2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[S5Dewey]

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.

 

I've rewritten your post a little bit to show how this works both ways.

 

What I mean is owners becoming super-conscious of a player's PA's because of the vesting clauses, and trying to protect themselves. It's sort of a 'conflict of interest' situation, because the owner is thinking about a player's PA's rather than the team. It already happens to a certain degree, I imagine, but the existing PA clauses could make it worse.

 

In short, it's a lot like what we're talking about on this forum in trying to limit HanRam's PA so he doesn't vest.

[cp176]

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.

 

It is a shame and pretty much a ******** stain on the current state of the game if this even a thought in a player's mind which I think it certainly could be.. It is about the money I guess. I'm so happy that I fell in love with this game in a different time. Ted sure as hell could have sat out the second game of that doubleheader as well but he made the right choice. I wonder if he got any extra loot for that? I don't think so.

[FredLynn]

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

 

I think that what a lot of people forget here is the fact that when you own the company you get to make the rules, within reason. You get to reap the profits of your investment-which is generally a lot of money- in the company you own. The other guys, they work for YOU. The baseball players work for the owners. Now there is a union that to a certain extent protects the players, but at the end of the day, those who made the investment in the company (or team) have every right to expect to make the rules. If the players do not like what is offered, they have every right to leave the business, but they have NO RIGHT to make salary demands. Its a take it or leave it business.

[harmony]

I think that what a lot of people forget here is the fact that when you own the company you get to make the rules, within reason. You get to reap the profits of your investment-which is generally a lot of money- in the company you own. The other guys, they work for YOU. The baseball players work for the owners. Now there is a union that to a certain extent protects the players, but at the end of the day, those who made the investment in the company (or team) have every right to expect to make the rules. If the players do not like what is offered, they have every right to leave the business, but they have NO RIGHT to make salary demands. Its a take it or leave it business.

Because of its market dominance, Major League Baseball is a virtual monopoly that has been granted an exemption from antitrust laws.

 

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/antitrust-baseball-court-022415/

 

The take-it-or-leave-it approach is a common tactic of a monopoly because competitors have been forced out of the market.

 

I suspect Major League Baseball will lose its antitrust exemption if MLB employs noncompetitive practices.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

No argument here.

 

What the billionaire owners should do is throw some of that profit back to the fans by way of lowering ticket prices, concession prices, etc.

[Kimmi]

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 .

 

I think we are all feeling this to one degree or another. However, if he signs with the Red Sox and produces like we hope he will, all will be forgiven.

[Kimmi]

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

 

In terms of what they are willing to offer a free agent, no owner is going to buy into it.

 

In terms of the financial value that a win brings to the team, it is absolutely correct.

[Kimmi]

It is a shame and pretty much a ******** stain on the current state of the game if this even a thought in a player's mind which I think it certainly could be.. It is about the money I guess. I'm so happy that I fell in love with this game in a different time. Ted sure as hell could have sat out the second game of that doubleheader as well but he made the right choice. I wonder if he got any extra loot for that? I don't think so.

 

What happened to the player who would look that tough pitcher in the eye and say bring it. I agree that this type of thing that Bellhorn is talking about would happen and it's rather disheartening.

 

Also to Bell's point, if a player is that close to reaching the performance level to have the option vest, I would think that the team could still decide to pick up the option even though it didn't automatically vest.

[Kimmi]

I think that what a lot of people forget here is the fact that when you own the company you get to make the rules, within reason. You get to reap the profits of your investment-which is generally a lot of money- in the company you own. The other guys, they work for YOU. The baseball players work for the owners. Now there is a union that to a certain extent protects the players, but at the end of the day, those who made the investment in the company (or team) have every right to expect to make the rules. If the players do not like what is offered, they have every right to leave the business, but they have NO RIGHT to make salary demands. Its a take it or leave it business.

 

I pretty much agree. Again, it would be one thing if the owners were lowballing every player. But they aren't. The contracts that are being offered are very good. Owners should not be forced to make terrible business decisions.

[Kimmi]

Because of its market dominance, Major League Baseball is a virtual monopoly that has been granted an exemption from antitrust laws.

