In his latest exploration of the stagnant free-agent market, Yahoo’s Jeff Passan reports that free agents have begun to discuss the possible organization of a training camp that would “mimic their typical spring work.” Pitchers and catchers are set to begin reporting for Spring Training in just three weeks, of course, and there are well over 100 unsigned players still seeking employment for the upcoming season.
While the five-year deal for Lorenzo Cain established a new high-water mark for free agents this winter both in terms of contract length and guaranteed money, Passan suggests that other top free agents aren’t necessarily expected to follow. Despite a recent report that Yu Darvish is expected to reach an agreement in the next few days, Passan hears differently, writing that teams throughout the league don’t think that any of Darvish, Jake Arrieta, Eric Hosmer or J.D. Martinez is close to signing. (Certainly, that can change in a hurry with an improved offer from even one potential suitor.)
More broadly, Passan again explores the lack of spending throughout the league in an offseason environment that has been increasingly governed by some teams’ strict adherence to avoiding luxury tax penalization. Prior to the latest wave of collective bargaining negotiations, Passan adds, the league was prepared for the luxury tax line to jump as high as $215MM and considered it a major victory when the bar was raised to $195MM last year and $197MM in 2018. (The tax threshold will increase to $206MM in 2019, $208MM in 2020 and $210MM in 2021.)
While the luxury tax only serves as a direct deterrent for Major League Baseball’s top spenders and thus cannot be viewed as some form of panacea to explain the woefully slow winter, it’s unquestionably slowed things at the top end of the market. Officials from both the Yankees and Dodgers acknowledged to Passan that they’d have spent more this offseason had the tax barrier been higher. And the Giants, of course, have openly stated on multiple occasions that they, too, are looking to reset their penalty level by narrowly staying under the tax line. It stands to reason that they could’ve been more involved in the outfield market with some extra breathing room in that regard.
Exactly how the remainder of the offseason plays out obviously can’t be known, but Passan indicates that players are continuing to encourage one another to hold firm and not cave into lesser deals in a sense of panic as Spring Training approaches.
At some point, it seems fair to wonder, too, if that sense of panic will hit teams that view themselves as hopeful contenders but have multiple glaring holes on the roster. The Orioles, for instance, have been seeking three starting pitchers as well as a left-handed-hitting outfielder but have yet to address any of those needs in a meaningful way. The Nationals still could use a fifth starter and an upgrade behind the plate. The Twins have made a trio of bullpen upgrades but still have clear rotation needs. Eventually, there will have to be a landslide of agreements, though that’s been the common refrain for weeks and there’s still little in the way of actual results.
I don’t think teams should budge. I think players and agents (Boras) should realize the new market value on guys. There have been articles saying Hosmer has a 6-7 year offer on the table, JD has 5yr/100+M from Boston but they want more. I’m sorry but guys who are 29-31 are not worth these 7-8-9 year 175M deals. Even with Cain in MILW I think the last year of his deal at 17M will be iffy.
I know MLBPA and Boras want to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of ownership, however, I think there is a valid question to be asked about just how wise it is for the top of marketplace to be concentrated so heavily in hands of a single agent (Boras) this offseason. The idea that a single agent can represent so many of the same players, with similar skill profiles, and limited landing spots, without creating a conflict, seems like a tenuous proposition. It seems to be an ethical dilemma.
Absolutely .. excellent point, definitely there is a conflict of interest.
I think the MLBPA should work to address and increase the pay of these younger players providing incredible value while making peanuts.
This is the huge problem, players getting paid for the years they’ve had rather than the years they’re going to have. I know we can’t tell the future but maybe a bonus-type system can be implemented for youngsters and a year cap for free agents. Who knows?
How about pay for play? I know the players union will never go for it, but it would even out these crazy salaries !
What if mlb adopted a new pay system. How about, theoretically, each team gets 4-5 yrs of control over all their players instead of 6. They can pay anyone league minimum the first two yrs, but what if the players were then paid based on something like WAR or another algorithm that projects the quality of a player into a number. MLB then sets a salary based on how that player performed that year in terms of said algorithm. For example, if if Nolan arenado performed at a 4.5 war last year, and the salary rate per WAR was 5 million, then 4.5 x 5mil means arenado would have made 22.5 million that year. I know there are flaws to this initial example… I.e. what if the whole Rockies team performs great and the team can’t afford to pay the players, but the moral of the story is maybe mlb should adopt a new way to pay players. I feel like the year to year salary idea would further force the players to perform at top level every year rather than work towards one big payday and then not have any incentive to try for the rest of their careers. Can anyone think of a long term deal other than the 7yr deal the cards gave Matt Holliday that has turned out good for the team?
If its good for the teams, why would the players union agree to it?
Batman, I think some small market owners wouldn’t want pay for performance. It might erode the 20% profit margin they enjoy with minimal risk. The last thing they want is non- predictable costs.
I think a decent compromise would be to eliminate arbitration entirely. Clubs keep 6 years of control with years 1-3 set a rookie deals like pre arbitration is now. Years 4-6 have a restricted free agency. A players salary would be determined by the open market price with the host club given the option to match and retain.
What a terrible suggestion! Why in the world would MLB agree to so give back 2 years of control! And on those terms! Wow.
