Proposition to make baseball better: 6 year contract max

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

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

except Trout.

he's not going anywhere.

[Barrett]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

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

The one thing I would argue about this about would be that players switching teams around too often is exactly what has made the NBA more interesting. It could do the same for baseball. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, Barrett said:

The one thing I would argue about this about would be that players switching teams around too often is exactly what has made the NBA more interesting. It could do the same for baseball. 

Meh... The NBA system sucks. It's all about getting players on expiring contracts and freeing cap space to sign FAs. I much prefer the moves be about talent evaluation and roster construction than CBA navigation. 

[Barrett]

4 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Meh... The NBA system sucks. It's all about getting players on expiring contracts and freeing cap space to sign FAs. I much prefer the moves be about talent evaluation and roster construction than CBA navigation. 

While I agree it is not a perfect system I think it allows for more interesting moves and interesting things to happen. 

[AngelsFaninGA]

I like this idea. Existing contracts should also be grandfathered in so that anyone that's past year 6 on their current contract can be released with no obligation

[eaterfan]

Or the owners could just spend more money. They are making tons of it. 

The owners have stifled the free market through:

The draft, international FA caps, the luxury tax, 6 years of club control, and draft pick compensation. They don't need any more help. 

[Tank]

i like the idea. and as IP said, i think the union is on board if free agency starts one year sooner. 

add on some op-out years and this should be fine with the players.

[Lou]

5 hours ago, Tank said:

i like the idea. and as IP said, i think the union is on board if free agency starts one year sooner. 

add on some op-out years and this should be fine with the players.

the owners would never go for it. what benefit would there be for them?

[Dtwncbad]

5 hours ago, Lou said:

the owners would never go for it. what benefit would there be for them?

It would help protect the richest owners from being ultimately paralyzed for 4 or 5 years with a massive mistake contract.

And it would help the owners of lower revenue teams (the ones that never realistically make an offer of 8-10 years 220-350m) because they might have a chance to land a truly top free agent if the commitment is shorter and it aligns with their teams trajectory in the "rebuild, go for it, rebuild" cycle they typically experience.

I can make the point another way.  The Red Sox and Yankees and Dodgers can conceivably be competitive for a decade straight.  Probably 2/3 of teams have almost no chance of being competitive for 10 straight years.  They cycle.  Rebuild, then go for it, then rebuild again.

His long is the "go for it" window for most of these teams?  2 years? 4 years?  Five?

So if you tried to align the maximum years on a contract to as close to the "normal" competitive window for the most teams, then you arguably create the most competitive environment.

You might see a Bryce Harper with the twins or Manny Machado with the Reds.

That is good for baseball and would benefit many owners (and fans).

[Lou]

the owners can prevent themselves right now from being saddled with 4-5 years of massive mistake contracts - don't offer them. they're not going to give up a year of arbitration for something they can already resolve on their own. 

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

the owners can prevent themselves right now from being saddled with 4-5 years of massive mistake contracts - don't offer them. they're not going to give up a year of arbitration for something they can already resolve on their own. 

I never suggested they give up a year of arbitration.  Pushing that detail into the conversation contaminates the discussion.  If baseball wanted to do this 6 year limit on contracts, then organically something else would likely change in the collective bargaining.  We have no idea what that would be.

You are correct that owners can choose to not offer these 8-12 year contracts.  But that is really beside the core point.  Only a couple of teams realistically CAN offer those deals.  And often when they do it ends up harming the team.

If baseball could get far more teams in play for all the players, and at the same time minimize damage to teams from learning from the past try, isn't this worth pursuing?

 

 

[red321]

How many players are signed to 6 year contracts? And if they never work out for the teams as you say...why should baseball step in and stop them from being stupid

Sounds like you are inventing a solution to a problem that only exists in your mind

[Dtwncbad]

Baseball has a luxury tax.  Why?  It was put in place to cap the richest teams and help the rest of the teams stay competitive.  The cap is on dollars.

Why is it outrageous to cap the length of contract for the same exact reason?

The Royals can't compete with a 12 year deal.  It's too long for the capabilities of the franchise.  It is too long because there is no way their window to compete in their rebuild cycle will ever be 10-12 years.

If you can cap raw dollars to help the competitive landscape, then why can't you cap contract length for the same exact reason?

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, red321 said:

How many players are signed to 6 year contracts? And if they never work out for the teams as you say...why should baseball step in and stop them from being stupid

Sounds like you are inventing a solution to a problem that only exists in your mind

You go ahead and tell Angel fans the Pujols contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Orioles fans the Chris Davis contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Marlins fans that the 13 year contract for Stanton not aligning with a rebuild cycle was a problem that only existed in their mind.

Tell Twins fans that their idea that Harper or Machado is unrealistic is a problem that only exists in their mind.

Should I go on?

[red321]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

You go ahead and tell Angel fans the Pujols contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Orioles fans the Chris Davis contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Marlins fans that the 13 year contract for Stanton not aligning with a rebuild cycle was a problem that only existed in their mind.

