Larry Reynolds, the agent whose client list includes Justin Upton and Howie Kendrick, spoke to MLB Network Radio Sunday. Here are the highlights (links to SoundCloud).
- Upton ended up with a robust six-year, $132.75MM deal with the Tigers this winter, Reynolds says that Upton’s search for a new team hit a snag this offseason before he ultimately signed. Some teams’ potential interest in Upton was muted by their desire to avoid exceeding the luxury tax threshold. (Reynolds doesn’t say who, but it’s easy to imagine the Angels, for example, worrying about that issue.) Also, a robust trade market held up potential free agent signings, with some teams wanting to explore that market before making a commitment to a free agent. Reynolds also says that many teams were offering Upton short-term deals. The agent understandably notes that he found such deals unappealing, given that Upton is highly talented and just 28. Of course, Detroit ultimately came through with a long-term offer.
- It was, perhaps, a rough winter for Kendrick, who lingered on the free agent market before officially signing a seemingly disappointing two-year, $20MM deal to stay with the Dodgers. The qualifying offer had a strong impact on Kendrick, Reynolds says, since he didn’t have the “star power” of some other free agents who rejected the QO. For Kendrick, the effect of the qualifying offer on his market wasn’t purely about the amount of money he could get, but about the way it restricted his ability to choose what team (what manager, what front office, and so on) he wanted to play for. Reynolds says that it “wasn’t a slam dunk to jump out into the market” rather than accepting the qualifying offer, but Kendrick felt, and Reynolds agreed, that Kendrick had earned the right to choose his next team via free agency.
Got to blame it on the small market teams that cried all them years about not pocketing enough money. Instead of worrying how much money you can put in your pocket try to field a competitive team and the revenue will come by itself. People dont want to go see a team that has a fire sale every 2 years. Even when I lived in Miami I hated to go see the Marlins play cause they sucked so bad, Why did they suck? Cause the owners wanted to put the money in there pockets. Due away with the revenue sharing and the draft pick crap. You are ruining the sport.
The huge revenue variability in baseball comes from media. Big media market, big revenue; small media market, small revenue. Teams can’t control for that, only MLB can. Perhaps the small market teams who get the revenue sharing should be required to spend some minimum percent of it. If not every year, then on a rolling average basis, or they have to give it back to MLB.
Marlins have a stadium that was paid for by tax payers. They received more then 50 million in revenue sharing. Took in 180 million in revenue and have a payroll of how much? Due away with the system cause it is not working. If you modify it crappy teams like the Marlins will just find a loophold to get around it like they did in 2013. The players union won in the case of forcing them to spend money on players and before the season was over they had ANOTHER firesale and unloaded every player they had making big money. Yet they still kept the revenue money they received. Is this fair? NOPE
That is why I suggested that teams receiving revenue sharing dollars be required to use them or lose them. MLB does not have to permit any loopholes that they don’t want to be there. The thirty teams of MLB collectively decide these things together.
What a simplistic view. Want to make it fair, then have a salary cap and everyone can spend the same. You won’t need to worry about revenue sharing then. That will never happen so large markets will stay with an advantage over small markets, who do put a competitive team on field but have bad stadiums in bad locations. Thus, must trade all their players for prospects creating a cycle of decent teams but never good enough to win it all. Large markets don’t have to deal with that.
Revenue sharing is not the problem, and a salary cap would not fix any problem the game actually has. The problem is the inherent disparity in the media revenues the teams can generate depending on the size of their markets. Revenue sharing is simply MLB’s admission that the game can’t be played in thirty cities and have them all be in anything close to equally-sized media markets. The actual problem is some of the small-market teams profit by fielding garbage teams and pocketing the revenue sharing money. The only solution is to make them spend the money. MLB could do it if they wanted to, but they aren’t motivated to fix this because the large-market teams benefit from doormat teams.
The more simplistic view, is to just fold the poor mouthing and welfare teams.. Such as the Marlins, Rays, Athletcs etc.. That nobody can see working out on their own and MLB owners are having to support monetary wise, then most (not Oakland perhaps) refuse to even spend those handouts on team payroll..
Just fold the organizations, or take them over (1) and move it to Montreal and give that city a chance again.
MLB isn’t some charity organization ran by team owners. It’s 30(now) separate business entities out to make money.
That is just how I feel. You will never see Ford give millions of there dollars to Dodge cause they make a less inferior truck to Ford. (Just a example. I dont care who make the better truck) MLB is 30 different companies that need to be treated as such. You either want to put a competitive team on the field or you dont. If you field a great team the fans will come watch you. If you field a bunch of minor league player you wont have a fan base. Simple math.
