Newly reacquired Athletics slugger Brandon Moss appeared on MLB Network’s Hot Stove with Harold Reynolds, Matt Vasgersian and Ken Rosenthal earlier today and discussed not only his return to the A’s but also his candid views on the slow free-agent market (video link, CBA/free agency talk beginning around the 6:20 mark). Acknowledging that it might not be a popular opinion, Moss said that the players have no one but themselves to blame.
“Everything that happens in the game of baseball, as far as how things are done financially, is bargained into a collective bargaining agreement,” says Moss. “The way free agency runs, the way draft money is allotted, the way international signing bonus is allotted. Everything is bargained.”
The link between free agency and draft picks is hardly new to the current CBA, of course, as the previous iteration of the CBA actually had stricter penalization for teams that signed qualified free agents; prior to that, the old Elias Ranking System of Type A/Type B free agents also caused teams to forfeit draft picks, even allowing the team losing the player to effectively acquire a forfeited pick in the case of Type A free agents.
But, the CBA has also increasingly limited the avenues in which teams can acquire amateur talent, and the newest iteration ties that to free agency arguably more than ever before. The fact that signing qualified free agents can now force teams to forfeit international bonus allotments, plus the hard cap on international spending are new to the 2017-21 CBA.
Additionally, exceeding the luxury tax by a wide enough margin will eventually cause teams to see their top pick pushed back 10 slots. The new CBA also added surcharges of 12 percent and 42.5 percent for exceeding the CBT by $20MM and $40MM, respectively. Those trends, Moss continues, are troublesome more so for future generations of players than the current crop:
“My career’s almost finished, so I don’t have to deal with this much longer, but the worry is there for me for players in the future that enough attention is not being paid to the way we allow our system to be run. I feel like we put more things that are of less value at the forefront. I feel like we’re starting to have to walk a little bit of a tightrope that we’ve created for ourselves. I think that we have given the owners and we have given the people who are very, very business savvy the opportunity to take advantage of a system that we created for ourselves.”
The increases of penalization, relative to the shrinking means of amateur talent acquisition — hard slotting system in the draft, hard cap on international spending — has tipped the scales decidedly in favor of the owners, Moss suggests. Whereas teams once felt the need to meet or even exceed previously established market values in free agency, the more recent iterations of the CBA have done the opposite — pushing teams away from spending at previous market standards.
“…[W]e have the right to bargain and set our price, just like the owners have the right to meet that price,” Moss says. “But what we’ve done is we have incentivized owners, we have incentivized teams to say ’We don’t want to meet that price. It costs us too much to meet that price. It costs us draft picks. It costs us international signing money. … We’re going to have to pay a tax if we go over a certain threshold’ that we (the players) set ourselves. … And the only reason those things are there is because we bargained them in. If I’m an owner, my goal is to have the bottom line be in black — to put a winner on the field and the bottom line to be in black. The more opportunity you give me to do those things, the better off I’m going to be.”
Moss is eminently cognizant of the manner in which he has benefited from the previous efforts of the MLBPA, citing prior labor stoppages and hard-line negotiation tactics from the union that paved the way for today’s generation of players to be compensated at such a lofty level. The gratitude he feels for those efforts is almost as palpable in his comments as the concern he feels for future generations.
“I feel like, as players, we have to watch out for our own interest,” he continues. “If you run too good of a deal out there in a bargaining agreement, then of course the owners are going to jump on it. You have to be willing to dig your heels in a little bit — fight for the things the guys in the past have fought for. … I just hate to see players like me taking advantage of a system that was set up for me, by other players, and not passing it along to the next generation of players. Everybody wants to look up and scream collusion … sooner or later, you have to take responsibility for a system you created for yourself. It’s our fault.”
While Moss, clearly, hasn’t had to wait out this winter’s abnormally slow market, it’s worth reminding that he’s hardly unfamiliar with the process. The slugger was a free agent last offseason and was part of a class of first basemen/corner outfielders/designated hitters that developed never fully developed. He did manage to eventually secure a two-year deal that guaranteed him $12MM (on the heels of a .225/.300/.484 season and 28 homers with the Cardinals), though he waited until Feb. 1 for that contract to be finalized.
Although wholesale changes to free agency and draft/international compensation likely won’t be implemented any time in the near future — the CBA runs through the 2021 season — the unrest among free agents and their representatives this offseason figures to be a definitive talking point in that next wave of negotiations, even if this doesn’t prove to be an ongoing trend in the future.
That, of course, is something that can’t be determined for several years; it’s possible that this winter is somewhat anomalous in nature given the facts that a large number of teams are in rebuild mode, several typical big spenders (Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, Rangers) are looking to cut back on spending and some teams are holding out for a top-heavy crop of stars next winter.
Could the large number of rebuilding teams lead to an uptick in the number of contending clubs looking to spend in free agency in two years? Will the return of the Yankees, Giants, Dodgers and possibly the Rangers to their big-spending ways next offseason have a trickle-down effect on open-market spending? Or, will a large number of free agents settle for one-year deals in the coming weeks, setting the stage for an even more saturated class of solid-but-not-elite free agents next winter, thus creating an even larger logjam?
