Matt Harvey’s dreadful outing tonight has left the Mets uncertain as to whether he’ll be on the hill for his next scheduled start, which also comes against the division-rival Nationals. Skipper Terry Collins said after the game that he hadn’t yet decided whether to give the ball to Harvey in D.C., as Mike Puma of the New York Post was among those to report (Twitter links). “We will take a hard look at what the next move is going to be,” said Collins. Harvey’s earned run average has ballooned to an ugly 5.77 over his first 48 1/3 frames on the year. It does seem fair to note that the peripherals suggest Harvey has suffered from some bad luck, with ERA estimators crediting him with a sub-4.00 effort entering the day, though his effort this evening will hurt those figures and he’s lost just over a tick on his average fastball. Meanwhile, Barry Svrluga of the Washington Post draws the inevitable comparisons between Harvey and Nats ace Stephen Strasburg, who had a strong showing to pick up the win.
Here’s more from the eastern divisions:
- Nationals outfielder Jayson Werth agreed last fall to a new payout structure for his contract, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports. Under the agreement, Werth has deferred $10MM of his salary this year until 2018, at a 5% interest rate. That continues a pattern of postponed paydays in Washington’s player contracts, which is in some part a reflection of the team’s efforts to deal with an ongoing television-rights dispute with the Orioles and the Baltimore-controlled Mid-Atlantic Sports Network.
- Commissioner Rob Manfred addressed that TV battle today, as Svrluga reports. As things stand, the parties are appealing a lower court’s refusal to enforce a determination by the league’s Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee, putting a hold on the Nationals’ efforts to recoup additional rights fees for past years and increase their future take. Manfred had harsh words for the Orioles’ actions in the matter. “It is important to bear in mind the fundamentals,” he said. “The fundamentals are that the Orioles agreed that the RSDC would set the rights fees for MASN and the Orioles every five years. The Orioles have engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to avoid that agreement being effectuated.” MASN issued a counter-statement saying that Manfred was ignoring “the fundamentals of the case” — namely, the court’s findings of a conflict of interest (based on the law firm that represented the Nationals) — and stating that the RSDC had failed to use an appropriate method for setting the rights fees. If you’re interested in the gory details, you can find a recap of the trial court decision here.
- The departure of David Ortiz and reemergence of Hanley Ramirez leaves the Red Sox with both opportunity and uncertainty at first base. Ryan Hannable of WEEI.com suggests that youngster Sam Travis could keep the team from needing to add a major bat via free agency. The 2014 second-rounder has risen quickly, and is currently putting up a solid .281/.338/.438 batting line over his first 160 plate appearances at the Triple-A level at 22 years of age. Pawtucket hitting coach Rich Gedman credits Travis with being aggressive without seeking to hit the ball out of the park, suggesting that he’s a polished and well-rounded hitter.
- Entering the day in last place in the AL East, the Yankees need to seriously consider prioritizing future improvements over their 2016 prospects, ESPN.com’s Buster Olney argues (Insider link). Olney ticks through a variety of ways — including allocation of playing time and weighing trades — that New York can and should shift its focus to 2017, suggesting a sort of realistic re-tooling rather than any kind of full rebuilding project.
- Deposed Braves skipper Fredi Gonzalez tells MLB Network Radio on Sirius XM that he’s looking forward to other opportunities now that he’s lost his post in Atlanta. (Twitter link.) But he said that he isn’t necessarily looking for another job running a dugout. “I am looking forward to doing something in the game and it doesn’t have to be managing,” said Gonzalez.
MLB is dealing with a tireless litigator in Peter Angelos. A man who made his bones running down nuance against mega-corporations and ultimately (well maybe not by himself) bankrupted them. While his interest in running a baseball team might have peaked a bit of late…nothing gets him going like winning in court. Good luck to recovering that money.
The simple way of looking at the case (from my understanding) is that the Nats signed an agreement years ago and are now unhappy with what they agreed to, and are pursuing litigation with MLBs backing to undo that agreement and change the terms. The Orioles argue that the agreement should stand for as long as the contract was initially agreed upon. I’m sure there’s a lot more to it, but from everything I’ve read from people a lot smarter than I, the Nats are crying poor because they didn’t negotiate effectively enough in the first place.
That is a really inaccurate understanding. The agreement provided for resetting of rights fees, the sides obviously disagreed on the amount, and the MLB panel split the difference but generally favored the Nats’ side.
The O’s (via MASN) brought the litigation, arguing that the panel was biased and citing a bunch of reasons. The lower court agreed, but on arguably the most technical grounds (conflict of interest in legal representation).
If that decision stands, which is being decided on appeal, then they’ll go back to some kind of new arbitration (possibly the same panel, depending upon how those arguments shake out). The fees will be re-set in some way, but the methodology, deciding body, and final amount remain uncertain.
Yeah, this. The lower court found, for example, that MASN’s argument about methodology was without merit. Not only was it not stated in the contract, but the court found that MASN failed to produce ANY evidence that that is what the parties intended.
There’s actually a fairly good chance that the arb panel reaches a new award larger than the previous award. Simply because the original RSDC award was based on a very conservative assessment of the RSN markets that has since been overtaken by events.
Thanks for clarifying – obviously I was way off.
All good. This is one of those topics where a lot of bad info gets spread.
How about trade Hanley for pitching because I’m sure Panda is gonna be DH
Panda is going to be useless. His batting is regressing and won’t post good enough numbers to stay as a DH. He’s pretty much a useless bat now
You know, maybe Scott Boras was onto something with Harvey and the innings limit he was pushing for last year after all.
Maybe. Or he could lose like 50 pounds and get back to his 215 advertised weight.
And it’s why pirates fans will be disappointed when taillion and Glasnow are shut down in august.
