Jump to content
yesterday333

Manny: Agent of Chaos

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

There's got to be a fundamental rethink of the economics. Right now, the economics of baseball have pushed too many teams to the point where your statement "Teams want to win" is no longer true. As a consequence, there is no longer enough demand for guys who can win 1-2 extra games for teams to satisfy the number of players available. One other way you could change that is to make it less viable to build with young players - by making them more expensive or by doing something else that similarly shifts teams' motivation.

What about a reduction in team control over a new player? Instead of say 6-7 years of control that currently exists, what about going to 5 years of control? 

Players could hit arbitration and free agency sooner, theoretically allowing them to earn more money? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

There's got to be a fundamental rethink of the economics. Right now, the economics of baseball have pushed too many teams to the point where your statement "Teams want to win" is no longer true. As a consequence, there is no longer enough demand for guys who can win 1-2 extra games for teams to satisfy the number of players available. One other way you could change that is to make it less viable to build with young players - by making them more expensive or by doing something else that similarly shifts teams' motivation.

Clearly not all teams want to win. The problem is that the teams which do want to win seem set at a lot of these positions. Players are in a rough spot because so many teams are rebuilding, and the teams trying to win seem set either set at a lot of these positions or at payroll limits. If the Cubs/Yankees/Boston/Dodgers had legitimate needs at 3B or OF, Harper and Machado would be looking at much bigger contracts and the Sox might not be in on this. Maybe the problem was the players agreeing to the current penalty system, because those teams clearly are profiting like crazy, but no longer willing to spend the taxed money because it also comes with other penalties. A guy like Dozier could moderately improve a lot of teams, but that's the exact move the Sox would have made in years past which would drive fans insane - a pretty good veteran who is too old to be on your next good team, who will help a contender but do just well enough for you to worsen your draft position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Absolutely. I had him on like 45 of my fantasy teams so I felt the pain.

Yet, he still had 1.0 WAR, 21 Homers, a .305 OBP (shit, but that's typical Tim Anderson OBP), all while playing 2b. 

Perhaps his thinking is that he can recover and get his big contract next year, but this is just absurd. I would have loved Dozier to the Sox for 1 year 12 million even. Hell, I would have given him a 2 year contract, or even 3. 

So here's the thing, and why I sort of agree with something big needing to change with structure of contracts. 

As it currently stands, baseball doesn't want to pay "older" players for future performance based on the past. And I don't really disagree with that. If I'm the White Sox, why am I going to give Brian Dozier a three year deal after he just came off a really bad season, will be 32 for most of the 2019 season. How much of what I'm paying Brian Dozier has to do with his 2016 season? Why am I paying for that if I'm the White Sox? I don't see that return. 

The problem is the pendulum has swung so hard back to valuing younger players and prospects, those guys need to get paid A LOT more. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roughneck said:

Clearly not all teams want to win. The problem is that the teams which do want to win seem set at a lot of these positions. Players are in a rough spot because so many teams are rebuilding, and the teams trying to win seem set either set at a lot of these positions or at payroll limits. If the Cubs/Yankees/Boston/Dodgers had legitimate needs at 3B or OF, Harper and Machado would be looking at much bigger contracts and the Sox might not be in on this. Maybe the problem was the players agreeing to the current penalty system, because those teams clearly are profiting like crazy, but no longer willing to spend the taxed money because it also comes with other penalties. A guy like Dozier could moderately improve a lot of teams, but that's the exact move the Sox would have made in years past which would drive fans insane - a pretty good veteran who is too old to be on your next good team, who will help a contender but do just well enough for you to worsen your draft position.

The goal from the MLBPA's perspective is to set the system up so that it is more beneficial to all 30 teams to try to win, rather than tank/rebuild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Agreed. At this point the MLBPA could go to court and claim the owners aren't acting in good faith on the current CBA, and they wouldn't If the players aren't getting their retirement contracts, then the negotiated 6 years of control is just being exploitative and nothing more. 

There are two options currently: 

1. Cap and Floor

2. Arbitration kicks in after 1st full season in the Majors. 

I don't think the owners would go for 2. so they have to seriously consider the cap and floor model. 

The owners have called for #1 (or at least a cap). The players don't want a cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there probably needs to be a floor as well. I don't have a problem with the payroll ceiling but if they have that, they should have a payroll floor and have teams be taxed if they don't spend enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yesterday333 said:

I think there probably needs to be a floor as well. I don't have a problem with the payroll ceiling but if they have that, they should have a payroll floor and have teams be taxed if they don't spend enough.

The players don't want a floor, because with a floor comes a ceiling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jenksycat said:

The only players getting screwed are the young guys, not the dudes making hundreds of millions.  The MLBPA has been selling out young talent for decades so 30 year old guys could sign massive deals.  Teams finally smartened up and stopped handing those deals out so now those deals are gone.  Their next deal needs to have massive pay increases for young guys

Yes. I've said all along the worst thing that happened to the players was the Cubs and Astros winning. It showed teams that fans would tolerate losing and going young to rebuild . The rebuilds worked the fans returned and it was done with you g controlled players with a couple of the high end players thrown in. Mid range players are squeezed out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Big changes are absolutely needed. I haven't spent too much time looking into it -- but it feels like Executives in the front office are pocketing more of the money and are using the young players who make next to nothing to field their team. MLB Players need to get paid significantly more for the years that they are valuable (younger years). 

It’s not entirely the owners fault though. It’s how the system works and they are completely taking advantage of it. The players union negotiated a bad deal and now they are paying for it. Teams are a lot smarter too thanks to all the advance metrics that prove a lot of players were being overpaid for their services. I actually think the market is correcting itself in an odd way.

