With the offseason in limbo, let’s take a look at a couple of pre- and post-lockout topics…
- ESPN’s MLB Insider Kiley McDaniel polled team executives and agents several weeks ago, asking industry members to predict how much activity would occur before the CBA expired. Those polled were conservative in their predictions, expecting little money to be spent and few free agents to leave the board. With the power of hindsight, we now know that money flew as numerous free agents departed the open market for rich team contracts. Recently, McDaniel again polled a group of agents, asking what to expect when the free agent market unfreezes. For the second time, the agents took a conservative view. The majority of polled agents felt team owners were big spenders in advance of the CBA’s expiration to undermine MLBPA arguments that clubs weren’t spending enough to be competitive. Once a new CBA is reached, these agents expect owners to tighten their purse strings and for free agents to sign for less than their pre-lockout counterparts. History suggests that teams will continue to spend after a new CBA is reached, but it remains to be seen if that trend will continue or if the agents will have their skepticism validated.
- In a more uplifting display of the agent-MLB team relationship, The Athletic’s Dan Hayes dives into the backstory of Byron Buxton’s recent extension with the Twins. Hayes notes that the 7-year, $100MM extension signed by Buxton took more than four years to negotiate, but was completed on the strength of president Thad Levine’s persistence and Buxton’s desire to be a lifelong Twin. Thanks to the unique incentives structure in the agreement, the contract in many respects serves as a perfect compromise between both parties. The 27-year-old Buxton can earn over $10MM in incentives during every year of the contract, depending on playing time and performance, while staying in Minnesota through his age-34 season. The Twins meanwhile, are on the hook for an annual (and palatable) $15MM salary after next year, and won’t have to pay Buxton superstar money any year that injuries prevent him from making a huge impact on the field. The contract defied industry expectations, per Hayes, as several rival teams expected Minnesota’s budget restraints to scuttle a deal. Ultimately, both sides stayed open-minded and got creative to satisfy the initial goal: to keep one of baseball’s most dynamic talents in a Twins uniform.
Claiming that the owners opened their pocket books so that players can’t claim that owners aren’t opening their pocket books seems like a bit of stretch…
asking agents, what would you expect. 🙂 They would prefer the players own the teams. Scherzer could buy the Pirates, but yet many feel the players are overpaid.
This is the thought process of the people the owners have to deal with while trying to negotiate a new CBA. They can’t possibly win. Even when they spend billions of dollars in a few days somehow they are told their is some nefarious reason they did it and they are still trying to pick the players pockets.
Baseball is so different from other sports. Football and basketball players sign the new CBA as soon as they can because they are happy to become millionaires for playing a game during the short span of time they will be able to. Baseball players are treated much better than players from those other sports with guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. They still complain more than any other group of athletes on the planet.
The idea the Texas Rangers spent a ton of money just to help out their competition in CBA talks is absolutely paranoid. First the owners weren’t going to spend money. When the owners do spend money it’s just to trick the players into thinking they will keep spending money. That really is paranoid.
I have to give kudos to the fact that the owners are even willing to negotiate with people like that. I wouldn’t. It’s a losing proposition. No matter what you do they will badmouth you and tell people not to trust you. I would tell players that I would work out deals with them individually but never negotiate with whoever runs the MLBPA. If they want to go to through the MLBPA I would just sign someone else. It might hurt for a few years but eventually the players would come back because they could never get that kind of money doing anything else.
If Max Scherzer doesn’t want to sign his name on it that’s fine. The Mets can just keep their $43 million every year. It’s one thing to call someone out for doing something wrong. When they actually pay you and you still pretend they are only doing it for an ulterior motive to pick your pocket later shows you aren’t worth negotiating with in the first place.
Eventually the younger stars who are the future of the league like Franco, Tatis and Soto would abandon the union because they want to get paid. I don’t know why the owners don’t just wait for that to happen. It’s better than paying people billions of dollars just to watch them turn around and say you are cheating them every single year.
I’m not a big owner guy. I side with the players in football an basketball. This is just ridiculous though. MLB players already have it so much better than those other athletes and they still pay representatives to say this nonsense.
The idea that owners don’t work together to win CBA negotiations or that the rangers don’t care about winning the CBA negotiations because it might help other teams too is infantile.
Are you literally unable to imagine how you would handle such high stakes negotiations?
Or would you just screw it up for everyone because you couldn’t handle doing anything to benefit other teams?
“I’m not a big owners guys” You’re not much of a Union guy either I’m guessing. If you’d like individual players to abandon the most powerful union in sports and make gobs of money without benefit to their Local, simple, remove baseball’s anti-trust exemption. It’s a regionalized sport now anyway, I wouldn’t mind a relegation model.
