2:05pm: The union has issued a statement regarding a potential spring boycott, saying (via Rosenthal): “Recent press reports have erroneously suggested that the Players Association has threatened a ‘boycott’ of spring training. Those reports are false. No such threat has been made, nor has the union recommended such a course of action.”
1:35pm: Backing up an earlier report from Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic, Buster Olney of ESPN tweets that, as a result of the lack of activity in free agency, players discussed boycotting spring training during a conference call last week. However, “it is not currently an option under any serious consideration,” he hears.
Olney delves further into the players’ growing dissatisfaction in a piece suggesting 12 questions they should ask their leader, Tony Clark. The MLBPA executive director and a few agents have voiced their displeasure with the slow offseason this week, but other representatives only saw those as empty threats.
“Short-sighted,” one agent told Olney. “Impetuous,” said another.
Olney goes on to express skepticism that MLB teams are colluding against free agents, pointing out that several relievers and Lorenzo Cain have done quite well on the market. He also notes that big offers are on the table for Eric Hosmer and Yu Darvish. The players seem to think something sinister is at play on the owners’ part, thus leading to the talk of a spring boycott, but Olney relays that there are differing opinions. In fact, there are some players and agents who think holding out from camp “would lead to another disaster,” he writes.
Commissioner Rob Manfred himself addressed this year’s inactive market earlier this week, saying (via Jerry Crasnick of ESPN): “Every [free-agent] market is different. There’s different players, different quality of players, different GMs, different decisions, a new basic agreement, different agents who had particular prominence in a particular market in terms of who they represent. Those factors, and probably others that I can’t tick off the top of my head, have combined to produce a particular market this year. Just like there’s been some markets where the lid got blown off in terms of player salary growth, occasionally you’re going to have some that are not quite as robust.”
There are indeed several potential factors at play; one, according to Blue Jays general manager Ross Atkins (via Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports), is that “teams are valuing players in a similar way.” Atkins added that “the aging curve has potentially been overcompensated in the past. That seems to be correcting a bit.”
Beyond that, Passan mentions that there are fewer teams than usual chasing free agents because as many as a dozen are either “tanking, not competing or crying poor.” The $197MM competitive balance tax threshold, which the union agreed to when it negotiated the current collective bargaining agreement a year ago, has also contributed to the players’ problems because it has helped prevent normally big-spending teams such as the Dodgers, Yankees and Giants from participating in free agency.
Still, top-tier free agents like Hosmer, Darvish and J.D. Martinez will eventually “get paid,” a league official told Passan. But that same official is unsure of the futures of mid- to lower-tier free agents, saying that “even if you took away the CBT changes, most of these guys wouldn’t have jobs,” in part because “there are a lot of smart GMs, and they aren’t gonna overpay guys.”
Unfortunately for the players, there’s concern that what’s happening this offseason may repeat itself on a bigger scale next year, when free agency could feature the likes of Clayton Kershaw, Manny Machado, Bryce Harper, Josh Donaldson, Charlie Blackmon, Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel, among other household names. Overall, the 2018-19 class may be a bloated group of players if some of this winter’s stragglers are unable to find multiyear contracts, Passan observes. The premier players available should fare well, especially considering teams avoiding the CBT this year may not have the same motivation next winter, but “when 85 percent of the money goes to 15 percent of the players, 85 percent of the players are going to hear, ‘I don’t have the money,'” an agent told Passan.
Should what we’re seeing now emerge as a new trend for free agency, it could lead to an increase in team-friendly contract extensions for young players who are fearful of encountering low interest on the market, another agent suggested to Passan.
“That scares the [expletive] out of me,” the agent said. “One of my clients a few days ago said, ‘Why do I want to go to free agency if it’s going to be like this?’ We’re losing the messaging war.”
With the CBA set to run until December 2021, the present setup is in line to last for the next few years. That may be a bleak reality for the union, though there’s hope that the players will take this opportunity to band together on important issues and truly find out whether Clark is a capable leader.
A source on the players’ side declared to Passan that “the owners have to realize they’re about to jeopardize an unbelievably good thing. If they don’t recognize it, they don’t see where this is going. Everybody’s going to be in unison. And we’re all going to walk right off the cliff together.”
They won’t walk off a cliff to a spring boycott, however, as Passan tweets that an organized strike would lead to the league filing an injunction against them. The players would then have to return to work, and it’s also possible they’d have to pay damages. Union lawyers have warned them of those consequences, Passan adds.
fasbal1
If the MLB players decide to boycott spring training, it would only be right that fans would boycott them
MikeTrout
How would that work?
michaelw
Don’t go to the games. Simple
BlueSkyLA
Which would amount to boycotting the owners. Try again!
baumer16
And if the owners lose money guess who then loses money….
Ryan W
Everyone.
One Fan
Which also goes to boycotting the players
Pedro Cerrano's Voodoo
Agreed. I would not watch or attend games, nor purchase paraphernalia. Over paid babies. The biggest names have reasonable offers on the table in front of them yet they’re demanding more and screaming collusion? 25 /year for 5 years is unfair JDM? GTFO
Pablo
Dude, the owners are making billions to sit in offices and do nothing. Players work out all day long and are on strict diets without enjoying simple pleasures like a stiff drink or good cigar. They do all the work and should get a slice.
If you knew your employer was making ten fold of what you’re paid just off your work while doing nothing but signing your paycheck, you wouldn’t think it was fair either. If you do I got a great business for you, for every hundred dollars you earn we’ll deposit it in my account and I’ll write you a check for $10. Any you better not whine about it you overpaid baby.
ttinsley1434
He started the business. He did all the work to get the money to buy the business. That is pure socialism! This is America, if you want to be an owner, Work for it.
chesteraarthur
This is such a terrible understanding of what owners do…
BlueSkyLA
Might be overstated but it is not inherently wrong. This dispute is entirely about how the revenue from the game is divvied up between owners and players. The balance has tipped heavily towards ownership in the last few years due to the current CBA. The players are unhappy about that. Huge shock.
So with their increasingly large take from the game, why are the owners never called “overpaid crybabies?” Is it because how much they make from the game is totally secret and what the player’s are paid is made very public?
Could be, sports fans.
jekporkins
@BlueSkyLA… Well the owners have all the risk. They pay the salaries. They employ a ton more people than just the ballplayers. They pay for the flights, food, negotiate tv deals, radio deals, They spent billions to purchase a team. They do get criticized like crazy (Nutting, Loria, Steinbrenner, etc), so I don’t know where you’re going with your ‘overpaid crybabies’ comment.
I said it before – this is a business. The owner of a business always makes a ton more than an employee. Bill Gates made a gazillion dollars but probably didn’t do a lot of programming on Windows. I’m sure the developers were well compensated, but Bill didn’t have to share revenue with them.
I work for a company and I get paid market value for my services. If I don’t like it I go work for another company that will pay what I feel is a fair offer. I can’t go up to the CEO and say “How much do you make because I should make X percentage of that.”
How much a team makes is very public, by the way. You can probably extrapolate how much they make through that.
Frankly, I don’t feel a bit sorry for the players. They are the lucky few who get paid a lot of money to play a game and be idolized, with guaranteed contracts that shovel millions into their pockets and get treated like kings whether they actually step on the field or not. When a player ‘s agent cries collusion because their player is in their thirties, perpetually injured, can’t field a lick, can’t steal a base, but can play a mean DH, but still want more than 5 years at $25 million dollars a year, I do think they are overpaid crybabies. When Darvish wants $150 million or more and is really not much better than a #3 starter, I shake my head.
I read a blog yesterday that showed Edwin Encarnacion got 3 years/$60 million and his average numbers were quite comparable to Martinez, yet Martinez wants more than twice that.
outinleftfield
You are partially right. Here is what all the pro-owners group miss. Without the players, there is no game. Without the monopolistic cabal of owners, there is just someone else who steps up and starts a league.
Remember, none of these owners paid for their stadiums. We did. The taxpayers. All you need for baseball to happen is a place to play and players. Not owners. I would go to Boshamer Stadium to watch major league baseball if the current cabal of major league owners continues to shortchange the players of the revenue they create.
outinleftfield
Bull. The owners got you and me to pay for their ballpark and the players to do all the work. That is called feudalism.
chesteraarthur
If its that easy to just start up a team/league, then why don’t they?
outinleftfield
The owners have little risk. Taxpayers build the ballparks and maintain them.
The players are the entertainment. Without the players there is no game.
