As we approach February of a second straight long-gestating free agent winter, the top two free agents remain curiously unsigned. Rather than drive a bidding war, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado’s concurrent free agencies have snailed along with only the White Sox and Phillies as definitive suitors. More so than usual, there is a growing sense of discord between the owners and players, steering these economically-opposed-but-conjoined forces towards a potentially destructive labor negotiation in 2021, per Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe.
Teams at both ends of the competitive spectrum are contributing to this contentious ecosystem. At one end, bottom feeders like the Orioles, Marlins, and Blue Jays are realizing the long odds of winning their divisions and choosing the judicious (and totally understandable) approach to team building, largely abstaining from free agency. At the same time, there are more than a few teams with wide-open competitive windows who nonetheless remain passive in free agency, citing financial limitations or a need for future flexibility. The competitive balance tax, intended as a punitive fee to help balance the league, has instead become a scapegoat for large market teams to avoid significant free agent spending. Public opinion lands on both sides of the fence, with owners painted as evolving at best and collusive at worst, while the players are viewed, alternatively, as a whiny group of greedy millionaires or a disenfranchised labor force facing an unemployment crisis.
Receiving the brunt of the criticism at present is the Dodgers, back-to-back National League champions whom many expected to make a play for Harper. Despite their reputation as big spenders, however, it’s been quite some time since the Dodgers played the part of spendthrift, tweets Fancred’s Jon Heyman. When they hired former Rays GM Andrew Friedman before the 2015 season, there was excitement over what Friedman could do when given the reins to the Los Angeles machine. What has conspired instead brings to light a whole new question: how much revenue can the Dodgers clear under Friedman’s watchful spending? In theory, they’ve stuck a perfect balance between large market spending and small market creativity, but the reaction hasn’t been quite so laudatory.
For example, in staying true to his ever-creative roster management, Friedman shipped the erratic trio of Yasiel Puig, Matt Kemp and Alex Wood to the attraction-starved Reds for a pair of promising prospects and the remains of Homer Bailey, whom they released. We asked MLBTR readers for your opinion, and 45% thought the Reds won the deal against only 18% who pegged the Dodgers as the winner. There was another 24% who thought the trade was a win-win, but it was an overall underwhelming reaction to a move the Dodgers likely view as a creative means to acquire future assets in return for volatile performers who proffered no future value to the club beyond 2019.
The above trade, combined with their complete lack of interest in Harper and Machado gives the impression of a team disinclined towards large payroll expenditures. Accurate or not, the optics have born itself out in the public reaction – so long as Harper and Machado remain on the market, the cries for ownership to open up their wallets and “do whatever it takes to win” will not cease. And yet, the “throw money at it” approach to problem solving, long en vogue among sports franchise front offices, has gone decidedly out of style.
When pressed about the their lack of interest in Harper, Dodgers president Stan Kasten rejected any idea of frugality on the Dodgers’ part, per Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times. Kasten repeatedly cites attendance numbers to rebuke the idea of fan discontent while also railing against the public invention of false narratives. While that does sound an awful lot like another billionaire using the “fake news” moniker as blanket refutation of public sentiment, it’s worth considering his perspective. On the one hand, the Dodgers are being targeted here not because they’ve made poor decisions, necessarily, but because their market, the current competitive landscape, and traditional expectations of free agency peg them as one of the likeliest overspenders. That they aren’t taking the bait and competing literally at all costs shouldn’t necessarily make them the poster team for the current lack of spending. They did, after all, make the largest cash commitment to a position player thus far this winter.
And yet, with those sky high attendance numbers in tow, it’s certainly possible that the Dodgers are both among the highest-spending franchises in baseball and also among those most at fault for stifling the market. Keep in mind this exploration from Craig Calcaterra of NBC Sports, this isn’t simply a Dodger issue – this is a categorical questioning of the fairness, or smartness, or rightness of team spending throughout the league. The Dodgers are the team currently left holding the bag, but the Cubs, Yankees, Giants, Astros, Indians and others could all be accused of underspending, to various degrees. Only the Red Sox and Nationals had the gall (pride? guts? willingness?) to exceed the luxury tax in 2018. Of course, it’s not “crossing the tax line” at issue, it’s that the refusal to engage the free agent market leaves wins on the table. The rigidity with which large market teams are refusing to pay the tax is baffling, especially as more and more GMs attest that there’s no mandate from ownership to do so. The party line in front offices across the league isn’t that ownership won’t pay, it’s that ownership is finally hep to the fact that big contracts means big risk that sometimes turns into a big, constant reminder of ownership’s failings. In Los Angeles, the Angels have the best player in baseball, and the best argument against these monster contracts. The Dodgers, meanwhile, have a string of six straight division titles and two straight pennants. It’s easy to understand why Kasten believes in his club’s approach.
Time remains for Harper and Machado to land the types of mega-deals they’re seeking, and they will, no doubt, end up with a sum of money that, out of context, will boggle the mind. But in context, it’s more complicated. See Grandal, Yasmani. Teams are spending less in free agency than they used to and it’s incumbent upon the game’s biggest stars to set the market. Anything less would be a disservice to the players who don’t have the same leverage.
So where do MLBTR readers stand on the state of free agency in 2019? Have teams evolved to the point that’s simply frustrating for players? Are owners valuing revenue over contention in a way that threatens the underlying infrastructure of the sport? Should players readjust their expectations? Or is this the battle that’s worth going to the mattresses?
Even, is this just what a flatter marketplace looks like? With opposing sides taking longer than usual to find a middle ground? Regardless, the debate rages on. What do you think?
No, they’re just smarter
Look at the Dodgers. Got a bina fide ace as their #4 in Homer Bailey for an often injured pitcher, a DH homer/strikeout way past his prime guy, and a ticking time bomb in Puig. Although I belueve Puig will star Jomer is a bounce back candidate who will prove to be a great addition.
Bonafide ace in Homer Bailey? I’d like to have what you’re smoking.
please, puff puff pass
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume he’s trolling.
I’ll smoke to that 10/10 my guy
He is not an ace but getting out of Great American Small park will greatly help.
They released Bailey.
They also have about double the revenue that there payroll takes up, so when a team is quibbling about breaking the 205M mark while making more then 400M they look like cheap douchy billionaires. While players may seem overpaid, I will take the players making the money eight days a week over douchbags like Charles Johnson, Jeff Loria, and the Ricketts family,
Research the penalty for going over the luxury tax threshold before commenting… this is the reason they don’t want to go over for more than one year.
Red Sox (biggest spenders of 2018) – $11.95m
Nationals (second biggest spenders of 2018) – $2.39m
Yes the tax is killing these billionaires
@Friars
Yes, the penalty is minimal the first time you go over. But after that they really start to compound on you. The rate goes way up. Then you start drafting lower. Then you start receiving lousy compensation picks when you lose your free agents. No team can keep paying the penalty year after year. It’s not sustainable.
Red Sox, Yankees & Dodgers (easily the most taxed) don’t seem to be hurting. They have strong teams and strong farms
This idea that the owners are hurting really is a false narrative
Nobody said the owners are hurting. I said the penalties start to get stiff when you are a repeat offender of the luxury tax. And it’s true.
Didn’t realize the draft picks were penalized! Where can I see how the penalties work?
Vickers,
This link will explain it clearly enough. Hope it helps.
m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balanc…
Isn’t that kind of the point to taxing teams though,so they can’t just keep outspending the small market teams?
The payroll histories of World Series winners reveals that teams can’t meet or exceed 20% of total payroll to any one player. It is better if the highest paid player is less than 15%.
No team should have a payroll that exceeds annual earnings. For MLB pundits to wish to factor in team worth is silly as this book value can only be achieved by selling. To hear an MLB announcer say that a point of WAR is worth $7mm and that Harper is then worth $40mm per year is preposterous. The pundits are too anxious to pick out Superstars. Neither Harper or Machado is one. The GMs and owners know this and have to wonder how you would pay a real Superstar. The players watch these programs and it is in their interest to believe the hype. Past stupid contracts doesn’t mean that the teams should continue the practice.
I’m going to guess that you’re referring to smaller payrolls. Based on the history you pointed out, the Angels can win the World Series because Trout’s salary falls under 20% of their total payroll, both in actual and AAV.
What it comes down to is teams are not allowing agents to pressure them by claiming a false market value… The Red Sox contract, with JD Martinez, last year was a perfect example of the new way teams approach certain free agents. Most upper level players have a limited market due to asking price. You wait out the market and those players value will fall as most teams fill out their rosters and they can no longer be used as a bogus “Mystery Team”.
No its about teams being cheap and salary staying stagnant while revenue has increased a ton. Its literally a micro example of how the middle class has died in the last 40 years. Inflation is a bitch for people whose salaries dont move. Remember when a couple regular full time jobs gave a middle class family real money? In the same way that our middle class is stagnating the players are as well. AAV of contracts isnt rising at the rate that league revenue is so the players have a right to make some noise.
The biggest problem is the players never dealt with the 6 year arb rules, and most players are peaking younger, and retiring younger. Teams are wary of players in there 30s yet the entire system was designed so that it rewards longevity. Put in your first six years and you can get a real half decade contract followed by a few more multi-year deals into your late 30s, except now the number of players on a 25 man roster over 30 is dwindling, so if most players are -30 and dont get paid till 30+ then you obviously have a problem. Remove arb years compensate young players more fairly and then you have a problem where no low revenue teams can ever compete for long since it will always cost market value to build a team then. Currently the tear-downs are also going on because its a way to hoard underpriced talent till you have a threshold of underpriced players ready to carry you for a couple of years. Teams used to try harder to not be awful, and realize that in order to keep the competitive balance of arb years, that they have to uphold there end of that deal and make sure players get paid once they reach FA.
The biggest problem is contract length and player ego. If Machado or Harper were willing to take 6-7 years, they’d be signed already. There’s too much risk in the 10+ year guaranteed contract. No reasonable team is handing that out after all the documented problems over the years.
That said, yes, the 6 years of service time is an issue and it will absolutely be addressed in the next CBA. Hopefully, it doesn’t involve a work stoppage.
Well said Chapman
@Chapman Salary ISN’T stagnant, though. Guys are making over $30m now. That wasn’t the case a decade ago.
Yes, the teams are lining up to sign $30m players
Have you been paying attention these last couple of offseasons?