Given the lack of data at present and all of those variables, we may not have a true ability to contextualize the changing pace of free agency until the 2019-20 offseason. Regardless, it’s difficult to imagine that the concerns voiced by Moss aren’t being felt by other players and won’t priorities for the union next time around. Those interested in the matter are encouraged to watch the full interview with Moss, whose candid and insightful comments bring a new perspective to what has been the largest story of the 2017-18 offseason.
Moss sounds smart unlike **** Jansen who said ‘strike’
Which he did not say. Frankly this comment is beneath you.
Jansen is an elite closer, who had an arguably historic 2017, but the word “strike” did in fact come out of his mouth. Frankly, we should be promoting unity, not divisiveness, or at the bare minimum, a willingness to work with one another, especially a player of Jansen’s caliber, whose words have the power to influence.
nydailynews.com/amp/sports/baseball/dodgers-closer…
It came out of yours, too. So what does that mean? Nothing, context being the consideration. We ought to know this is going to be a major issue between the players and the owners when they get down to negotiating the next CBA, and yes indeed, it could lead to a strike if it can’t be resolved.
Or you could choose to not know, if you think it helps. Just don’t be blaming the messenger. That’s just small.
Says the guy who ignores the facts.
I love how I’m “small”, even though I was criticizing Jansen’s use of rhetoric considering his stature as one of the Mlb’s elite closers, for using toxic, divisive words like “strike” prematurely (CBA expires 2021)
Jansen could learn a thing or two from Moss— even though Jansen’s the far superior talent, he should think, before he speaks.
Sadly, name-calling people names like “small” is beneath you, but I understand it’s hard to be objective, for one of LAD’s premier players.
“Hey, Don’t shoot the messenger”
You seem to understand very little about collective bargaining.
Jansen will hardly be the last influential MLB player to use the word “strike” the next three seasons..
The players are letting the owners know what they are thinking, and what they are willing to do. It’s part of negotiating – the dance if you will.
And as far as it being divisive is concerned, who cares? This isn’t kumbaya politics, it’s collective bargaining between two adversarial sides over a whole lot of money.
Expect to hear this type of rhetoric from both sides the next three years.
I don’t give a hoot whether he’s “one of baseball’s elite closers” or some utility infielder hanging on the bottom rung, and I certainly don’t judge his words by who employs him. All of the players have the same basic interests. This is something I recognize. Don’t you?
You don’t have to like him using the “s” word but you should take it as telling us where this is all headed if the two sides can’t figure out how the revenue split between ownership and players should be worked out. Like it or not, this is a huge issue, and it isn’t incumbent on the players to sell out their position before the negotiations even start.
Yes, your lambasting of Jansen for saying what a lot of players are thinking was small. Saying so wasn’t name-calling, it was a characterization of what you said. I would not bother telling you this if I thought you were one of our many resident trolls who would not care. So I ask, simply focus on the issue being raised and maybe we will be talking about the same thing at least, whether we’re agreeing or not.
“Maybe it’s an adjustment for us, as the players’ union. Maybe we have to go on strike, to be honest with you. That’s how I feel about it.”
That is literally what he said.
I know what he said. He said a strike could happen, which if we’re going to be honest, we know is true. That’s a far cry from implying that he said the players should go on strike and and even further cry from somehow making him responsible for promoting unity, whatever that is.
We get that he’s your guy and all. But, Jansen did say with some magnitude of implication that strike is possible.
The bottom line is the owners are sick and tired of giving long term crazy money to players who get paid whether they perform or not period… If we don’t perform at our jobs we get fired!! They become multi millionaires over night and get all that money regardless of what their performance is from that day forward. 95% of these long term free agent contracts end up bad deals for the clubs!
Now the crybaby ball players are upset because the owners aren’t giving them whatever they want to go out a play a kids game 7 months a year!
JDMartinez is asking for 7 years and 200 million! Hosmer 8 years 200 million. Darvish 6 years 175 million! I don’t blame the owners one bit for saying thanks but no thanks! The first year the players don’t get what they want their response is “Lets strike” All these ball players have been laughing at the owners and fans all the way to the bank for years!
Ditto
Moss’s comments may not have been as blunt but I don’t think they ran contrary to Jansen’s comments at all.
“You have to be willing to dig your heels in a little bit — fight for the things the guys in the past have fought for. ”
It seems like both guys are saying that it’s incumbent on the MLBPA to stick up for its players more than it has recently.
Precisely.
How also took responsibility for the players are currently in. He’s literally my favourite player now. Telling it like it is. Blaming solely on the players where the blame solely belongs.
Bright dude. MLBPA needs more like him.
He’s 100% correct. I was watching live and was surprised how accurate his comments were. Finally someone taking accountability instead of blaming “collusion” amongst the owners. Good stuff
The players should be asking for a draft lottery. Literally nobody is mentioning this. This gives less incentive for teams to tank. Less teams tanking equals more money spent in free agency.
He will have a front office job at some point in his post playing career
new union head
Fighting against international draft was dumb. Also most of the fault for slow moving market is Boras. He has the top free agents and he believes in waiting until last moment to extract as much cash as possible. He failed with Drew and Moralys doing this in the past. Hopefully his players don’t get signed until August and loses clients.