Encarnacion was 34 when he got a 3/50 deal with an option for a 4th season and his numbers are nowhere near JDM who will be 30 in 2018. .303/.376/.690/1.066 vs .263/.357/.529/.886. Encarnacion was not even in the same stratosphere. Since both are DH’s at this point, the only thing that matters is offense.
Facts are not on your side of this discussion. Try actually looking at them before you post what other commenters have said.
BlueSkyLA
Yeah, when I read these comments I have to wonder if any fans actually go to games to watch the owners own. Let’s see another slo-mo of the board meeting from a different angle.
I guess what they don’t realize is, baseball is a congressionally authorized monopoly. For decades MLB used that monopoly to run the game like plantation. They could collude with each other to keep player wages down with complete impunity. They had the Reserve Clause to keep players locked into their contracts essentially for their entire careers.
When the Reserve Clause was busted the owners had to deal with the union. And that meant the owners had to share more of what we pay to watch the game with the players who play the game. So they get into disputes about that.
Shock and horror. Or so you think from reading all pro-owner blather on these boards.
Sharocko
Just because people are not for the players and their plight for getting what they believe is “fair”…doesn’t mean we’re on the owners side either. As others have said it’s multi-millionaires vs multi-millionaires (or billionaires)…not many are going to be able to relate for what these athletes and their agents are holding out for. At the same time, when you see teams stuck with deals like Kemp, Ellsbury, Fielder, Heyward, and ARod in the past…how can anyone truly say that long bigtime contracts actually end up being their worth?
Thats not saying anything about people being on the owners side as much as saying…players/agents in the past (during ARod era) maybe just truly overvalued themselves. Now that teams are realizing how much they could end up handcuffing a future budget…maybe teams are not so anxious to dish them out. Btw, these guys aren’t getting paid peanuts…they’re getting deals that are in top 1%…so most 99%ers aren’t going to be sympathetic to their plight for more money…because when is enough…enough?
You’re right…that most of these athletes are working hard day in and out to become the best they can…but you also have to remember that it’s a career they choose for themselves…nobody made him choose that career. The smart ones bust hump harder then the average ones just to hopefully stand out more and will end up getting a bigger slice if they do end up producing better numbers. But again at what point is enough….enough?
Using another job analogy…wouldn’t it be great if ya knew that if you got hurt at your job that no matter what…you were still going to get paid by your job? While that works in the MLB world…everywhere else that injured person is potentially in a serious world of hurt and could possibly stand to lose some of his/her assets. My point is, these players get very fair deals compared to the majority work force and have much better benefits. So the majority of people who hear them squabbling about money and benefits that could set them up for life (even the league minimum salary players) …aren’t going to be on the MLB players side…but that doesn’t mean we’re on the owners side either ( that just means it’s a separate issue altogether.)
majorflaw
“ . . . wouldn’t it be great if ya knew that if you got hurt at your job that no matter what…you were still going to get paid by your job?”
You mean like Worker’s Comp? Been around for years. Many, many people are covered by Worker’s Comp. Handling Worker’s Comp claims is an entire sub-industry on both sides. And, one could do better under Worker’s Comp than under MLB’s system.
Take Michael Piñeda as an example. His 2017 was interrupted by TJ surgery, which he will continue to recover from in 2018 and perhaps beyond. The Yanquis did pay him his full salary for 2017 but once the season was over they wished him ‘Bon Voyage’, non-tendered him and sent him on his way.
While Piñeda has signed a contract with a new team which will pay him while he recovers that isn’t close to the ‘guaranteed payment by your job’ you touted. Theoretically, Piñeda could have found himself out of luck, out of work and trying to recover on his own dime. Doesn’t seem right or fair when the injury he suffered was obviously related to his job chucking baseballs in the South Bronx.
KnicksCavsFan
Wow…..i can assume you’ve never owned your own business. You can’t have a system where salaries inverse every year simpler because you use the argument of “well this guy got $20 mil and I’m about 75% of the player he is so I should get no less than 75% of his deal. There’s a tipping point. It’s not my money and yes the owners are billionaires, but the day is here where you have players basing their asking price of of war Arod and Stanton received. Are Harper and Machado REALLY deserving of upwards of $35 mil?? Look at how great the contracts of Arod and Stanton signed? When the original teams that issued those deals felt the hurt and regret to their flexibility to improve the team elsewhere, what happened? 2-4 years into those deals they made efforts to move those contracts. And who did they turn to? The very few teams equipped to absorb those contracts (Yanks, Red Sox, Giants, Dodgers) other teams may have been interested but I’m sure they would’ve had to shed salary someplace else. As a Yanks fan is be mite than happy if they avoided Machado, Harper and Kershaw. Just can’t see those deals ending well. Yanks have had to eat several mediocre to bad to injury plagued seasons on long term contracts for Tex, Arod, Giambi and to an extent CC. How guys like Boras can express wonderment and scorn tiara reluctant owners ergo don’t want to offer iffy guys like JD, Hosmer, etc can simply look at the Ellsbury, Werth, Fielder, Arod and Tex to understand why there’s pause to go beyond 5 or 6 years and $20-$25 mil for his clients this season.
Front office oldies are gone. No more paying top dollar for your 36, 37 or 38 age season based off of what you did at age 30. There’s better analytics available. There’s better data on when declines tend to begin. They don’t just look at counting starts like hrs and ribs. Agents and players must adjust to what’s going on. If Boras didn’t press his clients to go to FA did often then some of these guys would get their big money at a younger age andv still be able to get a second, more modest contract, as they enter their 30s.
KnicksCavsFan
Jeez…pardon typo. Not allowed to edit on standardise and I failed to proof read. Hope it made sense and wasn’t unreadable.
fox471 Dave
Yep!
badco44
Gotta agree, you want to be an owner, buy your own team and stop the cry baby routine already!
badco44
Bingo…. what would happen if they got paid yearly by there accomplishments the previous year… wouldn’t that be fairer then Pablo affair that got him millions to show up over weight and take advantage?
Ichiro51
I highly doubtful that the just sit and do nothing. You have no idea what they do and you no proof of that. if you assume that, that is the case. Then it is safe to say you think anyone in the organization does nothing except for the players because you see them on television. GM and owners do work hard, they are not athletes but they do have a job and they need to show results to other people.
Pablo
I’ve never owned a business, but I’ve run businesses and managed the books. Year to year we’d run 5 – 15% profit which is great considering how much that actually came out to be. Labor was a minor point. And if someone made to much they had to go. Thing is we can’t get our land funded by tax players. I can’t sell my workers image for millions. I can’t tell people who paid good money for my product to watch ads before they get it. I can’t opt out of hiring my employee without paying unemployment. I can’t rework my businesses to make it seem like I’m losing money when really I placed it somewhere else to make more money and get a tax break. But not being a billionaire, I can only run one business or at most a few. The list is so much longer.
I don’t side with players, Scott boras, but especially not the owners. Saying small market is insane. It’s not like there is a team in Minot ND. These are teams in the biggest cities in America. HOU is the 4th largest tv market and they still hide behind it.
Us fans pay the money and need to see a better return this offseason and deserve to see “small market” teams going all in not just meddling to make a playoff run for a few years only to go into another rebuild. I wanna See teams make World Series runs. Not aim to make wild card.
KnicksCavsFan
J.d was a 3.8 this year. Encarnacion was a 2.5. Not a significant difference when EE signs for 3/50 and J’D, who is injury prone, is asking for $200 mil. EE is a MUCH more desirable deal because his average salary isn’t absurd and the risk is mitigated because it’s only a 3 year deal.
Owners have little risk??? Are you serious? Mlb is the only sport where contracts are completely guaranteed. Since steroid testing has been enforced very few stars have agreed well past their 33-34 age seasons. There’s tons of risk. Cashman has done an exceptional job DESPITE not getting a total of about 8 WAR from Tanaka, Sabathia, Ellsbury, Holiday and Headley whose contracts totaled about $93 mil or roughly half of the Yanks total 2017 salary. In comparison to the roughly $21 mil they spent on Judge, Sanchez, Severino, Hicks, Montgomery, Green, Betances and Castro who contributed about 35 WAR. As soon as players and agents understand that owners are getting less value in return for higher payroll allotted to age 30+ players then the sooner the two sides can settle on a remedy that’s equitable for all.
KnicksCavsFan
dude…. that was decades ago. you have players that, rightfully so, show no loyalty to their first teams a and go on you sign contracts with hundreds of millions. no mlb player, including the 24th or 25th guy on the roster are working part- time jobs during the off-season. Please stop.
