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! 

     

Crisis in Baseball


VariousCrap

Recommended Posts

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/instead-declaring-war-baseball-heres-help-fix-game-011032233.html


 

Agents are again waiting on their phones to ring, feeling the squeeze of spring training approaching, on the wrong side of the take-it-or-leave-it game. They are again fielding offers, when there are offers, that are identical from team to team to team. To team. They are suspicious of that. Everyone talks the same. They are suspicious of that. There seems to be little competitive urgency from teams that finished second or third or fourth or fifth. They are suspicious of that, too.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/instead-declaring-war-baseball-heres-help-fix-game-011032233.html


 

Agents are again waiting on their phones to ring, feeling the squeeze of spring training approaching, on the wrong side of the take-it-or-leave-it game. They are again fielding offers, when there are offers, that are identical from team to team to team. To team. They are suspicious of that. Everyone talks the same. They are suspicious of that. There seems to be little competitive urgency from teams that finished second or third or fourth or fifth. They are suspicious of that, too.

 

almost all teams are using the same metrics to evaluate players.  same aging curves.  

agents used to have all the information and present it to GM's and owners as to the player's selling points.  Their vague and non-quantitative info ins't relevant anymore.  

the teams aren't buying on emotion anymore.  

the players union should have recognized this.  The agents should have recognized this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue is this: teams are figuring out that a contract to a 27 year-old veteran isn't a much better gamble than letting a rookie take over-- especially since the first choice leaves you in a hole for a decade when it doesn't pan out, while the second just leaves you a hole in your lineup for a year.

If I am in the union, I want two big things in the next CBA:

  • Players to hit free agency in five years (four for college draftees) to make players younger when they hit FA;
  • To stop letting teams keep players in the minors just to squeeze an extra year out of them.

In order to grease the wheels, I'd offer this olive branch: all long-term contracts include a team opt-out at five years--with players guaranteed to receive the prorated average value for those five years. Of course, the MLBPA will never offer this, because players unions always want to preserve the big-time players contracts while the middle tier gets screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

The real issue is this: teams are figuring out that a contract to a 27 year-old veteran isn't a much better gamble than letting a rookie take over-- especially since the first choice leaves you in a hole for a decade when it doesn't pan out, while the second just leaves you a hole in your lineup for a year.

If I am in the union, I want two big things in the next CBA:

  • Players to hit free agency in five years (four for college draftees) to make players younger when they hit FA;
  • To stop letting teams keep players in the minors just to squeeze an extra year out of them.

In order to grease the wheels, I'd offer this olive branch: all long-term contracts include a team opt-out at five years--with players guaranteed to receive the prorated average value for those five years. Of course, the MLBPA will never offer this, because players unions always want to preserve the big-time players contracts while the middle tier gets screwed.

Really like the team opt-out idea. In a way, this allows teams to fork up more money because they could opt-out when they realized they signed a Pujols. This kind of forces to player to perform at his highest potential every game. Just like a normal employee, if you perform, you get a raise or a bonus, if you under perform then you're fired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides to this argument and I think almost everyone can agree. 

for the players: They want to be paid with the money they know the owners are pocketing in this multi billion dollar industry. They want the owners to stop pocketing the money and treating it only as a business. They want the owners to think of it being a baseball team first rather than a business. Specially with big market teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox, and Cubs.

for the owners: They don't want the risk or obligation of paying someone $350,000,000 for 10 years when the risk is a heavy downfall like Pujols. They might as well just sign a player like Joe Blanton with his Angels stats to that contract because it's the same terrible return. 

Personally, I like the 0-3 and pre-arb rules. I feel like players who make less tend to want to play harder in order to earn the raise. But, I also believe that the owners are afraid to dish out some serious cash to win. If they are afraid of the risk, then offer higher AAV with less years. like 1-3. Or they need to restructure contracts that gives players options AND more club options. Minimizing the risk to an owners' eyes will allow them to open up the books a little more. Make the contracts performance based. 

