Kenley Jansen: Only 6 NL Teams are Trying this Season

[Vanimal46]

Jon Heyman of Fanrag Sports interviewed Kenley Jansen about this weird off-season. He really dove in on tanking in baseball, and believes there's only 6 teams in the NL that are actually trying to compete this season. 

 

 

“They’re just not trying that hard,” Jansen said. “I think they are competing for the championship of revenue (profit). I think they are trying to see who can have the most revenue (profit). I think they don’t care about the trophy. No disrespect, but we want to see more teams be competitive.”

 

Eric Hosmer also discussed how the integrity of the game is being compromised when good players remain unsigned 2-3 weeks into spring training. 

More at the link here. https://www.fanragsports.com/dodgers/heyman-jansen-worried-about-mlb-effort-imbalance/

[twinsfanstreif]

I think the number is pretty close to the same in the AL. Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Twins, Astros, and maybe the Mariners and Angles? I can't really tell with those two. Who else? Lot of teams really haven't done crap to get better. Heck, I would even say the Indians are coasting, they lost 4 major free agents and replaced them with Yonder Alonzo and a bunch of minor league signings. This bodes well for our chances at making the playoffs but it does seem kind of weird

[gunnarthor]

Yeah, this tanking trend to maximize profits like the Marlins and Astros have done in recent years is not good for the sport. It hurts basketball, it'll hurt baseball. Not sure what MLB should do about it but they should do something.

[Dantes929]

I think the players have had it too good for too long.    Teams are starting to realize that deals like Cabrerra, Mauer and Puljols just aren't paying off.     Paying a premium for the great years players already had as well as being forced to pay a premium for years when the player is likely in the twilight just doesn't make sense.   No way in the world I pay Hosmer 144 mil for 8 years.    Maybe 4 years for 72mil and that is how the players need to adjust.    The teams just take on too much risk.    Shorter contracts with more incentives and options makes more sense.     Lynn and Cobb for three years at 48 mil or even better two years for 37 makes more sense for some teams than 5 years for 70 mil.   Players still get big pay days and if they perform will be in line for more big pay days  but the risk is mitigated if they tank after one or two.

[Vanimal46]

Yeah, this tanking trend to maximize profits like the Marlins and Astros have done in recent years is not good for the sport. It hurts basketball, it'll hurt baseball. Not sure what MLB should do about it but they should do something.

Perhaps a salary floor that teams need to meet? Otherwise they don't get revenue sharing from the league.

[Vanimal46]

I think the players have had it too good for too long. Teams are starting to realize that deals like Cabrerra, Mauer and Puljols just aren't paying off. Paying a premium for the great years players already had as well as being forced to pay a premium for years when the player is likely in the twilight just doesn't make sense. No way in the world I pay Hosmer 144 mil for 8 years. Maybe 4 years for 72mil and that is how the players need to adjust. The teams just take on too much risk. Shorter contracts with more incentives and options makes more sense. Lynn and Cobb for three years at 48 mil or even better two years for 37 makes more sense for some teams than 5 years for 70 mil. Players still get big pay days and if they perform will be in line for more big pay days but the risk is mitigated if they tank after one or two.

As a counterpoint, players assume all of the risk for the first 6 years of control. They have to hope they're performing well, and that they don't have a serious injury. Otherwise it all goes down hill from there as we've seen all too often.

[ashbury]

Without demeaning these players' opinions, it sounds to me like Tony Clark has been talking to team reps and giving them a few talking points to begin interviews with. They are presenting a united front.

[ashbury]

Perhaps a salary floor that teams need to meet? Otherwise they don't get revenue sharing from the league.

A fairly major revamping of the entire salary structure seems called for, at the next CBA. Higher minimum salaries... a team payroll floor that they can allocate however they see fit... maybe a little adjustment in when players can reach free agency. What has to be handled with care though is teams in modest-sized markets being capable of keeping their good players as they reach the good part of their careers, so that fans retain a rooting interest.

