2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[Kimmi]

So, this seems...very silly.

 

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22300069/agent-says-fight-brewing-slow-mlb-free-agent-market

 

 

 

I get that the owners aren't exactly the most sympathetic group, but it's hard for me to put all of this on them. From what's been reported publicly, Martinez has been sitting on at least one 5-year offer, and Hosmer at least two 7-year offers; there was a report a few weeks back about Darvish turning down 7 years from the Yankees as well; we know Santana saw a reasonable offer back in December, and took it; soon-to-be 32-year-old Lorenzo Cain managed to find himself a 5-year deal recently; and so on. Not all of these reports may be 100% accurate, but from the sum total of what we've learned this offseason, it seems these guys are getting offers - probably very solid ones - just not the ones they want, and that makes the playing the victim and crying about collusion seem absurd to me. The landscape of the game is changing as teams figure out that handing out massive contracts to 30+ year-old free agents whose best days are behind them is a losing proposition, and agents like Boras are way late to the party, still acting like their clients are entitled to the same dumb deals that they might have gotten in years past.

 

A lot of this seems like a pretty foreseeable result of the new CBA that seems designed to suppress spending (particularly by a team like the Red Sox that always lives close to the threshold) with increasingly draconian luxury tax measures, and IMO, if the players are so unhappy and discontented, they should first turn their ire on their own union for agreeing to it without getting much in return...

 

+100 You said this much better than I.

 

It really is difficult for me to muster up much sympathy for the players.

[Kimmi]

A reasonable slice of the expanding revenue pie?

 

Those offers are a reasonable slice.

 

As others have mentioned, none of the free agents this offseason are exactly the type of player that you go all out for.

[moonslav59]

I think you are nailing most of your posts with the 'or not'.

 

I'm always leaning towards the "or nots".

[Bellhorn04]

A reasonable slice of the expanding revenue pie?

 

I don't disagree with the general notion that players deserve their share. But at the same time, teams should not be obligated to sign excessively risky contracts.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that JD Martinez is worth $25 million a year and that the Red Sox have offered him 5/$125 million.

 

The salary they are offering him is entirely consistent with market value.

 

What's holding things up would appear to be the length of the contract. I suspect he would sign for 6/$150 million at this point.

 

But it's that 6th year that is the breaking point because of the added risk.

 

Why should teams keep signing such long deals, given the terrible results at the back end of most such contracts?

 

The whole system needs to be rebalanced somehow.

[harmony]

Those offers are a reasonable slice.

 

As others have mentioned, none of the free agents this offseason are exactly the type of player that you go all out for.

In yet another year of record revenues MLB payrolls may drop for the first time in years:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-payroll-might-decrease-for-first-time-in-long-time/

 

It's not just J.D. Martinez who has been held up in the free agent market. Other free agents have suffered while owners artificially suppress the salaries of the vast, vast majority of players who never reach free agency.

Edited February 2, 2018 by harmony

[Kimmi]

I'm always leaning towards the "or nots".

 

As am I.

[Bellhorn04]

In yet another year of record revenues MLB payrolls may drop for the first time in years:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-payroll-might-decrease-for-first-time-in-long-time/

 

That's a fair observation, but maybe we shouldn't overreact to what might be a one-year aberration.

 

Things can't be expected to move in perfect lockstep.

 

If this becomes a consistent pattern, then I would agree, it's a serious matter.

[harmony]

That's a fair observation, but maybe we shouldn't overreact to what might be a one-year aberration.

 

Things can't be expected to move in perfect lockstep.

 

If this becomes a consistent pattern, then I would agree, it's a serious matter.

Last offseason Yoenis Cespedes was the only free agent to land a nine-contract after seven free agents landed nine-figure contracts the previous offseason.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016-mlb-free-agent-tracker/sort_column-amount__sort_direction-0

[Bellhorn04]

Last offseason Yoenis Cespedes was the only free agent to land a nine-contract after seven free agents landed nine-figure contracts the previous offseason.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016-mlb-free-agent-tracker/sort_column-amount__sort_direction-0

 

Last season's crop of free agents was very thin.

[FredLynn]

In yet another year of record revenues MLB payrolls may drop for the first time in years:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-payroll-might-decrease-for-first-time-in-long-time/

 

It's not just J.D. Martinez who has been held up in the free agent market. Other free agents have suffered while owners artificially suppress the salaries of the vast, vast majority of players who never reach free agency.

 

"Suppress" the salaries....an interesting oxymoron. We aren't exactly talking about NORMAL pay rates here. These athletes are talented, no doubt, but they are all being paid outrageous sums to PLAY A GAME. They certainly have the choice to leave their chosen game and sell cars instead. Its hard for me to have any sympathy at all for players who are holding out for salaries well over $100M when they could sign to PLAY THE GAME today and be set for life.

Wait.....let me wipe the tear off my cheek.....

[fxkatt]

"Suppress" the salaries....an interesting oxymoron. We aren't exactly talking about NORMAL pay rates here. These athletes are talented, no doubt, but they are all being paid outrageous sums to PLAY A GAME. They certainly have the choice to leave their chosen game and sell cars instead. Its hard for me to have any sympathy at all for players who are holding out for salaries well over $100M when they could sign to PLAY THE GAME today and be set for life.

