Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

2017-2018 Off-season and Hot Stove Thread


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Slatykamora said:

 Teams treat it like a business, so players do the same in kind. The arb system fuels a lack to loyalty. 

 

Dis-agree with applauding giving a hometown discount when they have been forcefully given hometown discount for 6 years leading up to it. You want players to be loyal? Give legit extensions early in the process. But do teams do that often? No because they treat it like a business too and exploit the leverage of  6 years of control.

 

 

 

 

 

Well said. One of the better stated posts I’ve seen on this site. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

JT Realmuto right now  

This doesn't belong here but had no idea where else to put it so people will see it. Tonight (1/30) starting at 7:00pm CST MLB.TV will run a documentary on Tony Gwynn. Should be worth watching as he w

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Chaco Chicken said:

I did not. 

However, Duensing and Beltre didn't really take less money and Gil retired because he couldn't pitch and didn't feel like he could earn his money. 

 

Actually Duensing did take less money this winter, it was reported in multiple spots.  

 

Beltre did too.  

 

And if you think faking it for 3 or 4 months in order to collect $12,000,000 is hard, you are wrong.  He already made a lot of money and didn't feel it was morally right.  So Meche did, in fact, choose happiness over the money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unknownrotoguru said:

 

Actually Duensing did take less money this winter, it was reported in multiple spots.  

 

Beltre did too.  

 

And if you think faking it for 3 or 4 months in order to collect $12,000,000 is hard, you are wrong.  He already made a lot of money and didn't feel it was morally right.  So Meche did, in fact, choose happiness over the money.  

Again, Duensing isn't going to be taking less net money. With the 1.25 million in incentives and the substantially lower tax rate in Illinois as compared to California and the likelihood of significant playoff share the money is basically equal. Also he doesn't have to buy a new house. 

Beltre, on the other hand didn't try to maximize his money because he's earned 200 million dollars already. 

Gil chose not to be unhappy excepting money he didn't earn, that is a very different thing than choosing happiness. 

I'll be super generous 95% of players choose the money. 

Edited by Chaco Chicken
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DidiFan said:

Hope you're all sitting down. 

The Orioles have won the Susac Sweepstakes for lunch money or a sandwich to be named later. 

 

 

Was just coming to post...

 

Things are getting hot now!

 

tenor.gif?itemid=9589482

 

6953.jpg

Orioles acquired C Andrew Susac from the Brewers for a player to be named later or cash.

Susac was designated for assignment by Milwaukee earlier this week and has now found a new home. The former top-100 prospect has dealt with injuries the last few years and batted only .205/.307/.404 over 51 games at the Triple-A level in 2017. However, he'll turn just 28 in March and is worth a gamble by the Orioles. Susac will compete for a spot on Baltimore's Opening Day roster but seems likely to begin the year at Triple-A Norfolk since he has an option left.
 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2ndCitySox said:

Yeah they should take less so the owners can bank more. 

 

True that but more complicated.  It also effects how many good players the owners can surround you with or lack thereof if you put them into luxury tax range with all the both financial and now draft pick penalties as well.

 

Best example I can think of is from football.  Football is different with the cap of course but if you think of cap as similar to the luxury tax you are in at least ball park range for an example from football.  And there we have the case of Tom Brady taking "deferred" smaller payments over more years so that the Patriots can keep up with getting top players to surround him with and keep winning.  He is way down the list for yearly salary as a result but he keeps adding the rings in part that way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unknownrotoguru said:

Nice try.

 

They took less to be happy in a place they wanted to be. 

 

 

 

No I'm saying we shouldn't fault players for trying to get the best offer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This latest agent rant strikes me as a bit whiney ... http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22300069/agent-says-fight-brewing-slow-mlb-free-agent-market

 

Boras’ recent remarks, by contrast, made a valid point about the inherent problem with so many teams not trying to be competitive this year.

 

But this guy acts like every single year every free agent has a divine right to huge contracts based on what prior free agent classes received, regardless of what teams actually think of these particular free agents.  It’s not like all of these guys had to be free agents, every time we read about a player turning down a long term deal and “opting to test the market” they are taking a risk. The laws of supply and demand lead to fluctuating intersection points after all. It’s not like the unsigned players don’t have offers either.

 

On a broader level perhaps there does need to be more profit sharing with players but I am not sure that the free agency system is the proper mechanism.

