Click here to read a transcript of today’s chat with Tim Dierkes.
Headlines
Navigation
MLBTR INFO
Connect
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows
scroll to top
By Tim Dierkes | at
Click here to read a transcript of today’s chat with Tim Dierkes.
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows
scroll to top
None of these guys will ever admit that Machado and Harper are not well-liked players, and that it’s affecting their markets, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a factor, It’s like they are all in on the greatness of these 2 guys, and by god, we’re gonna call them great no matter what. It’s kinda hard to figure……….
I’d betcha both guys have several offers in hand. Machado’s contract will be $250mil+ and Harper will sign for $350mil+
Who doesn’t like Harper besides like two pshyco pitchers; Jonathan Papelbon and Hunter Strickland?
Most fans
Not true at all
This doesn’t exactly fall in lined (entirely) with being disliked but Harper was once again voted most overrated player in baseball by 240 players polled by the Athletic. A great many fans feel the same and being overrated can surely lead one down the disliked trail.
cubsinsider.com/2018/07/16/poll-names-javy-baez-am…
(didn’t link the Athletic as it’s a subscription)
“Who doesn’t like Harper besides like two pshyco pitchers; Jonathan Papelbon and Hunter Strickland?”
Cole Hamels.
I am not sorry to see Strickland leave my Giants.
i don’t think their personalities matter at all and with regards to Harper, he doesn’t seem to have a negative rep. i think it comes down to contract length.
Harper has repaired his rep over the last few years but no one liked him coming up when he was blowing kisses to pitchers after he took them deep in the minors.
My take on Machado market is he’s a little bit like Cano. The Yankees thought his skill set wouldn’t age well and for the amount of money they would have to pay him he wasn’t worth it. Machado isn’t an effort guy and once the skills start diminishing there’s not much left.
No way Harper gets 350 plus. He’ll get 300 but not 350. Machado may actually get the 250 number but think that’s top end.
I think it’s largely because they predicted these outlandish contracts for both of them, and it looks like they were WAY off……….nobody likes to be proven wrong. Especially experts!
I’m fine with being wrong on the predictions. I think that if Harper and Machado sign for less than $300MM, many baseball teams are being cheap and dumb. That’s my stance.
Why? What’s so great about them? Harper has had ONE great year, and one very good year.
Their abilities at playing baseball make each of them easily worth $300MM. This is based on their baseball statistics. They have five-win projections for 2019 and I find those reasonable. Perhaps you do not think they are five or four-win players. Not sure how you arrived at that, but that would be the other side of the argument.
They’re also both major league putzes. I haven’t seen any Nats/Orioles/Dodgers people running to their defense……or maybe I missed that part. Baseball teams are together every day for 6-7 months per year. No one wants a putz around all the time no matter how good he is,………JMO. But all baseball writers want to talk about is advanced metrics. Some things that can’t be measured are important, too, especially when you’re talking about a $300 million investment.
Brett Gardner had a WAR of 4.8 in 2017. Should he have gotten paid 30M that season? (I’ll give you a hint: no.)
There is more factors that determine player price than just pure baseball abilities and statistics. Basic economics, friend. Dont just look at the supply-side (Players), look at the demand as well.
I don’t recall seeing anything where their former teammates spoke negatively of them. I have definitely seen their former teammates defend them. But yeah, to your point, if a team has information suggesting Harper or Machado is toxic to a clubhouse (I guess the same info you’ve somehow acquired) then yes, I would agree that those teams would be justified not offering contracts to them.
If a team’s stance is “We like them just fine as people but they would not help our team win baseball games” or “Yes, they’d help us, but no player is worth $30MM a year” then I would disagree with those stances.
A better way to look at it would be this. If it was 2016 and all teams agreed Brett Gardner was highly likely to have a WAR around 4.8 in 2017, and Gardner wanted a one-year deal in free agency, any GM who wouldn’t offer him $30MM would be terrible at his job.
The Mariners and D-Backs put a puts as their closer for years and that turned out fine. Sign Machado and Harper, just not for historical contracts.
“They’re also both major league putzes. I haven’t seen any Nats/Orioles/Dodgers people running to their defense……or maybe I missed that part.” AS for Manny all of the quotes were after this past season ended.
