What is the end game?

[AlwaysinModeration]

I have to admit, I am perplexed. What seemed like a slow off-season has morphed into a non-off-season. There are dozens offers agents, including most of the top starters and position players, without a team, a week into February. Now there are the players union and agents coming forward to cry foul and a battle of press releases over who is to blame.

 

Obviously, teams aren’t offering what they did in the past. They seem to be offering fewer years than expected, or considerably less annual salary than expected. Is there collusion? I think there must be. But having several majors players “out” seems to be a factor too.

 

What is the end game here?

Are players going to relent and take the cheaper contracts?

Are Darvish and JD going to sign $100mm+ contracts and a flurry of signings going to follow?

Is spring training simply going to start with no one signed? If so, still...how does it end?

Does this end in a strike (knowing the CBA last for another few years)?

 

It’s so hard to tell what is really going on behind the scenes. It was always my impression that free agency worked like a cascade after the top pitcher signed, as teams “in the mix” don’t want to sign a lesser pitcher if they are still hoping to land their top target. But I also thought that there was usually a time limit imposed at some step of the way by someone in the negotiation: “Here is our best offer, let us know by X or we are moving on.” Or “We’ve got a good offer on the table now, you have until X to make a better one.” Why isn’t that happening this year?

 

The one thing I do know, is that the Twins are in a better situation to land the top free agent starter than they ever have been. They have the perfect storm of payroll space, and lack of major competition, and, seemingly, downward pressure on salaries.

 

What do others think about the current free agent situation, and how do you think it ends?

[ashbury]

If total payrolls wind up reflecting the growth in revenues, then what we're seeing may be just a reallocation of money from the very top players to the next tier down. We won't know until everything shakes out, and even a one-season blip may not reflect a real trend. I hope the players don't go off half-cocked on this; conversely I really hope the owners aren't colluding.

[Blackjack]

Its going to be interesting.

 

My prediction is that one of the top free agents will tell their agent that they want to play, get me to camp, he'll sign, setting the bar for $ and years for 2018, and the rest of the agents will follow along. 

 

Or are the players colluding together, calling each other, telling each other not to panic and sign a 'lower' deal.

 

Its going to be interesting!!! The first thing I do every morning is goto https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ and see if anybody has signed.

[bighat]

 

Its going to be interesting.

 

My prediction is that one of the top free agents will tell their agent that they want to play, get me to camp, he'll sign, setting the bar for $ and years for 2018, and the rest of the agents will follow along. 

 

That's my theory, too. The domino effect. Someone will sign Arrieta, Darvish, etc and all of a sudden it will be a mad dash and the rest of the major free agents will sign within a week. It's going to be an avalanche. I hope it starts soon, this off season has been beyond awful. Jay Bruce the biggest name signed so far? Yawn City man.

[bird]

One of the things I've been wondering about is whether teams are seeing something beyond what last year's revenue numbers tell them. As with every industry of size and importance, there's no shortage of attempts to do market research, and I'm wondering if organizations are in part responding to some of this and are opting to remove some of the risk from the equation. Maybe they're seeing a thinning of the underlying breadth of their fan base?

 

Still, it could be that most of the delay is part of a simple confluence of events, with perhaps the most impactful ones being so may of the big spenders wanting to solve their luxury tax problem, so many of the most competitive teams having fewer needs, and so many of this season's yawn-inducing FA's being players who won't move the needle for teams.

 

Every club has already invited, what, 50 players to spring training? If I was someone who Steamer projects to add .01 WAR, I'd be very nervous right now and I'd stop listening to my agent and other players. I'd be riding my agent hard to show me an offer from one of the 30 teams.

[FlauerPauer]

I just think these players want too much money when they aren’t worth it. Every player available has question marks attached to them. I think owners and gms have seen too many long high dollar contracts not work out and thus don’t want to have another bad contract or players into their late thirties on their teams.

 

There is no collusion, simply the players aren’t that good anymore and the agents, specifically Scott Boras, think they’re players are fantastic and should be compensated for past performances. How many big time free agents have the Astros signed? How many have the Indians signed? It just doesn’t work to build through aging players.