Sharocko
That’s the risk of any MLB athlete…from pitcher, infielder, outfielder, to catcher…and some will recover while others won’t. MLB players and agents will still not get most people to be sympathetic to wanting guaranteed big long contracts…it just doesn’t make any sense. MLB players in the past didn’t have the technology that today’s player have… yet they still played to their capabilities and made an honest living of it. As long as employed by an MLB or minor league team, today’s player has newer better technology to help them on their way through recovery. It doesn’t mean they come back…it just means they get another chance.
Workers comp. vs vested MLB salaries is apples to oranges. Depending if your job has workers comp, FMLA with pay, or Short/Long term disability…you don’t get the full pay you would if you were actually working. You also don’t necessarily have state of the art rehab centers working to get you back.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get the most money for your livelihood…but once the market has been dictated (which it looks like it has)…it’s time to act like you really want to be employed. MLB players are on notice whether they want to be or not.
Pablo
There is insurance for all the injuries. Whenever a big contract is signed an insurance contract is signed right along with it. Yankees were happy when Arod went down because they could spend his money elsewhere for the season.
The moment a contract is signed jerseys are made. Seats are sold. Ads are sold. Money is made. Do you know how much Stanton gear is already circulating NY. Theyd make money on him this year even if he didn’t take the field.
claude raymond
Taxpayers didn’t pay for att park
jekporkins
Here’s what I read verbatim:
“Player A: 145 games, .272/.367/.544, 146 wRC+, 39 HR, 12.5% BB, 15.1% Ks
Player B: 130 games, .300/.362/.574, 148 wRC+, 32 HR, 8.6% BB, 26.1% Ks
Which of those players would you prefer? Each of those lines carries advantages over the other, but both are great and the bottom line is that they’re fairly similar.
Player B is the annual average of J.D. Martinez from 2014-17, beginning with his first breakout with the Tigers. He’s averaged 3.8 bWAR per year over that span, and slightly less by fWAR. That 130-game average is deceiving too, as he’s only actually reached that mark once in his entire MLB career; his second-highest total is 123 games, and it didn’t come last year (119).
Player A is the annual average of Edwin Encarnacion from 2012-2016, which encompasses his monster run with the Blue Jays. It was an incredible stretch, worth 4.2 bWAR per year, and only once did he fail to play 140 games — one time he only managed 128, which would still be the second-most of Martinez’s career.
So what’s the problem? Encarnacion is a superstar hitter, and Martinez has him matched. The thing is, Encarnacion was a free agent himself last winter, immediately after putting up that five-year stretch, and he only got 3/$60M to play for the Indians. It turns out that the sport is flooded with power hitters who don’t provide defensive value, and so the demand for that service (and thus its price) is lower than it used to be — MLBTR had estimated 4/$92M for Edwin.
Martinez has received an offer of 5/$125M from the Red Sox, according to Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald. He turned it down. That is fully twice what Encarnacion got just last winter, and dingers have only gotten less valuable since then. Granted, Encarnacion was several years older when he hit the open market, but does that matter? He’s still been more durable in his 30s than Martinez was in his 20s, and EE was coming off a year of 160 games and 42 dingers last winter. Martinez isn’t yet a full-time DH but he should be in 2018 and beyond, because his defensive metrics are atrocious.
Martinez is an injury-prone DH who wants to be paid like a full-time outfield superstar. He’s looking for the $200 million range, according to Jon Heyman. The problem isn’t the owners or the market. He simply isn’t as valuable as he thinks he is, and he’s already turned down a chance for a massive overpay.”
czontixhldr
Why is it, when you use stats, you only cite the last year before a guy becomes an FA?
Does the rest of his career not matter?
Do you really think FOs are stupid enough to hand a 7 year contract to someone based on just the most recent season of performance?
Also, why don’t you site the number of games they actually play? Encarnacion actually manages to stay on the field every season a whole lot more than the frail JDM. That in and of itself provides tons more value – you know, actually doing what he’s supposed to do to get paid. The inability to stay on the field even in his 20’s makes JDM a much riskier sign than Encarnacion.
You are very selective and disingenuous with your use of statistics. You tried it before on this board with Hosmer using only his most recent year of fWAR.
You obviously think your audience here is too stupid and ignorant to figure out what you’re purveying.
The reality is you only cost yourself credibility in trying to pawn off career years as forward expectations.
majorflaw
“So what’s the problem? Encarnacion is a superstar hitter, and Martinez has him matched.”
Teams don’t in theory pay players for what they’ve done in the past but rather for what they are projected to do in the future. As you note, JDM is five years younger than Encarnacion was when the latter was a FA.
“ . . . but does that matter?”
You can’t be serious. Of course it matters. A lot. Much greater chance that the player who is thirty five will see his production suddenly fall off a cliff than the player who is thirty. Even if the older player is better, objectively speaking.
“ . . . he’s already turned down a chance for a massive overpay.”
A service, just like any other commercial good, is worth what another is willing to pay for it. If one team out there is willing to sign a player for a given amount—that’s what the player is worth. Who are you to decide that he’s being unreasonable? It’s not your money and it’s not your career.
jaysfan1994
We pay to see a good product people, having AAA players on a MLB roster isn’t fun to watch. Does anyone pay money to watch Arte Moreno over Mike Trout?
Fans want to see an exciting product where teams are paying to bring in exciting good established players. The comments in here are revolting, totally making me believe some people are being paid to comment how pro Billionaire owner they are.
czontixhldr
“Fans want to see an exciting product where teams are paying to bring in exciting good established players.”
You should have ended the sentence at the word “product”.. whether the players are “well established” is irrelevant to me as a fan.
“The comments in here are revolting, totally making me believe some people are being paid to comment how pro Billionaire owner they are.”
The comments in here are revolting, totally making me believe some people are being paid to comment how pro millionaire agent they are.
FTFY.
stormie
Why is revenue always cited as some sort of baseline as to what players supposedly deserve? Revenue means very little in and of itself. The real question should be how much profit are teams making and do players deserve a bigger cut of it? And the reality is that player salaries already dwarf the profit that teams take home, so no, they really don’t deserve more.
czontixhldr
“If you knew your employer was making ten fold of what you’re paid just off your work while doing nothing but signing your paycheck, you wouldn’t think it was fair either.”
Actually, no. I’m rational enough to understand market economics and understand that the owners in businesses make most of the money. That’s the way capitalism works – it’s one of the benefits of ownership.
No one would risk their money buying any business if there wasn’t more of a reward in it than being a mere employee.
If the MLB owners suddenly figure out a way to double their revenues in two years, that doesn’t mean that the players magically “deserve” a piece of it. The players would be doing the same thing they always do – nothing else – and it would be the owners’ ingenuity, not the players, that figured out how to generate the additional revenue.
This idea that some here have that the players deserve some arbitrary percentage of revenue, and that anything else is unfair is laughable. That’s not the way business works.
Players “deserve” whatever they can negotiate through collective bargaining and their contracts – whether it’s 10% of the revenue or 90% (yes, if they can negotiate 90% they’ll deserve it, and the owners would have agreed to it).
That’s the way that the business of collective bargaining and contract negotiations work.
But the abject whining about players not being offered what they think they’re worth – when they have multi-million dollar offers on the table – is crocodile tears.
If they don’t like the offers they can sit home or go find another profession. No one is forcing them to sign.
jaysfan1994
Yes, because it’s one thing people pay to see it’s the owner of a team who blows it up every 2 years like Jeffery Loria.
Great owner there, meanwhile a guy like Mike Ilitch paid lots to bring in talent every year, it didn’t always work but it was nice to see a billionaire try to make the product enjoyable.
jaysfan1994
lol you’re totally being paid to say this dude, the go find another job stuff is straight out of an owners mouth.
Why don’t you just say it “I’m representing one of the 30 billionaire owners who hates the players making as much as they do!”
Trying to sway public opinion on a website huh? Hilarious!
majorflaw
“ . . . the reality is that player salaries already dwarf the profits that teams take home, . . . “
Got a link which supports that alleged statement of fact? Not sure how you could compare the two as no owner reveals what their profits are. And when calculating owner profits make sure you include local and national teevee revenue as well as the team’s cut from the mlb internet package (subscription required and highly recommended) and any sums which were used to pay debt service on the owner’s A) purchase of the team, B) construction of a stadium, C) purchase/setup of its own teevee station, or any similar non-operating expense.
