2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[Bellhorn04]

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'm not sure it's an appropriate comparison, since there's only one major league baseball organization, unless you consider moving to Japan one of the options. There's not exactly the kind of freedom of movement you have as an accountant or lawyer or doctor or whatever.

[FredLynn]

I'm not sure it's an appropriate comparison, since there's only one major league baseball organization, unless you consider moving to Japan one of the options. There's not exactly the kind of freedom of movement you have as an accountant or lawyer or doctor or whatever.

 

They are limited only by their imagination and willingness and desire to change. There are many players who chose other careers when they couldn't get what they wanted from the game. Doug Mirabelli chose to sell real estate; John Rocker became a conservative columnist; Byun-Hyung Kim opened a restaurant; Mitch Williams developed his own brand of salsa, "The Wild Thing". JD Martinez is thumbing his nose are an absurd amount of money, as is Hosmer, in an effort to get even more. When is it "enough"? It smacks of greed. You could say the same thing about the owners not wanting to pay these guys even more money so they can keep it for themselves or for their business, but you know what? They OWN the team. As Mel Brooks once said, "Its good to be the king".

[jacksonianmarch]

We live in a capitalist society. MLB FA is the epitome of capitalism

[Spudboy]

They are limited only by their imagination and willingness and desire to change. There are many players who chose other careers when they couldn't get what they wanted from the game. Doug Mirabelli chose to sell real estate; John Rocker became a conservative columnist; Byun-Hyung Kim opened a restaurant; Mitch Williams developed his own brand of salsa, "The Wild Thing". JD Martinez is thumbing his nose are an absurd amount of money, as is Hosmer, in an effort to get even more. When is it "enough"? It smacks of greed. You could say the same thing about the owners not wanting to pay these guys even more money so they can keep it for themselves or for their business, but you know what? They OWN the team. As Mel Brooks once said, "Its good to be the king".

 

Major props for quoting Mel Brooks.

[harmony]

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.

Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement permits owners to underpay the vast majority of players, teams can be reasonably expected to overpay for the rare player reaches six years of MLB service. That's the price the owners pay for suppressing the salaries of most players.

 

Why not do away with the draft and make each player a free agent regardless of years of service? Let the market determine how much each player is worth. That's the way employment works in many industries.

 

The excess money that now goes to the rare player who reaches free agency could be redistributed among the less experienced players who are currently underpaid. At the same time, without a minimum salary, owners could fill out their rosters with players who are willing to fulfill childhood dreams for, say, $100,000 or less annually.

 

Just a thought.

[notin]

Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement permits owners to underpay the vast majority of players, teams can be reasonably expected to overpay for the rare player reaches six years of MLB service. That's the price the owners pay for suppressing the salaries of most players.

 

Why not do away with the draft and make each player a free agent regardless of years of service? Let the market determine how much each player is worth. That's the way employment works in many industries.

 

The excess money that now goes to the rare player who reaches free agency could be redistributed among the less experienced players who are currently underpaid. At the same time, without a minimum salary, owners could fill mvpout their rosters with players who are willing to fulfill childhood dreams for, say, $100,000 or less annually.

 

Just a thought.

 

I find it somewhat ironic that the so-called best labor union would have to scramble and re-arrange that much just to catch up to the rest of the country...

[notin]

We live in a capitalist society. MLB FA is the epitome of capitalism

 

Yes and no.

 

Free agency is up to a point. When it doesn't turn out to be as advantageous for the players as they want, they cry foul. We saw one agent make that exact allegation, stooping short of the industry's dirty word.

 

Right now, the market appears to be set. And the players simply don't like it. In tbe past , this lead to collusion accusations from the players, even in years where there was no lawsuit. The owners really have no equivalent charge to counter with...

[harmony]

Yes and no.

 

Free agency is up to a point. When it doesn't turn out to be as advantageous for the players as they want, they cry foul. We saw one agent make that exact allegation, stooping short of the industry's dirty word.

 

Right now, the market appears to be set. And the players simply don't like it. In tbe past , this lead to collusion accusations from the players, even in years where there was no lawsuit. The owners really have no equivalent charge to counter with...

As every front office embraces advanced metrics, I suspect there is a general consensus on how much a free agent is worth. Teams don't want to pay the free agent a penny more than he is worth.

 

But that ignores the fact that teams are permitted to underpay the vast majority of players who fall short of six years of MLB service.

 

Should the owners have it both ways, underpaying most players while paying the free agent only what he is worth?

