Rob Manfred addressed a key point of the league’s economic structure in an appearance at the World Congress of Sports this evening. The MLB commissioner expressed support for a limitation on contract length, calling it a desire of ownership groups around the league (link via Evan Drellich of the Athletic).
“A reform that has been of interest to ownership for a number of years is a limitation of contract length,” Manfred said in response to a question about a potential upper bound on long-term deals. “Obviously players love it, it gives them financial security for a very long period of time. The difficulty — and I think players will come to appreciate this as time goes by — those contracts result in a transfer from the current stars to yesterday’s stars. At some point, that has to be true. And I think it is an issue that is important for us to stay focused on, because it creates inflexibility that affects the quality of the teams that you put on the field.”
The notion of a maximum contract length drew a sharp rebuke from MLBPA executive director Tony Clark. “The public statements from Rob Manfred about the owners’ desire to limit guaranteed contracts is just one more in a series of statements attacking fundamental aspects of baseball’s free market system and the freedom of clubs and players to structure deals in the best interests of all parties,” Clark told Drellich. “The ability of individual clubs to act in their own self-interest in determining how best to put an exciting product on the field for their fans is not something that should be restricted. Anyone who believes that players would ever endorse an assault by management on guaranteed contracts is badly mistaken.”
It’s not shocking to hear of league interest in capping contracts, nor is it a surprise Clark framed that notion as a non-starter. Any kind of contract length cap would have to be collectively bargained. It’s impossible to envision the union entertaining that possibility during the next round of CBA negotiations four years from now.
Debates about contract length have been prevalent since the advent of free agency. Teams’ risk tolerance to commit to players deep into their 30s waned as research mounted about the likelihood of the aging curve sapping production towards the end of a deal. There’s certainly some truth in Manfred’s assertion that the back end of long-term contracts (particularly free agent deals) tend not to offer clubs’ a great return on investment.
However, overpaying for diminished production towards the back of a player’s career is a risk/reward calculation for clubs. Teams are left to weigh long-term downside versus the short-term benefit of adding a player for potential prime seasons during the early portion of a contract. Accepting some potentially unproductive seasons towards the back of a free agent deal is often the tradeoff for upgrading the roster in the short term. A contract length limit would have some element of protecting teams from their own decisions.
The game’s current economic structure is built on the premise that free agency is a right secured by players later in their careers. Pre-arbitration and arbitration salaries are designed to pay players at below-market rates for their first six-plus years. While some players debut young enough to hit free agency right as they’re entering their prime, the majority of first-time free agents get to the open market in the middle or at the tail end of their expected best seasons.
In many cases, teams are disincentivized to extend long-term contracts in recognition of the risk of diminished performance down the line. However, in some instances, the existence of another measure designed to limit spending paradoxically pushes clubs in the direction of longer-term deals.
Teams’ luxury tax calculations are based on the average annual salaries of their contractual commitments. In the past few offseasons, some high-spending franchises have elected to stretch deals over an extra season or two in order to reduce the AAV and associated tax hit. The Phillies’ deals for Bryce Harper (13 years, $330MM) and Trea Turner (11 years, $300MM), Mets’ contract with Brandon Nimmo (eight years, $162MM), and Padres’ agreements with Xander Bogaerts (11 years, $280MM) and Yu Darvish (five years, $90MM) are examples to varying degrees.
MLB was reportedly planning to intervene on contract length at one point last offseason. The New York Post’s Jon Heyman wrote that San Diego was preparing to offer Aaron Judge $400MM over 14 years, a deal that would’ve run through age-44. Judge returned to the Yankees regardless, but Heyman reported that the league would’ve viewed that contract as a circumvention of the luxury tax had it been accepted. How the MLBPA would have responded is unclear.
That intervention would have been specifically about a team going too far (in MLB’s view) to massage its tax bill. It would not have had anything to do with a categorical limit on contract length. San Diego’s 14-year extension with Fernando Tatis Jr. garnered league approval a few years ago, as it “only” ran through Tatis’ age-35 campaign.
A limit on contract length is not without precedent within the North American sports landscape. The collective bargaining agreements for the NBA and NHL each have variable maximum contract lengths based on whether a player previously played for the team signing the deal (and in the NBA’s case, an age-based provision). Those leagues each have salary caps, though, reflecting lesser leverage on the part of their respective Players Associations than the MLBPA has. The MLB players union surely won’t have any interest in entertaining this question so long as they have negotiating leverage.
The owners are the ones issuing contracts at these lengths to usurp the luxury tax. It’s literally their own fault. Too many penny-pinching billionaires.
It’s really just capital planning. I have no problems with it. Very few of these predominantly FA built teams winds up in better shape than Detroit or Washington currently. Spending millions more than they typical would on a loser because of dead money deals isn’t something I’m gonna care about. You wanna give it out—go right ahead.
I also don’t have a problem with it and I completely understand why they would of it.
The problem is that the owners are the ones that are now complaining about the contract lengths as if they’re not the ones that issued them. It’s just beyond silly.
If they suddenly stop, the union will allege collusion. Thus, the hope (not likely) of getting an agreement beforehand with the MLBPA.
True all. Owners are NOT all committed to the same goal. Some want to win. Some want to use their team as an ATM and/or a tax shelter. It would be nice if MLB could weed out the frauds who charge big league ticket prices, collect revenue sharing money, and insult their fans’ intelligence by complaining about big spending teams.
Like the owner of the Reds that told the fans to go pound rocks because he was not going to spend to win and there was nothing they could about it because he had the only game in town?
What you don’t take into account is that the Reds did try to win but COVID burned them and this rebuild is looking quite strong.