Also, please note that you are comparing owner’s net to player’s gross—which itself is misleading. If you are looking at what the owner takes home then be fair and compare it to what the player takes home after he pays his agent and taxes.
“ . . . they really don’t deserve more.”
Isn’t that for the free agency market to decide rather than um, you? Does anybody really “deserve” more or do they just take advantage of favorable market conditions?
czontixhldr
No, actually I’m a Russian bot.
You’re funny too.
Someone posts an opinion, and rather than take on the substance of the post you make childish accusations.
When you’re ready to respond with substance intead of cliches and strawmen, get back to me.
iverbure
Pablo what you are arguing against is capitalism. And that’s ok. But instead of commenting on here you need to delete this account and campaign for Bernie Sanders door to door or move to Sweden. You don’t have time to be on a baseball site arguing for millionaires.
iverbure
Outinleftfield without the players there is no game? Oh really? You think all these guys would leave the game if they weren’t getting paid millions. Even if they made a rule that no player would get paid more than a million I’m quite positive all the guys in the minor leagues would still play. This notion if these players don’t play there’s no game is dumb, there’s 1000s it guy who will replace them
iverbure
@bluesky we get you don’t like capitalism again like I told you before move to Sweden.
If the current crop of players don’t want to play for millions they’re easily replaceable there’s 1000s of players who are willing to play for much much much much less
BlueSkyLA
It’s an internet cliche by now, but it has to be said: you really, really, really do have major reading comprehension issues.
jagonza
FYI. Players are covered by workmans comp. all those Tommy John surgeries are paid by workmans comp. yep, multimillionaire athletes are covered by workmans comp
iverbure
@bluesky that’s a roundabout way of saying you know what Iverbure your right and much more knowledgeable on this situation then me.
dimitriinla
If they boycott spring training it also ensures substandard preparation for the upcoming season—which works against their belief (utterly mistaken) that they are worth more than they’re getting paid.
albearrrr
Agreed. This hole free agency freeze is completely the fault of the mediocre players seeking top tier contracts and their agents..
The offers are there. They choose not to take them..
Ookashfah
The solution isn’t to give the players a bigger piece of the pie. The solution is to make the pie smaller. Make baseball games affordable again.
justin-turner overdrive
So you want them to stop making….money?
Yeah, not happening.
Another thing a lot of people are overlooking, A player who “makes” $34M a year, only takes home about $15M, after taxes, agent fees, escrow etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous to have an owner that makes many times more than the players who play the game. Spread the wealth, raise the luxury tax.
Ookashfah
Your point would be valid if the problem was too little money. But the problem is actually too much money. Baseball and other sports should become non-profit organizations setup by the government where all profit goes to good causes such as healthcare and world hunger. All the players will get paid but max out at 5 million a year. That’s more than enough compensation for someone who plays baseball for a living.
JrodFunk5
Agree!
JohnnyMcStickySubstance
Sounds like theft.
dimitriinla
Hey there’s a terrific socialist solution; turn the problem over to a government monopoly and redistribute wealth. Don’t they still do that in a few countries? 😉
fmj
this is the dumbest “solution” I’ve heard. in no way does anything you said make any level of sense. government control is NEVER the answer.
cspera77
Give me socialism over capitalism any day of the week. I would fight a civil war to get rid of capitalism in the US. Oh, and there needs to be a salary cap and floor end of story
fmj
cspera77… Lol you’ll lose. go ahead. try it.
Mattimeo09
You’d actually join a military recruitment center and be a soldier in a civil war for socialism? Or would you contribute by continuing to type anti-capitalist comments? Let’s be real here
KnicksCavsFan
They have that in the NBA and that results in bad teams that are rebuilding giving ridiculous and immediately regrettable contracts to non-superstars. Mike Connely, Timofey Mozgov, etc. At least in the mlb teams have more ways to rebuild their talent vs the NBA where they only have two draft rounds, restrictive FA and a trade system that requires you to move salary out to offset the new salary coming in. Would be an interesting idea but you really can’t simply go by the NBA or NFL business models. Would definitely require the mlbpa to give something back to the owners.
fox471 Dave
Irony much?
williemaysfield
That’s hilarious! Is there a more poorly run organization than the government. 90% of the revenue would stuck in operational fees.
bkfansler2
Owners are there to make money. It is a business. They invest in players. I’m not buying a stock just hoping to break even. I’m investing to make money.
wscaddie56
MLB is a government sponsored monopoly via anti trust exemption.
MLB teams accept hand outs from the government to build their stadiums.
That’s not what I would consider a business, it’s a publicly sponsored cartel.
I’ll just keep posting this until people understand.
justin-turner overdrive
lit
notsofast
Finally someone who gets it! Nicely put wscaddie and hats off to a little critical thinking…
cspera77
They shouldn’t be. Buying a team should be akin to buying a Ferrari. Something you buy for fun, not as an investment. Only people who are willing to lose millions to win should own teams
66TheNumberOfTheBest
“Only people who are willing to lose millions to win should own teams”.
…why?
sfgiants49ers
The city where the team belongs pays an amount of the stadium when its buitl. And the money the city puts in is tax payer money. Owners decide if they want to move the team not the city. The City should get compesated on some of that money. As for the players they want more money then what they are being offered.
We as fans are the ones who make the team famous by putting on the logos that the team wears. The more your persuaded of seeing the logo, the more often the logo will be embedded in your head. Then at one point you buy in the idea of following the team of your hometown. Your team does good, everyone talks about it. Sports are events made for us to follow and buy in. Everything is a business when money is involved.
fox471 Dave
Please don’t!
Nuggethoarder
Not really. The players assume zero risk with guaranteed contracts. Owners, if they manage their business incorrectly, can actually lose money.
Running a professional baseball organization (not team) is a pretty complex business, and requires a huge investment that is not risk-free. You can argue that the players deserve more money. But you can also argue that the player’s skill has zero economic value without the investment made by the owners to make professional baseball a hugely profitable business. Without that, the superstars are just great athletes without a marketable skill.
Hoostino
Well said! Player’s Agents get on my nerves. Boras, for example, is a leech. Does his “job” well, but is still nothing more than a leech. I’ve always wondered why Boras doesn’t buy a team. I guess it is easier to take from others’ revenues than to actually produce revenues.
majorflaw
“Boras, for example, is a leech.”
Um, who negotiates contracts on behalf of mlb teams, highly skilled and experienced baseball executives—several of whom are themselves lawyers—or the team’s bullpen coach?
You want some player who was signed out of high school and/or isn’t fluent in English, to negotiate his contract directly with Theo Epstein and Sandy Alderson types? That doesn’t sound particularly fair. If owners can tell the player who can negotiate for him shouldn’t the player be able to tell the owner that they want the team’s bullpen coach negotiating on behalf of the team?
As long as owners remain the greedy children of unwed parents they have historically been there will always be a need—and a demand—for Scott Boras and others with similar skills.
“Player’s Agents get on my nerves.”
Players should appreciate the opportunity they’ve been given to play mlb and any compensation they receive is found money, huh? You’re only off by a half century or so.
“ . . . it is easier to take from others’ revenues than to actually produce revenues.”
Whose “revenues” has Boras taken? He isn’t taking the owner’s “revenues”, the owner agreed to pay the player a certain amount and the player pays the agent a percentage from that amount.
Boras isn’t taking the player’s “revenues” as long as the player believes he is getting more than he would have gotten without the agent. And finally, Boras isn’t taking any of your “revenues” so I’m not sure why this bothers you.
377194
Wanna make money like an owner? Buy a baseball team. Otherwise, enjoy your millions for playing a game.
jaysfan1994
Derek Jeter says hello, he also says he and the players are/were probably worth that much money if the organization can afford it which the vast majority of organizations not named the Rays or Athletics can indeed afford throwing out a 100M+ payroll each year.
Hoostino
You may not be one of these types…but, I hear people saying what you just said, yet think people who work in lucrative fast-food joints should make poverty wages.
AC_Slater123 2
There’s only 30 MLB teams compared to thousands of each “fast food joints.” The definition of an apples and oranges argument
Hoostino
It is only apples-to-oranges if you choose to be ignorant.
kla2019
“It’s absolutely ridiculous to have an owner who makes many times more than the players that play the game.” Did I read that correctly? Lmfao! They all make too much money. Owners, players, coaches, trainers….. the cost for a family to go to a game is ridiculous. All to see overpaid whiners.
skip 2
Become a owner then!