 

 

Edited by Weekday Warrior
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Weekday Warrior said:

This latest agent rant strikes me as a bit whiney ... http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22300069/agent-says-fight-brewing-slow-mlb-free-agent-market

 

Boras’ recent remarks, by contrast, made a valid point about the inherent problem with so many teams not trying to be competitive this year.

 

But this guy acts like every single year every free agent has a divine right to huge contracts based on what prior free agent classes received, regardless of what teams actually think of these particular free agents.  It’s not like all of these guys had to be free agents, every time we read about a player turning down a long term deal and “opting to test the market” they are taking a risk. The laws of supply and demand lead to fluctuating intersection points after all. It’s not like the unsigned players don’t have offers either.

 

On a broader level perhaps there does need to be more profit sharing with players but I am not sure that the free agency system is the proper mechanism.

 

 

Agree Hosmer, JD and Darvish have been offered good contracts not sure about Arrieta, these guys are just so greedy, if they hadn't been offered decent contracts i  could see their point but that's just not the case, I don't know hoe these guys can feed their families on 20-25 million a year, they must have gone to the Latrell Spreewell school of finance.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, azeri98 said:

these guys are just so greedy,

We don't actually know what offers have been made only reports of offers and reports are often used as leverage. JDM, Hosmer, and Arrieta have made between 20-30 million each so far in their careers while seemingly successful they represent a significant underpayment for one of the rarest talents on earth. Between tickets, profit sharing, MLBAM payouts, merchandise, and tv contracts, the average owner is going to net profit at absolute minimum 60 million dollars this year alone while possessing a vastly appreciating asset (see Loria, Jeffery) On the other hand the players careers are functionally depreciating with each year they lose potential earnings that aren't tied to a long term contract. It's also important as members of the MLBPA that players press for fair market values in contracts as a precedent for future negotiations. "Well if Yu Darvish accepted 4/80 why do you think you should get 6/125?"

There are lots of things to fix with arbitration, minor league salaries, and free agency but players being greedy is not one of them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chaco Chicken said:

We don't actually know what offers have been made only reports of offers and reports are often used as leverage. JDM, Hosmer, and Arrieta have made between 20-30 million each so far in their careers while seemingly successful they represent a significant underpayment for one of the rarest talents on earth. Between tickets, profit sharing, MLBAM payouts, merchandise, and tv contracts, the average owner is going to net profit at absolute minimum 60 million dollars this year alone while possessing a vastly appreciating asset (see Loria, Jeffery) On the other hand the players careers are functionally depreciating with each year they lose potential earnings that aren't tied to a long term contract. It's also important as members of the MLBPA that players press for fair market values in contracts as a precedent for future negotiations. "Well if Yu Darvish accepted 4/80 why do you think you should get 6/125?"

There are lots of things to fix with arbitration, minor league salaries, and free agency but players being greedy is not one of them.

Perhaps what some don't care to realize is that this is a business.  A business, like most others, to make money.  Guess who takes on the risk by signing on JD Martinez to a 7 year contract?  The fans? No.  The owner.  I've never seen one player, say "Hey, I underperformed, here's some money back from my contract".  OR "Hey, I was hurt all year, or missed half the season, here's half the money back".   I'm tired of hearing from Boras and tired of players who think they are 'underpaid'.   If something happens to MLB, the owners can find other avenues for revenue, these players will never find an avenue to earn the money they do in the short period of time they do.  I have ZERO sympathy for the agents (that take a share of the player's contract) or the players.  

Edited by BigPapi44
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BigPapi44 said:

Guess who takes on the risk

There is virtually no risk to the a MLB franchise owner. Anyone signing JDM is going to also purchase an insurance policy for the majority of his contract that will fall under team expenses and a tiny fraction of the cost. Jeffery Loria signed Giancarlo to largest contract in MLB history had that contract covered by the purchasing group of the Marlins and they promptly traded him at no financial loss. If they lose ticket sales for moving Yelich, Stanton, and Ozuna, no worries MLB profit sharing will more than cover that. It may be a business but it doesn't function like one. They have a trust exemption, no base salaries for minor leaguers, the most aggressive black out and rebroadcast policy in sport. Short of buying a single grand prize winning powerball ticket, owning an MLB franchise is near the top of lucrative dollar per investment profiteering.

