Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:16 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I see no evidence of that. None at all. Winning brings financial rewards and glory for the people running the team. There is just as much of an incentive as ever, maybe more so.
Franchise value and income is only very loosely correlated with winning. a bigger correlation IMHO is size of the market.

Quote:
What, some free agents aren't making as much as they used to? Sorry,m thyat has nothing to do with teams wanting to win. It's because free agents don't help you win enough. Full stop. Most huge contract hitters suck. That's just a fact; if you give a hitter a huge contract it will usually be a total flop.
I don't know about that. Baseball contracts are always a crap shoot for the teams. Some work out wonderfully and others do not. The longer the contract, the less predictable the outcome. I don't know that there has been a good statistical study of how these contracts play outt

Quote:
Of last year's top 25 highest paid hitters, how many do you think were worth it? I'd guess maybe five or six. Mike Trout, J.D. Martinez and Freddie Freeman had MVP type stats, and I will give you Giancarlo Stanton and Joey Votto, who were pretty good, and arguably Bryce Harper, who hit well but fielded like he was blind. Robbie Cano would have had a good year if he wasn't suspended. Most were actually bad players, and some were awful; Yoenis Cespedes, Miguel Cabrera, Isan Desmond, Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Josh Donaldson, Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Eric Hosmer, and more - old, injured, or they just sucked. The average wins above replacement by a top 25 paid hitter, if that's a number you care about, was 2.0. That is roughly as good as Kevin Pillar, who you can have for a fraction of that kind of money. 2018 was, by the way, not at all unusual. The numbers are pretty much the same for 2017, 2016, and 2015.
I think WAR is a valid measurement but one thing I think war doesn't really account for all the effect on franchise value. Having stars improves merchanidising and, ticket sales and franchise value. Bryce Harper is arguably worth a lot more to the Washington Nationals than his WAR would imply.

Quote:
What, the Rays won't spend a lot of money? Oh, that must be why they sucked... no, wait, they don't suck at all, do they? They won 90 games and look damn good.
They also have the lowest franchise value in MLB.

Quote:
Team want to win just as much as ever, they just know better how to spend their money. Develop them yourself like Trout, Mookie Betts, Jose Altuve. Let some other idiot pick up the $250 million contract after their prime. Big deals to all but the inner circle Hall of Famers are for chumps.
The fact that you think that the first year of free agency frequently occurs after their "prime" is one of the things that I think is broken about free agency. The mandatory service period is too long. You can have a player on his 3rd year on the all star team and still be in his mandatory service period.

Mike Trout, arguably the best player in the league for years isn't a free agent until 2020.

Mookie Betts, a hands down all star and best war in MLB isn't a free agent until 2021.

The period of indentured servitude is too long. Either pay them significantly more in the minors and the mandatory service period or pay them during the free agency. But right now the baseball players go through a very long apprenticeship period for a diminishing pay off at the end of the process.

analytics was supposed to shift some of the salary from stars to the bench but what it ended up doing was shifting money from the stars to the owner's pockets.
  #352  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:27 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
There is, and it's the same for most any sport.

It's called "loss of fan interest", and it translates into lower attendance, smaller audiences for broadcasts and loss of ancillary sales for team apparel and such.
Revenue sharing offsets much of this. But of course there is always some incentive to win. I said there isn't ENOUGH incentive.

Quote:
"you can always sell the team for more money" may not work out too well eventually, when prospective owners are less willing to fork over billions for the privilege of sitting in the owner's box and having fans curse them for not opening their wallets to the max.
Right now that is a hypothetical. The market for MLB teams is significant. The list of investors that would like to field an expansion team is pretty long.

Quote:
If the "problem" with free agency is that players have to settle for gigantic salaries over a shorter term instead of stratospherically enormous ones that'll pay them $35 million annually when they're 40 and batting .203, then I can't be bothered to worry about it too much.