First you say MLB can pay anyone league minimum for 2 years then? Well genius they can do it now for 3 years already!
So now MLB gives back two huge control years and then gives up another year of MLB control to be able to pay minimum salary …
…. and then this is done to allow a new arb system to pay based upon WAR instead of based upon the current ARB system which would pay much less then that?
So what does MLB get out of it?
Oh you say it makes the players perform st “top” level? Haha. Sorry the do not already have incentive to do that for the current 6-7 years of control which in fact you have already cut down to 4-5?
That is the dumbest proposal in history
Burracat that is interesting.
Your proposal as is though would not work. Whats in it for the owners. They already have 6 years of control. Why let the players off the arb system and have prices skyrocket for years 3-6 over the current arb system which is better for the owners. What do the owners get out of it?
However I think its a good angle but I think MLB would have to ask for 2 more years of control in exchange for the letting years 3-6 go to restricted free agency
So you are against Donaldson getting 23m in arbitration for past play at 33y.o.?
How about a true salary xap.
you wonder why the best athletes are heading to basketball and football, you just nailed it. Who wants to be making minimum baseball wages when they can make millions out of college, so offering more money opportunities at an earlier age would bring them back to baseball
Darkside umm football across America has record lows in youth participation. I’ll give you basketball but any athlete who chooses football over baseball needs there head examined for CTE he’s probably already got it, if he choosing football over baseball.
What your describing is basically the arbitration process without the back and forth of the team and player desired salaries.
Albert Pujols first contract with the Cards turned out really well !
I was replying to STLswifty!
We have a bonus system. It’s called Arbitration..
There already is a year-to-year pay system for after the first couple of years when players make the minimum, it is called arbitration.
Then an injured player would never be paid. That doesn’t work. They need something that is in-between what the NFL has (no real guarantees ) and what they presently have.
good call paulnewman. Is it possible for one agent to collude against the thirty owners? Do you know what I mean? Am i way off here?
@tycobb016, considering that Boras represents four of the most prominent free agents (Arrieta, Moustakas, JD Martinez, and Hosmer) AND he advocates waiting as a method to get the deals he wants, I think it is highly likely that Boras plays a significant factor in the slow market. By no means is it all him, but I think that the evidence is there that Boras is a contributing factor.
Um, methinks you’re missing tycobb016’s point, southi. It’s very difficult for one person, even a person with Boras superhuman powers, to collude with himself as “collusion” implies two or more people working together. Thirty owners can get together and rig the free agency market. Scott Boras, colluding with himself, cannot do so. Capisce?
Collusion is when 2 or more competing entities share information in order to not compete with each other.
Scott Boras is the very definition of collusion. No, he’s not colluding with himself but then he’s not a ballplayer. No owner pays for Scott Boras’ talents. Boras represents the players who are colluding with each other.
He has roughly 15 clients who are free agents, 5 of whom are among the top players.. They are sharing information and deciding whether to take offers based on that. A GM can’t say that if Boras doesn’t take his offer for J.D. Martinez he’ll just sign Eric Hosmer.
While MLB rules say that two owners can’t share information in order to determine what they’ll offer I don’t believe there’s anything preventing all these players from sharing their information. Obviously, Scott Boras has it from each one.
How would you negotiate by signing the first offer the owner gives you? I don’t know what you do for a living let’s pretend your a lawyer who has a strong client list and your contract with the firm who signed you out of University has concluded. Now as a free agent other firms now can offer you much more then you ever made how do they come up with your worth by what you have accomplished in your career. You would tell those firms no no please pay me less then I’m worth like the firm I was with before. Lol capitalism at it’s best,is owners convincing the work force they have no value..
You need to get a clue collusion has nothing to do with the work force it has to do with the owners purposely manipulating the market in there favor. In Basketball the owners take 40% of profits and the player contracts collectively should come to 60% for that year but if at the end of year it doesn’t reach an agreed upon % in the CBA meaning if the players only earned 55% and the min. they can earn is 57% all the players who played that year receive a check evenly to meet the agreed %. In baseball there is no set min. % and the owners are abusing there power with the players not demanding a min. especially how underpaid the minor leaguers are this will be a major problem over the next few years. The owners greed is gonna lead to a strike or a baseball stoppage in 2021. In the last CBA the players demanded days off between series during the season and better travel while going on good faith the owners even with a luxury tax would continue to spend. Now this season will have those days off the players demanded and the owners are keeping the majority of the money which is what they wanted. MLBPA is gonna demand a min. Like the NBA and the owners have already begun to make the players look bad.
I’m sorry for the confusion, by no means did I intend to insinuate that Boras was colluding. All I was doing was directing towards tycobb016 that I thought that Boras had an impact on the slowness of the market because of his representation of four of the top free agents AND his advocacy of waiting late for his clients to sign. My post was meant as an “in addition” instead of an agreement or rebuttal.
As others have said one person cannot collude by himself.
I know the Owners and the Commissioner want to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of the players, however, I think there is a valid question to be asked about just how wise it is for the top of marketplace to be concentrated so heavily in hands of a single executive (Manfred) this offseason. The idea that a single executive can represent so many of the same owners, with similar markets, and limited resources, without creating a conflict, seems like a tenuous proposition. It seems to be an ethical dilemma.
yeah… just how does Manfred control the free agent market exactly?