BlueSkyLA
I agree with you JTO. The ultimate name of the game is m-o-n-e-y. Anyone who really believes that the owners of the teams will charge less for tickets than the fans are willing to pay for them, less for hot dogs and beer than the fans are willing to pay, and accept smaller media contracts than the broadcasters are offering… well, I was going say to they’ve flunked Econ 101, but it’s more like they’ve flunked Real World 101.
There’s a good reasons why investors will spend over a billion buckeroos on dogmeat such as the Marlins. They sure aren’t doing it so they can sit in the owners box seats.
xtraflamy
many, many teams are not spending anywhere close to the luxury tax. raising it wouldn’t encourage those teams to spend more, it would just allow the handful of big spenders to spend more, but even they can only have so many players on a roster. in order to have more average, aging players get a bigger piece of the pie there would need to be a salary floor.
KnicksCavsFan
Your not factoring several facts like guaranteed contracts. A 40 man roster and several minor league teams. The attrition level in baseball is significant. If you look at the investments spent on players vs how many actually make an impact on the mlb level is astounding. To say “spend more” without acknowledging that a subsequent raise in tickets, concession and parking will follow is naive. Players making more means fans paying much more.
BlueSkyLA
No basic economic logic can be found here.
KnicksCavsFan
wasn’t offering an economic dissertation. simply responding to the idea that because owners (franchises) might make more money than a player without considering the risks inherent to being “the boss ” is silly. Owners have a lot more responsibilities to consider and an inherent risk considering the attrition rate of athletes over 30 who sign long term deals.
BlueSkyLA
No dissertation required, just a resect for basic economics will do. I’m not going repeat something I described in detail already but the bottom line is the owners will not volunteer to reduce their revenue take from the game simply because they’ve been alto to reduce their expenses. What happens in that case is their profits increase.
czontixhldr
jto, my are you out of touch.
You expect anyone to have sympathy for a guy who “only” takes home !5MM/year. Seriously?
stormie
Except the owners don’t make anywhere close to as much money from baseball as the players do. The most profitable MLB team in 2016 didn’t even make $90 million in profit, and the average was barely over $30 million per team. Meanwhile, the average payroll was about $150 million. So if we count player salaries as what could’ve been profit for the owners, then the players are getting about 83% of baseball’s profits.
BlueSkyLA
Says who, you? We do know precisely how much the players are paid. We don’t know a lot about how much profit the owners take away. Yet we do know that investors were willing to pony up $1.2B for the miserable Marlins. That should tell you that team owners are hardly suffering a poor return on investment.
The players are the product these teams have to sell. Please don’t forget that.
mike156
why is it that we love capitalism so long as it benefits us personally? Owners risk capital. players have unique talents. Good for both of them. The one thing I oppose is taxpayer subsidies. There’s more than enough money in this industry without also going to the public trough
outinleftfield
Taxpayers paid for every stadium in baseball.
Mattimeo09
He’s well aware of that. Mike is stating that it’s unnecessary
JoeyPankake
AT&T stadium was privately financed.
williemaysfield
SF Giants have a ownership financed ballpark..
BlueSkyLA
Only half true, which basically means it isn’t true. Direct financing isn’t the only form of public investment. PacBell (AT&T) Park was built with private financing, yes, but on land owned by the city and still owned by the city. The result is the property taxes paid by the Giants are far less than they would be if they’d purchased the land. The city also provides many subsidized services to the ballpark. The public cost is in the tens of millions of dollars.
A similar private financing story is told about the construction of Dodger Stadium. Again, it’s only half true. Built with private funds, but on land acquired by the city through condemnation and the relocation of the people who lived there. (And not too ironically, the Dodgers only came to LA after they failed to convince Robert Moses to turn over a city-owned site for the construction of a new stadium in Brooklyn.)
Pedro Cerrano's Voodoo
That would be nice.
jaysfan1994
Hahaha, I remember people said that salary caps would make games affordable. Tell that to the other leagues that promote that idea when ticket prices go up every year.
Keep a winning product out there and fans will come. They will spend their hard earned money to watch a winner. Don’t put out a winning product and they won’t do that, how do you make your team good? Bring in good players via trade, free agency or the draft.
Competition is the pillar of capitalism.
brewcrew08
I’m so sick of reading this nonsense.
bkfansler2
Brewers offered Cain a fair contract and he wisely accepted. Good for him. And the brewers.
justin-turner overdrive
This very site nailed the exact contract years/money that Jay Bruce got. The market seems pretty stable, with one exception.
Once again, this is about the agents running the market and the owners getting mad at being used as leverage for other teams. The agents get a % cut, so they’re the ones getting greedy here. JDM should have accepted Boston’s offer, Hosmer should have taken that 7 year deal, guess why they didnt? Their agents said not to, because they were doing the leverage thing again. Owners have been burned by this for 20 years now and now they’re seeing its not worth signing Chris Davis or just knowingly buying decline years in general. It’s smart, but it’s also not smart to cap player salaries in their early seasons, which would solve both problems by not letting the first part exist to begin with.
bkfansler2
I would be fine with the high money contracts. As long as after a certain number of years there are opt outs for both team and player. Wouldn’t mind throwing 8 yr, $200mil toward Harper or machado if there was a team opt out after 4 years. Sadly I don’t think either would accept such an offer.
Cubbie Steve
True about the agents, but don’t forget the Union. Some players aren’t actually allowed to sign a contract they want to because of union intervention or out of pressure to do what’s best for players down the road. It’s definitely Boras et al, but it’s also the Union as well…
outinleftfield
It’s going to be 10/400++ for Harper. Machado 10/300++.
outinleftfield
Cain accepted more guaranteed dollars but less AAV than anyone predicted. Fair is not a way to describe what he accepted.
natelowda2
Then don’t get on here to read it. You know what you are getting in too when you read the headline of the article.
bkfansler2
Players are being offered contracts. Some agents have given their clients a way distorted sense of self worth.
outinleftfield
Then so did this site and every other site that projects FA compensation. How could all of them be so wrong?
czontixhldr
The same way people were wrong predicting the 2016 election.
They blew it.
They didn’t consider every factor in play, assumed the market would’t change, and didn’t do a good job analyzing the potential effect of the new CBA.
thesheriffisnear
Are you reading this Kris Bryant? Better sign a team-friendly extension now so you don’t have to go through the agony of free agency!
mike156
The problem isn’t with the top-tier free agents–because they are going to be paid, maybe not as much for as long, but still enormous amounts of money. It’s the freeze on everyone else. There are a lot of useful players who are free agents, players who could help teams, but they’ve been shut out. The Union messed up., They were too worried about the top tier getting paid maximum bucks because they thought it would raise all salaries, that they failed to notice that with tanking. it’s the midtier player who gets tossed over the side. The big money player is sent to another team who can afford him.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
They were fixated on getting rid of first round compensation for players given a QO and with avoiding an international draft.
They messed up big time in agreeing to the hard cap for international free agents instead of a draft. Now, those players are being signed very cheap (Tony Clark cost Ohtani $200 million) and become cheap replacements for existing MLB players, depressing free agent wages.
But, also, the union in getting rid of first round picks as compensation agreed to teams forfeiting international bonus money which they now value more than ever due to the hard cap, so teams are no more anxious to sign a free agent with a QO than they were before…nullifying Clark’s lone “victory” in the new CBA.
The idea that they are sabre rattling against the owners instead of trying to hire Tony Clark’s replacement is how you know they refuse to accept the reality of what happened in the last CBA.
fmj
one of the few intelligent comments on here. kudos
Cubbie Steve
I’ll second that
Frank kemble
I almost wonder if expansion would help the issue. A few months ago, Manfred talked about Portland and Montreal again. They’ve talked about resolving the stadium issues in Oakland and Tampa first, however, before proceeding. Nashville, Charlotte…whatever the new markets become, I think it has bearing. Reason I say that, is bc some of the players on this year’s market are not worth what the agents are asking. Hosmer has been offered a big deal. JD is not worth 150-200 million. There are teams rebuilding who are comfortable with their young groups of players and don’t need to really add. You have alot of younger talent coming up, maybe more than ever with international spending etc…teams like Oakland, Tampa, cinncinatti, Pittsburg who are known for using younger pitchers ..rebuilding teams like the braves, white Sox, etc who aren’t spending – yet – and teams like the Yankees and giants who aren’t going against the tax penalties. I believe the expansion that has been again talked about recently, could be an answer. Reason being, it allows the expansion draft. Just like before with the Rockies and Marlins in 93. The diamondbacks and Ray’s in 98. Opens up positions and employment a bit more. Granted the agents need to stop being so greedy and they need to get some players signed. But I think it is a solid solution to preventing this in the future. Opens up so many jobs and positions, frees up players at AAA who are blocked. Allows 2 new teams to sign free agents. There’s plenty of articles out there on mlbs recent expansion talks and progress if you Google. But I think it has some merit in a year or two. A few teams selling to owners who will spend more would help too. A team or two moving to a bigger market may help as well. Several solutions out there.
sfgiants49ers
I would like to see the city of Montreal have a team again. Expos would be a nice comeback name since its well known.