It's ironic that with players yelping about lack of big free agent deals, Derek Jeter who co-owns the Marlins) not only has been dedicated to shedding stars to make the team more financially viable, he's due to make millions in bonuses if the team becomes profitable.

So much for solidarity with his fellow (former) wage slaves.
The free agency flaw is not necessarily that the free agency contracts aren't big enough. It might also be that it takes to long to get to free agency. Baseball has an extraordinarily long apprenticeship period and the tradeoff was that there would be a signficiant payoff during free agency. if that payoff is no longer going to be there, then the apprenticeship period should be reduced.
  #353  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:28 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,369
Quote:
Mookie Betts, a hands down all star and best war in MLB isn't a free agent until 2021.
Pretty sure its 2020 for Mookie*. Mookie also made 10.4 mill last year and is making 20 mill this year. Next year he'll probably make 25 mill.

And a note on merchandising. All domestic sales are split evenly between the 30 teams.

*I know baseball ref says 2021...but he played his first full time year in 2015, so I dont see how 2021 can be accurate....ok i see. They're kind of saying the 2021 baseball season. He in fact becomes a free agent at the end of the 2020 baseball season barring a new contract.
  #354  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:15 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Pretty sure its 2020 for Mookie*. Mookie also made 10.4 mill last year and is making 20 mill this year. Next year he'll probably make 25 mill.
Those are basically one year contracts

Quote:
And a note on merchandising. All domestic sales are split evenly between the 30 teams.
I did not know this

Quote:
*I know baseball ref says 2021...but he played his first full time year in 2015, so I dont see how 2021 can be accurate....ok i see. They're kind of saying the 2021 baseball season. He in fact becomes a free agent at the end of the 2020 baseball season barring a new contract.
I feel like the red Sox have been lowballing mookie.
  #355  
Old 02-10-2019, 08:06 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Those are basically one year contracts



I did not know this



I feel like the red Sox have been lowballing mookie.
Spit take.

That 10 mill Mookie won in arbitration. And the 20 mill he gets this year *he* agreed to without going to arbitration. I'm also pretty sure (certainly could be wrong) that 20mill is the most a fifth year player has ever made. (Non multi-year contract like Trout)

Harper got 13 mill in his fifth year. Machado got 11 mill.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-10-2019 at 08:08 AM.
  #356  
Old 02-10-2019, 08:20 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Spit take.

That 10 mill Mookie won in arbitration. And the 20 mill he gets this year *he* agreed to without going to arbitration. I'm also pretty sure (certainly could be wrong) that 20mill is the most a fifth year player has ever made. (Non multi-year contract like Trout)
Josh Donaldsn got $23 million.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #357  
Old 02-10-2019, 09:49 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Josh Donaldsn got $23 million.
In his sixth year
  #358  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:54 AM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,671
The Betts example is actually pretty illustrative. On the FA market his projected value for 2019 is likely worth, at a minimum, $40M (and probably more). So even with the highest arb-5 agreement ever he is at least 50% underpaid relative to what he would make as a FA.

His choices are to take that and hope to get a big FA contract in a few years or sign a long-term contract now and lock in below-market compensation for more security (guaranteed multi-year). Either way he will make a ton of money but you can see why if the big FA contract becomes less likely he could feel like he's being squeezed by ownership.
  #359  
Old 02-10-2019, 11:02 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
In his sixth year
In baseball CBA terms, 2017 was Donaldson's fifth year. He had just 4.1 years of service going into that season so it's treated as Year 5. Betts also has 4.1 years of service time going into next year but it didn't take him as long to accumulate it because he became a regular much quicker and wasn't bouncing between minors and majors.

2017 was the sixth calendar year Donaldson appeared in the big leagues, but calendar years are not relevant. What matters are service years.

