Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Reusse: Modern Game Unkind to Dozier, Plouffe

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

Posted 21 February 2021 - 07:57 PM

 

This would absolutely crush the small and even medium market teams. The large market teams already have a huge advantage. The result would be at least half of the league, including the Twins, would have no chance.

 

I would have to believe that even the players association understands something this detrimental to the game will substantially reduce revenue. Substantially lower revenue will result in substantially less income for players.

 

What's fair for fans. You know the people that pay for it all. Is two-thirds of the teams getting the scraps fair to fans. Just keep in mind that there is not a professional group on the planet that has faired better financially than MLB players over the past 50 years. The average household would earn $3.17M had the rest of us increased income at the rate of MLB players. Why anyone thinks they have been treated poorly is beyond me. 

 

The system should be tweaked. However, the relative degree of parity also needs to be maintained for the health of the game. Most importantly, half of the fans should not get screwed in terms of their teams being able to keep players.

The core of most teams are homegrown or traded for.Small market teams still attract big time players. Parity of teams has never existed

  • Vanimal46 likes this

#22 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 21 February 2021 - 09:22 PM

I would start more with tweaks than wholesale changes - 

 

- Fix the service time issue so that 6 years is the true maximum.

 

- Start arbitration the off-season after a player hits the rookie service time mark.

 

- Institute a version of the "luxury tax" at the bottom of the payroll scale (cheapo tax?). Same idea of not having a hard line, but rather using incentives to limit how often clubs can really cut payroll to nothing. That would both increase the amount of money going to players as well as reduce the number of clubs that will be completely tanking in any particular season.

  • ashbury, LA VIkes Fan, Dman and 1 other like this

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#23 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 18,754 posts

Posted 21 February 2021 - 10:02 PM

 

Isn't this how it should be? How does this not make sense? Shouldn't players be paid for what they are expected to produce rather than for what they have produced in the past?

 

It absolutely is how it should be, and it totally makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that wasn't always the thinking. 


#24 AceWrigley

AceWrigley

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 480 posts

Posted 21 February 2021 - 10:37 PM

 

I have to side with the FO on this because the FO is paying guaranteed future money for predicted future performance. Seems fair to me.

Excellent point. I've always thought it interesting that a team could actually trade a player they had under contract. A contract implies an exclusive relationship and to me should be honored as is for its length. if MLB used a binding contract in this fashion, I'd limit it to 1, 2 or 3 year contracts, which ever player and team came to an agreement on. Players could only be traded to another organization when the contract expired. You could still use a signing bonus, but not incentives or milestones creating tiered contracts. Both the Owners and the Union would probably hate it. But then we wouldn't have Bobby Bonilla day every July 1st when the Mets pay him $1.16 million dollars from 2011 until 2035. Oh the humanity.

  • tarheeltwinsfan likes this

#25 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 08:45 AM

I appreciate Trevor's viewpoint, but if anything we are seeing players playing longer. The steroid era lengthened many careers, no doubt about it. Now that the steroid era is ending, career trajectories are going back to normal.

 

In any case, it has been known for a while that:

 

1. It is key that players hit free agency before they are 30 (the younger the better)

2. Players get the maximum salary when they first hit free agency, and further contracts are not guaranteed.

 

There have been metrics that show for years when the decline starts. Predictive metrics are taking this knowledge into consideration when they predict players like Dozier and Plouffe will decline. And let's be honest -- we all know Dozier and Plouffe, although they had good years, are cooked.

 

I appreciate Plouffe's opinion, but for accuracy, I give it a D-.


#26 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 09:04 AM

 

I find it ridiculous how long teams get to control players, whether it be 6 or 7 years. Dozier's chances of cashing out in FA were so low because he hit the market at age 32... meanwhile in other sports, players are hitting FA for the first time at ages 25-27. MLB needs to re-configure their service time rules and figure out how to find a balance that's more fair to players.