 

My general benchmark of a successful readjustment would be if top salaries come down a little, while overall payrolls continue to increase along with revenue. I.e. spread the (considerable) wealth a little more. The very, very best players truly can be worth in the region of $40M or more to their teams per season at their peaks, but it's (IMO of course) not quite healthy for the game to have them reap that kind of reward - pro sports aren't a purely free market because (for example) allowing a few teams to fade out every decade or so isn't a good option. Those very top players still derive much of their value by virtue of having opponents to play against; Clayton Kershaw should buy every guy he strikes out a steak dinner in gratitude. I don't have a good solution to offer in that respect.

[markos]

I think a big part of the problem is that essentially every single team, from the Marlins to the Yankees, has to develop a cost-controlled core of stars in order to compete today. That wasn't true 10-15 years ago. With a little bit of hand-waving...

 

A 90-win team needs to have ~40 WAR. This article looked at the changes in $/WAR over the past several years: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-recent-history-of-free-agent-pricing/

 

In 2007, the cost of 1 WAR in free agency was ~$5.4M.
So a $216M payroll could support a 90-win team entirely of free agents.
In 2007, the Yankees had an opening day payroll of $189M. 5 other teams had payrolls of at least 50% of that $216M level. The median team was at 40%. So that this point in time (and the years prior to 2007), there were a decently sized group of teams that could build the majority of their roster around free agency.

 

In 2017, the cost of 1 WAR in free agency was ~$10.5M.
So now it takes $420M payroll to build a 90-win team solely through free agency.
The estimated highest payroll right now is the Red Sox at $230M. They are the only team above the 50% level. The median team is at 30%. Now basically every single team is primarily building around cost-controlled players.

 

Maybe the Dodgers and Yankees could theoretically support a $400M+ payroll right now, but that just seems completely unfathomable given where the luxury tax is set relative to that number. So now you have essentially every single team valuing young, cost-controlled players more or less the same. Teams like the Cubs, Phillies, Astros, White Sox - large market teams all of them - have almost just as much incentive to acquire prospects by dumping expensive veterans in trades and losing to secure top draft picks as the Twins, Indians, Royals and Rays do.

 

I don't know how to solve this problem...

[markos]

 

Yeah, this tanking trend to maximize profits like the Marlins and Astros have done in recent years is not good for the sport. It hurts basketball, it'll hurt baseball. Not sure what MLB should do about it but they should do something.

I'm pretty sure teams would tank (sell off veterans for prospects when in a losing cycle, with the benefit of improving the team's draft position) even if there was zero profit incentive. Every team needs to develop a core of young, cost-controlled talent in order to field a playoff caliber roster. The easiest way to do that is to tank.

[gunnarthor]

 

I think the players have had it too good for too long.    Teams are starting to realize that deals like Cabrerra, Mauer and Puljols just aren't paying off.     Paying a premium for the great years players already had as well as being forced to pay a premium for years when the player is likely in the twilight just doesn't make sense.   No way in the world I pay Hosmer 144 mil for 8 years.    Maybe 4 years for 72mil and that is how the players need to adjust.    The teams just take on too much risk.    Shorter contracts with more incentives and options makes more sense.     Lynn and Cobb for three years at 48 mil or even better two years for 37 makes more sense for some teams than 5 years for 70 mil.   Players still get big pay days and if they perform will be in line for more big pay days  but the risk is mitigated if they tank after one or two.

Teams are already getting insane front end deals on those guys. The answer you seem to want is to have all players have free agency much earlier. There shouldn't be a draft cap. Why should the #1 pick get paid so much less than his value? I don't think complaints about fairness and salaries like Mauer are all that useful/realistic when we ignore the system made Mauer incredibly underpaid while he was racking up MVPs and batting titles. 