Actually, as I looked up the two players, an interesting note - at this point, going into their fifth year, they look superficially similar. Both became exceptional, multi-talented players. Both deservedly won an MVP Award and were high in the voting in other seasons. They have roughly the same career value. What's different is that Betts is just 26 this coming year - Donaldson was 26 when he first reached the majors, remarkably late for an elite player. As a result, Donaldson was already beginning his decline phase when he got his $23 million, while Betts is entering his peak now. (I am not saying Betts will necessarily have seasons even better than 2018, but that's no insult.)

Consequently, the odds are Josh Donaldson's career is basically written. He might have another nice season or two hitting 30 homers as a DH or first baseman but it's likely 90% of his career is in the books. Betts, conversely, is a candidate to be a Hall of Famer someday if he stays healthy.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 02-10-2019 at 11:03 AM.
  #360  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:41 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
In baseball CBA terms, 2017 was Donaldson's fifth year. He had just 4.1 years of service going into that season so it's treated as Year 5. Betts also has 4.1 years of service time going into next year but it didn't take him as long to accumulate it because he became a regular much quicker and wasn't bouncing between minors and majors.

2017 was the sixth calendar year Donaldson appeared in the big leagues, but calendar years are not relevant. What matters are service years.

Actually, as I looked up the two players, an interesting note - at this point, going into their fifth year, they look superficially similar. Both became exceptional, multi-talented players. Both deservedly won an MVP Award and were high in the voting in other seasons. They have roughly the same career value. What's different is that Betts is just 26 this coming year - Donaldson was 26 when he first reached the majors, remarkably late for an elite player. As a result, Donaldson was already beginning his decline phase when he got his $23 million, while Betts is entering his peak now. (I am not saying Betts will necessarily have seasons even better than 2018, but that's no insult.)

Consequently, the odds are Josh Donaldson's career is basically written. He might have another nice season or two hitting 30 homers as a DH or first baseman but it's likely 90% of his career is in the books. Betts, conversely, is a candidate to be a Hall of Famer someday if he stays healthy.
At this point I'm just being pedantic, cause if Donaldson is the record holder for salary in terms of service time. Then I'm wrong. And thats fine. But baseball ref says he was paid 17 mill in 2017. But again, I fully admit I'm being pedantic.

And re: Betts and the HOF....He is going in. But I admit to being *slightly* biased when it comes to Mookie. And if the Sox don't sign him for life, I will riot.
  #361  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:19 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
At this point I'm just being pedantic, cause if Donaldson is the record holder for salary in terms of service time. Then I'm wrong. And thats fine. But baseball ref says he was paid 17 mill in 2017. But again, I fully admit I'm being pedantic.
Oh, you're right. I misread the list.

Quote:
And re: Betts and the HOF....He is going in. But I admit to being *slightly* biased when it comes to Mookie. And if the Sox don't sign him for life, I will riot.
I'm not one for hubris and guys have started out great and then gotten hurt or whatever.

Here are what BBRef says are the most similar batters through age 25:

Duke Snider (Hall of Fame)
Grady Sizemore
Del Ennis
David Wright
Manny Ramirez (should be in the HOF)
Carl Yastrzemski (Hall of Fame)
Nick Markakis
Greg Luzinski
Jack Clark
Jim Rice (HOF)

Some of these comparisons are stupid. Greg Luzinski was a huge, strikeout-prone bear of a man with no speed who played defense like he had a grudge against it. (Del Ennis, also a Phillie, was a similar player, though not as extreme.) He wasn't anything like Mookie Betts. The only mildly concerning examples are Sizemore, a similar player who got hurt in his age 26 year, and Markakis, who just didn't stay really good. But neither was remotely as good as Betts, not even close. I can't think of a really good comparison.