 

Players and their agents fight for the longest contract they can get once they become free agents. Talk about a bias point of view. Would Cano have preferred a 4 year or even a 7 year deal? How about Pujlos who signed the same 10 year deal. Do you think the Angels would have preferred 5 years to 10. What would Pujlos have gotten paid for the 2nd five years under your scenario. $0 yet his 10 year contract means he will get paid $135M for being under replacement value. We could go on and on. Chris Davis or the Myriad of pitchers who got paid big money for no production. The door swings both ways but apparently you can only see one side.

 

The Dozier example is similarly misguided. There have been several older players getting nice contracts. The difference is Dozier’s performance declined more rapidly. What do you expect should happen? How is it a problem that players are getting paid closer to what they are worth. There are still plenty of deals (like Donaldson) where they player is probably not going to be worth what they get. Front Offices have simply gotten smarter and adjusted to what was a stupid practice.

 

George Springer (31) 6/150
DJ Lemaheiu (32) 6/90
Liam Hendricks (32) 3/54
James McCann (31) 4/40
Justin Turner (36) 2/34
Michael Brantley (34) 2/32
Charlie Morton (37) 1//15
Nelson Cruz (40) 1/13

 

2020
Stephen Strausburg (31) 7/245
Josh Donaldson (34) 4/92
Hyun Jin Ru (33) 4/80
Yasmani Grandal (31) 4/73
Mike Moustakas (31) 4/64
Dallas Keuchel (32) 3/55
Drew Pomeranz (31) 4/34
Kyle Gibson (32) 3/28
Will Harris (35) 3/24
Tanner Roark ( 33) 2/24

 


#27 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 09:31 AM

 

Players and their agents fight for the longest contract they can get once they become free agents. Talk about a bias point of view. Would Cano have preferred a 4 year or even a 7 year deal? How about Pujlos who signed the same 10 year deal. Do you think the Angels would have preferred 5 years to 10. What would Pujlos have gotten paid for the 2nd five years under your scenario. $0 yet his 10 year contract means he will get paid $135M for being under replacement value. We could go on and on. Chris Davis or the Myriad of pitchers who got paid big money for no production. The door swings both ways but apparently you can only see one side.

 

The Dozier example is similarly misguided. There have been several older players getting nice contracts. The difference is Dozier’s performance declined more rapidly. What do you expect should happen? How is it a problem that players are getting paid closer to what they are worth. There are still plenty of deals (like Donaldson) where they player is probably not going to be worth what they get. Front Offices have simply gotten smarter and adjusted to what was a stupid practice.

 

George Springer (31) 6/150
DJ Lemaheiu (32) 6/90
Liam Hendricks (32) 3/54
James McCann (31) 4/40
Justin Turner (36) 2/34
Michael Brantley (34) 2/32
Charlie Morton (37) 1//15
Nelson Cruz (40) 1/13

 

2020
Stephen Strausburg (31) 7/245
Josh Donaldson (34) 4/92
Hyun Jin Ru (33) 4/80
Yasmani Grandal (31) 4/73
Mike Moustakas (31) 4/64
Dallas Keuchel (32) 3/55
Drew Pomeranz (31) 4/34
Kyle Gibson (32) 3/28
Will Harris (35) 3/24
Tanner Roark ( 33) 2/24

 

All true, but these are exceptions, right? 


#28 4twinsJA

4twinsJA

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 195 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 09:34 AM

NFL has nonguaranteed contracts, how about only allowing guaranteed contract for 5 years, can sign for longer but not guaranteed after 5 years. Maybe set age for FA, FA after age 29 season regardless of service time. Still could become FA before 29 if qualify. Like idea of max salaries. Revenue sharing has to happen at some level, too much inequity. Maybe not that each team ends up with same amount but need to bring up lower teams. May be able to accomplish with TV money. 


#29 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Offseason Hawt Taek Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 13,991 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 February 2021 - 09:58 AM

This deserves a much longer post, but my thoughts on balancing the scales of player control, revenue sharing, and payroll. 

