Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 174
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    I think all players under 26 should have to come through the draft. I think the team should get 8 years of control after being drafted or until the player is 26 on opening day. It would eliminate keeping prospects in the minor leagues unnecessarily.

    I would make the first four years of their pay be based on the level they are playing at and the last four would be based on arbitration. The team and player are free to negotiate a contract outside this structure after the player is drafted. Once a player is drafted by a team, they hold exclusive rights to sign that player for 8 years or until the player is older than 26 on opening day. This would eliminate teams from shying away from picking guys who they think they canít sign or are likely to go to college. Would also encourage guys to go to college. Would also be a boon to college baseball because MLB fans would be rooting for guys tied to their team.

    I would make all TV contacts run through MLB and all TV money would be shared evenly. No cap, no floor, no luxury tax.

    Teams could trade draft picks and rights to sign players they have drafted but not signed.

    After the 8 years or after they turn 26, player would be conditional free agents and the team that drafted the player would have the right to match any offer. After that first FA, players are unconditional free agents.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    1,494
    If you exclude minor league expenses (which you should) players only receive 39% of total MLB revenues and could sink as low as 36%. The system is skewed towards the owners now with the 5 years of team control and no incentive to sign older players on the back side of the aging curve. If I were the players union I would demand a minimum salary/revenue percentage of perhaps 45 to 47%. If teams keep the player control period as is they would be forced to spread the extra money amongst the more mature players

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,216
    MLB is the only system where t's possible revenues go up and players salaries go down.
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-...-in-long-time/

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by zookman65 View Post
    If you exclude minor league expenses (which you should) players only receive 39% of total MLB revenues and could sink as low as 36%. The system is skewed towards the owners now with the 5 years of team control and no incentive to sign older players on the back side of the aging curve. If I were the players union I would demand a minimum salary/revenue percentage of perhaps 45 to 47%. If teams keep the player control period as is they would be forced to spread the extra money amongst the more mature players
    The 5 years is based upon service time where I think the whole service time concept should be scrapped and the team should essentially get the player till theyíre 26 without this service time manipulation. As FOís continue to figure out that aging players are less of a smart financial gamble, players will be asking for bigger contracts when they are younger where they are being valued more. Give them the opportunity to get their big contract as theyíre starting their prime years and let them get paid less when theyíre past their prime.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    MLB is the only system where t's possible revenues go up and players salaries go down.
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-...-in-long-time/
    This is a short term correction, next offseason will move the needle back in the players direction. Players need to realized that FOís are learning to not pay for past performances and start making them pay for their prime years. Itíll be interesting to see how Boras adjusts to this shifting landscape.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    13,671
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    This is a short term correction, next offseason will move the needle back in the players direction. Players need to realized that FOís are learning to not pay for past performances and start making them pay for their prime years. Itíll be interesting to see how Boras adjusts to this shifting landscape.
    Continue to whine and cry about it, but one thing this will likely do is eliminate the buyout of arbitration years in exchange for FA years. I bet many agents are already telling their young guys that we are hitting FA as soon as possible.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    Continue to whine and cry about it, but one thing this will likely do is eliminate the buyout of arbitration years in exchange for FA years. I bet many agents are already telling their young guys that we are hitting FA as soon as possible.
    Agree, FOís figured this out before players and are saving money. Players will eventually catch up.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    51,893
    MLB production in 2017 by each age and PA/IP

    I went through a break down in an excel sheet of league age, WAR and PA/IP


    Instead of typing all of that out, I'll share the gaps that are meaningful

    Hitters - age 23-30 are the efficient years...31-33 are about equally as inefficient as 20-22 year old studs that have shown up but haven't put it together yet.
    At 34, it's random players here and there that are showing success, but pretty rare as a whole. It's just a handful of good players. This year, Nelson Cruz and Robinson Cano were the only 3.0+ fWAR position players, there was a total of 8 2.0+ fWAR players (Jose Reyes should be removed because of the dramatic errors in his defensive metrics)

    The single best age season was 27, and that also accrued the most PA, while also producing the most WAR/PA in the game.


    Pitching

    Also starts to get good at the age of 23, and doesn't slow down until the age of 34. But, the innings totals do. Those that are still pitching past 30 are dominators to average out the whole....but the innings start to drop in age 31. By age 35, the innings are significantly down, and the efficiency is also down.


    My point............teams know that position players past 30 aren't worth spending a lot on. And pitchers, past 34 certainly aren't (and a lot of these guys are going to be relievers)


    You can't afford to, nor can anyone build a team through free agency. It's stupid.


