Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: MLB Shift Driving Market Realities

major league baseball yu darvish jake arrieta jd martinez eric hosmer
  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His OPS?

  • Members
  • 12,529 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 03 February 2018 - 03:19 PM

 

How can anyone feel bad for a player that turns down a contract worth in excess of $10M a year, let alone $25M a year. Poor starving little babies. Take the damn shorter length contract at a higher AAV and play for your next contract. If you've pocketed $50 million during that time, you will be able to survive. How much is too much? Apparently, no one has an answer to that. As a white collar professional who has now now retired, I earned less than $4M in my entire xcareer. And yet I can survive in retirement. I guess I should have sought out endorsements to supplement my income???

 

I feel worse when a billionaire owner pockets dozens of millions in revenue... They provide absolutely zero benefit to the fans and product on the field. 

Edited by Vanimal46, 03 February 2018 - 03:20 PM.

  • Mike Sixel, Twins33, Platoon and 2 others like this

#22 Deduno Abides

Deduno Abides

    Rochester Plates

  • Members
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 03:47 PM

1. Darvish is not an ace. He’s good, but not an ace.
2. The solution to even the imbalanced split between billionaire owners and millionaire players should not be for teams to sign more ridiculous contracts. The solution should be for less money to go from non-millionaire fans to the sport. In other words, cut costs - less public financing, cheaper tickets, cheaper “authentic” jerseys, cheaper beer, etc. I am a political centrist who feels that the ridiculous thing isn’t the lack of nine figure contracts for mediocre players, but that the ridiculous thing is how much money comes out of fans’ pockets to pay for those contracts and the owners’ profits.

Edited by Deduno Abides, 03 February 2018 - 03:50 PM.

  • SQUIRREL, Kevin, Riverbrian and 8 others like this

#23 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:09 PM

How can anyone feel bad for a player that turns down a contract worth in excess of $10M a year, let alone $25M a year. Poor starving little babies. Take the damn shorter length contract at a higher AAV and play for your next contract. If you've pocketed $50 million during that time, you will be able to survive. How much is too much? Apparently, no one has an answer to that. As a white collar professional who has now now retired, I earned less than $4M in my entire xcareer. And yet I can survive in retirement. I guess I should have sought out endorsements to supplement my income???

It's easy to gripe about how much the players make but there's no reason the owners should get a huge payoff either. Nobody complains how much money Tom Hanks or Paul McCartney has made and the players are entertainers just like them. The reality is that we fans contribute huge sums to the sport and the players are the reason we do that. Hence, the players should get most of the dough.
  • ashbury, Mike Sixel and Vanimal46 like this

#24 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His OPS?

  • Members
  • 12,529 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:10 PM

 

2. The solution to even the imbalanced split between billionaire owners and millionaire players should not be for teams to sign more ridiculous contracts. The solution should be for less money to go from non-millionaire fans to the sport. In other words, cut costs - less public financing, cheaper tickets, cheaper “authentic” jerseys, cheaper beer, etc. I am a political centrist who feels that the ridiculous thing isn’t the lack of nine figure contracts for mediocre players, but that the ridiculous thing is how much money comes out of fans’ pockets to pay for those contracts and the owners’ profits.

 

That all sounds great in a perfect world... There is a demand for those tickets, authentic jerseys, and beer, and people will keep paying for them.

 

Revenue will continue to grow by the millions every year. Players currently are controlled for 6 seasons until they can explore FA for the first time, which is generally their age 31-32 season. GMs and Amateur GMs around the internet agree not to pay for their decline years.

 

At the end of the day, aren't we just padding the pockets of the 1%? 

 

I'd rather the players that provide us fans entertainment get that money... We just need to find a way for the players to get that money when they're providing the most value to a team. 


#25 Deduno Abides

Deduno Abides

    Rochester Plates

  • Members
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:29 PM

That all sounds great in a perfect world... There is a demand for those tickets, authentic jerseys, and beer, and people will keep paying for them.

Revenue will continue to grow by the millions every year. Players currently are controlled for 6 seasons until they can explore FA for the first time, which is generally their age 31-32 season. GMs and Amateur GMs around the internet agree not to pay for their decline years.

At the end of the day, aren't we just padding the pockets of the 1%?