I have been, yes. Machado and Harper can make $30m+, but they also want 10 year deals. They aren’t going to get to have it both ways anymore. If they were willing to sign 4-5 year deals, they would get the AAV they were looking for. As it turns out, that might be what they have to do at the end of this offseason
Well said.
No team has a payroll that even comes close to revenue
Yup, we’re talking lots of money and there are a lot of bad contracts out there. Interesting to see things play out naturally, how much is hype worth etc
Salaries should have risen more, making those contracts less bad by comparison!
Also because baseball inflation far out stripes the dollars inflation rate teams backload these deals because baseball dollars are worth less in the future, so its not Alberts fault that the Angels wanted to pay him like 18MM in one of the early productive years and 32MM in one of the last 40+ age seasons. Teams get incentivized to structor deals in a way that makes them look worse in the long run, so you hear about player X with 3 years and Y million dollars left being immovable, yet they all forget about how only 1/3 of the total salaries is on the front half of some of these deals. Scherzer is underpaid as a whole, but Scherzer will be bashed by Nats fans someday when his money is still on the books and he is retired.
How do you really feel TC?……
I’m confused, so people want a salary cap, a soft one gets put in place, it deters teams from spending by design, and now people are mad that those teams aren’t spending?
People thought the soft cap would encourage small market teams to spend, but it hasn’t
The top free agents will still get a ton of money, they just won’t be getting anything more than 7-8 years anymore.
The players want long-term deals with multiple opt-outs. The owners are reluctant to let them have it both ways. Good for them.
Nope. Waiting game, usually utilized most by Boras clients.
Didn’t the Nats offer Harper $300M+ in their 2nd offer?
Harper is the same dude who responded: “Don’t short change me, bro” when asked if a 4oo million dollar contract was in his future.
I think Harper is a completely different case… He’s 26, one of the most marketable players in the game, and in his prime. Whereas most other FA’s are in their 30’s. He’ll get his $300M+, but that really says nothing about the rest of the FA market.
Not sure Harper gets his $300 mill. Who would pay that for a sub-elite player (let alone a truly elite player)? I see nothing that suggests he’ll get $300 mil. Maybe if the Nats want him back…
Harper is injury-prone and a subpar outfielder (though an OBP Machine). I wouldn’t want to give him a 10-year deal, that is for sure. Hopefully the Nats have pulled their initial offer by now.
He may get his 300MM but as one of the top of the market FA he has a duty to all other less fortunate FA to set a market price on $/WAR type figures that AAV is pushed up for all FA. Its also kinda fucked up that at a certain point teams just sorta decided that they would stop having the 1 year value in deals rise and would just make them longer. 10 years ago teams paid 18-30MM per season for big stars now its still about that. It punishes the players to keep the annual compensation down by dragging it out Trout needs to get 40MM a year so that other players can get that much on shorter deals.
Hi Mr. Boras so nice of you to post..
Look at the Dodgers. Got a bina fide ace as their #4 in Homer Bailey for an often injured pitcher, a DH homer/strikeout way past his prime guy, and a ticking time bomb in Puig. Although I belueve Puig will star Homer is a bounce back candidate who will prove to be a great addition. Its been planned before ST last year and probably following the Eagles superbowl win. Thats why the Sox won this year so us Bostonians could get over Brady losing. Remember the A-Rod signing? Its an illuminati thing. Real Eyes Realize Real Lies
You do know homer got cut right? Pretty sure aces aren’t guys who have 1-14 record with a 6 something era and get cut.
Nonsense. Average salaries have gone up tremendously over the past two decades. Players only seem to be interested in making noise when their top guys aren’t getting paid.
a report rumor doesnt mean its true
Better conservative than liberal lol.
Hehehehe…
Conserving lies and human misery?
You talking about Chicago?
That sh&t is just too funny…kudos bruh
Look who crawled out of the woodwork.
Interestingly from what I’ve seen, the majority of MLBTR commentors seem to be republican unfortunately. I’m curious what the rural vs urban and state breakdowns are among us
Baseball fans are overwhelming white, male, and over 50. Recipe for Republican.
i resemble that remark, except i’m ONLY 46.
Maybe we’re coming to a crossroads… owners are sure fired happy to continually raise ticket prices but increasingly leary of player salaries that are climbing…not many places to look for finances…cant make fans day at ballpark much better than it already is to attract the fan base…they’re getting priced out…Americans wages are not rising at the same rate…
Well said
Greed will kill the golden goose!
Greed already stomped on that goose and broke its neck.
Fans should boycott baseball. Its the only way to get everyone’s attention to the corruption of the owners and the elite players.. The people who are hurt by this behavior are the fans and the teams they root for, along with the rest of the teamates and especially the rookie -3 yr players..
In stead of a full-on boycott, I’ve started focusing more on minor league games. For every MLB game I take in, I probably attend 5-6 MiLB games. In most cases, the best seat in the house is under $20, parking and concessions are less expensive, and the level of play- especially at the higher levels – is surprisingly good.I also find that the players are much more appreciative of (and accessable to) the fans.
I enjoy the heck out of going to my local MiLB games. It’s cheap enough and i get to see some future stars in the making. Every once in a blue moon, i also get to see an established MLB star rehabbing.
it actually drives me nuts that AAA games are pretty much the same price as mlb games, at least around here. A+ games are cheap though.
Idk about concessions being cheaper but everything else is spot on. plus you get the chance to catch an MLber playing down as a rehab, or the next big prospect who’s about to get called up
Does that mean not watch it as well?
Corruption? Dude this is business. It’s quite clear to me that most of these FA are getting near or at top dollar in terms of aav. They just aren’t getting the 8+ years they desire. If I agree to pay Harper or Manny at an aav of $35 mil but only want to commit to 6 years then that’s not me being cheap. That’s me understanding that half-way thru that deal you’ll probably be on the declining side of your career.
That being said, one guys ceiling is another guys floor. Even when Arod was struggling towards the last few years he was still decent. He just wasn’t worth $20 mil. Neither Harper nor Manny have been as prolific as Arod was.
Agents and players just need to adjust to the fact that teams are going to be unwilling to go 10 years aside from a guy like Trout who is elite and might get a 10 year offer from the Angels. I’m not so sure another team would offer the 10/$400 I’ve heard thrown about. As amazing as he is no 1 player, even one like Trout, will succeed unless the team can afford to surround him with several other great players.
Yup players should make less for getting to play a game for a living, but owners should take a lot less also. Baseball used to be accessible now it will cost you 400-1500 to take a family of 4 to a game depending on if your going cheap in OAK/TAM or shelling out for NY/BOS. Kids dont play baseball as much because kids cant see baseball as much.
As an adult I look at going to a ballgame as kinda a hassle where its expensive, far enough its a pain, wont let me smoke at either stadium (not talking smoking in my seats but they wont even let you leave the stadium for a cig and come back without a new ticket), and I cant even see it as good as I do at home. Kids though its the funnest thing ever to go to a game, see the ballpark up close, snag an autograph or foul ball, and get some gear thats not the cheap team stuff they sell at dept stores.
If you’re saying that you can’t go to a game for less than $400 in the cheap markets, you are doing it wrong. I saw multiple deals last year for weekday games at Busch Stadium for $6 tickets. I can’t eat out for less than $6.
If you’re talking about field level seats and weekend games, well of course they’re more expensive, that’s when everyone wants to come. Those prices have to be higher to allow for the people that want the tickets the most to get them. This is a proper working of the market, prices adjusting for the proper allocation of resources. Making blanket statements drenched in that oh-so-subjective word “should” result in bad, bad situations.
I can’t speak for all markets, but I can speak for Tampa Bay. I’m sure you could spend that kind of money at the Trop if you want, but there is no way you have to. I have a friend who takes his wife, son and son’s friend to every Rays Sunday Home game. He has a couple of beers, the rest of the family get sodas and dogs and it’s less than $100. When I go to Rays games, I get out of there for under $100 and that usually includes me having 4 or 5 beers.
Those tickets have to be higher priced to allow for the people that want the tickets the most to get them. Huh?
Dynamic Pricing needs to go away
If you really want that ticket…..be the first one to ask for it. And don’t confuse craigslist with MLB teams
Ticket prices are based upon supply and demand. It has nothing to do with team payroll. If a team struggles to sell tickets, you can get cheap tickets (ie Rays, Marlins). The teams that have no problem selling tickets, will raise them because they will still them (ie Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cardinals). It is really basic economics. The change in free agent spending directly correlates with the introduction of analytics. Teams can now better predict not only a player’s decline, but they can also quantify, and thus value, that decline.
I noticed a lot of empty seats the past couple seasons at Yankees games. Argument shot down.
The Yankees literally had the second highest attendance in all of baseball in 2018 but okay
There is a difference of the tickets being bought and who actually attends. My uncle has season tickets to the blue jays but maybe makes it to 10-20 games a year. He writes it off as expenditure for “taking out clients” and sometimes gives them away to family and friends and clients but if even if they use it for half the games a year i would be shocked. I wouldnt be surprised if the yankees tickets have a bunch similar to that with wall street and all those big businesses nearby.
Yes, a big difference. Many seats at Dodger Stadium go unoccupied every night, but they are sold, so the Dodgers don’t care. I was at Game 5 of the World Series and noticed that some seats were never occupied. They also don’t seem to care much that half of the TV market is still blacked out. They get their money either way. Notice a pattern?
There is so much wrong with this statement.
Teams can’t predict a particular player’s decline and the considerable money & time spent on injury prevention haven’t yielded much in the way of positive results for any particular team.
Ticket prices aren’t based on simply ‘supply and demand’ either because of how teams work with resellers/third-party outlets and how variable ticket pricing works.
They absolutely are predicting decline. And they are getting good at it. They will miss some, but more often than not they are now seeing the signs. Take a pitcher for example. A drop in velocity is now measured, and even the casual fan can be aware of it. Do you ever recall anyone talking about average velocity, on each pitch, of any pitcher just 10 years ago? Or how about BABip? Bat speed? All of these are now measured and studied. On top of that, they are also all compared to the aging players and past players, where the data is available. This allows for teams to notice patterns, and thus predict decline. If you don’t think that is a driving force behind not offering long term contracts to free agents, then you simply haven’t been paying attention.
There isn’t a single predictive analytic metric that has strong predictive validity for individual players in terms of future performance..
Sure you can project generalized aging curves for generic players and look for comps but that isn’t the same thing either.
If a team had found the ‘secret sauce’ to what you are describing, they would outperform their competitors in regards to injury prevention, drafting & development, etc.