But I love Mookie Betts. I despise Boston in every other way but Betts is my favourite ballplayer right now. He's four foot three and weighs sixty pounds and yet he can hit 30 dingers a year. In an age when guys strike out 200 times a year he doesn't strike out a hundred. Five tool player. And they drafted him in the fifth round... every team in baseball, even the one he's on, passed on him over and over and given that he was an excellent MLB player at the age of 21 I just don't understand why.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #362  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:15 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post

And they drafted him in the fifth round... every team in baseball, even the one he's on, passed on him over and over and given that he was an excellent MLB player at the age of 21 I just don't understand why.
Maybe they thought he would pursue professional bowling over baseball? That's mostly a joke, but Mookie is actually a pro bowler.
  #363  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:12 AM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,716
I’m also a fan of the game show What’s my Line? A very interesting baseball connection on an episode I just watched today, originally aired on September 28, 1952. The mystery guest was Chuck Dressen, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Dodgers had already clinched the pennant, they were playing the 7th place Boston Braves. This is one of those games that ended in a tie after 12 innings. The home plate umpire actually left after the 10th inning to catch a train! The Braves also has a train to catch, and since it was a meaningless game, it was a tie. It also turned out to be the very last Boston Braves game.
https://youtu.be/iROvYBc1wMU
https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...95209280.shtml

Last edited by dalej42; 02-12-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #364  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:45 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
And they drafted him in the fifth round... every team in baseball, even the one he's on, passed on him over and over and given that he was an excellent MLB player at the age of 21 I just don't understand why.
He was drafted when he was 18. Most players aren't yet physically mature then, they haven't faced great competition, and only rarely can you be confident a high school kid will be a great pro when he's older. Teams would mostly rather use high draft picks on college players with much less uncertainty to them.

Mookie was still skinny when he came up as a 2B, and got moved around everywhere until the team told him he was an RF for better or worse. His power came when he muscled up to play the position, at the cost of some of his speed and reflexes.
  #365  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:13 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
A great many players have taken to Twitter and other social media to bitch about unsigned free agents.

We're headed for a strike, I suspect.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #366  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:20 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,027
Is it really such a big problem? There are a couple of big names like Machado, Harper, Kimbrel and Keuchel, but beyond that it seems like less of a logjam than last year. There are a lot of free agents who are probably finished, like Hanley Ramirez, Chase Headley, Jose Bautista et al.. The rest are mostly 30+ years old, hoping for multi-year deals but probably not getting them, with good reason. How big is the market for Adam Jones? Or Evan Gattis? Just a bunch of 1 WAR guys, at best.
  #367  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:22 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
A great many players have taken to Twitter and other social media to bitch about unsigned free agents.

We're headed for a strike, I suspect.
I've seen some of the complaints from Verlander and others, but what would they strike over? I think Harper, Machado and the hundred or however many other free agents are unsigned would still be in this position even if the luxury tax didn't exist. I really don't think it's "collusion" because I guarantee if a team thought Harper was worth his asking price, they'd pay it.
  #368  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:42 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,950
Let's hear it for "Dummy" Hoy, a Cincinnati Reds' great who has now been named a great Ohioan.
  #369  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:01 PM
Ulf the Unwashed Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I've seen some of the complaints from Verlander and others, but what would they strike over? I think Harper, Machado and the hundred or however many other free agents are unsigned would still be in this position even if the luxury tax didn't exist. I really don't think it's "collusion" because I guarantee if a team thought Harper was worth his asking price, they'd pay it.
Curious about how you can guarantee that.

In this market, even if there's no collusion, I'm not at all sure I'd jump at the chance to give Harper (say) $300 million even if I thought he was worth it. Why? Because with teams dragging their feet and coming up with excuses not to pay big bucks for free agents, I'd think there's a chance I can get him for $250 million, maybe even $225 mil. Save the rest for other free agents, scuse me, building the farm system, scuse me, for a rainy day.

And even if there's two teams out there who think he's worth $300 million, they might both be thinking the same thing, without having officially colluded. I wait, you wait, we each see if he drops his price, if he drops his price maybe we wait and see if he drops it a little more... Sort of a reverse auction. How low will it go before someone finally pulls the trigger?