When the headlines already say how MLB spent a record breaking 1 day total of about 1.6billion its pretty legit. especially when you account for that 1.6b was spent on roughly less than 20 players total. 600mill alone was Seager and Semien. Baez, Scherzer, Gauseman, Ray, and marte make up then next roughly 600 mill. 8 players out of several hundred making up the bulk…….Im just saying its not implausible.
Yes it’s implausible – are you suggesting that owners got together and convinced the Rangers and Mets to take one for the team and overpay a bunch of guys? Or maybe the simple explanation: the market was mostly driven by a couple unsuccessful teams that were motivated to spend.
So you’re too young to have even heard of collusion?
The internet can help you out there.
Other thing the internet is good for? People buying into far fetched conspiracy theories and then telling everyone who disagrees they are naïve or need to educate themselves, all while happily regurgitating information from people who are established B.S. merchants
Is collusion possible? Sure. Plausible? Hell no. I will take my Occam’s razor explanation over your grand conspiracy any day – so the teams got together and colluded to spend more money so they could have leverage in the next CBA to…avoid spending more money?
And you are too old to be open to another opinion? Nothing can help you out there, my friend.
Comment below is to emac
Above now.
it happens often.. to cover up a larger crime… You don’t think spending now to make more money later is a business practice… sure it is.. happens all the time.. It is standard business practice.. especially surrounding Unions… companies often offer increases in salary and benefits to prevent unions from forming…
Ohhhh the C word comes out, watch out folks
Totally agree. It alleges collusion and discounts how much agents and players were driving demand and resolution before the CBA expired.
Discounts how much players and agents were driving demand?
Do you have any clue what you’re even trying to say?
Are you surprised that people think and plan ahead, do you think the owners would never do anything like that or do you think no one in ownership even thought about it?
People don’t get rich because they’re stupid or because they’re too concerned about people to rip them off.
If you were going into one of the most important negotiations in your life would you choose not to do something like that to counter the other sides key arguments? If so, why? You’d be leaving yourself with nothing to combat one of the unions strongest points.
I still don’t think it works to benefit the owners though, here’s why:
Take the Yankees since they’re the team most associated with spending money. In 2003 they spent approximately 78% of revenue on payroll. By 2010 that had dropped to 50%, and by 2021 – 33%. So, the argument still stands – the owners are making more and more revenue while not putting that money back into the team & players. < Courtesy of a good article on PSA.
That’s why fans get upset, specifically Yankees fans, about the $205M that hasn’t changed in 16 years. It isn’t commensurate with the substantial increases in revenue. That’s also why the players’ association is upset and demands a larger cut of the pie.
It’s really simple economics. And with the owners demonstrating their willingness to save at all costs I don’t think it serves their side at all. Keep in mind, I’m normally on the owners’ side because it is a free market and they own a business so I believe they should have latitude.
On this, however, I certainly see the players’ perspective.
It isn’t commensurate with the substantial increases in revenue. That’s also why the players’ association is upset and demands a larger cut of the pie. …On this, however, I certainly see the players’ perspective.
=================================
I don’t. The were offered a slice of the revenue in every CBA. They declined. Whose fault is that?
If my boss offers me a flat $100,000 a year, or $90,000/year + an option to buy 1,000 shares at $30, whatever I choose is my choice and my responsibility. I don’t get to take the $100,000, and then ask for the 1,000 shares.
If the players agree to a % of revenue, the CBA will be done tomorrow. But they won’t get both higher salaries AND a %.
Joe, I completely agree with that sentiment and I believe you brought this content up before (I had not seen it on here before you if I recall).
It’s an excellent point. It’s perfectly understandable to explain the players losing out on past revenue streams because of their choice in how they received contractual benefits/monies. I’m simply postulating the fact that since the revenue has gone up substantially, and owners have kept payroll at a comparable minimum, I understand the players wanting a larger revenue share now that it is time to negotiate. I simply wrote I understand the players’ perspective, and the fans’ perspective, who are angry with teams refusing to acquire needed talent to win in order to keep costs at a relatively low measure.
I think too often we make this a binary choice, but to understand one’s perspective doesn’t necessarily have to be a mutually exclusive point of view.
Not a stretch at all.
Hmm, this is possibly the greatest free agent class in history and teams have known that for years. It is no surprise that big money was being spent because there were so many impact players available. If a big chunk of agents are thinking that teams spent 1.6B just to claim the owners are penny pinching then they are stupid or paranoid. Most likely both.
It’s agents being agents. They aren’t going to say that the owners will make it rain after the next CBA agreement. Better to give a conservative response than to look foolish to their clients.
It’s adults being adults.
I guess you guys are all too young to know how this all works but collusion was a word before Trump.
Even in baseball.
Even in baseball negotiations.
Even in my lifetime.
Twins Budget constrains… hahahahahhahahahahah… what a fantasy… the twins have been raking in the money since the opening of Target field.. just as planned.. the twins have under-spent their ability since then… look at the spending compared to baseball inflation and the Twins are under-spending.