    Rebuild your rosters with prospects that can develop into cornerstone guys, and then compliment those players with cheap free agent additions where you have roster holes and retain your developed guys throughout their primes.

    Period.


    Now.

    If MLB can change the economic structure so that players from their age 23-30/34 years are their best paid years. Then you would see a completely revamped structure.

    Hell, why not pay players based on production and winning? I.e. every MLB player gets paid based on service time, and you collect checks from a league where all revenue is shared equally, and the players are paid for their success by the MLB.

    Totally socialistic, but then again, baseball isn't really a profitable, capitalistic enterprise if it's fan focused.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Exactly, Why would any player sign a team friendly extension before their first FA? Make your money in your late 20ís early 30ís then sign to be a reasonably priced veteran complimentary piece on a team you think will win it all in your mid to late 30ís.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,426
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    This is a short term correction, next offseason will move the needle back in the players direction. Players need to realized that FOís are learning to not pay for past performances and start making them pay for their prime years. Itíll be interesting to see how Boras adjusts to this shifting landscape.
    The problem is in many cases the teams have control over the prime years already, espeically if they try to manipulate service time. Bryant with the cubs is the highest profile example, but it happens quite often. The brewers did it a few years back with Zach Davies. They claimed they needed the roster spot so they sent him down right before the all star break and kept him down for a few weeks since they didnít need a 5th starter. It just so happened that it also coincided with changing his service time. (I donít recall if it changed him from a super 2 to a non super two or if it got extra control, but either way it saved the brewers money).

    Assuming jeffyís data to be true, if 27 is the average prime year, what percentage of players actually see free agency prior to age 27? (Not doubting it, as basketball the prime age is 26 I think, so it makes a ton of sense for baseball to be similar). Without actually knowing, Iíd guess itís actually a relatively small percentage.

    So Iím not sure how you adjust as a player. Itís difficult to make teams pay for prime years when your prime years are likely spent in arbitration. Like I said in a different thread, baseball has a history of overpaying players late in their career. That sort of justifies the fact they are underpaid early in their careers. If you eliminate the overpaid late portion of their career, how do you then rectify the fact they are underpaid early in their careers? Baseballs financial setup doesnít really have a good way of doing that. I think thatís why players are starting to freak out.

    And next offseason will be interesting. Harper, machado and kershaw will get paid, no doubt about that. But if Mike Moustakas or Lance Lynn sign a one year deal this offseason and have an average year for them, do we really expect them to see better offers than what they might currently be getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Exactly, Why would any player sign a team friendly extension before their first FA? Make your money in your late 20ís early 30ís then sign to be a reasonably priced veteran complimentary piece on a team you think will win it all in your mid to late 30ís.
    I think thereís still justification. Ask jonathon Singleton if he regrets signing his extension. Villar is the same way for the brewers. He had a breakout 2016. Brewers offered him an extension worth over $20 mill. He stunk last year and is another poor season away from likely being non tendered and potentially bouncing around the league for a couple league minimum type deals.

    So yeah, thereís no reason for an Aaron Judge or a Cody Bellinger to sign a team friendly extension, but it might make sense for a lesser guy coming off a big year. Villar is going to make $2.5 mill this year. If he struggles, it may hard to see him making more than that next year, whether with the brewers or not. Itís entirely possible villar earns less than $10 mill for the rest of his career, when he had a shot to guarantee himself $20 over the next 3 or 4 years (the terms where never completely revealed).

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    The problem is in many cases the teams have control over the prime years already, espeically if they try to manipulate service time. Bryant with the cubs is the highest profile example, but it happens quite often. The brewers did it a few years back with Zach Davies. They claimed they needed the roster spot so they sent him down right before the all star break and kept him down for a few weeks since they didnít need a 5th starter. It just so happened that it also coincided with changing his service time. (I donít recall if it changed him from a super 2 to a non super two or if it got extra control, but either way it saved the brewers money).

    Assuming jeffyís data to be true, if 27 is the average prime year, what percentage of players actually see free agency prior to age 27? (Not doubting it, as basketball the prime age is 26 I think, so it makes a ton of sense for baseball to be similar). Without actually knowing, Iíd guess itís actually a relatively small percentage.

    So Iím not sure how you adjust as a player. Itís difficult to make teams pay for prime years when your prime years are likely spent in arbitration. Like I said in a different thread, baseball has a history of overpaying players late in their career. That sort of justifies the fact they are underpaid early in their careers. If you eliminate the overpaid late portion of their career, how do you then rectify the fact they are underpaid early in their careers? Baseballs financial setup doesnít really have a good way of doing that. I think thatís why players are starting to freak out.