 

I for one am glad the owners are taking a stand. In reality, these players all make too much money for what they do. Stop being greedy and you will get a contract. Pretty simple.

[slash129]

I for one am glad the owners are taking a stand. In reality, these players all make too much money for what they do. Stop being greedy and you will get a contract. Pretty simple.

The greed goes both ways. The owners do assume the risk, but the players are the draw for revenues for the most part. The fix, and others have stated this in other threads, is that players should be paid more earlier and then expect more reasonable contracts later in their careers. The owners look at Pujols, Miggy, Fielder, Crawford, et al. and now have enough data to realize those are stupid contracts. The players still want their piece of the pie, which they have every right to negotiate. The problem in arriving at "the fix" is that the union reps will have to be forward thinking. More Mookie Betts type arb salaries are a step in the right direction.

[BHtwins]

I think Darvish deal is holding everything else back.  Both the players and the owners are waiting for Darvish to set the market for the top 10 free agents to slot into.  Darvish is waiting for a miracle so he can re-sign with the Dodgers.  Once that falls through and he signs a deal, the rest will sign within a few days.

 

No one is willing to risk spending too much or leaving money on the table.  I'd bet all of the remaining top 10 have offers on the table they are unwilling to sign for that fear.  Owners aren't moving off their initial offers and players aren't willing to sign the first deal offered until Darvish is off the table.

 

 

[Physics Guy]

I don't blame the teams one bit for not wanting to pay $100M+ to any of this year's Free Agents. They all have question marks and the list of those types contracts not working out is probably greater than the ones that work out. The teams that normally don't care about spending (LAD, NYY, Bos...) are having a correction year to reset their Luxury Tax. It appears to me a combination of an unexciting FA class, teams not wanting to spend this year and possibly holding out for next year's class, which appears significantly better. 

 

That said, I really still hope the Twins are willing to bite the bullet and offer Darvish a 5 year, $125-135M contract if that will get it done. My guess is that he hasn't been offered anything better up to this point. I also hope they will push Darvish to make a decision soon on any offer and pursue Cobb if he doesn't accept.

 

Is anybody else tired of Boras and his propaganda? I realize it's part of his job, but he comes off as being incredibly pompous. 

[ashbury]

I just think these players want too much money when they aren’t worth it. Every player available has question marks attached to them. I think owners and gms have seen too many long high dollar contracts not work out and thus don’t want to have another bad contract or players into their late thirties on their teams.

 

There is no collusion, simply the players aren’t that good anymore and the agents, specifically Scott Boras, think they’re players are fantastic and should be compensated for past performances. How many big time free agents have the Astros signed? How many have the Indians signed? It just doesn’t work to build through aging players.

 

I for one am glad the owners are taking a stand. In reality, these players all make too much money for what they do. Stop being greedy and you will get a contract. Pretty simple.

I disagree with essentially every point made in this post, and that being the case, it's probably best to leave it at that.

[Blackjack]

How about being paid for performance??  4 million for ten home runs, 6 million for fifteen home runs, 8 million for twenty home runs, etc.  If a player think hes worth x amount, then he shouldn't be afraid to earn it.  The agents and GM's could figure out some standard that works for both parties.

[Blackjack]

Some of the players also have 'opt out' clauses that sends them out on the free agent market before the end of the contract.   How about a team 'opt out' clause where they could terminate a contract when the player declines?? It would eliminate the concerns about a 'Pujols type' of deal. 

 

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the players on the contracts, its time to reverse that trend.

[mazeville]

I don't know that it's the per-year dollars holding anything back as it is the length. Some of these guys want longer deals than GMs are willing to give, and I think that's holding back the market.

 

It's interesting. Teams are getting smarter about longer-term contracts and the players have a real problem with it. Personally think this year leads to a major change in the agreement between players and owners that ultimately results in a salary floor and perhaps a stronger cap.

 

As for this year, ultimately I think some players get nervous and start signing. I wish they'd get on with it, though. 

[Rosterman]

How much are these guys worth. Plan and simple. 

 

Enough to break the bank? Any approach "franchise player" status? 

 

Yes, the flipside always is that money saved go into the pockets of owners. That teams should spend 55% or so of their revenue on players -- be THAT player is good or not.

 

At some point, it does have to end...or stabalize even more. We saw an increase in the $$$ for middle relief that is hard to comprehend in the grand scheme of things. Next thing you know, multi-year $7-10 million contracts for bench players.

 

How much are players wrth?

 

Yet are owners banking the money, or putting it into their own pet projects or billfolds.

 

In the end, the fans end up paying more for everything and, just maybe, not getting the best possible product.

 

[FlauerPauer]

How about being paid for performance?? 4 million for ten home runs, 6 million for fifteen home runs, 8 million for twenty home runs, etc. If a player think hes worth x amount, then he shouldn't be afraid to earn it. The agents and GM's could figure out some standard that works for both parties.

This is an interesting idea. Have a base salary of whatever league minimum is and get paid extra for performance. You’d have to set it so that players who don’t hit home runs would be equally compensated for stolen bases or defense. With all the advanced stats out there, I don’t see why this couldn’t happen. Cool idea.

[FlauerPauer]

 

I disagree with essentially every point made in this post, and that being the case, it's probably best to leave it at that.

 

What do you disagree with? The fact that Darvish is in decline and has had elbow surgery? Arrieta has had two great seasons up to 2015 and has been in decline ever since? Hosmer might be the best player left to be signed that doesn't really have any major question marks.

 

How many big time free agents have the teams that have won the world series recently signed? Cubs signed Lester and yes, while that signing definitely pushed them over the edge, that is beginning to look like a mistake. How many other $100+ million have worked out? 

 

Do you disagree that GMs and owners are trying to spend for what the player will bring to the team in the future instead of paying for past performances? 

 

Do you disagree with the my opinion that athletes are overpaid?

 

Does it suck that some good players are unsigned? Absolutely. Do I want the Twins to sign Yu Darvish to a six or seven year contract? Absolutely not. 

 

I have a ton of baseball cards, that to me, are worth a lot of money, but if I put them on eBay or try to sell them some other way, I definitely would be disappointed in my return. "Things" are only as valuable as people are willing to spend.

 

It's cool that you disagree; you are entitled to that as I am entitled to my opinion, but to not add anything to the conversation seems odd.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I re-read my initial post, and realize I made some typos; "dozens offer agents" was supposed to be "dozens of free agents" and several major players "out" was supposed to mean several big spending teams out due to the luxury tax.  But people got my drift.

 

It would be fascinating to find out whether the Twins, who have been so vocal in their interest in Darvish, have at minimum given him a sense of what they are willing to do in terms of years and dollars.  Obviously if they have, it isn't enough.  Is their stance, let's say, 5/100?  If prices do come down, it seems like a good opportunity to go up in price and he might sign.  But that's how a normal market might function (even if it is a market with downward price pressures). This doesn't seem like a normal market.  It doesn't seem like there is ANY negotiating going on.  

 

That's what is so strange about this, and what makes me so suspicious that there is some sort of collusion going on, in which teams are somehow agreeing not to make any offer over $100mm, for example.

 

In a public policy class years ago, the professor described how the airline industry was colluding on price changes.  It was discovered that the airlines were changing the prices of certain flights six months out, and that was an indicator that alerted all airlines to make a certain change in their prices.  I can't remember how it worked, exactly, but it was fairly sophisticated, and it was excellent sleuthing (by the feds) to figure out what they were doing.

[Vanimal46]

 

Some of the players also have 'opt out' clauses that sends them out on the free agent market before the end of the contract.   How about a team 'opt out' clause where they could terminate a contract when the player declines?? It would eliminate the concerns about a 'Pujols type' of deal. 

 

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the players on the contracts, its time to reverse that trend.

 

Couldn't disagree more. The owners have negotiated depressed rates for international free agents, draft picks, and have control for a player's first full six seasons of professional baseball. Free agency is the only time a player has any power who he wants to play for, and how much money he'll be paid for doing so. 

[gunnarthor]

Players have been screwed over by owners much more than the other way around. The owners that were part of collusion in the 80s should have been kicked out of the game. I'm pretty sure there's collusion now but it'll be hard for the players to prove it. I think it sucks that Pohlad will make more money while the players make less.

