuses to overspend on anyone in general and the Orioles might have the one of the 3 worst owners in baseball. The Mets are the laughing stock of the league with the way they cry poor in the middle of New York City. These fan bases outside of maybe the White Sox (because they have done a great job rebuilding so far), should be mad at their direction of their teams and the unwillingness to spend. The Pirates were in a similar situation where they went to the playoffs 3 straight years and their biggest acquisitions were Friese and Kang. This still seems like an oversimplification. The Mets signed Jay Bruce, resigned Reyes. They’ve kicked tires on others, but they have problems. Should they sign Moustakis? Then, with Wright, they are payng about $40 million for 3B. Sign Hosmer? They have a young 1B they want to see. Sign a top line starter? They are going to have bills coming on de Grom, Thor, maybe a few others. In a way, the Mets are an example of a horrible situation: they are not going to contend (unless all their pitchers have big years at once, including Harvey); but they have investments that make massive upgrades hard. Guys like Wright are roster death, and they are perfect reasons for avoiding having, say, $20 million sunk in a 37 ywar old Hosmer.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 3, 2018 16:33:22 GMT -5
Baseball could really only be compared to hockey when it comes to economics because of the vast disparity between the revenues of the large markets and small ones. I think the only thing that could be done to improve the "tanking" aspect would be with more revenue sharing and a salary floor below which, a team would not receive some or all of their revenue sharing.
But in any case, it's dumb to say that a rebuilding team should go out and commit to a 6-7 year deal for Hosmer because they have money to spend, since that takes away from the money they have to spend when they're ready to compete.
While a team projected to win 87-88 games should value each additional WAR at a very high level, like $15 million/WAR, a team projected to win 65 games should value each WAR as next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 3, 2018 19:23:22 GMT -5
"Tanking" has been at the top of agent offseason rhetoric for a couple years now, since it became an issue in the NBA. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tanking-does-mlb-really-have-a-problem/ They're bringing it back up again now that the slow offseason has more of a spotlight on financial issues in the game and that the Marlins are doing an extreme sell-off.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 3, 2018 21:52:18 GMT -5
So when do we start a predict the lockout date thread ?
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Feb 3, 2018 23:43:42 GMT -5
The current economic climate in the game is pretty toxic. It is bad for fans and the future of the game. The amount of years being commanded by the top free agents is the big problem, not necessarily the salary numbers. Here is why.
Getting a team to the "pretty good, probably can compete for a playoff spot is pretty doable. This is where smart executives, good drafting, and smart signings come into play. This is pretty much a skill based proposition, although luck certainly plays a role. The problem comes when a team wants to spent some money in the free agent market in order to go for it and push to the next level.
The current free agent market means that almost all free agent signings of top-tier players are bad signings. The number of years that elite players receive mean that the last year or three of the contract is going to be a waste of money. If teams are simply unlucky, then these contracts can be disasters. If they make poor choices in who to sign and they are unlucky, then those signings can be disastrous, setting teams back years, especially small market teams.
The obvious solutions to this is for teams to avoid bad contracts, just don't sign those players. But this ignores why most teams sign elite talent, to actually have more than a token chance to win a championship. When teams just muddle along, settling for pretty good, those teams get derided by fans, get dismissed by the media, and resign themeslves to long stretches of mediocrity, with perhaps an occasional, random season of excellence that is mostly fueled by good luck. Avoiding the elite talent largely avoids the risks inherent in those signings, but it also limits the ability for teams to go from pretty good to outstanding, and that is bad for the game and bad for fans.
For instance, imagine if Pittsburgh could have "gone for it" a few years back when they were pretty good, but not really contenders. They could have signed some elite talent, spent big for a few years with a reasonable expectation of reward without assuming a bunch of long term risk. They could have made a splash and the playoff landscape would have been fresh and excited. Now imagine 5-6 upstart, small market teams doing that every year or two; that would be awesome. That would be good for the game.
This topic is about far more than players versus owners (except for minor leaguers, they are absolutely exploited) or $50 hotdogs, it is about the good of the game. The rich owners and the rich players are going to continue getting richer, but the current dynamic where free agents can only be had for stupid contracts is bad for the game. It is bad because moribund teams waiting for bad contracts to expire is boring, and perpetually mediocre teams that avoid the free agent market is mostly boring. Currently, we have a lot of mediocrity, which, not incidentally, leads teams to pursue tanking or other more convoluted schemes to get obtain talent (Like the Billy Bean scheme of signing talent with the intent to sell the plyer at the trade deadline for a profit). Teams have to have a way to use the free agent market to get better AND not mortgage the future. The market isn't going to correct itself, baseball has to impose limits on itself, because the current market is set up to perpetuate bad contracts, not curtail them.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 3, 2018 23:58:31 GMT -5
I guess I don’t see how things are at a crisis relative to, what, 10, 15 years ago. I mean, the last 3 champs are the Astros, Cubs, and Royals (!). That is a team that’s never won, the Cubs, and the Royals who have won once. Sure, the Cubs have huge money... but they always have.