The rest of the things are you are talking about really have nothing to do with this either although they might be used to help develop some of those predictive analytics metrics.
$/WAR is a limited and flawed metric for several reasons especiallywhen prospects are involved. It is a basic framework and not somethat that is sancosanct on how to evaluate a deal.
I don’t disagree with your point, but all teams really need to do is go over to a site like Fangraphs and look at aging curves ( library.fangraphs.com/the-beginners-guide-to-aging… ) .
Some of them show declines starting at age 27/28. Now, If you and I know this, you can bet the teams know this too.
IMHO we’re headed for a labor stoppage, and the players are going to have to really dig their heels in and be prepared to stay out a long time.
With the new emphasis teams have on getting younger, players are going to have to fight like crazy to get to FA sooner, and raise the minimum salary a bunch.
That’s the only thing that is going to get them a bigger piece of the pie – get paid more at a younger age, because teams are not willing to reward the older guys like they used to.
Also, with minor league free agency not attainable until 6 years, teams can effectively control a player for 12 – 13 years. So if the MLBPA has have a brain, they have to shorten the time period of minor league free agency also.
I completely agree! After reading almost all the posts it is imperative that the players strike ASAP for their pay at a younger age! What no one mentions is that the owners HIDE some 35% of the profits from the public and the IRS in owning a team! So they make much more! if the owners are afraid of longer contracts they should agree to a max of 7-8 years and let a 29 year old into free agency instead of arbitration in the early years. The players association sold out the young players and now they are paying big time for it!
The first logical thing said thus far. The current Brazil like pay structures are benefiting ownership and some players. Yes many ballplayers make great salaries but teams are racking it in. And for every ballplayer with an okay contract how many are there in the shadows with far less. As much as i don’t want to live though another MLB players stike it’s the only way to get ownership to the table.
not true, even though they had a sellout streak going for years with multiple ws, you could still get giants tickets for under 20 bucks for most games and for a lot of those they would do view level seats for $7-8. prices are kind of arbitrary that way.
That is false. The only cheaper tickets are on the secondary market. And those selling them are taking a loss.
The government gives baseball all kinds of exemptions to MLB that they would hate to lose, but they cant act like stewards of our national pastime and not gouge for every cent they are able CTFO!
You can’t put the Cardinals in the same group as the Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox. They sell tickets for $10.
Harper could have signed already. Boras is known to wait it out, and that slows others down as well.
Teams are smarter, and there is really no need to jump the gun and sign players until Spring Training if needed.
fiscally responsible’s more like it. why invest in something’s if it’s not going return the value, because the fans want it? maybe data analysis has ruined the game or supports the case of spreading the money around to build a balanced organization. smart money spends its money wisely – only dummies make dumb mistakes. .
yeah, i think that the math for people that argue for the high salaries doesn’t make sense. if an organization is valued at a couple of billion but is expected to maintain a payroll for the players at 200mm plus per season, once you add the FO and operational costs, the organization could become under water(valuation wise) even if it is profitable.
it’s pretty obvious that these massive contracts haven’t worked out well in the past
This free agent class was hyped to be the best ever and it ends up being a boring slow offseason. By the time we finally got here many players declined, we had an unfortunate death, some extensions and only Corbin had a big breakout. Definitely not what we hoped but next years class looks like the one we wanted this year to be.
37 of the top fifty free agents have already signed. Its just 4 or the top 5 haven’t signed so everyone is overreacting.
Was Chris Davis the straw the broke free agency? He could go down as the last mega long term deal.
Corbin got a pretty big deal this year.
Let’s have a straw poll.
Stanton would be the last mega deal! Corbin got good money yes. I think Harper and Machado will still get mega deals but not the 400 mil people were expecting. Trout will likely blow them all away in 2 years.
The agents simply need to react to the changing climate and improve on their negotiation skills. It is obvious that what worked in the past is not effective now.
It’s simple risk aversion. I don’t think we can say teams are afraid of the aav. As long as there’s reasonable expectation that players under 32 should perform close to their highest expectations. Once you get into those declining years then noticeable drop off is expected. If Harper or Manny felt that a 5/$175 offer was acceptable then they would likely have signed as many teams would sign up for either at $35 mil per for ages 27-31. That would be a record setting aav. Some teams might even be willing to go a bit higher. It’s the ask for length and record setting aav that has most GMs shying away from both.
I completely agree with this! It is all about the length. You don’t want to be known as “that GM” who offered a 10 year contract and it come back to handicap you during the latter years. Case in point: Pujols, A-Rod, etc.
Yup, Harper and probably Machado could get $200 million deals for 5-6 years; but they (and their agents) are greedy. They want to be paid in the out years for being unproductive. Absolutely, I think we’d see a $40 m AAV on one or both of these guys if the’d agree to 4-5 year deals.
The players make too much money as is. I don’t blame the teams for not wanting to commit long term.
I have to disagree here. I’d argue the players’ overall take is just about right. They take in approximately 50% of the revenue.
“We have been at a very stable — approximately 50 percent of revenue going to player salaries — for five, six, seven years,” Manfred said. “The math of that means that salaries are growing in line with revenues.” 2/15/18 NYT article Rob Manfred Defends Changing Paces, of Free Agency and of the Game
Tony Clark hasn’t disputed those numbers. He says they are as close to ’50-50 as they have been in a long time’ and that the MLBPA expects to be in lockstep with MLB’s revenue growth.
To put in perspective an employee typically costs their employer 1.25 to 1.5 times their wage. Depending on the type of business, this can be as much as 70% of total revenues. In terms of sports, The Sports Business Journal had both the NBA and NHL at about 57% and the NFL at 59%. While that seems like baseball spends less on their players don’t forget that the owners spend a significant amount on player development and minor league players, most whom never make the show. SBJ also stated that the high point for player’s share of the revenue was in 2003, when they brought in 63%. That is “players making too much money”.
I think this is a case of missing the forest for the trees. We’re seeing whats happening with Harper and Machado and focusing on the shift with long term contracts/ ownership’s use of analytics. This doesn’t mean the owners are cutting the players share, or showing a lack of desire to win. It’s simply a reallocation of the players share. Instead of long contracts, we’re now getting 15MM aav closers, 9MM aav relievers, Grandal will make 18MM next year despite his horrible playoff showing; Arenado is looking at what, 24 or 30 million in arbitration? This, long term, is going to make baseball a better product. Instead of paying an Albert Pujols 28MM this year to put up numbers that a guy like Chris Carter can’t even get a job with, a team can get a solid catcher and a solid reliever for that price. For the same 28MM a team could have 5.4 fWAR from Grandal and Familia or -0.2 fWAR from Albert Pujols.
owners are making way too much money as it is. don’t blame players when they go on a strike for a long time!
What basis do any of us have for whining about how much owners or players make? Their revenues and salaries reflect the value of the game in the market. Its hard to take monetary remarks from MLBTR commenters seriously. None of us walk where they walk, so why do so many of us delude ourselves into thinking we know more about this business than those who are actually in it?
don’t tell me that. tell the people that think only one side has to make most of it without regard to the other side that actually brings money in.
If I was a owner I would never give out 10 yr contracts or aav of 30 mil or more
And they haven’t. Doesn’t mean you can’t ask though.
Why is MLBTR constantly showing annoyance with owners who don’t want to spend $300m+ over 10+ years? MLBTR should be in the middle.
I know the predictions were out there, but maybe it’s time to dial back the dollars and years projections, even w/ a “generational talent” like Harper or MM.
I would take a guess and say site traffic goes down with a slower offseason (even though this one seems reasonably paced, they were hoping for record setting numbers)
are you an owner or an agent of one?
The owners are defeating themselves, as the game devolves into an NBA-style, anti-competitive landscape where only a handful of wealthy, high-profile teams (Yanks, Dodgers, Bosox, Cubs) can afford to win. If I’m in Miami, Minnesota, Pittsburgh or Baltimore, why should I buy even a partial season-ticket package if it’s ultimately pointless?
Same with my local minor league team. They stunk last season, yet raised season ticket prices….again. I passed on getting them for this coming season.
They just don’t seem to understand the concept of crappy product doesn’t earn dedication.
This is the game’s biggest challenge moving ahead forward. There are as many as 15 teams this year that aren’t even making any attempt at fielding a competitive team next year.
Always going to have a certain amount of teams rebuilding but when half the league is doing it, it is a huge problem for the overall value of the product.
Yep, this. The sport is 30 teams but you wouldn’t know that by the number of teams that are seriously trying to compete in any given year. Ownership is surfing a wave of revenue mainly coming from the huge new media contracts, but (as we’ve seen in LA) that can’t go on forever because they come with problems of their own.
If those teams are more reluctant to go over the luxury tax threshold and the overall salaries are going down, wouldn’t the result be the exact opposite?
It’s a CBA issue that players will have to renegotiate. Players aren’t reaching free agency until 7 service years at 30 years old (Machado & Harper being exceptions rather than the rule) and teams recognize 5+ years and $100 million to aging players is perennial bad business. Add in teams holding players back in the minors and it’s a bleak outlook when players have viturally one chance to cash in on their careers. It’ll be a tall task to get owners to reconsider that part of the CBA.
owners don’t make money without players . replacement players weren’t good for them either.
if the media can not find a story…. the media will create a story
Easy change for the next collective bargaining agreement. Just a thought.
Expand the 40 man roster to 50. After a player is signed, they do not have to be placed on the 50 man roster until they have been with the organization three full seasons.
Minor league Players who change organizations do not have to be placed on the 50 man roster until one full season has passed.
Once placed on ANY 50 man roster, your Free Agent clock starts. You are a free agent six years after being placed on your first 50 man roster.
Players get a bite at the apple earlier and you no longer have Acuna sitting in the minor leagues at the start of the season.
Glad to see the obvious answer is leading in the poll. This all falls squarely onto the players. There are many who despite mounting evidence, continue to argue this is about the teams – teams with $200M-$250M annual payrolls. We’re at a point when all, but 3 teams have payrolls north of $100M annually and the huge majority north of $150M.
Players and fans have argued for years about a salary cap, yet now when 75% of the entire league are building teams on the edges of these “set” budgets, now people are crying that players can’t find contracts. Why is this so difficult for some people to digest?
And today I read about Cespedis likely not playing in 2019 and being paid $30M.
Free agency is so heavily stacked in favor of the player.