Last year the owners took 60% of all the profits for the first time in the past five years the players have gone from 58%- 40% and it will be worse this year all of you are way out of line thinking the players are at fault in any way here. The players agreed in good faith to the last CBA that the owners would continue to split the money as mandated but have not. As baseball fans you should pay way closer attention to these details then just blame the men who we pay to watch.
MLB commissioner represents the owners and negotiates with labor on their behalf. How is that any different than what Boras does?
Read up on ex-Commissioner Fay Vincent to get an idea of the conflict, tenuous propositions, and ethical dilemmas the owners are capable of.
I believe you’re talking about the percentage of the revenue that goes to the players. The owners take 100% of all profits, because profits are the money left over after all the expenses are accounted for. Player salaries are an expense as are a lot of other things including scouting, player development, and operations. So the profits are lower than 60%. Of course, no one would complain that they are.
The players have resisted tying player salaries to revenue, as the other unions have done in other sports. Maybe that’ll change.
Manfred negotiates with Tony Clark on overall labor issues. He doesn’t negotiate individual player contracts. Scott Boras negotiates with GMs on individual contracts. If Manfred or anyone from management were to negotiate contracts for more than one team, it’d be collusion and violate the basic agreement.
MLB exists in the CBA as an agreement between the owners and players profits through all TV contracts like in the NBA are split with the owners and players in the NBA the owners receive 40% the players through there contracts receive 60% and at the end of the year when all the profits are gone through the players must receive a min. Now in baseball there is no min. and the owners do not own BASEBALL THEY DO NOT OWN MLB the MLB exists through an agreement between the PLAYERS AND OWNERS AND YES THE PLAYERS ARE SUPPOSE TO EARN OVER 50% OF THOSE PROFITS BUT THEY DO NOT. ONLY 40%.THE OWNERS DO NOT OWN MLB.
Please explain to all of us how the concept of sharing revenues is the same in MLB and the NHL as compared to the NBA and NFL where significantly fewer dollars are allocated to player development. Last I checked, professional baseball and hockey have extensive minor league operations to support while basketball and football rely on the colleges to develop most of their talent before being drafted.
“It seems to be an ethical dilemma.”
How so? Boras job, like all agents, is to provide each of his clients with aggressive, individual representation. He owes no obligations to MLB, to any individual team or any to fan or group of fans.
The only potential conflict you raise, players with similar skill sets represented by the same agent, is something that only the players need be concerned with. If one or more players believe that they would be better represented by someone other than Boras they will leave him. IOW, a self correcting problem. Ain’t free markets glorious!
The ethical conflict of which I speak is that created between the agent to his client.
Specifically, something akin to a duty of loyalty and a fiduciary duty.
The conflict arises when the agents owes the same duty to two clients, whose interests are in conflict.
It has nothing to do with free markets, and everything to do with professional responsibility.
I know the MLBPA, Boras, Team Owners and the Commissioner want to lay the entirety of the blame at each others’ feet, however, I think there is a valid question to be asked about just how wise it is for the overall opinion about the slow free agency period to be concentrated so heavily in hands of a couple dozen forum commenters this offseason. The idea that a few commenters can represent so much of the overall sentiment, without creating a conflict, seems like a tenuous proposition. It seems to be an ethical dilemma.
Touché.
Good point!
I agree. The market this year is filled with high-risk players. I honestly feel all talk of collusion is dead wrong. Why does it have to be a conspiracy if teams just aren’t seeing a good match of value and money on the market?
Red Sox should stay with their offer anyways because if another team doesn’t make a higher offer to jd, the red Sox would just be betting against themselves just like baltimore did with chris davis. And why do that?
Agreed.
I wonder if the Cain deal will have the effect of more players digging in their heels. I think it was the maximum deal that he could reasonable get, and he only got it because his intangibles have special value to the Brewers, and the timing matches up well with the rest of the roster.
The Brewers have almost everyone that matters under contract for the next 4 seasons. If the Brewers can’t extend enough of them to keep their window open, then Cain’s 5th season will just be one year of dead money while they rebuild for the next run.
Teams have every right to hold off on these players. Especially pitchers. What may end up happening down the road is less club control out of the gate. Teams hold off as long as they can to start the clock. So they are on the cheap when they are hitting their prime.
Don’t forget in the past every time the owners tried to be sensible & not blow the bank, so to speak, on a player or 2; they were charged with collusion, & the players always won in court.
If ever there was a reason for the owners to hold tight with a purpose, it’d be next collective bargaining agreement. They should hold out for a true salary cap, not this ridiculous luxury tax, which absolutely does nothing to create competitive balance.
You salary cap truthers are some else. Competitive balance like the NFL, yeah that’s working the Patriots never win, the brows and bills always win. NBA another salary cap league, does any remember the last time a team Lebron wasn’t on that didn’t make the finals?
Baseball purists on the site have it backwards most of here scream bloody murder if they get rid of a small thing like the intentional walk but they want massive changers to how salaries work ok? There’s finally a market correction that favours the owners and the players are sulking? God forbid they have to sign one year deals in there mid 30s and prove their worth year in year out making 10s of millions of dollars how unfair!