[Vanimal46]

 

It's interesting. Teams are getting smarter about longer-term contracts and the players have a real problem with it. Personally think this year leads to a major change in the agreement between players and owners that ultimately results in a salary floor and perhaps a stronger cap.

 

For years the MLBPA gave in on things like an international draft cap pool, cap for the draft, and other things just so there wasn't a salary cap. Well, maybe they'll have to think again about what they've been negotiating for. 

Now that Chicago and Houston made the "tear it all down" rebuild popular, more and more teams are going to be finding ways to shed payroll. Maybe a salary floor is needed over a non-existent salary cap.  

[Thrylos]

To put things into perspective:

 

Anthony Swarzak was signed to a 2 yr, $14 million contract

 

Any way you cut it, this is not a "bargain" rate contract.

 

Front officers (and owners) got younger and smarter and more analytics- and ROI-based and realized that 7-10 year contracts to 30+ year old players make zero financial sense.

 

Players and their agents are still expecting those kind of contracts.  Good. Luck.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Some of the players also have 'opt out' clauses that sends them out on the free agent market before the end of the contract.   How about a team 'opt out' clause where they could terminate a contract when the player declines?? It would eliminate the concerns about a 'Pujols type' of deal. 

 

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the players on the contracts, its time to reverse that trend.

 

I could not disagree more....revenues are rising faster than player salaries. 

[Blake]

I believe there are two forces at work:

 

A:Franchises have learned that big dollar long term contracts tend to be losing propositions over the long haul.

 

B: Players and their agents are waiting for someone to sign and therefore set the free agent market.

 

It is what it is and how it plays out is anyone's guess. Basically, who will blink first?

 

 

 

 

[mazeville]

 

For years the MLBPA gave in on things like an international draft cap pool, cap for the draft, and other things just so there wasn't a salary cap. Well, maybe they'll have to think again about what they've been negotiating for. 

Now that Chicago and Houston made the "tear it all down" rebuild popular, more and more teams are going to be finding ways to shed payroll. Maybe a salary floor is needed over a non-existent salary cap.  

 

I think if I'm the players I push for a floor and agree to a cap. That would prevent these complete teardowns, forcing teams to at least have some higher priced players on their rosters so they are above the floor. I don't think that teams would agree to a floor without an agreement on a harder cap than the one they have now. 

 

And to be honest, you really don't want teams doing complete teardowns like that. I've advocated for it as a Twins fan, but it's not great for baseball to have teams just selling off all their veteran players so they'll lose and get a top draft pick. Doing so should be a LOT harder.

[ThejacKmp]

If there is no collusion then teams are getting smart and are relying on younger guys who give better bang for the buck. That's their choice to make but the player's union should then be pushing for players to hit arbitration and free agency sooner -- "if you're not going to pay players later in their career, then the revenue needs to shift younger." They'll need to show a trend that this is happening (average career shorter, average free agent contract shorter/cheaper) but there will be a reaction.

 

My guess is this will be at the center of the next labor discussions.

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think if I'm the players I push for a floor and agree to a cap. 

If I'm the players I never push for a cap. That's the one thing baseball has going for it over football and basketball unions - no cap. Bryce Harper is one big year from a $500 million deal next year. Manny Machado is going to zoom up there too. That's going to reset that market and push elite salaries higher. This will make those average contracts bigger too.

 

The players union should never ok a cap. Maybe if they got rid of arbitration? It would take something crazy on the early end of player's careers.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't know that it's the per-year dollars holding anything back as it is the length. Some of these guys want longer deals than GMs are willing to give, and I think that's holding back the market.

 

It's interesting. Teams are getting smarter about longer-term contracts and the players have a real problem with it. Personally think this year leads to a major change in the agreement between players and owners that ultimately results in a salary floor and perhaps a stronger cap.

 

As for this year, ultimately I think some players get nervous and start signing. I wish they'd get on with it, though. 

There are a good number of posters on TD who don't want Darvish at 6 years. While I might disagree, I can certainly understand why others don't feel like paying 25+ M annually to a pitcher who will finish the contract at age 38. It's going to be ugly at the end. The same goes for Hosmer, if MN had a need at 1B, would anybody really want to give him at an 8th year?