 

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think the players have had it too good for too long.    Teams are starting to realize that deals like Cabrerra, Mauer and Puljols just aren't paying off.     Paying a premium for the great years players already had as well as being forced to pay a premium for years when the player is likely in the twilight just doesn't make sense.   No way in the world I pay Hosmer 144 mil for 8 years.    Maybe 4 years for 72mil and that is how the players need to adjust.    The teams just take on too much risk.    Shorter contracts with more incentives and options makes more sense.     Lynn and Cobb for three years at 48 mil or even better two years for 37 makes more sense for some teams than 5 years for 70 mil.   Players still get big pay days and if they perform will be in line for more big pay days  but the risk is mitigated if they tank after one or two.

 

But if this is now the norm, then the next CBA needs to shift money to the players earlier. Maybe arbitration starts a year earlier. Maybe arbitration amounts are higher. Maybe they knock a year off of arbitration so that the players hit that payday younger. 

 

Something's got to give - if the back end is being compromised than the front end needs adjusting.

[Dantes929]

 

As a counterpoint, players assume all of the risk for the first 6 years of control. They have to hope they're performing well, and that they don't have a serious injury. Otherwise it all goes down hill from there as we've seen all too often.

 

But if this is now the norm, then the next CBA needs to shift money to the players earlier. Maybe arbitration starts a year earlier. Maybe arbitration amounts are higher. Maybe they knock a year off of arbitration so that the players hit that payday younger. 

 

Something's got to give - if the back end is being compromised than the front end needs adjusting.

You are both reflecting the thoughts I had while writing my post.     I was just commenting on the dynamic where free agents have demanded prime pay for past prime years, and lots of them.   I am not suggesting too much of the gross is going to the players, but yes, the front end should be adjusted because the back end should be adjusted.    If there was a way to pay for production, I would be in favor of it.     If a golfer has a bad year he gets paid well but if he has a good year he gets paid really well.    Doesn't matter if he is a first year guy or a 20 year guy.    I don't have the answers but I would like the same pot split differently based on performance.    If a baseball player has an MVP year he should be paid like an MVP regardless of how many years he has played.     Vanimal, currently the guys in the first 6 years (and before that) bear the risk of injury.    I think they should be paid better and that the guys after 6 years should bear the risk as well.    Of course all this would involve a league minimum and for guys to be paid for their production after the season has ended.   Like I said, I am just brainstorming here.    I don't have any great answers.    I just don't particularly like the system in place now.   Too many instances of huge pay for little performance and too many instances of relatively low pay for good performance.       Just cherry picking but I think Mauer would have been OK with making true market value throughout his career.    Probably would have ended up with a similar mountain of money.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Just cherry picking but I think Mauer would have been OK with making true market value throughout his career.    Probably would have ended up with a similar mountain of money.

 

This is about to hijack this thread. But I actually sent an email to a Mauer hating friend awhile back that talks about this towards the end. Mauer would have made so much more money if he'd been paid commensurate with his value:

+++++++++++++++

Fangraphs lists the cost per WAR each year.

 

Last year, 1 WAR was worth $10.5 million. Fangraphs lists Mauer's WAR last year as 2.3 which means Mauer was worth $24.15 million last year, higher than his $23 million salary. Boo Yah!

 

Let's take it a bit further and look at the whole contract:

 

2017: Mauer is worth $24.15 million

2016: Mauer has 0.9 WAR. WAR is worth $10.2M. Mauer is worth $9.18M

2015: Mauer has 0.2 WAR. WAR is worth $9.6M. Mauer is worth $1.92M
2014: Mauer has 1.6 WAR. WAR is worth $7.7M. Mauer is worth $12.32M
2013: Mauer has 5.2 WAR. WAR is worth $7.2M. Mauer is worth $37.44M
2012: Mauer has 4.5 WAR. WAR is worth $6.2M. Mauer is worth $27.9M
2011: Mauer has 1.2 WAR. WAR is worth $7.4M. Mauer is worth $8.88M

 

So Mauer has been worth $121.79 million thus far over all but the final year of a $184 million contract ($161 million paid so far). That concussion really hurt him as even his subpar production those years would likely have been worth the $23 million if he was still catching. Moving to 1B really hurts his WAR. You can hate the outcome but that contract extension is pretty defensible -- the concussion and move to first so early was pretty close to the worst case scenario (no insurance money but less production) and even then, the contract hasn't been that bad.