In the NFL, NBA and NHL teams are on a far more even footing than in MLB due to their salary caps and revenue sharing. In those sports it’s easier to say the front offices, coaching staffs and players are what determine winners and losers. It’s not how much teams spend because of constraints but rather how they allocate those dollars. You are making your argument based on recent playoff appearances but in reality it’s the big spenders who are generally the perennial contenders in baseball while the smaller market teams have a tougher time sustaining long term success.
Oh really? Wasn’t aware of that? Do you have any evidence of this? I haven’t done any research about this surely you have. Can you tell me how many times in the last 10 years the team with the highest payroll has won the World Series. I know the Yankees and Dodgers have been one two for the last 5. They’ve won a grand total of championship of 0. Astros just won with a payroll under the league average, don’t think the Royals won with a top 15 payroll. So sense you seem to be convinced of this I’m sure you’ve researched it, id just like some evidence before you convince me that you’ve gotta spend to win.
Is English not your first language? I found it very difficult to read what you wrote, too many typos.
I think you’ve misunderstood him. If you actually look at payrolls you will see that teams with the lowest payrolls haven’t sniffed much success let alone won a Championship. The perennially bad teams (and are also Small market teams) are: Tampa, Cincy, Oakland, SD, Milwaukee…. Every once and awhile SD decides to spend some money but it never helps them to win and they ultimately end up trading away said payroll.
On the flipside, Large market teams like Boston, NYY, LAD, SF….are typically Playoff teams and Championship winners.
Read this article from a few years ago> bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-ranki…
Stop raising the F’ing luxury tax line to benefit big markets. This is how it should be with offseasons not being dominated by LA, Bos and NY all the time
Yep. It’s nice when smaller market teams like Milwaukee and Minnesota can bring in bigger fish
The small market team argument is a joke in my opinion. You have to spend money to make more money. I agree the large market teams have more money to spend while still being able to make a ton of money. The small market teams have to consider spending more money and making less in order to be competitive in the business of baseball. These small market owners pleading poverty is bullshit.
Yeah because making 200 million a year means you can offer comparable contracts as a team make 400-500 million a year.
The small market teams owners probably lose money if they spend more. They can’t run a team like that unless they are comfortable losing money. It’s not “bullshit”
I don’t think you understand how business works. I’m an Indians fan so I have as much frustration about small market teams as anyone, but throwing more money at problems doesn’t make them disappear. The “business of baseball” is still a business, and owners are businessmen by trade. They’re in this to make money first and foremost, and whatever excess money they have is what goes back into the team. You can’t just assume that an owner will spend above his market’s means just because he’s rich enough to own a team. Spending more and making less isn’t a sensible business strategy in any sense of the word.
Agreed. All these small market teams complain that they’re losing money on operations, but the value of their franchises have each increased half a billion the last decade.
Your point also supports the argument that large market teams should be willing to pay the luxury tax if it is going to put a winning team on the field that will produce increased revenue beyond what they spent on the luxury tax.
Sir you do not understand how things work at all to suggest small revenue teams crying poor is bullshit. No one says poor but how does San Diego for example compete with the Yankees next year on Machado for example. I mean get a clue!
? Not how it works. Look consistently at the operating incomes across baseball. Several of the higher profiting teams are the smaller markets. For example, in 2016 the brewers had a total revenue of 239,000,000. The year end payroll was 75,244,791. They spent 31% of the total revenue on payroll. They had an operating income of 58.2 million. The 7th highest in baseball. Toronto in comparison had a revenue of 278,000,000 in 2016 and a year end payroll of 159,923,479. So they spent 58% of revenue of payroll and had an operating income of 22.9 million which was 20th in baseball. Something not uncommon when you dive into the numbers. Can the small markets pay what the Yankees can and make money? No, but they can be a lot more competitive. It’s a fallacy when these team cry the blues about money. More often than not, they opt for higher profit margins.
Can you provide more data from small market teams than just the Brewers though? You make a really interesting point, but how do we know they’re the exception and not the rule?
Sure I can. Cleveland in 2016 had a revenue of 271,000,000 and a year end payroll of 114,707,868. So they spent 42% of revenue on payroll and had an operating income of 46.9 million which was 10th highest in baseball. The Pirates in 2016 had a revenue of 265,000,000 and a year end payroll of 105,866,836. 40% of revenue spent on payroll but had an operating income of 51 million which was 8th highest in baseball. The Yankees in 2016 made a league leading 526,000,000 revenue. They had a year end payroll of 227,365,376. 43% of that revenue was spent on payroll. The Yankees operating income was 39 million which was 13th in baseball. Hell the Dodgers lost money, in 2016 they were 20.5 million in the red. In a perfect world, an organizations rate of revenue toward payroll and operating income should remain similar in ranking if the costs were truly market size driven. The fact is while market size does matter, it is not anywhere as drastic as many of these small markets claim to be. There is no reason the Pittsburgh Pirates should make a higher profit than the New York Yankees when the Yankees revenue is twice the size. One is spending a bigger chunk of there pie and the other is opting for higher profit margins.