Five or ten years ago, I would have agreed that some team would've signed him for what they thought he was worth. Today, I'm not so sure.
  #370  
Old 02-16-2019, 07:20 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,864
I'm happy with the Yanks buying out all of Severino's arb years + and option year @15m. Looks like a win for both sides. I see Philly did basically the same thing for Aaron Nola.
  #371  
Old 02-16-2019, 01:35 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,369
Look guys...this is how we fix the 'is there collusion" conundrum.

Would you hire Machado or Harper for your personal team at 10/300? For the Red Sox?? NO. I even balked at the idea of signing Harper at 1/40 (The Section 10 guys talked themselves into that crazy nugget). Either of those guys prevents signing a host of my own players down the line and because of the soft cap would cost a lot more than 10/300.

Now there are a ton of teams who cant afford them*, there are others who can but makes no sense because they are rebuilding and there are maybe one or two who dont particularly have a spot open or just arnt getting enough of an upgrade for the price (Like say The Yanks who *could* still get one of them regardless) So who does that leave? And as said above, why hire now when the price will go down? Or wait until one gets grabbed and grab the next?

*Ok..ALL teams can afford them, but there are teams who have created a narrative that they are poor.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-16-2019 at 01:40 PM.
  #372  
Old 02-16-2019, 07:46 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,027
If Betts and Trout were the two 26 year-olds on the market, they would both have signed 10+ year deals by Christmas. Machado has maturity issues and Harper is inconsistent. Teams are right to be wary.

I haven't heard boo about Craig Kimbrel this offseason. Does he have a market at all? Keuchel too.
  #373  
Old 02-16-2019, 08:59 PM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,257
CC Sabathia formally announced that the 2019 season will be his last.

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/m...01/cc-sabathia
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #374  
Old 02-17-2019, 11:24 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
I haven't heard boo about Craig Kimbrel this offseason. Does he have a market at all? Keuchel too.
They both went into free agency with unrealistic ideas about their true market value, and no offers have come close. Certainly the usual teams, including their current ones, have offers on the table, although they've played coy about it (the Red Sox have been publicly saying how they don't need Kimbrel and will are content to find a new, cheap closer in-house ). Probably now that camp has started, those players are on the verge of capitulating and signing, just like J.D. Martinez did last year.
  #375  
Old 02-17-2019, 03:26 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
There's a lot of scuttlebutt that Harper and the Phillies are about to ink a deal, so I guess we'll soon find out just how much a guy can get paid to not hit the ball the other way.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #376  
Old 02-17-2019, 08:20 PM
Hawkeyeop Hawkeyeop is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I've seen some of the complaints from Verlander and others, but what would they strike over? I think Harper, Machado and the hundred or however many other free agents are unsigned would still be in this position even if the luxury tax didn't exist. I really don't think it's "collusion" because I guarantee if a team thought Harper was worth his asking price, they'd pay it.
The strike impitus is pretty straightforward. Players have agreed to all sorts of things that limit their wages (draft, luxury tax, player control, arbitration, revenue sharing etc.) They do this, under the theory that these policies are good for the game, which will increase earnings for the owners and players over time. This worked for a while, but lately owners have pocketed all of this increase in revenue and players salaries are flat or down. So players, understandably, aren't willing to continue to make all of those concessions without changes.
  #377  
Old 02-18-2019, 09:59 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
Curious about how you can guarantee that.