I don’t know if it will help, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the league introduce something in free agency that kind of mirrors the NHL system. Free agents are capped at 7 years and extensions at 8. Players would give up the years but you’d think teams would probably be more willing to give out the extra money.
Braves have. Or at least always have been. We typically like to make bad trades before we make bad free agent signings lol
I think it bugs me more that teams with a legitimate chance of winning, and plenty of money to spend, aren’t doing much to make their teams better (Pirates, Twins). Then they blame it on the fact that they’re in a small market, or are building for the future as their excuses.
This. The Rays could spend just a little to help out their 90 win team but theyre content on their biggest acquisition being Charlie Morton. The Twins should be trying to usurp the AL Central from the weakened Indians but their biggest signing is Nelson Cruz. That isnt to say i dont like what the Twins are doing generally, I like a lot of their low risk high reward pickups like Schoop but they could easily do more. Their success window should be at their doorstep and they arent seizing it.
Pirates play in a tough division but Nutting is a terrible owner and Pirates’ fans are going to continue to stay away in large numbers this year I bet. They are feed up with him.
Twins have another notorious cheapskate owner in Pohlad and it must be so frustrating to see their team not spend a bit more in a division that is pretty wide open.
Indians have a better team on paper but their OF is full of waiver wire types. If the Twins had been a bit more aggressive and made another impact move or two, they would have likely given the Indians a strong run for their money.
Instead, they project to be .500 or so and only will win the AL Central if nearly everything breaks right.
They will spend. For 2, MAYBE 3 years. Anything more and you’re talking about being non-competitive for the rest of those contracts. Is that what you want as a fan? We signed these 5 free agents so we’ll competitive for 2 years, but we’ll be horrible and unwatchable for 6 years after that.
This is simple. Long-term contracts are legally stronger than marriage. Forget their age, nobody wants to make that much of a commitment. You can’t just get a divorce.
Marriage and long-term contracts are for optimists.
Often times, a pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.
The thing is, the players aren’t getting less money. They’re just getting less years. Instead of a 5 year deal at $15 M per, they’re getting two or three year offers at the same money.
LOLed at ‘my head hurts’ thanks
Kasten is a bad example, especially for Dodger fans who are not happy about a three -decade WS win drought. His full response today was remarkably arrogant in his contention that things are just fine because there are at least 40,000 wealthy enough people, of the 10M in LA County, who can afford season tickets. At the same time, the $8B television deal means that 60 percent of the fans get no televised games. And this is the same guy who has expressed no remorse that the Braves – his previous team – won 14 straight division titles and just one WS. Yet he feels he is the aggrieved one. Priceless.
I think the Impact of Young Players at the ML level has become larger giving teams much more return on investment…so the need to break the bank on proven talent via free agency has been diminished. Teams that are winning it all these days are doing it with young team established cores. Astros / Red Sox etc. perhaps the success of the KC Royals shifted the focus to this approach. What do you think?!
I always laugh whenever there’s an article talking about players not getting what they are “worth.” Their “worth” isn’t established by them, their agents or even what anyone made before them. It’s what someone is willing to pay them now. If no one is willing to pay them what they think they are “worth,” then they aren’t really “worth” that much.
Well written TC. Now that each and every team finally has become sophisticated and is exploiting the CBA for the useless, dysfunctional document that it is, if and when the union even approaches a similar level of acumen, there’s a stoppage in the making that will ultimately result in an appropriate division of sport-related revenue.
In layman’s terms – the CBA is an absolute joke.in favor of the teams. The intrinsic numbers are irrelevant. It’s the division of revenue that matters and there is no division, The owners can, should and will do what they want unless and until the CBA guarantees a percentage of revenue to the talent (players).
No, absolutely not. No player should ever be getting paid the kind of money Harper and Machado thought they were going to make. There is no reason to be spending that kind of money on one player. The bigger contracts have always become bad contracts by the end of them. The owners are getting smarter. A break in ticket prices to go along with not spending the huge money would be nice, but I definitely like that the owners are getting smarter about their spending.
Why should any team owner make the kind of money owners make?
Anyone downvoting this knows I’m right
Teams owners invest the money in the teams in order TO make money.
I suspect you’d feel the same way if you bought a team.
Why should any MLBTR commenter think he has the knowledge (or the right) to cap what someone else (owner or player) earns? Major League Baseball is a sophisticated business that few of us fully understand. I can’t imagine you could make a detailed business case to prove your point. So many commenters here buy into the idea of some big players-vs-owners battle and feel compelled to pick a side. Few (if any) of us really know enough to tell the good guys from the bad guys. We’d all do better to step down off our soapboxes and just enjoy the game.
Then no team should be getting a $300m/yr TV contract. No reason to get that money if you aren’t going to spend it. Many teams could field payrolls in the oven the CBT threshold just with their TV deal revenue and still come out net positive. It’s not like lower payrolls ever lower ticket prices.
Well who in their right mind wants to pay either Machado or Harper all that money?
If had the money and had to spend it, I would sign Harper, but other than that, I really want neither. In the end everyone pays, those stupid TV deals are fueling the insanity! Everyone is forced to pay and that is not right and the MLB simply does not care and neither does the player.
So this article is blaming the Dodgers because now they don’t have the balls to exceed the luxary tax? Just because teams have money does not mean they absolutely have to spend it. A team is a business which I think players are losing sight of. They’re not going to bid against themselves when they don’t have to. I’m not siding with the owners either but people blaming them for this slow moving market are not taking everything into account including agent tactics. If a player like Harper thinks he’s worth 300 million then by all means holdout for that contract and don’t settle for anything less. All of these players settling for lesser contracts are what is making the free agent market so stagnant.
Just how it’s gonna be from now on. Minimum pay should be raised to 2 million imo.
I agree that the MLB minimum should be raised, 2 Million might be a little too much right now, but maybe 1 million now with 100K increases every year.
Players really need to be paid more in arbitration. Players just aren’t as good in their 30’s and are in their prime during their pre-arb/arb years for the most part. It just isn’t right players should have to wait 6 (or 7 if they are an elite prospects) to get paid what they are worth, and by that point they often are in a decline of some sort or another. (Obviously Harper and Machado are exceptions).
With players getting paid more in arb, the amount free agents would make would obviously go down as a result because of the $$$ allocated to younger players, but that’s okay if they have been paid early on in their careers. This would obviously need to take affect gradually so there isn’t a sudden drop in FA value, but the current system needs to be fixed ASAP.
There’s just absolutely no reason why Francisco Lindor should be making $1.7MM total over the first 4 years of his career and only $10.5MM in the 5th season.
The expression “false narrative” should have been in quotes, as this was Kasten’s rather bizarre way of avoiding answering the questions he was being asked by a reporter. Notice that Hernandez pursued that point repeatedly, and Kasten completely avoided explaining what he meant by it, while evading any number of other questions. In essence, he was saying that he didn’t need to explain anything to any stinking fans. More to the point, nobody is saying (that I’ve ever heard) that the Dodgers should do “whatever it takes” to win. Lots of fans say they should do “what” it takes to win. Not making this distinction plays right into the “narrative” being spun by Kasten that the fans are expecting way too much for their money.
I’m not a fan of the luxury tax and i’m not a fan that there isn’t a floor cap.
Yes, some teams are being more conservative, but that’s what analytics tells them they should do. As well, there are several teams, in my opinion, that don’t care about winning, but only the profit line.
Having 10 teams seriously vying to win it all, 10 teams tanking and 10 teams content to tread mediocrity is a pretty sad state of affairs. There needs to be a way to reward teams that constantly try to win and a penalty for teams that don’t. Docking successful teams to reward tanking teams is not a good business model.
It’s sad, to me, to see teams that are/were flagships of this game at or near the bottom of the standings on a constant basis.
My friend and i thought about this and thought there should be a half year intervals for service time. Either beginning of the year and some point in the middle of the year so whether you bring a player up opening day middle of april or may they still get full year service time. Then pick a date in the middle of the season (maybe all star break) where after that point they accumulate just a half year service time. This will reduce all the time clock is he within a day or not and get the extra year of control.
The only catch would be the sept callups. Maybe exclude that from the half year rule or do something else for that service time for this but we really couldnt come up with an idea for this.
Maybe the time has come that the owners and especially the fans think that nobody is worth the money that Harper and Machado are commanding. After all what has Harper done for the Nats, no world series. What has Machado done in his career to deserve that kind of money ???
Harper has done better in the postseason than the superior Trout. I suppose Mike won’t deserve the big money, either.
What’s worse than the lack of free agency movement is the obscene amount of digital ink sportswriters are spilling over it. MLBTR too. How much can you write about how little teams are doing? Apparently a lot, if this post is any indication.
Also you can’t start a sentence with “Even, is this…” This is not proper English, not to mention comma abuse.
I gotta stop reading this site. It’s gotten way too dense in the last year or two.
^^^ “What’s with these news organizations writing about hot topics that people care a great deal about?”
I voted “no”.
Namely, because what wasn’t pressed upon enough is that Machado and Harper are asking for “not only” record breaking contracts money wise, but they also want 10 years or more in length.
If you are a player that wants big money in this market, go for a short term contract of 2-3 years and play the market again. Seems a lot of players do not believe in their ability or ability to stay healthy if they keep demanding very long term deals.
As for the teams, get rid of arbitration and let everyone play free agency.
Teams should only be paying long contracts to guys who are GIVING UP money, not asking for more.
I agree with both sides. Players deserve to get paid what they’re worth and owner’s don’t want to have albatross contracts on the books when a player declines ie. Albert Pujols. I think what is going to happen is players are going to be paid on an annual bases what they are worth on shorter term contracts. Maybe 6-180/7-210 instead of 10-300. It’s funny that no one but the fans really talk about the dead money on the books, the teams just have to deal with it. But when teams and owner’s fight back the players are up in arms.
it has to do with the players in question also. If Trout was a free agent now, there would be 30 teams competing to give him a 10 year deal. If Harper and Machado were asking for 6 years, there would be at least 10 teams bidding for their services. Both players and their agents set unrealistic goals and now they’re astonished that no team want to meet them.
That’s really just an assumption though. The same narrative was used last year. “Oh just wait for the bidding war for Machado and Harper”
Why not ask instead, Ask Obvious Question to get Maximum Responses?