I see this a lot of hear “it’s nice when a small market team gets some of the bigger free agents”
This is stupid for many reasons. History suggests most of the deals signed by the biggest free agents turn out not just to be bad but horrible? So if your a small market team fan your suggesting your team completely hamstrings themselves in the future with a horrible contract making them even less competitive?
There’s this huge myth created by Scott Boras that you have to spend to win and spend to make money. Well baseball is getting younger and younger and most of the best players are younger and make less money than free agents so everyone knows the first part isn’t true so I’m not sure why they continue that stupid narrative. And you’ve gotta spend money to make money? Ok? Not sure why teams have obligation to keep your favourite player or sign a flashy new free agent when that’s been proven to fail several times over.
Minnesota isn’t a small market team. They are a mid market team that doesn’t like to spend money, there’s a difference.
Do you really believe that by not raising the Luxury tax that a large market team wouldn’t win Championships?
Because they’d find a way around it. Unless a small market team drafts and develops really well (like KC did) then they don’t stand a chance against the large market teams regardless of what the Luxury tax threshold number is and this won’t change unless they lower that huge number down to a more reasonable number. Lower it from $197m to $150m then sit back and watch all the large market teams scramble.
…Passan hears differently, writing that teams throughout the league don’t think that any of Darvish, Jake Arrieta, Eric Hosmer or J.D. Martinez is close to signing…
Represented by whom?
It is clear bor.ass is directing the heard and the heard is moving towards the cliff.
herd
I understand they are athletes and rightfully should get paid what they’ve worked their whole lives to earn but I can’t really sympathize when a player (and just using JD as an example) is saying ‘slow offseason’ when he has a ‘reported’ offer in hand of 5 years at $125MM. If that’s not good enough for you in this economic climate surrounding the game currently…
It’s funny how these pitchers have all of these offers on the table and yet with it being so close to spring training there hasn’t been a choice made yet lol.
If this trend continues perhaps the MLBPA will be more inclined to accept a salary cap in MLB akin to that in the NBA come the next CBA, especially one with a significant spending floor/minimum that the perennial lower payroll teams must adhere to. Other incentives from the owners like increased roster sizes and more player jobs through expansion just might seal the deal.
Everything you mention is a benefit to the players, not the owners. Of course they’d agree to that!
The one thing you think would benefit the owners is a salary cap. It would if it were low enough. Last year the average team spent $136.2 million on player salary. That was 4% higher than 2016 and 2016 was 5% higher than 2015. If you’re the owners you won’t agree to a system that’ll see salaries grow by much more than 5% per year. So how high a cap might they agree to for the average payroll to be $142 million in 2018? $150 million? $160 million?
MLBPA wouldn’t agree to a cap that at either of those numbers, because that would require a number of teams to dramatically cut payroll. Their objective is to get the Yankees and the Dodgers to spend $230 million a year, not lower their payrolls. MLBPA might propose a cap of $200 million and a floor of $150 million. That’d drive up salaries dramatically. The owners wouldn’t go for it..
Determination of the salary cap would be based on total revenue and a fair split of those proceeds between owners and players. The NBA has more dollars allocated to players because there are less developmental cost to the owners in that league than what MLB has.
MLB owners would also benefit from expansion. The last time baseball expanded back in 1998, the Diamondbacks and (Devil) Rays each paid a fee of $130MM to enter MLB. You can only imagine how much those expansion fees will increase when baseball is ready to add two more teams, hopefully in time for the next CBA and once the stadium issues of the A’s and Rays are resolved.
A lot of the luxury tax stuff is teams looking at next years free agent list. I’m sure some rebuilding teams ready to take a step forward are thinking they could wait a year and make a splash then too. Next year will have an insane amount of spending.
Perfect storm really – $, Boras, rebuilds winning last 2 WS, economy, next year’s FA, emergence of hot young players on nothing contracts, Miami fire sale…
So what now, expansion teams?
Expansion sure seems necessary at this point. With the enormous influx of International Players becoming eligible to sign in MLB, there’s simply “Not Enough Spots For Players To Play”……
Expansion would be complex…..deciding which division gets the “New Team” in each League. Two additional Teams would mean at least 50 New Job Openings in baseball but deciding how those teams acquire their players would be interesting.
Instead of deciding which divisions would get new teams, I think realignment would be more likely. I feel like the best move in that scenario would be scrapping the current divisions and doing 8 divisions of 4 teams each, like how the NFL does it.
Yes. MLB would then need to determine how many of those teams would be eligible for the postseason in addition to the four division winners in each league. All this could help change the “one-and-done” wild card format but would also increase the length of the postseason if they went forward with 4 wild cards from each league. Merely taking two would not eliminate the “one-and-done” wild card game or a shorter “play-in” series. Going with four wild cards could and would also allow for every playoff team to play as soon as the regular season ended with no byes. In the latter case, MLB would likely adopt a format where #1 played #8, #2 played #7 and so on in the first round.
Of course, MLB would also have to decide the number of games played in each of the early rounds, be it a best of 3, a best of 5 like in the current divisional series or just go with a best of 7 throughout which is my preference. A best of 7 for each of the four rounds would mean a potential 28 postseason games for the World Series finalists. Currently, the most games any finalist might play would be 20 if they were a wild card survivor or 19 if not. Adding a max of 8 games to the postseason would increase the playoffs an extra 10 days to 2 weeks.