 

I would like to see a system implemented that models restricted and unrestricted free agents. Make it replace the arbitration system. I think that would be a good compromise that forces teams to better pay the young studs or risk losing them. Also places a timeframe to get these deals done before real free agency hits. It would help take the money the older players aren’t seeing anymore and pump it back into the system only earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man how long ago does Tuesday feel when we were actually getting relevant news?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dick Allen said:

The players don't want a floor, because with a floor comes a ceiling. 

Well they have a soft ceiling already, and right now teams aren't willing to go much beyond that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tony said:

So here's the thing, and why I sort of agree with something big needing to change with structure of contracts. 

As it currently stands, baseball doesn't want to pay "older" players for future performance based on the past. And I don't really disagree with that. If I'm the White Sox, why am I going to give Brian Dozier a three year deal after he just came off a really bad season, will be 32 for most of the 2019 season. How much of what I'm paying Brian Dozier has to do with his 2016 season? Why am I paying for that if I'm the White Sox? I don't see that return. 

The problem is the pendulum has swung so hard back to valuing younger players and prospects, those guys need to get paid A LOT more. 

While what you say is 100% true, the system was set up so it rewarded being able to stick in the Majors. Under this system, a guy who has 3 great years, gets hurt and is never heard from again makes more money than a career utility player/reliever who sticks for 7-10 seasons. 

The economic system is just fucked up, and I'd go and say that it reflects what is happening in everyday life for most of us, just with the baseball players there is much more money involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmags said:

Man how long ago does Tuesday feel when we were actually getting relevant news?

Was it relevant though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I think best thing for players would just be to restructure and try and get arb in year 2 and make year 6 a team option. At that point it's legitimate salary and could give them an additional year of free agency. And quite frankly I think teams would like more actual free agents too. It's not just that teams value free agents less, it's that they are just a much worse pool to build teams on then 15 years ago when players somehow aged much more gracefully (at least it felt that way!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rowand44 said:

Was it relevant though?

it was pro white sox so it was totally relevant. Non pro white sox is irrelevant because they must be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

It’s not entirely the owners fault though. It’s how the system works and they are completely taking advantage of it. The players union negotiated a bad deal and now they are paying for it. Teams are a lot smarter too thanks to all the advance metrics that prove a lot of players were being overpaid for their services. I actually think the market is correcting itself in an odd way.

 

I would like to see a system implemented that models restricted and unrestricted free agents. Make it replace the arbitration system. I think that would be a good compromise that forces teams to better pay the young studs or risk losing them. Also places a timeframe to get these deals done before real free agency hits. It would help take the money the older players aren’t seeing anymore and pump it back into the system only earlier. 

This is a good idea as well, but it doesn't work without a salary cap. Otherwise, teams like the Yankees/Sawx/Cubs would just give huge deals to young stars and poach them constantly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The system is broken. They have to do something to compensate players properly. If every FO is not going to sign a top FA to a huge contract because they're unlikely to live up to it, then the system is busted. The players give 6 years of control in return for big retirement contracts. 

Compensate players properly? Compared to what? The players have absolutely no risk, the owners do, and get paid astronomically numbers. Both of these players will make 30 million dollars per year with absolutely no risk to their earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

While what you say is 100% true, the system was set up so it rewarded being able to stick in the Majors. Under this system, a guy who has 3 great years, gets hurt and is never heard from again makes more money than a career utility player/reliever who sticks for 7-10 seasons. 

The economic system is just fucked up, and I'd go and say that it reflects what is happening in everyday life for most of us, just with the baseball players there is much more money involved. 

You can make the argument that the player that had 3 "great years" as you put it deserves to get paid more than the utility player that sticks around for 7-10 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmags said:

it was pro white sox so it was totally relevant. Non pro white sox is irrelevant because they must be mistaken.

Absolutely correct.  My mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

Compensate players properly? Compared to what? The players have absolutely no risk, the owners do, and get paid astronomically numbers. Both of these players will make 30 million dollars per year with absolutely no risk to their earnings.

Incorrect. If a player has an unlucky year or gets injured in a contract year, it severely impacts his future earning potential. There is risk on both sides, and failing to acknowledge otherwise is management bullshit speak 101. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bmags said:

it was pro white sox so it was totally relevant. Non pro white sox is irrelevant because they must be mistaken.

You trust Bob Nightengale and Bruce Levine more than Bucket, raBBit, and WSD? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can’t get worked up over the plight of unionized labor force with a $500,000 minimum wage and $4,000,000 median salary, not to mention free high end medical benefits. 

If they aren’t making enough, it’s their own damn fault. They have ALL the tools to take care of themselves and decades of precedent doing so. They screwed themselves over in the last CBA a bit for sure, but take a look at salary growth over the last thirty years, both gross and in terms of percentage of revenue. Their union has been one of the strongest in history. They enjoy benefits and protections that most other industries dream of, and get paid ten times more. In what other billion dollar industry does non-executive labor get anywhere CLOSE to the fraction of revenue that players get?

If we want to be outraged about economic equality we need to stop crying about these athletes and turn out rage toward those who actually need it. 

  • Like 4
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jose Abreu said:

You trust Bob Nightengale and Bruce Levine more than Bucket, raBBit, and WSD? 

TRUST

NO

ONE

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

This is a good idea as well, but it doesn't work without a salary cap. Otherwise, teams like the Yankees/Sawx/Cubs would just give huge deals to young stars and poach them constantly. 

To make it more fair with risk/reward for both side, institute a salary cap and floor but also make the player contracts non-guaranteed like football. Now both sides will have a little skin in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×