Revenue sharing is not an issue bc the teams that pay can afford it ten times over, actually the luxury tax has had more effect on limiting crazy spending than revenue sharing. I agree the teams should spend it. However, taking mlb out of small markets and the state of fla is not good for baseball as a whole even it is has become 30 entities out to make a profit. There needs to be system in place to even things out better bc it is one franchise as a whole. Most big businesses have locations that do better than others and the solution is simply not just shut them down.
I understand what you are trying to say but bad example. Ford and dodge are different corporations but all teams are part of mlb. Keep in mind inferior product can partly attributed to revenue. How would the large markets do if their payroll was limited to 85 million dollars. I’m a Rays fan and they manage as good if not better than the big markets but are hampered by and antiquated stadium where no one wants to go. But we have to continually leg players go bc there is not chance of signing them. Just want a chance to compete with the big boys but won’t happen realistically when they can spend 200 mill plus.
I respectfully disagree with you. Do you know that even some of these so called small market teams have some of the wealthiest owners in the sport? Look at the Twins franchise. If I am not mistaken he is the wealthiest owner in all of sports. And to tell some one that they have too much money laying around so you HAVE to give it to another owner who may have more money then you on a personal level is BS. That is like me telling you you can afford to feed 100 homeless people and then forcing you to do it while yes you can but you also want to help set your own family up for years to come. You would tell me I was out of my mind. If a team region really wants a ball club they will support the ball club. If the owners will not field a competitive team how do you expect the fan base to support them?
So you just answered your own question. If your region wont support the financial requirements that your team needs then time to relocate. Why should a team that built there stadium around a better market have to pay for your teams mistakes for going to a area that wont support them? I lived in Florida for 11 years and I could have told you that it would not support even one baseball team a long time ago let alone 2 teams. You will never convince me that this is fair in anyway. Each team is its own company. MLB is a industry just like auto makers are there own industry.
Not even remotely. MLB is one business with 30 franchises. Yes, each of those franchises is out to make a profit, but they are not in competition with each other, any more than one McDonald’s competes with any other McDonald’s; if anything, far less so. They are all in the baseball business together.
Did you know that Stuart Sternberg (the Rays owner) is rated 15th wealthiest MLB team owner? Hal Stienbrenner is rated 10th. There are 3 so called small market teams in the top 10 wealthiest owners. This is a problem when the owners are pocketing TONS of money and not spending it on there investment.. Instead they complain that there stadium is insufficient or that they just dont have the fan base and how the tax payers need to built them a new stadium and BLAH BLAH BLAH. No need to make up excuses for your favorite teams failure when you are not looking at the facts.
So Walmart just closed 250 stores and they are a franchise like you claim MLB is. So where they wrong for doing that? The 250 stores they closed where not being supported by there demographic area. By your reason they should have had the other stores that make money pay the bills and workers in the ones that couldn’t make it. MLB is a industry no matter how you want to look at it. Sorry that you see it different.
If MLB is not a industry then why do they have a MLB Industry Growth Fund?
I don’t “claim” they are a franchise, They are in fact, and by definition. The teams are even called franchises. What you think this has to do with Wal-Mart or price of tea in China is beyond me. Beyond even the usual franchise arrangements to go along and get along you find in other industries, MLB has a legal exemption from antitrust laws that allows the franchise owners to collude on virtually everything to do with running the leagues, with the only exception being labor relations. MLB is effectively one business with 30 owners. Believing it or not is immaterial, it will still be true.
Ruining the sport? The sport has never been better or more profitable.
More profitable for sure, but how does profit translates into better? When the owners of 10-12 teams in any given season field no-hope teams they sure aren’t doing the hometown fans or the game any favors.
There may be a few issues tangled up here. Every season there are some teams that are understood to be bottom dwellers. For years it was the stros, Pirates, Royals, and to an extent, the rays. I think it’s more noticible now when we have three teams doing the same thing in the same division (Phils, Marlins, and Atlanta) and at least 2 teams in the other two divisions in the same boat (Brewers, Cincinnati, rox, and Padres).
This creates a noticible difference in competition between the leagues. Each team in the al east has a decent shot at taking the division. Same can be s aid for the al central and west (with the exception of maybe the a’s)
It’s had to blame each team for their choice. All 4 of those teams that were terrible year in and year out are now popular choices for repeat play off appearances. It just seems as if the bubble burst for several NFL teams all at the same time.
Add the Rockies onto your list of perennial also-rans. They have some great talent in the minors now, but that’s just point in case. Like so many teams in their situation, they may at best work themselves into a 2-3 year window of competitiveness, but even if they can manage that, they are almost certain to become cellar-dwellers again for ten or years or longer. The big problem is the owners of these mainly uncompetitive teams is the owners can still make plenty of money on them, so the incentive is not on the side of fielding teams that make the hometown fans feel like their loyalty is rewarded. I’m a fan of an Uncle Moneybags team, yet I can see this system of have and have-not is bad for the game longterm.
Spoken like a real Yankee fan.