Major League Ready

Did the league or anyone here suggested anything even resembling 24 teams. Any concept is likely bad if exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The NHL and NBA have 16 teams. The NFL has 14. MLB has 8. I think MLB can push it to a dozen teams and in the process included several more teams. 16 was a bit too much but it did make the playoff races much more interesting. It was a good test. Now tweak it to 12 teams.

I doubt Oakland is not letting Aj Puk go if they move one or more of their established SPs.

Wish that would have happened last year!

The cap and floor model is far more workable when revenue disparity is modest. NFL teams are all basically within $100M with the exception of of one team (Dallas). With the disparity present in MLB, a modest ceiling would promote huge profits for large market teams and a floor presents a rather substantial challenge to profitability for small teams. The players are going to fight a ceiling that promotes competition because they want those excess profits paid to free agent contracts. The small-market owners are going to have a real problem with a substantial ceiling. This is a tough one to get agreement on.

Apparently, you were not paying attention when we had more playoff teams in 2020. Having more teams in the playoff race keeps more fans engaged. It also encourages more teams to try to contend which promotes free agent interest. Players also get paid for playoffs and I would sure hope they want to participate in playoff series. To paint this as negative takes real resolve in being negative. DHs make an average of over $9M according to the articles I have read. So, yes they roster count is a net zero but they will replace much lower paying bench jobs. It's also generally considered good for the game. There is no perfect solution to tanking but a lottery at least contributes. You also ignored they offered a Salary floor which combined with the lottery would discourage tanking and generally promote a better product. Good for the game, good for the fans, and good for the players when view objectively. Why are we talking about the first offer (180M) when the offer is now 214. Seems you are trying real hard to put a negative spin on what is actually happening. You completely ignored the fact that the union has contributed nothing. You also ignored the increase in minimum pay. You ignored they offered free agency at 29 1/2 and you ignored the union spit in the face of small market teams asking for a reduction in revenue sharing.

I agree. If the agreement was made it would become very public and the league would not go back on it. However, what I am floating here is what would prevent a contractual setting of salary levels as you stated? If they wanted to include that the teams all give X dollars to charity, they could do that, right? So, why can't they contractually agree to reduce bonuses while increasing Milb salaries by $200M or whatever number is agreed upon?

I understand where you are coming from. That said ... What would stop the two sides from agreeing to form a contract outside the CBA stating that IF the league instituted a salary structure of X, they would agree to the bonus structure I suggested. It is their legal right to enter into such a contract, is it not? They don't have to represent Milb players in order to make a contract. Who would challenge such an agreement? Perhaps a different question is more pertinent. If these two parties are responsible for negotiating a bonus structure, why can't they negotiate a pay increase? I am not a lawyer. I am asking what would prohibit such a pact? Who would object?

MLB would extend the current CBA tomorrow. It is the players who are unwilling to accept the status quo so you are starting with a badly flawed presumption. Also. the lockout has absolutely ZERO impact on the ability of the sides to negotiate so your argument makes no sense even if not for the fact it is the players demanding more. The only thing the owners are asking for is more playoff teams. How is this bad anything but a positive for everyone, especially fans? The player’s two primary demands are to shorten control and decrease revenue sharing. This increases revenue disparity and moves premier free agents to top revenue markets a year earlier. This would be terribly unfair to fans of half of the teams in the league and greater competitive disparity in bad for the league. They also want arbitration to begin in year 3. The owners proposed a system that … • Eliminates qualifying offers and remove Draft-pick compensation attached to any free agent which is obviously good for free agents. • A Draft lottery similar to the one used by the NBA to discourage tanking • Adds universal DH which would add 15 jobs for hitters in the NL / ave salary for a DH in 2021 was $9.2 million. Obviously a plus for players. • An increase to the minimum player salary. Obviously a plus for players. • An increase in the CBT threshold • A minimum team salary. Obviously good for players. Every element of MLB’s “radical proposal” is beneficial to players. The majority of what the players want would widen the disparity in revenue and therefore discourage competitive parity. The draft lottery, universal DH, and minimum team salary all great for the league and players. Eliminating the qualifying offer, increased minimum pay, and increased CBT all good for the players. The players feel the hundred and two-hundred, and three hundred million dollar contracts are not enough and they are unwilling to play under these horrendous conditions.