What would the city of Portland team be called.
Dgmilazz
The players are being such babies. If they boycotted ST, I would be absolutely appalled.
The few big name guys are holding out. It’s making teams not want to spend on the mid tier guys in hopes of landing one of those top tier guys at a discount.
Once Darvish, Hosmer, JD all take the good sized contracts they are being offered, teams will “settle” for the rest of the FA’s.
If the players don’t like the CBA they can blame themselves. Don’t ruin the game for the fans because you guys want to make more millions then you already do.
justin-turner overdrive
It’s the agents vs the owners here, leave the players out of it – they don’t want to not play!
Dgmilazz
Keep telling yourself that. The article clearly states the players discussed skipping ST as a boycott. That’s asinine.
Dgmilazz
Welp, the given the update you maybe correct lol.
Cubbie Steve
I don’t know—Kenley Jansen and Rich Hill seem to really want a boycott…
fox471 Dave
They have contracts and will get paid.
thomasg2018
Unappreciative elitists.
Get a job
66TheNumberOfTheBest
“A source on the players’ side declared to Passan that “the owners have to realize they’re about to jeopardize an unbelievably good thing. If they don’t recognize it, they don’t see where this is going. Everybody’s going to be in unison. And we’re all going to walk right off the cliff together.””
That’s your threat? To walk right off the cliff? This might be one of the least thought out statements I have ever read.
It’s amazing how quickly the MLBPA has gone from the strongest union on the planet to…it’s current state of confusion and entitlement.
“Short sighted” indeed.
“The owners have to realize if they don’t keep handing out absurd contracts to over the hill players that almost never deliver value they are…uh, jeopardizing a…uh, good thing.”
What good thing is that? Good for whom?
If the players want to be angry and blame someone or something for them not getting the crazy free agent offers they are used to, don’t blame collusion…blame Shin Shoo Choo and Homer Bailey and Jordan Zimmerman and Pablo Sandoval, etc.
Phillies2017
We need to stop looking too deeply into this and let it play out
Everybody is saying the exact same thing using different words.
If these players don’t want to take $100 million dollars, fine, don’t take it- might be the most childish and stupid position I’ve ever seen.
tuna411
Talk about desparate:
A source on the players’ side declared to Passan that “the owners have to realize they’re about to jeopardize an unbelievably good thing. If they don’t recognize it, they don’t see where this is going. Everybody’s going to be in unison. And we’re all going to walk right off the cliff together.”
nstale
they should make contracts voidable if the player suffers an injury that makes them miss more than 50% of the games under said contract. Or, if the players productivity dips far below replacement level.
Ry.the.Stunner
It’s against the law to fire someone for a work-related injury. I imagine this would be no different. That sort of rule would never make it past the Player’s Union.
Cubbie Steve
NFL teams come to injury settlements and cut players all the time. Regular employers have to reasonably accommodate for injured workers to come back—if they are able to “reasonably” accommodate. Given the nature of sports & the specialization involved, I’d think that complicates things.
But most teams aren’t going to cut a guy from getting injured. But if he’s showing a constant pattern of injury, I believe teams absolutely should be allowed to void out remaining contacts. Law or not.
Cubbie Steve
Teams have insurance policies against players with huge contracts. I believe teams also get to write off depreciation from the big long-term contracts as wel. But yes, it would be nice if there was a sure fire rule that inserted team (or at worst, mutual) options based on games played etc. kind of the team version of 10-5 rights
InvalidUserID
If there were no luxury tax penalties, teams wouldn’t be afraid to sign FAs.
williemaysfield
That’s only part of it. Two draft picks, international money, and 1st pick moved back 10 positions. Plus the risk of player value cratering with long term contracts.
marijuasher
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of one year contracts. Might pay off for both sides.
greatgame 2
Thats all I would do if I were an owner
chaseturrentine
The remaining free agents are moving because they grossly overestimated their value by any reasonable standard. $225/8 for JDM- a one dimensional player? Give me a break. $60-75/4-5 for Lynn and Cobb? That’s about 50% inflated. Hosmer $180/8 for a young 1B? That’s nuts, he’s good but you could replace him with a rookie and get 80% output for league minimum. And Moose is just crazy.
worzelmangel
The idea that the Yankees would be involved in the FA market if not for the luxury tax is a bit overblown imo. It would just mean that Starlin Castro or Chase Headley would still be a Yankee and the Yankees would keep the other spot open for Torres (or Andujar). They might have been in on Darvish, but he doesn’t fit the type of move the Yankees have made the last few years.
Lefty_Orioles_Fan
Those reports are false. No such threat has been made, nor has the union recommended such a course of action.”
Well they shouldn’t and players would be silly people to boycott!!!
Also, I don’t blame the owners looking for value and or bargains, we all do when we are shopping!!! Also, if the owners save money, the fans should save money too, by having ticket prices come down, food cost at the ball park become more reasonable!!!
PS Look at what Cy Young had to go thru!!!
By 1940, Young’s only source of income was stock dividends of $300 per year ($5,240 today)
jaysfan1994
Haha good luck convincing the owners to lower prices, the Jays were in last place for pretty much all of 2017 in the AL East until the last game of the season and ticket prices are going up next year.
The Jays finished first in attendance for the AL in 2017, you’d think maybe they’d try and improve their bottom feeding team considerably by say signing a top free agent since they’re not going to get a Yu Darvish in a trade but they haven’t yet.
qbass187
I think the person to blame is Pablo Sandoval; That fat slob took a team’s money and ate himself into oblivion and took a huge crap all over the concept of living up to you contract!
When so many players get the big $$$ and then relax it’s going to trickle down. And it SHOULD!
Bryzzo2016
The owners have the power, they are business men. It’s their job to turn a profit and even maximize that profit. The players are hired employees. Like any other business, if you don’t like it, find another job or… buy your own team and operate as you wish.
jaysfan1994
The owners all make a profit, they wouldn’t be billionaires if they weren’t. I hate that we have people here complaining like the owners are small business men who rely on not shelling out $100M payrolls to get fans to believe the team is going to be good next year.
AC_Slater123 2
Teams starting to realize that paying out massive long term deals hardly ever works out in the long run. Players don’t like it because they and they’re agents are constantly wanting to “set records” by securing these insanely lucrative deals. But if GMs are smart, they’ll never pay anyone $300M again. Instead they should all be offering 5 year deals with differed money. Players always want opt out clauses anyways so I don’t understand any teams desire to throw out 7-10 years deals worth 20-30M per with opt outs. If the player performs they’ll opt for free agency again. If they don’t then the team is still paying them to under perform. I don’t blame teams for being restrained in these insane markets
BlueSkyLA
The teams have always known the out years off longterm contract are likely to be loss leaders. So now, try to give some thought as to why they’ve been doing them anyway.
davelsu
I’m even skeptical about the Hosmer & Martinez contract offers..Would they have not signed by now? Who are these teams bidding against? themselves? I would pull both offers & seek alternatives. Classic Scott Boras!
Draven_X_23
You could overspend on Yu (who is not a 200 inning, under 3 ERA Ace) or JD (a soon to be DH that wants double what Ortiz made in his best season) for 5+ years and $25+ mil this offseason or wait until next year and use those saving towards a much better class of player.
Cubbie Steve
This has been my favorite post and favorite comments section on this topic. Seriously. Job well done, everybody.
NoRegretzkys
Most comments seem to be against the players. I agree. It’s like they are complaining that they aren’t getting overpaid like previous years FAs have been. Accept what you’re worth based on your performance and your age and your projected value, and take a deal you like in a place you want to be. Don’t wait around for one specific team to give you what YOU want and overpay. Greedy prima donnas is right. Don’t tell me Darvish, Arrieta, Martinez have received zero offers. There is no way that’s true. No blame on the owners, the blame is on the player for overvaluing themselves.
outinleftfield
So what you are really saying is that you would rather a disproportionate amount of money goes into the owner’s pockets instead of into the player’s pockets?