In this market, even if there's no collusion, I'm not at all sure I'd jump at the chance to give Harper (say) $300 million even if I thought he was worth it. Why? Because with teams dragging their feet and coming up with excuses not to pay big bucks for free agents, I'd think there's a chance I can get him for $250 million, maybe even $225 mil. Save the rest for other free agents, scuse me, building the farm system, scuse me, for a rainy day.
...
Do you think those teams would be dragging their feet, looking for a bargain if we were talking about Mike Trout? Or Mookie Betts? I think either of those guys would have been signed for $300M by now.
  #378  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:11 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There's a lot of scuttlebutt that Harper and the Phillies are about to ink a deal, so I guess we'll soon find out just how much a guy can get paid to not hit the ball the other way.
The Harper signing, or the Machado signing, makes all the other big dominoes fall, too. For all of Philly's big talk, they aren't going to be able to afford more than one of Harper/Machado/Keuchel/Kimbrel, not long-term. There are contracts, already wealthy beyond imagining, waiting for all of them somewhere.

Just based on rumors and reading the coyness of public statements, the best bets might appear to be Harper-Nats, Machado-White Sox, Keuchel-Phils, Kimbrel-Red Sox. But we'll know in just a few weeks at most.
  #379  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:34 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop View Post
The strike impitus is pretty straightforward. Players have agreed to all sorts of things that limit their wages (draft, luxury tax, player control, arbitration, revenue sharing etc.) They do this, under the theory that these policies are good for the game, which will increase earnings for the owners and players over time. This worked for a while, but lately owners have pocketed all of this increase in revenue and players salaries are flat or down. So players, understandably, aren't willing to continue to make all of those concessions without changes.
Right, but what would their demands be? Eliminate the luxury tax and revenue sharing? So many teams are far below the luxury tax threshold that I don't think it's a factor for unsigned free agents.
  #380  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:42 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Right, but what would their demands be? Eliminate the luxury tax and revenue sharing?
Steep increase in the "floor" salary load for teams tied to overall league revenue for future increases.
  #381  
Old Yesterday, 09:23 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Just based on rumors and reading the coyness of public statements, the best bets might appear to be Harper-Nats, Machado-White Sox, Keuchel-Phils, Kimbrel-Red Sox. But we'll know in just a few weeks at most.
I absolutely agree that Harper (or Machado, buit it looks like it will be Harper) signing will be the break in the dam.

I don't think there is deliberate collusion going on, but collusion can happen without deliberate, spoken agreements. (In fact, many elements of antitrust law don't even require the economic actors ever agreed to collude; they just require that the actors acted as if they were colluding.) If it feels like everyone's holding off, everyone will hold off, hoping for discounts. Once one big name goes, though, the sense of urgency will return. It's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

Machado to the White Sox would be interesting, because the White Sox are a horrible team. They lost a hundred games last year, and while they're a young team, none of their young players really make you go "Hoo boy, the future looks great!" So basically they'd be paying Machado a huge pile of money to be very bad, instead of extremely bad. (I realize they're super unlikely to lose 100 games again even without Machado, but, still.) So if Chicago were to sign Machado, that's REALLY long term thinking. You're signing him to win in 2022. It's an intriguing idea, and if the Sox are willing to pay the guy eighty or ninety million dollars just to have him for when they do get good, well, you have to give credit to a team that has a plan.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; Yesterday at 09:24 AM.
  #382  
Old Yesterday, 11:10 AM
Hawkeyeop Hawkeyeop is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Do you think those teams would be dragging their feet, looking for a bargain if we were talking about Mike Trout? Or Mookie Betts? I think either of those guys would have been signed for $300M by now.
We absolutely would be having the same discussion just with higher numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
For all of Philly's big talk, they aren't going to be able to afford more than one of Harper/Machado/Keuchel/Kimbrel, not long-term.
What does can't afford mean? Philly going to go bankrupt? Make slightly less profit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Right, but what would their demands be? Eliminate the luxury tax and revenue sharing? So many teams are far below the luxury tax threshold that I don't think it's a factor for unsigned free agents.
I think you are underestimating how interconnected all of this is. Lets say, without a luxury tax, the equation is changed enough that the Yankees decide to go after Machado and the Dodgers Harper. Now the Phillies, instead of waiting for one to fall in their laps, have to get into a bidding war to sign either. Maybe they fail and have to go hard after Keuchel and Kimbrel to get anything. Except now the Red Sox, without the tax and now more concerned about the Yankees, bid aggressively to keep Kimbrel. MAybe the cubs get in there too driving up not just the cost of Kimbrel but the entire reliever market. Perhaps then a team like the Mets who spent big on the bullpen decide to go after Keuchel instead due to the higher prices. Now Nola and Severino are less concerned about the free agent market and don't sign team friendly extensions. Everyone in arbitration does better too as they can make comparisons with players with higher salaries.

