Off Season Thread aka The Party is over

[dayners81]

Runner I agree. I absolutely love the idea of a homegrown core. However drink no wine before it's time. That is my sole issue on the matter. I believe we have very good SS prospects. Two top 100, with several others waiting in the wings for their shot at the lime light. (I am interested and excited to see how Arias progresses.) I believe the talent is there, I question whether or not they are ready. Peraza is the closest, but as mentioned he has limited experience and none past AA. I don't believe in baptism by fire or throwing kids in the deep end to sink or swim.

Peraza finished his yr in AAA last yr

[drt1010]

Peraza finished his yr in AAA last yr

I stand corrected, my apologies, believe I mentioned his brief stint (8 games) at AAA yesterday.

The question is does he start the season (if and when) in AAA or does the Yankee brain trust deem him ready? I expect (again if and when) he'll get an extended look in ST, the job may be his to lose. Hard to get a read. Cashman has said the position is a priority and expects to explore all available options in the FA market and doesn't rule out a trade. In the next breath feels Peraza is ML ready with the glove, and intimates he is very close.

[Kinkotheclown]

I agree Doc. Being patient rarely works because prospects rarely work out to the extent they'd need to turn a team around. This team already wasted a prime window the last few seasons. Now, even with a few big moves they still aren't likely to be WS favorites. Three years ago, if they would have been aggressive they would have been by far the favorites to win a WS. There is a good chance they already wasted the primes of Judge and Stanton. Cole could probably be thrown in there as well as the Yankees signed him to 10 years knowing it is likely the first few years would be his only elite ones. Waiting on Peraza, Volpe, etc means they likely won't establish themselves until all the other good players on the Yanks are on the downturn. That is even assuming Peraza, Volpe, etc work out which is unlikely they all do. The Yankees have put themselves in a bad spot (a reason Cashman should be fired). They can't force big signings like Correa if they don't think he is a fit. They are sort of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation if there isn't any good fits on the FA/trade market.

This is precisely why io think some of them are absolute idiots. There is no consensus. There doesn't seem to be a plan on which they all agree. There doesn't seem to be a vision. So instead of finding ,it, screaming for Correa is idiotic. (No one here is doing that. I am talking FO alone)

[Kinkotheclown]

I called BS on the owners now I call BS on the MLBPA. If you really want to be out there, get your arse to the table with your counter offer. That shouldn't take over a week. You should have known to some extent what the owners would present and should have, to an extent, had your counter prepared.
Now you are just being tools

[johnnyi]

I called BS on the owners now I call BS on the MLBPA. If you really want to be out there, get your arse to the table with your counter offer. That shouldn't take over a week. You should have known to some extent what the owners would present and should have, to an extent, had your counter prepared.
Now you are just being tools

I agree. I think the players might just want to stick it to the owners and put the season in jeopardy to get the owners to bend to their demands (which is why the owners locked out the players in the first place).

[dayners81]

I agree. I think the players might just want to stick it to the owners and put the season in jeopardy to get the owners to bend to their demands (which is why the owners locked out the players in the first place).

Thats seems to be the plan by both sides, push it to as close to ST and see who bends. When players start missing checks is when we'll see them bend, hopefully it doesn't get that far.

[Kinkotheclown]

I agree. I think the players might just want to stick it to the owners and put the season in jeopardy to get the owners to bend to their demands (which is why the owners locked out the players in the first place).

I agree. It's a stupid strategy. If you want public opinion on your side, ask to go to the table. Ask to negotiate. At least make it seem like you are trying and not trying to strong arm.
Players could very easily overplay their hand and end up missing some checks, as Doc suggested

[metswon69]

Thats seems to be the plan by both sides, push it to as close to ST and see who bends. When players start missing checks is when we'll see them bend, hopefully it doesn't get that far.

I wonder what the cut off is in terms of games lost before they rush to get a deal done. 30? 50? 81? I don't expect them to miss the whole season because everyone saw how that devastated the NHL in 04'-05', not to mention the cancelled WS in baseball in 1994.

[johnnyi]

I wonder what the cut off is in terms of games lost before they rush to get a deal done. 30? 50? 81? I don't expect them to miss the whole season because everyone saw how that devastated the NHL in 04'-05', not to mention the cancelled WS in baseball in 1994.

I'd say zero. Players lose paychecks and owners lose revenues with each game.

If the players aren't total tools, they'll make a counteroffer in the next 2 days

Then IMO, the timeline would be something like the following:
-the owners will recounter by Feb 1st and
-the players will recounter again by Feb 11th
-a final agreement would be hammer out by Feb 25th.
-pitchers and catchers would have one week to report by March 7th
-the rest of the players by March 14th
-3 weeks of spring training
- Season starts April 4 and the players will insist that any missed games are made up

Any further delays than this and everyone suffers.

[metswon69]

I'd say zero. Players lose paychecks and owners lose revenues with each game.

If the players aren't total tools, they'll make a counteroffer in the next 2 days

Then IMO, the timeline would be something like the following:
-the owners will recounter by Feb 1st and
-the players will recounter again by Feb 11th
-a final agreement would be hammer out by Feb 25th.
-pitchers and catchers would have one week to report by March 7th
-the rest of the players by March 14th
-3 weeks of spring training
- Season starts April 4 and the players will insist that any missed games are made up

Any further delays than this and everyone suffers.

Imo, I think we're going to see games lost this year. How many I don't know but there are a lot of issues to iron out and these sides are really far apart. It seems more far apart than they have been in prior labor disputes as well. The players have some real concerns about salaries, especially in regard to mid tier FA. Those salaries have dropped significantly in the last 7 or 8 years. It doesn't help that MLB refuses to do much about their indentured servitude that is the 6 years of service time before you hit FA either.

[johnnyi]

Imo, I think we're going to see games lost this year. How many I don't know but there are a lot of issues to iron out and these sides are really far apart. It seems more far apart than they have been in prior labor disputes as well. The players have some real concerns about salaries, especially in regard to mid tier FA. Those salaries have dropped significantly in the last 7 or 8 years. It doesn't help that MLB refuses to do much about their indentured servitude that is the 6 years of service time before you hit FA either.

I don't think 6 years of control is the issue, since there is arbitration after 2 years, including super twos, I believe. I think the real issue is that the salaries for the first two years should be raised dramatically from $575 K to $1 million and $2 million for 1 year and 2 year players and perhaps there should be some type of age based free agency requirement that overrides the 6 years. Raising the salaries would make teams value the player with multiple years of experience more, if they can't replace them with someone making less than half their salary. As it currently stands a two year player with a $575 K salary is more valuable than a 3 year player whose arbitration award of $2.5 million makes the team cut him and force him to sign with another team for $800 K. If that 2 year player gets $2 million, then the owner is more likely to offer arbitration to the 3 year player.

[metswon69]

I'm sure if you asked the players they would unanimously agree that 6 years of team control is ridiculous. I dont know if they have the leverage to change that but I'm sure its something they push for in future CBAs even if its not a sticking point here. It certainly looks like they are trying to find ways to get the players paid sooner, specifically because those first 3 years are basically making the league minimum give or take a few grand (unless you qualify for super 2).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...llision-course

This system makes younger players, as a group, inordinately valuable in terms of net productivity. In 2021, players in their age-29 season or younger generated 63 percent of leaguewide wins above replacement1 but were paid just 38 percent of MLB’s total salaries. That, of course, means the inverse — older players being paid more than we would expect from their production — is also true: Players age 30 and older made 62 percent of total salaries while generating just 37 percent of WAR.

This is a big part of it. Younger players account for the most production in the league but many of them are making significantly lower than their production would constitute on the open market. The players certainly want to bridge that gap some.

[drt1010]

Mets, I agree. I have always felt, and stated more than once, the indentured servitude is an issue the MLB must address. Prime production years are had at deep discount. My sense is they will try to appease the union with an increase in minimum salary, however does not begin to address the inherent impropriety.

I imagine the international draft is also on the agenda.

[Phoba Rama]

When you think about all of the investments teams make in players leading up the their 2 years pre-arbitration, and how many of those players they invest in who end up contributing nothing and earning nothing for the team... someone has to absorb that cost. Should the rookies absorb it? Or should the team? Or will they just pass that loss onto the older free agents and pay them even less? It's all about supply and demand.

[dayners81]

When you think about all of the investments teams make in players leading up the their 2 years pre-arbitration, and how many of those players they invest in who end up contributing nothing and earning nothing for the team... someone has to absorb that cost. Should the rookies absorb it? Or should the team? Or will they just pass that loss onto the older free agents and pay them even less? It's all about supply and demand.

It's the older non star free agents that have been getting killed lately. If a guy is a slightly above avg player, would a team rather pay him 5m+ or take a chance on a kid for 700K? 95% of teams would rather take a chance on the kids and either invest that money in a star player or back into the farm system