You would rather the guy that raised your ticket prices and is making you pay $6 bucks for a hot dog and $13 for a beer, gets more of the money baseball brings in than the guys that are actually playing the game?
MLBTR and other sites also do valuations of players and they are higher than the offers we are seeing.
Collusion is when a group of people decides on a course of action collectively. That is obviously what is happening here.
BlueSkyLA
I was totally with you up to collusion. The setup being what it is today, the owners don’t need to collude, they simply need to respect the economic incentives and disincentives built into the CBA. The union unwittingly did their job for them.
outinleftfield
The owners have decided collectively not to spend money on FA in exactly the same percentage. These guys can’t agree on simple things, but they are artificially depressing the price of FA in exactly the same amount across the board? Not likely. Other than relievers, the prices being paid for FA has been depressed by exactly the same amount by all the teams that are signing them. Add to that the fact that more teams than ever before have not signed a single FA. If it’s not collusion, what is it?
Please don’t even try to say its the CBT since we have had that for several CBA’s and the numbers have not changed and don’t affect any team except for the Dodgers and their extreme spending.
BlueSkyLA
You’d expect the strong disincentive to spend above the luxury tax threshold to keep any team close to that threshold out of the market for the top free agents. And that is precisely what’s happening, and not just with the Dodgers. Several other teams are also in that position. Year after year we see the same thing, when the top names sign, that sets the market for the secondary free agents. What’s going on doesn’t seem so very difficult to understand or require collusion as an explanation. The union made a bad deal, how bad is now apparent.
czontixhldr
outinleftfield, Carlos Santana got more money than predicted. so did Lorenzo Cain.
Yet you are making the argument that the teams are colluding? If they are how did those two deals happen?
You simply aren’t making sense.
Oh, and BTW, both Cain and Santana provide defensive value, something your poster boy JDM does not.
You apparently think defense doesn’t matter.
NoRegretzkys
Yeah, that is what I’m saying. If I’m the owner of a team, I want to make money by paying fair value to a player for what he does. I don’t want to end up with a 35+ yo player who can’t perform while making 20+ million a year. That’s what I’m saying. And you’re kind of agreeing with me, charge less for tickets, memorabilia and concessions by not overpaying for free agents. The owners do get greedy and the prices always rise for those things, but you never see them go down.
But that’s how it should be. Cheaper tickets and concessions, lower player salaries, and the owners can still go home with the same amount they did before.
outinleftfield
Do you seriously think a single owner is going to lower ticket prices and concessions prices? Not going to happen. They are going to extract from you every dime they can.
The players are the game and they deserve 50% of the revenue. At this point, we are not close to that. If every single FA signs for what MLBTR and Heyman predicted, we will still end up more than 10% below that.
NoRegretzkys
The fans are the game. Without them the players don’t matter, the owners don’t matter. The owners keep making more, the players keep making more, it’s hard to take either side when the fans are the only ones who aren’t making more and picking up the tab for this constant increase in salary.
fox471 Dave
Who is “we?” 50% of the revenue? Have you gone mad? Will the players pay 50% of the bills? 50% of the debt?
Rbase
“Beyond that, Passan mentions that there are fewer teams than usual chasing free agents because as many as a dozen are either “tanking, not competing or crying poor.””
That is where the real problem lies. ‘Tanking’ is a proven concept for success. Heck, the last 2 world series champions went through long periods where they did not give a **** what was happening at the mlb level. Other teams have followed suit.
It is true that not having promotion/relegation leads to (relatively) stable franchises, but it also gives teams the opportunity to not try to be competitive. To me is seems weird that this is only the first time that this situation has occurred in the extensive history of the mlb.
outinleftfield
Last 3 WS champs. The Royals did it too.
NickGarren
The Cubs were bad at the Major League level and the minors when Sam Zell sold the team to the Ricketts in a deal for 900 million bucks. They then hired Theo who hired his crew of Jed Hoyer, etc. They saw that for years the Cub minor leagues ranked at the bottom of MLB. So they heavily invested in the minors and the international market. They traded for Anthony Rizzo for Andrew Cashner. They made trades that rebuild the team, getting younger. they let big contracts walk. Sure there were misses during the rebuild, but it paid off in a World Series championship and 3 straight NLCS appearances. And the Cub are still a playoff caliber team.
slider32
I’m for the players getting all they can get, but the new sabermetrics isn’t paying for average players 30 and over. I only see a few getting what they thought they would get. The biggest factor this winter was that most teams got what they wanted in trades. The second factor is that a lot of teams are rebuilding, and the third is there has been a shift in what teams need to win. The relief pitcher is king.
qbass187
Very true! Great post
outinleftfield
Striking in spring training doesn’t hurt the owners financially like the owner’s collusion has hurt the players. Striking during the regular season does.
Don’t sign up for MLB Extra Innings or MLB.TV until opening day or you may be paying for something you can’t use when the players strike.
chesteraarthur
Show proof for your allegations of collusion by the owners or stfu.
The garbage you spew is tired.
outinleftfield
100+ FA not signed on February 4th. Last season we had 19 not signed. Offers and signings for everyone but relievers at 10% less than projections across the board.
So please STFU or show proof that there isn’t collusion.
chesteraarthur
You’re the one making allegations, not me. That’s not how it works. I am not surprised that you do not understand that though…
How/why did relievers get out of being colluded against? It almost sounds like, oh i dunno, maybe the market value for certain types of players has changed.
Do you get how stupid your argument sounds when you start saying things like that?
KnicksCavsFan
So the Brewers just ran off the reservation and went against the owners? FA relievers signing extremely lucrative deals is sign of collusion?
I work in an industry where I book talent and work on the industry standard commission percentage. However, when faced with talent that’s asking for a ridiculous fee I cringe having to repeat that number to the buyer. At times ill even advise them to pass and make suggestions on other acts whose asking price is more commensurate to their relevance or drawing ability. The deal can’t be one-sided. It’s not a healthy business model when that happens.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
Just for the record, there is no possible way to “show proof that there isn’t collusion”. That’s asking to prove a negative. What would that evidence look like, exactly?
Also, even if none of those 100 free agents sign, there will still be 750 MLB players on rosters come Opening Day. 100 more of them would just be previously underpaid minor leaguers instead of these particular millionaire veterans who didn’t like the offers made to them. Would that be good or bad?
BlueSkyLA
Good or bad for whom? As fans of the game I suspect most would find watching inferior talent for the same price to be a bad thing. Ownership would like it very much, though.
NoRegretzkys
Collision of what? Explain how you think that conversation went. On a conference call involving every GM, one GM said “Okay so this year, nobody pays any FA more than 20 million okay guys”.
That makes no sense. There’s no way you can get every team to agree to that. That’s what collusion is. Then what happens if ONE team makes an offer of 21 million to a player to screw the other teams? Then every other GM will be like “heyyyy we said not over 20 million! Not fair!” And the collusion conspiracy will then be revealed.
It’s ridiculous.
fox471 Dave
There is no collusion!
Regi Green
Yea, boycott spring training because it’s not right that teams won’t give Jd Martinez a 8yr 200mil contract.
outinleftfield
Do you realize that as of today there are still more than 100 FA not signed right? It’s not about JD Martinez, it’s about the other 100 guys that are being frozen out of the market.
chesteraarthur
Then maybe they should put some pressure on the JD martinez-es of this class to sign…
KnicksCavsFan
The market is bottle necked. If the Bautistas and Matt Holidays are sitting around waiting for the perfect offer while teams are focused on the bigger names to decide on what’s been on the table for the part two months then that’s what happens. Other vets like Granderson, Austin Jackson and to an extent Bruce and Santana decided that it was time for them to secure their bag and they did.
I didn’t investigate but I bet that 90% of the FA on the market are probably in their early to miss 30s and have had a major injury or poor performance in the last two years. ADJUST! Get in where you fit in guys.
czontixhldr
And most of those FA’s are over the age of 30, and the one’s under 30 aren’t that good.
So if an front office can find a guy in their upper minors in his mid-20s who can produce the same as a mid-30s FA, shy should he spend millions on the mid-30s FA?
Padres Armchair GM
Idk if baseball has this, but the nba requires teams to spend like 70 80 90 percent of the cap or something to that effect.
While the mlb may never have a strict salary cap ceiling teams should be forced to spend a minimum amount like 80 mill floor whether its locking up long term assets early or spending a little more on a fa.
6 teams would currently be in violation of being under the minimum threshold.
chesteraarthur
Why?