Its just stupid to give a player 10s of millions of dollars to play a game till theyre 36,38,40 yrs old. It inevitably, bites them in the ass, in the long run. How did giving big contracts to pujols and josh hamilton work out? How did prince fielders last contract work out? Remember when tom hicks and jon hart of the rangers tried to spend like the yankees and they wound up paying 50 million dollars one season for mark teixeira and arod to play for the yankees? I love kershaw but how do yall honestly see that contract working out for the dodgers in the long run? Hows miggys contract looking for the tigers? Jason heyward? Robinson cano? Greinke? Choo? Its just stupid and has been for 15 years but owners just now figured it out.
This is the best explanation I’ve read for what’s going on with free agency.
deadspin.com/baseball-doesnt-need-collusion-to-tur…
How about an option that says not much has really changed and that players like Harper who turn down 300M from their team assuming that they will get 400M make very bad business decisions.
I think it’s largely a combination of the union prioritizing veterans over young players and the impact of drug testing. The union was always willing to sacrifice the young players as long as the veterans got paid. At the same time, the drug testing has made it a lot more difficult for players to maintain their performance or even improve as they turn 30 years old. Players are no longer having career seasons after turning 35 (that’s when Sosa, Bonds, McGwire had their best seasons), and most are actually falling off a cliff at that age, if not earlier, so it becomes completely irrational to give these guys contracts that pay them huge year salaries until their late 30s – some say that management has stopped awarding long term contracts because the use of stats has revealed that it’s not a wise choice, but I don’t believe that the stats were saying the same thing before the crack down on steroids. I think anyone giving Harper or Machado more than 6-7 years would be taking a poorly calculated risk, as players that can continue to hit and play the field at a high level at that age are in the minority, especially when your young guys are putting up such good numbers (perhaps because they don’t have to compete against guys with 15 years of pro experience that are “magically” also in their physical prime, although development of young players may be becoming more efficient as well). I’m not saying that the salary caps are reasonable or that the management isn’t colluding on some level, but I do believe that drug testing and the ability to get so much more value out of young players’ salaries are the main drivers of what is happening.
To the extent that “conservative” is defined as “colluding within the ownership cartel to rig a system to rip off the workers,” … actually, yes, 100%, too conservative.
I could make an argument for any of them. I voted “My Head Hurts” because this offseason sucks. Ultimately though, teams need to prioritize winning more and put better products on the field. The game is awful when there are a maximum of 10 who can conceivably make the World Series. This is what makes the NFL great, teams often go from worst to first. I know that it’s an entirely different sport and circumstances, but we need more competition in the sport.
Not when the contract demands are 10+ years and $400m. There’s only been 1 deal worth over 300,and that deal has already been paid down to be moved.And it was given by a owner that had to sell his team.And players pushing salaries up ain’t gonna take money out of the owners pockets,its pushing prices up and taking money out of fans pockets.And you’re gonna say it’s TV money,but those prices go up as well.Everything trickles down to the customer,because no matter how you look at it,we’re the businesses revenue.
Where is the vote for our wallet?
I’m ok with ownership saying players are at their pay ceiling if they will agree to stop increasing the price of everything each year. Most of these teams are getting free rent from their host cities.. Something has to give. It’s not right to pocket millions while putting out a crap product. You took a forced deposit from the citizens, and continue to take tax breaks..this isn’t normal business 101. Teams do owe it to the fans to be competitive. Rebuild fine, but some teams continue to pocket what should be reinvested
It isn’t only about Machado or Harper but the entire FA market including how a number of players, especially a number of veterans in their 30s/30, are having trouble even getting a guaranteed contract.
As for owners being willing to notably lower ticket prices if only player salaries were lower, dream on.
This is the same ridiculous argument you see play out in academia among labor economists especially in regards to benefits. Health insurance is a great example. There are a number of labor economists who argue that if the price of health insurance premiums would be lowered, most employers would share those savings with their employees through higher wages, etc.
Maybe in Fantasyland but using real-world data those firms just largely pocket the savings as additional annual profit especially among non-unionized firms.
Same would occur if there were a slight reduction in player salaries and MLB has set up an economic model where most teams don’t need to be that concerned about their annual gate revenues in order to be profitable.
I put not necessarily option. as a Braves fan, I think it pretty much speaks for itself. after many losing seasons, and some prospects not panning out, they did hand out some FA contracts that shot themselves in the foot. Lowe, Uggla, Upton,. they were stuck with little to nothing in the minors, and a decent MLB team but one that was aging and some that werent panning out as planned. The full rebuild mode they went into so far has looked pretty decent and i dont see how anyone could argue against them not spending all their money on unsure FA’s, esp considering the crop that will be on the market in the next year or two. plus they will need $ to sign their own group of upcoming stars.
this isnt meant to be biased, but as a fan of the team obviously it’s easy for me to talk about what they are doing, not that it’s necessarily a secret or anything
“Yankees be accused of underspending”
Haha, no. Maybe at SP, but we all know they are referring to them not foolishly bending over backwards for Harper or Machado. There was another article here that listed all the teams have Machados positions covered (implying that they then would not want Machado) and I thought it was hilarious that they left out the Yankees. Give it up, the Yankees are not desperate for Machado and Harper and therefor will not get any of them unless their price drastically drops. It happened last trade deadline. The Yankees were interested in Machado, buuuut not that interested, as they already had all his positions covered, so they were at the lower end of the biddings.
Just stubs me how little basic economics is understood. And I’ll never understand why fans would side with management over labor.
This x10 on here.
1) The results that go with big FA contracts ultimately speak for themselves.
2) Most teams can’t really afford to dump that much money into a player anyway.
3) Pre-FA talent is dirt cheap and often far better than what’s available in FA anyway.
If we want to fix things, the financial system has to allow all of the teams to have a reasonable chance to sign all of the players. Of course situationally some teams will be more interested than others in free agents in a particular year. But let’s be honest, the few teams with the revenue to support extreme FA spending drove FA prices. It was a commodity bubble. The prices were driven up artificially and were never really a reflection of league wide demand. The league didn’t care because they only worry about the big money teams, and the union didn’t care because they were benefiting in the short term, even though it was unsustainable. The big dollar teams could play in it but most of the league leaned towards drafting development and analytics to find talent for cheap rather than relying on FA.
Now that the big market teams started copying those tactics and leveraging their money a lot better the driving force behind bubble popped. The victims are the mid grade FA who came to expect certain results in free agency aren’t seeing it anymore.
Every single team can afford both of them together.
I think it’s a combination of yes and no, yes in the sense that there are an increasing number of teams flat out “tanking” causing there to be far less demand for free-agents. But also no in the sense that I think the players do need to adjust what their expecting a bit… it’s been proven over the past decade plus that these massive 10+ year contracts for $20-$30+Million generally end poorly for the signing club. So why would teams continue to make those types of offers if they see the majority of them backfire on the teams?
Nope, teams are tired of getting burned. Owners were their own worst enemies for three decades , they are finally wising up and the players dont like it .
I think most posters are hard core baseball junkies but MLB has a real problem, the haves and have not’s and that seldom changes. Nice seeing the Reds and Padres trying to upgrade their teams and at least let their fans know they want to contend.
Sadly we know that half the teams have little to no chance to reach the playoffs, yes one or two could surprise but most likely the same clubs will reach the playoffs. The teams willing to pay and have the money not to worry.
I also think profit is the key issue for some clubs not spending, with a smaller payroll they have less overhead cost. In a business control over payroll is a cost that a boss/owner can actually control.
Another item is teams are more reluctant to go after guys 30 plus years old making bigger salaries and are now a gamble they are maybe on the downside of production.
The contract we’re getting ridiculous. Glad it’s getting reigned in now. My hope is more money goes to non all-stars. We’ll see.
Dylan Hernandez is an idiot who is incapable of understanding why the Dodgers are trying to avoid long-term commitments that compromise the team’s ability to remain competitive every year. Long ago when he was in Atlanta, Kasten realized the only way any organization can maintain its ability to compete year in and year out is to avoid dead money contracts on its payroll. It’s just as true fir the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox as it is for the Braves, Astros and Reds. Avoiding contracts such as the one’s that force rebuilds and multiple years of being non-competitive (See Phillies, Astros, Cubs, Yankees, Padres, Tigers, Mariners) or just undermine flexibility (Angels) is essential and it is what fools like Dylan Hernandez are just unable to get their heads around. Kasten isn’t trying to line the pockets of owners or shareholders, he simply understands that multi-year deals that inherently result in players being paid $20+ million a year and unable to put up a positive WAR is lunacy. The Pujols, Cano, Stanton, Ellsbury, Crawford, Zito, Melancon (and these are just a small number of examples) deals of recent years force rebuilds and/or years of mediocrity that make no sense. Particularly, when winning a WS is as much about luck as skill for the 4-6 teams each year that have equal shots to win.
How many 10 year contracts have worked out for the life of the contract?
I honestly believe it’s not the $30M/Year that’s dragging things; it’s the 10 years.
“Pay the elite what they’re worth”
That’s fine; so long as they remain elite and continue to be worth it for 10 years; years in & year out
… of course there’s no way to predict/promise something like that; therefore …
There’s no middle ground: $30M or 10 years
You would be surprised, but one of the best was the original 10 year $189M contract to Derek Jeter. Manny Ramirez’s 8 year deal with the Sox was another long-term success and Pujols original deal with the Cards was probably the most valuable ever given. The drop off is steep after those three. Think about that, for all the 9 figure deals handled out, there are probably a handful we can convincingly say were a success.
Sethesq, you asked “How many 10 year contracts have worked out for the life of the contract?” I tried to answer it in a separate reply though I admit it is somewhat clumsy. Bottom line is there have been 8 players that have signed contracts of at least 10 years, of those 8 players, only 2, Todd Helton and Arod saw their final year with the same team. Stanton, Arod (first “10 year deal”) Cano, Tulo, changed teams at least once, Pujols and Votto TBD…
I also forgot Jeter. I was mouth-breathing when I did that.
We don’t have to (and shouldn’t, without hard evidence) assume collusion. But we do need to acknowledge that consensus industry “wisdom” is that the money is rolling in regardless of how competitive a team is, so there better be a really good reason to spend on players. If you can drag salaries by even five percent industry-wide, that’s a lot of money that goes directly to the bottom line. I also think that the extra-wild card, while intended to make more money for the teams by keeping them in playoff hunts later in the season, actually hurts spending by throwing two teams into a one game playoff. Let’s say you are in a division with a team that’s expected to win 95 games, and realistically you are a mid-eighties win team. You’d have to sign Mike Trout or Mookie Betts to replace a gaping hole in your lineup before you’d have a realistic chance of not being any better than a Wild Card—which gets exactly one guaranteed additional game. Now, let’s take out the superstar and go down to the just very good level. How much money do you want to spend on, say, a three win improvement? The league doesn’t have a problem with money right now. It has a problem with competitiveness–too many teams profit from being lousy, and decide that’s the route.