 

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/antitrust-baseball-court-022415/

 

The take-it-or-leave-it approach is a common tactic of a monopoly because competitors have been forced out of the market.

 

I suspect Major League Baseball will lose its antitrust exemption if MLB employs noncompetitive practices.

 

Within MLB, there are 30 different teams, or businesses. If one team gives a take or leave it offer, the player has 29 other teams it can turn to. Those 29 teams are competing against each other, each trying to bring in the best players that they can. I don't see that as a monopoly. I don't see that as being any different than if I were applying for a job and one company gave me a take it or leave it offer. I have the choice of taking it or trying another company.

 

And if no other company (team) is beating the first company's offer, than I'd have to consider the likelihood that my demands are too high.

[notin]

In terms of what they are willing to offer a free agent, no owner is going to buy into it.

 

In terms of the financial value that a win brings to the team, it is absolutely correct.

 

Do you know how they arrived at that figure and why it appears to have doubled in the past 4 years?

[Bellhorn04]

I've rewritten your post a little bit to show how this works both ways.

 

What I mean is owners becoming super-conscious of a player's PA's because of the vesting clauses, and trying to protect themselves. It's sort of a 'conflict of interest' situation, because the owner is thinking about a player's PA's rather than the team. It already happens to a certain degree, I imagine, but the existing PA clauses could make it worse.

 

In short, it's a lot like what we're talking about on this forum in trying to limit HanRam's PA so he doesn't vest.

 

You're right, all these types of options and clauses would seem to be subject to manipulation by one party or the other.

[Bellhorn04]

No argument here.

 

What the billionaire owners should do is throw some of that profit back to the fans by way of lowering ticket prices, concession prices, etc.

 

I'm pretty sure owners aren't going to reduce prices - certainly not when enough fans are willing to pay the current prices.

 

What fans really have to watch out for is owners who not only won't reduce prices, but are willing to put a crappy team on the field for those prices.

 

That's the real issue this offseason - are the owners all of a sudden much smarter about the inflated cost of free agents, or are they all of a sudden much smarter about how to put more profits in their pockets?

[Bellhorn04]

Do you know how they arrived at that figure and why it appears to have doubled in the past 4 years?

 

The FanGraphs dollar values are just a historical calculation of the average cost per WAR of all free agent players. The reason they seem so inflated is basically that there have been so many free agent busts.

[notin]

The FanGraphs dollar values are just a historical calculation of the average cost per WAR of all free agent players. The reason they seem so inflated is basically that there have been so many free agent busts.

 

So it becomes circular to argue players should be paid accordingly.

 

Not to mention, you're saying it's the cost a team spends in search of a win and not (as I thought) the monetary value a win brings to a team, which is why I thought it was BS...

[notin]

Hey DD? Time to move on!!

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/someone-should-take-a-chance-on-logan-morrison.html

[moonslav59]

Hey DD? Time to move on!!

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/someone-should-take-a-chance-on-logan-morrison.html

 

We ended up spending $20M for 3 years of Moreland.

 

We could have had EE for $40M more.

 

We might have been able to get LoMo for 2 years this winter at maybe $10-15M more than the $13M we paid Moreland for 2 years.

 

Maybe another head-scratcher.

Edited February 4, 2018 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

We ended up spending $20M for 3 years of Moreland.

 

We could have had EE for $40M more.

 

 

But as we have discussed innumerable times, if they had signed EE they wouldn't have re-set the luxury tax rate.

 

Repercussions, repercussions...

[moonslav59]

But as we have discussed innumerable times, if they had signed EE they wouldn't have re-set the luxury tax rate.

 

Repercussions, repercussions...

 

Maybe we could have cut salary elsewhere...

 

$6M Moreland

 

and maybe...

 

$10-12M HRam

$3-6M Young

$2M Holt

$2M Abad

$2M Ross

 

(I know, hindsight is 20/20.)