Padres Armchair GM
Why? Cause id rather be proactive then suffer through a work stoppage and hold outs. Already bad enough in the nfl when players hold out for new comtract.
Clearly players want more money than teams are willing to spend. 40 mill roster is ridiculous but so is a player expecting to earn 250 mill plus.
At some point players will start holding out over arbitration spending and such as the cba nears.
A quick and easy fix is force teams to soend more but force players to max out at like 200 mill.
Bring up the floor and bring down the ceiling are ways that everyone gets what they want.
chesteraarthur
So your solution is to artificially inflate salaries by creating a floor?
What are the players going to give up to convince the owners to agree to this? Max contracts? Good luck with that.
Your solution is also starting to sound like the NBA, the league that has meh players making as much as the elite talent and the same teams meeting in the championship.
Not exactly the best example to base your idea on, is it?
Padres Armchair GM
Here is the main problem with the NBA
They have a salary cap of about 113 mill before luxury tax line implications take effect.
The floor cap is 95 mill.
Literally, they have a 20 mill zone between the two.
Which makes bad contracts even worse because of the low salary cap and little to no room for luxury purposes meaning owners are paying overages for bad contracts and no room to make improvements due to already being over. If the luxury tax line was say 150 mill or so you’d see teams go out and make improvements with the ability to take on salary without paying taxes.
The model is good, the mechanics are bad.
If the MLB had a salary floor of 90 mill and kept the 197 mill luxury tax line in addition to capping free agent spending you’d see a boom of free agents being paid because teams would have literally 107 mill between where they are suppose to spend and max they can spend while limiting a max contract player to 25 mill a year from teams they play for while other teams can offer 20 mill (80% of the max offer).
People aren’t spending now in part because harper machado etc will command close to if not over 30 mill a year.
Padres Armchair GM
But if teams are forced to.spend 80 to 90 mill minimum in return there should be a max contract limit to FAs and teams that have the players should be the only ones able to offer the max contract while other suitors can offer only say 80% of the max offer.
Youd see teams keep their players more and teams would probably be willing to sign QO players more if there was a cap to the earnings.
Force teams to spend but force players to take less.
outinleftfield
The NBA also shares revenue more equally. There are no teams that have 2.5 times the revenue of another team like there is in MLB.
chesteraarthur
And the product is terrible. You aren’t helping your argument.
Padres Armchair GM
Product is terrible for a few reasons
The biggest is because of how the mechanics work for their salary cap. A 95 mill cap with 113 mill luxury tax line while forcing teams to spend 80 or 90 percent of that 95 mill is bad mechanics since 1 bad contract and youre SOL as an owner before paying luxury tax costs. Also, NBA players are literally making 1/3 of the salary cap where players are making 28 29 30 mill a season…….When you need to pay 14 people and 1 guy is making 1/3 of how much youre allowed to spend course you’ll have some bad teams esp when the owner doesn’t want to pay luxury tax costs.
The warriors and cavs and other good teams are over the luxury tax line. The bad teams are below it. spotrac.com/nba/cap/
The NBA max contract system is a joke because the players got the owners to spend more while not adjusting for the contracts theyd earn.
Thats why the NBA system is bad. They rose the cap floor on spending and rose contract prices.
What the MLB should do is raise the floor on spending, but bring down what FA can ask for maximum salary wise. Not limit years asked but price per year.
thegreatcerealfamine
Who are you to make that statement?
66TheNumberOfTheBest
There will never be a floor without a cap.
And the MLBPA lost so much ground in the last CBA that it might well be them who propose such a system.
NickGarren
The players and agents did realize the gravy train was going to end right? and now a strike, boycott whatever they will call it, is gonna do the one thing they can’t afford. Turn the fans against them. With every strike or lockout, the owners were made to be the villains. “oh i just wanna play baseball”, but the owners will say yeah but we can’t afford your 7 year 400 million dollar contract unless we start charging 750 bucks for the nosebleed seats. The players are gonna come across as entitled brats. Look at the kneeling players in the NFL. Once you lose the fans, your done.
outinleftfield
What are you talking about? Revenue in baseball is up and it’s going to continue to go up. The players deserve 50% of that revenue. The owners are artificially depressing that percentage of revenue by refusing to sign FA. We know that is true because there are more than 100 FA still not signed on Feb 4th, 8 days before pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Last season there were 19 FA still left on the market at this point.
ducksnort69
Yeah, I don’t know how so many are quick to buy the owners’ narrative. None of us know for sure either way, but if you’re going to just arbitrarily pick a side, why choose the billionaires? Also, is it really passable that 2018 is the year all teams coincidentally “get smart”? Definitely smoke here.
NoRegretzkys
Here’s an idea. Increase the league minimum contract to ohhhh say 3 million per year. Random number I just pulled out of thin air. Make every contract performance based, filled with incentives. Then you’ll get paid what you’re worth for that year based on how you perform instead of getting paid 5 years from now for what you did last year.
outinleftfield
Here is what is going to happen. The players are going to strike to start the regular season.
They are going to say. “You don’t want to sign 30+ year old FA, fine. We want FA to start after a player has been in the majors 3 seasons. No service time BS. If they are called up, that is one season.” The players are also going to ask for a guaranteed amount of the revenue baseball earns.
They are going to get something close to that. The owners collectively chose to completely freeze out 100+ FA players to depress the percentage of revenue the players get and that is going to change.
thegreatcerealfamine
Relax and watch the Super Bowl.
Bruin1012
The players are not going to strike. They will report to spring training most likely.
There is absolutely no collusion this is just a market that is waiting on t a few players to sign and then it will all fall into place.
From what it sounds like these free agents have been given good not great offers. JDM is insane for not taking 5/125 he is a very poor defender really bat only guy that contract is the highest ever for a DH. He isn’t worth 200 million that is insane. Darvish is a nice pitcher but but cmon a 6 or 7 year contract for a guy that has had a lot of problems staying on the field. Then there is Hosmer his clown agent wants 200 million for this guy? I think if you really take a look at what these guys are being offered it’s more then fair hence no collusion.
Teams are waiting on these guys to get realistic once that happens things will fall into place. The agents are just flat wrong this offseason and the teams are getting smarter to the stupid long term contracts of players 30 and over.
It would be one thing if these guys were not getting big offers this offseason but they are so where is the collusion. I would love for the agents and players union to sue baseball for collusion and see where that gets them. Judges would laugh then out of court.
BlueSkyLA
The players can’t strike this year for the simple reason that it would violate the terms of the CBA. As this article points out, MLB could win an injunction against the MLBPA for default of contract and likely win damages from the players for however long they conducted the walkout. This is all a setup for the expiration of the current CBA in 2021. Unless the two sides get talking seriously soon, that contract negotiation isn’t going to be pretty and could easily result in a strike at that time. But not now, as the players would get nothing but grief in return.
gosox77
NFL shares revenue in a method that Green Bay and Charolotte can com Peter with NewYork. Most baseball revenues are local therefore a luxury tax is essential to any hope of leveling the playing field. Thus there will be years where Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox feel the pressure of the tax, putting some big spenders on the sideline. Second, there is now a well established history on long and big contracts. The results are so poor that it is foolish to ignore that history.
thegreatcerealfamine
And people wonder why today is pretty much a national holiday. Meanwhile College Football and the NBA have surpassed MLB in popularity…
mike156
A lot of ragging on the players, some of which is deserved…but let me ask people how much they would be willing to pay for an Independent League game–tickets, parking, a couple of hot dogs, a couple of beers, etc,? How about a AAA game-same thing–what’s your price point? The players can make this type of money because they are better. The market is determining prices. If there’s less demand this year, players will get less. If there’s more a different year they will get more.
Jcant
But baseball doesn’t work like that because there is no salary cap or salary floor and players aren’t taking 1 year contracts. With the inconsistent nature of arbitration players and all that, teams can’t commit all of their future money.
The players would have less issues if they took a 1 or 2 year contract but for more money per year. The reasons the players don’t want short term deals is exactly why teams don’t want long term deals
BlueSkyLA
Why should the players take 1-2 year contracts when they are being offered 3, 4, 5 and more year contracts?
It’s a market. The free agents can’t force the teams to bid on their services, and the players are generally going to take the best contract they are offered.
Phillies2017
Look at the FA Tracker from 2012-13 through last offseason, there are still a similar amount of $100m contracts (with 15-16 as an outlier), but the hard part, the contracts of the second tier guys are what have risen steadily. It went from $30-$50m to $70-$90m which is what needs to be reset.