“He’s a good teammate. He’s an even better player,”
Zach Britton
“I’ll stand by my comment — he’s the best person I know in this game,” Steve Pearce
“I know he’s a good teammate,”
Delin Betances
Ah yes, the Nationals 10 year 300 million dollar contract proves your point Kevin. Stop letting your own feelings get in the way of facts and reality.
Thats why Brett Gardner got 7.5M this offseason and you still see people calling it an overpay, right? If 5 WAR is worth 30M, then 1 WAR is worth 6M. Gardner came off a 2.8 WAR season and got 7.5M. Thats not 6M per 1 WAR, now is it? No team was even thinking that just because he will very likely put up 2 WAR based off his defense alone that he is worth 12M, but the Yankees didnt need to spend more than 7.5M to get him, so why would they spend more? A terrible GM overpays. Whether it coincides with true value has no bearing on whether or not its a good deal. Its about what you are willing to pay for a good compared to what someone else is willing to pay (given that this good has a limited stock of 1 unit).
Lets build a scenario: Me and You are the only ones in a store. There is only one apple that you and I both want. I value the apple at $20, and you value you the apple at $15. I only need to bid $15.01 to get the apple. If I were to spend $20 i would be doing a disservice to myself. I would be the dumb one, for I wouldve spent 5 more dollars than I needed to get the same result.
If someone gave 30M for Brett Gardners 2017 season, they might as well be fired on the spot because they made two errors, 1. overvalued WAR and 2. outbid everyone else by a mile for no reason.
This is terrible reasoning all the way through
Outbidding the second-highest bid by a large margin in auctions is bad. You’ve made your point. No one disagrees with it.
If Manny Machado signs for $175MM, it will be because no one was willing to go higher. This is bad and dumb, because of the amount of wins Manny Machado adds to baseball teams.. If someone bids $175MM for Manny, I’d want my team to bid $180MM. There would be a point at which I would NOT want my team to slightly outbid the second-highest bid. That point is nowhere near $200MM.
You’re also using a flawed WAR that overvalues defense, and Gardner was one of the best defenders that year. Not a great argument.
That must be a freakin good apple.
The problem with the bidding model is that this isn’t an open auction. If it were, that would raise accusations of collusion. Teams decide what they’re willing to pay and hope their offer is enough. In a closed bid, people overpay sometimes.
+JDGoat
WAR in general is flawed. And I am not saying Garnder isnt a great defender.
+Yankeesaurus
Is this directed at me? If so, explain how.
+Tim
That scenario is only dumb and bad under certain assumption. The first assumption is that all teams have a need for offense, a positional opening for them, and the money to spend. The second assumption is that they all value WAR equally. The third assumption is that there have been no market shifts since Stantons signing.
The first assumption will never hold up. The Yankees, prime example, are often rumored for every big free agent, but unlucky for Machado and Harper, the Yankees do not need a 3B or a third RF. This drastically reduces how much the Yankees are willing to bid to acquire such players. This, in turn, lowers price as a whole, due to their being one less bidder.
The second assumption doesnt hold up for even in this comment section you have the wise JDGoat chiming in about how he doesnt buy into Gardners WAR truly being 4.8. Teams are like that too. They value everything differently. Teams like players of certain molds to fit their play styles. Yankees, for example, like breaking ball pitchers and home run hitters so they will value that more than a fastball pitcher (which is what actually ruined Sonny Gray).
The third assumption is debatable. I think there has been a market shift. We have seen a reluctancy to spend for the last 2-3 offseasons (including this one) after teams got stuck with A-Rods, Pujols, Ellsbury’s, Sandovals, and teams realizing that a cheap young core is all they need to have a good shot at a ring (2012 Giants, 2015 Royals [Mets too!], 2008 Rays, etc.). Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have realized this too. While they still spend big, the bulk of their team is carried on the back of players still playing out their Arb. years.
Most professional athletes have “unique” personalities. They still deserve to get paid just like you do.
I respect you Tim but i thinks it’s better to datu whst aav they are worth and not the total value which is directly related to term length.
Which begs the question. Is Trout worth 10/$400 mil or rather $40 mil per x whatever length of risk a team is willing to offer?
+bhambrave
I understand that some teams may overpay, but people are pouting about how teams arent falling over backwards to overpay.
The apple is a Granny Smith, so you bet your bottom dollar its a good apple.