 

He'd need a pretty big throwback season to make the whole contract worth it (if WAR is worth $10.5 million next year he'd need a 6.0 WAR season which only Joey Votto reached among first basemen last year) but if he can have a $25 million season like last year that would get it up to a decent return on investment, especially when you consider that Mauer was a big reason Target Field was built and what he's meant to solidifying the team's place in MN.

 

For fun, I also looked at 2006 to 2010. On a $33.4 million contract, Joe Mauer produced $164.51 million of WAR. That's pretty insane.

[Vanimal46]

You are both reflecting the thoughts I had while writing my post. I was just commenting on the dynamic where free agents have demanded prime pay for past prime years, and lots of them. I am not suggesting too much of the gross is going to the players, but yes, the front end should be adjusted because the back end should be adjusted. If there was a way to pay for production, I would be in favor of it. If a golfer has a bad year he gets paid well but if he has a good year he gets paid really well. Doesn't matter if he is a first year guy or a 20 year guy. I don't have the answers but I would like the same pot split differently based on performance. If a baseball player has an MVP year he should be paid like an MVP regardless of how many years he has played. Vanimal, currently the guys in the first 6 years (and before that) bear the risk of injury. I think they should be paid better and that the guys after 6 years should bear the risk as well. Of course all this would involve a league minimum and for guys to be paid for their production after the season has ended. Like I said, I am just brainstorming here. I don't have any great answers. I just don't particularly like the system in place now. Too many instances of huge pay for little performance and too many instances of relatively low pay for good performance. Just cherry picking but I think Mauer would have been OK with making true market value throughout his career. Probably would have ended up with a similar mountain of money.

A 'commission' structure would in theory be the best way for the pays to get paid at the exact time they're producing. They would have to agree on a rate and create a structure that wouldnt affect the integrity of the game.

 

As far as integrity, just as a pure hypothetical...

 

CS: "Chris Sale, speaking."

BB: "Hey it's Byron."

CS: "I shouldn't be talking to an opponent on game day, but go on?"

BB: "Hey man, I have 49 stolen bases right now. If I get 50, I make another $3.5 million. How about we make a deal here?"

CS: "Give me $250,000 and you got a deal."

BB: "Great! See you in the first inning!"

[ashbury]

A 90-win team needs to have ~40 WAR. ...

 

I don't know how to solve this problem...

You have started IMO at a good place for analyzing the issue. You need to be able to construct 40 WAR on a $100M+ budget, if everything falls into place for you; a bit of revenue sharing is needed for a few of the weaker franchises to reach this level. OTOH having additional payroll resources should make it easier to achieve success - just, not a slam dunk.

 

And I agree with your solution.

[Dantes929]

 

This is about to hijack this thread. But I actually sent an email to a Mauer hating friend awhile back that talks about this towards the end. Mauer would have made so much more money if he'd been paid commensurate with his value:

+++++++++++++++

Fangraphs lists the cost per WAR each year.

 

Last year, 1 WAR was worth $10.5 million. Fangraphs lists Mauer's WAR last year as 2.3 which means Mauer was worth $24.15 million last year, higher than his $23 million salary. Boo Yah!