COVID burned everybody. Not just the Reds. Cut the crap.
Almost no team is worse than Washington or Detroit now, and certainly not one who spent money on Free agents.
Don’t forget that exceeding the luxury tax has ramifications other than putting a slightly larger dent in owners’ wallets, I don’t see how anyone can look at some of these megadeals from this past winter and believe this strategy is due to the owners wanting to pinch pennies. Yes, there are some terrible, cheap owners, and they’re probably the ones complaining about this since less LT payments decrease their revenue sharing handouts.
The guaranteed money offered is the same–if not more–not to mention the fact that it’s just flat-out stupid to willingly incur constant draft and international free agency penalties
My problem is that the luxury tax exists because there are a bunch of cheap crybaby owners that insist on it. After it’s implemented, the non-cheap owners find ways around it. Then collectively, the owners complain about the ramifications.
Clearly the problem is amongst the owners themselves while they try to frame it as a players’ union issue.
I agree it’s cheap owners getting mad at big spenders but this wasn’t framed as a players’ union issue. The PA wasn’t even brought up by Manfred, Tony Clark just responded to it. The terms Manfred used are so vague in reference to who supports this limit that I don’t agree with your characterization that the owners are collectively in agreement on this issue.
Looking at some teams’ past behaviors and some rumblings about other teams’ looking to lock up their arb guys past their expiration date or get in on the Ohtani and Soto sweepstakes, I’d be willing to bet Manfred was speaking for less than 10 ownership groups
“After it’s implemented, the non-cheap owners find ways around it.”
Thats what they’re trying to fix, but they cant do that, without the MLBPA being involved. There’s no “frame it as a players’ issue”. Owners cant just incorporate new rules, they have involve the MLBPA.
@chrisg
The luxury tax exists due to uneven market size, which is beyond MLB control. An example is the NYY have 9x the market of KC. That makes it impossible for these two teams to operate in the same way. NY does pay into the system, but by no means does it level the playing field. It’s the same with federal tax dollars. West Virginia gets more help per person than NY. It doesn’t make things equal, but makes it better for people in WV than it would be without it. The difference with MLB is that each owner is expecting to be an equal partner, but are assigned to unequal markets.
The difference with MLB is that each owner is expecting to be an equal partner, but are assigned to unequal markets.
The owners aren’t assigned anything. They buy whatever teams they chose to buy. If Steve Cohen bought the Royals, he’d operate just as he does now. The Cardinals market their team better than the Royals do. Same area. Same constraints. Same fan base.
Stop the BS.
“The difference with MLB is that each owner is expecting to be an equal partner, but are assigned to unequal markets.”
That’s not really true. They have never been equal Partners. They don’t pay the same amount for their Teams. To operate a Team in NY is a lot more costly then running one in KC and the Valuation of that is taken into account. You also have the fact that teams in the Bigger Markets Sell for a Premium that the owner has to pay.
You won’t see the owner of the KC team chipping in to pay the Premium for their “Equal Partner”.
The concept behind the Anti-Trust Exemption that MLB has is in part due to the fact that though MLB is a whole the individual teams do not operate as One Entity. Each owner is entitled to run the team as a Independent Owner within the Bounds of the MLB that they contracted with,
They are in the same Organization (MLB) but they are not equal.
Excellent, BLIN7Y!
I get sick of all the big market/small market crap. Markets are created. they’re not natural phenomenon. When I lived in Hawaii, Superstation TBS broadcast games there daily. Guess what you saw around town? BRAVES caps! Same thing in Southern Arizona with the Cubs… my dad watched Jack Brickhouse (Hey Hey Hey!). To this day the Cubs spring training games routinely outdraw DBacks regular season games.
I lived in Mizzou for ten years. The Cardinals market their team all over the region, far better than the Royals do. While the Royals owners moan about small market crap, I was able to get Cardinals games as far away as Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska… everywhere. No Royals games except in greater KC.
Markets are what you make of them.
I lived in Iowa. 30% were Cubs fans, 30% were Cardinals, 20% White Sox, 20% were misc. Midwest basically is all over the place, negating the effect. When you go to Boston 90% of New England (except CT) are Red Sox fans. Big difference in numbers.
The Red Sox have to compete with Yankees, Mets, Phillies, three hockey teams, three football teams, and the Phillies market. All of those ‘markets’ are crowded close together. TV/Radio and advertising money is competed for amongst all those teams.
IF the Red Sox, Yanks, Phillies, Mets, etc, tried to operate like the KC Royals or Colorado Rockies, they’d go under in a year. Or move… like the Giants, Dodgers, A’s, and Braves did. Big markets provide fierce competition. So-called small markets don’t. When you’re ‘the only game in town’, there’s no excuse for not putting a good product on the field.
“Big markets provide fierce competition. So-called small markets don’t. When you’re ‘the only game in town’, there’s no excuse for not putting a good product on the field.”
Sure, Small Markets have it much easier than Big Markets. Im surprised the Yankees dont up and move and grab that Des Moines market. Theyd have it all to themselves.
You just made my point for me..
If YOU owned a team, would you put it in Des Moine?
Ony in your imagination. First Big Markets got it tough, now why would you go to a Small Market. Dude youre all over the place. You drinking?
I wouldn’t ‘go’ to a small market. I’d make my market bigger and better. You apparently don’t know what that even means. If you have a point to make, you aren’t making it.
The Cardinals draw fans from 8 states, including Iowa.
Nothing is stopping the Royals from tapping into that market.
Again, in New England, that market is shared between the Mets, Yankees, Sox and all the other sports teams in those areas. It’s not exclusively Red Sox territory. You’re pulling numbers out of your keister, none of which are true.