 

[Natick to NC]

Lomo strikes me as the kind of guy that will absolutely love Playing in Boston ...He is the guy that needs a big stage to take his talents and amplify them .I look at Lomo as a replacement for Hanley and Mitch ..JD is a superior Hitter though .Mitch should have been upgraded to Lomo ,Santana ,Hosmer in that order .For the life of me I will never agree at bringing Mitch back on a Fit sighning .Duda can be a name that fits some peoples reasoning but I don't like ex Mets ....as weird as that is maybe 86 thing ? Don't know . Edited February 4, 2018 by Natick to NC

[Natick to NC]

Maybe we could have cut salary elsewhere...

 

$6M Moreland

 

and maybe...

 

$10-12M HRam

$3-6M Young

$2M Holt

$2M Abad

$2M Ross

 

(I know, hindsight is 20/20.)

 

.JD is a DH here that's it ....we already have a DH full time though so how's this work ? It doesn't fit .who is a perfect platoon with Mitch ? That may be you're answer or is Mitch a bench player ? That's a waste he only plays 1b right ? So let's assume this is the question Who completes a perfect platoon with Mitch at 1b ? I'm going to piss some here off now ........is it none other than the poor fielding Nunez ? Well that's my thought .Next what's with the JD smoke ? Is this media driven ? No no it's not .so next question ? Is JD in left or RF ? There in lies the trade candidate ....who has more trade value JBJ ? Benny ? .What package are we looking for in a Benny Trade ? What Package for JBJ trade ? Are we replenishing the farm and adding JD ? That's you're answer .I see Benny or JBJ gone in a week ,I see JD and Nunez sighned and delivered and I see a haul of prospects for Benny or JBJ .This is how I see it .I do think this is a better team with JD playing LF but I start having dry heaves thinking we would lose Benny .The Redsox are close verrrry close to another World Series a shakeup like this is in order both to replenish the paper thin farm and to go all in for the big club .Hanley healthy ,JD hitting at Fenway ,Mookie ,A full year with Nunez ? I see the logic and think it could blow up in our face or be a special year .Roll the dice Dave it's sitting in you're hand and we all are waiting .sorry for construction of this in a car . Edited February 4, 2018 by Natick to NC

[S5Dewey]

You're right, all these types of options and clauses would seem to be subject to manipulation by one party or the other.

 

Yep. This is why the Player's Assn. has always been against performance-based salaries. If, say, a player was going to get a $1M bonus for hitting 40 HR's, he had 38 runs on Sept.1 and the team was in last place management wouldn't be playing this guy in September.

 

It's a basic (and probably well-earned) distrust on both sides.

[moonslav59]

Mitch,Holt ,Abad,Young could absolutely be upgraded this offseason via trade or FA .JD is a DH here that's it ....

 

This was in regards to signing and affording EE last winter and being able to reset the luxury tax at the same time.

[Natick to NC]

I understand that ...just opinion on how it may be constructed this year .I am mobile did a horrible job clarifying this .I erased that section Thankyou . Edited February 4, 2018 by Natick to NC

[harmony]

Within MLB, there are 30 different teams, or businesses. If one team gives a take or leave it offer, the player has 29 other teams it can turn to. Those 29 teams are competing against each other, each trying to bring in the best players that they can. I don't see that as a monopoly. I don't see that as being any different than if I were applying for a job and one company gave me a take it or leave it offer. I have the choice of taking it or trying another company.

 

And if no other company (team) is beating the first company's offer, than I'd have to consider the likelihood that my demands are too high.

Are you suggesting that Rafael Devers is free this offseason to sign with any of the 30 MLB teams?

 

I raised the monopoly issue in the context of the vast majority of players who fail to reach six years of MLB service. I broached the possibility of making every player a free agent empowered to bargain with all 30 MLB organizations.

 

When I graduated from college with a journalism degree 40+ years ago I was free to join any newspaper that would hire me (newspapers were still hiring back then:(). When I went into higher education I was free to accept the best of several offers. When I joined my current firm nearly 22 years ago I was free to leave for a better offer (which I did two years later for 11 months before deciding to return).

 

Most professional baseball players lack that freedom to choose their employers in their chosen field.

[Kimmi]

Do you know how they arrived at that figure and why it appears to have doubled in the past 4 years?