Player control: The current system is clearly broken, and has been for some time. Lower the years of control to 4 years for players that were 21 or older when drafted, 6 years for 18-19 years old or international players. The goal is for players to hit free agency earlier, and for teams to make decisions about their young talent faster than what they're currently doing. 

 

Revenue Sharing: This is crucial to introduce more parity in the game. It's getting really old when the top free agents have the choice between New York, Boston, and LA to get the most amount of money. It's time to transition away from the local/regional revenue model to a national model that NBA, NFL, and NHL utilizes. 

 

Payroll: We need a payroll floor to go with the current luxury tax cap already in place. It may not be an official "cap" but every team in baseball uses that figure already as the cap. Teams that are not competitive can still make rebuilding moves taking on unwanted contracts with better prospects packaged into the deal. 

  • ashbury likes this

#30 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 11:14 AM

 

All true, but these are exceptions, right? 

Not really. Last year there were 90 free agents signed that were 31+ and 48 that were 34+. You are using one example (Dozier) to suggest players are discarded or can’t get a contract. Teams are obviously willing to sign them for a fair AAV. They just are no longer willing to do this because it has proven to be a horrible practice.

 

None of us would have wanted the Twins to sign Dozier to a 4 or 5 year deal at $10M or more annually but here you are speaking as if it’s an injustice. I know you won’t actually answer but would you have preferred we had given a fat contract to age 35 or 36? If not, what the hell is your point?

 

You also skipped right over the most important point. How can it be ridiculous as you put it for teams to have 6-7 years of control when that type of contract or longer is the goal of virtually every agent/player? The control is a very meager issue. This is about money. The irony is that teams are not going to spend more as a result of players becoming available earlier.

 


#31 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 11:29 AM

90 free agents signed who are over age 31+ sounds like the exception to me. Aren't there around 900 players under MLB contract at any given time, minimum?


#32 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Offseason Hawt Taek Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 13,991 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 22 February 2021 - 11:33 AM

Free Agency: Should have a max of 4 or 5 years with a max AAV that escalates by percentage each year. The NHL used to have loopholes in their CBA and teams signed players to 10+ year contracts. Ryan Suter and Zach Parise were one of the last examples teams used the loophole on with their 14 year contracts. If a player wants to keep signing 4 or 5 year contracts with the same team after their original deal expires, that’s their choice.

#33 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Member
  • 17,017 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 11:45 AM

This may not be popular but the NHL model is a good one.Or at least most of it:

 

Players get some form of free agency faster, there are still minor league/farm systems, salary cap and a salary floor, revenue sharing, less of the wonky gamesmanship of the NBA and NFL, etc.

 

It'd do wonders for the sport to institute even parts of it.

  • flpmagikat likes this

#34 spanman2

spanman2

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 309 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 11:47 AM

 

The system has to change. Players should not have to wait 6-7 years to become FA. Had Tatis not signed a huge extension, he would be making near the league minimum. I think it's ridiculous that a third year player who is a regular is making essentially the same as a rookie and will below a 7-year vet who might be vastly underperforming him. IMO there should be larger increases from year 1 to year 2 and then they should reach arbitration by year 3. They should be FA after their fourth (or maybe 5th year).There also needs to be a way to get rid of the gaming of the system on guys like Kris Bryant and soon-to-be Alex Kirilloff.

 

I have to think that negotiating the next CBA is going to be a battle. There is an incredible amount of animosity between the owners and MLBPA. They couldn't come to a simple conclusion on universal DH that everyone is in favor of, simply because it's a bargaining chip in the next negotiations.I am not going to be surprised in the slightest if there is a lockout/strike prior to next season.I hope the two sides understand how much they can damage the sport and figure things out, but I'm not hopeful.

You NAILED it on the next CBA...it could get really ugly!

I WAS TOLD I WOULD NEVER MAKE IT BECAUSE I AM TOO SHORT. WELL, I'M STILL TOO SHORT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR HEIGHT IS. IT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR HEART.