Sure whatever, Bostons sharing New England.but everybody in 8 states are Cardinal fans. Ive lived in the midwest, and they are FAR more spread out with their choice of favorite baseball team. They’re also not dedicated at all like fans are in New England. They almost always have bigger sports they follow.
You really have no clue what youre talking about.
I have a clue I’m wasting my time talking to you.
That’s going to end now. Bye.
It comes down to a split camp. The have-nots can’t afford to absorb the bad deals and still field a competitive club. Others can afford it, amd, don’t care.
Really, there ARE ways around things though. You know, if you offered to kill the qualifying offer entirely, cut pre-arb to a single season, then limit arbitration to two seasons, and asked in exchange for a contract limit of say 8 years unless it contained a mutual option in year 9, that might get traction.
Dangle a big enough carrot and just about any provision comes onto the table for negotiation.
I miss the player salary hold outs from years ago.
Who is going to blink first was always a fun game…..
Too many greedy players.
Just one of the 30 owners is more greedy than every player in major and minor league baseball combined.
Too many greedy owners
The same people defending unlimited contract length are the same ones complaining when their team doesn’t over pay for free agents and the same ones complaining about large market teams constantly outspending small market teams.
It’s another “stop us before we spend again” provision, along with the CBT. A problem totally of ownership’s own creation.
An easy way to fix this: if a player is released before the end of their contract and does not sign elsewhere, the out years of their contract are treated as deferred money and retroactively counted against the CBT. The union might even go along with this, if the provision only kicks in for players under contract beyond a certain age, say 40 years.
You can’t really ‘go back’ with a retroactive CBT application. You can’t take away a guy they drafted 3 years ago with a pick they should’ve lost. You can’t undo a bonus pool or intl.signing pool that shouldn’t exist.
What you could do is say for CBT purposes total salary will be assessed over a maximum of 7 years, so, a 14 yr 280m deal will be taxed as 40m a season over 7 years, with the remaining 7 years not held against the CBT.
MLB can do whatever it wants with its finances and they probably don’t have to address the draft pick issue if the dollar penalty for gaming the system is otherwise severe enough. And of course they could always dock future draft picks.
Penny-Pinching while giving out $30M/year contracts?
Just permanently lock out the players already. Enough is enough and society will barely even notice, let alone care, anyway.
Manfraud works for the owners. The owners appear to like long term deals. How friggin dumb can he be?
A few of the newer owners like the long term deals. Manfred isn’t a mouthpiece for no one. There’s quite clearly a large number who do not.
I don’t care at all. But Manfred definitely isn’t speaking for no reason.
Manfred works for the owners.
Yes. The commissioner of MLB is elected by the owners to facilitate league wide operations. It’s an independent office representing the owners and league as a collective, not a specific owner(s).
Let me put it another way.
The players have no say so in the matter.
@bronxmac77 – The players have the MLBPA as their representative. Manfred’s direct counterpart is Tony Clark. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Manfred cannot impose some sort of salary cap, contract length cap or alter existing contract rules without the consent of the MLBPA.
Union equals a say in the matter. If a majority of teams suddenly stop giving long term contracts that is called collusion. Its against the law.
So, you are wrong.
My point is that Manfred is trying to appease the owners with stupid comments like limiting contracts length.
Even though the owners are tripping over each other asking the players to sign them.
No. It isn’t collusion. Unless one can prove the owners are acting together. Which, obviously, they are not
Collusion has to be Proven.
Manfred doesn’t try to “appease” the owners, he works for them. His job, his ONLY job, is making them richer. When he opens his mouth, their voices come out. Apparently this is an unclear concept to many. I’m at a total loss to understand why.
The first commissioner, Landis, was hired by the owners, basically to save them from themselves. Some folks here are trying to say that Manfred cannot really make a move without running it by the MLBPA. That may be true, and if so, good for the players. They need a voice.
But al I’ve been saying is that the commissioner works for the owners. And like you, I’m at a total loss as to why this is confusing to some.
Hes the representatve for the owners, who is it a unclear concept to? You could say the same thing about Tony Clark and the MLBPA. You make it sound so nefarious, thats his job.
The purpose of the commissioner has changed a bit since Landis. The position now and really ever since would more accurately be called the CEO of MLB. A big part of his job is taking the heat for getting ownership what they want. Manfred has his job and keeps it because he delivers for the owners.
The concept is unclear to anyone who believes Manfred exerts some sort of mind control over the owners.
When Manfred speaks; 90% of the owners lips are moving.
Every major sports, MLB, NHL, NBA. NFL all have commissioners that are selected, approved and paid for by their respective owners
It’s just a matter of fact
I hate Manfred so much.
That means he is doing his job…..
alienating fans? his changes to the game has not increased. young fans’ interest in baseball but made a lot of traditional fans get less enamored by the game.
I think most people like the changes to the game except many are against the extra inning runner on 2nd. That said Manfred is a crap Commish. There are so many reasons I think this but the final straw was taking the allstar game away from Atlanta because of political reasons (which were in fact nothing more than going back to pre-covid voting laws, but even less strict, contrary to any rhetoric).
I should mention the COVID voting laws were illegally “passed” (enforced from above without a vote) via mandates, if I recall correctly.
Of all the reasons to hate Manfred, the last is the stupidist.
If you are referring to me I propose you are the stupidest. It’s stupid to dislike someone for (in an unprecedented way) punishing a city for a law it passed to return things back to the way they were a year before (actually even being more lenient than the original law) and costing the city of Atlanta all the revenue it would have gotten, as well as the publicity? It says you responded to my comment so I assume this response is justified. If not my bad.