Disagree. It’s actually unnecessary. There are a few teams that struggle right now in their current market (Oakland, Tampa, Miami all struggle with attendance even though they are in semi-large markets) and two mid-market teams that have hiccups of success and then a decade of mediocrity (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati) even though they have relatively new stadiums to draw crowds. Oakland and Tampa can move to different cities but who knows if they can actually succeed there?
Sorry but you’re Wrong, those teams are NOT Mid-market teams, they are indeed SMALL market teams. Read this> bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-ranki…
That’s an interesting article! I respecfully disagree with it,. The Tampa Bay area is the nation’s 11th-largest TV market and largest TV Market(DMA) in the state of Florida, according to Nielsen Media Research. Miami is 16th. Oakland is 8th. The reason Oakland and Tampa do poorly is because of their stadiums and locations, which is pretty much what your article suggests. I hear everyone can’t get to the Tampa stadium for whatever reason (maybe they all live in the burbs?) and Oakland’s stadium is terrible and in a grotesque area.
Actually I live near Oakland and before Mt. Davis was built for the Raiders it was a decent place to watch a baseball game. Now it’s a huge concrete pit. Back in the 88-91 heyday with Canseco and McGwire they drew 3 million fans consistently.
I think you’re confusing large tv markets with large “operating” teams. Yes those teams need new stadiums, how is that going for those teams? Have they really even tried to get new stadiums? What have they been doing with the revenue money shared? The fact these areas have a large tv market, have the ability to make so much more money but don’t is part of the problem. Sounds like lazy owners. The Red Sox could use a new stadium, they don’t use it as an excuse however and they have poured a billion dollars into that old relic to keep her going as long as they can. They pour money into their building and team so they can be competitive and make more money on the other end, no one can say that about those teams you mentioned.
It’s not collusion or even stubbornness. Players have gotten firm offers. It’s flat-out greed.
Wouldn’t really use the word greed. You’re worth what the market will bear and the market is not willing to pay you that. At some point, the market will agree or the player will have to sit out or get paid a lot less. This year there will be some Boras clients eating crow I do believe.
So, greed.
On whose part, though? Baseball players now make less of the money they bring in than any other major sport.
Why is it okay for the owners to be greedy and not the players who are actually the reason people pay high ticket prices, expensive cable bills, and ridiculous concession prices?
Team expenses are much higher in baseball. Baseball teams have to have more scouts than other sports because they sign so many players worldwide. Baseball teams have 7 or 8 minor league teams to operate. Baseball teams have to operate their stadiums for 81 home dates. That’s 10x the number football teams do. That’s a lot more electricity, employee salaries et al than other sports. I imagine you have to spend a lot less on sales and marketing when you have so few dates to market.
I don’t know what percentage of their revenue each of the sports spends on things other than salary but if NFL teams spend 15% of their revenue on those things I’d bet baseball teams spend 25-30%.
I think a key variable that doesn’t seem to get much discussion is MLB front offices are just plain smarter than their past predecessors. Gone are the days when obscene money is just thrown at good, yet not elite players who are nearing the wrong side of 30 or are already there. We’ve all seen how these contracts tend to become an albatross deal much sooner than later. I still expect the Harpers and Machados of the world to be paid handsomely. But the Chris Davis and Jacoby Ellsbury types shouldn’t expect 150 million plus
I was going to post a similar sentiment. For all the debates about the “whys” of the slow offseason, I rarely see anybody offering, “Maybe the owners are a little gun shy at this point.” VERY few long term expensive contracts pay off in the long run. Too many Hamiltons and Fielders and Pujols who wind up playing out their careers either on the bench or with severely reduced production (wait, athletes lose a step when they get older? Really?), and I think the owners are being a lot more savvy with their future expenditures.
Where that really hurts is in the case of a player who busts out early in his career. Most have to wait a pretty significant amount of time for the big paychecks. Perhaps the system needs to be changed somehow so that players earn more in the years when they’re producing more. There’s obviously no perfect system, but the flaws and foibles of the past are, in my opinion, biting down hard on players now.
I’ve heard it suggested that the MLB should adopt something similar to NFL style of non guareenteed contracts, but I doubt the MLBPA would ever agree to that. Plus I personally am not of fan of those deals. Its fankly embarassing that these NFL franchises are nickle and diming the people who are making them ridiculous amounts of money in the most profitable sports league on the planet. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a large scale labour dispute in the NFL’s near future
Owners are gun shy of course. The overwhelming body of evidence shows that long term contracts given to players over 30 years old fail more than they work out.
But I disagree that younger players don’t have the opportunity to get paid. Most of the better ones get offered extensions (or have the chance to have their arbitration years bought out). Then you have the young stars that come up at early ages (19-21) and get to free agency early enough to sign mega deals.
I might could see the mlb minimum raised slightly but I’d think that if anyone should get raises it should be the minor leaguers. There salaries for the most part are very low.
I think a possible compromise could be in contract renewal for pre-arb players. Most of these guys still make the minimum (or close to it) for the entire 2-3 years before they’re eligible for arbitration. What about a required pay bump each of those years?