[notin]

As every front office embraces advanced metrics, I suspect there is a general consensus on how much a free agent is worth. Teams don't want to pay the free agent a penny more than he is worth.

 

But that ignores the fact that teams are permitted to underpay the vast majority of players who fall short of six years of MLB service.

 

Should the owners have it both ways, underpaying most players while paying the free agent only what he is worth?

 

 

 

They also overpay many of those players in their first 6 years as well. And right now the determination of worth appears to be an arbitrary process at best, and probably not one agreed upon by both sides. You present your argument as if it is a clearly recognized fact along the lines of "water is wet." Simple question - which is greater - money underpaid to pre-arb players or overpaid to free agents?

 

Also the way the arbitration process is heading, the values are rapidly approaching the same numbers in free agency. Only 9 players have a higher salary in 2018 than Josh Donaldson received in his last year of eligibility.

 

Not to mention, owners this year have most definitely been making offers. Wade Davisset a record for AAV on a closer. Drew Smiley and Michael Pineda each received two year deals when they were both out the first seasons of them (effectively making them high risk one year deals). Juan Nicasio, Pat Neshek, Tommy Hunter, Brandon Morrow and Addison Reed all received very high AAVs for non-closing releivers, but for fewer years. The AAV for each of these non-closers is among MLB best for non-closing relievers. While relief pitchers appear to have embraced this idea, the position players have not, without regards for how high the salary is.

[harmony]

Also the way the arbitration process is heading, the values are rapidly approaching the same numbers in free agency. Only 9 players have a higher salary in 2018 than Josh Donaldson received in his last year of eligibility.

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/rankings/

[notin]

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/rankings/

 

My source was pretty weak then (or maybe an AAV source I misread). But either way an arbitration player has made his way to among the highest paid players in the game, which was the point.

 

Now what's your justification that players are underpaid for the first six years?

[FredLynn]

As every front office embraces advanced metrics, I suspect there is a general consensus on how much a free agent is worth. Teams don't want to pay the free agent a penny more than he is worth.

 

But that ignores the fact that teams are permitted to underpay the vast majority of players who fall short of six years of MLB service.

 

Should the owners have it both ways, underpaying most players while paying the free agent only what he is worth?

 

"Underpay" according to who?

That involves a value judgement. Its not just metrics that determine the value of a player, its also years of service and other factors. When you talk about a guy getting $300,000 as a minimum salary, its hard to say with certainty that they are being "underpaid". I did the same job as others in my field for years and earned less money than they did because they had more years of service with the company. There was were no negotiations; I was told how much the offer was and I could choose to take it or work elsewhere, perhaps in a different field if I wanted to. I didn't have the option to "hold out", nor do most normal people. If you "hold out" someone else will be offered my job.

Sorry; these guys are spoiled and greedy, in general. I have no sympathy for guys like Martinez at all.

[notin]

As every front office embraces advanced metrics, I suspect there is a general consensus on how much a free agent is worth. Teams don't want to pay the free agent a penny more than he is worth.

 

But that ignores the fact that teams are permitted to underpay the vast majority of players who fall short of six years of MLB service.

 

Should the owners have it both ways, underpaying most players while paying the free agent only what he is worth?

 

 

 

I bet there isn't. For proof I offer all the immovable contracts out there. If there was a consensus as to their worth, many of these long term albatross deals would not be considered as such...

 

.

[cp176]

"Underpay" according to who?

That involves a value judgement. Its not just metrics that determine the value of a player, its also years of service and other factors. When you talk about a guy getting $300,000 as a minimum salary, its hard to say with certainty that they are being "underpaid". I did the same job as others in my field for years and earned less money than they did because they had more years of service with the company. There was were no negotiations; I was told how much the offer was and I could choose to take it or work elsewhere, perhaps in a different field if I wanted to. I didn't have the option to "hold out", nor do most normal people. If you "hold out" someone else will be offered my job.

Sorry; these guys are spoiled and greedy, in general. I have no sympathy for guys like Martinez at all.

 

Got to say Fred that I am with you all the way. I will also say though that I have been ok with all this money being spent on entertainment but I have just about reached my limit. The pay scale for professional athletes is a joke. Trying to really determine what an average salary is is even more of a joke if for no other reason than none of their salaries are truly average. How is the average human being working at an average but maybe even good job supposed to identify with this world of make believe?

[harmony]

"Underpay" according to who?