I'd rather the players that provide us fans entertainment get that money... We just need to find a way for the players to get that money when they're providing the most value to a team.

This is the 0.01% and the 0.1%. I’m indifferent between them. If the 0.01% choose to share less with the 0.1%, I could care less. If either of them start getting hotsy-totsy, we’ll see how immutable is your assumption that non-rich need to subsidize the rich because of some unique societal contribution of sports.

Edited by Deduno Abides, 03 February 2018 - 04:30 PM.


#26 Deduno Abides

Deduno Abides

    Rochester Plates

  • Members
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:34 PM

Let me put it another way. The teams are saying, “I wouldn’t pay that much.” So should fans.

Edited by Deduno Abides, 03 February 2018 - 04:35 PM.

  • Riverbrian and TheLeviathan like this

#27 Deduno Abides

Deduno Abides

    Rochester Plates

  • Members
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:44 PM

It's easy to gripe about how much the players make but there's no reason the owners should get a huge payoff either. Nobody complains how much money Tom Hanks or Paul McCartney has made and the players are entertainers just like them. The reality is that we fans contribute huge sums to the sport and the players are the reason we do that. Hence, the players should get most of the dough.


Sports income is different from income from other forms of entertainment. For example, sports gets much more (involuntary) taxpayer support.

#28 Teflon

Teflon

    "That" Guy

  • Members
  • 574 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:48 PM

The trouble with front offices now getting "sensible" about the returns on free agent contracts is it takes money out of the overpaid end of the system that won't go back into the underpaid end of the system. If this is going to continue, players need to reach free agency quicker so their peak seasons earn them more equitable pay.

  • Mike Sixel, Riverbrian, South Dakota Tom and 1 other like this

#29 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,961 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 05:11 PM

For the record. Isnt target field making payments to Hennipen County for the funds to build the ballpark? And isnt the Twins making big chunks of extra payments too?

And didnt the players all get a raise from new tax bill?

I think labor should tell their constituents to see how next offseason plays out. If Harper or Machado dont make bank, then labor has a big arguement. But so far im seeing offers in expected ranges get rejected by players. That makes them the villans of the offseason.

#30 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Twins World Champions in 2019

  • Members
  • 10,090 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 03 February 2018 - 06:36 PM

My (more) detailed thoughts on the subject are here

 

I think that the root cause of the problem is a system that as is pays players for past performance and new analytically-based Front Offices are not willing to continue. 

I am proposing several changes that will help the system, including livable wages for minor leaguers, hard salary caps and floors (with loss of draft picks as penalties), universal free agency at age 25 (unless there is an extension) so players can be paid for their prime seasons, universal NBA style draft with tradeable picks including IFA, Japanese, Cubans etc, elimination of IFA, Arbitration, Qualifying offers, and a few more.

 

Both sides have to give some.

 

I think that a large rational change is needed at the sport right now, so it stops taking advantage of 75% of its participants and pay better the players who are playing better. I also think that with the new front offices that "get it", the time is ripe.

  • Riverbrian and TheLeviathan like this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#31 shimrod

shimrod

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 06:57 PM

I would like to see the league shift to a more performance based pay scale, which would require a revised agreement between the players and the owners. 

 

Many have criticized the current system in which free agents are paid for past performance and overpaid for their declining years. Meanwhile, younger cost-controlled players are woefully underpaid. 

 

I'd like to see an entirely different paradigm, similar to the salary + commission you see in some sales jobs. Performance pay is currently negotiated in individual contracts. I'd like to see a mandated, and substantial, amount of money dedicated to paying for the actual performance in a season. 

 

Having, say, 50 million dollars in pay (per team) dedicated to compensating the players who actually perform would serve as a de facto salary minimum (players should like this). A league wide formula mandating performance compensation based on playing time and production would increase the pay to precocious players and reduce the incentive to get top dollar in free agency. If the players currently asking for $100M + in free agency had been properly compensated in their early years there wouldn't be as much pressure to recoup the money lost during years of team control. 

 

Obviously the performance metrics are key. You want to reward individual performance while maintaining an emphasis on team success. 

 

I think a substantial floor of money dedicated to performance compensation would act to reduce the guaranteed salaries. Players should be ok with this as long as the performance pay is mandated, ensuring the money goes to the players. Lower guaranteed salaries would reduce the risk to teams of signing free agents, and, I believe, reduce fan animosity toward under-performing or injured players. 