Your priorities should be reversed. No sympathy for owners and all interest toward the players who are the only reason the game exists today.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BigPapi44 said:

Perhaps what some don't care to realize is that this is a business.  A business, like most others, to make money.  Guess who takes on the risk by signing on JD Martinez to a 7 year contract?  The fans? No.  The owner.  I've never seen one player, say "Hey, I underperformed, here's some money back from my contract".  OR "Hey, I was hurt all year, or missed half the season, here's half the money back".   I'm tired of hearing from Boras and tired of players who think they are 'underpaid'.   If something happens to MLB, the owners can find other avenues for revenue, these players will never find an avenue to earn the money they do in the short period of time they do.  I have ZERO sympathy for the agents (that take a share of the player's contract) or the players.  

 

To the bolded, this is a rare occasion to be sure, but I had to share this story because, well, it did happen.

In Feb. 1991, Mark McGuire signed a 1 year 2.85 million dollar contract with the Oakland A's. He  was coming off his 1990 season that saw him put up these numbers: 

.235ba, 39hrs 108rbis,  with an all star appearance. He went on to hit .201 during the 1991 season,  after the season, he went to Mr Finley's office and gave him $1 million dollars back from his 2.85 million dollar salary saying he didn't earn it. It was a pretty big deal here in the Bay Area at the time, as you said, you don't see multi-millionaire athletes giving money back to the owners, ever, until Big Mac came to town, nor have I heard of another instance since, but it did happen, just this once. Despite all the hate he generated later in his career, he will forever be considered a class act for that action alone here in the Bay Area.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Chaco Chicken said:

There is virtually no risk to the a MLB franchise owner. Anyone signing JDM is going to also purchase an insurance policy for the majority of his contract that will fall under team expenses and a tiny fraction of the cost. Jeffery Loria signed Giancarlo to largest contract in MLB history had that contract covered by the purchasing group of the Marlins and they promptly traded him at no financial loss. If they lose ticket sales for moving Yelich, Stanton, and Ozuna, no worries MLB profit sharing will more than cover that. It may be a business but it doesn't function like one. They have a trust exemption, no base salaries for minor leaguers, the most aggressive black out and rebroadcast policy in sport. Short of buying a single grand prize winning powerball ticket, owning an MLB franchise is near the top of lucrative dollar per investment profiteering.

Your priorities should be reversed. No sympathy for owners and all interest toward the players who are the only reason the game exists today.

You are just wrong.  Teams lose money all the time.  In 2016, the Detroit Tigers reportedly had the largest operating loss in the league last season, at $36.4 million. Only the Los Angeles Dodgers ($20.5 million), Miami Marlins ($2.2 million), Baltimore Orioles ($2.1 million) and Kansas City Royals ($900,000) also lost money.  

 

You also have teams, like the Jays, that are owned by Rogers (a corporation).  People who have shares in the company are only concerned about the performance of said shares and whether the team makes money or not does impact decision making.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigPapi44 said:

You are just wrong.  Teams lose money all the time.  In 2016, the Detroit Tigers reportedly had the largest operating loss in the league last season, at $36.4 million. Only the Los Angeles Dodgers ($20.5 million), Miami Marlins ($2.2 million), Baltimore Orioles ($2.1 million) and Kansas City Royals ($900,000) also lost money.  

Yet when any team is ever pressed for the details of such losses they never oblige. Teams never open books because they are deliberately deceptive yet we know every detail of a player's contract. It is also important to mention this doesn't count revenue sharing or the MLBAM payout. Even if we are to take these as 100% true the Tigers for instance are now worth more than 1. 2 billion dollars more than doubling the team's value in 5 years. There is absolutely zero risk for an owner.

 

1 hour ago, BigPapi44 said:

You also have teams, like the Jays, that are owned by Rogers (a corporation).  People who have shares in the company are only concerned about the performance of said shares and whether the team makes money or not does impact decision making.

That it exists as a corporation is just contemptible as it's protected completely by profit sharing, an anti-trust exemption, and benefits immensely from taxpayer funded stadium projects (that have literally never paid off anywhere at anytime)

 

You defend the business/owner side as being exclusively profit driven without any scrutiny yet attack players for anything like similar behavior is a really weird double standard.

Edited by Chaco Chicken
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chaco Chicken said:

We don't actually know what offers have been made only reports of offers and reports are often used as leverage.