That involves a value judgement. Its not just metrics that determine the value of a player, its also years of service and other factors. When you talk about a guy getting $300,000 as a minimum salary, its hard to say with certainty that they are being "underpaid". I did the same job as others in my field for years and earned less money than they did because they had more years of service with the company. There was were no negotiations; I was told how much the offer was and I could choose to take it or work elsewhere, perhaps in a different field if I wanted to. I didn't have the option to "hold out", nor do most normal people. If you "hold out" someone else will be offered my job.

Sorry; these guys are spoiled and greedy, in general. I have no sympathy for guys like Martinez at all.

That's the option that the vast majority of players lack ... they cannot go to another employer in their field seeking a better offer.

 

Over the past three seasons Mookie Betts has been paid roughly $2 million while posting 18.1 fWAR, valued at $146.3 million:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13611&position=OF#value

 

To date Eduardo Rodriguez earned about $1.1 million while posting 5.0 fWAR, valued at $39.9 million.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13164&position=P#value

 

That's what I mean when I write that non-free agents tend to be underpaid.

[harmony]

I bet there isn't. For proof I offer all the immovable contracts out there. If there was a consensus as to their worth, many of these long term albatross deals would not be considered as such...

 

.

The rise of advanced metrics has coincided with the fall of albatross contracts.

 

Two years ago seven players landed nine-figure contracts but a year ago only one player did.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I just don't see a reason why either the players or management would be opposed to it. I'm sure the players would rather have 7 guaranteed years, but when that's not happening, why not go with 5 guaranteed years and 2 performance based vesting options?

[Kimmi]

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

 

It does tend to put a sour taste in one's mouth.

 

We will all be fine once baseball season starts.

[Kimmi]

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

 

Well IMO, players should have a bit of pressure to perform. Keeps them honest.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

Well a player that is too scared to face a tough pitcher doesn't deserve the extra year.

[Bellhorn04]

Well a player that is too scared to face a tough pitcher doesn't deserve the extra year.

 

What I mean is players becoming super-conscious of their numbers because of the incentive clauses, and trying to protect them. It's sort of a 'conflict of interest' situation, because the player is thinking about their individual numbers rather than the team. It already happens to a certain degree, I imagine, but incentive clauses could make it worse.

 

Maybe this makes me cynical, but we're potentially talking about a lot of money being involved in a player OPS'ing .800 instead of .795, or whatever the incentive clause says.

[Kimmi]

Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement permits owners to underpay the vast majority of players, teams can be reasonably expected to overpay for the rare player reaches six years of MLB service. That's the price the owners pay for suppressing the salaries of most players.

 

Why not do away with the draft and make each player a free agent regardless of years of service? Let the market determine how much each player is worth. That's the way employment works in many industries.

 

The excess money that now goes to the rare player who reaches free agency could be redistributed among the less experienced players who are currently underpaid. At the same time, without a minimum salary, owners could fill out their rosters with players who are willing to fulfill childhood dreams for, say, $100,000 or less annually.

 

Just a thought.

 

I am okay with overpaying free agents a little. I am okay with giving JD the 5 year contract. I am not okay with grossly overpaying, especially when it involves bidding against yourself.

 

I do not like the idea of doing away with the draft altogether. However, I think there could be some tweaks with the way the team controlled players are paid. Some suggestions might be to decrease the number of team control years from 6 years to 4 years, or maybe having an age limit where a player automatically becomes a free agent, regardless of years of service? Or increasing the league minimum salary?

 

The problem is that most players are improving while they are team controlled, and peak at about age 28. By the time they get ready to sign that big contract, they are already in decline.

[FredLynn]

That's the option that the vast majority of players lack ... they cannot go to another employer in their field seeking a better offer.

 

Over the past three seasons Mookie Betts has been paid roughly $2 million while posting 18.1 fWAR, valued at $146.3 million:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13611&position=OF#value

 

To date Eduardo Rodriguez earned about $1.1 million while posting 5.0 fWAR, valued at $39.9 million.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13164&position=P#value

 

That's what I mean when I write that non-free agents tend to be underpaid.

 

Then I guess Mookie Betts will have to "settle for" earnlng "just" $10M dollars this year. I think he earned "just" about a million dollars last year. He is still putting in his time at his business, The Boston Red Sox. While I put MY time in I was "underpaid" relative to others who had, say, 10 more years of service than I did-even though we essentially performed the same job- but I knew what I was getting into. I will concede that its tougher for MLB players to choose another employer IN THEIR FIELD, but the option is always there to get OUT of their fields and, say, sell real estate or open a restaurant if they are unhappy with their working conditions. As I wrote elsewhere, I just can't understand how JD Martinez can possibly hope to feed his family with just $125M. Rice and beans, no doubt.