This just seems like a tempest in a teapot. Look at a team like the Mariners: they’ve added and added payroll (like the massive Cano contract), and, well, they remain painful. But they’ve tried.
I was a Mets fan as a little kid. Late 70s-early 80s Mets — now that was bad. And hopeless. Then... Strawberry came along, Gooden (I’d moved on to the Sox by then, damn them...)...
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 4, 2018 2:26:09 GMT -5
The biggest problem is the signing of top talent isn't it? The $200 million dollar contracts. People think there is league collusion and there may be some but I think it's more likely that a lot more teams just see these sorts of deals rarely pay off. They are just doing the math and they don't want to sign some of these guys for the money they want. It's that simple.
The league and owners could get together and do something more equitable for everyone involved but those star players really control the union. People don't care that much if the Brock Holts of the world strike. They want to see Mookie and Sales...etc. If the stars would allow it they could enable higher contracts for most of the players but they want unlimited earnings potential. That probably doesn't change unfortunately. So team owners are choosing to suppress salaries for free agents this year. That may continue for a while because it appears to be working.
If I were running a team like the Marlins I would focus on developing players and probably do exactly what they have been doing. Their TV deals and revenue sharing make them profitable even with minor league players on the roster. The league is positioned to consist of haves and have nots almost inevitably.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 4, 2018 5:38:01 GMT -5
That's the problem this year, no one deserves 200 million. They are all closer to 100 million dollar players, yet agents think top guys every year should get 200 million. Darvish isn't Sale and Martinez isn't a Betts type player. All the top guys have major question marks. No doubt in my mind next year a bunch of guys get 200 million plus contracts. I don't think collusion is the reason why the top guys remain unsigned. Collusion though is effecting all the other guys. This time of year is when normal rebuilding teams are striking value deals for Vets they can later flip. There has been almost none of that. It's like most mid to small market teams are just sitting out free agency. That's not the new CBA, unless the agents aren't allowing their players to sign and those teams are making those types of offers. Agents comments are saying that are frustrated by the amount of money teams have to spend, is that teams being cheap or agents just wanting more than they should? I see nothing wrong with Darvish getting 90 to 100 million, yet I can see his agent thinking he deserves 150 plus million. So I would love to know what type of offers he has received. I mean he's more like Zimmerman at this point, than a true Ace. He was never going to get David Price money.
Still the lack of movement on the lower tier guys is shocking. You can't tell me teams are scared of giving out one and two year deals to guys like Duda and Frazier. Heck even guys like Gomez, who makes sense for a ton of teams. I really want, heck need to know what type of offers these guys have got. Have they received no offers or is this just the agents wanting crazy deals. Those 3 players always seemed like they would get short-term low money deals. Teams are never afraid to give out those deals, but would be afraid to give players like that 3 year deals. Frazier to Yankees for 1 year 10 million seems like a perfect match.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 4, 2018 8:33:58 GMT -5
The current economic climate in the game is pretty toxic. It is bad for fans and the future of the game. The amount of years being commanded by the top free agents is the big problem, not necessarily the salary numbers. Here is why. Getting a team to the "pretty good, probably can compete for a playoff spot is pretty doable. This is where smart executives, good drafting, and smart signings come into play. This is pretty much a skill based proposition, although luck certainly plays a role. The problem comes when a team wants to spent some money in the free agent market in order to go for it and push to the next level. I would postulate that the use of the word toxic is misleading. The skill and luck of front office decision makers comes at a hidden cost of doing business. Employees.The current free agent market means that almost all free agent signings of top-tier players are bad signings. The number of years that elite players receive mean that the last year or three of the contract is going to be a waste of money. If teams are simply unlucky, then these contracts can be disasters. If they make poor choices in who to sign and they are unlucky, then those signings can be disastrous, setting teams back years, especially small market teams. The market for free agency is one made up from contrived and artificial boundaries. The term marketplace is misused. MLB is a marketplace with self imposed rules agreed upon by both owner and player. To/for them it is a marketplace. To/for the revenue source, i.e. the fan[atic}s, this regulated marketplace is understood only so far as either party disseminates their positions and reasoning to their revenue source. "Bad" contracts can set back teams with respect to team success, but this rarely, if ever, leaves a lasting (or even temporary) red stain to the bottom line of a teams