 

There was a really good article already written about this. I agree that I would rather see revenue flow into the team rather than an owners pocket, but I also want that revenue spent wisely. I think the players should be making demands, and if I was Hosmer or Darvish I would be trying to get as much as I could too, but ultimately reality has to settle in. 

[laloesch]

 

I just think these players want too much money when they aren’t worth it. Every player available has question marks attached to them. I think owners and gms have seen too many long high dollar contracts not work out and thus don’t want to have another bad contract or players into their late thirties on their teams.

There is no collusion, simply the players aren’t that good anymore and the agents, specifically Scott Boras, think they’re players are fantastic and should be compensated for past performances. How many big time free agents have the Astros signed? How many have the Indians signed? It just doesn’t work to build through aging players.

I for one am glad the owners are taking a stand. In reality, these players all make too much money for what they do. Stop being greedy and you will get a contract. Pretty simple.

 

I don't think it's collusion either.  I think most teams are getting pretty Leary of offering guaranteed contracts for 6, 7 or 8 eight years for 100's of millions of dollars.  The reason is that many times the back end of those deals ends up being bad for the team and it handcuffs them from making other deals because their payrolls are maxed out.  Unfortunately due to the lack of a hard salary cap, the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc. about 7 or 8 teams have pushed salaries so high that mid to low level teams have to intentionally tank in order to have a chance at competing.  

 

The other factor now is the luxury cap and penalty.  With escalating penalties now in play big market teams are extremely reluctant to continue to stay over the tax and this is one year in which a bunch of them are trying to get under the threshold to compete in next years big free agent market.   

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/07/new-cba-to-penalize-high-payroll-teams-with-lowered-draft-picks.html

 

If a team spends above $217MM in 2018, it will receive an extra 12% tax in addition to the usual 20%, 30% or 50% luxury tax. If a team spends over $237MM, it will receive an extra 42.5% or 45% surcharge tax.  Beginning in 2018, there will be an extra penalty for teams in that second category, Cooper notes. A team that spends above $237MM will also have its top draft pick lowered ten spots, unless that pick is in the top six, in which case the team’s second pick will be lowered ten spots. 

 

The players association should never have agreed to this if they wanted salaries to continue to escalate year after year.  I am convinced they will strike before 2021.  What we are seeing this year is just the beginning.  Teams don't want the luxury tax penalties and certainly don't want to have their top pick lowered 10 spots.  Steering clear of high priced free agents to help keep them under the tax threshold or reset is doing what it was intended to do.  Slowing down out of control big market spending that is killing smaller market teams and making them effectively Division 2 MLB.  

[gunnarthor]

There probably is some collusion. It's hard to prove but I'm sure the league and some important owners have decided that salaries are going to remain low or grow slower than revenues would suggest. Steve Adams reported a bit on this fight at mlbtraderumors. 

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/scott-boras-dan-halem-mlb-free-agency.html

 

"“I find it interesting that free agents have nine-figure offers since the CBA mandates that teams not share that sort of information,” said Boras. “I am also curious how a public statement communicated to all teams about offers on the table and players demanding too much money from a central league office … is any different from the infamous ’information bank’ in the 1980s.” ....

 

To Boras’ credit, it does seem curious that the league’s statement would openly acknowledge the size of offers that some players have received. In addition to running counter to the CBA, the comments hardly paint players in a favorable light at a time in which commissioner Rob Manfred is spearheading efforts to broadly expand the game’s appeal to a younger audience. If anything, today’s statement only furthers the popular “greedy player” narrative — one which often ignores that the alternative is for the even wealthier owners to simply pocket money not spent on player contracts.

While those numbers weren’t exactly a secret after being leaked to the media by various sources, likely from both the agent and team side of the equation in various cases, it was nonetheless surprising to see the league stating those numbers in a factual manner (even if it was merely in reference to media reports; it’s not clear which was the case in this instance)."

[TheLeviathan]

I have a hard time agreeing anyone is getting "screwed" in this.

 

Except fans and tax payers.