Anyone with their eyes even half open, knows there is far more to the slow off-season than Scott Boras.
Get real.
He had no choice. Drew and Morales had zero offers. Nobody wanted to give up a draft pick for them. So they said
Wrong @22222
There were offers, just not the amount scott.bor.ass felt were appropriate for his two superstars.
Don’t forget Drew was offered an extension during the season but probably declined because of Boras
The Latinos in the MLBPA were all against a draft. He gave the owners something better, a hard cap, which they then used to make the LT threshold more of a hard cap, while Tony C did not even insist on higher increases in the LT Threshold as a return. The incompetence is so incredible to stretch the imagination and frankly has a bit of a stink to it
You realize the players voted for the agreement right?
Ok let’s talk about all the players Boras got huge contracts for. Waiting for you to name more then those two cause the list on the plus side is pretty long. Once again the agent works for the player and if there’s offers it’s the player that says yes or no on signing.
Moss is half right. The players weakness in recent CBA’s , especially the last one cost them the respect of the owners, which encouraged them to take the next step which is collusion. Manfred started his career as a union buster, he started in MLB during the collusion years, he smells weakness like predators smell blood.
Players are fearful of being black balled which is why many wont come out and say the truth. Jansen pretty much called it but he signed his big deal last year. He has security. Moss is going to be a FA after this season and may look for a career in baseball after his playing days are over. Maybe even as Clarks replacement. No way he is blaming the owners in public of collusion
There is a reason this comment is at 9 down votes
This is literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read hear. Big Jesse Ventura fan eh? Me too, but because I was a fan in wrestling in the 80s.
One feels that Brandon Moss “gets it”. Smart, sensible guy.
I’m sure he’s far from the only one. We’ve heard at least one other player talk about how the current CBA heavily favors owners. We are getting an early read on the issues that will be at stake when the CBA expires. As fans we can only hope the players hone down how they believe the terms of the next CBA needs to be changed and get those issues out in the open with ownership before it leads to a strike.
His points are mostly off base since the top position player free agent and the top pitcher free agent are both free of qualifying offer compensation. And the second best position player free agent has already despite a qualifying offer, and the next best position player, who also has qo compensation penalties attached, is sitting on multiple $150m offers even though most of us think he is worth half that.
So no, the qualifying offer and related penalties are not to blame for this slow free agent period.
He’s not only talking about the QO, though. Generally, the hard cap on international spending and the hard slotting system in the draft have prohibited teams from being more aggressive and more creative in their means of building a farm system, which unquestionably has increased the incentive for teams not to field competitive rosters in an effort to boost both league-allotted spending pools.
And let’s not split hairs here, in the end no matter how they settle these individual issues, in sum it’s all about the revenue split. The current CBA tilts the balance towards ownership. The players are not going to sit still for that, nor should they, and are signaling pretty clearly that how the game’s revenue is divvied up will be a major issue for the next CBA negotiations.
Steve wouldn’t a draft lottery system help against tanking teams. Big markets like Detroit and white Sox I don’t think be as willing to tank if it meant they weren’t guaranteed top picks. This in my opinion is something the players should be asking for as teams will have less incentive to tank.
What he is specifically addressing in his comments is the fact that the qualifying offer, international bonus money, etc are all bargaining chips the owners have in their pockets now when negotiating with free agents. The owners can say that the contract needs to be worth less because of the losses the team will incur with the signing and if the player isn’t willing to accept that then the team is willing to move on to the next in line. And that’s a valid point he is making. To aid the owners stance, and Moss doesn’t bring this up but most large free agent contracts are not only paying the player for past performance (with another team most of the time) but is also most likely paying them for years in which they won’t contribute much, in the later years of the deal. And when all of the owners are on the same page that signing these contracts just doesn’t work out very well, it makes it difficult for the player (agent) to negotiate saying well team X is willing to go this many years, this many dollars, owners and GM’s have word of mouth from each other that no, in fact they aren’t willing and no they aren’t willing to break the luxury tax threshold. So it creates a big problem in the negotiation process as far as the player and agent are concerned
Ok so you have a problem GMs are smarter now. Ok gotcha. The market self corrected. The players are angry that their old peers got overpaid and GMs and owners are smarter and now the agents are mad. What baffling is all these agents said they knew this would happen! But yet none of them were smart enough to get their guys signed early. That be like me knowing the score of the super bowl and betting the opposite. Either they were lying or stupid.
Clearly we have a discussion going on where there are “employee” minded people and “business owner” minded people.
There’s always a divide between those two perspectives. Some people can stand in the middle, but typically it’s a small percentage.
The core argument is:
“Owners Take The Risk vs Employees Produce The Product”
People keep saying changes cant be made to the CBA. They certainly can. Players have conceded to changes in testing and spouse abuse penalties as well as rule changes without asking for anything in return. They have ro decide what they want change and ask, putting MLB on notice that they wont be asking next CBA but will be telling and will strike if needed. Owners and prospective buyers and RSN’s hate uncertainty. If its not collusion as people say they will be open to fixing whats an obvious problem now and not later.
