BorASS

[Claude]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4186779002

Edited November 14, 2019 by Calzone 2

[Pancake Bear]

I agree with him, generally, on this point, but I see no reason to expect this to change. The players would have to demand some sort of system in the new CBA that tries to disincentivize tanking. The reason it seems unlikely to me to happen is that teams tanking doesn’t hurt the market enough for players to give something big up in exchange in negotiations and the league owners have little incentive to do it themselves. The other issue is that with how smart front offices are these days, pretty much anything they could come up with to prevent tanking could probably be evaded if the team felt it was in their best interest to do so. They would figure something out. It’s inevtable. 

[Claude]

11 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

I agree with him, generally, on this point, but I see no reason to expect this to change. The players would have to demand some sort of system in the new CBA that tries to disincentivize tanking. The reason it seems unlikely to me to happen is that teams tanking doesn’t hurt the market enough for players to give something big up in exchange in negotiations and the league owners have little incentive to do it themselves. The other issue is that with how smart front offices are these days, pretty much anything they could come up with to prevent tanking could probably be evaded if the team felt it was in their best interest to do so. They would figure something out. It’s inevtable. 

I don’t think teams tank intentionally. They lose games because of the lack of talent or major injuries. I believe every team begins the season wanting to win but not every team can because of several factors. Talent and of course economics. Boras wants every team to spend $200M+ for his own self serving reasons. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

28 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

I agree with him, generally, on this point, but I see no reason to expect this to change. The players would have to demand some sort of system in the new CBA that tries to disincentivize tanking. The reason it seems unlikely to me to happen is that teams tanking doesn’t hurt the market enough for players to give something big up in exchange in negotiations and the league owners have little incentive to do it themselves. The other issue is that with how smart front offices are these days, pretty much anything they could come up with to prevent tanking could probably be evaded if the team felt it was in their best interest to do so. They would figure something out. It’s inevtable. 

Ive been saying for years that they need to tie revenue sharing directly to winning. Losing, losing badly and losing repeatedly needs to be lead to bigger and bigger penalties, just like the luxury tax.

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

I don’t think teams tank intentionally. They lose games because of the lack of talent or major injuries. I believe every team begins the season wanting to win but not every team can because of several factors. 

You aren't paying attention. 

[Pancake Bear]

6 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Ive been saying for years that they need to tie revenue sharing directly to winning. Losing, losing badly and losing repeatedly needs to be lead to bigger and bigger penalties, just like the luxury tax.

I think some method that incentivizes winning and/or disincentivizes losing should be implemented. I’m just highly skeptical that it will be. 

[Second Base]

He's not wrong.

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

I think some method that incentivizes winning and/or disincentivizes losing should be implemented. I’m just highly skeptical that it will be. 

I do think it has a pretty big impact on the market. What were there, 4 100 win teams this year, 5 100 loss teams... something like that. Bad teams aren't worried about losing, so they aren't investing anything into the market. Mid level teams aren't spending money either because the ROI on FA deals is poor. When a few additional losses start costing teams millions of dollars they will start being open to throwing a few more bucks at a veteran in place of organizational filler.

[ScottT]

I dont understand why people hate the guy.

[failos]

[Claude]

38 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I do think it has a pretty big impact on the market. What were there, 4 100 win teams this year, 5 100 loss teams... something like that. Bad teams aren't worried about losing, so they aren't investing anything into the market. Mid level teams aren't spending money either because the ROI on FA deals is poor. When a few additional losses start costing teams millions of dollars they will start being open to throwing a few more bucks at a veteran in place of organizational filler.

Maybe some teams just don’t buy into some of these players asking for $15M - $30M per guaranteed contracts with no way out. Teams in smaller markets can get hamstrung by some of these deals. Is losing fun? Sure, when you don’t have some poorly performing highly paid donkey laughing all the way to the bank.  

[Brandon]

I don't get the thread title, he's correct.

- Baseball isn't competitive and losing viewers (I'm one that isn't going to drop the money and waste 4 hours to watch a loser)

- Certain teams have certain parameters in place.....KC (this may change as they have a new billionaire owner), Oakland, Miami, etc. aren't going to ever be big spenders and thus will rely on a solid farm system or just fail all the time.

- There is no incentive to drop money on players because the current system gives higher profit sharing to losers and smaller markets. The old Marlins owner Loria basically said such when he dumped the WS roster and essentially just kept a small payroll and kept taking from the various profit shares, mainly TV and luxury tax overages.