Anyone who buys that the twins are an impoverished team and must be frugal.. hasn’t a clue about the twins and the lies they told to enrich themselves at the cost of the tax payers… let me help.. the Twins promised the new revenue Streams made possible by a new publicly financed stadium would be used to keep their stars and add new stars and build a team… I was at the hearing in the Minnesota senate when that was said… they lied then and they lie til this day.. their spending has went down compared to the spending the 1st 2 years at Target field.. just look at where they rank in spending in the MLB teams they were 11th in spending on payroll in 2010, 9th in 2011, 13th in 2012, 22nd in 2013, 24th in 2014, 18th in 2015, 18th in 2016, 22nd in 2017, 18th in 2018, 18th in 2019, 20 in 2020, 16th in 2021 in opening day payrolls.. and less than that at the end of every year i believe.. stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
Not being contrarian here, but their ranking relative to the league might reveal the ability of other teams to spend more extensively more than it reveals the point I think you are trying to make. Isn’t their spending compared to their own year by year overhead while accounting for inflation +/- actual revenue generated by these $ streams vs potential income generated by them the more accurate statistical measure in this case…? Not being a wisearse here at all, I love that you took in the actual Senate hearings rather than let some opinion programming tell ya what to think about it and just wanna add my $0.02 in hopes it either further clears up why their shady, or lowers the contempt you may have for the owners of your own team. 🙂
Every years set of free agents to spend on aren’t equal to the next and in many years the available free agents may not be at a position of need for many teams. To simply track spending relative to the league isn’t an accurate representation of a teams willingness to spend on the right players. It’s just lazy.
no it was over a decade and it showed an unwillingness to live up to a commitment to the public to spend the revenue from target Field..
Not necessarily. It’s not lazy if it’s done over the course of long-term study, for example, 15-20 offseason / FA cycles. Then it’s a pattern, a trend, a substantiated perspective.
Um,nah. Pohlad’s have given the green light to big contracts. The issue is that our fantasy boys (whom I generally like) try to fill out our rotations with cross-your-fingers fillers (see: Shoemaker, Happ). And the analytic clubs run through relievers on one year contracts like a carousel because they believe bullpen arms are fickle year-year-to-year. I mean, Rich Hill is going to pitch until he’s 50. My worry is our in-house pitching talent doesn’t seem to get better. Eh, just my anecdotal take.
Byron Buxton is now more rich than Francis Buxton
I do think this is one of the most brilliant contracts ever, I also think the standard contract models should be closer to how Buxton’s deal is structured for when guys burn out early or have a lost season or fall apart as soon as their mega deal kicks in- like Josh Hamilton, Jacoby Ellsbury, Carl Crawford, etc. amongst others and the reality is, with how superstars get paid nowadays, if Buxton miraculously stayed healthy and hit all incentive marks every year- like 7 MVP’s, plays in 150 games and makes 600+ plate appearances per season, etc…. he’d still wind up underpaid by about $10-15M a season if he somehow wound up putting in full seasons of 10+ WAR like he has often paced for. Don’t get me wrong- I don’t think that’s going to happen, at all. I would be shocked if he earns more than $30M out of the $73M or so worth of incentives and most of it will come from plate appearance bench marks and some Top 10 MVP vote finishes, but no number ones and probably not over 600 PA’s in any given season. If that happened I’d be truly shocked. Like winning a national jackpot lottery twice.
I agree. I love this model. Get paid to produce. You still get paid a lot ($15 million a year) no matter what. You only get paid like a superstar during the years you actually are a superstar though. That’s how it should be. Pay for production. That’s how every other job is on the planet. If you are bad at your job you don’t make as much money. If you are great at your job you make a lot more. This should be the standard. Not just for Buxton but for everyone. Buxton only agreed to it because of his past injuries. Other players will have long stretches where they are terrible or hurt just like him. Why not make the incentives higher and the base lower? That way players who suck get paid like they suck but players who are great get paid more in line with their actual performance and get paid like they deserve. A system like that would really help the good players and only hurt the bad players regardless of age or past performance.
Hammer, would you be in favor of a system like this from a player’s first day in the majors? Because the first 6 years of a player’s career – for those whose careers last 6 years – they are often vastly underpaid.
I would, it’s a great model for pre FA years. One yr contracts, base salary plus incentives for high kevel production. It’s just guaranteeing bonuses basically. Owners give that for yrs 1-6 of team control,players give on capping contract length at say 4 years. Not a salary cap- a risk cap. Negotiate in all the incentives needed for both sides.
Cleon, why would you want to cap contract length? If both the owner and player were comfortable with a longer contract, shouldn’t that be fine?