I don't know what the players will request. There are two main options. One is to guarantee a percentage of the revenue to the players, so you guarantee it works out in the end. The other is to make changes to try to tweak the balance (raise the luxury tax, lesson years of service, incentivize winning etc..) to hope to get back to historic norms. It depends a lot on what type of player the union wants to help, which I imagine will be a big internal battle. Also what the players should ask for vs what they will is another question as they did agree to the current deal when these current problems were very much foreseeable.
  #383  
Old Yesterday, 12:10 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop View Post
What does can't afford mean? Philly going to go bankrupt? Make slightly less profit?
Mostly the latter. They would exceed the luxury-tax threshold and have to pay a competitive-balance "tax", and almost all teams are staying clear of that in their budgets.

Quote:
I think you are underestimating how interconnected all of this is.
There is No Collusion.
  #384  
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,613
The Padres??!!??

10 years, $300 million. Now let's see if the dam breaks.
  #385  
Old Yesterday, 01:58 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,824
Machado would be crazy not to take it, but how could the Padres be crazy enough to offer it?
  #386  
Old Yesterday, 02:34 PM
Oredigger77 Oredigger77 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,668
I don't understand the Padres. They tried to build a big hitting outfield a couple of years ago and put their team in the dumpster even deeper. How can they think the Machado is the one missing piece they need to be competitive in the NL West.
  #387  
Old Yesterday, 03:02 PM
storyteller0910 storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I don't understand the Padres. They tried to build a big hitting outfield a couple of years ago and put their team in the dumpster even deeper. How can they think the Machado is the one missing piece they need to be competitive in the NL West.
They don't need to contend in 2019 or even in 2020 for this to be a good deal. Machado is very young and he's now under contract for a decade. The Padres have solid talent in their upper farm system. Grabbing a guy like this now, to be the reliable superstar veteran once the kids are all ready rather than having to trade some of those kids to secure a superstar, is actually a pretty great, forward-looking move.
  #388  
Old Yesterday, 03:37 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,222
It's not, really.

Here is my prediction. He will hit around 40 home runs, strike out about 110 times, play so-so defense and the Padres will finish 4th or 5th in the division.