Also, I posted a long reply to Tim but for some reason its awaiting approval and no comment i have ever posted that awaited approval has ever gotten approved so thats a real bummer. I really really dont feel like typing it all out again. Im not even sure why it got flagged for needing approval
update: sweet it got approved thats a first for me
well said. if Harper was the cancer i don’t think the Mats would’ve made a $300 mil offer. Even with Manny. The attitude he had about not being a all out scrappy run out a grounder like it’s a triple isn’t new. He was just too stupid to say it. i think most athletes understood him. i don’t think Manny is a cancer. Maybe a bit of an unaware idiot who speaks without thinking. the only ppl that seen to hate him are fan. and even the stupid stuff on the field with his spikes. surely that rubs many the wrong way but it’s still far from Ty Cobb level.
Tim, may be some people think that while they SHOULD be worth at least 4 or 5 WAR each season for the next few years that a team still should not sign them for more than five season. Why jeopardize an organization on one big gamble? Historically long term contracts have drastically been mistakes.
True – so we shouldn’t fault a team for outbidding by a lot, because they can’t really know. But if every team is setting its limit at $175MM for Machado, that means they are not that interested in getting better.
BHAM,
It was a granny apple
+Tim
Sure, teams cant really know, but they can speculate. Have you ever tried your hand at Game Theory? Its a bit different, but the core of it is about what moves you make to better yourself economically based on what moves you speculate your competitor to make (at least in simultaneous game theory, where the players all move at the same time). If you overpay by a large margin because you speculated incorrectly, saying “well how was i suppose to know!” isnt a good excuse. Businesses run these games all the time.
Anyways, if every team is setting their limit for Machado at $175M, that indicates a market shift and not an interest shift. Only teams like the Pirates can be accused of not wanting to get better. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox go “the margin for which i value my teams productivity increase by signing player X is less than the value of the increase in payroll, and therefor I dont want to spend that much”. Because of this, other teams go “Because a lot of the big money spenders are only willing to offer so n so amount of money, due to factor X, Y, Z, i feel no need to offer the amount equal to what I actually value the productivity increase of signing player X”.
Like I said at the beginning: There is more to this market than what the suppliers (players) bring to the table, there are a multitude of factors that play into the decisions of the buyers (teams) that should be accounted for. If accounted for correctly, its not a misstep by Front Offices, its just a change in the market. Teams are getting smarter and cheaper, not dumber.
A one year deal is very different then an 8 or ten year deal because there is very little risk btw Trout was a 10.2 WAR last year does that make him worth 650 million. If Harper and Machado having 5 WARs are worth 300 million logically Trout would be worth 650 million. Also Harper has only had a 5 WAR once in his career and had a 1.3 WAR last year so how is a 5 WAR reasonable for himnext year
Brett Gardner wasn’t 26 year old, so your analogy is kind of falling flat right from the start.. He was already at the point in his career where decline was pretty likely. So yeah, really terrible comparison there.
If Gardner had posted a 5 WAR season and wasn’t even in his likely Prime yet, and nobody offered him 30 million… well, that’s just GMs being stupid or owners being cheap.
I am going to start with the caveat that Boras and Lozano have both pulled big contracts out of their hats for clients in the past, so anything is still possible. I remember how quiet it was before the Pujols/Angels deal was announced, so nothing would surprise me.
But Tim, I have to ask: $300MM based on what? It seems arbitrary.
Teams seem to have made the decision that it does not represent good value anymore to pay outlandish prices for a “win” (1 WAR) in FA. At least that is what it feels like.at this point, and they really seem to not want to hand out contracts to guys that last until the players late 30’s. (Which seems wise based on the history of those types of contracts and the fact that performance into one’s late 30’s can no longer be “enhanced”.)
That $300MM you cite is based on what they have been willing to foolishly pay in the past, and that is changing. The market is changing.
Baseball analysts in the past, particularly those SABR oriented, have decried contracts even at the time of signing that they thought were foolish (Ryan Howard, Chris Davis et al.), and their teams felt the financial sting. So now that teams are being more disciplined in their approach and they are being called cheap.
For years, the market paid players when they reached FA largely based on past performance, and the market (teams) are less willing to do so.
The problem Macharper have is that they are in the market in what seems to be a transition period. Teams don’t want to pay even these guys for as long as the players and agents want, because unless they are the 0.1% of MLB players (arbitrary estimate to make a point), their performance is going to start dropping within 2 – 3 years. So if I’m an owner how can I justify paying them for 1o?
