Chris Davis 2019 and beyond

[24fps]

52 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:

So did players. Al Kaline once refused part of his salary because he had a bad year. Today's millionaire players would never think of doing that. The owners should be able to put clauses into contract such as if you hit .160 like Davis is doing then the owner has the right to void the rest of the contract or buy it out for 25% value. 

Contracts are collectively bargained and the very first thing the MLBPA would refuse to consider is a non-guaranteed contract.  Performance clauses are DOA.

Interestingly, owners have the contractual right to terminate a contract if the player "fails to exhibit sufficient skill" to remain a member of the team.  How that would work if any team tried to exercise that right without paying is anybody's guess, but I suspect the outcome would roughly resemble a 30-car interstate pile-up.

[LA2]

2 hours ago, 24fps said:

Contracts are collectively bargained and the very first thing the MLBPA would refuse to consider is a non-guaranteed contract.  Performance clauses are DOA.

Interestingly, owners have the contractual right to terminate a contract if the player "fails to exhibit sufficient skill" to remain a member of the team.  How that would work if any team tried to exercise that right without paying is anybody's guess, but I suspect the outcome would roughly resemble a 30-car interstate pile-up.

I hope the Orioles try it. Whatever they expend on the effort would be peanuts compared to the contract obligations.

It would also give another chance to Davis to forgive part of the contract rather than have the controversy dragged out over a long time, which, as a legal case, it probably would.

[LA2]

7 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-chris-davis-bobby-bonilla-20190701-story.html

I'm sorry but this kind of contract shows what is wrong with MLB.  Things were better before free agency started and these ridiculous contracts.  I am reluctant to even go to a game to help pay for this type of contract.  It may be worth shutting the game down for a year or two for the owners to attain a new collective bargaining agreement.  One that includes a hard salary cap and other measures that would help restore some sanity. 

"The Orioles will pay Davis $3.5 million on each July 1 from 2023 to 2032 and $1.4 million on each July 1 from 2033 to 2037. Davis will be 51 on July 1, 2037, "

 

That they worked out such long-range details makes it even more stupefying that they resigned him. It's not like they didn't have countless chances to step back and say, "Hmm, now wait a minute, maybe he's not worth all this...."

[GuidoSarducci]

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I was under the impression that the NFL has a hard cap, and also players who make more than any Major Leaguer by quite a bit.

The best way to keep a $10B industry from paying its employees as much as 42% of revenues would be to starve it.  We should all boycott MLB.  That'll show 'em. 

 Even if you really believe that the world is better off with ballplayers making 5%, 10% (?) of revenues.  We're never going back there.  MLB players pull in a smaller percentage of revenues than any other major US sport.  If anything the next CBA will see that go up.  I'll pay to watch good baseball players.  I'd be less inclined to pay $30 a ticket to see the Angelos boys lighting cigars with $100 bills.

Yes, give the players a higher percentage of revenues more in line with the NFL/NBA. 

Shared TV revenue, MLB negotiates with the networks as a whole - no more regional rights fiefdoms.   

Hard salary cap and floor. 

No more stashing guys in the minors to avoid starting their service clock.   

In a similiar vein.  Have players hit free agency sooner - like their mid 20s and not late 20s like it is now.  

Limit contracts to maybe 5-7 years   No more 10-year mega contracts.  

 

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

9 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

This thread is boooorrrrrrring

I'll tell you what I tell my kids... if you're bored, we'll find you some work to do.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 hours ago, LA2 said:

That they worked out such long-range details makes it even more stupefying that they resigned him. It's not like they didn't have countless chances to step back and say, "Hmm, now wait a minute, maybe he's not worth all this...."

Because of the time value of money deferring some to points far in the future makes the present value less.  I remember doing some math when the Davis deal was signed, and because of the deferred money its value was the equivalent of a straight seven-year deal worth $130M instead of $160M, or something like that.  I'm sure that was part of the appeal of the Bobby Bonilla deal, too. People are all "haha the Mets are still paying a guy who retired 20 years ago, suckers!" When it's really "haha, the Mets could have paid Bonilla all the money up front, but they saved probably tens of millions by keeping most of it and doling it out a (relative) little at a time forever."

[DrungoHazewood]

9 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Teams stayed together and players didn't expect contracts for millions of dollars per year for years after they retired.