I think if Trout is an FA this year, teams are still trampling each other to land him. They are certainly getting smarter and more conservative but Johnny Hustle and Harper having some question marks is compounding that impression.
Would they be tripping over themselves for Trout though? Yes he is an all-time great, but owners are not exactly demonstrating that winning is the priority.
Wrong about this. He’ll be approaching 29 years old once his contract runs out. He has the potential to set a new annual high, but in terms of length, very unlikely he receives more than a 4-5 year deal. I could see him being paid $35M, which seems to be the high water mark for 2 years and $30M for 3 years, which would put him at a 5 year $160M deal. People have to accept that Stanton’s 10 year $325M contract might be the last of its kind.
Stanton’s contract was 13/325 when he signed it:
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al…
I wasn’t really trying to speculate about the expected length or value of the contract Mike will earn when he hits FA at age 29; I just think that either in spite of the new conservative modus or even because of it, teams would be absolutely stomping over each other trying to get at the greatest and most consistent contributor in baseball today should he be a free agent, and our two current megastars would still be getting the sort of interest they currently have with their expectations.
With this free agent fiasco and the slow process with signing Harper and Machado, I believe Trout will re-up with the Angels till the end of his career than put himself through these ugly Front office bean counters.
I have to say that I’m impressed by the readers and the poll results. Clearly the majority of the people voting in this poll understand what Dylan Hernandez and TC do not.
I can see teams that don’t have a solid core or a real chance of winning being conservative. But I wish teams that had a chance would be more aggressive. The Braves, for example, made some nice additions, but with their excellent, low-budget core, they could have done a lot more.
Teams are being more analytical and not making gut, win-now at the cost of tomorrow moves. I understand that. There are so many examples of the consequences of long-term, albatross contracts. But there are also teams like the Pirates of a few years back. They had an amazing core, a real chance to win, and they were never willing to add the pieces to put them over the top. They wasted having McCutchen in his prime. They wasted having a young ace in Gerit Cole.
The players getting the shaft are the guys in the minor leagues. Low-A ball players in my town make about $1200/month and have to live with local families, and that’s a big part of the reason that 80-90% of rosters turn over every year.
Unless you’re a high draft choice and get a nice signing bonus, a young man can’t afford to stay in the minors more than a couple of years if they’re not advancing rapidly. The only concern the parent MLB teams have is developing players for the big team, and for the small percentage of players that do climb to the top, it usually takes two to five years to work one’s way up to the major leagues.
I can’t think of any eight- to ten-year contracts that have worked out well for more than half their length (Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Jacoby Ellsbury, Albert Pujols, MIguel Cabrera, Jason Heyward, …), so why would a team be in a rush to offer that kind of a deal?
A-Rod opted out of the first 10-year deal he signed with the Rangers but from 2001-2010 he was a bargain at $25m AAV even adjusted for inflation.
I agree that this is the problem with baseball and the’re disregard to support of the younger and minor players. What I propose is to penalize and retire the richest non-performing players salaries from your Pujols-Cabrea’s and put 1/2 that salary money into a fund to support the young MLB and minor players. The union is just not enough and has not supported the young players.
I don’t think there’s been too much conservation; rather the owners/top baseball people have been rather blatant in saying they’re not spending or it doesn’t match the value (see Derek Falvey’s comments on pursuing Machado/Harper. Owners see the game as a money-making scheme, while fans want to see the emotional side of the game, even though most know its a business and nothing personal. There’s not too many players fans can identify themselves with because they all get traded/walk in free agency at some point because the on-field value isn’t there. Longoria is a good example of this; there are many saying they won’t attend games, even though he is well on the decline. Small market teams like the Rays and Pirates have shown you can win with a smaller budget. the advent of websites like Fangraphs/BbRef/Moneyball has given owners an excuse to justify thriftiness by pointing to value points such as WAR to justify not getting that guy and the general public understanding why, rather than saying the guy “wasn’t a good fit” or some other cliché. The internal game with executive circles is who can build the best team with the least amount of money, rather than just the best team period. The game is now who can acquire the most team control with the absurd minimum salary for 3 years rule, and another discount for 3/4 more years, with the implication you’ll get paid for past performance in free agency.
All of this will need to a lockout and players fighting for new team control rules, such as shortened team control, and it becomes a game of cat-and-mouse to see who can game the system better.
To me, it’s all about the agents. It’s not the owners or the players. Owners are allowed to make money just as much as players deserve to earn as much as they can while they can play. MLB made approximately 10.5B in 2018. Granted some teams made more than others, but for the most part, the earnings were relative to the spending. So the average revenue made is 343M and the league average payroll was 139M, but that’s just to players. What about all the stadium employees? Or the taxes they have to pay to the city? To assume that owners just pocket billions of dollars is asinine. Players say that they should get what they are worth because of what they can do. Why does that mean owners should just turn around and just give them a significant raise, sometimes 10 fold, just for doing their job?
That being said, this is mainly on the agents. They are the ones in the players’ ears telling them how much they can make. All the while, they are more concerned about making the most money possible. They are masterminding the waiting game. The process was so much quicker when you had Type A’s and B’s cuz the A’s set the market then the B’s followed suit. The second and so forth tiers can’t gauge their market because the top tier guys are just letting their agents handle it. The agents are just playing chicken with the owners. Spreading misinformation and hoping suitors check in just so the whole “mystery team” can pump up the numbers. The agency wants their agents to make as much money as possible to lure more clients so they can make even more money. Agents are generating almost a half billion dollars annually for doing exactly what they are doing. Playing the waiting game.
Times have just changed, and teams are realizing the value of players. I think one GM said it best when he said something along the lines of “Why should I pay Harper $35M per year when I can have someone like Soto at $550k?”. Analytics changed the game, and I think we are just finally going to hit a breaking point. Yes, someone like Trout is truly worth $40M per year in terms of WAR, but teams are eventually going to hit a point at which it’s too much risk. Yeah, Trout can be amazing at that for you, but if he gets hurts, that is 1/4 of your payroll down the drain. Teams are realizing that top tier prospects near the majors are far more valuable than paying someone $30M per year. The system is just kinda backwards IMO. A team gets a player for his cheap years of control, and then he hits Free Agency and the next team has to pay him for what he has done in the past knowing he’s going to start declining. Pujols, Cano, etc. All the same case.
If the system is going to get fixed, they need to change it so players get paid more earlier and have less control. It used to be that players would play for cheap in their young years, and then teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodger would be able to outbid everyone. Now, those “big spenders” are starting to realize that isn’t a smart way to do things…. and now you have guys waiting in FA for a big contract that isn’t coming.
Yes
The only long term solution is to have a soft salary cap with minimum limit like the NBA does. More of MLB revenues need to be shared. There is plenty of revenue in MLB for the lowest revenue teams to have $120 million salary minimum, then there could be a soft cap in the low 200’s (similar to what there is now). That will make just as much money for the players as having the Yankees and Dodgers with $300 million payrolls. Plus the league will be more competitive. The minimum payroll luxury tax limits will be tied to the league revenue. Declining all-stars will have teams to play on as teams with lower payrolls will have to pay someone to meet the payroll minimum. This is a much better solution than trying to force high revenue teams to sign players they don’t want. If the players go on strike, do they really think teams will start signing players to higher amounts? If anything, players salary will either stagnate or even decline.
Player salaries as a percentage of total revenue are declining, so I heavily lean towards the owners profiteering. I think there is a possibility of a strike after the current CBA expires.
I think the strike will be before the CBA expires
I don’t get why this has become only about Harper and machado. A team isn’t cheap if they don’t go after them, they also shouldn’t be praised if they do (for a 10 year deal). The issue is that there are way too many teams not trying to win. When I say win, I mean tanking. I’m ok with putting together a decent product, you shouldnt go for broke every year. Going for broke is Harper and machado, and isn’t for every team. I’m talking about the good solid players that teams should be fighting over barely have any attention.
Oher than the cardinals, royals, and Yankees (maybe a couple others) every team would have improved at the catcher position with grandal or Ramos. Despite this, not many teams were interested. You can poke holes in their resume and talk about playoff performance but at the end of the day two of the top 5 catchers were available and many weren’t interested.
There are less teams bidding on more players, so the demand just isn’t there. It’s not about the few mega deals that get signed, it’s about the solid ball players that every team can afford and SHOULD want to add.
Alex Rodríguez put it in the best possible words when he said “when I signed my record setting deal in 2001 this was an industry of USD 2.8 billion , almost 20 years later this is a USD 10 billion industry and you’d expect that the players salaries would have adjusted as well” . I think front offices are smarter now and they have models in place that allows them to better stablish a player value, but their priorities are to make money and tank because the current system has no incentives on winning and zero penalties for not trying to win, as there is a tax system in place , there should be minimum payrol amount specially for reveneu sharing recipient teams and other teams as well.
This is well said and so true to the game today. I have no sympathy for the elite players Free agency profits, But I feel a grave injustice is being done by the owners and elite players to the rest of the team and all the minor league players.
Did you seriously have to ask this question? This is the new normal. Get used to it and stop spending other people’s money…..
Buckle me in for the first serious argument that baseball and its fans need to be concerned that mega-millionaire players need our concern for not getting longer and more lucrative contracts. Kids’ baseball diamonds at risk of being plowed up to create more libraries? You know off-season discussion has reached a low when this question is asked.
really? trout paid for renovations of the ball park he used to play on as a kid. many players have some kind of causes they donate a lot of money. by the way those newer mega-billionaire owners were in money managing biz before they bought the teams. they are here to make money and lots of it. the problem is players are not going to take less and less sitting down. hope you enjoy replacements!
Replacements? Donate a lot of money? It’s called big screen tv’s and the satellite. There’s a reason you’re not seeing strikes in the major sports. More reason for fans to stay home were a strike to be called. For the fans it’s not support of owners vs. the players. You’re missing something and it’s not a small something.
go back and look at the survey again. maybe your head just hurts!