Where players are being screwed is they don’t get paid enough early in their careers and they are under team control for too long (12-13 yrs if they’re in the minors for 6 yrs). They’re not being screwed by teams that have finally figured out that it doesn’t make sense to pay them well into their 30’s.
Machado and Harper should have been paid much bigger money already for the performance they have already put up – THAT is the injustice.
So how this get’s resolved, I don’t know. I am, however, in agreement with some of you guys that a labor stoppage of some sort is coming, and I think it will be very ugly, and even cause infighting among players that makes it’s way into the public sphere. The players are going to have to dig their heels in to get paid closer to their value earlier in their careers, but I’m not sure of the formula needed.
+petrie
I didnt need a 1:1 comparison to make a point. I asked whether or not Brett Gardners 2017 season was worth 30M, because its closeness to a 5 WAR season which is Harper/Machado’s next season projects. I wasnt arguing the case that they are equal players or they should fetch equal contracts. I was illuminating the fact that 1 WAR does not equate to $6M. You are arguing against strawmans.
or a big one.
Jayson Werth.
I suppose the same could be said for MLBTR not paying the top dollar for exclusive writers. At the end of the day, business decisions are business decisions.
Especially if MLBTR were to start charging for no ads, we as fans of the site deserve the top dollar to be spent on writers, right?
You’re just mean
I guess its cheap and dumb to not drastically outbid their competitors. If no team is offering the giant contract why would the next? It was dumb for the Nats to offer Corbin 140M when his next best potential offers were around 100M. They shot themselves in the foot for no reason.
Teams are getting smarter and cheaper, not dumber.
Hey, man, I hope they get $1 billion, and no, I know nothing of them. I don’t like much of what I’ve seen is all. I’ve also yet to see a 10-year+ contract work out for the team. Stanton’s MIGHT, but there’s still a long way to go on his 13-year deal, although at this point, his annual salary is well within range for his numbers.
Dave Winfield
the dumb part is nobody’s offering a ridiculous amount of money, so why aren’t more teams trying to take advantage of that fact by offering big AAV for less years?
The argument for years was that small market teams never had a chance to sign the best free agents because the big market teams always snapped them up
well, the big market teams are sitting on the sidelines… and yet the other guys are just sitting there with them. That’s the stupid and cheap part, the owners as a group seem more concerned with proving a point than taking advantage of the market to get better.
if a team signs them for unrest $300 then why are they dumb? im assuming whichever team signs one had the best fit and most money. Prognosticators don’t set the market.
I agree. You’ve got to factor in potential massive revenue as well
300 million for a player that has had two knee surgeries? I wouldn’t want to take that gamble.
Yes, both players are young and talented, but they both have warts. Fans definitely see them. Maybe GM’s do too.
Not many 33-35 year olds are worth $30M. Maybe these guys will be, but it’s a big risk to take.
Ur not paying them to be worth 30m when theyre 35
If you pay them $300M over ten years then you certainly are.
shhhh he didnt think that far ahead. usually on mlb the show you can just stop playing franchise mode after a couple seasons
No….the idea is that they are worth more than $30MM/year during their prime years and less during their (mild) decline years.
So you’re saying that for payroll management, the teams essentially backload the contract relative to the expected performance? They expect $40M of production up front and $20M on the back end, but average it (or not) to $30M per? I can see that.
That would technically be frontloading, not backloading. Backloading is like McCutchens contract.
My opinion is that it doesnt matter about front loading/back loading too much, as it still evens out. The average salary over the time span matters and whether the total price tag matches the total production you got out of the player
Relative to performance, it would be back-loading. Paying $30M up front for $40M production (underpaying), and paying $30M at the end (overpaying) for hopefully $20M production.
Ohh
I thought by relative to performance you meant that the amount theyll earn that year is tied to their expected performance (so 35M for the first couple years and then dwindles down to 25M accounting for the expected performance decline)
i’ve never thought this was a good approach….overpaying a guy late because you underpay him early so it all ‘balances out’
Its not like whatever ‘surplus’ you realize early in the deal can actually offset the damage when you have a $20M+ sub replacement guy jamming up your roster later on down the road
Now, Tim, they are worth more than $30,000,000 for some years?
nicketz, that is exactly where I think front offices have arrived. They don’t want to overpay late anymore, because they’ve figured out having a Vernon Wells, Ryan Howard, Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellbury etc. taking up a huge chunk of payroll makes no sense.
