Crisis in Baseball

[angelsnationtalk]

13 hours ago, aznhockeyguy said:

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.

 

 

I definitely like the idea. The one issue I have is how MLB can make the rule that you must spend the money or after 3 years you’ll lose the pick to the better team. Not every team can afford to spend that much. The Oakland Athletics don’t have the same budget that the New York Yankees do so there will always be a disadvantage.

i think the easiest option to start with is just to make the contracts more incentive based. Sign Harper to a base contract of 10yr $200,000,000 that’s guaranteed $20/yr. but leave it up to the player to hit certain numbers to receive the entire 10yr $300,000,000 value ($30M/yr). If they play like Pujols or get injured, then they make $20M that season. Less pressure and commitent for the team. And this could be used on all teams.

[Lou]

I realize this entire thing is cause for great concern, but it's times like this that we should remember the words of JFK:

"When written in Chinese, the word 'crisis' is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity"

[Stradling]

$10.3 billion crisis

[Glen]

5 hours ago, yk9001 said:

Just a great article by verducci on how useless over 30 players are getting to be.

Worth your time.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/01/24/free-agency-gig-economy-dj-lemahieu-brian-dozier-jed-lowrie?xid=socialflow_facebook_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=sportsillustrated&fbclid=IwAR21qsfrXIFttNDnOkU6miJa2CaU4JpbHkMU5j9UE9oUA2_gKFs_ts8kpZw

That sums it up well. Teams are getting smarter with their money.

That said, I'm guessing Harper will still get $300 million and Machado will get around $220 million.

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 1/24/2019 at 9:12 PM, Dochalo said:

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.  

Agreed.

And from the owners' standpoint, I think they know the media deals are going to go tits up in the not too distant future...

If that happens, where will all the revenue come from? Ticket sales and merchandise? Thats fine. But its nowhere near the cash cow that the media deals were providing.

I assume it will get to the point where you have to pay similar to keep the fox sports (for example) app as you would with cable...but I still think theyre going to be losing money as compared to the last decade or so.

[Docwaukee]

13 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Agreed.

And from the owners' standpoint, I think they know the media deals are going to go tits up in the not too distant future...

If that happens, where will all the revenue come from? Ticket sales and merchandise? Thats fine. But its nowhere near the cash cow that the media deals were providing.

I assume it will get to the point where you have to pay similar to keep the fox sports (for example) app as you would with cable...but I still think theyre going to be losing money as compared to the last decade or so.

I absolutely agree that the rate that value has appreciated and the amount of cash coming in is going to dry up.  

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Crisis in Baseball

Declare a baseball emergency and build a wall...

[disarcina]

MLBPA and players are hoisted on their own petard and by their own success.

the contracts have gotten so huge and for such multi-year terms (Pujols poster child - ten years with the last (four/three) being VERY LONG YEARs.

so MLB - as a prior post points out and as the experience of signings over the past several years show -- MLB  teams are foregoing signing the veteran/ proven MIF (Dozier comes to mind) for a huge MULTI YEAR contract and will instead put a player under club control for 4 more years on the 25 / 40 man roster.  Some of those vets are getting ONE year deals and less money.

the elite players (and there are fewer and fewer of them-- the Mike Trouts, the true dominating ace starter, the shut down specialist closer) contracts are getting larger and larger (and longer unless the player -- and this is often the case -- wants another shot at a big pay FA before career ends) and then there's the rest,'

who is an elite player these days? Few and far between - right now MLB seems to be debating whether Machado and Harper fall within the 'elite' player definition, So far , the 2019 off-season is proving that they're definitely not in MIKE TROUT's league,

[GrittyVeterans]

I think they need to do away with the unlimited term contracts. I think a 7 year limit could be a hill worth dying on for the owners.

[Lou]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I absolutely agree that the rate that value has appreciated and the amount of cash coming in is going to dry up.  

dry up? I disagree. you don't think MLB is already working on increasing future revenue streams? as free basic cable options diminish, you'll be paying to watch games. in addition, things like BAMTech Europe and legalized gambling, just to name two, will add even more money coming in. 

[Stradling]

How much would you pay to watch every Angel game on TV? I know some people are out of market so they pay already, but we’ve grown used to watching as part of basic cable for ever.  What’s crazy is I could see me paying quite a bit.  I watch nearly every game, unless I’m working.  

[yk9001]

And am I not mistaken that Harper was offered 300/10 by the Nats?

[yk9001]

And I don't want to give Trout a 10 year contract starting year after next.

[Blarg]

6 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

And am I not mistaken that Harper was offered 300/10 by the Nats?

He rejected that and is not getting other comparable offers. 

[VariousCrap]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/01/mlbtr-poll-have-teams-become-too-conservative-in-free-agency.html

"MLBTR Poll: Have Teams Become Too Conservative In Free Agency?"

Teams at both ends of the competitive spectrum are contributing to this contentious ecosystem. At one end, bottom feeders like the Orioles, Marlins, and Blue Jays are realizing the long odds of winning their divisions and choosing the judicious (and totally understandable) approach to team building, largely abstaining from free agency. At the same time, there are more than a few teams with wide-open competitive windows who nonetheless remain passive in free agency, citing financial limitations or a need for future flexibility. The competitive balance tax, intended as a punitive fee to help balance the league, has instead become a scapegoat for large market teams to avoid significant free agent spending. Public opinion lands on both sides of the fence, with owners painted as evolving at best and collusive at worst, while the players are viewed, alternatively, as a whiny group of greedy millionaires or a disenfranchised labor force facing an unemployment crisis.

[yk9001]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

He rejected that and is not getting other comparable offers. 

So the whole argument that owners no longer offering 10 year contracts is false.

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

How much would you pay to watch every Angel game on TV? I know some people are out of market so they pay already, but we’ve grown used to watching as part of basic cable for ever.  What’s crazy is I could see me paying quite a bit.  I watch nearly every game, unless I’m working.  

I'd pay as much as I do now to watch pay tv channels, movies, sporting events, etc 

[Angel Oracle]

4 hours ago, yk9001 said:

And I don't want to give Trout a 10 year contract starting year after next.

Even if say a 10 years/$385 million contract is staggered downward?   Say $43 million down to $34 million by year ten, when a $34 million salary will not be like it is now?

[yk9001]

10 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Even if say a 10 years/$385 million contract is staggered downward?   Say $43 million down to $34 million by year ten, when a $34 million salary will not be like it is now?

No.

[GrittyVeterans]

6 hours ago, Stradling said:

How much would you pay to watch every Angel game on TV? I know some people are out of market so they pay already, but we’ve grown used to watching as part of basic cable for ever.  What’s crazy is I could see me paying quite a bit.  I watch nearly every game, unless I’m working.  

You can pay zero and watch every single game on reddit on your TV by simply purchasing an HDMI cord or casting device.

It's mind boggling how good the quality is too for those streams

Edit: you'd still have to pay for internet service, of course.

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

No.

Yea I would gladly take Trout for ten years after this contract, if that’s what it takes.