I don’t think owners want to pay 300 to 400m…
owners are finally realizing that long contracts, covering players beyond their prime years, are no longer good for business.
The players are not living up to their big contracts. Even young players are not living up to big contracts. You are getting market adjustments.. You can’t set rules that stop market adjustments.
players are getting greedier and greedier I mean baseball is the one league without a salary cap and yet the players want more and more imagine any reader here getting a 5 year deal to do what you love worth 20 million a year Sounds like a win but guess not
Now it’s not about finding the place where you feel comfortable it’s about getting every penny and not giving a crap about crippling your team down the road that is why I respected the San Antonio Spurs players they were all team players with one purpose and that was to win and entertain they left money on the table to make sure they had a good chance to compete but here we have Manny Machado looking for 300 million and he doesn’t care who pays him if the marlins would cough up 300 million he’s there even if he losses 100 games he’s a great ball player but is he gonna hold up in year 7 of his deal probably not.We have soldiers teachers fireman police officers who make less than 6 figures common players let’s not get too greedy
You can look up Public Employees pay. In California some Teachers. Fire Fighters and Police Officers make $100,000 a year.
Of course there are some that do make 100k but think about it you have officers putting their lives at risk day in day out
Teachers who are preparing our kids to become good adults make no money
I’m just saying pro athletes are getting a little greedy and it’s hurting us the fans cause we pay for their contracts
The owners sign the checks but we give the owners our hard earned cash
Public vs Private sector, really can’t compare salaries.
When was the last time you rejected a pay raise??? I’m happy when my employer offers me a couple bucks an hour
Just saying let’s take things into prospective
It should be about signing where you as a ball player feel comfortable,probably wanting to play closer to home,a good team fit or something along the lines not about who’s gonna pay that extra dollar cause in order to succeed in whatever field your in you have to be comfortable
I know that most great players pretty much pay for their own contracts with increased attendance,Jersey sells,concessions sells,parking etc
The best solution is to just have a salary cap and have your max money players maxed out at 25 million a year I mean if they don’t us the fans are gonna be the ones who suffer cause we won’t afford to attend games
Even as the revenue in the game increases, the players’ share of it is declining. So what about those owners, are they not getting greedier and greedier? Maybe their take-homes should be public information too. Or maybe you’d prefer to see them trot out on the field waving their piles of money. Wouldn’t that be fun?
I believe baseball players get the lowest share of revenue of the 4 major sports. 39% is what I read. People always bring up the salary cap on other sports. There are NBA playmaking over 30 million dollars. Anyone defending ownership here is crazy. And to compare professional athletes to other professions is apples to oranges. I’m with you. Let’s see what these owners are pocketing
Yes and the other point I was making is we as fans pay to watch the players play. The owners making their yacht payments hasn’t got a lot of entertainment value. In the article where Kasten evades the question about the supposed “other” benefits of staying under the CBT, I think he was probably thinking of his management bonus. He then had second thoughts about mentioning this because it would sound like the benefits of keeping payroll down go entirely to ownership and management. Which is true but it sounds bad to say it out loud..
The players have to blaim themselves they agreed to a cba that effectively has a cap but pretty much no floor so teams can spend but not go to crazy and the bottom payroll teams continue to not spend enough aggravating even their own players.
Teams are emphasizing the youth movement and development. Throwing more money into their coaching staff in the system to bring the very best players possible to the big club is where teams are investing.
Veteran players are also breaking down quicker. Very few players are showing production above the age of 34-35. There’s Nelson Cruz, except he has 1 PED suspension hanging from a few years back. At free agent at 28 or 29 years old expecting a 7-year deal is going to be disappointed.
Also have to factor in which teams are in business for what position. A-Rod had at least 6 teams going after him in 2000-01. Harper and Machado are lucky to have 3 or 4. More teams, more leverage for the agent.
Take it from someone living in a huge hockey market; a salary floor will hurt MLB. Too many NHL players scored huge contracts with bad teams due to their desire to reach the floor. Good players wouldn’t want to go play for bad teams, so certain veterans on the downside of their career would land a massive contract, thus giving players in their prime a major boost in future negotiations.
Long term contracts with large AAV salaries carry an exceptionally high fail rate, and I’m sure owners have the data to evidence this. So why would any prudent owner continue the practice? Is it a shift? Certainly – a shift away from carelessness.
Long term contracts with large AAV salaries carry an exceptionally high fail rate
———-
Blatantly false. The only ten year contracts that failed were the ones given to players significantly older than 30: Pujols and A-Rod.
All the other ones (Jeter, A-Rod’s first contract, Stanton, Cano) are fine. Jeter and A-Rod out-performed their contracts by a huge margin, and Stanton and Cano are well on their way to out-perform them too.
I think 7 years is too long but it seems to be the barometer for a “long-term” deal. Looooooooooots of 7 year deals were (or are) crap. I think it would be cool if MLB limited the contract length, which would also help balance things out. Some teams are very adverse to handing out a 7-year + deal, which essentially rules them out of the signing even if they’re willing to pay the salary. If everyone is limited to the same contract length limit, that would help all the teams compete equally (benefiting fans and teams), it would drive up the asking price (benefiting the players), and keep teams from having so many anchor contracts (benefiting teams and players).
I’m not sure your plan would have the affect you think it would and possibly just the opposite. Teams hand out longterm contracts knowing that the out years are not likely to pay off. Lengthening the contract is a way to reduce the AAV. Even teams not known for spending huge use this method to sign players who would bust their annual payroll budgets on a shorter-term contract. It’s essentially a form a backloading. The teams don’t need to be rescued from themselves. They know the risk they are taking on, as well as that risk can be known.
I get that. But a lot of teams won’t commit to 7+ bc once they fizzle out, they’ll have to practically give that player away just to get rid of the payroll. The big spenders can hold onto such contracts bc they have the money but small market teams can’t/won’t because it makes them non-competitive.
The problem here is that it is not the market setting the phantom salaries these top free agents are looking to get, it is the media, who state LONG before that player is in play market wise, is going to get 300 Million over 10 years. Such has been the case with Machado and Harper, all because they are younger than most have been in their first free agency appearance. Afterall salaries HAVE to go up right?
Add to that the inflated view of sabermetrics and things like WAR (which is just not real thing) Come on who makes these things up? Which WAR? is defensive war worth as much as offensive WAR if not why? I mean it’s just plain crazy. Is any player worth 1/4 or a 1/5 of total payroll? Not usually.
Some one point out to me a 10 year contract that actually was worth its value for the entire 10 years… I cannot think of one.
Umm, Jeter? A-Rod’s original 10 year deal, during which he won 3 MVPs and produced 65 WAR? Stanton also won an MVP already, on his 13 year deal, and is well on his way to earning all $325M.
Cano was a good investment too, he already has 24 WAR. He needs a few more wins above average to fully justify his contract, and he has five years to get them.
So that’s EVERY 10 year deal handed to a player aged 30 or younger. Only the two that were given to significantly older players (Pujols and A-Rod’s second deal) failed to pay for themselves.
Except that ARoid’s performance got a little “assist” from some substances – a fact to which he has admitted.
Would he have lived up to it without the boost? Probably not, otherwise why would he have taken them? Also, who’s to say he wasn’t using before he signed that big contract? Can’t prove or disprove that either.
Jeter’s contract is the only one I can think of that was that long and worked.
Sorry, but you cannot use Cano and Stanton either. For one, Cano’s is only half over and may have been performance assisted just like ARoid (teammates, hmmmmm), so let’s see what it looks like when he’s 39/40 and not roiding anymore.
Stanton’s deal runs another 9 years – let’s see if he’s providing the value when he’s in his late 30’s making over 30MM/year.
ARod also heavily used PEDs HGH. And a whole lot of other steroids.. from his first year in texas to his last in new York..
10 year contracts never work for the owners
Simple as that
Here’s the deal I see with the offseason. Generally, once the top guys fall, they set the market for the rest. At the top, you have two guys that have an overestimation of themselves being fueled by their agents to not take a deal until the end of the end. So, effectively, you have two men named Boras and Lozano holding up the market.
I’ve got a feeling that they’ll sign like 2 or 3 days before spring training when all players report. A week before the games start.
There are a couple of things going on here, and they’re not all symptomatic of the same problem. IMO, it’s perfectly reasonable for teams to be shying away from 10-year mega deals. They’re just bad business, since only a rare few return value over the life of the contract. It’s not just bad for the bottom line, but it’s bad for the long-term competitiveness of the team to have these albatross contracts.
OTOH, teams at the low-end of the payroll scale, refusing to sign any notable free agents, is cheap, and bad for baseball, and labor is right to be frustrated with this.
It’s time for a salary floor. Any team that doesn’t spend X% of annual revenue or a minimum dollar amount on salary is penalized by losing draft picks and revenue sharing dollars.
I’m ok with a floor if there’s also a hard cap. None of this competitive balance tax nonsense.
A hard salary cap only serves to protect the organizations bottom line. It doesn’t advance the competitiveness of the teams or the interest of the players.
I think the easy complaint is ” (insert team) is just being cheap!!” Ok, well here’s a shocking fact….most teams are going to try and win while spending as little as possible. Except for maybe 3-5 teams, that’s the case. And even those teams will have frugal years too. I don’t see this as being cheap, but I see it as not getting yourself into a financial bind 3-5 years down the road. Players sign these ridiculous 7-10 year deals for ungodly amounts of money that become an anchor. Look at Dustin Pedroia’s contract. Dude is owed $40M over the next 3 years. and he’s a 35 year old middle infielder. Good luck moving that contract. He’s just one example of the many I could pull up, but that kind of deal is crushing for a small market team. I look at what the Braves had to do to rid themselves of bad contracts. To shed BJ Upton, they had to give away Craig Kimbrel in his prime. They got absolutely nothing in that deal. Same for Justin Upton. They practically had to give him away but they did at least get Max Fried, who may or may not work out.. But they essentially had to take it on the chin for 2-3 seasons because they had no choice but to sell off everyone to acquire prospects that would take time to develop. So teams constantly have to build the farm system, build the farm system, then sign at least 1 or 2 key FAs, and trade prospects for another key player or 2 to keep up with the free-spenders. And when the dust settles, the small budget teams will eventually fizzle, their prospects who developed will sign for big money elsewhere, they become sellers, have to offload those big FAs they signed for peanuts, and start the process all over. Meanwhile the postseason mainstays just keep spending and winning.