 

Let's take it a bit further and look at the whole contract:

 

2017: Mauer is worth $24.15 million

2016: Mauer has 0.9 WAR. WAR is worth $10.2M. Mauer is worth $9.18M

2015: Mauer has 0.2 WAR. WAR is worth $9.6M. Mauer is worth $1.92M
2014: Mauer has 1.6 WAR. WAR is worth $7.7M. Mauer is worth $12.32M
2013: Mauer has 5.2 WAR. WAR is worth $7.2M. Mauer is worth $37.44M
2012: Mauer has 4.5 WAR. WAR is worth $6.2M. Mauer is worth $27.9M
2011: Mauer has 1.2 WAR. WAR is worth $7.4M. Mauer is worth $8.88M

 

So Mauer has been worth $121.79 million thus far over all but the final year of a $184 million contract ($161 million paid so far). That concussion really hurt him as even his subpar production those years would likely have been worth the $23 million if he was still catching. Moving to 1B really hurts his WAR. You can hate the outcome but that contract extension is pretty defensible -- the concussion and move to first so early was pretty close to the worst case scenario (no insurance money but less production) and even then, the contract hasn't been that bad.

 

He'd need a pretty big throwback season to make the whole contract worth it (if WAR is worth $10.5 million next year he'd need a 6.0 WAR season which only Joey Votto reached among first basemen last year) but if he can have a $25 million season like last year that would get it up to a decent return on investment, especially when you consider that Mauer was a big reason Target Field was built and what he's meant to solidifying the team's place in MN.

 

For fun, I also looked at 2006 to 2010. On a $33.4 million contract, Joe Mauer produced $164.51 million of WAR. That's pretty insane.

Not just for fun.  What he did in the first 5 years is very relevant to the conversation.  I remember analyzing his first 5 years once before and thought it came out closer to 100 mil value.   Either way, he would have received a lot more earlier and a fair amount less in some of the later years in a merit based system.

Kind of scary to think how much Houston would have been on the hook for in your WAR system.     Maybe every team would pay 52% of their revenue into one big pot, everyone gets paid minimum and rest is divided by total WAR and paid accordingly.    Adjustments could be made for higher cost areas and it would require a lot of faith in WAR.

BTW, I never bitched about Mauer's contract though I didn't think it was a good baseball decision.   I always thought at least 30 mil of it should have been written off to marketing rather than salaries.

[Dantes929]

 

A 'commission' structure would in theory be the best way for the pays to get paid at the exact time they're producing. They would have to agree on a rate and create a structure that wouldnt affect the integrity of the game.

As far as integrity, just as a pure hypothetical...

CS: "Chris Sale, speaking."
BB: "Hey it's Byron."
CS: "I shouldn't be talking to an opponent on game day, but go on?"
BB: "Hey man, I have 49 stolen bases right now. If I get 50, I make another $3.5 million. How about we make a deal here?"
CS: "Give me $250,000 and you got a deal."
BB: "Great! See you in the first inning!"

I don't think I would care to see a model where 1 of anything gets another 3.5 mil but the scene you just described is what I imagine goes on in Washington every day.

[ashbury]

This is about to hijack this thread.

Bet it doesn't.

 

^{_{/ Nothing wrong with your post, nor with thoughtful responses to it, within reason - and your recognition of the risk is appreciated}}

[nicksaviking]

I understand why the players are going with the narrative that teams are tanking to maximize profit, but didn't the Cubs and Astros set the precedent of tanking to maximize....future competitiveness?

 

The players won't like it, but I agree with the salary cap/salary floor. They can feel free to make the floor fairly high, let's say $150M. If the Pirates and Marlins owners don't like it they can sell or get the other owners to further subsidize them.

[Riverbrian]

I've said this many times on TwinsDaily and mark my words... The next CBA is going to be real ugly. The front office can't have it all.

 

The players union has allowed the teams to control the prime years of players and I assume it is because the eventual free agency payoff has been sufficient.

 

When the teams adjust to that (like this year) by saying with the checkbook... you are in decline phase so we will no longer pay you like we used to... you are poking the players in the eye and this will produce an equal reaction. The teams would be smart to give a little or they will have to give up a lot later. To every action there is an equal reaction. 

 

Plus when teams adjust by loading up on cheap players (sensible moves by the GM's) who have the capability to produce at the same level as the Free Agent asking tens of millions AAV. The next CBA is going to demand adjustment. 