Yeah, lets fix those “issues’ so we can go back to useless, bloated, losing, long term 10 year $250,000,000 contracts.
Exactly. Was the Pujols signing good for baseball? Is is negative 2 WAR worth it to the fans? Was the Fielder signing good for baseball? Is his salary/injury forced retirement worth it for the fans? What about ARod? what about Big Panda? What about Braun? What about Choo? What about Hamilton? The list goes on.
I didn’t hear any of the owners publicly complain about those deals either. Now all of a sudden most guys aren’t getting mega mult year deals giving them generation times 4 wealth and they have to accept two year deals for generational wealth times 2 booo hooo! God forbid these guys have to sign year to year deals to prove their worth. Nobody in the 80s and 90s were getting huge mega deals in they were in their late 30s. You can’t reap all the benefits for years and have inflated salaries year in year out and as soon as there’s a market correction for one year! Cause I still think most of these teams will be burning through huge stacks of money next year when the tax resets.
Simple math brings your point into perspective.
“If You Make $300,000/year at your job (most people don’t)….and you work for 40 years……You Make $12 Million over your entire career.
But that money doesn’t come in “1 year”. $12 Million in one year is worth about $50 Million over 40 years.
So….You’d have to make $1,25 Million/year, consistently, for 40 years to equal a single year contract at $12 Million…..
Let that sink in before you say “Players Should Get Bigger Contracts”
There is no evidence of collusion. The owners don’t need to collude. Moss is correct. The owners are simply responding to the incentives built into the system that penalizes them for signing free agents to big contracts, especially the free agents that have the loss of draft picks attached to them. Its even worse if they’re repeat tax payers.
Plus, you can see that tanking is a much more viable strategy in baseball than it has ever been, that’s another disincentive to buy expensive players to add a couple more wins but not reach the playoffs and lose valuable draft picks.
Lastly, owners likely view next year’s free agent class as much better than this one (certainly at the top), so they, especially the usual big spenders, are keeping their powder dry and trying to get back under the cap so they can reset the tax for next year, when going over won’t be as heavily penalized.
He’s a pretty smart guy that’s stating his opinion and I think he’s right about the MLBPA paying too much attention to the now rather than the future.. But I also think that having 8 to 10 teams rebuilding and trading their younger, less expensive players has impacted this market.
Agents work for their players to get them the best deal possible. They are also advisers and should be telling their players “Hey, you’re not getting 7+ years in this market. There are several of the players that have offers but they want more years like some FA in the past got. Teams are not going to go that many years when history has proven long contracts don’t work out well.
A draft lottery would make teams think twice about tanking. Specifically the big market teams. You think of the Phillies tanked on purpose and they went from drafting first to 5th say how do you explain that to your fans? Teams would likely spend more money to improve their clubs for an extra win or two if they knew they still had a chance to grab the 1st pick. Always thought it was dumb to just give whoever loses the most the 1st pick. Zero incentive for teams out of the playoffs in the last week to win, teams probably trying to throw games that’s a bad look.
moss is delusional
That’s a roundabout way of saying he’s right and I disagree with him but he has vastly more knowledge about the situation than I but I thought I knew but I really didn’t now I’m calling him names for being right
Hot Stove is by far the best show on MLB Network. MLB Central is the worst show on MLB Network. Trading Harold Reynolds and Vasgersian’s soundboard for Mark DeRosa and the big studio is a huge downgrade.
Moss is 10000% correct.
Many people predicted much of what is now happening the day the new CBA was signed.
Tony Clark got rolled. Badly. Worse than we even knew then.
Absolutely. There were a number of critical opinions at the time, and even they mostly undersold just how badly the MLBPA has negotiated.
Pretty much agree with all of this – both subjects.
Mlb now with Brian Kenny is much better
Close second to Hot Stove. My list…
1. Hot Stove
2. MLB Now
3. MLB Tonight
4. High Heat
5. Intentional Talk (without Kevin Millar)
6. Quick Pitch (with Heidi Watney)
7. Intentional Talk (with Kevin Millar)
8. MLB Central
9. Quick Pitch (without Heidi Watney)
Interesting to read some opinions on here that are opposed to his opinion, which in theory is always healthy – that we don’t all agree with the same thing, but in this rare case, Moss is 100% + an extra 10% spot on right in everything he said. It’s the sentiment I’ve conveyed here and elsewhere and the two main culprits of this market are Scott Boras and the players themselves. Frankly, nothing the owners or GM’s have done would be open for criticism. I’m seeing owners and GM’s become wiser and more shrewd in their maneuvering and building teams and I personally love it! Thats my angle in business. As for the players they have themselves to blame after years of money grabs and under delivering. So many bad contracts and in some ways, I really blame the Red Sox in a larger part too, since bizarrely, they’ve just struck out constantly with this type of thing. They’re like 0-72 (or something like that). Anyway, when you have guys like JD Martinez looking for $125mm over 5 years, it’s pretty easy to see where the problem lies. That is all.
Edit: JD is a guy that a few years ago would have maybe gotten 2-3 years and $36mm. Thats what we have to wrap our heads around.
…[W]e have the right to bargain and set our price, just like the owners have the right to meet that price,”
this is not bargaining. owners don’t have to meet the players price.