Boras needs to stay out of baseball decisions/managerial issues. Plain and simple.
Good luck with that. I always thought Marvin Miller was a royal pain for the game. Boras has been worse for the game than Miller ever was. He’s wrecking the monetary structure of the league as bad as union’s did towards corporations 50′ years ago.
Only difference is jobs went overseas with the unions, game will just wither away, or end up with a few ultra rich teams while the rest fold.
It’s not boras’ fault that teams are willing to pay through the roof for his players. And whys it such a bad thing that he looks out for his players?
Because with the current salaries and future salary escalations, you and I won’t be able to afford to buy a ticket and go to the ballpark let alone buy a hotdog or beer. And, with all the cable TV rights teams are contracting for, that will mean that it will now cost you either per game or for a subscription to watch any team play let alone your favorite team.
Is any athlete who performs in a sport for public view worth $30 Million dollars a year?
But, that’s part of the economics of the game. It’s not the players responsibility to take less so you can pay less for concessions, any more than, say, a pop idol’s responsibilty to reduce his or her fee so you can more easily pay for four tickets to a concert, or Brioni to reduce the price of their suits so you don’t have to buy at Men’s Warehouse. There’s a price/value ratio–everyone charges what the market is willing to pay. If attendance drop, if advertising fees decline because of less interest, then the market will adapt.
Markets adapt by bankruptcies and jobs going over seas. look at Detroit and the auto industry. I’ve seen massive increases in pay over short periods, like sports have had the last 3 decades devastate entire industries.
Steel, Auto. Sports gives a few athletes huge salaries and then requires taxpayers to pony up to build stadiums, that before owners would in many cases build themselves, or help with. Concessions and ticket prices make it so expensive middle class families can barely afford to attend games, if at all and forget the lower classes. It’s become class warfare now.
I’ve defended before what Miller did initially and the entire Flood incident, only it went too far and knew at the time it would end up like this.
My Grandfather worked for a coal company during early 20th century that had company money.. housing.. was in one of those armed skirmishes to unionize in WV. The times have certainly changed for unions. Instead of fighting for basic human rights and dignity, they have lost all bearing.
The link between high player salaries and owners requiring taxpayers to subsidize them is tenuous, and players are getting a much smaller % of the pie as compared to total revenues than they used to.. Owners are businessmen, and even if the players were all capped, they would still try, and succeed, with the same types of tactics. Free money is always welcome. Franchise values have rocketed–if huge salaries were a stupendous drag, there is no way that a team like the Red Sox or Yankees (who sold to Steinbrenner for less than a year of Brett Gardner) would be worth billions today. If you want downward pressure on salaries, then revenues flowing into the game have to decline–lower attendance, less ad money, teams struggling and near contraction.
No Mike156 I still can’t agree, that’s not just the economics of the game…its the economics of greed.
We’re not talking about players responsibility here. The Players Union doesn’t let an athlete take 1 penny less to stay or play where they wish because they argue that it “hurts the game”.
Not sure where you got your price/value ratio because if you ask a fan, they definitely believe that certainly slanted away from their favor.
Look at Legends seats at Yankee stadium….has the market adjusted?
Look at the new proposed Arlington baseball stadium replacing one that was built in 1994? Is that slanted in the fans/taxpayers favor….will the fan/taxpayer market adjust.
This whole thing is just a runaway train that’s headed to lots of empty seats.
Eh. Union does it’s job — to collectively bargain, advise players of rights and responsibilities, and push for individuals to support the overall good. There are issues in how it’s set up — most notably, the huge preferance for established veterans, to the detriment of relative newcomers and, especially, pre-MLB players of all kinds.
But it’s not true that players can’t take deals they want b/c the union won’t “let” them. Pressure? Maybe. But there are a ton of examples to the contrary.
Miller was a brilliant man who helped bring the economic structure of the game into the modern era. Players should be paid according to their abilities to produce. He was a pain because anything that could diminish the owners profits they saw as destabilizing. But the idea of the Reserve Clause, the idea that you would have but two choices–accept what the team you were bound to for life was willing to pay you, or sit out, is not something that is mirrored in the real world. Special talents–in finance, technology, science, law, get paid more than run of the mill “players”. That’s fair. We fans, for some reason, have a tendency to side with the uber-wealthy owners, but if we were the guy with the 100MPH fastball, we would want to be paid what the market would bear.
Boras probably just does what his players (clients) wants. He doesn’t always insist on giant contracts or get involved in pitch counts. A doctor I’m sure recommended the pitch count then when the mets were potentially not going to follow it I’m sure Harvey was concerned and Boras got involved. Same with players and more money. I’m sure when a player isn’t being completely greedy he will let them sign for less. He works for the players, not himself. Much like a lawyer. If he was rogue and not acting out his clients wishes they simply can just change agents. No big deal.
More to the point, he doesn’t “let” his clients do anything. He may advise them to the contrary and if he really feels strongly he could resign and stop representing them. He can’t actually stop them from signing the contract.
The hate for Boras is misplaced because the order is wrong. People think Boras stops players from signing for less, but the reality is that you hire Boras in the first place because you want to go for every dollar. There’s no mystery what Boras is about. In fact, he probably delights in being the bad guy to the public because it lets his clients pursue every dollar without actually taking as much flak for it.
Would the Mets consider trading Harvey to the Red Sox if they offered Buchholz along with Jackie Bradkey and a prospect?
Harvey is kind of reminding me of Lidge… postseason trauma followed by inexplicable poor performance.
Sanchez is batting 0.00 in the majors and you think the Yankees should make him the starting catcher. Also with Beltran being a free agent at years end you think the best way for Judge to get playing time is to trade Gardner. The Yankees are in enough trouble…. Sooooo glad you do not have input in operations.
I guess this one is meant for Buster?