MLB players frustrated with owners. Possible collusion?

[eaterfan]

36 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

So because owners are making money, they have to offer players contracts that are more than their talent deserves?  That makes zero sense.  The fact is this free agent group has good players available, but none of them are elite players.  They all way elite player contracts.  You can't blame owners for saying no way to that.

But they aren't paying players what they deserve... How much does Andrelton Simmons deserve? How much does Krys Bryant deserve? How much does Shohei Ohtani deserve? How much does Vlad Jr. deserve?

Why do we talk about Pujols being overpaid but talk about what a great deal the Simmons contact is? Why don't we talk about how underpaid he is? Why do we talk about Hamilton eating up our payroll instead of talking about how screwing rookies allows owners to make billions.

[AngelsLakersFan]

36 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

So because owners are making money, they have to offer players contracts that are more than their talent deserves?  That makes zero sense.  The fact is this free agent group has good players available, but none of them are elite players.  They all way elite player contracts.  You can't blame owners for saying no way to that.

It has more to do with the fact that owners are raking in record amounts of money while only <~1% of players are able to negotiate their share freely. 

[Docwaukee]

The financial parameter of major league baseball have been collectively bargained.  It is not a free market but that is why the players have a union.  

There is not collusion here.  Teams are willing to pay what they think is reasonable relative to the production they anticipate from said free agents VS.  what they would pay for production by other means.   The players and their union have mismanaged their position because of a lack of preparation.  Every team has pages and pages of spreadsheets with their proprietary value assessments that take into account field production, character, marketing etc.  The algorithm spits out past, present and future value.  It also spits out past present, and future value of their alternatives.  Teams are rightfully entitled to choose between one or the other based on the asking price of either.  

It's called supply and demand.  

Let's take the Red Sox for instance.  Their lineup could probably benefit in the short term ie 2018 by having JD Martinez.  But they've also go Hanley Ramirz and Mitch Moreland.  On of which gets relegated to the bench when JD plays.  The combined cost of Hanley and Mitch is just shy of 30m for 2018.  Yet in spite of that, it's rumored that the red sox have an offer out to JD at 5/125.  On top of that, the red sox are already over the CBT threshold by more than 20mil.  Which may be off a bit due to AAV, but their payroll is at 208m without benefits included.  Now imagine adding another 25mil to that in AAV.  If you exceed by 40mil you get draft pick penalties.  

What the players union should have done is to crunch the numbers and anticipate the position of owners/GM's going forward.  Because they didn't do an appropriate job of that, now they are crying.  

How is Upton signing a deal for over 100m collusion.  Or Darvish, Martinez and Hosmer with 5+ year offers on the table?  Or relievers getting high AAVs?  

The players just did a poor job of anticipating their own value.  That's not a conspiracy.  

[Taylor]

Lol @ "alpha males."

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It has more to do with the fact that owners are raking in record amounts of money while only <~1% of players are able to negotiate their share freely. 

but that's the deal they accepted.  

MLBPA should have it's own analytics team.  They should have anticipated teams resetting the aging curve.  Even most of us fans have been watching this happen for some time.  How paying 30 m per for a DH for ages 30-36 likely doesn't make financial sense when you can go out and find a guy year to year for half that with not that much drop in production.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

but that's the deal they accepted.  

MLBPA should have it's own analytics team.  They should have anticipated teams resetting the aging curve.  Even most of us fans have been watching this happen for some time.  How paying 30 m per for a DH for ages 30-36 likely doesn't make financial sense when you can go out and find a guy year to year for half that with not that much drop in production.  

That's why I said this was their own fault. I was shocked to hear Tony Clark talk about the new CBA and dismiss concerns about the wage disparities between free agents and non-free agents. They seem clueless.

[Angel Oracle]

This is on both sides, to be honest.    Why are so many lower paid FAs, who still have decent/solid value, still FAs?   That seems to be on the owners, most of whom are under the tax threshold and get $50 million each from MLB.

But the agents (especially Bora$$ and this agent stirring the pot) thinking that players like Martinez deserve 7 years/$200 million based on half a super season plus only 2.5 other rock solid seasons, and declining pitchers like Arrieta and Darvish are worth 5 years/$140-160 million?   That's on the players/agents.

[eaterfan]

5 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

That's why I said this was their own fault. I was shocked to hear Tony Clark talk about the new CBA and dismiss concerns about the wage disparities between free agents and non-free agents. They seem clueless.