What’s really stupid is hating someone for doing their job. Red alert: the commissioner works for the owners, not himself, and he keeps his job for as long as he advances ownership’s interests. So if you have to hate someone, hate the owners. Hating ownership’s mouthpiece only gives them a pass.
Who said I don’t dislike many owners?ok so by your great logic I shouldn’t have beef with the presidents of the United States because they are just carrying out the whims of their campaign backers. We shouldn’t dislike the hitman that comes to kill us because they are just following someone else’s desire to have us killed. We shouldn’t dislike a person who lies to us on TV because they are doing their job at the whim of their employers. What logic. Who aspires to roles that are inherently unethical?
Despite what I said above and despite your rudeness I do appreciate the gist of what you are saying. I was rude only after someone was rude to me. I was not rude to you
Bad Analogy City.
In what way is it a bad analogy? I am mearly taking it to the extreme to show the essence of your argument which is stupid.
Taking an analogy to the extreme is what makes it a bad analogy. Adding an insult makes it an even worse analogy.
2025:
Rob Manfred: “We are testing an extra inning rule in the Atlantic League. It will start inning with the bases loaded, a 3-0 count, and both teams have to insert their wildest pitcher. You’re welcome!”
Wonder how Clark’s tune would change if they reduced team control to 4 years vs 6? Want to reduce FA contracts. Reduce the team control. Just enjoy a 10team competitive league 5 years after you start that.
The MLBPA is largely controlled by big name celebrity players, not the young up and comers. In fact, until this last CBA, the MLBPA did just about jack squat for younger players in recent history. The most intensely guarded components of the CBA for players are:
1. 100% Fully Guaranteed Contracts.
2. No salary caps of any kind.
The only way either of those items will change is if owners break the union, and the owners were unwilling to break the union when they had the most leverage they’ve had in a very long time with the last lockout. It was just too financially crippling considering the shortened seasons and huge profits they’d recently raked in.
MLBPA, like most sports unions, just caters to the top 5% of earners/players. This last MLB CBA was OVERWHELMINGLY supported by the MAJORITY of players, but the Max Scherzer led, celebrity wing of players did not support it.
I tend to agree with you.
I’d much rather see a ‘union’ that looks out for the least of it’s brethren, rather than the top 1% or so. THAT’S what a good union is supposed to do.
@bronxmac77 – I think the MLBPA did a remarkable job this time around in terms of getting concessions which enormously benefitted younger players as well. I mean, the players basically got all they wanted (guaranteed salaries, no caps, luxury tax concessions, qualified offer concessions) and then went back and dipped back into the pot after the big name players were taken care of to address things like arbitration bonus pools, minimum salaries and improvements for MiLB as well.
On top of that, there’s the MiLB CBA which came later (which I actually think owners were on board with as well).
The younger guys undoubtedly want their shot at being the next $300MM superstar, too.
Agree, boss.
I would like to see more given to the younger guys, including the MiLB. It’s been far too long. Good steps on the right direction.
break the union? how? this is not 1920’s!
It will be interesting to watch how the future of baseball contracts and the CBAs play out. I’m not enthusiastic about the MLBPA’s leadership or wisdom, but they’ve gotten utterly massive concessions from owners. Time will tell whether or not the concessions prove to be a major burden on profitability.
It’s not good for baseball to have franchises rendered into consistent 100 loss cannon fodder operations, but there are franchises which are already intentionally operated in that manner. If we start seeing cornerstone franchises at the top of the food chain become crippled by poor contract decisions in addition to the non-competitive by choice teams, MLB owners will be more likely to push for forced restraint, but even then, it would take years to correct the damage poorly run franchises have inflicted upon themselves.
Wouldn’t it lead to better competition if the top spending teams were
“crippled by bad contracts”
and couldn’t spend their
way out of mistakes?
Astros (x4)
Dodgers (x3)
Royals (x2)
Red Sox (x2)
Nationals
Cardinals
Guardians
Rays
Phillies
Mets
Of appearances in the World Series 50% of teams were Top 8 in spending.
50% were outside the Top 8.
Teams can try to buy their way to the World Series, but their success rate is pretty low. Spending more increases the likelihood of the playoffs and the World Series, but last I checked, the median World Series team payroll was like $125MM over the past 10 years. That’s within all 30 teams’ budget if they’re trying to be competitive during their window.
125m 10 years ago isn’t what it is today. You have to look at what the dollars were then vs now. Just saying every team can afford 125m today isn’t the same as 10 years ago.
I computed this % of World Series wins about a year ago since 1991
8 large market teams 63%
14 medium market teams 34%
8 small market teams 3%. (Royals 2015))
Not sure whether that shows competitive balance.
MLB without a salary cap will continue to be a clown show.It is clearly greatly skewed to the big money teams.
The proof is in the pudding,
But, Big Market teams generate more revenue for the whole league. I dont think small market teams mind that much. At least, not nearly as much as their fans.
What are the ratings difference between a Yankee /Dodgers WS and a Reds/Royals? And the net profit between those 2 WS?
————-
Its not fair, but its the truth.
@Simm – provide your analysis with more than “I think this way”
@Mendoza Line 215 – World Series wins is an awfully small sample size, and that’s why I use appearances in the World Series. Also, since 1991? Why not since 1986? Because the Twins won in 1987 and 1991?What do you classify as small/medium/large market teams? Based on payroll today or payroll historically or market size or perception or city population or metro population? I feel your data set is cherry picked as much as possible and your categorization of teams is likely arbitrary. Why is it baseball (which until recently) had the toughest rules on team playoff eligibility has more playoff and championship turnover than the other major sports?
You know nothing.
Quit with the whining.
‘Small market’ is a boolsheet excuse for cheap owners who bleat excuses to gullible fans while liningctheir pockets.