In a transaction nobody is forced to meet anybody’s price. The result is called no transaction.
He clearly meant meet or reject. I saw the interview, he was not saying the owners had to do anything. Live TV is different than having time to write something out.
Is “Scott Boras” the new term for “Agent”? Because I swear, people seem to think he’s the only one.
There’s more to baseball than Scott Boras, people.
Fair point, but he usually deals with the most high profile players and it known to secure the highest paying contracts. It is true collusion may exist, but that’s not on the teams. We should be looking closer at the players agents.
Colluding to inflate the market…
I’m not sure exactly what you’re implying in terms of agent collusion. That agents collude with one another to drive up prices or something? That’s not how it works. If anything, they’re constantly trying to steal players from each other.
Also, the notion that Scott Boras “usually” deals with the most high-profile free agents is way off base. Boras is the most vocal agent in the business, but that doesn’t mean other agencies don’t have high-profile players and don’t negotiate huge contracts.
MVP Sports has negotiated $200MM+ deals for Pujols and Votto, and they’ll have Donaldson and Machado as free agents next winter.
Excel Sports popularized player opt-outs by negotiating them into deals for Zack Greinke, Clayton Kershaw, Masahiro Tanaka and Jason Heyward. They got Freddie Freeman $135MM as an Arb-1 player and got Rick Porcello $20MM annually before he even won the Cy Young.
Wasserman Media negotiated the largest deal in the history of pro sports (Stanton), negotiated one of two $80MM+ reliever deals ever (Jansen) and got $90MM for Samardzija off a down season.
ISE Baseball got $248MM for Miguel Cabrera at age 32 and $110MM for Jordan Zimmermann,
Legacy has done $100MM+ deals for Sabathia, Carl Crawford, Johan Santana, Vernon Wells,
ACES got Jon Lester $155MM and got 37-year-old Rich Hill $48MM.
CAA/Roc Nation got Cano his $240MM, $110MM for Cespedes and $72.5MM for Rusney Castillo.
The list goes on and on.
Boras probably has the largest volume of high-profile players of any agency (though Excel might be close), and he’s certainly the most vocal player representative with the media. But the idea that he alone is responsible for the majority of ill-fated mega-deals in the sport is way off base.
You’re not alone in that thought, so I don’t mean to single you out by any means. It is just such a common refrain that I hear, but it’s not really rooted in truth.
I’ll get off my soap box now.
Umm the PA has put out players wide memos that told all superstars not to resign because they wanted those guys to reach feee agency set the market. Smart by them but seems like that’s cullsions of another kind.
They also told all the free agents last week dont settle keep holding out for your asking price.
Good post. I read through your list of mega deals (100+) which doesn’t include Boras’ clients, and then mentally added in Boras’ clients, and then though about how many of those deals have actually been worth it – or will be worth it to the teams that gave them to players.
A pretty high percentage are bad for the team, and bad for the team’s ability to compete, because the money can’t be more efficiently used elsewhere.
Now, teams seem really reluctant to hand out those types of deals to non-generational players.
That’s a rational correction to the market, and and I would argue it’s unlikely that viewpoint is going to change in front offices.
In essence, players and agents were very successful in getting irrational front offices and owners to give them these deals.
Now, it seems, with more common sense (data driven) in MLB front offices, one could argue that agents/players are victims of their own past success.
That is a lot less than all. Basically it’s a total apology for the owners getting more, presumably because they are way more deserving of the money we fans spend on the game than the players. Still wondering how that works.
Eh. I hear you, but it’s a business and the players are a commodity, one with the clear expiration date. I’m on the side of the owners in this fight (if you want to call it a fight, but I side with them). The stomach churning level of bad contracts has left me with a sour taste and while you can argue that the “owners” handed down those contracts, a market had to be created, which was supported and exploited by players and their agents. Which ties into the overall sentiment on here, in most ways, players are getting exactly what they bargained for.
It sure is fun to watch the owners play. It’s what I pay for. So much more interesting than watching a bunch of overpaid crybabies run around and throw hit and catch stupid baseballs. I mean, who’d pay to see that?
Nice strawman. Well done.
Ok blue sky we get it, you don’t like capitalism. Move to Sweden. I’m not saying the owners aren’t greedy but if there’s a owner who hires a brilliant GM and he figures out how to win year in year out with the leagues lowest payroll why should he be punished for it. Hard for me to tell a successful businessmen or women you know what buddy you should run your business like this and not make as much money. I’ll let government put limits on how much the top 1% can earn before I tell them.
I echo the mindset of baseball 365 and iverbure…….
People need to remember that “Baseball Is A Business, that has Owners & Employees”. Owners take risks, and employees perform the task at hand.
It’s really no different than owning a construction company. Somebody owns the business and agrees to spend a bunch of money on a project. Then they hire people to “perform the everyday tasks” required. Workers get paid salaries based on what ability they bring to the table, and if a worker doesn’t perform well, the Owner loses. As workers lose their ability to perform, younger workers step into their spots. When workers strike, owners find replacements. When workers quit, owners hire a new person to fill that gap.