profitability.The obvious solutions to this is for teams to avoid bad contracts, just don't sign those players. But this ignores why most teams sign elite talent, to actually have more than a token chance to win a championship. When teams just muddle along, settling for pretty good, those teams get derided by fans, get dismissed by the media, and resign themeslves to long stretches of mediocrity, with perhaps an occasional, random season of excellence that is mostly fueled by good luck. Avoiding the elite talent largely avoids the risks inherent in those signings, but it also limits the ability for teams to go from pretty good to outstanding, and that is bad for the game and bad for fans. One could also argue that this would/could apply to revenue generating contracts for both the team and their core customers. Media contracts are far and away bigger than any player (or team payroll) contracts, yet there is little discussion or critique. This issue is referred to a big market versus small market. In the case of the individual fanatic their is no such thing as a bad contact, there is only the cable (or streaming media) bill. For instance, imagine if Pittsburgh could have "gone for it" a few years back when they were pretty good, but not really contenders. They could have signed some elite talent, spent big for a few years with a reasonable expectation of reward without assuming a bunch of long term risk. They could have made a splash and the playoff landscape would have been fresh and excited. Now imagine 5-6 upstart, small market teams doing that every year or two; that would be awesome. That would be good for the game. The Bucos had their chance, and while the competition went big and signed Jon Lester, the Pirates were cautious, and it all came apart. OTOH the Royals went to the WS two consecutive years by making shrewd missing pieces trades and signings. (Davis/Cueto). Even Houston pulled the trigger on a championship by trading of Verlander. These "upstart" teams have a better track record than you give them credit for.This topic is about far more than players versus owners (except for minor leaguers, they are absolutely exploited) or $50 hotdogs, it is about the good of the game. The rich owners and the rich players are going to continue getting richer, but the current dynamic where free agents can only be had for stupid contracts is bad for the game. It is bad because moribund teams waiting for bad contracts to expire is boring, and perpetually mediocre teams that avoid the free agent market is mostly boring. Currently, we have a lot of mediocrity, which, not incidentally, leads teams to pursue tanking or other more convoluted schemes to get obtain talent (Like the Billy Bean scheme of signing talent with the intent to sell the plyer at the trade deadline for a profit). Teams have to have a way to use the free agent market to get better AND not mortgage the future. The market isn't going to correct itself, baseball has to impose limits on itself, because the current market is set up to perpetuate bad contracts, not curtail them. This topic "MLB Economics" has only been viewed through the prism of the media. They focus on outlays (player contracts), not revenue streams. The CBA is predominately directed to the "expense" or outlays. The reality show drama queens keep the focus on the celebrity of the owners and players (and the new stars, the SABR gurus). The "market" isn't going to correct itself because by and large the regulations (CBA) won't allow it. Free agency is only terminology. Real free agency can only exist in the back drop of a free marketplace. Imagine an elite free agent player in todays marketplace who wants to play in proximity to where he grew up, and was willing to sign a contract worth half his "SABR" value. Imagine Mike Trout or Bryce Harper. Imagine how the Phillies or Diamondbacks would benefit (ditto Joey Votto for the Blue Jays). Do you seriously believe that the local cable prices or ticket prices would reflect the good fortunes of these team? That's not the economic model that MLB has entered into, works. Try focusing on the time constraints and how they affect the bottom line. That will give you a better appreciation of how MLB determines what is for the good of the game. Packaging is a HUGE component of those media contracts.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Feb 8, 2018 12:12:52 GMT -5
One man's opinion...the future of baseball is not pretty. I've never seen so many red flags for the future of any major sport before.
Years of declining participation at the youth levels is a bad enough sign on its own, but this off-season to me truly highlights that they all have no clue how to garner interest in the sport. The NFL, for all its problems, will hit their off-season with a bang in a few weeks when free agency hits. Interest will spike in their off-season just as it used to for baseball. The NBA off-season is becoming more exciting too. The optimism built from off-season acquisitions and the hope that this year will be better than the last is what fuels a good portion of casual fan interest. You know, the people who drive revenues for a major sport. But no one outside of the Bronx can really have that feeling right now, can they? Major misfire by players and management this off-season, and at a critical time for the sport as well.
Add to that talk of an impending strike to 'fix' everything? Baseball would probably return from one this time the way the NHL did in the 90's, finding far smaller TV contracts and a smaller revenue base for a long time afterwards.