It’s hilarious to see writers get so up in arms that teams aren’t flocking to throw out 10-14 year contracts lol. Teams have shown they’d rather have a higher bill for a year or two than 5-6 or in this case, 10-14.
I know! You’d think these were the 2 greatest players that ever lived.
They are just unusually young for FA’s. That’s the attraction.
I dont even think Machado is all that. Like he is good, but he was top 10 in WAR for one season out of his career. He is like a B+ to A- guy. Harper on the other hand has the talent to be A+ but has only partially realized it.
I agree. This is the craziest thing I have ever seen!
There’s a changing economy in baseball, and I think teams are balking at grandfathering these two players into the old economy. I could be wrong.
Great comment!
Lets talk technical analysis……
Look at a long term chart of MLB attendance. It shows a head-and-shoulders pattern starting over the past 11 years. Down 4.1% between 2017-18. Something financial people see as a red flag. Made worse by a strong economy the last 2-3 years as unemployment has sunk to 60 year lows. All teams have their stats and projections. I would guess that there is confirming data regarding their TV viewership.
New revenue streams are finite. Most consumers are not going to pay multiple fees to watch the same thing on different streaming services.
Handing out long-term contracts that go up in amount each year (I’ve never heard of a contract that starts at one amount per year and ends down maybe 20-30% to make up for the players skills diminishing) in this environment can doom a team for years….and consequently their fans patronage.
A few months ago MLBTR ran an article on bad contracts. There are lots of them, affecting just about every team but the A’s. It is difficult to get out of those contracts, and if one finds a trading partner, there is a steep price to pay.
Technical analysis: Might want to look at why unemployment is at “60 year lows.” Hint: if you just change the definition of unemployment/ employment, you can make the numbers say whatever you want. MLBs revenues are almost entirely from non-attendance sources. Attendance is a tiny driver, which is why we see teams reluctant to hand out big contracts; if they can make profits without winning, why try? A long time ago teams had to win to make money, because attendance generally revolved around winning, and attendance drove the revenue. It’s not like that anymore, at all.
Please…..
Also, MLB set a record for revenue in 2018. The hand-wringing about the “death of baseball” is definitely overwrought. The arguments people keep bringing up are real – the fan base is older (but also more affluent) and the game seems to move slowly, but those are things that can be fixed on-field and off. Baseball could start by, I dunno, not get so worked up about bat flips and players pimping home runs or whatever. The unwritten rules stuff sucks a lot of the joy out of the game.
MLB set a record for revenue, and player salaries actually went down from the prior year. Why is it that every other sport is more than happy to pay their superstars?
Maybe fans have a stronger aversion to these players than teams do. Machado won no fans with his post-season comments and behavior. Harper was very immature in his early days. He’s matured a lot, but he also hasn’t performed as well recently. So far his career has been on a roller coaster. Hopefully going forward he will play with more consistency.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Particularly with Harper – start drilling into why fans have made a villain of him and there’s not much there. I guess precociousness can rub some people the wrong way?
It’s one of the more baffling things in baseball. Is it the bat flipping or the hair flipping that makes heads explode?
“It’s one of the more baffling things in baseball. Is it the bat flipping or the hair flipping that makes heads explode?”
It was the falcon-wing eyeblack.
As a Braves fan I couldn’t stand him early on. He seemed like a big crybaby. He grew up a lot, but fans kept that impression of him.
His dad didn’t do him any favors with regard to that at the All-Star game, either.
Good chat, today, BTW. I always enjoy it……..
I think it’s a cognitive dissonance, honestly. People wonder why MLB is losing market share to the NBA and NFL, and, you know, those leagues have heroes and villains and personalities; regardless of what you think about Tom Brady or Gronk or Steph Curry or Lebron or Ant Davis or whomever, you can’t deny they are magnets that people love or loathe or all points in between, and that pimping a touchdown or three-pointer is entertaining. Baseball has its heavy-handed Brian McCann-style “baseball police” who shut down any sort of personality in the game. We see it here on these comment sections; knee-jerk people hate baseball players with actual personality.
Amongst many factors, the salary cap is the biggest one for the overall free agent market downturn.