Cut the crap.
If they don’t like it that stars of yesterday take away the money of today’s stars, then perhaps the owners should take a look at the length of the (non-)arbitration years so players reach free agency sooner.
Truth. The owners just really don’t want anyone to say that fact aloud. What they would like is cheap labor. They’re just trying to say it in a way that hides their intentions.
It doesn’t take away from todays stars because all the stars get paid.
Changing these rules wouldn’t do anything to help low budget team compete in free agency.
Instead of super stars getting paid an avg annual value of 25-30m per year they would get 30-40m per year.
This would make even more difficult for small market teams because they need to keep the value per year lower to keep more stars.
While the backend of these long contracts usually don’t age well the teams willing to do them are fine with that, they know the risk.
I don’t think there is a single thing the league can say that this change would benefit the players. If the league have player rights to be free agents sooner then maybe they could agree on something. Of course the teams would hate that even more. It would make even harder for small market teams to compete.
You list the low budget teams that made the World Series. They were able to do so by tanking for the most part and not having to pay their stars for a better part of 6 years. If they could only keep cheap players for say 4 years instead of 6 that would change things big time for those teams.
This to me will go nowhere.
In the end the teams more than not want a salary cap. They want to make the luxury tax be their version of a cap. So teams that are up against the tax will spread out the years to lower the hit.
Some teams don’t like other teams doing this so now the idea is out a limit on contract lengths.
I have second thoughts about Albert Pujols or Miggy playing into their 40s just to make sure they get paid every penny of their contract when their output is already miserable, putting a stain on their HOF otherworldly career and It is not good for the sport in general that these players have to take the field everyday when they are no longer productive and not good for better players that these guys take away at bats or innings from them. Why are they on the field? Because they signed long multimillion dollar contracts at a late age. Both MLB and MLBPA should overthink this.
I agree with what you are explaining, because these massive contracts are something happening on spending teams because most cheap teams, including the team I support, don’t hand these contracts out. But MLB, although representing owners, also has to vie for the benefit of baseball in general, and that is why cheap owners will have to go with the lyrics of Manfred, whether they like it or not.
Obviously, all those years before free agency are great for all owners, but if they want one thing they have to be aware that they need give something in to the other.
Hey Rob. You SUCK.
The only way for Manfred’s statement to work out true would be to allow the players to earn their worth right out the gate. But I don’t think owners are going to want to give out $35m per year deals to a 20 year old. What would Trout have been paid in his 2nd year?
@johndietz…
There is “x” amount of total salary to players available. If the aging players are taking a big chunk of that salary while performing poorly, it means there is not enough money to go around for the players who are actively contributing.
It’s just simple economics. Manfred’s statement is true, but the MLBPA finds there to be more value in superstar compensation than young player compensation. It’s probably a valid strategy.
It doesn’t necessarily mean there is not enough money to go around. We also need to look at other issues such as is it right to have the luxury tax (at least where it is). This is all very reminiscent tho of government trying to intervene to help markets by putting in regulations that actually limit the market from working itself out the way it naturally would. Teams make bad decisions and give long term deals to older players. Correction would be to stop doing so. Lock up your younger players and sign the older guys to shorter deals worth more money. We are overcomplicating this. Just let the market work. Teams will do better after being faced with the consequences of their poor decisions. The up and coming franchises like SD are going to be weary of dishing out long contracts in 5 years. Teams like LAA have faced it and hopefully they learned.
@martras- That theory is flawed because a player’s salary is fixed for the first 3 years of their career, and controlled via arbitration for the next couple. If you take money from the 30+ group it won’t be redistributed to the under 26 group under the current system. And players in that 26-30 age typically have very little problem getting a deal in free agency.
The owners have been crying
“save us from ourselves” since
free agency started…..
@jorge78 – The small and mid-market teams have been crying “save us from the huge market teams” for a while now. Manfred has been trying to balance the needs of owners.
The Yankees and Dodgers are each worth 10 Pittsburgh Pirates franchises to the worldwide fanbase so that gets factored in.
Let’s say all of that is true. Putting a limit on the length of a deal only favors the big market teams.
Small market teams can spread out the years to make a good player fit on the budget.
If contract lengths are limited then the price of a player is going to go up on an annual basis making it even harder for small market teams to afford them.
Shortening the years will do nothing to help small or mid market teams. The money difference will still be there until they are willing to share all the money.
Baseball is Reality TV. The money comes from
Advertising and Commercials etc. Eyeballs on the TV. The face of franchise. Ie Albert and Javy, Swanson, Bryant the list goes on and on
Now
They’ve found the lesser of 2 evils is spreading out the money longer resulting in skirting the luxury tax.
It’s part of the pissing contest between the owners and players union.
@OJ – Not true. TV revenue accounts for a chunk of baseball revenue, but the chunk is generally similar to merchandise and concessions revenue for the team, far less than gate receipts.
Take the Twins for example. TV = $40MM.
Gate receipts will probably be about $81MM at half full this year, but could reach $130MM in theory.
Merchandise and concessions revenues will be worth $20+MM.
Unless you are teams like the marlins that don’t draw well. Then the tv money would be even greater. You also left off the national tv money which as about another 60m for each team this year.
Manfred is right that the current system transfers money from current to former stars but the main reason for this is that the average player doesn’t become a free agent until he is at least like 29 (23 debut plus 6 or 7 years in case of service time manipulation).
There are exceptions who debut at 20 but that is quite rare so most players are really like 29 or even 30 when most players are about to start declining.
Capping contract length thus only would help players if team control is reduced so players get to FA sooner.
I doubt the owners want that trade off.