Workers perform the tasks, but they don’t own the company. They incur no financial risk if things go Bad. Owners incur ALL of that risk. Workers are required for the project to be completed, but the owners decide who is employed…..and how much they are willing to pay them. Owners keep the profit from the project…..and the Better Job they do running it, the more money they get to KEEP.
Capitalism is alive and well in America Today. Thank God. Whether you are a Baseball Player or a Construction Worker…….There’s opportunity.
Contracts are Being Offered To These Players. GREED is preventing them from signing one of them (yes JD, Hosmer, Arrieta, and Darvish…….I am talking to You!). If you can do math, you know that $20 Million is A TON OF MONEY!!!
Exactly there’s been a market correction that’s going against the players and now they’re all crying bloody murder. It’s like playing someone in a game. You win 200 times in a row and love it. We play again and I’m winning finally, the game almost is over and you quit and say you don’t want to ever play again and walk away stomping your feet. That’s the players petulant children
I saw the whole Moss interview, and he made great points. Pretty much nailed it. Prior generations did the heavy lifting to get today’s players what they have, and now guys are taking their eyes off the ball & not standing up for themselves or the next generation. And then they’re claiming collusion when the owners take advantage of the system they agreed to. Personally, I think losing Don Fehr was a big deal too. Perhaps more than people thought. On top of that, all the GMs have groupthink & chant “long term deals are always bad & players over 30 are worthless” like zombies. Who needs to collude when every team’s GM thinks (publicly) the same thing, and that thing suppresses contract length & size? Not to say that collusion is impossible, but I’m not sure it’s even necessary right now for owners to get what they want (i.e. most of the record levels of revenue in baseball). The players really have to rethink things for the next CBA.
Don Fehr runs the NHLPA now. Hockey players are currently taking home a CBA mandated 50% of record NHL revenue.
I know where Fehr went (and boy did the NHLPA need him!), I’m just saying that nobody seems to be recognizing what a loss it was. As for the 50% statement, do you have sourcing for that? If the CBA mandates a 50/50 split ( I’m not aware of that, but I’m hardly a CBA expert), I’m curious what does & doesn’t go in the pot, & how they calculate it. It’s not necessarily an easy calculation in a non-hardcap sport, esp one where many teams are tanking & getting nowhere near the soft cap.
The thing is, the MLBPA put all its eggs in the long term guaranteed contract basket and, frankly, the groupthink is right. The majority of the time when you sign these long contracts, you’re buying age 36, 37, 38 or older seasons and, while there are always exceptions, odds are by the last few seasons you can’t wait for that boatanchor of a contract to end. And most teams simply do not have the kind of cash flow to even think about stuff like that and still build a competitive roster around the guy.
So the union could do lots of stuff to move towards things that make sense… like some form of non-guarantees that would make teams less reticent about a 7 year contract, where the team isn’t totally screwed for years if it doesn’t work out. Usually it is the TERM of the deal not the AAV that scares teams away. Mid market teams cannot be competitive if they have enormous chunks of their payroll going into the disabled list. Most of the league is not the Yankees or Dodgers and cannot absorb that kind of dead money.
There’s risk for the players there of course, but frankly MLBPA members are about the only people anywhere (in or out of sports) that can earn the full value of a contract that they don’t deliver on. Contracts go both ways. Offset the risk and go for AAV, more and better types of incentives in contracts, on and on.
The point is … there are lots of ways for players and owners to both get what they want.
Dilly, Dilly!
You are spot on.
The incentive deals in mlb are awful usually. Most deals include provisions if a guy wins mvp he gets a 175k bonus? Wtf kind of bonus is that. The bonus should be like 25% or 50% of the total salary that’s a bonus and teams won’t care paying guys who produce.
If I’m on a side I’m clearly on the owners side but this is something I’d like to see the players get. Teams should be able to offer a deal like this. 10 mil base pay. 2 war 2 mil 3 war 4 mil 4war 6 mil etc. As far as I know teams can’t offer anything like that. You don’t like war use counting stats. Give incentives based on OPS. I’ll give you a 5 mil bonus if you hit 70 doubles this year. Give 3 mil bonuses to anyone on my team that hits 30 hrs. Every guy hits 30 hrs on you team your probably going to the playoffs. God forbid guys have to actually perform to make more money.
If the players are serious about improving their bottom line then they better find a new leader. They need a businessman/lawyer and not a baseball player to take charge.
The MLBPA needs to quit focusing all of its effort on representing the top slice of elite players and think about the big picture. Outmaneuver the league. Be the side that originates a cap/floor and a reform of the journey from 0.000 to 6.000 service time to give mid level players some form of RFA and give teams a year 7 “franchise tag” for their home grown stars to eliminate the Kris Bryant service time manipulation. Control the dialogue. Give the owners something they have wet dreams about, and hard-wire demand (for the FA’s that pay your dues) into the market. MLB is about the only league in the galaxy that doesn’t have some modicum of explicit salary regulation so it IS coming eventually. Don’t wait until the bottom portion of the league financially crumbles and the league forces the issue. (No, the luxury tax stuff is not a cap, the number is far beyond what the majority of the league could ever sustain for even one season)
Or just keep on keeping on with this “We have no idea how to negotiate a contract” nonsense. Whatever, up to them. The game is always changing. The league is rolling with it, the union isn’t. Adapt or die.