 

There are lots of things to fix with arbitration, minor league salaries, and free agency but players being greedy is not one of them.

 

Yes we do know some of the actual figures in  the JD-Boston offer and Hosmer-KC Hosmer-SD offers.

 

And actually players being greedy is the number one thing to fix in baseball.  That combined with richer owners feeding that greed.  It is a two way street and owners and agents are guilty as hell too.  But players don't get a pass.  No one needs 25 million dollars a year to live on unless they are really messed up inside on the priorities of life.

 

And don't give me that stupid crap about only having a short career so they have to make more money now because of it.  They can  invest wisely in safe stocks and have plenty to live on.  They can also work like the rest of us 99% after they finish baseball.  And given their baseball connections and all the fanboy business owners out there that want to rub shoulders with any professional athlete, they all pretty much could land cushy jobs that pay way than many high grade professionals earn even.

 

Back before free agency most ballplayers in the off season painted houses and what not to pay the bills.  Star players often got jobs like a "car salesmen" where they were basically used as an attraction to get people to come to that car dealership and they signed a few autographs each day  and counted themselves fortunate to have such a cushy gig.   And after their careers were over ballplayers went to work at other jobs full time just like the rest of us.  And there was nothing wrong about that at all.  It was a down right balanced and healthy way to live.   So I don't want to hear about poor little rich boys whining about the difference between 23 mil vs 25 mil a year or wanting 8 year contracts.

 

And I'm sure Curt Flood never foresaw free agency leading to this horrible greedball era we live in today.  He was just after getting a bit more of a salary and the right to choose where to play.  I'm certainly not criticizing his efforts and the basic principle.  I'm just saying this stuff has spun so SO out of control it is totally ridiculous.  And personally it irks me that firemen and teachers and soldiers etc make so very little compared to grown men playing a game.  Yeah I know it is the reality but I don't have to like the current reality.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chaco Chicken said:

Yet when any team is ever pressed for the details of such losses they never oblige. Teams never open books because they are deliberately deceptive yet we know every detail of a player's contract. It is also important to mention this doesn't count revenue sharing or the MLBAM payout. Even if we are to take these as 100% true the Tigers for instance are now worth more than 1. 2 billion dollars more than doubling the team's value in 5 years. There is absolutely zero risk for an owner.

 

That it exists as a corporation is just contemptible as it's protected completely by profit sharing, an anti-trust exemption, and benefits immensely from taxpayer funded stadium projects (that have literally never paid off anywhere at anytime)

 

You defend the business/owner side as being exclusively profit driven without any scrutiny yet attack players for anything like similar behavior is a really weird double standard.

No. Again, you have missed the point.  The business takes on the risk not the player when you are talking about contracts.  Again, the player does not perform, there is no re-imbursement for the loss (short of the one time behavior noted of McGuire above) or probable lack of value from the performance of the player. And you can say, big deal, who cares they are rich and make profits.  That's not how it works in the 'real' business world.  More than likely someone that does not perform gets fired, regardless of the profit of the company.  And yes, MLB is doing very well right now, but it has not always been that way for every team and every owner.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

Yes we do know some of the actual figures in  the JD-Boston offer and Hosmer-KC Hosmer-SD offers.

 

And actually players being greedy is the number one thing to fix in baseball.  That combined with richer owners feeding that greed.  It is a two way street and owners and agents are guilty as hell too.  But players don't get a pass.  No one needs 25 million dollars a year to live on unless they are really messed up inside on the priorities of life.

 

And don't give me that stupid crap about only having a short career so they have to make more money now because of it.  They can  invest wisely in safe stocks and have plenty to live on.  They can also work like the rest of us 99% after they finish baseball.  And given their baseball connections and all the fanboy business owners out there that want to rub shoulders with any professional athlete, they all pretty much could land cushy jobs that pay way than many high grade professionals earn even.

 

Back before free agency most ballplayers in the off season painted houses and what not to pay the bills.  Star players often got jobs like a "car salesmen" where they were basically used as an attraction to get people to come to that car dealership and they signed a few autographs each day  and counted themselves fortunate to have such a cushy gig.   And after their careers were over ballplayers went to work at other jobs full time just like the rest of us.  And there was nothing wrong about that at all.  It was a down right balanced and healthy way to live.   So I don't want to hear about poor little rich boys whining about the difference between 23 mil vs 25 mil a year or wanting 8 year contracts.