Even a 20% bump on the league minimum would just be about $100,000 for the first year and $140,000 the second year, so perhaps a salary escalating system for pre-arb players would be smart. In that system, a player would be making upwards of 3/4 of a million during their third season, instead of just close to the minimum (if my math is correct).
And if a player isn’t worth that bump, non-tender them. It’s a very small concession for owners, but it could be significant to players.
This is already done. Only a few teams (Rockies come to mind) pay $600K or less to everyone. Bryant made $1,000,000 Mookie made $950K
This is incorrect. Significantly increased pre-arb salaries for non-superstar players is extremely rare industry wise.
Those are star players though, not common guys. That’s not always how it’s done.
I don’t know that a team (Orioles) can describe itself as a “hopeful contender” when they need to add 3 starting pitchers.
I’m a free market kind of guy, so I really don’t care what players are able to sign for. They have talents for which top dollar is paid—and we fans who side with ownership over them aren’t recognizing that in every market, distinctive talent has to be paid for. Do I think Hosmer, Moose, JDM are worth what Boras is asking? Of course not. But they are worth whatever the market is willing to pay them.. The tanking is a real problem. It leaves fans, many of whom are taxpayers and helped build the stadiums, waiting around for years as ownership rids itself of competitive players and pockets the difference. That’s bad for the sport.
MLB is not a free market. MLB has rules in place to depress the prices players would command in a free market. Slot signing in the draft, cheap team controlled years, luxury tax, ect ….
A handful of teams have said they would sign some bigger FAs this year if it wasn’t for the Luxury tax.
I’m wondering if there won’t be some pressure put on JD to sign by the players. It’s a really good offer and all these guys are waiting for jobs and need to know where they’ll be living for the coming years. I understand it’s not Boras’ ask but it’s not that far off and it’s certainly not insulting
Just remember that we the fans have to pay for when the players market is super high. Owners still want to pocket the same so they’ll either raise ticket prices or the tv deals will have to increase (which indirectly raises the price of your cable or satellite).
Time to reel in contracts. MLB should institute a hard salary cap–get rid of the luxury tax because going over the salary cap even a $1 over will prevent you from signing new players. If the players want to go overseas, then let them. The ones who stay will baseball more interesting again. Too many mediocre players are making a ton of money that teams shouldn’t be paying them. Screw the union.
Instituting a salary cap would just multiply the problems of this offseason. I’m all for competitive balance, but I feel like a salary floor would be more helpful for that than a salary cap.
Plan and simple, teams aren’t giving 30 + year old players 6-7 year contracts anymore. Those contracts never work out, ever! GMs are younger and smarter. The days of paying players for what they’ve done in the past are over and the sooner these players realize that, the faster the market will start to move.
Dead money on MLB rosters from contracts signed during the old CBA are having a spillover effect this off-season. I am surprised no one has done the math on that, it has to be a historic figures. That MLB teams thought the CBT limit would come in higher than what was negotiated is telling as the gap is about the price of 1 well paid FA signing.
Tax lines aside, MLBPA’s decades long philosophy of rising tides lifts all boats has failed both the MLB middle class and the 1-3yr service time rank & file. All MLBPA has done is created cheap, effective replacement labor for those players with seniority.
While there have been some changes to the QO system it is behaving like the NFL’s franchise player tag. More players should accept and simply buy insurance to cover injury so that they can be on the market the following season without a QO tag. Teams continue to tag players with no fear of them accepting. The couple of times it did happen teams got a lil screwed by it.
QO also needs to be revamped to give consideration to the player whose service time falls just short of free agency. Basically if a team plays with service time at the front of the contact to obtain an extra year, he can’t be given a QO of he gets a different type of QO where the “cost” to sign is far reduced.
An interesting quote “Passan indicates that players are continuing to encourage one another to hold firm and not cave into lesser deals in a sense of panic as Spring Training approaches” isn’t the market supposed to be the market?
Cubs will need to sign a front line pitcher(s). I’m not sure you can make it by signing lower level or unproven minor leaguers and then hoping that they become world beaters for a season.
Precisely, yet this is what the Cubs and White Sox do all the time. The best players look for long term contracts in free agency, something the Cubs and White Sox try to avoid like the plague. The Heyward signing really defied all logic, was a departure from the norm for the Cubs.
Not really. The Cubs aren’t a small market team, the only reason their payroll was lower was because they were Rebuilding. Once they got to a good point, able to be competitive on the field Theo had carte blanche to spend money. In fact he told the owner exactly how this process would play out, how long it would take and apprx- when they’d be spending and for how much. Theo & company worked their overall plan to a “T”. As for Heyward, they signed him for his Defense first. I’m sure Theo didn’t really want to give him all of that money but that’s what the market dictated at the time.
Regardless who is at fault, we the fans have to pay for it.
Front offices are realizing that the steroid era is gone. Players decline earlier and more sharply than they used to.
maybe all those unsigned free agents could talk vince mcmahon into starting a new league
Another Thought – Players are involved in so many games in their teenage yrs that they are producing elite numbers at a much younger age. Examples: Correa, Lindor, Seager, Judge, Bellinger, Betts, etc. so not as much incentive to pay big dollars for run producers on the downside of their career.