 

Basically... the players union is going to look at what's happening... do the math and conclude. OK... you pay players below poverty levels in the minors for up to 5 years. You pay them the minimum for the next 3 years. You force them to go through nasty arbitration for the next 3 years before you give them the option to change teams and get a decent long term contract and refuse to pay them because they are entering the decline phase. 

 

The players are going to demand Free Agency at age 26... the players union might even demand that the draft is unfair. Forcing teams to sign players out of high school at market prices. Either way... The owners won't go for it... We won't be watching baseball for awhile because the strike is going to be long lasting. 

 

It'll be the owners fault in my opinion... they got greedy. 

[Teflon]

Two major problems - the loss of a draft pick for teams that sign players who rejected qualifying offers and the bump in supplemental draft position given to teams who qualify for the luxury tax benefits when one one of their players who received a qualifying offer is signed. It reinforces both not signing free agents and teams being rewarded for qualifying for the luxury tax benefit.

 

Also, as players are grossly underpaid at the beginning of their careers, if teams are now going to collectively stop over-paying at the end, there is no longer equitable pay in total to players over their careers.

 

If I was a player, I'd be adamant that the CBA strip the compensation for the qualifying offers and reduce the number of years of team control/arbitration over players. As a fan I also think it's the right solution. 

 

The next CBA negotiation IS going to be ugly. The owners actions this year seem bound to provoke a strike which, considering what complicit complacent patsies the Players Union was in negotiating the last CBA, would have seemed far-fetched not too long ago.

[Vanimal46]

Jansen was right that only 6 teams appear to be competing this year in the NL... Which makes you think why wouldn't some teams try competing knowing others are going to be much worse than them?

 

Kind of a best of the lousiest, lousiest of the best type of dilemma.

[Thrylos]

6 teams?

 

Hmmmm.  Let's add up:

 

NL East:

 

Washington,  the Mets, and maybe the Phillies if they add an arm or two.

 

That's 2.5

 

NL Central

 

Cubs, Milwaukee, Cardinals (and the Reds have one of the highest player contracts out there, but let's ignore that.)

 

That's 3, so 5.5

 

NL West:

 

Dodgers, Giants, Arizona, Rockies, and even the Padres signed Hosmer.  That's 4.5

 

 

Total 10.

 

Not sure what he is talking about or whether he can add or not.

 

[dgwills]

Says the player on the team with an eight billion dollar tv deal. Pretty tough to compete with that.

[Dantes929]

 

I've said this many times on TwinsDaily and mark my words... The next CBA is going to be real ugly. The front office can't have it all.

 

The players union has allowed the teams to control the prime years of players and I assume it is because the eventual free agency payoff has been sufficient.

 

When the teams adjust to that (like this year) by saying with the checkbook... you are in decline phase so we will no longer pay you like we used to... you are poking the players in the eye and this will produce an equal reaction. The teams would be smart to give a little or they will have to give up a lot later. To every action there is an equal reaction. 

 

Plus when teams adjust by loading up on cheap players (sensible moves by the GM's) who have the capability to produce at the same level as the Free Agent asking tens of millions AAV. The next CBA is going to demand adjustment. 

 

Basically... the players union is going to look at what's happening... do the math and conclude. OK... you pay players below poverty levels in the minors for up to 5 years. You pay them the minimum for the next 3 years. You force them to go through nasty arbitration for the next 3 years before you give them the option to change teams and get a decent long term contract and refuse to pay them because they are entering the decline phase. 

 

The players are going to demand Free Agency at age 26... the players union might even demand that the draft is unfair. Forcing teams to sign players out of high school at market prices. Either way... The owners won't go for it... We won't be watching baseball for awhile because the strike is going to be long lasting. 

 

It'll be the owners fault in my opinion... they got greedy. 