I like the old system for type a and type b players , just still add the no draft pick compensation if they get traded half way into the season. That’s the luck you lose. If they had that in 2009 the Yankees wouldn’t had to give up theirs first round pick to the angels when he was traded half way in the season.
Is someone pissed cause that draft pick ended up being Trout? Boo-hoo
MLBPA needs to do a better job of anticipating how teams will “correct” for the union’s past bargaining wins (in this case, free agency).
The way roster construction currently stands, the potential for surplus value is so much greater for “controllable” players than it is for veteran free agents, that it was only a matter of time before teams got wise started to err on the side of controllable guys, consequently driving down free agent prices.
From the union’s perspective, there is no reason this shouldn’t have been anticipated and preempted. More equitable pay for players with 0-5.171 years of service time should have been a higher priority.
Moss smarter than Clark and Jansen
Sorry for the length. I know the incompetent will tell me it’s too long. You don’t need to enlighten me, mouth breathers. I know it’s a lengthy post – I wrote it. Just dropping my opinion on the state of free agency.
If players want their mega deals still, they are going to have to FINALLY start making concessions in said deals. First and foremost, kill this “opt out” option teams give players. It never made any sense to me. Second, if teams feel a guy is truly worth a massive deal…. FRONT load the contract, not backload it so it actually makes logical sense….. not having a situation like the Angels have with each passing year paying more and more annually to a sloppy fat Albert Pujols to the point they pay him $30M in his last year….. when he is 41 years old….. and by that time likely looking like Bartolo Colon. Pujols with the Cards was da** near a .330 hitter with a .420 OBP. Since joining the Angels he’s been a .260 hitter with a .320 OBP…… and has gained AT LEAST 50 lbs. Finally, give the TEAM an opt out when 75% of the contract is paid. Meaning, if the player has declined statistically (and in Pujols’ case, health) to a point he isn’t even a viable major league starter if not major leaguer period, they can buy him out for a fraction of what is owed.
THAT is the only way I can conceivably see $350+ million deals being made in the future. I am a Cubs fan, so in my team’s case the likely candidate for such a contract will be Kris Bryant. Let’s say after the 2018 season the Cubs offer him a VERY lucrative extension of 14….. FOURTEEN years and $400M. That means they can buy him out after they’ve paid him $300M of that deal. The structure of the deal would be as follows.
Age/year
27/2019: $38M
28/2020: $38M
29/2021: $38M
30/2022: $38M
31/2023: $30M
32/2024: $30M
33/2025: $30M
34/2026: $30M
35/2027: $28M (team has paid $300M… can buy him out for set value agreed upon)
36/2028: $25M
37/2029: $24M
38/2030: $20M
39/2031: $16M
40/2032: $15M
I believe that adds up to $400M. It’s insane to think about such a massive and long term deal, but again, it’s not too insane when you consider Stanton signed a 12 year $325M deal a few years ago already. And while right now it may still seem insane to pay a 35+ year old north of $20M and a 40 year old $15M, by the time those years roll around those dollar amounts will be nothing by comparison to the rest of the league assuming salaries continue their insane, skyrocketing trend. In 2008 the average MLB salary was $3M just about. In 2017 it was $4M, a 33% increase. Considering a “good” outfielder (for example) today makes, let’s say $15M/season, that means in 2027-2028 (another decade) that same “good” outfielder will be making about $20M assuming the trend continues at the same pace. So $28M in 2027 and $25M in 2028 for Bryant isn’t as crazy as it may seem. Not nearly as insane as Pujols making $27M in 2018 to be a .240-.250 hitter with .310 OBP is. 1Bmen in the middle of the pack salary-wise make about $12-13M in 2018. If Pujols was making $17-18M his deal wouldn’t feel/look as awful as it is now would it. Still bad, but doable. If Pujols was making $17-18M today it will be the equivalent of Bryant making $28 or $25M in 2027/2028.
THIS is the only way I can see these monster deals continue their existence. They just need to make logical sense….. pay a player a premium when he’s in his prime, and less when he’s old and washed up….. logic. I’d also toss out the concept of “no-trade” clauses, but that might be asking “too much”……. even though I’m willing to hypothetically cough up $400M there is a line… I guess.
And despite all this, players need to come to the realization that they get the privilege to play a game for a living, and a lucrative one at that…… even the bench players making the “paltry” league minimum of over half a million a year. Why you see guys holding out for more money like Arrieta and Darvish, who have really short resumes of successful years under their belt, is crazy to me. Arrieta thinking he’s worth $200+M…. he should be thrilled if any team offers him more than $100M IMO. Not just because it’s a lot of money and I’m some peon drooling over 9 figures, but because $100M for a guy with VERY little success in his career is an absurd amount of money. A lot of these free agents need reality checks. Are Darvish and arrieta worth $20+M a season….. sure. If it’s on AT MOST a 4 year deal. If they want that 6 year or longer deal expect the AAV to be right at that $20M mark if not below it. Arrieta’s performance has returned to earth and has been more mediocre the last two years. Darvish has an injury laden history, and honestly only about 2 true Ace-like seasons under his belt….. $20M for either of that production is insane to me. Then Cobb thinking he’s worth $20M/yr or at least close to it is completely asinine. The guy is 30 years old and has yet to have a season of 30+ starts on his resume….. and hasn’t even pitched 200 innings in the last 3 years….. COMBINED.