I really don't get the thread title and OP's subsequent argument. Pretty much everything in the article was correct.

[Second Base]

That's going to be the Crux of the new CBA, which is to eliminate tanking. Chances are they'll get rid of losing draft picks altogether to incentivize teams into signing free agents, and will turn the draft order itself into a lottery like the NBA, so that losing doesn't guarantee a top pick any more. Then they'll penalize teams with more than four consecutive losing seasons with a decreased payroll by knocking them down the draft order. And lastly, it's likely that we will see some iteration of a salary floor. Teams with a payroll below the floor will lose international bonus slots. 

[Claude]

7 minutes ago, Second Base said:

That's going to be the Crux of the new CBA, which is to eliminate tanking. Chances are they'll get rid of losing draft picks altogether to incentivize teams into signing free agents, and will turn the draft order itself into a lottery like the NBA, so that losing doesn't guarantee a top pick any more. Then they'll penalize teams with more than four consecutive losing seasons with a decreased payroll by knocking them down the draft order. And lastly, it's likely that we will see some iteration of a salary floor. Teams with a payroll below the floor will lose international bonus slots. 

Major League Baseball needs change. Just read all about it. Juiced baseballs, sign stealing, terrible umpiring, tanking, opioids, domestic violence, collusion and of course the haves and the have nots. 

[Docwaukee]

free agents are now being better evaluated for what they are going to do vs. what they've done.  The high payroll teams still have plenty of opportunity to spend more considering that only three teams went over the CBT threshold and frankly, not by much.  That's not a huge deterrent in my opinion.  It's more about the fact that spending more on those players in their 30's doesn't actually equate to wins.  If teams thought it did, then they'd be spending more.  Crappy teams don't spend on expensive players because there is no value in it.  What are the odds that some guy on a one year deal ends up doing well enough to get flipped for something worthwhile at the deadline?  Why would a meh team commit to 4 yrs for Dallas Keuchel?  That doesn't create value to a team.  It takes it away.  A team that's not very competitive is never going to recoup that. 

You don't have to look very far to see that free agency is generally a bad investment.  How many of the top ten from last year are going to be worth it?  Harper, Machado, Corbin, Eovaldi, Pollock, McCutchen, Kikuchi, Britton, Happ, Brantley? How about the next ten in Familia, Lynn, Morton, Ottavino, Kelly, Miller, LeMahieu, Murphy, Donaldson, Robertson?  

The first group? 
1.0955 billion dollars over 51 years.  or 21.5 mil per year.  21.2 WAR in year one.  or 2.1 WAR per player and about 10m per WAR in the first year. 

The second group?
261 mil over 23 years.  or 11.3m per year.  24.2 WAR cumulative in the first year.  Or 2.4 WAR per player and about 4.7m per WAR in the first year.  

Where is the motivation to spend at the top of the market?  

The biggest 'problem' if you will, is that you get the vast majority of a player's value out of them before they become a free agent.  

Personally, I don't want to see young players hit free agency any earlier.  Having continuity and retention is very important for every franchise, but the players need to get paid more earlier in their career.  I would like to see some sort of modified arb system or even an opt in to an arb system with something like the following:

first year is league min but the min is raised to 1m.  
if the player doesn't opt into the arb process, then there are standard increments of salary increase.  Standard increments look something like 1m, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0
if they don't opt in then the player becomes a FA after year 5.  
if they decide to opt in, then it adds a year of control for every arb year they opt into but it can go down.  they can only opt in after year one.  
so for instance.  player opts in after year one.  The are then controlled for up to 8 years.  If they opt in after yr 2, they are controlled for 7 years, and if they opt in after yr 3, they are controlled for 6 years.  If they don't opt in, they are controlled for 5 years.  
Age of the player should also come into play.  The above should apply to players aged 23 or younger.  Age 24, you take off a year.  Age 25, you take off two years.  26, three years etc. 

So anyone from 19 to 23 would hit free agency at age 24 to 31.  Age 24 would hit FA from 28 to 31.  Age 25 would hit FA from 28 to 31.  In other words, the max age you could hit free agency is 31, but that would mean you've gotten paid through the arb process before that.  