Love this site, the concept of building a team through the farm system, and the game itself, but I've never had this little interest in an upcoming baseball season before.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 8, 2018 12:32:05 GMT -5
One man's opinion...the future of baseball is not pretty. I've never seen so many red flags for the future of any major sport before. Years of declining participation at the youth levels is a bad enough sign on its own, but this off-season to me truly highlights that they all have no clue how to garner interest in the sport. The NFL, for all its problems, will hit their off-season with a bang in a few weeks when free agency hits. Interest will spike in their off-season just as it used to for baseball. The NBA off-season is becoming more exciting too. The optimism built from off-season acquisitions and the hope that this year will be better than the last is what fuels a good portion of casual fan interest. You know, the people who drive revenues for a major sport. But no one outside of the Bronx can really have that feeling right now, can they? Major misfire by players and management this off-season, and at a critical time for the sport as well. Add to that talk of an impending strike to 'fix' everything? Baseball would probably return from one this time the way the NHL did in the 90's, finding far smaller TV contracts and a smaller revenue base for a long time afterwards. Love this site, the concept of building a team through the farm system, and the game itself, but I've never had this little interest in an upcoming baseball season before. Very well said. I feel exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 8, 2018 12:33:39 GMT -5
Youth baseball is rumored to have more players than ever. That isn't true.
Parents are shying away from having their kids getting their brains bashed in on football and are turning to baseball these days.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 8, 2018 12:33:56 GMT -5
I'm excited about the season because I think the team underperformed last year and still won 93 games. I don't want to hear about the Yankees and how much better they are despite having half the team having career seasons last year.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 8, 2018 13:37:48 GMT -5
I'm excited about the season because I think the team underperformed last year and still won 93 games. I don't want to hear about the Yankees and how much better they are despite having half the team having career seasons last year. Aaron Judge certainly had an unanticipated historic season, but what other Yankees had overwhelming career years? I never thought Gregorius was much of a hitter when they acquired him, but he's been good for awhile. They didn't get a career year from Greg Bird or Clint Frazier or even Gary Sanchez who had better numbers the year before. Gardner didn't have a career year. Gray or Sabathia didn't have their best years although Sabathia was better than anticipated. Tanaka had a down year although he looked good at the end of the season. Chapman had his struggles and Betances totally lost his control. I don't know if Kahnle had his career year or is flat out good. Perhaps Green had his career year. Hicks might have had his career year as well, although it wasn't exactly overwhelming. I'm not convinced that Severino won't be as good going forward as he was last year. I guess I just don't see how the Yankees are so maxed out. Stanton might not smack 59 homers nor Judge repeat his 52 blasts, but it's not hard to see Judge hitting .240 - .250 with 100 walks, 200 Ks and 35 - 40 homers. Likewise it's not hard to see Stanton hitting 40 homers. I figure Bird will pick up the slack, Sanchez could be better, and I think C Frazier is capable of blossoming and they have two very young promising near ready hitters in the infield in Andujar and Torres. What the Yankees need to do go improve themselves is to find a top notch starter (I'm surprised they didn't come away with Cole) and a solid lefty reliever. I hope the Red Sox find a way to get JDM and a lefty reliever before the Yankees get what they need.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2018 14:06:55 GMT -5
Youth baseball is rumored to have more players than ever. That isn't true. Parents are shying away from having their kids getting their brains bashed in on football and are turning to baseball these days. I've never stopped to watch a pee-wee football game or a pick-up basketball game. I've stopped scores of times to watch softball games (mens and womens) Little League, Legion games, even town games (yes they still play town baseball on the Delmarva peninsula). What I try not to watch is televised games. Oh, I do now and again, but what a TV production crew gravitates to and that which my own sensibilities as a baseball voyeur choose to observe are very nearly incompatible. If it were not for the CF camera view I would probably forego televised games altogether. FWIW listening and talking to fans in the stands at these youth oriented (and sometimes Senior oriented) diamond venues beats the heck out of listening to drunks talk about PEDs, L/R splits or (mis)management decisions. Never confuse the business of baseball with the game.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2018 14:40:33 GMT -5
I'm excited about the season because I think the team underperformed last year and still won 93 games. I don't want to hear about the Yankees and how much better they are despite having half the team having career seasons last year. And Both teams fired their field managers. I'm not so sure how much the team (Red Sox) underperformed last year. If you look just at the stats you could argue that as a "team" they over performed given their won-loss record. As for the Yankees, offensively they outperformed the Red Sox in 2017, and they added Giancarlo Stanton. Pretty safe bet the Yankee offense will be better than the Red Sox offense this year as well. If the Yankees win the season series against the Red Sox (again) this year, they will probably win the division given that their improved offense will shred the rest of the teams in the ALE more efficiently then the Red Sox offense, and given that the odds of the Red Sox going 15-2 in extra inning games under a rookie manager are fairly remote. Excited? Of course. The renewal of life begins on opening day. This team is a playoff caliber team. Aaron F. Boone is a putz. The Bronx is a pigsty. Mike Stanton is a transvestite. Mashiaro Tanaka is the son of a war criminal. Brett Gardener has hemorrhoids. C.C. Sabathia wears a D-cup sports bra. Pythagoras had it all wrong, it's about isosceles and sometimes scalene. Damn the torpedoes......
