Proposition to make baseball better: 6 year contract max

[Dtwncbad]

Would baseball be better if there was a rule that limited contracts from ever having more than 6 years remaining?

I think I can argue that the answer is yes.

By default I am a free market advocate, but the reality is baseball doesnt really have a free market when you have to live with the influences of the luxury tax and draft pick compensation attached to players.

So if we are going to have a market that is not really a free market. . .

I find far more good to the most people involved if there was a simple rule of 6 years max.

A handful of players could complain.  But the players association should like it.

It does not help overall player compensation to have teams saddled with albatross contracts for one aging player.  It takes them out of the bidding for certain free agents, sometimes severely limiting the market for an individual player.

Imagine if the Pujols contract had been over prior to last season?

So maybe someone can argue that Pujols would have "lost" 4 years and over $100 million if he had been limited to 6 years.

I don't fully agree.  I do not believe that anyone truly believed Punols would be a superstar for 10 years.  I do believe they thought he would be a high producer for 6.

If that is true then the 10 year term to some degree was just spreading out the cost to get him.

With a 6 year max contract, Pujols would have likely landed (my guess) 6 years and call it $200m.

So let's finish the math.  If Pujols performed after 4 years, the Angels could have extend the 2 years left into 6 years and paid him more money.

I dont think Albert Pujols can even remotely claim this would be unfair to him.  The only "bad" thing that can happen is his production becomes garbage and the Angels don't extend and he "suffers" through only making $200 million.

How many more teams might take a run at Bryce Harper or Manny Machado if they really only had to commit to 6 years?  Couldn't you argue that the market would be hotter for them and the bidding would be higher, helping to increase their earnings?

A six year contract for a premium player is still a staggering number.  And if they are producing at year 3, there would be player leverage to get a 3 year extension at potentially a higher per year salary.  But in any case no team would ever be obligated for longer than 6 years.

I think almost everyone can agree that the back end of these contracts hurts teams, hurts fans, and hurts the PRESENT free agent market for premium players.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was just one simple detail that would eliminate the worst years of an albatross contract?

They are talking about wanting a 12 year deal for Harper.  That NARROWS HIS MARKET!!!

Cap it at six years and he might make $50m a year from a "sexond tier" team prepared for a six year window.

And if he performs, he could have two more 3 year extension negotiated at high annual salaries, earning more overall.

If he stinks, he likely ended up with more than he deserved anyway.  I can't feel sorry for any player that lands a gargantuan 6 year deal and stinks.

There are other details that would have to be worked put but the basis of this, I believe, serves teams and fans and players well.  It would be good for the game.

 

 

 

[T.G.]

Your timing is a little off...

 

[T.G.]

Are you sure you want to do that?

 

 

 

[IEAngelsfan]

I think they should implement that right after we sign Trout to a 10 year extension.

[Second Base]

Whispers around the MLBPA seem to suggest that they'll be insisting on a restructured service clock that would allow young players to become free agents sooner rather than later.  Currently the typical timeline is six years.  Three pre-arb years where they're right around the league minimum and three more arbitration years.  They'll be looking at cutting one year off the pre-arb years, and another away from arbitration which would cause players to reach free agency after four years rather than six.

This would likely result in a lot of money being thrown around in free agency.  Could you imagine the sort of contract Mike Trout may have received if he hit free agency at age 24.  16 year deal?

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Are you sure you want to do that?

 

 

 

Why not?

We would know NOW if Trout wanted to be here because he would have all the leverage in the world to currently have 6 years remaining on his contract.

The game with Trout at his age now would be to always have 6 years left.

When he hits 31, he might have 6 years left (Another extension).

As he ages, the team can determine when it is smart to stop extending to the max 6 years.

I would love this rule for Trout right now.  Either he would be refusing to sign an extension right now to have 6 years remain or he would be pressing the Angels for 6 years remaining.

At least I would know where he wants to be.

[Blarg]

I think that sensibly the owners should adopt this knowing regression information available but the union and agents would scream collusion if they all capped the years. Most players hit free agency in their late twenties so a 6 year cap puts them on the market at about 34 where age regression makes them less of a value over a younger cost control player. It becomes a numbers game that will exit more players earlier in their careers. The truly elite players will still get contracts but most will see either a stasis in pay or a reduction in line with production drop off along with there being fewer multi year deals. 

Advantage to the owners is they don't get stuck with a Fielder contract for protracted years paying a player that cannot perform or Cabrerra/Pujols that will clog payroll as their careers fall off a ledge. It's not NFL non guaranteed by any standard but it does restrict teams to lock in a franchise player. Like Trout. 

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Whispers around the MLBPA seem to suggest that they'll be insisting on a restructured service clock that would allow young players to become free agents sooner rather than later.  Currently the typical timeline is six years.  Three pre-arb years where they're right around the league minimum and three more arbitration years.  They'll be looking at cutting one year off the pre-arb years, and another away from arbitration which would cause players to reach free agency after four years rather than six.

This would likely result in a lot of money being thrown around in free agency.  Could you imagine the sort of contract Mike Trout may have received if he hit free agency at age 24.  16 year deal?

I really don't like this idea.  It would hurt the game.  Teams like the Twins would get slaughtered.   Young players drafted by the Twins would already be looking at their watches to get out.  6 years they may settle in.  And arbitration already gives them a way to make monster money prior to free agency.

Arenado might get $27m in arbitration.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I think that sensibly the owners should adopt this knowing regression information available but the union and agents would scream collusion if they all capped the years. Most players hit free agency in their late twenties so a 6 year cap puts them on the market at about 34 where age regression makes them less of a value over a younger cost control player. It becomes a numbers game that will exit more players earlier in their careers. The truly elite players will still get contracts but most will see either a stasis in pay or a reduction in line with production drop off along with there being fewer multi year deals. 

