Should Baseball Have The Franchise Tag Or Max Contracts?

[mdbdotcom]

I don't see the need for it. Teams that don't know how to keep their players during their productive years can either bring in a new front office that can get the job done or build a pipeline of talent that keeps them competitive. The idea of an artificially mandated franchise player makes me a little bit ill. 

[weams]

38 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

If Adley does leave 8 years from now for a large market team, who cares? He is a catcher and most likely his best years will already be behind him. 

He'll be an "Old 30"

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, TINSTAAPP said:

The Oklahoma City Thunder was able to resign their superstar Russell Westbrook to the largest contract in NBA history. The size of the OKC area is about 200,000 less than the Brewers. Do you think the Brewers would be able to sign a player to largest contract in MLB history? If they had drafted Mike Trout, would they have been able to offer him the same amount of money that the Angels did in order to keep him? 

I don't really know anything about the NBA, but I'm assuming 50% or more of revenues come from national media contracts that are shared equally.  Like the NFL.  Until you can get the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs to donate $150-200M a year to a common pool this simply isn't going to happen.

I'm not a fan of slapping a franchise tag on a player and forcing him to play somewhere he'd rather not as a bandaid for other problems.

[weams]

9 minutes ago, ORIOLE33 said:

And Trout is in a big market. He knew damn well he was getting paid by the Angels. You think Manny would have given  up his free agency to sign a long term contract with the O’s 3 or 4 years ago?

No. I don't. Not at all. 

[Mondo Trasho]

The NBA is probably the least competitive league of the big four (I don't know anything about hockey so I can't speak for it, but of the other three for sure). The max and super max contract rules have arguably exacerbated the problem. Yes, small market clubs can retain their players, but so can the big market clubs, and unlike the smaller markets they can also attract talent from other teams while doing so.

The franchise tag "works" in the sense that teams keep their player, for a time. But a large part of why it works is that it's a very large one year contract in a sport that doesn't have guaranteed money. I'm not sure it's been a good thing for the NFL, nor am I sure it would translate over to baseball.

I think baseball should open things up more. Change the foreign player rules maybe, allow teams to trade draft picks. Let franchises be more creative in how they build their teams.

[Aglets]

Longoria gave the Rays a total of 9 years of team control to play in arguably the worst market in the country.

The Orioles could have extended him early if they wanted to, I'm definitely convinced.  They probably got spooked a bit with his knee surgeries and saw it as a liability instead of the opportunity it actually was.

[Redskins Rick]

4 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Longoria gave the Rays a total of 9 years of team control to play in arguably the worst market in the country.

The Orioles could have extended him early if they wanted to, I'm definitely convinced.  They probably got spooked a bit with his knee surgeries and saw it as a liability instead of the opportunity it actually was.

I dont know if it really was the knee surgeries, but Maybe Angelos just didnt like Manny for whatever reason, we will never know.

[Can_of_corn]

49 minutes ago, ORIOLE33 said:

And Trout is in a big market. He knew damn well he was getting paid by the Angels. You think Manny would have given  up his free agency to sign a long term contract with the O’s 3 or 4 years ago?

You asked who signed 10 year deals before free agency, not who signed a 10 year deal with a small market team before free agency.

Also while Trout did get paid he left a TON of money on the table.

I think that if four years ago the Orioles took the money they eventually gave Davis and Trumbo and pitched an offer to Machado they might have had a taker.  And if they didn't than money wasn't the issue he just didn't want to stay here.  I'm all for guys being able to move if they want to move.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You asked who signed 10 year deals before free agency, not who signed a 10 year deal with a small market team before free agency.

Also while Trout did get paid he left a TON of money on the table.

I think that if four years ago the Orioles took the money they eventually gave Davis and Trumbo and pitched an offer to Machado they might have had a taker.  And if they didn't than money wasn't the issue he just didn't want to stay here.  I'm all for guys being able to move if they want to move.

Money was not the issue. DD was asked if they took themselves out of the Market with the Davis signing, and he said, no, not at all. The money for the "right"moves is available.

Apparently, they didn't like Manny and never even thought about seeing if they could make a deal.

 

[ORIOLE33]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You asked who signed 10 year deals before free agency, not who signed a 10 year deal with a small market team before free agency.

Also while Trout did get paid he left a TON of money on the table.

I think that if four years ago the Orioles took the money they eventually gave Davis and Trumbo and pitched an offer to Machado they might have had a taker.  And if they didn't than money wasn't the issue he just didn't want to stay here.  I'm all for guys being able to move if they want to move.

I’m all for guys moving to wherever they want to too, but I want a system in baseball where a small market team have a legitimate chance to keep their core players long term. 

[Il BuonO]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Money was not the issue. DD was asked if they took themselves out of the Market with the Davis signing, and he said, no, not at all. The money for the "right"moves is available.

Apparently, they didn't like Manny and never even thought about seeing if they could make a deal.

Saying they had the money for the  ‘right moves’ and not signing Machado borders on idiotic. Unless....Duquette was spewing the company line.

Hard to believe the Davis contract had no impact.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, ORIOLE33 said:

I’m all for guys moving to wherever they want to too, but I want a system in baseball where a small market team have a legitimate chance to keep their core players long term. 

They do.

What small market teams are trying to keep core players and are unable to do so?

Did the O's try and keep Manny or Schoop?

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Money was not the issue. DD was asked if they took themselves out of the Market with the Davis signing, and he said, no, not at all. The money for the "right"moves is available.

Apparently, they didn't like Manny and never even thought about seeing if they could make a deal.

 

Yea.  I don't believe that.

[SteveA]

54 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't really know anything about the NBA, but I'm assuming 50% or more of revenues come from national media contracts that are shared equally.  Like the NFL.  Until you can get the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs to donate $150-200M a year to a common pool this simply isn't going to happen.

I'm not a fan of slapping a franchise tag on a player and forcing him to play somewhere he'd rather not as a bandaid for other problems.

I don't know a ton about the NBA either but I know you can go over cap significantly to KEEP a pending free agent, which you can't do to sign someone else's.   That's an interseting wrinkle.

But getting the union to agree to any type of cap would be very, very difficult.

[Redskins Rick]

12 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Saying they had the money for the  ‘right moves’ and not signing Machado borders on idiotic. Unless....Duquette was spewing the company line.

Hard to believe the Davis contract had no impact.

Peter had issues with making the right decision.

His ability was in the courtroom, not managing a baseball team.