While this is true it really isn’t hurt the new stars because they are getting paid still.
Maybe it affects the mid player because more money could be available for them. Problems is nobody wants to pay them because fans don’t buy tickets or turn on the tv to see players with a 4 era or a 700 ops…avg.
It’s clear these people can’t get along as they continue to hurt the game we love. Another lockout/strike is definitely in the future showing once again total disregard for the fans. Now is the time for fans to start letting these egomaniac imbeciles know that enough is enough. Contact Manfred and the MLBPA by letters, emails or phone calls and let them know the fans are fed up and won’t return if they take the game away from us one more time.
To a certain extent, arbitration was/is supposed to help force the owners to negotiate in good faith. I thought the MLBPA would fight to eliminate this ‘super-two’ nonsense that keeps nig league ready players in the minors. Younger players should get paid sooner, and better. Older, arthritic guys should get paid less.
@bronxmac77 – There has to be payroll stability and projectability. Small market teams would have utterly no competitive window without significant team control, especially given how much MLB teams front to players who never wind up providing any on the field value whatsoever.
I think you’d see fans absolutely lose their minds if their up and coming young core became too expensive for a small or mid market team and the team was essentially forced to trade future franchise players because of expected arbitration salaries. Without relatively strong arbitration controls in place, you could see a team’s payroll skyrocket $50MM in a single year just because of young players and cut out any ability of the team to either A) keep their core or B) sign players to fill the gaps.
Fans come first. That’s the part owners sort of get and where the players seem to be far, far behind.
Agree with most of this. I would add small market teams can benefit by stretching out the years to their stars to keep them. This allows them to keep their budget manageable.
Shortening the length of cheap young controllable players would hurt small/mid market teams badly.
While big market teams are willing to extend years to avoid some tax penalties. At least doing that lowers the aav which small market teams could do as well to make their stars better fit in their yearly budget. Look at trea turner or Xander or harpers deals. Every single team can afford those deals yearly. Doing this should extend their winning windows by a few years even if they have a few rough years at the end.
Short term deals would raise the annual price for these players making it even more difficult for these teams to afford these players.
You want to keep young talent, pay the young talent what it’s worth. If you don’t want the ‘problems’ with a so-called small-market team, don’t buy one. Owners are billionaires. They know what they’re doing. They’re trying to turn a profit. Winning? Well, that would be nice too.
Sounds good. Put a realistic limit on it, such as 10 years. Also, put in a cap and a floor. Thanks.
If an owner doesn’t want to give a contract longer than X, then don’t give it. No need to make it a rule.
No reason the MLBPA would agree to this without some significant givebacks from owners. Things such as the elimination of the salary cap tiers and free agency for all players after three years of service time.
Or jacking up the minimum salary. A minimum payroll floor as well as a ceiling, and a mandate that revenue given to poor teams goes to players’ salaries. Not billionaire owners pockets.
Obviously, this is Manfred and expressing the desire of a majority of MLB teams, who seek competitive fairness. There are not many teams that have the revenue to shell-out Bogearts-type contracts.
Actually I’d argue the opposite. If Xander got say 8 years his aav would have gone higher then 25m a year. Which makes it even tougher for small/mid market teams to afford them since they operate on a yearly budget.
The longer the deal is the lower the aav is which makes it easier for teams to afford. You can’t just look at total dollars. Every single team could easily afford playing a star 25m a year. Yes there will be some years of budget issues on the back end but that’s the give and take to keep a star while you have an open winning window. Which most small market teams only have anyways.
What Simms said. Exactly.
The Padres are a small market, revenue sharing receiving team. If they can, every team can.
Even if this were to pass, I’m sure there would be loopholes: Conditional extensions, changes to deferred payments, etc.
Posturing.
Manfred is just ridiculous. Clark talking about a free market system while running a union is moronic.
How about we start to make sure that Umpires actually make the correct call. I’m so tired of watching strikes get called balls. This has to be the only professional sport on the planet where the finish line is subjective and not up for debate. Imagine the goal line in football. Now imagine the scoring line moves back and forth a few feet. All of the micro managing that Manfred keeps doing and the place where the most help is needed. Nothing but crickets but what do you expect from a Commissioner who left the extra runner on. Only professional spot where the finish line moves. Lines in tennis don’t move. Foul lines don’t move. 3 pointers don’t move. You are either behind or in front. These sport has become a joke.
The billionaire owners are for free enterprise when it suits them.
I sure can’t wait for another lockout. Such an amazing way to kill a sport.
Eight to ten teams are killing the sport for the rest while MLB HQ in NYC turns a blind eye.
What happens when the average baseball fan in their 50s start dying out in 20-30 years?
Show Me the MONEY!!!!!!!!
Just Show Me the Money
(((((((Dancing)))))))
Just Show Me the Money
((((((( More Dancing))))))
I am sure this is being pushed by the majority of the league owners that can’t afford to give out massive long term deals to star players. Huge imbalance in revenue between the richest and poorest franchises and they would love to frame this as CBT avoidance issue instead of a way to restrain the richest teams from spending.
You can expect the owners to continue to float trial balloons for the next 5 years and the MLBPA to shoot them down.
The only way to fix this is through revenue sharing. It’s why football can have teams in small markets compete equally for free agents.
The money gap between teams in baseball is massive. It’s not fixed by putting a winning team on the field. While that can help the big difference is the local tv money that teams are receiving.
Take all tv money are spread it out and you can make the gap manageable. The big market teams will never allow this. Let’s be real the league doesn’t want this either because they want the big market teams to play in the playoffs to draw more viewers.