Wait.....let me wipe the tear off my cheek.....

 

I agree, but it's not capitalism to demand less than you can get. But I do wish there were more Ken Griffey, Jr.'s out there who would prefer not to bargain till the bitter end.

 

I wish there were more outs from these long contracts too. Like more buyouts written into the contracts, more team options for the final years etc. some kind of escape clauses for poor play and injury situations. Or maybe something like the NFL where guaranteed money and contract money are too distinct things. Anything to cut the risks involved in lengthy contracts.

[harmony]

"Suppress" the salaries....an interesting oxymoron. We aren't exactly talking about NORMAL pay rates here. These athletes are talented, no doubt, but they are all being paid outrageous sums to PLAY A GAME. They certainly have the choice to leave their chosen game and sell cars instead. Its hard for me to have any sympathy at all for players who are holding out for salaries well over $100M when they could sign to PLAY THE GAME today and be set for life.

Wait.....let me wipe the tear off my cheek.....

Unlike most of us, the vast majority of professional baseball players are not free to choose their employers. The rare player who advances to the major leagues is typically limited to the league minimum salary for three years regardless of his contribution to a highly profitable enterprise. Even after the third year the player generally is not free to test the market until after the sixth year (a milestone few players reach).

 

Many people in the world work harder than you or I work (or worked) but earn only a small fraction of our earnings. Does that make our earnings wrong?

[Bellhorn04]

Unlike most of us, the vast majority of professional baseball players are not free to choose their employers. The rare player who advances to the major leagues is typically limited to the league minimum salary for three years regardless of his contribution to a highly profitable enterprise. Even after the third year the player generally is not free to test the market until after the sixth year (a milestone few players reach).

 

But what we have seen is that for many players who reached free agency the advantage swung around completely to their side. We've seen players sign deals that paid them huge guaranteed amounts in advance regardless of performance. You don't see much of that in the working world either.

[Behindenemylines]

I don't disagree with the general notion that players deserve their share. But at the same time, teams should not be obligated to sign excessively risky contracts.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that JD Martinez is worth $25 million a year and that the Red Sox have offered him 5/$125 million.

 

The salary they are offering him is entirely consistent with market value.

 

What's holding things up would appear to be the length of the contract. I suspect he would sign for 6/$150 million at this point.

 

But it's that 6th year that is the breaking point because of the added risk.

 

Why should teams keep signing such long deals, given the terrible results at the back end of most such contracts?

 

The whole system needs to be rebalanced somehow.

 

I think in a way that is what is happening. Can anyone name one of those players that signed a 7 plus year contract that the team got its value over the course of the whole contract? Teams are no longer willing to pay for 3 or 4 years with below or with no production. If players want these long term contracts make them Have some of the years based on production. For example maybe guarantee 5 years at a set rate, and then the last 2 or 3 years based on the players production. If player produces he still gets paid big $$$$$$$. If he doesn’t then the total amount of money goes down. A contract like that would be fair to both parties. Because in the end the group that is paying for those crazy contracts are the fans. When a player turns down a 5 year $125 million dollar contract what are fans to think?

[cp176]

Unlike most of us, the vast majority of professional baseball players are not free to choose their employers. The rare player who advances to the major leagues is typically limited to the league minimum salary for three years regardless of his contribution to a highly profitable enterprise. Even after the third year the player generally is not free to test the market until after the sixth year (a milestone few players reach).

 

Many people in the world work harder than you or I work (or worked) but earn only a small fraction of our earnings. Does that make our earnings wrong?

 

Does this make what the owners of ml franchises earn wrong? It is all very relative. I know plenty of people who are self-employed who make more money through "under the table" work than they do with respect to what they claim. And by the way their poverty pleading makes a whining sound that keeps me awake at night.

[cp176]

But what we have seen is that for many players who reached free agency the advantage swung around completely to their side. We've seen players sign deals that paid them huge guaranteed amounts in advance regardless of performance. You don't see much of that in the working world either.

 

 

Very true.

[cp176]

One day the whole system will come crashing down. Until then, a few people will be paid a fortune and whine about how they need more.

 

I'm not sure which direction the "system" is heading but I will say that this game we love and what it at one time meant to us has certainly changed. There aren't too many kids using black electrician's tape and screws to keep their bats and balls together these days to say nothing of using cow patties for bases in the farmer's field next door. I beginning to think that I don't like this game anymore.

[cp176]

I'm beginning to think that the establishment of things like a luxury tax in an effort to bring parity to baseball in order to just make everything equal has worked against our current crop of free agents who hope to get an even bigger piece of the existing pie. No one can blame an owner for not willing to go above and beyond an established luxury tax roadblock but when you own a franchise like the Red Sox you will still make money. Maybe Congress should get involved (we will be hearing this soon) and set limits as to how much $ an owner is eligible to earn - not. I am sick to death of hearing that someone who has been offered 125 million dollars for 5 years of any kind of work feels as though they are worth more. I would suggest to most of these overpaid athletes that if they scrimp and save than maybe one day, perhaps even before they are 40, they will be able to buy into a bigger piece of that pie on their own.