 

Right now, there are a few teams who can sign any player for any amount and complete breakdown is only an inconvenience. Small market teams would be completely crippled if they rolled the dice on a top FA and lost him to injury. Moving to a pay + performance system would allow more teams to bid on top players and, theoretically, increase free agent compensation by putting more teams in a position to bid. Yes, guaranteed pay might be less but with proper incentive pay top players should be compensated commensurate with team succes

  • SQUIRREL, Vanimal46 and Nine of twelve like this

#32 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,628 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 07:09 PM

I would like to see the league shift to a more performance based pay scale, which would require a revised agreement between the players and the owners.

Many have criticized the current system in which free agents are paid for past performance and overpaid for their declining years. Meanwhile, younger cost-controlled players are woefully underpaid.

I'd like to see an entirely different paradigm, similar to the salary + commission you see in some sales jobs. Performance pay is currently negotiated in individual contracts. I'd like to see a mandated, and substantial, amount of money dedicated to paying for the actual performance in a season.

Having, say, 50 million dollars in pay (per team) dedicated to compensating the players who actually perform would serve as a de facto salary minimum (players should like this). A league wide formula mandating performance compensation based on playing time and production would increase the pay to precocious players and reduce the incentive to get top dollar in free agency. If the players currently asking for $100M + in free agency had been properly compensated in their early years there wouldn't be as much pressure to recoup the money lost during years of team control.

Obviously the performance metrics are key. You want to reward individual performance while maintaining an emphasis on team success.

I think a substantial floor of money dedicated to performance compensation would act to reduce the guaranteed salaries. Players should be ok with this as long as the performance pay is mandated, ensuring the money goes to the players. Lower guaranteed salaries would reduce the risk to teams of signing free agents, and, I believe, reduce fan animosity toward under-performing or injured players.

Right now, there are a few teams who can sign any player for any amount and complete breakdown is only an inconvenience. Small market teams would be completely crippled if they rolled the dice on a top FA and lost him to injury. Moving to a pay + performance system would allow more teams to bid on top players and, theoretically, increase free agent compensation by putting more teams in a position to bid. Yes, guaranteed pay might be less but with proper incentive pay top players should be compensated commensurate with team succes


The problem I see with this, is that if the bulk of the players salary is determined by performance, only the desirable cities will attract top free agents; New York, Boston, DC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, etc.

What is Kansas City going to be able to offer to put them over any of those teams, if they can't offer more money?
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#33 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,628 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 07:13 PM

My (more) detailed thoughts on the subject are here.

I think that the root cause of the problem is a system that as is pays players for past performance and new analytically-based Front Offices are not willing to continue.
I am proposing several changes that will help the system, including livable wages for minor leaguers, hard salary caps and floors (with loss of draft picks as penalties), universal free agency at age 25 (unless there is an extension) so players can be paid for their prime seasons, universal NBA style draft with tradeable picks including IFA, Japanese, Cubans etc, elimination of IFA, Arbitration, Qualifying offers, and a few more.

Both sides have to give some.

I think that a large rational change is needed at the sport right now, so it stops taking advantage of 75% of its participants and pay better the players who are playing better. I also think that with the new front offices that "get it", the time is ripe.


Universal FA at age 25: A team spends a top pick on a player, spends 4 or 5 years and many resources developing them, then loses them right when they have a chance to be good?
  • KirbyDome89 likes this

#34 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Twins World Champions in 2019

  • Members
  • 10,090 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 03 February 2018 - 07:43 PM

 

Universal FA at age 25: A team spends a top pick on a player, spends 4 or 5 years and many resources developing them, then loses them right when they have a chance to be good?

 

Does not lose them.They can extend them and/or re-sign them.This comes with a salary cap, so players will not concentrate in a particular team.

  • Riverbrian likes this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#35 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,628 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 07:50 PM

Does not lose them. They can extend them and/or re-sign them. This comes with a salary cap, so players will not concentrate in a particular team.