They will look to deal him in 2 or 3 years but will find it difficult due the massive contract.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #389  
Old Yesterday, 03:48 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,613
On a sadder note: Dodger legend Don Newcombe has died at 92.
  #390  
Old Yesterday, 04:02 PM
Oredigger77 Oredigger77 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
They don't need to contend in 2019 or even in 2020 for this to be a good deal. Machado is very young and he's now under contract for a decade. The Padres have solid talent in their upper farm system. Grabbing a guy like this now, to be the reliable superstar veteran once the kids are all ready rather than having to trade some of those kids to secure a superstar, is actually a pretty great, forward-looking move.
Nope, not buying it. First, Machado isn't going to be that reliable veteran that teaches the kids how to work unless he undergoes a dramatic personality shift. Second, once the Padres finish in the basement the next three or four years they are going to need a new talent splash to keep butts in the seats and they won't be able to trade this contract or bring in a new superstar. Lastly, even if the Padres developed an amazing team from their farm system they wouldn't have needed Machado and could look at the free agent market then to compliment their new stars that worked out not just hoping that third base/ short is where they will need help if everyone pans out.
  #391  
Old Yesterday, 04:31 PM
storyteller0910 storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
Nope, not buying it. First, Machado isn't going to be that reliable veteran that teaches the kids how to work unless he undergoes a dramatic personality shift. Second, once the Padres finish in the basement the next three or four years they are going to need a new talent splash to keep butts in the seats and they won't be able to trade this contract or bring in a new superstar. Lastly, even if the Padres developed an amazing team from their farm system they wouldn't have needed Machado and could look at the free agent market then to compliment their new stars that worked out not just hoping that third base/ short is where they will need help if everyone pans out.
Well, it's not like the whole thing is purely theoretical. The Padres really do have excellent young talent; they have 3 of the best 30 prospects in baseball right now. That includes Luis Urias, who is already in the majors. More importantly, it includes Fernando Tatis Jr., who depending on who you ask is either the second- or third-best prospect in the sport, and at only 19 is probably MLB ready right now. Obviously, one or both could fail to launch. But if they do launch, and in 2021 they are an All-Star combination at 2B and SS, what would you rather: look for a free agent superstar at 3B who is willing to play for your team, or already have one on the roster who is still in his prime as a hitter? At that point Chris Paddack and Mackenzie Gore show up in the rotation, and you go shopping for a few complementary pieces, and you have a contender.

I don't see the downside of the move.
  #392  
Old Yesterday, 04:41 PM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
On a sadder note: Dodger legend Don Newcombe has died at 92.
Man. On the night I threw out my first pitch, he was the person who threw out a pitch after me (he got quite a bit more applause than I did, for some reason). They were handing out replica Newcombe jerseys that night, too, so I've got mine.

He was often at the stadium and always smiling. He will definitely be missed.
  #393  
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop View Post
I think you are underestimating how interconnected all of this is. Lets say, without a luxury tax, the equation is changed enough that the Yankees decide to go after Machado and the Dodgers Harper. Now the Phillies, instead of waiting for one to fall in their laps, have to get into a bidding war to sign either. Maybe they fail and have to go hard after Keuchel and Kimbrel to get anything. Except now the Red Sox, without the tax and now more concerned about the Yankees, bid aggressively to keep Kimbrel. MAybe the cubs get in there too driving up not just the cost of Kimbrel but the entire reliever market. Perhaps then a team like the Mets who spent big on the bullpen decide to go after Keuchel instead due to the higher prices. Now Nola and Severino are less concerned about the free agent market and don't sign team friendly extensions.
So lose the luxury tax so that the teams who spend the most will spend even more? And hope for a trickle down effect? I don't know. Creating a reasonable salary floor makes sense to me, but it probably wouldn't have mitigated the free agent logjam of this winter.
  #394  
Old Yesterday, 07:44 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,549
Yeah, that was interesting.

The Padres have a lot of good young guys in the minors but they had basically no really good players on the big league roster at all. They're loading up for 2021, I guess.

I'm not sure how much credence I give the "Manny has a terrible attitude" thing. I don't know him, no one else in this thread knows him, and I'd assume the Padres maybe asked around a little about him. He seem to work at his craft and he can sure play.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; Yesterday at 07:45 PM.
  #395  
Old Yesterday, 08:36 PM
Ulf the Unwashed Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Do you think those teams would be dragging their feet, looking for a bargain if we were talking about Mike Trout? Or Mookie Betts? I think either of those guys would have been signed for $300M by now.
Yeah, as Hawkeyeop said, we'd just be talking a higher figure.

If Machado and Harper are worth $300 million (a prescient number on my part, huh? ), I assume you'd argue that Trout and Betts are worth more...maybe $350, maybe $375, maybe $400. And maybe some teams would think they were worth that kind of money. -

-But I don't think anyone would have signed them for $350 or $375 or $400, till now. Same reasoning--the reverse auction idea. Let's wait till the price goes down.

So, yeah, I agree that Trout or Betts might have been signed for $300 million--but that would not have been their true value.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017