Yup. There's plenty of money to pay both FAs and non FAs. The union needs to understand that getting non FAs paid more makes FAs a more attractive option. They will probably spend all their political capital trying to raise the tax threshold even though that probably only effects a handful of teams. They really should go after the rookie wage scale/service time, draft pick compensatory picks, draft pool cap, and international FA cap.

[Dtwncbad]

The most common thing I have heard to explain the slow.market this year is that teams are saving their buying power for next year's free agent class.

How could players accuse the owners of collusion if they are saving their money. . . .TO SPEND ON PLAYERS??!!

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Yup. There's plenty of money to pay both FAs and non FAs. The union needs to understand that getting non FAs paid more makes FAs a more attractive option. They will probably spend all their political capital trying to raise the tax threshold even though that probably only effects a handful of teams. They really should go after the rookie wage scale/service time, draft pick compensatory picks, draft pool cap, and international FA cap.

MLBPA has to be better about understanding where value comes from.  Not just in a vacuum but on a relative basis.  ie, makes teams pay more for bargains.  Establish a payroll floor as it relates to revenue sharing.  Start arb earlier.  Have some threshold exceptions like for home grown players or mid levels etc.  But wake up and take notice of where the game is.  

[eaterfan]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The most common thing I have heard to explain the slow.market this year is that teams are saving their buying power for next year's free agent class.

How could players accuse the owners of collusion if they are saving their money. . . .TO SPEND ON PLAYERS??!!

I suppose they could argue that there is enough money to spend for players this year and next year.

How could you argue that I'm starving my kid tonight by not feeding him dinner when I'm saving that money to take him to Ruth's Chris tomorrow?!?!

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

MLBPA has to be better about understanding where value comes from.  Not just in a vacuum but on a relative basis.  ie, makes teams pay more for bargains.  Establish a payroll floor as it relates to revenue sharing.  Start arb earlier.  Have some threshold exceptions like for home grown players or mid levels etc.  But wake up and take notice of where the game is.  

The best thing the union could do is fight for a restricted free agency period to replace arbitration. Removing FA compensation is another big deal.

[Second Base]

If MLB owners were colluding, then Arte wouldn't have signed off on Upton, Ohtani, Cozart and Kinsler.

Maybe it's everyone except the Angels, I don't know.

[krAbs]

I feel like the MLB is in a tough place. On the one hand, the obvious solution is that money needs to move to younger players. Somehow make it so these rookie kids putting up amazing numbers get paid. On the other hand, the more you do that, the more you end up with super-teams who can spend like crazy, and every other team being too poor to ever field a decent team (as there would be no way for a team to pay a small amount of money for good talent). I guess that's good, but it makes for a more boring league.

[eaterfan]

2 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

If MLB owners were colluding, then Arte wouldn't have signed off on Upton, Ohtani, Cozart and Kinsler.

Maybe it's everyone except the Angels, I don't know.

Collusion doesn't mean not signing anyone. It means conspiring to keep contracts down. 

When MLB was actually colluding in the 80s they agreed to not sign players for more than 3 years.

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, krAbs said:

I feel like the MLB is in a tough place. On the one hand, the obvious solution is that money needs to move to younger players. Somehow make it so these rookie kids putting up amazing numbers get paid. On the other hand, the more you do that, the more you end up with super-teams who can spend like crazy, and every other team being too poor to ever field a decent team (as there would be no way for a team to pay a small amount of money for good talent). I guess that's good, but it makes for a more boring league.

There are ways around that with revenue sharing and the luxury tax. If they were to incorporate a form of restricted free agency you could force buyers to financially compensate teams losing players as well.

[Second Base]

I think much of this is avoidable...

1. The JD Martinez's of the world need to stop demanding 200 million. Or more accurately their agents need to come to grips with reality.

2. Shorten free agency to 5 years.

3. The luxury tax is acting as a very effective yet flexible salary cap and I am a huge fan of it. Time to create a salary floor for teams to receive revenue sharing. Teams that stay under it for more than two years are penalized via money and picks. Repeated violation results in MLB forcing the team to explore moving to another market.

4. Place a hard deadline on major league free agents of January 15th, otherwise they are ineligible to sign until July.

5. Teams that tank it and finish last do not get the top overall pick. Make the draft order lottery based. 

[Second Base]

5 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Collusion doesn't mean not signing anyone. It means conspiring to keep contracts down. 

When MLB was actually colluding in the 80s they agreed to not sign players for more than 3 years.

The end result is the same. Signing Upton and Cozart specifically flies directly in the face of collusion accusations.

