Kershaw to DL

[Migrant Redbird]

Ace can't complete long-toss session without discomfort, so Dodgers shut him down

Kershaw felt something in his upper back while playing long toss, on his 27th throw of Saturday afternoon, according to manager Don Mattingly.

... Kershaw would be eligible to come off of the disabled list early the following week -- the move is backdated to March 23 -- but the Dodgers are making no promises about when he will pitch again. Mainly, because there is little urgency in the season's first few weeks given the spate of off-days, and because they want to remain ultra-conservative and make sure Kershaw is right when he returns.

My first thought was to wonder if this is something Kershaw already knew about when he signed his long term extension, but it doesn't sound like it.

This is why they need to end multi-year contracts. Have all teams pay a certain percentage of revenues into an MLB compensation fund, then pay players from that fund according to an accepted formula based on their performance, team success, and longevity with MLB and their current team.

It's not quite that simple, of course, but it would work. The biggest opposition would come from agents, whose value to players would be greatly reduced (limited to negotiating endorsements).

[CA-ORIOLE]

That extension not looking so great right now.

[scOtt]

Damn! My fantasy ace.

[weams]

He did too much too early in Australia. Plus those 17 hour plane rides can't help.

[Frobby]

I wouldn't put a whole lot of meaning on this.

[TGO]

This is why they need to end multi-year contracts. Have all teams pay a certain percentage of revenues into an MLB compensation fund, then pay players from that fund according to an accepted formula based on their performance, team success, and longevity with MLB and their current team.

Unless the top one year salary goes very high, in the long run this would basically just allow team owners to pocket more money. I suppose lower tier players might end up getting paid more per year, but that would probably only eat up a chunk of the savings the owners would obtain by not having to pay for future years. Also, how would players change teams? Would including longevity with current team mean that they would be paid slightly more to stay with their current team than to go to another?

[Migrant Redbird]

Unless the top one year salary goes very high, in the long run this would basically just allow team owners to pocket more money.

Not really. The Players Association would negotiate with the owners for the percentage of revenues that goes into the compensation pool. The overall pot would be about the same as it is now. Then, the players would have the primary say as to how that fund gets divided up, according to player performance.

I think that team payrolls currently average somewhere around 50-55% of revenues. Total compensation would remain about the same, but it would be divided up differently, with players getting paid for their actual performance rather than for projected performance based on past results.

Since players would be paid from a common compensation fund, teams' ability to compete would no longer be driven by their market share.

... I suppose lower tier players might end up getting paid more per year, but that would probably only eat up a chunk of the savings the owners would obtain by not having to pay for future years.

Right now, young players get screwed by MLB and the Players Association. If they're a low round draft pick and their careers are terminated within the first couple of years, they get a pittance compared to veterans who've "earned" multi-year contracts. Just imagine how much money Mike Trout would have lost if he'd suffered a career ending injury last September.

That's why I propose veterans get bonus money based on years of service. Initially, that bonus would be pretty high, to compensate for the loss of multi-year contracts. (Existing contracts would be grandfathered in.) That bonus would gradually diminish, to reflect the fact that players would be getting compensated much more fairly in their first 6 years.

... Also, how would players change teams? Would including longevity with current team mean that they would be paid slightly more to stay with their current team than to go to another?

Every player would be an unrestricted free agent at the end of each season. He could then negotiate with any team he wanted to get a place on their roster.

Since pay would be performance based, the primary factor influencing a player's choice of team would be the opportunity to get the maximum playing time. If a team already had Andrelton Simmons, it wouldn't be a very attractive destination for Stephen Drew, for example.

Other factors influencing a player's choice would be location (cultural environment and opportunities for endorsements), team attendance, team likelihood of success, compatibility with team's manager and coaches, and previous longevity with team.

Teams would be deterred from stockpiling all stars by a roster size penalty if the total basic performance compensation of their players for the preceding year was too high. Let's say, they were 15% above MLB average, it might limit their roster for that season to 24 players. 20% above, 23 player roster limit. Teams would have a very strong incentive to stay under that 15%. That might force them to drop a player from a previous season, just to keep under the limit. GMs would try to assess players' potential for improvement, since current year performance wouldn't impact them.

The bonus for longevity with a team provides a strong incentive for players to stay with one team for their career, but they would be able to move any time if another team offered better opportunities or a more compatible environment.

A formula somewhat like those used by Fangraphs and B-R would be used to determine a player's compensation for the following season. Mike Trout, for example, would have made ML minimum in 2011 for his 135 PAs, but would have been paid around $3M in 2012, $45M in 2013, and $52M in 2014. (I'm using Fangraphs values, without any adjustments for bonuses, for simplicity. Trout's actual pay would probably have been lower because his bonuses for team and MLB longevity would have been small.)

Teams would seek veterans for their leadership and proven performance, because the players' bonuses for longevity wouldn't impact the team's roster size limitation.

A minimum level of insurance against injury would be factored into the compensation formulas. For example, a player who was out for a full season would get his full pay that year for the previous year's performance. Compensation for the second year on the DL might be 50% of the previous year, and so on. Players would also have an opportunity to purchase a higher level of insurance.

To maintain the MLB relationship with MiLB, minor league players would also be paid out of this common compensation pool. Minor league managers and coaches would be paid by their affiliated team. Affiliation would provide benefits to the players because minor league service would count for team longevity purposes (perhaps at only 50%). However, if they were blocked in that organization, they could sign with any major league team that wanted them.

Affiliation will provide benefits to teams as well, as it helps to cultivate their fan bases.

Younger players should love the idea, because they wouldn't need to wait for arbitration eligibility to earn big bucks. If they had a fantastic rookie season, they would get paid for it the following year.

Veterans would need to be convinced that the longevity bonuses would compensate adequately for the opportunity to auction themselves on the free agent market.

Agents would absolutely hate the idea, because their value to players would be greatly diminished, limited to negotiating endorsements. Players would get to keep most of what they're now paying their agents.

GMs and owners would love the idea, because they wouldn't have to compete by salary for free agents (and prospective free agents) and they wouldn't need to buy insurance to cover expensive multi-year contracts.

Fans would love the idea, because teams would be able to hold on to their most popular players.