 

And I'm sure Curt Flood never foresaw free agency leading to this horrible greedball era we live in today.  He was just after getting a bit more of a salary and the right to choose where to play.  I'm certainly not criticizing his efforts and the basic principle.  I'm just saying this stuff has spun so SO out of control it is totally ridiculous.  And personally it irks me that firemen and teachers and soldiers etc make so very little compared to grown men playing a game.  Yeah I know it is the reality but I don't have to like the current reality.

 

And why do we have cars or penicillin? Out forefathers didn't have those things so we should never need those things! 

I understand where you're coming from, but this mostly sounds like an old man rant. :shakesfist:

Brandon Moss is right - they're suffering from the system they created. Without the new limitations I'm confident none of this would be an issue. Hopefully it'll get figured out in the next agreement (or sooner without a strike). It really sucks for the players that are going to get burned until that time.

 

Still, why and how is it greed to want a larger slice when the pie is absolutely enormous? Nobody is paying money to come see the owners. They're coming to the stands to see winning teams. You get winning teams by acquiring the best players. Right now they're sort of screwed themselves with the new contract. But in general, salaries SHOULD increase each year. That's generally how things work. It's a good thing. 

 

We can't - and shouldn't - compare baseball to the free market. It's just a completely and totally different animal. Soldiers and teachers being underpaid doesn't really have anything to do with this matter at hand (unless you want to talk in the broader societal sense of what we value, but this isn't the place for that and it would be skipping past the point). Heck, we shouldn't really compare any of the professional sports to the free market. If capitalism were truly a thing and the awful companies (teams) were allowed to die off from incompetence/mismanagement, we'd all lose the collective ability to make fun of the Browns and the Mets. But because it's this weird and unnatural monolopy, we get to laugh at the Wilpons each year. Most markets aren't protected and insulated to this degree.

 

I usually despise the 'greed' argument. How much do you make? Did you negotiate for more money at any job, ever? Do you know how much less other people make than you? You should be happy to make what you do __________________ (shuffling papers, teaching kids, working with computers,  selling ice cream, etc) when there are others who do __________________. Why are you being greedy in wanting to be paid what you feel you're worth compared to what the company can afford?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigPapi44 said:

No. Again, you have missed the point.  The business takes on the risk not the player when you are talking about contracts.  Again, the player does not perform, there is no re-imbursement for the loss (short of the one time behavior noted of McGuire above) or probable lack of value from the performance of the player. And you can say, big deal, who cares they are rich and make profits.  That's not how it works in the 'real' business world.  More than likely someone that does not perform gets fired, regardless of the profit of the company.  And yes, MLB is doing very well right now, but it has not always been that way for every team and every owner.  

In the 'real' business world, companies that don't perform lose their CEO's and go under. Yet the Wilpons still own the Mets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball is a 9 Billion dollar ENTERTAINMENT industry.

 

You can't compare it to our jobs and most business structures because people don't PAY to watch us work. They are a driving force in the profit of the business. They are more comparable to actors/musicians etc etc. That is only thing you can ever remotely compare it to. Throw your other ideals of the workforce out the window. You don't fill stadiums so people can watch you work.

 

 

Edited by Slatykamora
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AnonymousRob said:

In the 'real' business world, companies that don't perform lose their CEO's and go under. Yet the Wilpons still own the Mets.

 

I'm not defending the Mets, lots of problems there. But I also think you have to put their situation in context of the whole of MLB.  How do you deal with the fact that you lose Harvey, Thor, Conforto, etc. to injury, like in business you are relying on the health of your workforce for the success of the company.  The owner does not have the money returned to them, or able to get rid of the 'worker' to re-distribute the monetary means elsewhere to support the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BigPapi44 said:

I'm not defending the Mets, lots of problems there. But I also think you have to put their situation in context of the whole of MLB.  How do you deal with the fact that you lose Harvey, Thor, Conforto, etc. to injury, like in business you are relying on the health of your workforce for the success of the company.  The owner does not have the money returned to them, or able to get rid of the 'worker' to re-distribute the monetary means elsewhere to support the company.

True, but there are few big companies that can fire an employee who got hurt on the job. This is not exclusive to the MLB

Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...