Advantage to the owners is they don't get stuck with a Fielder contract for protracted years paying a player that cannot perform or Cabrerra/Pujols that will clog payroll as their careers fall off a ledge. It's not NFL non guaranteed by any standard but it does restrict teams to lock in a franchise player. Like Trout. 

Owners can't do it in unison.  That is the definition of collusion.

It should be negotiated and agreed upon with the players union in the spirit if it being best for everyone.

It woukd not restrict a team from locking up a franchise player for life.  You are always allowed to have up to 6 years remaining on a contract.

So let's say Trout is hitting .320 with 45 homers at age 30 and he has 5 years left.  Do the Angels continue to extend him an additional year  (to the max of 6) or do they start to wind that down and move forward with 4 or 5 years remaining?

A generational franchise player could easily play his while career in one place.

There would be that time sometime in their 30s when a team starts not extending them the additional year.  But that would be the beginning of 5 years left.

[floplag]

i think its a very one sided idea that in no way benefits the players thus the union would surely prevent it 

[ScruffytheJanitor]

Ultimately, I'd rather live in a world where people are free to come to mutually beneficial agreements rather than one in which we restrict someone's access to money as a prophylactic against idiocy-- even if my favorite sports teams is the one to commit those acts.

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

i think its a very one sided idea that in no way benefits the players thus the union would surely prevent it 

I don't think that is true.  The Mariners might be bidding aggressively in free agency this year on players driving up the market if they were not saddled with the Robinson Cano contract that would have expired by now if it had been 6 years.

Current free agents would benefit from that.

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

Ultimately, I'd rather live in a world where people are free to come to mutually beneficial agreements rather than one in which we restrict someone's access to money as a prophylactic against idiocy-- even if my favorite sports teams is the one to commit those acts.

I 100% agree.  Except the luxury tax and the draft pick details conraminate it now and prevent a truly free market.

[Barrett]

That would have to be something collectively bargained for. With how it is now with no cap and people giving 10 plus year contracts I don't see the players giving that up. That being said It would be absolutely better for baseball if this happened. More player movement. A more even playing field. I would also argue a hard cap would be beneficial as well. But that is a discussion for another day. 

[Dtwncbad]

8 minutes ago, Barrett said:

That would have to be something collectively bargained for. With how it is now with no cap and people giving 10 plus year contracts I don't see the players giving that up. That being said It would be absolutely better for baseball if this happened. More player movement. A more even playing field. I would also argue a hard cap would be beneficial as well. But that is a discussion for another day. 

Yes of course. . .I said in sentence one of the original post:

"Would baseball be better if there was a rule. . ."

All "rules" for compensation are collectively bargained.

[Barrett]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes of course. . .I said in sentence one of the original post:

"Would baseball be better if there was a rule. . ."

All "rules" for compensation are collectively bargained.

I wasn't arguing with you I was agreeing with you. It definitely would be better for baseball as a whole. 

[Inside Pitch]

The Players union would bitch maybe, but if they could bargain for free agency sooner to go along with a max term FA length they likely end up ahead.    Just being eligible for FA one year sooner, likely has a bigger impact on salaries for most players than the few guys who would likely see a deal longer than 6 years.  

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Barrett said:

I wasn't arguing with you I was agreeing with you. It definitely would be better for baseball as a whole. 

Didnt mean to sound confrontational.  Just trying to close the loop on that detail. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

The Players union would bitch maybe, but if they could bargain for free agency sooner to go along with a max term FA length they likely end up ahead.    Just being eligible for FA one year sooner, likely has a bigger impact on salaries for most players than the few guys who would likely see a deal longer than 6 years.  

How many teams are bidding for Harper and Machado realistically?

2 or 3 maybe?

The rule would probably expand that to 6 or 7 or more.

I have some faith that it could have a positive impact on the compensation for the truly elite players.

[UndertheHalo]

There’s no way the players union would allow this.  Ever.  

 

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

There’s no way the players union would allow this.  Ever.  

 

 

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

There’s no way the players union would allow this.  Ever.  

 

Playing devils advocate. . .

Don't you think at some point like 85% of the player population might prefer to have the maximum number of teams in the market bidding for them to NOT be saddled with a financially crippling contract so that THEY can get them best compensation offer?

Conceptually I can see the majority of the players liking the idea.  It may create the best earning market for the second and third tier players.

[Barrett]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Playing devils advocate. . .

Don't you think at some point like 85% of the player population might prefer to have the maximum number of teams in the market bidding for them to NOT be saddled with a financially crippling contract so that THEY can get them best compensation offer?

Conceptually I can see the majority of the players liking the idea.  It may create the best earning market for the second and third tier players.

The problem you see with unions though are that the majority usually doesn't run the minority. You see it in the NBA as well the elite players run the NBA union I imagine it is quite similar in the MLB union. 

[Inside Pitch]

31 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

How many teams are bidding for Harper and Machado realistically?

2 or 3 maybe?

The rule would probably expand that to 6 or 7 or more.

I have some faith that it could have a positive impact on the compensation for the truly elite players.

Like I said -- if they can bargain to become FA's even one year sooner they likely end up benefitting the 99% of the players who wouldnt be impacted by a 6 year max term in a much greater way than any loss at the top end.  If anything we might see the annual yearly salaries spike.   Shorter term is why JD Martinez will be able to step out of his deal next year having pulled in 25 mil with the chance to make even MORE money while Upton will have banked 34 mil and be locked into his deal.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Inside Pitch

[Docwaukee]

interesting concept.  

I think you'd have to really tweak the entire arb and pre arb system if you went in this direction though.  

and pretty much every one of those contracts would have a series of opt outs probably.  

the one thing I don't like about it is that players would switch around too often.