If the cap was say $300 million right now, the big market teams would spend up to it and contending smaller market teams would spend more to keep up.
Maybe the league should implement a soft salary floor to put some fire under the Rays and Pirates asses
Yep, the players and the union got it wrong by being against a cap. Look at what it’s done for the NBA. Their salaries are skyrocketing. It’s the smart way to go for all concerned.
NBA teams have 12-man rosters, generally only ten of the players ever see any playing time; huge difference. NBA teams also don’t have artificial depression of young players’ salaries the way MLB does. Two great players make a huge difference in the NBA – not so much in MLB. Salary caps put more revenue in owners’ pockets, and salary floors would just mean bad/tanking teams would take on lousy contracts without improving the team or its prospects.
NBA (and NFL) teams don’t have to develop players in farm systems.
The players and their agents run those 2 leagues. If the players want to break the by-laws, they do. They refuse to listen to coaches they don’t like to get them fired. GM’s as well. Happening today in both leagues.
A few years ago when the Cleveland Cavs won the NBA championship they lost a bit over $2m. This was in spite of selling out every game, having astronomical TV ratings, and setting merchandise sales records. The owner made out fine because he had an Internet Home Loan business. The exposure he got nationwide led to record sales and profits. Not sure any MLB ownership groups have that sort of outside business going for them.
MLB is the last holdout. If the owners give into this ridiculous onslaught, that will be the end of MLB.
Huh, tried posting a comment earlier but i guess the moderator didnt like my use of “a**”. I will reiterate my comment below:
They should implement a sort of soft salary floor to light a fire under teams like the Rays and Pirates (donkeybutt)s.
dude! 2-2 on approved comments. now i wish i can delete my comments about how my other comments werent approved
No doubt that manny and Bryce are true talents. 300 mil is a lot of $$ that we can’t fathom. But could we fathom Arod’s 250 in 2001? Could manny or Bryce put up numbers like that?? Or even Mike Trout type numbers? Not sure. So I praise Cashman for his work. He’s put together a great squad. I’m 48 so I remember the excitement of King George shelling out big $$ for jack clark.. Steve Kemp.. Ricky Henderson…but it seems no one else does
……………baseball writers sure don’t. LOL
What would worry me about Harper from a pure baseball standpoint is that swing. It is really powerful, but very complicated. A nice, smooth, “load, slot, swing” is more repeatable and stands the test of time. I’d be concerned that when he loses a bit of bad speed and/or strength, that his production would fall off the table. Maybe I’m wrong…
Every long term contract has turned into dead weight. Sure these guys are only 26 but that doesn’t mean a team wants to still be paying them when they’re 36. I don’t think either gets more than 7 years.
I’d actually be more inclined to give 5/$200 than 10/$300, I think. 10 years is a LONG time for an athlete.
Neither is worth 30M per year even on a short contract.
actually both are in terms of the revenue either would actually bring to the team signing them. Especially if they push your team into the playoffs.
at worst any team signing them would make their money back, so i’m not sure how people calculate what’s ‘worth it’ or not.
If you can get them on a short contract, even better. No long term risk to your team.
The comments about the Red Sox pen are ridiculous. Brasier pitched more than half Kimbrel’s innings and was better than him, and in the play-offs as well. He’s not a kid, and he has closed. Why isn’t he as good a gamble as the high-priced relievers coming off injuries, like Britton, or off-years, like Kimbrel?
“Does the bullpen even exist?” what garbage. The Sox lost Kelly—look at his record. He’s hardly a sure thing. They have two relievers, Smith and Thornberg, who could be dominant, since they were once.—i’d bet that one of the two will be a valuable piece.
Please, post for both player yearly: games played,avg, rbi, runs, hr,doubles, triple, fielding pctg, golden gloves, mvp. Let’s go back to the basics. Then their charismatic or personality issues. Harper is super overrated. Way too much. Only his agent and employees here, would see otherwise.
Tim D you must work the players union with your insistence that these players are no doubt deservingly of 300+ million. Last year’s offseason was not a fluke, it was a design to show baseball owners are taking back control of contracts. Long term media types are just PO’d because they were taunting 400+ mil contracts for the past 4 years for these players. Sucks for these two particular free agents. They had too much time to show their true merits. The Betts and Trouts of the league pit these players on at least one step down. Harper may not even be a top ten player in the league. Add all the excitement of recent or about to emerge talent in the league and no one gets excited because sports illustrated product or a no hussle head ache. I’ve said for a long time, neither get north of $300 mil total. Probably 5 for $40m per. Sometimes press credentials skew your view of reality or prohibit seeing the clearly laid out future.