Sorry. These guys ALL have a choice. Take the best offer-or find a better one in another field if they like.

[Kimmi]

What I mean is players becoming super-conscious of their numbers because of the incentive clauses, and trying to protect them. It's sort of a 'conflict of interest' situation, because the player is thinking about their individual numbers rather than the team. It already happens to a certain degree, I imagine, but incentive clauses could make it worse.

 

Maybe this makes me cynical, but we're potentially talking about a lot of money being involved in a player OPS'ing .800 instead of .795, or whatever the incentive clause says.

 

I understood what you were getting at. I guess the idea that a player would sit against a tough pitcher so that he doesn't hurt his numbers just doesn't sit well with me at all. I don't think you're being cynical about it. I'm sure it would happen, but it shouldn't.

 

It's like players who have great years in their contract years. They're suddenly motivated to train harder or spend more time in the batting cage or something?

[Kimmi]

Then I guess Mookie Betts will have to "settle for" earnlng "just" $10M dollars this year. I think he earned "just" about a million dollars last year. He is still putting in his time at his business, The Boston Red Sox. While I put MY time in I was "underpaid" relative to others who had, say, 10 more years of service than I did-even though we essentially performed the same job- but I knew what I was getting into. I will concede that its tougher for MLB players to choose another employer IN THEIR FIELD, but the option is always there to get OUT of their fields and, say, sell real estate or open a restaurant if they are unhappy with their working conditions. As I wrote elsewhere, I just can't understand how JD Martinez can possibly hope to feed his family with just $125M. Rice and beans, no doubt.

Sorry. These guys ALL have a choice. Take the best offer-or find a better one in another field if they like.

 

I'm with you. It's hard to have any sympathy for the players.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, one thing we do have to accept, I think, is that it's the entertainment business, and it's nothing without top-flight talent. If you remove Mookie Betts from the Red Sox they become a much less entertaining team and a much less successful team, and they might be a team nobody wants to watch by about July.

 

That ain't good for business. And we're talking about a business that generated $434 million in revenue in 2017 and has a current market value of $2.7 billion.

 

All things considered Mookie is a very valuable individual to this business. They need him. At the same time, he needs them too, to make this kind of money.

 

It's an interdependent relationship.

[moonslav59]

Well, one thing we do have to accept, I think, is that it's the entertainment business, and it's nothing without top-flight talent. If you remove Mookie Betts from the Red Sox they become a much less entertaining team and a much less successful team, and they might be a team nobody wants to watch by about July.

 

That ain't good for business. And we're talking about a business that generated $434 million in revenue in 2017 and has a current market value of $2.7 billion.

 

All things considered Mookie is a very valuable individual to this business. They need him. At the same time, he needs them too, to make this kind of money.

 

It's an interdependent relationship.

 

Well said.

 

Betts is special. I love watching him play.

 

Superlative defense.

 

Heads-up base running.

 

On base machine.

 

Hopefully, the power returns. I think it will.

 

[Natick to NC]

JD has now alienated the fan base he plans to play for ...First impression ? Greedy prick who is led around by the nose by boras who has lied to him enough he believes he's worth 200 million lol noooo pal you're a crap fielder who has pop ..good riddance and get over yourselves . I don't mean a word of this but needed to write it to make myself happy . Edited February 3, 2018 by Natick to NC

[notin]

That's the option that the vast majority of players lack ... they cannot go to another employer in their field seeking a better offer.

 

Over the past three seasons Mookie Betts has been paid roughly $2 million while posting 18.1 fWAR, valued at $146.3 million:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13611&position=OF#value

 

To date Eduardo Rodriguez earned about $1.1 million while posting 5.0 fWAR, valued at $39.9 million.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13164&position=P#value

 

That's what I mean when I write that non-free agents tend to be underpaid.

 

I don't buy into Fangraphs financial equivalence for fWAR. I bet many owners don't either....

[notin]

Well, one thing we do have to accept, I think, is that it's the entertainment business, and it's nothing without top-flight talent. If you remove Mookie Betts from the Red Sox they become a much less entertaining team and a much less successful team, and they might be a team nobody wants to watch by about July.

 

That ain't good for business. And we're talking about a business that generated $434 million in revenue in 2017 and has a current market value of $2.7 billion.

 

All things considered Mookie is a very valuable individual to this business. They need him. At the same time, he needs them too, to make this kind of money.

 

It's an interdependent relationship.

 

The Sox do need Mookie. The Sox do not need JD Martinez.