 

A team of all replacement players is expected to win roughly 48 games. The owners are paying free agents for wins above that level. For a 95 win team, that's 47 additional wins. The Fangraphs dollar figure is based off of the 47 additional wins, not the 95 total wins.

 

Free agent contracts have really gotten out of hand in recent years. In particular, owners are paying insane prices for relief pitchers, who just don't add that much value to the team in terms of wins.

 

If a WIN above replacement costs $8 mil, then isn't if fair to say that a 4 win player was worth $32 mil to his team? Not that he'll get that in free agency, but he does have that value to his team.

[Kimmi]

I'm pretty sure owners aren't going to reduce prices - certainly not when enough fans are willing to pay the current prices.

 

What fans really have to watch out for is owners who not only won't reduce prices, but are willing to put a crappy team on the field for those prices.

 

That's the real issue this offseason - are the owners all of a sudden much smarter about the inflated cost of free agents, or are they all of a sudden much smarter about how to put more profits in their pockets?

 

Oh I know that owners aren't going to reduce prices, but they should.

 

Owners should be required to spend a certain % of their revenue sharing on payroll. If not, they should be required to return it. IMO, it is wrong owners to be pocketing that amount.

[Kimmi]

Are you suggesting that Rafael Devers is free this offseason to sign with any of the 30 MLB teams?

 

I raised the monopoly issue in the context of the vast majority of players who fail to reach six years of MLB service. I broached the possibility of making every player a free agent empowered to bargain with all 30 MLB organizations.

 

When I graduated from college with a journalism degree 40+ years ago I was free to join any newspaper that would hire me (newspapers were still hiring back then:(). When I went into higher education I was free to accept the best of several offers. When I joined my current firm nearly 22 years ago I was free to leave for a better offer (which I did two years later for 11 months before deciding to return).

 

Most professional baseball players lack that freedom to choose their employers in their chosen field.

 

Gotcha. I thought you were talking about free agents, not the team controlled players.

 

IMO, allowing every player to be a free agent will only make the rich richer.

[Spudboy]

Within MLB, there are 30 different teams, or businesses. If one team gives a take or leave it offer, the player has 29 other teams it can turn to. Those 29 teams are competing against each other, each trying to bring in the best players that they can. I don't see that as a monopoly. I don't see that as being any different than if I were applying for a job and one company gave me a take it or leave it offer. I have the choice of taking it or trying another company.

 

And if no other company (team) is beating the first company's offer, than I'd have to consider the likelihood that my demands are too high.

 

All well and good Kimmi.

 

But MLB is indeed a monopoly. History proves this.

[FredLynn]

Are you suggesting that Rafael Devers is free this offseason to sign with any of the 30 MLB teams?

 

I raised the monopoly issue in the context of the vast majority of players who fail to reach six years of MLB service. I broached the possibility of making every player a free agent empowered to bargain with all 30 MLB organizations.

 

When I graduated from college with a journalism degree 40+ years ago I was free to join any newspaper that would hire me (newspapers were still hiring back then:(). When I went into higher education I was free to accept the best of several offers. When I joined my current firm nearly 22 years ago I was free to leave for a better offer (which I did two years later for 11 months before deciding to return).

 

Most professional baseball players lack that freedom to choose their employers in their chosen field.

 

Correct. And they might have to "settle for" the league minimum salary, which is $300,000. I wish I were able to "settle for" that paltry sum my first year in my business. I have no idea how they could possibly hope to feed their family on a paltry $300,000 a year. With regard to the 21 year old Rafael Devers, how much money is he going to make this year? And how much money will he likely make in future years-despite the inability to sign with whatever team he chooses for a while? Yes, baseball is a monopoly of sorts. But its not only good for the owners (who have every right to make whatever rules suit them), but its also very very good for those fortunate enough to have the talent to play the game well. Its when guys like JD Martinez hold out for an outrageous amount of money far exceeding their worth that fans like me get cynical about the level of pervasive greed among some of these guys.

 

Its a trade off: lack of mobility within your chosen profession in exchange for outrageous amounts of money to PLAY A GAME for a living.

Edited February 4, 2018 by FredLynn