But if the player doesn't want to resign, they lose them. After spending a high draft pick and years of investment on them, with little chance at any payoff for their investment.
No thanks. To steal Craig's sentiment in a different thread, baseball will be fine without me, but I'd no longer be paying attention to it.
  • KirbyDome89 likes this

#36 Blackjack

Blackjack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 945 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 07:55 PM

Let them strike!!! More time for fishing and camping this summer. 

 

Big babies. Making millions while the rest of us look at a new Chevy truck that cost $35,000+ and gulp. Big %$#^& babies!!

  • terrydactyls1947 likes this

#37 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,770 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 08:10 PM

 

I think GMs and amateur GMs around the internet agree. Unfortunately that hurts a ton of players entering free agency the way it's currently set up. With teams having 6 seasons of control on any player, most don't experience FA for the first time until they're 31-32. Pretty crummy situation for them.

 

I do have a few solutions to fix free agency! 

1 - Fire Tony Clark from MLBPA and hire someone who can gain more power against the owners. 

 

2 - Reduce the amount of cost-controlled seasons from 6 to 4. Instead of 3 pre-arb years and 3 arbitration years, it's 2 and 2. Players will be able to hit FA at their prime age and get the long term deal they want. Owners see a better return on their investment while sharing the revenue money. 

 

3 - Implement performance bonuses during the season. Their salaries would stay the same, and cost controlled seasons remain the same. But, if they hit performance goals and achievements during the season, they get a bonus! That way a player is compensated for doing well, at the exact same time they're doing well. 

While it all sounds good the owners still have the power. They are not going to dive away controlled years.. There is nothing the players have to negotiate to give up to get it.


#38 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His OPS?

  • Members
  • 12,529 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:15 PM

I would like to see the league shift to a more performance based pay scale, which would require a revised agreement between the players and the owners.

Many have criticized the current system in which free agents are paid for past performance and overpaid for their declining years. Meanwhile, younger cost-controlled players are woefully underpaid.

I'd like to see an entirely different paradigm, similar to the salary + commission you see in some sales jobs. Performance pay is currently negotiated in individual contracts. I'd like to see a mandated, and substantial, amount of money dedicated to paying for the actual performance in a season.

Having, say, 50 million dollars in pay (per team) dedicated to compensating the players who actually perform would serve as a de facto salary minimum (players should like this). A league wide formula mandating performance compensation based on playing time and production would increase the pay to precocious players and reduce the incentive to get top dollar in free agency. If the players currently asking for $100M + in free agency had been properly compensated in their early years there wouldn't be as much pressure to recoup the money lost during years of team control.

Obviously the performance metrics are key. You want to reward individual performance while maintaining an emphasis on team success.

I think a substantial floor of money dedicated to performance compensation would act to reduce the guaranteed salaries. Players should be ok with this as long as the performance pay is mandated, ensuring the money goes to the players. Lower guaranteed salaries would reduce the risk to teams of signing free agents, and, I believe, reduce fan animosity toward under-performing or injured players.

Right now, there are a few teams who can sign any player for any amount and complete breakdown is only an inconvenience. Small market teams would be completely crippled if they rolled the dice on a top FA and lost him to injury. Moving to a pay + performance system would allow more teams to bid on top players and, theoretically, increase free agent compensation by putting more teams in a position to bid. Yes, guaranteed pay might be less but with proper incentive pay top players should be compensated commensurate with team succes


I like this idea a lot. It seems like it would work bridging the gap and players get paid for playing well that season.

#39 jrod23

jrod23

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:40 PM

It's unfortunate.Both sides need to give.And to truly fix it, the "give" needs to be radical.Much like many of you have suggested.If anyone has been part of negotiations, you know that when you lose something you value, it's rare you get it back in a contract again.I agree with so many great points everyone is making, but I smell a strike because I don't think the owners or the players have the balls to radicalize the system.It's waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy to lucrative for the owners right now.They have all the money, and they'll hold much of the power.The players union better get creative.

  • Vanimal46 likes this

#40 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 2,087 posts

Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:56 PM

 

Let them strike!!! More time for fishing and camping this summer. 

 

Big babies. Making millions while the rest of us look at a new Chevy truck that cost $35,000+ and gulp. Big %$#^& babies!!

Jealous much?I'm guessing you want to be paid what you're worth.

 

  • Mike Sixel and Nine of twelve like this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: major league baseball, yu darvish, jake arrieta, jd martinez, eric hosmer