Well..I think they both got greedy.   Honestly, I know the owners are ridiculously rich and greedy but they are just making good decisions with the system as is.       Most are either offended by those producing in the early years but not getting paid for it or getting paid for it in the later years without producing.    I am more offended by the latter because if you have made it to the 9th or 10th year in the majors you have already made an obscene amount of money.   A reasonable answer would be to curb the length of contracts which players are extorting (ok I know that is not the right word) out of the owners and pay more for the shorter terms while also paying a lot more for the first 6 years either as a merit base or as a minimum pay.    My sympathies lie less with the veteran who has already made 20 mil and now is upset that he is only offered 50 mil for 3 years rather than 100 mil for 6 years and more with the guy that is an all star after two years and is being paid like every other guy after two years.   Of course sympathy is the wrong word also.   I don't feel sorry for the owners or the players.   I would trade places with either in a heartbeat.

[Riverbrian]

 

Well..I think they both got greedy.   

 

My sympathies lie less with the veteran who has already made 20 mil and now is upset that he is only offered 50 mil for 3 years rather than 100 mil for 6 years and more with the guy that is an all star after two years and is being paid like every other guy after two years.   Of course sympathy is the wrong word also.   I don't feel sorry for the owners or the players.   I would trade places with either in a heartbeat.

 

It's real hard to feel sorry for millionaires fighting especially when the single mom is working a full time job plus two part time jobs and she can't afford the $30 ticket to the ball game.

 

The only thing I can add is this... if you have the advantage (the owners do) and you have labor peace. Don't grab for more (The Owners did).  

 

Your last paragraph describes the problem perfectly. You have more sympathy for the 2nd year player and less sympathy for the FA vet. The front office looks like it agrees by using decline phase data to adjust payment to the FA Vet. The front office would probably love to pay the 2nd year all star player what they are worth but... well they can't... because they OWN that player. 

 

They don't have to. 

 

The players were OK with this as long as they got their money at the end.

 

Now... they are not getting the money at the end either. 

 

I have no choice but to side with the ball players while I struggle to pay for my kids education and weddings. 

 

 

 

 

[Tomj14]

 

Perhaps a salary floor that teams need to meet? Otherwise they don't get revenue sharing from the league.

This sounds good, but I believe it only helps the great players, if you are below the floor do you give more to your stars or over pay for lesser players?

Over paying lesser players keeps you in the middle, the NBA is the perfect example, the Wolves couldn't get great players to come and thus had to over pay for lesser players.

 

Edit - also not sure how the floor would help players like Lynn and Cobb, the teams that aren't really trying will only offer the 1 year deal to get to the floor and then look to trade them at the deadline if they are hot. If not they keep them for the year and then they are looking for their next one year deal. If you aren't a stud you will basically be a journeymen for your career unless you take less money for more years.

 

[Vanimal46]

This sounds good, but I believe it only helps the great players, if you are below the floor do you give more to your stars or over pay for lesser players?

Over paying lesser players keeps you in the middle, the NBA is the perfect example, the Wolves couldn't get great players to come and thus had to over pay for lesser players.

Yeah I suppose teams would be at risk of overpaying lesser players. I was just thinking if a team wants to rebuild and act like a small market team, they shouldn't get the revenue sharing benefits that MLB provides. That would give teams incentive to either stay competitive by maintaining a certain floor of payroll, or 'tank' by acquiring horrendous contracts like Phil Hughes to hit the floor.

[Guest]

The CBA should be improved, but I don’t see the evidence for a major problem here. Mike Moustakas, Lance Lynn and Alex Cobb not getting $80M deals? JD Martinez and Yu Darvish not getting $150M?

 

Also, as Thrylos mentions, it seems like Jansen is undercounting. In the NL, four teams are sitting out free agency - Atlanta (waiting for prospects to mature instead of signing more Markakises or Dickeys), Cincinnati (aimless, hopeless), Miami (yeah, they’re tanking) and Pittsburgh (trying to have an upside of being a first round playoff loser while possibly being what is nicely called “cheap”). The other eleven teams are all making investments to win, either now or in the near future.