Probably more like 5 for 32-35 per. Call it the owners opt out clause.
I second this
you do know even if owners ‘get salaries under control’, the price of a ticket isn’t going down, right? And the quality of the baseball team does not go up when the owner refuses to sign the best players for labor reasons…
So you, the fan, are kind of getting hosed as much as the player is in all this…
But sure, let’s cheer for the owners, they’re the ones you pay to see, right?
I pay to see players PERFORM. I do not want players on the team I root for making big money into their late 30’s tying up payroll that are performing at replacement or near replacement level.
And? a player your team doesn’t sign will never perform for your team in the first place. Are you really content with your team signing lesser players because they’re afraid that 5 years from now they might have to deal with 1 overpaid player?
settling for replacement level players now doesn’t make the team better, it just makes them cheaper. And the only person who benefits from that is the owner, who’s not going to pass his savings on to you
which is what’s so weird about seeing so many pro-ownership comments. The fans don’t get anything out of this. You just have to pay full price for a worse product…
You are assuming that the environment is not changing and that 8-10 year deals will still be handed out.
I disagree with that premise and believe the bar is being reset on the length of contracts. If the same player can be had on a 5-6 year deal.
Oh, there will be the occasional outlier, but not as msny as before., and more players will sign shorter deals.
petrie000;
In 2015 the Blue Jays “went for it” Paid free agents, traded prospects and took on salary in trade. They didn’t make it. Three seasons later they haven’t contended at all. They got their bloated payroll down, still have 2 overpaid veteran position players whose contracts will expire in 2019. They just started bringing up their quality prospects, and are talking about contending in 2021.
The Tigers went for it a few years ago. White Sox. Had to dump all the large salaries and do a total rebuild. Indians made the WS. Took the playoff money and signed some guys. Got worse. Now in financial trouble.
Two out of 30 teams go to the WS each year. Last year the Nationals had the 2nd highest payroll in MLB. They didn’t even make the playoffs. That’s reality.
My current guess is Machado goes Phillies or Padres 8yr at $230 and Harper goes Nationals 9yr at $290.
Tim I think you guys at MLBTR have missed the biggest factor on why Machado and Harper are not going to get the contracts that was once thought they would.
The three biggest spending teams seem to be completely out on these guys. The Red Sox are completely out, the Dodgers don’t need these guys and neither do the Yankees. In the past the Tigers and the Rangers have spent big and they are out. The only team that has really spent big in the past that seems to be in is the Phillies and maybe the Angels.
Now I personally think that the Padres should go after Machado. It sounds like the Nats already offered Harper 300 million. I think it’s just hard to get those I’ve contracts especially when the Red Sox and Yankees are out. If those two teams were bidding against each other then you would see the numbers that were predicted for Machado and Harper.
MLBTR might want to be a little more neutral and stop shaking the pom poms non-stop for huge , wasteful player contracts. A stock guru tells me trees don’t grow to the sky(only towards it) and there will be a reset on exorbitant contracts..
With respect, it’s not just MLBTR.
Every national sports media outlet covering the MLB has been actively pushing for Harper and Machado to land with the Yankees and/or Dodgers on contracts in excess of $35M annually. While I’m not totally against my team overpaying for either player, I find the media’s behavior a little odd.
I mean, the market obviously has no interest in giving either player “stupid” money at this point. Now think about this. If they gave these guys $400M, as was suggested by the baseball media last year, where does it end? $500M for Trout? $600M for the next great player three or four years from now? That’s ridiculous and unsustainable for one player, regardless of team revenues. Every team outside of NY or LA would be in a perpetual state of “capitalization”, handing over their best players for a draft pick as compensation.
Why are all the pundits so obsessed with seeing this absurdity continue? And what’s with this need to see all the elite players gravitate towards the two largest markets exclusively?
That’s it, really. A hope that these contracts get larger and larger is a hope that the small market teams can’t compete for these players.
Tim… if you ask people if they will start paying for something they already have for free they will say no. Try a poll asking if people have the athletic or such.