A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[dgalehouse]

The luxury tax discourages the few teams that might be willing to spend from spending more . But many owners do not want to spend. They have " wised up " to the fact that they can make a nice profit without spending to put a good team on the field. And it will lead to labor problems.

[jacksonianmarch]

Consider this slav. The Yankees and the Dodgers made no FA moves and in the Dodgers's case, made moves that made them worse on paper to start 2018 to monkey around with the cap. Clearly, they care about the cap. Having the Dodgers and Yankees out of the running caused the entire FA market to falter. Considering that the Dodgers and Yankees have stars reaching arbitration soon, making long term commitments doesn't help them cap wise when that time comes, so they aren't really in the Harper or Machado sweeps. By not having the Yanks and Dodgers in those sweeps, the marquis FA's of our time are staring at much smaller contracts than expected. In baseball, the big contracts drive the middle markets up. You don't drive big contracts by increasing the pay at the bottom. It is a VERY capitalist ideal the players lean towards and the idea of increasing the minimum wont fly as it would likely lead to a firmer cap at the top. The players are going to blow the top off the lux tax market. They're going to try and go back to the economics of the late 90s when it was a free for all and if a team wanted to outspend 2nd place by double, then they could. The owners negotiated for this CBA with the express intent to tighten the reins on increasing contracts. They are now using analytics to drive down costs and pointing to the cap that they negotiated as a reason for the failure of salaries to progress. The players aren't represented by stupid people and I guarantee you will see Boras et al on the front lines picketed for the players to release the top off the spending.

[moonslav59]

If the mega taxes were such a big deterrent, why aren't we seeing the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants and Cubs all ending up real close but under to the $20M and $40M lines?

 

The tax line certainly seemed to play a role in the Yanks and Dodgers resets last season, but wasn't the expectation they'd be spending heavily this winter?

 

Now, suddenly we are supposed to believe they are afraid of the max tax? These teams could have signed Machado or Harper and not go over the $20 or $40M lines.

 

Cots has the Yanks $36M under the max line. They also could have signed MM or BH and not signed someone else and stayed under the $20M tax line. The Dodgers are at about $20M over right now. SF is $34M below the first tax line and is looking to trade salary- it's not the tax changing their spending ways.

 

The Astros are a strong contender and far away from the luxury tax. The tax means nothing to them.

 

[moonslav59]

Consider this slav. The Yankees and the Dodgers made no FA moves and in the Dodgers's case, made moves that made them worse on paper to start 2018 to monkey around with the cap. Clearly, they care about the cap. Having the Dodgers and Yankees out of the running caused the entire FA market to falter. Considering that the Dodgers and Yankees have stars reaching arbitration soon, making long term commitments doesn't help them cap wise when that time comes, so they aren't really in the Harper or Machado sweeps. By not having the Yanks and Dodgers in those sweeps, the marquis FA's of our time are staring at much smaller contracts than expected. In baseball, the big contracts drive the middle markets up. You don't drive big contracts by increasing the pay at the bottom. It is a VERY capitalist ideal the players lean towards and the idea of increasing the minimum wont fly as it would likely lead to a firmer cap at the top. The players are going to blow the top off the lux tax market. They're going to try and go back to the economics of the late 90s when it was a free for all and if a team wanted to outspend 2nd place by double, then they could. The owners negotiated for this CBA with the express intent to tighten the reins on increasing contracts. They are now using analytics to drive down costs and pointing to the cap that they negotiated as a reason for the failure of salaries to progress. The players aren't represented by stupid people and I guarantee you will see Boras et al on the front lines picketed for the players to release the top off the spending.

 

No, the entire FA market did not falter. JD and maybe a few others got less than originally projected, but the funny thing was, JD signed with the one team paying the max tax. This totally shatters your argument.

 

It's not the tax. It's the owners not wanting to sign aging stars to huge long term deals. It's something we've wondered why about for decades.

 

I know the resets hurt the FA market and there was a trickle down effect, but the solution to raising player salary is not by raising the tax limit.

 

[moonslav59]

I used to be a union rep for over a decade. We always fought for the top man to get the best raise, because we all knew someday we'd be that 20 year guy. Management always played us against each other by offering faster raises for the newer guys, making them get to the higher pay quicker, and since there were more newer guys than senior guys, it often worked. We tried to reason withe the newcomers by showing how their bigger early raises amounted to less in the long run than raising the top pay brackets more.