This off-season has felt like one big ole Western standoff between the FA’s and teams. Bullets loaded, guns drawn, finger on the trigger but neither one is willing to pull it. IDK what’s to make of all of it but one thing I do know is that it won’t be the teams pulling the trigger. They’ve already got guys they can turn to to fill your spot if you don’t want it. FA’s are at the mercy of the market to which the teams set and it will be the FA’s themselves who finally pull the trigger and accept a deal for less than they wanted.
Yu! Just sign with the Twins and be done bro! Geez!
Ultimately, regardless of how the financial system works, there is no way to make purchasing more than 4-5 free agent Years a better investment. Time and time again deals past 4-5 years just don’t pan out over the life of the contract. Analytics have taken over and 1) it’s obvious that usually these deals are garbage by the time the end and 2) the use of analytics helps teams find alternatives without spending so much money.
Market correction to minimizing dead money a good thing in baseball via shorter contracts on older FAs. On the flip side, hope club controllability on players can eventually be reduced from 6 to 4 years to hit free agency, so true producers can cash in when they are really in their prime for acquiring clubs (or those who stay put). Many teams can’t afford to outspend their mistakes, while a handful can no problem, and it makes for increased re-builds.
the owners are silly follow the suit of football and baseball and get a salary cap. If the MLBPA balks put a buyout clause in every player contract with a percentage to release the player.
There are no longer small market teams only bad owners or cheap ones which is one in the same. A fan of a team no longer has to be in the city to watch there team meaning with all the television contracts and with the ability to watch a game anywhere in the world there are no small market teams. Wealthy business men looking to maximize there profits will always take advantage of every aspect given to them including the poor me my team can’t spend like them cause we are a small team. People implying there team can’t afford a player cause he is too expensive for there team is ridiculous. As a blind man looking for his keys knows this sucks. All of you should realize the same as the majority of owners have begun to take advantage of the players, the media and the fans with the game being more profitable now then ever before and they are acting as if there team is in distress like a blind man losing his keys and all of you are buying into it. A Billionaire owner and his billion $ team is in no way under distress, but you should be worried cause a few owners spending correctly won’t save our league. The ones refusing to spend the correct %, pocketing more money then ever has been seen in the history of our game. And as fans, including the media cause they are fans as well we cannot be the blind man looking for his keys and allow ourselves to be manipulated by men who our friends with Madoff.
So you need to move to Sweden or some other socialist country. Owners are spending the correct %? In whose opinion? It’s hard for me to feel sorry for these players. Years and years the players were given these massive contracts late into their 30s and now th owners are wiser and GMs are smarter the players don’t like it? F that. You can’t have it both ways. I never heard any owner complaining about how the player they signed for 8 year deal stunk after the first two years? There’s a market correction and these agents are failing to adjust so what.
Sorry but you’re dead wrong, there really are small, mid and large market teams. There really are teams making small, medium and large profits. There really are teams that are placed throughout the country that have more or less of an opportunity for profits. On one end of the spectrum you have NYY on the other you have Oakland or Cincy, get it?
Read this> bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-ranki…
Have to agree on what Boras said. Players have been banned for throwing games and now we have owners throwing whole seasons by not even trying to put a competitive team on the field. I believe that is the biggest problem.
This is the only thing I agree with Boras ever. A draft lottery would eliminate some tanking, if you finish last you shouldn’t be guaranteed the most amount of money to spend on the draft. Right now if your last place in the league with a month or two left there’s no incentive not to lose every game
Imagine that, regulations killed the market. Take note left wing nutbags.
Regulations killed what market? So this market you speak of no longer exists because it was regulated? Is it the same market that crashed twice before with no regulations?I’m tired of playing the guessing game please tell me what market died and no longer exists because it was regulated and what does that have to do with baseball, unless your implying the owners are against a free market i.e. luxury tax and are in favor of a major regulated market to maximize profit then I agree with you that a regulated market in baseball might kill our game i.e. a strike or player stoppage.
Ok so the owners aren’t allowed to cullude with each other and had to pay million to the players in the 80s, but the PA is allowed to issue a memo to all the players saying stick to your high demands don’t take less? Why do a majority of you fail to see the hypocrisy here?
what happened to my comment???
If the bottom of the market is not going to spend then don’t penalize the top of the market. If the Yankees, Dodgers, Nats, Giants, Red Sox weren’t handcuffed trying to reset under the $197, then all these free agents would have signed long ago.
Not exactly. First off the Red Sox have already reset their luxury tax (last season) and plan on spending over the line for this coming season. They already have a contract offer out for JD but he hasn’t signed it because of Boras.
The Yankees, Dodgers and Giants have decided this year will be the year they reset, so they’re making more Trades than free agent signings.
The Nat’s don’t need to reset as they don’t typically go over the threshold.
I understand what you’re saying but the players can also sign with mid-market teams but haven’t. In fact most of the rumors have centered around the mid-market teams. Hosmer has been connected to KC and SD for instance, yet hasn’t signed.
Everyone thought once 1-2 of these guys signed that the dominoes would fall but that just hasn’t been the case. The truth is the agents are telling these players “what they’re worth” based on an old market, while the owners have decided spending big big money on non-Superstars isn’t the best way to go. Hence the stalemate.