The might accept a cap if the floor was crazy high. However, the bottom teams can't afford a $125M minimum. At least not when they are losing. Half of the league was below $125M last year. Instituting such a system would cut team values by 75% for the bottom revenue teams. How would you feel about that if you are Derek Jeter. Who would ever want to own a team in a small market with this type of system? How about the fans. Would you want a system where we were forced to sign mediocre vets to huge salaries? It's not like we can manufacture more great FAs. We would be forced to play them instead of the prospects that could eventually bring us back to contention. Didn't we all want to play prospects last year when the season was lost?

I think the owners would gladly accept a compensation system in the new CBA that reallocated bonus pool money to Milb salaries. In other words, the new CBA would set salary guidelines that included these funds into Milb salaries. Why would owners care. This would be relatively easy. You have to ask yourself why the emphasis on such a small portion of players. Those bonuses benefit a relatively small portion of players. In this case the system is benefiting the players who will eventually become the highest paid players, At least in theory. Seems like another Boras influence. All they need to do to right this system is pay them when they actually earn it at the MLB level. Playing baseball should not have to be a financial struggle for any Milb players given the amount of money in the game. They could make life much better for Take 80% of the already existing bonus pool and pay it out in salary. That money would fund (roughly) an additional $60K in salary for all players. The goal should be a system that pays $100K at the AAA level. I modeled a system that started at a $1M bonus at 1/1 and decreased by 2% for each pick until it reaches 30K. The end of the 2nd round is $250K and it gets down to $30K after the 6th round. It's really a matter of taking care of everyone or only focusing on top picks. Like I said, seems like another Boras influence. Lety's pay them when they earn it and eliminate financial hardship for all Milb players.

Chief, I have a new found respect. Most people fall into ethnocentric alignment. In other words, they identify with labor before management so they take the players side and ignore the things the players are demanding is bad for parity and bad for the sport. We fund these salaries and you considered what's good for fans. Bravo! Owners are only lookout for their own best interests but their best interests are the interest of the game. The demands made by players indicate they are either clueless as to what's good for the game or they just don't care. While they say they want to get players more in the early part of their career, their proposals focus on things that are good for the highest paid players. Looks like the Boras effect to me. I bet the owners would accept .... Minimum salary of $1M / 1.25M / $1,.5 M for the 1st 3 years. A salary floor where the difference between the floor and minimum is divided among all prearb players. The amount could be a running 3 year average to allow teams to adjust to their build cycles. The 6 year free agent status is something MLB owner should never change for the sake of parity. I thought their proposal on this item was more than I expected. One final note ... I am with you on Milb pay. Quit giving out $7M bonuses to unproven players, They will get it when they prove they are worth it. Take 80% of that bonus bonus money and put it into salaries so that all Milb players make a good living. This practice would add roughly $60K to whatever they are earning now. AAA players would/should make $100K.

The players would never accept a cap and they want to decrease revenue sharing.

Trea Turner / Tim Anderson / Xander Bogaerts / Danby Swanson are all FAs next year. Of course, there are few others but these 4 would be good long-term solutions. We are not getting Turner away from LA so let's call in 3 good options. The best case scenario is Lewis or Martin step up and that money gets allocated to pitching.

History is very clear in that neither strategy is a viable way to build a staff for any team and it's down right incompetent for a team in the bottom 1/3 or revenue to try. There are two potential paths. Trade for SPs as prospects or before they become established or draft and develop them. The one year guys are a way to fill holes. The very top free agents SPs (Scherzer / Greinke) are great. The problem is that there are so very few of them. Plus can we afford to put 29% in one player? (Scherzer / $150M budget) Other than these very select few true elite SPs, the rest of the free agent market collectively is a very poor bet, especially outside the first year. The production is surprising low when you actually go back and chart their production. We can talk about the poor history of developing pitchers all we like. By far the most likely path to success is through developing internal pitching so focusing on less productive strategies never makes sense. I think we are about to see the FO act accordingly. The old regime no doubt failed to develop pitching and we are about to see if the new is any different.

Who are you thinking, Mike? Garver only has two years left but Polanco / Kepler / Buxton / Jeffers have multiple years left, I don't think they can get anything for Donaldson. Sano might bring a half way decent prospect considering the universal; DH is likely. Arreaz has 4 years left but could be traded given out depth at 2B.