The arb process would have to be revamped though.  More based on metrics with no carry over from the previous year ie, if you got paid 7m because of a solid year and then followed that up with a bad year, you could get 3m the next year.  

There would also have to be some sort of PT clause attached where if you weren't injured yet still didn't get enough PT because the team was trying to manipulate somehow, the arbiter could rule that you get paid the same amount.  Or something like that.  

The key would be that if you didn't opt into the arb process, you'd become a free agent at age 28 or earlier.

[ScottT]

MLB is a $10 billion business.  Ten years ago, it was a $6 billion business.  

Arte Moreno bought the Angels for $180 million sixteen years ago. They are allegedly worth more than ten times that.  

The sky isnt falling. The sport isnt dying.

Boras makes some excellent points.

[Claude]

@Dochalo not only does the arb process need to be revamped, the entire salary structure needs to be changed. There should be a base salary with huge incentives for every player. The great players will get great pay. The good players will get good pay. The bad players may need to get a second job. There also needs to be a salary cap to prevent the wealthiest teams from hoarding all of the best talent. Reading that the Yankees are in on Cole and Strasburg is really deflating to opposing fans even though I personally think it’s Fake News. The smaller market fans must get annoyed by that each and every season. It would be very easy to lose interest in those markets.  

[Out]

6 minutes ago, ScottT said:

MLB is a $10 billion business.  Ten years ago, it was a $6 billion business.  

Arte Moreno bought the Angels for $180 million sixteen years ago. They are allegedly worth more than ten times that.  

The sky isnt falling. The sport isnt dying.

Boras makes some excellent points.

LOL....Boras gives two shits about the integrity of MLB. He’s all about the spin and how it ultimately leads to putting money in his pocket. The guy is an extraordinary businessman and master manipulator. 

[Stradling]

7 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

@Dochalo not only does the arb process need to be revamped, the entire salary structure needs to be changed. There should be a base salary with huge incentives for every player. The great players will get great pay. The good players will get good pay. The bad players may need to get a second job. There also needs to be a salary cap to prevent the wealthiest teams from hoarding all of the best talent. Reading that the Yankees are in on Cole and Strasburg is really deflating to opposing fans even though I personally think it’s Fake News. The smaller market fans must get annoyed by that each and every season. It would be very easy to lose interest in those markets.  

This is basically impossible.  Ask any owner of any business how comfortable he’d feel not knowing his payroll.  Think of the Rays.  They’d have a payroll probably five times what they started with, same for the Twins, Braves, A’s.  You could be a 90 loss team with a huge payroll spike because your starting pitching took a pay cut but the rest of your team played great. 

[wopphil]

10 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Ive been saying for years that they need to tie revenue sharing directly to winning. Losing, losing badly and losing repeatedly needs to be lead to bigger and bigger penalties, just like the luxury tax.

Good ideas. Incentivizes spending money not to suck, which should help free agents. They should also consider a payroll floor.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

8 hours ago, Second Base said:

That's going to be the Crux of the new CBA, which is to eliminate tanking. Chances are they'll get rid of losing draft picks altogether to incentivize teams into signing free agents, and will turn the draft order itself into a lottery like the NBA, so that losing doesn't guarantee a top pick any more. Then they'll penalize teams with more than four consecutive losing seasons with a decreased payroll by knocking them down the draft order. And lastly, it's likely that we will see some iteration of a salary floor. Teams with a payroll below the floor will lose international bonus slots. 

teams that receive revenue sharing need to be forced to spend every penny on their players and not be allowed to pocket the money

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

teams that receive revenue sharing need to be forced to spend every penny on their players and not be allowed to pocket the money

to me is should be a simple calculation.  the amount they get in revenue sharing should be somehow tied to their payroll.  

[Claude]

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

to me is should be a simple calculation.  the amount they get in revenue sharing should be somehow tied to their payroll.  

Isn’t some of that money earmarked to just to keep them afloat. 

[yk9001]

12 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

I believe every team begins the season wanting to win

Stop.

There wasn't one inning played in 2019 that the Orioles or Tigers thought they could be even slightly competitive.

[Claude]

1 hour ago, yk9001 said:

Stop.

There wasn't one inning played in 2019 that the Orioles or Tigers thought they could be even slightly competitive.

We played both of them in July and lost both of those series. I think all teams want to win but the league has an unfair system already in place that creates an uneven playing field. They need contraction. Less teams will result in better competition.