 

MLB is not like this. Pay is not based on seniority (years of company service).

 

I may be missing something, but it makes much more sense to me for the players to band together and demand higher pay for the bottom 50-80% of the players and not raising the luxury tax limit in hopes the big FA contracts will trickle down to the mid range guys and on and on... Many ML players never even reach free agency. They don't last to their arb years, or when they reach free agency they make a tiny fraction of what JD Martinez makes. Don't tell me Moustakas made as much as he did because JD made so much. It may have some affect, but not that much.

 

 

[jacksonianmarch]

The union doesn't actually represent all of the players, though. Take a look at the reps from each team. They are seasoned veterans who have all reached free agency. Why would the reps of the union who have all benefited from the FA market try to bring up the pay for the new guys when their pay is directly related to the pay of the top tier? Think about it. If Harper gets $30 mil per season, then a good, not great OFer may be worth $20 mil. But if Harper sees $25 mil, that good but not great OFer may only be worth $17 mil. This isn't trickle down economics where the top earners spend their money and it trickles down. This is a value based economic system where the top tier pulls up the contracts due to relevant value

[moonslav59]

The union doesn't actually represent all of the players, though. Take a look at the reps from each team. They are seasoned veterans who have all reached free agency. Why would the reps of the union who have all benefited from the FA market try to bring up the pay for the new guys when their pay is directly related to the pay of the top tier? Think about it. If Harper gets $30 mil per season, then a good, not great OFer may be worth $20 mil. But if Harper sees $25 mil, that good but not great OFer may only be worth $17 mil. This isn't trickle down economics where the top earners spend their money and it trickles down. This is a value based economic system where the top tier pulls up the contracts due to relevant value

 

That's why I said the players should "wise up" and demand raising the bottom. They hold the vast majority of the votes for ratification.

 

This whole average pay of MLB player salaries rising is misleading. Someone should do a study and see how much each quadrant has risen over the last 10 years. My guess is the top quadrant has risen by a much larger percentage than any other quadrant.

 

All we hear is the "owners wised up," when it's the players that need to follow suit.

 

Plus, it is probably what's best for the game, in terms of moving towards parity.

[sk7326]

That's why I said the players should "wise up" and demand raising the bottom. They hold the vast majority of the votes for ratification.

 

This whole average pay of MLB player salaries rising is misleading. Someone should do a study and see how much each quadrant has risen over the last 10 years. My guess is the top quadrant has risen by a much larger percentage than any other quadrant.

 

All we hear is the "owners wised up," when it's the players that need to follow suit.

 

Plus, it is probably what's best for the game, in terms of moving towards parity.

 

The players absolutely should demand a large increase in the minimum wage. That is obvious.

 

What is best for competitive balance is lots of teams being able to compete for players. That requires teams trying to win and spending some of that giant pool of money they get before a ticket is ever sold. Right now there is not a forcing mechanism there - like a revenue guarantee, a global salary cap if not a local one. The players erred by not forcing that and this is the repercussion.

 

I am also genuinely amused at the matter of fact defense of the Yankees being in the bottom 5 of % revenue spent on baseball players by vocal Yankee fans.

[mvp 78]

What the union needs to do is push for FA after year 4 rather than having 2 more ARB years.

[sk7326]

What the union needs to do is push for FA after year 4 rather than having 2 more ARB years.

 

at minimum - I'd push for restricted FA after 3 years, unrestricted after 4.

[notin]

What the union needs to do is push for FA after year 4 rather than having 2 more ARB years.

 

 

That might go further into suppressing salaries. After 4 years, some players haven’t reached their potential yet.

 

It might also lead to players spending more time in the minors...

[sk7326]

That might go further into suppressing salaries. After 4 years, some players haven’t reached their potential yet.

 

It might also lead to players spending more time in the minors...

 

Maybe, maybe not - keeping them in the minors reduces ROI for the major league team. Ultimately now salaries are being suppressed because there is mechanism forcing owners not to.

[notin]

Maybe, maybe not - keeping them in the minors reduces ROI for the major league team. Ultimately now salaries are being suppressed because there is mechanism forcing owners not to.

 

Actually keeping them in the minors could maximize ROI. Players would be less likely to be rushed to MLB, which is often the case today...