[Bellhorn04]

I would suggest to most of these overpaid athletes that if they scrimp and save than maybe one day, perhaps even before they are 40, they will be able to buy into a bigger piece of that pie on their own.

 

Yeah, like Jeter. And then we can really s*** on them!

[cp176]

Yeah, like Jeter. And then we can really s*** on them!

 

I was thinking of him. I'm ok with that - what you said also - lol

[Kimmi]

I think in a way that is what is happening. Can anyone name one of those players that signed a 7 plus year contract that the team got its value over the course of the whole contract? Teams are no longer willing to pay for 3 or 4 years with below or with no production. If players want these long term contracts make them Have some of the years based on production. For example maybe guarantee 5 years at a set rate, and then the last 2 or 3 years based on the players production. If player produces he still gets paid big $$$$$$$. If he doesn’t then the total amount of money goes down. A contract like that would be fair to both parties. Because in the end the group that is paying for those crazy contracts are the fans. When a player turns down a 5 year $125 million dollar contract what are fans to think?

 

I'm not sure why MLB does not allow options to vest based on actual performance, rather than just on plate appearances or innings pitched. If a player performs at a certain level agreed upon by both the team and the player, then the option for the next year vests. The Red Sox could give JD a 5 year guaranteed contract with two vesting options based on performance. That would eliminate some of the risk and give JD a potential for years.

[cp176]

I'm not sure why MLB does not allow options to vest based on actual performance, rather than just on plate appearances or innings pitched. If a player performs at a certain level agreed upon by both the team and the player, then the option for the next year vests. The Red Sox could give JD a 5 year guaranteed contract with two vesting options based on performance. That would eliminate some of the risk and give JD a potential for years.

 

Oh stop - that makes too much sense!

[Kimmi]

The owners can afford to pay out these ludicrous contracts and heavy penalties for going over the luxury tax limits. But why should they be obligated to do so?

 

I could understand the players being upset if they were being lowballed. But they're not. All of the contract offers that have been reported are very fair. In fact, they are already overpays, if you ask me.

 

It's the players that need to come to grips with their demands, not the owners.

[Kimmi]

Oh stop - that makes too much sense!

 

Do you know of any good reason why teams are not allowed to offer options based on performance?

[Bellhorn04]

Do you know of any good reason why teams are not allowed to offer options based on performance?

 

I'm not sure of the exact rationale, but it seems to be a sacred principle that performance clauses are not allowed, other than some relatively small bonuses for winning awards.

[cp176]

Do you know of any good reason why teams are not allowed to offer options based on performance?

 

no I do not and I would be all for performance based clauses. At some point the Union gets involved and for all the good unions do and have done in general in an effort to treat everyone the same sometimes there just is a dark cloud.

[cp176]

The owners can afford to pay out these ludicrous contracts and heavy penalties for going over the luxury tax limits. But why should they be obligated to do so?

 

I could understand the players being upset if they were being lowballed. But they're not. All of the contract offers that have been reported are very fair. In fact, they are already overpays, if you ask me.

 

It's the players that need to come to grips with their demands, not the owners.

 

I agree with this very much. I'm actually not 100% sure that I am going to watch this ml act very much longer.

[notin]

I'm not sure why MLB does not allow options to vest based on actual performance, rather than just on plate appearances or innings pitched. If a player performs at a certain level agreed upon by both the team and the player, then the option for the next year vests. The Red Sox could give JD a 5 year guaranteed contract with two vesting options based on performance. That would eliminate some of the risk and give JD a potential for years.

 

They used to. But the LBPA had the clause removed citing pressure to perform. Now those incentive clauses are strictly participation-based..

[Bellhorn04]

They used to. But the LBPA had the clause removed citing pressure to perform. Now those incentive clauses are strictly participation-based..

 

Yeah, I can see where incentive clauses could be a problem for players and managers as well. Aside from pressure, you could also run into situations where a player wants to sit out a game against a pitcher he struggles against so his OPS doesn't go down or something like that.

[FredLynn]

Unlike most of us, the vast majority of professional baseball players are not free to choose their employers. The rare player who advances to the major leagues is typically limited to the league minimum salary for three years regardless of his contribution to a highly profitable enterprise. Even after the third year the player generally is not free to test the market until after the sixth year (a milestone few players reach).

 

Many people in the world work harder than you or I work (or worked) but earn only a small fraction of our earnings. Does that make our earnings wrong?

 

The baseball league minimum salary is now up to $300,000. Thats most of the way to the top 1% of wage earners in this country (they earn about $400,000). I am not disputing how hard these guys work, but on the other hand, I feel like I worked hard to get where I am as well, as, I am sure, did you. If I didn't like the salary or working conditions that my chosen profession offered, like everyone else in this country, I am free to seek employment elsewhere. Similarly, if a baseball player does not care for what is offered, he can also leave. Its a free country. I certainly think that they should try to get what they can, but I still have no sympathy for guys like JD Martinez who is apparently turning down a contract (or at least stalling) worth a reported $120M+. No tears for JD. Sorry. Sign the paper.