Yes, it's vastly easier to keep a group of guys together when management has complete and total say over how long a player is on the team.  Owners usually had no qualms over giving a player a significant pay cut for perceived lack of production, or releasing or trading him after many years on the team.  Did anyone ask Frank if he wanted to go to Baltimore after 13 years in the Reds' organization?  Of course not, he's a ballplayer, he does what he's told or he can go dig ditches.  Never mind that he and his family were long-established in the Cincinnati community and his excellent play sold hundreds of thousands if not millions of tickets.  He should take his $57,000 a year and like it.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

Yes, give the players a higher percentage of revenues more in line with the NFL/NBA. 

Shared TV revenue, MLB negotiates with the networks as a whole - no more regional rights fiefdoms.   

Hard salary cap and floor. 

No more stashing guys in the minors to avoid starting their service clock.   

In a similiar vein.  Have players hit free agency sooner - like their mid 20s and not late 20s like it is now.  

Limit contracts to maybe 5-7 years   No more 10-year mega contracts. 

There are pluses and minuses to making MLB more like other North American sports.  There's an argument that the lower percentage of revenues is because of MLB's vast minor league systems, which leads me to wonder if having vast minor league systems make sense.  The shared TV revenue seems like a good idea, but many teams have established long-term agreements that are of great benefit to them; you would have to convince them to give up massive amounts of revenue, with a hit to their bottom line and franchise values.  A hard cap and a floor sometimes sounds good, but the cap would probably be high enough so that it only impacts a few teams, and a floor keeps the O's from really doing an accelerated rebuild.  A floor basically forces them to an atomic-style rebuild, where they sign Kevin Millars and Jay Paytons every offseason to meet the floor number. 

I'm not against earlier free agency.  What I really like is how I understand the NHL does it - you're a free agent at 28.  Or 27 or something.  None of this stuff where a guy doesn't get established until he's in his late 20s and is basically retired before he hits free agency.

I really don't get the appeal of eliminating long contracts.  Contracts will be loosely based on market value.  If you say that no contract can be more than five years you're basically telling everyone the average annual value has to go up.  Instead of Harper signing a 10-330 deal, he'd sign a 5/250 deal.  And this might eliminate the deferred money that helps smaller market teams afford big deals.  Capping contract lengths is just a way to keep owners from going overboard. An alternate solution would be to have owners and management make better decisions.

[weams]

21 hours ago, Going Underground said:

I have called for Broxton and his strikeouts and Stevie with his amazing .260 .OBP to be gone .

I am with you.

 

[atomic]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because of the time value of money deferring some to points far in the future makes the present value less.  I remember doing some math when the Davis deal was signed, and because of the deferred money its value was the equivalent of a straight seven-year deal worth $130M instead of $160M, or something like that.  I'm sure that was part of the appeal of the Bobby Bonilla deal, too. People are all "haha the Mets are still paying a guy who retired 20 years ago, suckers!" When it's really "haha, the Mets could have paid Bonilla all the money up front, but they saved probably tens of millions by keeping most of it and doling it out a (relative) little at a time forever."

The Mets had bern "investing" in Bernie Madoffs ponzu fund that was a guaranteed 20 percent return a year.  They thought they would easily make that money back in their investment.  They actually had to pay back the profits from the fund they received.

[24fps]

10 hours ago, LA2 said:

I hope the Orioles try it. Whatever they expend on the effort would be peanuts compared to the contract obligations.

It would also give another chance to Davis to forgive part of the contract rather than have the controversy dragged out over a long time, which, as a legal case, it probably would.

Believe me I share the frustration with the Chris Davis debacle.  However, I suspect whatever savings the Orioles could theoretically realize would be tripled to the downside with the hit the organization would likely take with players, MLBPA and MLB itself should they try to get out of the contract based on performance.  I don't think the Orioles have that kind of goodwill to spend.  I also don't think they would prevail.

My current prediction is that Davis finishes the season in Baltimore with his playing time gradually reduced and then released over the winter at a time of the Orioles' choosing.  He'll get every penny when all is said and done, although I think the O's could benefit by trying to restructure the payout.

[weams]

Happy birthday to Peter Angelos. May we never allow ownership interface with Scott Boras again. 

[weams]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

The Mets had bern "investing" in Bernie Madoffs ponzu fund that was a guaranteed 20 percent return a year.  They thought they would easily make that money back in their investment.  They actually had to pay back the profits from the fund they received.

They were part of the Ponzi. 

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, weams said:

They were part of the Ponzi. 

Hard to say.    They benefitted from it for a time; hard to say if they knew it was a Ponzi.     

[Moose Milligan]

Over his last 21 at bats, .316/.381/.474 for an .855 OPS.

Of course the BABIP is at .500 so this is a mirage.