Backloading makes sense if you separate yourself from the emotional standpoint you’re taking and look at it as a financially competent person. 30M today is worth more than $30M six years from now. Backloading is something that teams want bc it saves them money.
That was a long post! However, your points are spot on. Pujols has zero incentive to stay in shape or work on his craft. Compare that to Tom Brady, who knows he could be cut any season. Brady, as crazy as some think he is, knows he has to work out and watch what he eats if he wants to stay in the NFL. Pujols can end up looking like Jabba the Hut and still make his $30M a year.
The other thing to consider on long-term contracts, is what are the next TV agreements going to look like? One of the biggest reasons for the uptick in salaries has been the massive TV deals. I just can’t see the TV deals being what they are today in the future. With so many people ‘cutting the cord’ and moving to the likes of Netflix, I see TV ratings going down for the foreseeable future. That could impact salaries more than anything that is placed in the next collective bargaining agreement.
Wouldn’t the bigger problem be then that contracts are guaranteed? Teams investing 100M in a player who loses all drive/incentive to play once ink dries would totally be a big character flaw.
Only thing I really disagree on is the player opt outs. Most people think these are horrible for the team when in fact they’re usually good. If a player opts out it means you got a productive season out of the player and your now out of the long term investment.
The problem stems from the fact that there’s really No Upside for the team. It’s really a “No-Win” situation, for the most part.
They could back-load the contract so much that they save a Ton of Money by the player exercising his opt-out. But if they do that, it makes an opt-out less likely…..because the player may not be able to get More Money somewhere else. If they front-load it, the player will most likely opt-out.
It’s basically this scenario…..
“If the players has a few excellent years, they will definitely opt-out”….and the team loses the production of a very good player.
“If the player doesn’t perform well, they WON’T opt-out….and the Team is STUCK with their contract for mediocre production (see: Chicago Cubs – Jason Heyward)
The answer probably lies somewhere near “signing a contract that has a Dual opt-out”, where each has the option of continuing, and the Player gets a buyout if the Team says “No Thanks” (a significant one, obviously).
Again it’s not bad for the team. If a guy opts out even if the salary is the same aav all 5 years. Means you got a super productive deal out of the player. He gives up guaranteed money but because he had a massive year and he might get more guaranteed money. Sure the team loses a productive player but now they can reinvest that money elsewhere. They might have a prospect ready to take over and now the team gets younger and improves. There’s a myth on here opt outs are terrible for the team when in reality if the player opts out its 9/10 good for the team let someone else sign him even longer for more money for seasons the team doesn’t want the player for 35,3637,38 aged seasons.
Thank you Brandon Moss!
Moss will be assisting A’s front man Billy Beane before we know it…
The old iteration of CBA that used the Elias rankings was actually much looser in draft pick compensation.
It only looks stiffer because there were two ways to lose draft picks, hoever, in practice it was much different.
Just as easily as it was to lose a draft pick, it was just as easy to gain a draft pick.
I still remember the days of 2010 – 2012 when the Blue Jays were regularly taking 7 to 8 of the first 120 picks. Also Tampa Bay had a super draft back in 2011 when the took 10 of the first 60 picks. St. Louis also did quite well when they took 7 of the first 120 picks in 2012.
Stuff like that completely eliminated when the CBA changed.
If anything, if the current iteration of draft pick compensation was changed to be more like the old Type B compensation (ie. draft picks did not directly come from the signee’s expense), then I’d wager that the issue with draft picks will completely disappear.
My take on all of this are the owner’s are simply trying to protect their profits.
The players have to collectively agree that bad contracts to several players hurts the entire league.
8 year contracts will continue to destroy this league. The max should be 5. They should also have a base salary with the rest based on performance. including language that eliminates an owner forcing a Manager to sit a player whose close to a large performance payout.
Eliminate the arbitration process. This favors the owners way too much and creates the bubble if the player is peaking when he becomes a free agent.
Minimum and maximum teams salaries have to occur. This large market BS kills this game.
I disagree on arbitrarily setting a limit on contract length – that’s anti-capitalist and anti-free market.
I just think that for the players to whine about an FA market they helped create, and the lack of teams willing to give them contracts that are as long as they want is a bit ignorant and disingenuous.
Players need to recognize that the crappy(for teams), big contracts that they have been able to get in the past are hampering some teams’ ability to go after FA’s this offseason. As I’ve mentioned here before, if the Yankees didn’t have the Ellsbury albatross on their books they might be competing for Darvish or Arrieta.
Ditto the Dodgers with the Kemp deal.
Teams have figured out that these long-term deals are really high risk (low success rate) and are not willing to take the long term risk anymore – at least on these players.
It will be interesting to see who caves first.
Dave you literally contradict yourself several times
Good points all around by moss. Combine this with teams tanking and more yo yhe point that fans actually want their teams to tank and you have the cause.
Jansen’s comment shows his arrogance