Reusse: Modern Game Unkind to Dozier, Plouffe

[Seth Stohs]

I thought that  Patrick Reusse wrote an interesting article, something I know I have been thinking for the last few years. 

 

https://www.startribune.com/why-modern-baseball-is-unkind-to-thirty-somethings-like-brian-dozier-trevor-plouffe/600024936/

 

It used to be the players were given contracts based one what  they have done. Now, it's all about  projection. In the older days, Dozier would have been given a nice extension, but with the new front office and their analytical staff, they projected what was to come. Trevor Plouffe  explains  it as well in the story. 

 

 

"The front offices today, you get into your 30s, you are not getting paid on what you did a couple of years ago,'' Plouffe said. "You are getting paid on projections. And if the projections say you are declining, you're not getting one of those spots on a 40-man roster.

 

[ashbury]

The only amazing thing is that front offices didn't get better at this form of evaluation and projection, a long time sooner. Plouffe summed it up: "I wasn't good enough [anymore]." No getting around that. Anymore.

 

IMO the players association needs to face this reality and take the lead on working toward a salary system that leaves the players feeling less used or disappointed when they hit their 30s, particularly college players who reach the majors at an older age. Players need to get paid when they still are good enough. The plan should be independent of the separate issue of what percent of revenues should go to the players overall.

 

The clubs have been adamant about the system leaving some way for the smaller-market clubs to hang on to their good players, and to a lesser extent avoid all the good players flocking to "desirable" cities only.

 

The players quite reasonably don't want to find out how much they earn only after playing the season and seeing what numbers they put up. A system built solely on performance incentives won't fly.

 

Sometimes players want to move to a different team, but I have to believe most free agents move only because they have to do it in order to follow the money. Conversely, sometimes a team is happy to see a troublesome player move on, but usually they reluctantly say goodbye because price/performance has become the only problem.

 

Would Torii Hunter have left the Twins if he could have gotten the same money from them? Would Eddie Rosario be gone if Alex Kirilloff was destined to get the same money as him if the projections turn out to be true? Neither of these guys was troublesome and neither guy disliked his team.

 

Yet teams and players shouldn't have to be tied to each other. How do you move on, with minimal hard feelings, when you lack the fig leaf that "salary differences" provide?

 

I'd love to see some intelligent alternatives to the present salary system put forward here, that don't ignore the concerns I listed (and maybe some additional realities I forgot).

[Jacksson]

Unfortunately, pro sports has moved far down the road of becoming just businesses.

As stated by that underappreciated observer of society, Fred Flintstone,

" You're in the business army now, your only friend is a buck and the more bucks you've got, the more friends you've got.

This applies to both sides of the pro sports equation. 

[Danchat]

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.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

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.

[Birdbrain]

Be careful what you wish for. Reducing service time would hurt small market teams like the Twins big time. The White Sox have more than 70 million more dollars annually in tv revenue than the twins. Even owners cannot make up differences like that.

Unlike other sports baseball does not have complete revenue sharing or a salary cap. This makes it hard for small market teams to compete. Reducing service time would make it even harder.

Complete revenue sharing like the NFL is not going to happen.

What could be done?

1. Set a maximum salary for players like the NBA. Thirty and forty million dollar per year contracts take away from all the other players. Twenty million up to 7 years should be enough to support your family. However, the money saved should not go to the owners. Continue current luxury tax if the team salary cap is exceeded.

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.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Complete revenue sharing like the NFL is not going to happen.
What could be done?
1. Set a maximum salary for players like the NBA. Thirty and forty million dollar per year contracts take away from all the other players. Twenty million up to 7 years should be enough to support your family. However, the money saved should not go to the owners. Continue current luxury tax if the team salary cap is exceeded.
 

I do not concur with this part. While the owners may not agree with complete revenue sharing I think there needs to be far more than is done now. If this happens item 1 above is not necessary. If all teams have similar budgets to work with it will ultimately benefit the best players no matter which team they happen to play for.

[Nine of twelve]

 

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.

I concur with this part. I think it would be better for baseball as a whole if players with less experience are paid more than they are now and if players with more experience are paid less than they are now.

[The Wise One]

A fair system is after a certain career point everyone is a free agent with a one year contract.

[Physics Guy]

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.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Now, it's all about projection. In the older days, Dozier would have been given a nice extension, but with the new front office and their analytical staff, they projected what was to come. 

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?

[Nine of twelve]

 

A fair system is after a certain career point everyone is a free agent with a one year contract.

Maybe, but it would be unfair if a team and player both want a long term contract. I suppose they could sign a series of one-year contracts years in advance.

[The Wise One]

 

Be careful what you wish for. Reducing service time would hurt small market teams like the Twins big time. The White Sox have more than 70 million more dollars annually in tv revenue than the twins. Even owners cannot make up differences like that.
Unlike other sports baseball does not have complete revenue sharing or a salary cap. This makes it hard for small market teams to compete. Reducing service time would make it even harder.
Complete revenue sharing like the NFL is not going to happen.
What could be done?
1. Set a maximum salary for players like the NBA. Thirty and forty million dollar per year contracts take away from all the other players. Twenty million up to 7 years should be enough to support your family. However, the money saved should not go to the owners. Continue current luxury tax if the team salary cap is exceeded.
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.