Here's an idea.... What if contracts were more incentive based? For example...

Manny Machado signs a 10yr $300,000,000 deal. the AAV can max out at $30,000,000. But the guarantee starts at $20M per season (10yr $200,000,000 guaranteed) and can max out at $30M per season. Based solely off BA, HR, RBI, WAR or whatever you deem most valuable.  That way, the players' performance determines the outcome of their own value. Rather than an extra $1M for the player hitting 600+ ABs, make their more risk on the players' side. 

That idea will never happen, but it could level the playing field. Anyone have any thoughts????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the bloated contracts were becoming a crisis in baseball. This is just economics and common sense correcting itself.

If MLB and MLBPA was really interested in "market value" for a player, then why the secrecy on negotiating? True market would be allowing all teams to view all offers. Then give a date when all offers must be finalized. The player can decide which offer is best for them. This takes away the "mystery team" crap that artificially inflates deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crisis is that players are paid for past performances. Heavily incentivized contracts would be ideal for both sides. Everyone makes a base and then escalators can increase it exponentially. Get rid of the salary cap and pay players for what they actually produce in a season. Have different escalators for each position with actuarially rated payrolls.

The only players that wouldn't like this are the ones who scored a fat contract after playing out of their minds for 1 season. You can have safety clauses built in for injuries and what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great thing about Trout, amongst many, is that unlike Pujols, he doesn't have nearly the exaggerated crouch at the plate that puts untold pressure on the knees and feet.

He might slow down a little each succeeding season, but he should maintain solid enough health well into his 30s.  

He is the one guy I would give a 10 year deal to at age 29/30, and of course it helps that the Halos know everything about his routines and can better gauge how he will hold up longterm, vs a newcomer like Pujols coming in at age 32 (or older).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is baseball's fixed revenue, namely the national TV and local/regional contracts plus the changing dynamics that teams aren't reliant on attendance for a significant portion of their revenue has de-incentivized teams to field a competitive one.  Teams know whether or not the field a winning team or not they'll get x amount of dollars from the TV contracts.  Meanwhile, for the last 30 years, the players have screwed the minor and younger players in order to get the older players paid, but now teams are smarter in giving money to older players.  With the service time manipulation done by teams, players are arriving at the majors at a later age. 

So how do you fix this?  I have a few recommended changes:

1) Minimum salary will be $800,000 and increase the wage of minor leaguers. Bonus system for drafted players will remain the same.

2) Teams will have 7 years of full control; 5 years if drafted from college programs, no matter where they're playing.  All players will be on 2-way contracts for the first 3 years of team control.  Meaning that players will make an amount depending if they're playing in minor or major league.  After the first 3 years, they can go to arbitration. 

3) From the national TV portion of the contract, allocate money based on how many games a team wins during the season.  Right now, no matter what, every team receives the same amount.  So the Miami Marlins receives the same amount as the Boston Red Sox.  By doing this, it forces teams to value wins a bit more and do some more cost/benefit analysis when letting players go which may mean getting less money from the national tv contract.

4) If a team is in the bottom 6 of the standings 3 years in a row, they will have to exchange the pick with the team with the most wins.  If there are more than 1 team that meets this criteria the lower pick will go to the higher win total team and the 2nd lowest goes to the 2nd highest etc.  This will hopefully discourage tanking and again incentivize teams to win.

5) Contracts will have a 5 year maximum.  Lowers the risk for teams, allows players to hit the market more often.

Obviously some of my suggestions have no chance of being implemented, but changes need to be made to incentivize teams to try and start winning.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simmons had a .394 BA against a 95+ mph fastball in 2018. Never would have guessed it.

MLBPA is going to need to dismantle the current BA. Teams get to pay players arbitration money when they are most valuable on the field. The average player will hit FA around 26. So that leaves a team not wanting to go more than 5 years on a premium contract. Until this gets solved, owners are going to be raking in the money. I guess the short term solution would be to allow young players to opt out of arbitration at a younger age.

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...