[krAbs]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

There are ways around that with revenue sharing and the luxury tax. If they were to incorporate a form of restricted free agency you could force buyers to financially compensate teams losing players as well.

Oh, that may be an interesting solution. Like, if you develop a player, after a full year in the majors he goes into a kind of free agency, but if another team signs him out from under you you get paid (like, say, whatever you agree to pay the FA, you pay the team 50% of that amount to get him). Its always impossible to tell the downstream consequences of things like this, but that could create some really interesting dynamics. Kinda reminds me of how soccer clubs operate - they have some sort of weird player loan situation which I have never been able to fully understand.

[IheartLA]

If arbitration actually was based on fair market value w/ team control, then the system would be balanced. Agents/Players wouldn't be this mad if they actually got paid what they were worth.

Player's share of revenue falling from 50% to 35% in 15 years means more money for the owners. Don't kid yourself that fan's ticket prices are going down. College football is not free, % of revenue/piece of the pie is what they are fighting for.

Pointing towards Hosmer/Cain/Martinez is not what an economy is built on. That's like saying Ivy league graduates are doing good so the rest of the economy is fine. Seeing Kendrick sign for $7M/2yrs, Adam Lind getting a $5M option declined even after they both hit over .300. 100 free agents unsigned.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/02/23/veterans-turn-young-players-going-too-far-little-alarming/98308700/

Same situation last year. This has nothing to do with next year. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Oh, that may be an interesting solution. Like, if you develop a player, after a full year in the majors he goes into a kind of free agency, but if another team signs him out from under you you get paid (like, say, whatever you agree to pay the FA, you pay the team 50% of that amount to get him). Its always impossible to tell the downstream consequences of things like this, but that could create some really interesting dynamics. Kinda reminds me of how soccer clubs operate - they have some sort of weird player loan situation which I have never been able to fully understand.

Well we can look at the current salary structure of arbitration and map it to a restricted FA model, and then make adjustments.

4th year arbitration guys tend to earn about 100% of a free agents AAV and the pattern is similar to year one 25%, year two 50%, year three 75% generally speaking.

What we could do is allow teams to make offers on restricted free agents (aka 'arbitration eligible' players). If it's a year one player then 25% of the money goes to the player and 75% would go to the original team. The original team obviously would have the opportunity to offer a contract with the advantage of not having to pay anyone else.

[IheartLA]

7 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

The end result is the same. Signing Upton and Cozart specifically flies directly in the face of collusion accusations.

To be fair Arte has always been about winning. Him messing around with Norris/Chavez's bonuses might make people think otherwise, but he's always been an owner that's willing to spend if he thought they were good. I feel like he's more a fan than other owners, that's why he takes it so personally when he invests a lot of faith and it doesn't come off. 

[IheartLA]

3 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Well we can look at the current salary structure of arbitration and map it to a restricted FA model, and then make adjustments.

4th year arbitration guys tend to earn about 100% of a free agents AAV and the pattern is similar to year one 25%, year two 50%, year three 75% generally speaking.

What we could do is allow teams to make offers on restricted free agents (aka 'arbitration eligible' players). If it's a year one player then 25% of the money goes to the player and 75% would go to the original team. The original team obviously would have the opportunity to offer a contract with the advantage of not having to pay anyone else.

That's a terrible idea. Why shouldn't arbitration just pay FMV year to year. To get to arbitration meant you played 2.5+ years on $500k. If there was an arbitration hearing for a  5 WAR CF then he should be paid like a 5WAR CF, 3 WAR 2B should be paid like a 3 WAR 2B. That would give 3-4 years of team control at FMV for both player/team. Then he'd hit FA at 29-32 and sign a 3-5 year deal and not feel the need to make up for 6+ years of underpayment when his skills are declining.

[JarsOfClay]

1 hour ago, eaterfan said:

Why do we talk about Pujols being overpaid but talk about what a great deal the Simmons contact is?

Because championships are made by avoiding Pujols contracts and making Simmons contracts.  That's why.

1 hour ago, eaterfan said:

Why don't we talk about how underpaid he is? Why do we talk about Hamilton eating up our payroll instead of talking about how screwing rookies allows owners to make billions.

Why don't we talk about the contract Simmons agreed to?  Maybe because he agreed to it and no one held a gun to his head?

As for rookies, some outplay their value but most don't.  In the end, it evens out.  And it's not screwing the rookies when the players agreed to this system.

 

[T.G.]

The threat of a player's strike is unsettling, disturbing and makes me angry...

Fans can strike too...