My comments were all in the context of what they need to do over the course of this season to have a legit shot at fielding a contender next year. I don't believe and never did believe that was realistic. Anything is possible in baseball but the odds were very much against it. I am not interested in pursuing strategies that just prolong the mediocrity.

I didn't say anything about 1 year contracts. I simply pointed out that the 5 year deals have been horrible outside of the first year and a mixed bag even in the first year. I am not even saying we should not do them ... just that in the Cueto / Zimmerman type cases it hurts the team badly for 3 or 4 years. BTW ... Ray and Gausman were 1 year deals and there have many 1 or 2 year deals (Cruz) that have been fantastic.

I agree Strotman has the best shot of those three. The one I don't know what to make of is Duran. It would not be the end of the world if he ended up being a back of the BP arm but we really need that guy to live up to his potential. What about Canterino? Will we see him at the ML level this year?

They need to come up with a couple BP guys too with Rodgers and Duffey being free agents at the end of the year. They will have the budget to keep them if that makes sense but it also makes sense they try to determine which prospects start and who should be transitioned to the BP. Vallimont and Strotman seemed destined for the BP to me and if Jax has any chance, it seems like it would be out of the BP. Let's hope the pitching prospects stay healthy this year. They have enough guys near ready that it would make sense to give a couple of them a look out of the BP.

How is it ever good to get 5 WAR for $110M? We could have got Robbie Ray for an extra $5M.

Just about everyone here has consider only one possible future state strategy .... contend next year. Do you think it's possible or even probable they looked at what was needed to contend and determined that was not feasible by opening day. None of this is in the least bit surprising if they determined the best course of action was to invest big league innings in their pitching prospects as well as Miranda, Martin, and possibly Lewis.

If we venture back a few years to the last time we had a bunch of SPs get 5 years deals (2016) the results suggest we should at least be aware of the highly volatile production of free agent SPs. David Price 7/217/AAV of #31M – WAR 4.4 / 1.5 / 2.4 / 2.3 / 0 / .7 an average of 1.88 total and 1.38 after the 1st year. Zack Greinke – Has been great. The next 3 SPs in AAV included Johnny Cueto / Jordan Zimmerman, and Jeff Samardzija. Johnny Cueto had a great first year and produced an average of 1 WAR for the final 5 years. Zimmerman produced 4.4 WAR over 4 years. Samardzjia was average in 2016, good in 2017 with 3.8 War and had .2 WAR in 2018 and 1.5 WAR in 2019 and below replacement level in his final year. They had two good years total between the three of them. As an aside, Chris Davis / Jason Heyward / and Justin Upton were the top AAV position players. They were not any better.

True and of course they need a SS. They would have needed to get Scherzer and Ray to have a realistic shot at a playoff run beyond the first round. So, that's $65M AAV for two SPs and another 50M AAV for the BP arms and a SS. Obviously, not remotely feasible. If they felt they could spend $50 total, I am sure they discussed what it would cost in prospects to make up the difference in what's needed. They don't even have the premier prospects teams want for established difference makers so the cost would be several of our top prospects. San Diego traded 10 prospects and the players they traded for were relatively highly compensated. My guess is that their conclusion in terms of how they could build a contender is VERY different than the strategies that have been discussed in numerous threads here. It's not surprising their actions thus fat don't match what most posters here think should be done. My guess is that they looked at the relative probability of succeeding at putting together a contender by opening day and completely ruled out that path. My guess is that they also evaluated a path focused on 2023 and determined the odds of success, especially sustained success were much greater if their planned focused on establishing a couple more SP prospects in 2022 and transitioning Miranda / Martin and possibly Lewis to the ML club. I would guess they imagined a scenario with Buxton / Polanco / Garver / Kepler / Kirilloff / Miranda / Martin and 4 homegrown starters and Maeda back as a great core. Now they still have $50M to supplement whatever additional pieces they need. They could also move a portion of Donaldson's contract, pass on Sano's option and have $70M to spend. I am sure they asked themselves if it was reasonable to expect they could come up with 2 SPs from the group of Balazovic / Duran /Canterino / SWR / Enlow / Winder / Sands and came to the conclusion that a patient approach had a significantly higher probability of sustained success.

I agree it would have turned out great had they signed him. Would Buxton have signed a modest deal given his potential? He also was a number 9 hitter that did not do much to indicate he was going to be a great offensive player. So, I am by no means saying it would not have been a good idea. Just saying it's not surprising either side might not had been inclined much less both sides.