Of course players are trying to get as much money as possible. They’re going to base their worth on whoever the last same position player signed and value themselves appropriately. Let’s be real here….there’s less than a dozen elite players who will take a hometown discount to stay with the team they’ve been with their whole career. Those days are over. I don’t really fault the players. If I had the kind of talent that only a handful of people the in the world possess, I’d want to squeeze every nickel out of it too.
I think the solution is a hard cap. Make every team have to live up to the same spending limit. That’s how you balance out the league. I doubt the MLBPA will ever go for that, but that’s what is needed IMO.
Pedroias contract is the first example? If he is healthy he is fairly reasonable at less than $14 million, especially in Boston. So many better examples from Pujols to Ellsbury to Cabrera. Even just looking at Boston, Price’s next several years at $31 million will impact roster decisions a whole lot more. Those contracts, not Pedroias who was relatively team friendly, are the ones people are now avoiding.
Semantics. Point being, that kind of contract is soul-crushing for any team with budgetary constraints.
Without steroids hitters breakdown around 30. Last year the only top 25 hitter over 30 was Nelson Cruz, A few player pop up here and there but the fact is hitters lose it and team don’t want to pay them past 30, let alone pay them fortune until age 40.
Last year the only top 25 hitter over 30 was Nelson Cruz
————-
What are you talking about? Goldschmidt, Carpenter, Martinez, Votto were all in the top 25.
Votto I just missed, the rest you mentioned are 30, not over 30. With Harper/Machado we arent talking about paying for 28-30ish being the problem; no team wants to pay 30+ MM for 32-40 and they have good reason for that.
carpenter is 33
how many teams can realistically afford a $300 mil contract?! probably the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Phillies, and maybe Cubs. these contract amounts cant just keep going up and up and up. especially when we see how many of these expensive long term deals go south so quick.. A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, etc.
On one hand, how many 7+ year contracts have been a total bust? Also, since testing on PED’s have tightened up how many players are any good into their 30’s like the era between 1998 to 2008? I.e. Roger Clemens suddenly finds it again at age 35? LOL!! Yes, the contracts where getting absurd and a market correction is needed, but am I trying to make billionaire owner richer? No thanks. For a fan, to sit close enough and it be better than watching from home, you’re looking $125+ per ticker (that’s before parking & food). Bad strike zones because the game refuses to use technology, handful of teams who aren’t ever allowed to be bad, leaving the other 20+ teams stuck playing Powerball, and the boring, every count is 3-2 attrition games that takes 3 ½ hours, I can see Baseball becoming Boxing in the next ten years if they don’t admit the sport isn’t healthy on any front.
Calling the Blue Jays bottom feeders is a tad aggressive. They have maintained payrolls around 10th in the league for sometime. They more often gain their better players through trade or extensions and not through FA. It’s not as if they don’t spend money.
However while likely a year late IMO, they are doing what has become standard practice in the league. You trade your best players, dump contracts and stock the farm for a rebuild as quick as possible.
From a team perspective it makes sense to not have a 200MM payroll when your goal is to rebuild. You have to balance the fan interest with the on-field product but you also want draft picks.
The Jays had an aging team and a bloated payroll. However they also had a very strong farm, so they didnt have to sell off the team to become good. Its not as if they had a ton of great assets and sold them to rebuild. Their bigger problem is that most of their better assets had a poor 2018, meaning they have to hope they gain some of that value back in 2019 to keep the farm turning the next few years.
This is pure economics. Total player compensation, which isn’t just the payroll reported by the media, has been roughly around 50% of total MLB revenues for years, and that’s not changing. People look at revenues and assume because they have a lot of revenue, they should put it all back into player salaries. In reality, a team like the Yankees, who pace the league in revenue, also have the most operating expenses (non-player employees, stadium, etc.) of any team in baseball. Teams are also starting to invest more in benefits for the players that aren’t directly reflected in their payroll, like facility renovations or specialists (doctors, etc.). Owners are starting to run their teams more like a sustainable business as opposed to a Fantasy Team, and in order to do that, they need to make sure they have a positive profit margin each year.
This is an interesting article around the margins that helps explain the total payroll breakdowns – theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-s…
You’re facts are tainted and seems leveraged to the billionaire owners. MLB made 5x more that 4 years ago and players payroll maybe went up 3%. The Yanks you mentioned made 3 billion last year and their payroll was 190 million. that 16x more than the players salaries! Also, MLB pays minimum tax and isn’t obligated to post all it’s earnings.
Your facts are tainted, matt. The Forbes valuations for 2018 don’t come out for a couple of months, but, according to Forbes, for 2017 the Yankees had revenue of $619 M, player expenses of $220 M, and operating income of $14 M. I don’t think their revenue went from $619 M to $3 billion in one year.
For the non-accountants, operating income is PROFIT. Revenue minus expenses. According to Forbes, in 2017 the Yankees made a profit of $14 M.
You are aware that baseball teams do not have to report their total Gross or Net income! The Yankees make a lot more money that you said and not a MLB team will open it’s books. That tells you something. As for Malcom Forbes magazine he has been accused many times of printing heresay for his friends. The Steinbrenners qualify for that. Do you believe Trump has 10 Billion as described by Forbes in 2016? Hogwash!
Players need to adjust to analytics? Really? If players need to lower their salaries and expectations because of analytics, then ticket prices and cost of baseball from a fan’s perspective also needs to decrease. You expect players to just expect less money because the game is advancing, but all that means is more profit for the already billionaire owners.
thank you Gleyber
That’s not how ticket prices work…
I am surprised by fans’ voting here. Part of me wants my team to look smart by using their own developed talent and smart trades to win games but at the end of the day, I want them to win. In my mind, there is no doubt that Harper, Machado, Kimbrel, among others will add more wins than their replacements on their ex-teams.
I agree with u for the 1st 3-4 yrs but what about that last 3-7 yrs when players mid 30s and spending 10-30% of time on DL, stats have declined 20-30% but players still making 35-30 million and needs a backup, replacement or platoon partner?
The real question is which will add more wins, $30 M for Harper/Machado and five guys at the MLB minimum, or spreading that $30 M amongst those five roster spots.
If the MLB wants a more even revenue split between players and ownership they should just lower the number of years teams can control pre-arbitration players. Even Bryce and Manny probably only have 2-4 more premium seasons left. Is it really that big a surprise no one is offering a 10-12 year contract at the highest salary ever?
Harper and machado are just being difficult. Sounds like they’re still getting close to the AAV on the 10 year deals they want. But just for shorter length. Which if they’re as good as they think they are/will be. Just sign again in 7 years for whatever and you’ll still get your money. I don’t think teams are being too conservative. I think they’ve just learned from some of the mistakes other teams have made.
This is a funny thing that’s going on because I saw this coming a decade ago. The Red Sox and Yankees went nuts in the early 2000s with contracts. Phillies jumped into the fray. Cubs jumped in. Dodgers jumped in. Year in and year out a new big market team or two jumped into the craziness. Some jumped out and some jumped back in. But the chain reaction here was contracts ballooning out of control at a rate that could never be sustained. Every player upped the other by tens of millions, year after year.
At some point the only ones who can bring that market back down to earth are the owners. Harpers still going to get $300 million. Machado is still going to get $200 million or more. but the owners plan to use these contracts as benchmarks to give guys less and less in coming years. A financial clash between the players and owners is imminent unless a compromise is reached before it escalates.
This is a perfect opportunity for the owners to say, If I can get a guy who’s 26 at 10/320 why would I give you 10/350 when you’re going to be 2-3 years older. Those 10 year deals to 28-29 year olds will become 8 year deals and so on down.
The bottom line is longterm mega contracts don’t pay if a team wants to be competative over the longterm. It’s that simple. A club can’t pay 15-20% of its entire budget to one player and be competative longterm.
Paul Beeston had it right – no contracts longer than 5 years.
I looked at every 10 year or longer contract signed in MLB and recorded the team’s results during the duration of the contract. Player, team, length, amount, division finishes for the season (1st-5th), total number of playoff appearances, number of times they advanced from the AL/NLDS, number of times they advanced from the AL/NLCS, number of WS titles.
Stanton, 13/325M, Marlins, 0/1/2/1/0, 0/0/0/0, .470 winning percent
Stanton, Yankees, 0/1/0/0/0, 1/0/0/0, .617 winning percent
Helton, 11/151.5M, Rockies, 0/2/2/5/2, 2/1/1/0, .473 winning percent
Votto, 10/240M, Reds, 0/0/0/1/4, 0/0/0/0, .423 winning percent
Cano, 10/240M, Mariners, 0/1/3/1/0, 0/0/0/0, .514 winning percent
Cano, Mets, TBD
Pujols, 10/240M, Angels, 1/1/3/2/0, 1/0/0/0, .515 winning percent
Tulo, 10/157M, Rockies, 0/0/0/2/3, 0/0/0/0, .426 winning percent
Tulo, Blue Jays, 1/1/0/1/0, 2/2/0/0, ..531 winning percent
Tulo, Yankees, TBD
Arod, 10/252M, Rangers, 0/0/0/3/0, 0/0/0/0, ..444 winning percent, opted out in 2007
Arod, 10/275M, Yankees, 3/4/2/1/0, 6/4/1/1, .562 winning percent
Jeter, 10/189M, Yankees, 7/2/1/0/0, 9/5/3/1, .594 winning percent
These contracts total 94 years, 2.055B dollars and produced 2 titles (from one team during the same season). I don’t fault owners for not signing anyone to a 10 year or longer contract.
Neglected to include another Arod line from the time he finished the remainder of his Texas contract with the Yankees…
Arod, Yankees, 3/1/0/0/0, 4/1/0/0, .597 winning percent
If you remove Jeter and Arod from the stats, these contracts combined earned their respective teams 6 playoff appearances, 3 division titles, 1 CS title, and zero WS.
I guess collusion. Last year of course the excuse was teams were saving money for this years splurge. Always some excuse to avoid the inconvenient truth.
if it’s not collusion you can then conveniently name it ‘Teams front office that analyze a players value with the same bean counting metrics throughout the MLB’. Does anyone remember when baseball owners bought teams for a tax deduction from their prime businesses? Now the owners make more money on our national pastime sport then the other business they owned combined!
I’m not saying they should not make a profit, God bless that. What I’m saying is Baseball has never made more money and the owners (who are in charge of this behavior) are not sharing the wealth with the minor players, rookies or 4 year to the elite in that order.