I think what some of the owners may be concerned about is using the length of the contract to reduce the cap hit per year. Giving a star an 11yr deal instead of 8 knowing that by year 8 he most likely will be a bench player due to retire may cost a little more but worth having the extra cap room in the early years.. To avoid this why not just cap the length which you calculate the average salary? all contracts can be as long as team wants however much they want to pay but the average salary will be calculated based on 8 years ( or maybe base it on age of player – players over 33 contract avg calculated at 5 yrs max)
Yeah I believe that’s the big issue and doing something like you mentioned would fix that.
The problem is the players will never agree to this because a number of teams would be priced out reducing the competition for those players.
This would add very sharp teeth to the tax and the players already don’t like the tax.
Back in the day, Charlie Finley said that all contracts should be for one year, and that every player should be a free agent every year.
A real tradeoff is that younger players who are high performers get paid better, sooner. What Manfred wants is delayed service time/more at MLB minimums on the front end shorter contracts on the back end. Yes, of course older stars are overpaid. But….Aaron Judge made an aggregate of less than $1.9 Million for 2017-19–and amassed 19.5 BWAR. That’s an incredible return on investment. If Manfred is serious about paying players for production…..but he’s not.
Manfred is such an idiot. Obviously the longer contracts benefit owners just as much by driving down yearly average. So clearly only the cheapskate owners are whining like only billionaires can.
These players should get paid on a game by game basis. Its come down to this because of dogs like Aaron Hicks, Stanton, Jed Lowrie, Strastburg, Chris Davis, Rendon, Cespedes, etc. Most of these players don’t care about winning. They want to make as much money as possible by putting minimal effort. These guys should be banned from baseball and be forced to give back every penny to the owners
The value of the risk reduction in having contracts limited to say 6 years is massive. If the MLBPA was smart they would see just how far the owners would go to make it happen. If the result was a net increase in player compensation per year then isn’t that what the union’s ultimate mission is?
So owners open the books to the MLBPA, 100% revenue sharing so all teams would have over $400 million in revenue and can afford the same players, a $200 million minimum payroll that goes up 4% per year, players guaranteed 50% of revenue, and players are FA at 3 years. Sound fair?
Got to start somewhere
Just cancel the season and maybe close MLB permanently. Shove it in the greedy, ungrateful, selfish players’ faces. Baseball is culturally irrelevant so the country will hardly notice anyway. NO MORE!
I think the commissioner should have the authority (or even an arbitration panel) to re-sort some of the contracts for tax purposes. Preller is playing by the rules, but he is taking 8-year contracts and spreading them out over 11 years. Without a fix, teams will be paying a 30 year old player $200M/20 instead of $200M/10 just to lower their tax.
But if I were Clark, my response would’ve been “LOL”. I have absolutely no problem with long contracts. For all the mistakes that Tatis has made, I would still trade for that contract.
And for the folks that think it’s unfair because big-market teams can absorb the cost, that’s only true to a limited extent. Except for the Mets, every team has a budget, and money spent on a bad contract reduces the rest of the budget.
My solution:
No limit on length of contracts, but, if an owner and player want to make it really long (7, 8, 9 years -Threshold TBD), youre required to keep The AAV at a minimum of the Average of a select group of top paid players (Top 30 or 50 player payroll, whatever number is appropriate-Threshold TBD).
This would satisfy both groups: Owners cant give out super long contracts with a cheap AAV contracts to circumvent the Luxury Tax and players arent limited on the length of a contract.
The A’s ownership is literally trying to destroy the team and their stadium on purpose so they can justify an unnecessary relocation and Manfred isn’t trying to stop that. What hurts baseball more? Owners intentionally going on years long campaigns to tank franchises and alienate cities or aging players being overpaid for like three years (something that’s happened forever in sports anyway). Maybe he should focus his efforts on the TV contracts and making sure teams are incentivized to win as much as possible rather than parroting owner talking points about how the players make too much money. If you can’t afford to make an effort to put a winning team on the field, go buy an XFL team or get your kid a pony or something.
I agree 100%. The Bay Area has had the Giants since 1958.
in what universe did it ever make sense to set up shop across the bay, in direct competition with Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, and a bunch of entrenched Giants fans?
Even when the A’s were winning, they didn’t draw very well. Finley always ran his team like it was a hobby. The results were self-evident. They still are.
Ridiculous that owners would be the ones giving out long contracts and then complaining about them..
I paid $5.99/dozen cage-free eggs, because the store doesnt have the cheap eggs. So, I should lose my right to complain about it?
@rsmith
I paid $3.49 for a dozen because I shopped around and found the best deal and didn’t complain that I paid more or less because I am a mature adult able to make decisions.
So you drove around, wasting gas and time and forcing you to overpay for lesser quality eggs, just to save $2.50. Who’s the mature adult again?
@rsmith
Why would I go drive around when I have a farm I can walk to and get eggs for that price? I saved $2.50 plus I didn’t pay extra for gasoline. So, yes, I am the mature adult. What about you? Are you still stuck shopping at the Big Box stores and paying middleman prices? LOL!
So you lied to me :{ — The whole “$3.49” price was a ruse? Or maybe the whole “farm” thing is a rouse. Hmmm.
@rsmith
How did I lie? I paid for the eggs because I know how to shop around instead of just giving more money to the Big Box chains. What do you do?
Your life is so confusing:
You “live on a farm” and “walked around” to get your eggs after you “shopped around”.
So you live on a farm, but are close enough to “walk”, to where multiple sources are selling a dozen eggs for various prices. — Can you draw me a picture of this unique community?
——
And at this point, does it have anything to do with 99.9% of us that live in real world?
