Around the League: 2017 offseason edition / 2018 Season

Carp said:
I disagree and here's why:

For one, if you are signing someone where this is even an option, then you are likely trying to compete now, so less money 4-5 years down the road really shouldn't be a priority. Putting together the best possible team now is the priority, and having the payroll flexibility of a backloaded deal helps that.

Secondly, money now is always better than money later. 25 million 4-5 years from now won't be as much as it is now.
Click to expand...

I'm going to give a counterpoint rather than disagree.

While pouring all resources into a championship window at the expense of an anticipated extended rebuilding period is certainly a model that many clubs follow, it is not the only one and is not definitively the best one. It just depends on what a club and its fans value. Were the Marlins more successful than the Braves in the 90-00s because they won 2 titles to the Braves 1? Arguments can be made either way, but there is no question which club is more stable and has a healthier fan relationship.

If the model is to give yourself as many chances to make the playoffs and therefore a championship then the value of future years is every bit as important to long term strategic thinking.

Wanting to win the most right now and not worrying about the future sounds great until you go through the future. And when you get there, the people that wanted to sacrifice everything are often amazing forgetful that they knew the consequences when the strategy was taken.

It's not dissimilar to tanking in theory and tanking in practice. Even the biggest proponents of tanking will bitch bitch bitch when the team is bad and makes moves that aren't calculated to getting better in the short term. And the survival rate of GMs who propose tear downs followed by tanks isn't so great. It takes an awfully patient ownership group.
 
thethe said:
Youth and control are essentially the only thing that is valued right now. What this might lead to is that a whole restructuring of the CBA whereby young players are made free agents sooner and get paid tremendous amounts of money. This will lead to veterans (greater than 28) more valuable.
Click to expand...

You think the CBA is going to be restructured to deprive owners of the thing that is most important to them?
 
JxnMissFan said:
I don’t think the Cubs front loaded the contract enough to make an opt out a sure thing. At the end of the second year he will be 33 years old. A 4/81 contract with incentives plus a no trade clause is the top end of the market I believe for a soon to be 34 year old.
Darvish has a history of injuries. I think he will have to pitch 190 plus innings the next two years to make a team want to give him more than 81 million. I think the cubs will be paying all of this contract.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you.

But the Cubs at least have the chance of getting out of the deal and if they don't the contract won't be as bad as it could have been on the backend. Their alternative was probably going to be replacement level or someone on an equally bad or worse contract.
 
thethe said:
If older players start getting paid less them yes
Click to expand...

The MLBPA notoriously protects veteran players. 2017 looks like to be the first year in awhile that salary league wide has gone down. I could certainly see them push something to get the older players more money if this continues. Good luck on getting owners to agree to losing a lot of what they have regarding pre-FA players. The main thing I see is cutting out the service time loopholes but I thought that would have been addressed in last years agreement.
 
Southcack77 said:
You think the CBA is going to be restructured to deprive owners of the thing that is most important to them?
Click to expand...

The CBA is going to be restructured such that the highest percentage of MLB revenue goes to players.

The current MLBPA leadership failed miserably during the last negotiations, prioritizing silly quality of life things over grabbing more of the revenue pie.

So yes, the players will likely strike this time if the owners do not agree to terms that put more money into players' pockets. This notion of "parity" is a ruse...they only care about slicing up the pie.
 
thewupk said:
The MLBPA notoriously protects veteran players. 2017 looks like to be the first year in awhile that salary league wide has gone down. I could certainly see them push something to get the older players more money if this continues. Good luck on getting owners to agree to losing a lot of what they have regarding pre-FA players. The main thing I see is cutting out the service time loopholes but I thought that would have been addressed in last years agreement.
Click to expand...

My guess is they will barter a salary cap in exchange for a salary floor. That will lead to a relatively straightforward way to assure the players get X% of total revenue.
 
Enscheff said:
The CBA is going to be restructured such that the highest percentage of MLB revenue goes to players.

The current MLBPA leadership failed miserably during the last negotiations, prioritizing silly quality of life things over grabbing more of the revenue pie.

So yes, the players will likely strike this time if the owners do not agree to terms that put more money into players' pockets. This notion of "parity" is a ruse...they only care about slicing up the pie.
Click to expand...

I don't think the owners will give up control of cheap young players in the formula.

I do not have an informed opinion on what the union would seek as far as revenue sharing. Floors, caps. Sure that could happen, I guess.
 
Southcack77 said:
I don't think the owners will give up control of cheap young players in the formula.

I do not have an informed opinion on what the union would seek as far as revenue sharing. Floors, caps. Sure that could happen, I guess.
Click to expand...

The current problem is the bulk of MLB production comes from players who are underpaid. The players available on the "free market" are not having their prices bid up sufficiently to give the players their fair share of revenue.

That leaves 2 solutions:

1. Find a way to get more money to younger players through revamping the player control system
2. Force owners to give more money to FAs as currently defined

Option #1 will be a competitive death sentence for small and mid market teams, so it will be hard to get all teams to agree. Their only path to success is leveraging cheap and effective players.

Option #2 would most easily be accomplished with a salary floor that literally forces teams to give more money to FAs, or somehow spread the difference to current players. It would also discourage tanking, which seems to be the new most hated topic by purists.

In exchange, the owners will want to cap spending, and the only way to do that is with a salary cap.
 
The more I think about it, the answer for the players is probably as simple as doubling the minimum salary to $1M.

That would essentially double the money a player earns through his 6 years of team control.

A player poised to earn double what he will make now early in his career will be less likely to sign a team friendly contract, which will lead to more players hitting FA at younger ages.

Younger FAs will lead to more spending on FAs, which is exactly what the MLBPA wants.
 
Surprised at the contract that Cashner got. I've never understood how a guy that throws as hard as he does strikes out so few people. He also walks a ton of people.
 
Red Sox signed Nunez to a 1 year deal with an option.

Who still thinks the Braves have any money to spend in 2018?
 
Can't find some of the salaries of Front Office pukes. Most importantly JS.

Dumping his salary might provide additional money for players payroll. Dump Booby and a couple of others and we might be able to sign a decent OF while we wait for Acuna and then replace Markakis with the same person until Pache is ready to take his place in the Braves OF.

I'm sure Enscheff can enlight us more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top