    And next offseason will be interesting. Harper, machado and kershaw will get paid, no doubt about that. But if Mike Moustakas or Lance Lynn sign a one year deal this offseason and have an average year for them, do we really expect them to see better offers than what they might currently be getting?



    I think thereís still justification. Ask jonathon Singleton if he regrets signing his extension. Villar is the same way for the brewers. He had a breakout 2016. Brewers offered him an extension worth over $20 mill. He stunk last year and is another poor season away from likely being non tendered and potentially bouncing around the league for a couple league minimum type deals.

    So yeah, thereís no reason for an Aaron Judge or a Cody Bellinger to sign a team friendly extension, but it might make sense for a lesser guy coming off a big year. Villar is going to make $2.5 mill this year. If he struggles, it may hard to see him making more than that next year, whether with the brewers or not. Itís entirely possible villar earns less than $10 mill for the rest of his career, when he had a shot to guarantee himself $20 over the next 3 or 4 years (the terms where never completely revealed).
    The players should be gearing up for the next CBA and should be looking to move to a hard 8 years post draft control (no service time calculations) or after age 26 season FA (whichever comes first). They could offer in return: allowing the first FA to be restricted (right to match), making draft picks binding even if they choose college up to the player age of 26, making all players (international or domestic) under the age of 26 come through the draft, flat salaries base on level for the first 4 years of control.
    Last edited by GasMan; 02-08-2018 at 10:55 AM.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    The players should be gearing up for the next CBA and should be looking to move to a hard 8 years post draft control (no service time calculations) or after age 26 season FA (whichever comes first). They could offer in return: allowing the first FA to be restricted (right to match), making draft picks binding even if they choose college up to the player age of 26, making all players (international or domestic) under the age of 26 come through the draft, flat salaries for minor leaguer base on level for the first 4 years of control.
    The problem is that the current MLB players who would be voting don't necessarily care about future players or the players in the minors. The players who would be voting would already be pass this process or grandfathered in. In every sport the first thing thats gets sacrificed is the rookies cause they have no voting power.
    Thats why they look for other things in a CBA.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    The problem is that the current MLB players who would be voting don't necessarily care about future players or the players in the minors. The players who would be voting would already be pass this process or grandfathered in. In every sport the first thing thats gets sacrificed is the rookies cause they have no voting power.
    Thats why they look for other things in a CBA.
    Which is why theyíll find some way to make the owners pay for players past their prime like a salary floor. Itíll be a mistake but without better leadership, itís probably what happens.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,426
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    The problem is that the current MLB players who would be voting don't necessarily care about future players or the players in the minors. The players who would be voting would already be pass this process or grandfathered in. In every sport the first thing thats gets sacrificed is the rookies cause they have no voting power.
    Thats why they look for other things in a CBA.
    Exactly. So now the guys who are free agents the next couple years and first few years after the new cba get screwed for the benefit of the future players. Thatís not going to happen. Someone needs to be the scapegoat, and a bunch of 27-33 year old vets whoíve only made $20 mill while accumulating 20 WAR arent going to say, letís revamp the system so they guys behind us make $40 mill for 20 WAR while sacrificing the earnings guys get in free agency.

    It would have to be a gradual system with a high salary floor imposed for the first 3-5 years while gradually changing the pre arb system. But what benefit do the owners get from that?

    Imagine trying to pitch a plan to small market owners where youíre going to make the spend money to reach a salary floor while also increasing the future cost of their young, cost controlled players. The players would get laughed out of the room for that.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 02-08-2018 at 12:18 PM.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,694
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I agree with you that these players believe they are worth more than they actually are. The thing is there is precedence in the market to overpay these type of players and there has been for quite some time. Not to mention, the players, agents and MLBPA see how much money MLB and individual teams are making and are wondering why player salaries are moving backwards. I can see where they take issue with that and why they want it to change.
    Yes but those precedents are based on older, less educated GM's who primarily looked at traditional numbers. Now GM's are younger and much more educated and savvy. I want to say that 8 of them are Ivy League guys. There are also multiple management guys that have been with more than one team, and they are all using the same analytics across the board to determine the value of players. And they're all coming up with about the same number. This is the new market. At least for this year with the fairly lackluster crop. Next year may be different. Maybe it goes back to over paying a player on the wrong side of 30 for something he did for another team. But for now, the players and their agents might as well get that old way of thinking out of their heads, or they will be unemployed. The players are the one's that need to be more realistic and understand that there is a new way of determining value.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •