Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

new CBA, good or bad?


floplag

Recommended Posts

This new CBA seems to have really killed free agency for anyone but the "top tier" guys in many ways.
Unless they are a true superstar, a la Hamilton, Pujols etc..., the qualifying offer/draft pick issue seems to be killing the market for the rest of the field.

Its easy to say hey that declined the offer yada yada... and thats true i mean 14.1 mil for a lot of these guys is really more than they were worth in my opinion, but still.. theres just nothing apparently on a lot of guys that are not bad players.. just seemingly not worth losing a draft pick.

Now i hear the mlbpa is looking into collusion again... who didnt see that coming...  i wonder whos idea that little piece of the puzzle was and what the discussion was at the time as this was pretty predictable i think since everyone has garnered to the church of moneyball and the A's playbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone complains about how much players are making but something that keeps player salaries down is now getting complaints.

 

I don't like the new CBA but it has more to do with the draft and international signing cap hurting smart small market teams than the guys who turned down their qualifying offer sheets not getting signed.

 

I really have no sympathy for these guys. The same thing happened last year just not to as great an extent. These guys should have seen what was coming and taken the 14.1 million. The same thing will happen next year. If you are a middling FA who is probably worth about 10 million per year on the open market for 2 or 3 years TAKE THE QUALIFYING OFFER!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also not sure how much of this is driven by the CBA and how much is just that teams are getting smarter. Mid-tier guys are guys that have a decent shot at being able to be replaced by something that teams have in their farm system at much cheaper prices. This isn't the case for all of them (and some get signed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the new CBA, specifically the way former teams are compensated, is better than what was in place before.  

 

Kendrys turned down $14.1 million.  That's on him and his agent.  

 

But in the previous system, it was based on position.  So the top whatever percent were tied to first round compensation.  The next so many percent were tied to I think second round compensation.  You had a lot of pitchers, especially closers and relievers, in limbo because of the previous system.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the escalating cost of free agent contracts teams are going to be very reluctant to give up a first round pick for middle of the rotation pitchers. Developing your own players is the smart way to build unless you are one or two pieces away from contending. Guys like Santana and Jimenez are risky investments on contracts longer than 2 years and are not difference makers.

The next CBA bargaining period should be interesting vis a vis qualifing offers and draft pick compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now i hear the mlbpa is looking into collusion again... who didnt see that coming...  i wonder whos idea that little piece of the puzzle was and what the discussion was at the time as this was pretty predictable i think since everyone has garnered to the church of moneyball and the A's playbook.

 

On what grounds? Top tier FA's are getting huge contracts, and the players agreed to the ludicrous compensation system of their own free will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to give teams compensation for losing free agents, then give them a sandwich pick between round 1 and round 2. Teams losing a draft pick because they sign someone is just a bad idea all around.

 

They don't care about giving teams compensation. The system is designed to limit the value of free agents in the marketplace while simultaneously driving down signing bonuses for draftees. The system is pretty brilliant because it destroys first round picks and the slot money allocated to them, and replaces them with later round picks with limited slot money. A player might be the 30th overall pick in the draft, but he has now gone from a first rounder to second rounder or sandwich pick, which means all the difference in the world in terms of negotiation leverage.

 

Interestingly enough this system seems to really impact the small market teams most. Teams could previously spend relatively minimal resources and sign all of their drafted talent, now with the slot money being so heavily enforced those teams can't spend the extra few million required to make a top HS player not go to college. Small market teams are forced to pocket that extra money and spend it in the free agent market, where it represents a drop in the bucket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh i agree in that regard, guys that are getting hit by this right now, i dont know who told them they were worth more than 14 mil, but that person should be fired.

its just silly to me the way salaries have gone nuts for mediocre guys

Well, in Morales' case, that person was probably Scott Boras.

 

But they declined a guaranteed contract for $14.1 million, so screw 'em. You reap what you sow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impact of the huge TV deals is also something to consider.  Many teams now have many millions to throw around that they did not have before.  And then you look at the Atlanta Braves who signed a TV deal too soon and thus too cheap and now do not have the resources to hang onto their stars.  Its going to be a long haul for the Braves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about qualifying offers,

 

If a player accepts a QO, can the same team make the same player another qualifying offer the following year?

 

Yes, I believe they can.  The amount can change though, since it's based on the average of the top 100 salaries or something like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to pretend that I feel bad for a player not making millions of more dollars but the system does seem unfair.

Why do teams have to give up a pick for players like Cruz and Morales? Both of those guys are marginal improvements to a team. Giving up a highly valued draft pick along with paying the player just seems dumb.

If you're giving up a draft pick, it needs to be for guys like Pujols, Cano, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't have a problem with the qualifying offer, or with the fact that a player turning it down is a gamble. I do still think the escape clause - waiting until after the draft - is a stupid agreement from the player's association POV.

If I'm a GM, it's not that I feel player X isn't worth a contract, it's that I can wait until it doesn't cost $ plus the extra pick. Why would I rush out to sign someone and lose a pick, if I can just wait?

In Kendrys' case, this is still how he makes a living. Should he have taken 1/14? Probably. But I would personally be willing to go 3/24 for my contract because it's guaranteed. Much lower AAV, sure, but who knows if I might get hurt mid-season and never make that extra 10mil again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to pretend that I feel bad for a player not making millions of more dollars but the system does seem unfair.

Why do teams have to give up a pick for players like Cruz and Morales? Both of those guys are marginal improvements to a team. Giving up a highly valued draft pick along with paying the player just seems dumb.

If you're giving up a draft pick, it needs to be for guys like Pujols, Cano, etc.

The market decides who is marginal. If the players think they're worth more than $14M and a draft pick, they are not marginal. If they think they are and they're not, it's their own fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't have a problem with the qualifying offer, or with the fact that a player turning it down is a gamble. I do still think the escape clause - waiting until after the draft - is a stupid agreement from the player's association POV.

If I'm a GM, it's not that I feel player X isn't worth a contract, it's that I can wait until it doesn't cost $ plus the extra pick. Why would I rush out to sign someone and lose a pick, if I can just wait?

In Kendrys' case, this is still how he makes a living. Should he have taken 1/14? Probably. But I would personally be willing to go 3/24 for my contract because it's guaranteed. Much lower AAV, sure, but who knows if I might get hurt mid-season and never make that extra 10mil again.

 

On the flip side.  Who's to say the Agents aren't still asking for ridiculous amounts, and that's why they aren't signed.  Remember Santana's agent saying he should get over $100 million?  Supposedly Seattle has interest.  It would cost them a second round pick.  I'm sure they are willing to spend that pick.  But no way do I think they will pay anything close to $100 million.  Heck, I don't even know if they would give him 5/$75.  How bad would the agent look when telling his client I'm going to try and get you over $100 million, and then end up with half that?  But it's easier to say it's collusion, or the system doesn't work.

 

For Morales, who knows if a GM is already willing to pay 3/$24.  But it could be the Agent that is looking for 3/$42 or higher.  This is Boras afterall.  And for a team to lose a first rounder, is a tough one to swallow.  On top of that, the market for Morales is already half, since he's pretty much a full time DH.  Morales is one of those cases where Boras should have known the market.  If you think about it.  NL is pretty much out.  Boston, Angels, Yanks all have DH + some already.  A's only go cheap.  You rejected the Mariners.  That leaves 10 teams, and you probably could eliminate half of them.  So his market was already small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side. Who's to say the Agents aren't still asking for ridiculous amounts, and that's why they aren't signed. Remember Santana's agent saying he should get over $100 million? Supposedly Seattle has interest. It would cost them a second round pick. I'm sure they are willing to spend that pick. But no way do I think they will pay anything close to $100 million. Heck, I don't even know if they would give him 5/$75. How bad would the agent look when telling his client I'm going to try and get you over $100 million, and then end up with half that? But it's easier to say it's collusion, or the system doesn't work.

For Morales, who knows if a GM is already willing to pay 3/$24. But it could be the Agent that is looking for 3/$42 or higher. This is Boras afterall. And for a team to lose a first rounder, is a tough one to swallow. On top of that, the market for Morales is already half, since he's pretty much a full time DH. Morales is one of those cases where Boras should have known the market. If you think about it. NL is pretty much out. Boston, Angels, Yanks all have DH + some already. A's only go cheap. You rejected the Mariners. That leaves 10 teams, and you probably could eliminate half of them. So his market was already small.

Fair point. And the MLBPA probably agreed to the draft concession thinking it would help players to not always have the pick compensation attached to them, but not really thinking through the flip-side of GMs waiting out the draft.

I've come around to your thinking on this. Let's see what the end result is (of course, Boras could still get lucky here, e.g., VMart getting hurt helping out Prince)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amounts arent really the issue to me though... not to be capt obvious but tying a draft pick to a player means they have to not only be worth the contract, but the loss of a high level draft pick, not a lot of teams can really buck that unless the player is a true star and performs like one.

I hate to say it but right now we are kinda the poster child for that having given those picks away the last couple off seasons prior to the current one and having little to show for it.  If it works out then you are gold, if it doesnt you pay a very heavy price.

 

Also though i think this is really the agents at fault advising these players to not take QOs... once that number is established you better be damn sure you can get more than that on the open market or you take it... a lot of guys i see stuck in the mist right now are guys that someone apparently told them they could get more than 14 mil... based on what i dont know but i personally wouldn't pay Santana or Jimenez more than 14 mil per.

 

I dont know i just think the idea of tying the draft pick makes little sense to anyone not named ownership and in many ways really kills the idea behind FA, ive no idea why the MLBPA ever agreed to this, but they did so it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harold Reynolds made the point that players put in their time under club control and reach free agency and if successful enough this ruling can block their ability to negotiate with all teams. Their pool may be restricted to ten teams with protected picks and those are usually the least disreable to play for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...