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 8, 2018 15:09:44 GMT -5
One man's opinion...the future of baseball is not pretty. I've never seen so many red flags for the future of any major sport before. Years of declining participation at the youth levels is a bad enough sign on its own, but this off-season to me truly highlights that they all have no clue how to garner interest in the sport. The NFL, for all its problems, will hit their off-season with a bang in a few weeks when free agency hits. Interest will spike in their off-season just as it used to for baseball. The NBA off-season is becoming more exciting too. The optimism built from off-season acquisitions and the hope that this year will be better than the last is what fuels a good portion of casual fan interest. You know, the people who drive revenues for a major sport. But no one outside of the Bronx can really have that feeling right now, can they? Major misfire by players and management this off-season, and at a critical time for the sport as well. Add to that talk of an impending strike to 'fix' everything? Baseball would probably return from one this time the way the NHL did in the 90's, finding far smaller TV contracts and a smaller revenue base for a long time afterwards. Love this site, the concept of building a team through the farm system, and the game itself, but I've never had this little interest in an upcoming baseball season before. One could turn this around and say... baseball might be healthier than either the NFL or the NBA. The NFL has flagging ratings, has become a flashpoint for American politics, and has serious medical issues that will cut into its talent pool (and it is the only one of the 3 major sports to have no real international pool of talent). The NBA is moving towards a point when players decide on their own which team will be champion for years -- for all the big/small market stuff in baseball, what must it be like to be a fan in Charlotte or Memphis, knowing that there are small odds you will win a title in your lifetime? I think baseball, like the stock market, is facing a correction. Contracts have gotten insane, and now they are coming back to earth a bit. But for all that, the Red Sox look good, the Yankees appear to be the Bombers again (both good for the game), a surprise team won last year, and there are a lot of teams that look competitive. Now... that said.... baseball has its problems, too. What makes me uneasy is the general decline of pro sports. Why are they all losing popularity at the same time? What does it point to in the broader culture?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 23, 2018 16:03:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 23, 2018 16:45:59 GMT -5
For the new CBA this is really the first year all the extra taxes and penalties go into effect. It has driven big time spenders like tha Dodgers and Yankees to cut a ton. Along with all the Tanking teams cutting payroll. Then add on that every team got 50 million extra this year. We haven't seen any real crazy contracts given out. Going to be hard for this year to be close to 50%. With all that extra money teams would have had to spend more than normal, yet they seem to be spending less. Then as the luxury tax hardly rises and that upper limit being even a limit for teams like the Red Sox,the days of a 50 50 split might be over. On the other hand, next years free agent class could make everything good again. We'll have to wait and see if this is a one year type thing or a fundamental change to baseball economics.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 23, 2018 17:53:04 GMT -5
I believe the teams like the Dodgers and Yankees that are going under the CBT this year are only doing so for one year to reset their penalties, like the Sox did last year. I'd expect between that and the 2018-19 free agent bonanza, this could very well prove to be a one-year blip. We'll have to wait and see.
I think it's a simple solution, as stated above - if teams are smartening up that free agent contracts for 30+yos are bad value, then they are going to have to tweak the front end of team control and arbitration so that players get paid sooner. Frankly, this benefits all sides, as the teams are paying for years when the players are worth the money.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 26, 2018 19:12:26 GMT -5
Exactly. The barrier that has to be overcome is what I call "economic inertia". Players and agents have gotten very comfortable with the upside-down system that has developed over the years. It makes them money, lots of it, and they don't want that momentum to be derailed.
And while the solution may be simple, it goes against baseball's traditional hierarchy, with maturing player being asked to accept the idea that their skills are prone to erosion, and that those young dudes have some serious mojo that needs to be valued.
Getting the CBA changed to where the pay scales actually makes sense is going to be tough to accomplish because of the stakes participants have in the process. It's going to take some serious bargaining and time, lots of time.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 18, 2018 22:13:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 18, 2018 22:57:44 GMT -5
You are really testing my fandom MLB
|
|
|