@rsmith
I did not say I live on a farm. I said I’m able to walk to one and pay for eggs, so I get them directly from the supplier not the middleman. I don’t buy eggs from a grocery store. What would the point of that be when I have a local supplier?
So then this was a lie: “I paid $3.49 for a dozen because I shopped around and found the best deal.”
Thank you for the weirdest conversation.
@rsmith
Yes, knowing one is paying $6 for a dozen of eggs, why would I shop there instead of the farm? Amazing logic! Keep paying your $6 or $7 for eggs and blaming others.
Way off. My story is 100% real, it happened last week at Walmart. Thats why I told it. Youre is a complete fabrication, just to say ‘see Im smarter than you’. Because, NO ONE walks around to farms shopping for the best deal on a dozen eggs. How stupid.
Get a life.
He is. You’re a whiner. And apparently a stupid shopper too.
Why should anyone want to bankroll your sorryass?
What? Is English your second language?
the owners definitely can complain but you’ll sound like hypocrites when they do.
Im not on the owners side, its something that the Owners and MLBPA need to work on together. But the mentality here is ‘owners bad’. Is silly.
Theres a problem with the system when players are getting 11 year/25M AAV. Thats going to turn into 12 years, then 15, etc. Its just a way for high-spending big market teams to cheat paying Luxury Tax. I see the MLBPA’s point too that any limit on contracts is bad and could lead to more limits.
A middle ground has to be reached. And the ‘one side bad’ comments are dumb.
Manfred setting things up for another lockout come the next CBA.
If you are wondering who is the biggest problem in MLB negotiations, look no further that the owners #1 advisor, Manfred.
Good, hopefully the next lockout is permanent and hopefully the owners hire an army of trolls to spread rumors/unsavory facts about “players”.
kind of like yourself except you seem to be doing it for free…
If you dislike baseball so much…..?
Just mute Ace. He never says anything that adds to the conversation.
Already have…
There are so many inequities.
Players spend 2-6 seasons in the minors (sometimes more if signed young) making basically nothing.
Then 6 years, and sometimes longer at below market value salaries just to be able to have the freedom to play where they want and negotiate their own salaries.
Then owners say ” naa, you are getting old and not worth the money we would have paid you if you were younger”
Now owners want to limit the contract years a player can get on top of that?
And I’m sure not all owners are on board either. Any contract limits take away from big markets.
There just needs to be some fairness. Between players and owners, between big market owners and small market owners.
What they should do in order to promote players staying with their current teams is to allow the current club to extend contract length beyond 8 years; with all other contracts capped at 8. I know the MLBPA will balk; however, this should be couched as part of the effort to stop teams from circumventing the luxury tax rules and to keep players with their current teams (as opposed to doing it just to restrict the free market system).
I love/hate the idea. I hate it because i’m a free market guy.. Players and Teams should be able to work out terms as they see fit. Players and or teams can and probably should set their own standards for what they are comfortable with. I also like the idea of ‘franchise’ players where that player plays his career with a single team.
I love it because contracts have gotten out of hand. Out side of sports, how many employee contracts have you seen that went 10 years? how many employee contracts have you seen with a 30M AAV? There are so many other professions that deserve more than a baseball player and baseball teams.
My free market policy over rides putting limits in place but I also feel teams should generally agree on how they want to do things with out making any rules forcing such things.
I rather have something like a salary cap and floor that are less soft.
If they do cap the length no less than 6 years or to a certain age. With encouragement for teams and players to do a new contract.
I agree with most of your post, joew. I am also a free market guy.
I could go along with the contracts ‘getting out of hand’, and that ‘other professions deserve more, etc… but really, we’re talking about what… 900 people? There are more teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc, in some counties/cities/states. These guys are the rarest of the rare. Kind of like A-list entertainers.
On the positive side, these long deals ensure that some stars will stick around a while. Fans can attach themselves to players because they’re reasonably sure these guys will be around – like the old Brooklyn Dodgers, Stan Musial, Mantle…
On the negative side, they’ve priced the average fan out of going to games. It’s even getting so you can’t get teams on TV or radio without shelling out coin. And the sad part is that little kids are shut out of the picture. In the quest for corporate luxury boxes, that’s been shoved aside… permanently.
The main point business of baseball and other upper league sports is crazy money wise. When did it get so crazy. How did baseball teams, even the cheapest ones get priced over a billion in value? Just crazy to me. guess more screaming at the wind i guess its just going to keep inflating. My free market ideals says hey they can do whatever.
I don’t begrudge these people for taking what they can get though. I would if I thought my labor was worth it.
The only games i go to any more are independent and little league games. Other than the stadium atmosphere they’re more fun to watch.
yeah that is the bonus to long deals.
I used to go to AA minor league games. Terrific entertainment for the price, and since the parks are smaller, all the seats are better.
“Rob Manfred Expresses Support For Limit On Contract Length”
Okay then. How about we give incompetent, penny-pinching, shared-revenue-pocketing owners the same deal… after a certain amount of years, (the same length as the max contracts) you get cutoff. No shared revenue. Sell the team, or make it on your own.
Ideally that is how it would work. Teams like the marlins would be sold yearly lol 🙂
It’s hard to impose a cap (even with a floor) when there are huge contacts that last so long. It is a very effective way for the MLBPA to safeguard against a cap. Even if MLB were to somehow angle for a cap in the next CBA, it would be like “uh, the cap will go into effect in 2050 when all the contacts are cleared so consider that ample notice.”
Well again… if there are owners who are opposed to these contracts… their beef isn’t with the players. It’s with their fellow owners. And how do you tell a fellow owner how to run his business? He’ll tell you to mind yours.
I’m sure that most of the money that Manfred wants to limit to older players will certainly go towards the younger players. Just you wait!