Baseball Blogs Weigh In: Papelbon, Fielder, Hamels

I've wondered if Francoeur may also be part of this young player wanting more money movement but is just being quiet about it. The Braves were trying to sign him long term about a week or so ago then suddenly they just renew him and weren't able to get a one year deal done.

Markakis got his deal renewed at $455k. He made $400k last year. and if Roberts gets dealt he is the only player left from last year that had a good season. He gets to go to Arbitration after this season so he will make his money then.

The point of using young kids is because they are supposed to be cheaper. Why should they overpay them now when they will have to do that in the future.

It's hard enough for small market teams to compete with financial juggernauts. Those teams pass on draft picks they want because they can't afford to sign them. If younger players expect more and more money, I have no idea how small markets are going to compete at all anymore.

i can see both sides of the arguement here but this is how baseball works. heck the nfl doesnt even give gauranteed contracts. the nhl isnt making near as much money so they dont pay huge salaries usually. the nba.....well lets just say i wish i played basketball. in baseball you dont make squat your first 3 years. no freedom for another 3. out of all the systems i think baseballs is the best. in the nfl these unproven draft picks get ridiculous amounts of money. if you play baseball and your that good there will be plenty of time to get paid. i do believe that when teams are paying guys like silva all this money really what is another 500k. it seems kind of stupid to pinch pennies on your best players but with the contracts getting out of control owners have to do something. this is why everyone is playing there young guys because it makes financial sense. if these guys can stay healthy and consistent they wont have anything to bitch about later besides taxes.

I'll tell you exactly why the teams are right to pay the players EXACTLY what the system says to pay them, and not a dime more. It's because any pay over will snowball over time.

So Papelbon thinks he deserves as much as the NL MVP. Let's say Boston does it and gives him 1 million ('only' 100k over the 900k Howard got). Next year a new player will want 1.2 million. The year after that 1.5 million. And so forth and so on.

It is THE SYSTEM, which was agreed to by the players and the owners. Players like Papelbon, Hammels, and Fielder who bitch and moan because they 'only' make 500k or so should SHUT UP. Put up the numbers and you will get paid soon enough. They surely don't complain when the system helps them.

To an ordinary working guy, these prima donnas being upset about what they make is absurd. . . go find another job where you make 1/10th as much.

And this BS about being nice or teams showing respect to the players is ridiculous. When Arizona had money problems some years ago, you didn't see any player 'being nice' or 'showing respect' to the team and giving the team money. This is a one way conduit for players to show the greed that they really have.

It's a kid's game. We should all be so lucky to have that job.

Its line an apprenticeship; it is what you go through if you want to play in the MLB. You come up, pay your dues while making something near the minimum and then you make your money. The vast majority of the players obviously feel this is fine because its not a problem with the Players-Association who go along with it. Besides, its not like these specific players didn’t get millions to sign up to play under this structure…

Ironically if it wasn’t in place, salaries would drop as a whole and most of these kids would not even be getting a shot to play in the majors. If every non-experienced player was treated like a FA then where is the point in signing them over a vet? A Vet atleast has experience and you know what to expect from him, some kid is a total crap-shoot. If all teams had to pay top dollar for all the kids too though, then the amounts you could pay for the better FA would drop. All of a sudden a Type-A is making less money and an AAA player is less likely to ever get a shot in the majors. That doesn’t seem to benefit anyone, anywhere… Would these players be happier getting a tiny bit more now but much less as a whole and all years following the normal Arb years? That would be the alternative…

It’s a few bad apples complaining that they deserve the world and shouldn’t have to be treated just like everyone else. The other day (in the Hamels thread) I started looking up young starters and had a hard time finding one that made as much as Hamels will in 2008 under similar circumstances. Hamels is upset that he is only making more than all of his contemporaries were in the same situation ~ that tells me Hamels (and the like) really have no ground to stand on…

Shouldn't these guys be complaining to the Players Association, and not to their teams/press. Either way, I'm sure they won't mind fleecing their teams with bad deals & injury lost years when they get their paydays. There are no more Ted Williams anymore who will give back part of their paycheck because they underperformed.

pinetarhand is exactly right. It is the players association that negotiated the rules. It's a trade off for other protections the players enjoy.

The interesting question is what this trend means to the next CBA.

I gotta wonder with everyone complaining that there may have to be new rules in the collective bargining agreement that tightens up exactly what a player can get for the first three years.

just had to add one thing. i was reading the cardinals website and anthony reyes isnt pleased with his contract either. now thats comical. at least these other guys have done something. reyes is a bum.

The system has to remain in place unless there are major concessions by the players in other areas.

What advantage is there to develop in house talent if they end up costing you close to FA contract money by their 3rd year? Teams would be better off shutting down their farm systems and just buying talent from poorer clubs who can't afford players once they hit arbitration.

I just don't remember hearing about teams 10 years ago trading away guys in their 3rd year because of arbitration. It used to always be that small market teams would move players before they hit FA. Arbitration was affordable and teams could count on some cost containment.

It's going to be sad if the Brewers have to move Prince or the Marlins move Ramirez just because they have ENTERED their arbitration years.

I'll keep dreaming of the day when players contracts are not guaranteed. In my fantasy world players are paid based off future performance with contracts heavy with incentives. Good players would end up making more in that model. Mediocre players would see a downgrade in their salaries.