Yet the Twins and White Sox have the exact same revenue as listed by Forbes

[Danchat]

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?

Yes, which is why I think players should hit FA earlier so that they’re not hitting FA at age 31-32.

[The Wise One]

 

Maybe, but it would be unfair if a team and player both want a long term contract. I suppose they could sign a series of one-year contracts years in advance.

A series of one year contracts  defeats the purpose of a fair contract. How many bad contracts will it take for people to realize the only fair system is a one year contract. 

[MNT1996]

 

Unfortunately, pro sports has moved far down the road of becoming just businesses.

As stated by that underappreciated observer of society, Fred Flintstone,

" You're in the business army now, your only friend is a buck and the more bucks you've got, the more friends you've got.

This applies to both sides of the pro sports equation. 

 

Sports have always been about business, and they always should be. Businesses are meritocracies where the people that do the best job are the ones that keep their job and/or get promoted. As players get older the potential for their skill to diminish is higher, which is why younger players are coveted. Do fans want to go to a ballgame to see a bunch of 30-somethings play average baseball? No. They like the exciting young players that can be unpredictable with a lot of talent potential. Teams know this and adjust accordingly.  

[tony&rodney]

Baseball is a business. Let the front office sign players to contracts every year  or longer if both players and teams agree. This should start from age 18, or no different than any other business. It is past time for baseball to lose the special exemption from anti-trust. I don't know anyone who is tied to their job for years without their express agreement. Eliminate the draft as well. Teams can compete as  they wish and leagues can be created as well.

Next year will be very interesting with the labor agreement expiring. The MLBPA should have noticed exactly what Reusse wrote about and what Plouffe had to say. While management is applauded for no longer paying players for past performances, they should be tested by putting together rosters every year without any player tied by the current system. I love how Alex Kirilloff swings the bat but if it was Eddie Rosario or Alex Kirilloff for 2021 at an identical salary and a team wanted to win, what GM would not choose Eddie. The current system clearly makes the Twins lean to Kirilloff in 2021, but the time has come to level the field for everyone.

[Dman]

 

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.

\

 

I agree 6 or 7 seven years is currently not good for the players especially since teams are no longer doing as many long term contracts after age 30 knowing they will generally eat the last two years of salary if said player declines as predicted.

 

The thing is the bottom 10 teams in revenue will have a very hard time surviving if they cut service time to 4 or 5 years.  It generally takes a season or two just to get players acclimated to the highest level so that would give teams like Oakland or Tampa incredibly small windows to create a playoff level teams and keep it going.  You look at how Tampa and Oakland operate right now and they often times use the last 2 years of the 6 years to trade players because either they won't be able to pay the arb salaries and or they want to keep the farm full of good prospects to get more lower priced younger players on their team.  Essentially waiting for the right mix to compete with the best teams because they lack the salary to compete.

 

I honestly don't think those two teams in particular could survive that type of change without some sort of revenue sharing which I just don't see happening.  The teams with the most revenue don't want to share it because they make that money and want to keep it.  If it gives them an advantage all the better. The players association doesn't want it because it could keep salaries down for the top players.  I think having the soft cap as it is, is tough enough to maintain.  I don't see either side being able to bridge the gap there.

 

To make revenue sharing work better you could take out the the last 5 to 10 teams in revenue generation and then you might not have to share so much money, but that will disenfranchise millions of fans and again create less revenue opportunity for players as the player pool would be diminished.

 

There aren't a lot of good answers for how to fix this that I can think of.  A work stoppage would be bad for both sides.  The  last time there was one I didn't watch MLB for at least 5 years after I was so disgusted with both sides.  They have a good thing going and if they strike I think it kills the momentum they have.  There are lots of other things we do with our time these days losing viewers and fans will be bad for both sides. Once people find they can live without baseball they won't easily come back, and my kids aren't even interested in the game as it is right now.

 

Still the issue remains that young players with good or great production are not getting paid what they deserve.  Arbitration helps and earlier arbitration might help most teams but not the lower end teams.  I don't know what the answer is but I hope they figure something out that both sides can live with.

[Major League Ready]

 

A fair system is after a certain career point everyone is a free agent with a one year contract.

 

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.

[twinfan]

I thought a 31 year old player was still in his prime- even at 32 or 33- if they are a good ballplayer. too many are just marginal and should not be paid the multi-millions they are getting. Baseball is headed for a lockdown in 2022. There is almost nothing that I see that will stop it. However, on this topic, I would say that, after 4 years on the 40 man roster, the player is eligible to become a free agent. Also, I would raise the minimum total salary that a team can pay and lower the maximum before the luxury tax kicks in. I would also have a free agent draft every 3 years (or even sooner) where a team can protect only 20 players and then have teams pick players in reverse order of finish the year before. When a team has a player taken from the pool, that team can then protect 2 more. This could help to make teams more competitive in the long run and eliminate one team winning their division almost every year (IMHO). 

But I'm kind of a radical anyway.

[The Wise One]

 

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

[drivlikejehu]

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.

[Seth Stohs]

 

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. 

[AceWrigley]

 

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.

[Dodecahedron]

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-.

[Major League Ready]

 

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

 

[Dodecahedron]

 

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? 

[4twinsJA]

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. 

[Vanimal46]

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. 

[Major League Ready]

 

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.