KIRBY PUCKETT

#35 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 12:02 PM

 

This deserves a much longer post, but my thoughts on balancing the scales of player control, revenue sharing, and payroll. 

Player control: The current system is clearly broken, and has been for some time. Lower the years of control to 4 years for players that were 21 or older when drafted, 6 years for 18-19 years old or international players. The goal is for players to hit free agency earlier, and for teams to make decisions about their young talent faster than what they're currently doing. 

 

Revenue Sharing: This is crucial to introduce more parity in the game. It's getting really old when the top free agents have the choice between New York, Boston, and LA to get the most amount of money. It's time to transition away from the local/regional revenue model to a national model that NBA, NFL, and NHL utilizes. 

 

Payroll: We need a payroll floor to go with the current luxury tax cap already in place. It may not be an official "cap" but every team in baseball uses that figure already as the cap. Teams that are not competitive can still make rebuilding moves taking on unwanted contracts with better prospects packaged into the deal. 

 

It's broken for sure. Player salaries are artificially low before they hit free agency. One player making $500k doing the same job as someone making $12M, and potentially being just as good if not better, is ridiculous. This is not even the most extreme example.

 

The problem is fixing this would mean lower paydays for free agents, which the union would never agree to. Having free agency start earlier is the solution, but the money has to come from somewhere. The union knows it. Teams know it too -- and yes some teams like the old Twins actively took advantage of it and were not using the system as intended. With both sides not really wanting to change it, how would it get fixed?


#36 Eris

Eris

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 252 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 04:42 PM

How about a form of restricted free agency at age 24 or 25. With full free agency at 27 or 28. A team could have an opportunity to match the contract or be compensated with draft picks. This would establish what the league thinks is a fair contract.

#37 dex8425

dex8425

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 391 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 04:55 PM

 

2. Make players eligible for arbitration after one season on the 26 man roster and after 2 seasons on the 40 man roster. If your player is valuable enough to the team to be placed on the 40 man, then they should be paid more than a minor league salary.

If you're on the 40 man, you're making good money whether you've debuted or not. 40 man pay is about 5 times more than minor league pay. But it's weird that your salary is the same during rookie status no matter how good you are or how much you actually play. Earlier arb makes sense, for the players. 


#38 dex8425

dex8425

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 391 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 05:02 PM

 

Payroll: We need a payroll floor to go with the current luxury tax cap already in place. It may not be an official "cap" but every team in baseball uses that figure already as the cap. Teams that are not competitive can still make rebuilding moves taking on unwanted contracts with better prospects packaged into the deal. 

You are correct, but that will never happen unless the owners want it to happen. And I doubt any of the owners want that to happen. Lower max cap and higher floor are both poor outcomes if you're an owner who either wants to run a team like a business or just have fun with it like Steve Cohen. The current "cap" isn't a cap because more than two thirds of the teams have never come close to it. It's only relevant for a few large market teams. 


#39 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 374 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 07:38 PM

Full free agency at 21. Everyone likes to talk free market - so let the players sell their services, choose where they want to play, and allow the teams to build their rosters without restrictions.


#40 Sielk

Sielk

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 192 posts

Posted 23 February 2021 - 08:33 AM

 

Full free agency at 21. Everyone likes to talk free market - so let the players sell their services, choose where they want to play, and allow the teams to build their rosters without restrictions.

 

Yeah, and then we can all have fun watching the Yankees and Dodgers win every year. It is difficult enough as it is for small and midmarket teams to build a contender. If they can't even rely on good and comparatively cheap players from their own system you won't be seeing teams like the Twins or the Rays competing anymore.

 

I grew up watching German soccer and every time a talented young player emerges somewhere he gets snatched away by Bayern München (basically the leagues equivalent to the Yankees) almost immediately. They have now won the championship for eight years in a row and ongoing.

 

Sounds entertaining, right?