Tell Twins fans that their idea that Harper or Machado is unrealistic is a problem that only exists in their mind.

Should I go on?

Again...those are issues for those teams who make stupid deals...it's not baseball's problem. It's not like they are required to sign people to 6+ year deals.

And the issue related to Harper or Machado's of the world not going to Minnesota...you could limit those deals to one year...those guys still aren't going to Minnesota because...it's Minnesota.

[Lou]

players want to make the most money possible for the longest period of time possible. they aren't going to be in favor limiting that option.

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You go ahead and tell Angel fans the Pujols contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Orioles fans the Chris Davis contract problem only exists in their mind.

Tell Marlins fans that the 13 year contract for Stanton not aligning with a rebuild cycle was a problem that only existed in their mind.

Tell Twins fans that their idea that Harper or Machado is unrealistic is a problem that only exists in their mind.

Should I go on?

how many players in the last 5 years or so have signed  deals of 7+ years?

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, red321 said:

Again...those are issues for those teams who make stupid deals...it's not baseball's problem. It's not like they are required to sign people to 6+ year deals.

And the issue related to Harper or Machado's of the world not going to Minnesota...you could limit those deals to one year...those guys still aren't going to Minnesota because...it's Minnesota.

So I know exactly where we disagree.  You are not wrong, at all, that these are team problems.  I agree.

But we disagree that this is not baseball's problem.  I believe it is.  And if you are going to have a luxury tax environment where baseball decides to regulate, then what I suggest is consistent with baseball deciding these things ARE a baseball problem.

And I also fully disagree that an elite player like Harper or Machado would never go to the Twins.  I believe they might.  If the chances go from 0 out of 10 to 2 out of 10 elite players going to a mid level team, then even that would be a success.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

players want to make the most money possible for the longest period of time possible. they aren't going to be in favor limiting that option.

I agree.  Yet the limit would (as I already stated) put MORE teams in play each and every year in pursuing all the free agents.

The elite of the elite have a complaint.  The rest of the free agents would likely benefit.

And what would Pujols complaint actually be?  That he got a 6 year deal for $190 million instead of a 10 year deal for $240m?  Cry my a river.

If he performed he would get extensions and earn the $240m anyway.

No sympathy.

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

But we disagree that this is not baseball's problem.  I believe it is.  And if you are going to have a luxury tax environment where baseball decides to regulate, then what I suggest is consistent with baseball deciding these things ARE a baseball problem.

you make it sound as if it's only mlb and the owners who have set the rules. they are collectively bargained, therefore, the players union is in agreement with the owners.

 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

you make it sound as if it's only mlb and the owners who have set the rules. they are collectively bargained, therefore, the players union is in agreement with the owners.

 

Lou this post is beneath you.  I do not "make it sound like its olnt MLB and the owners that make the rules."

No statement could be less true.

It has been explicitly acknowledged multiple times in this thread that any changes are collectively bargained, and it would have to agreed upon by all parties including the players and the angle for their approval is that you can argue that the vast majority of players overall would financially benefit.

It is normal to repeat a point once in a thread.  But five times?

 

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Lou this post is beneath you.  I do not "make it sound like its olnt MLB and the owners that make the rules."

No statement could be less true.

It has been explicitly acknowledged multiple times in this thread that any changes are collectively bargained, and it would have to agreed upon by all parties including the players and the angle for their approval is that you can argue that the vast majority of players overall would financially benefit.

It is normal to repeat a point once in a thread.  But five times?

 

and you keep telling everyone how it would be better because more teams would be able to sign free agents.

how would players that aren't signing deals of 7 years or more going to benefit? they won't. the only thing that would happen is that the elite FAs would sign shorter deals (very few fall into that category, btw), but for more money annually. 

if Philly were to offer Harper 6/240, how many teams do you think could outbid them? 

[Lou]

23 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

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.

which "second tier" teams are prepared to pay Harper 6/$300M ? 

[Dtwncbad]

Lou let's cut to the chase.

Anything presented here as an objection to capping contract length could also be an objection to the luxury tax.

And the luxury tax was agreed upon through collective bargaining.

So sure you can cite valid objections and obstacles.  Yet the same exact kinds of obstacles were overcome in getting the luxury tax in place.

It is almost silly to try to hammer out how exactly the negotiation would go.

The point is what I suggest has the same core feature as the luxury tax, except it caps contract length instead of dollars.

It is out if the box, but I don't think it is even worth arguing if it is realistic or not when we have seen something like the luxury tax put in place that has the same kind of function and goal.

[Dtwncbad]

For the record, I am personnally perfectly fine with baseball having no luxury tax.  I couldn't care less if a player signs a 15 year deal for $700m.

My suggestion is wholly contained in the CONTEXT that baseball has clearly decided to actively attempt to level the playing field among teams with special rules like the luxury tax and draft pick compensation.

This is a conceptual discussion of what would additionally fit with what BASEBALL has decided to do in terms of managing the inequities among teams.