If players want owners to keep paying huge contracts, then the players need to stop proving teams like Tampa and to a lesser extent, the usually competitive Oakland right. Even Atlanta is concerned mid market and they took home the hardware. If players demand a right (which is what they’re doing) to big and ever bigger contracts, then they need to stop having the last 1/3 to 1/2 of those contracts make management look like morons by limping through them to half hearted and half value stats.
Fans need to stop blaming players when the owners decide it helps their team to backload the contact.
What made you decide the players should be responsible for protecting owners from stupid decisions?
Do you object to the concept of owners paying for their mistakes?
The negotiation is about the overall percentage of revenue that goes to the players. The players got screwed in the last deal and that number was cut to significantly below the previous number and the numbers in other sports.
The question at hand is how much that gets corrected.
Don’t get fooled into thinking it’s about the little issues or that your post was even relevant to anything except you wanting players to protect you from whatever stupid owner runs your team.
@emac … the players got screwed last negotiation? But tony.c got the players their own suite on the road and their own aisle on the bus…exactly what was important to the players.
tony.c is not a leader and obviously should not be at the table considering how much money he left there (according to you)
@emac Triggered lol…think harder try smarter buddy. Mine was a forward looking statement with a built in perceived common sense truth that says “the revenue the players are getting now they’d like to continue to get + whatever they’re negotiating for now.” I believe the owners are likely looking to pay players sooner as well. Some will run right back into the fan blades with 13-14-15 year deals while others will deduce that even a 10-20% overpay of services for 3 years, barring zeropoint injury, is likely to hug the margins of value much mlre snuggly than 4-6 years of absolutely cratering performance at peak pay.
I get it. You’re pro labor. Don’t forget, the players perform the service that ownership makes possible. Don’t cut off your wallet to spite your best virtue signaling finger bro….
I agree in part – it is clearly irrational for teams to keep throwing these huge contracts at aging players with the *expectation* that they will become albatrosses, merely working on the hope that they provide enough value in the meantime to rationalize wasting bucketloads of money in the long run.
The problem is that this is the bargained for system – the players who drive real value, young guys who are stars under team control, don’t get paid and instead it’s the veterans who do. It is totally friggen irrational to have past their prime or plateaued players be the main driver for player payroll. I really hope that there is a rethinking of this system such that some of the money being stacked up and burned because teams wanted to have a Pujols or Cabrera 10 years ago and hit the bullet on today gets reallocated to the young guys.
Byron Buxton reminds me of Aaron Hicks. Both played in Minnesota. Both got 7 year deals with 10m or more. Both are excellent defenders. Both can’t stay healthy.
Yeah, they have some similarities. But, who is better?
Well, the Twins traded Hicks to make room for Buxton. Pretty sure they made the right choice.
Baseball players are a little bit like star musicians. They offer a skill set that is demonstrably better than those who who don’t make it. I knew a bank manager who was a former minor leaguer. He said you couldn’t believe how difficult the game was unless you played it against others who were better than you–and you weren’t ever going to catch. So he “retired” and got a “real” job. There are plenty of baseball fans who talk about men playing a kids game, and how the players should accept whatever the owners offer, etc. But none of us can/could ever play the game at a level that fans would pay a lot of money to see. Franchises are worth billions, while the minor leagues struggle. That tells you that fans and advertisers see value in what the best baseball players have to offer. Let the market decide,
Even the players who “only” make the low minors and fail are among a fraction of a percent of the best baseball players in the world.
To your point, applying the same thinking, most of us couldn’t manage MULTIPLE multi-Billion dollar businesses employing thousands of people and affecting entire economies of region.
Which is to say, I sense the players have a healthy respect for ownership that fans seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Like, 9/10 people know they could never play in the Show but they act like they could streamline the role of ownership and still have time to paint the fence before dinner. It boggles the mind.
Really smart move by Buxton. He secured a big payday while still being able to earn more if he earns it, plus now he can just focus on trying to stay on the field without stressing about contract stuff.
“I’m not a big owners guys” You’re not much of a Union guy either I’m guessing. If you’d like individual players to abandon the most powerful union in sports and make gobs of money without benefit to their Local, simple, remove baseball’s anti-trust exemption. It’s a regionalized sport now anyway, I wouldn’t mind a relegation model.
I’m going to predict:
Buxton will have several 30 HR seasons and will win at least one AL MVP Award.
Predicting 5 Gold Gloves
Really tho…if he plays 150 games, he is a 40 HR threat and a lock to win a Gold Glove.
If he does those things…$25.5 million is a steal.
This is great. But we need #1 and #2 starters and SS
Royce Lewis and Austin Martin are really close to filling the need at SS
THe rotation is an obvious, glaring need. Hopefully there is a trade in the works for at least two major league ready arms.
I’m intrigued by Duran and Balazovic. But who knows how well they’ll perform. Chase Petty looks awesome but he is years away, probably. They needs help from outside the ORG