[mvp 78]

Actually keeping them in the minors could maximize ROI. Players would be less likely to be rushed to MLB, which is often the case today...

 

So what's all that super two talk we here about every spring then?

[sk7326]

Actually keeping them in the minors could maximize ROI. Players would be less likely to be rushed to MLB, which is often the case today...

 

Is there an epidemic of teenagers entering the league? In either case, you revise the Rule V protections rules to disincentivize that.

[notin]

Is there an epidemic of teenagers entering the league? In either case, you revise the Rule V protections rules to disincentivize that.

 

I think teams might see the advantage in controlling seasons 25-28 instead of, say, 23-26.

 

Teams play games now with calling up prospects to maximize service time. If you reduce it by 33%, you think that is going to stop?

[moonslav59]

What the union needs to do is push for FA after year 4 rather than having 2 more ARB years.

 

Probably as important is having the first arb year 1-2 years earlier. Players make good money in arbs, even if they are just decent.

[notin]

So what's all that super two talk we here about every spring then?

 

A two month delay many teams employ to gain an extra year of control. What do you suppose teams will do when control is reduced by 2 years? A team could possibly look at a “ready” 22 year old player and decide having him for ages 23-26 or 24-27 might make more sense than losing him to free agency at age 25.

[notin]

Probably as important is having the first arb year 1-2 years earlier. Players make good money in arbs, even if they are just decent.

 

Most of the highest paid player this off-season are making money in arbitration. So far only Patrick Corbin has really cashed in as a free agent....

[sk7326]

Probably as important is having the first arb year 1-2 years earlier. Players make good money in arbs, even if they are just decent.

 

A lot of them are in settlement - the arbitration process is pretty flawed and determined by baseball card stats

[moonslav59]

Most of the highest paid player this off-season are making money in arbitration. So far only Patrick Corbin has really cashed in as a free agent....

 

So, keep free agency on track but start the arb years 1-2 years earlier and have 4-6 possible arb years.

[Bellhorn04]

Most of the highest paid player this off-season are making money in arbitration. So far only Patrick Corbin has really cashed in as a free agent....

 

Corbin and Eovaldi.

[BillyWilliams]

A two month delay many teams employ to gain an extra year of control. What do you suppose teams will do when control is reduced by 2 years? A team could possibly look at a “ready” 22 year old player and decide having him for ages 23-26 or 24-27 might make more sense than losing him to free agency at age 25.

 

Wouldn't that load up the 40 man roster thus leaving the team more exposed to losing players?

[dgalehouse]

Nate Eovaldi was an excellent acquisition last season . I was happy to see us get him for a somewhat mediocre prospect. And he did a great job for us . But let's not go overboard. Some of the people who are counting on him are the same ones who usually preach against small sample sizes . Eovaldi is 29 . Seven years in MLB . Five teams . Two Tommy Johns . 44 - 53 with a career ERA of 4.16 . He is not Tom Seaver .

[notin]

Wouldn't that load up the 40 man roster thus leaving the team more exposed to losing players?

 

 

Not necessarily. It depends on when they get added to the 40-man...

[Bellhorn04]

Nate Eovaldi was an excellent acquisition last season . I was happy to see us get him for a somewhat mediocre prospect. And he did a great job for us . But let's not go overboard. Some of the people who are counting on him are the same ones who usually preach against small sample sizes . Eovaldi is 29 . Seven years in MLB . Five teams . Two Tommy Johns . 44 - 53 with a career ERA of 4.16 . He is not Tom Seaver .

 

You sound like The Cooler!

[moonslav59]

Another big boost to the lower paid players would be to expand the roster to 26 or 27 players.

 

The Major-Minor yo-yo players would spend more time in the majors and get paid more.

 

1-2 more slots would greatly increase job security.

 

Double the minimum wage.

 

Start the arb process a year or two earlier.

 

Just these few ideas would help way more players than raising the luxury tax or doing away with penalties for spending too much..

 

 

[dgalehouse]

Corbin and Eovaldi

[dgalehouse]

You sound like The Cooler!

 

Yep . I'm going to go check and see what Steamer has to say .

[moonslav59]

Corbin and Eovaldi.

 

..and many more according toMLBTR:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/11/mlb-free-agent-predictions-2019.html

 

Some who did not get the money MLBTR projected got more money per year but less years.