Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[emmett16]

I remember someone posted on here about avg. age of MLB debut by year.   I need to try to find the data but I remember being shocked/surprise that the avg. age of MLB debut has been just about the same for many many decades.   

[rudyrooster]

Well, as long as this thread has gone totally off the rails then here's my two cents.  Baseball is sorta unique in that some players are signed at age 16 and others at 21 or 22.  I perceive that eligibility for free agency is turning out to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room in any proposed new CBA.  Why not just do away with the Arbitration process altogether.  After 3 years service time a player becomes a "restricted" free agent (sorta like the NBA and NFL).  The player's team has the right to match any other teams offer for that player.  It seems to have worked well in other sports.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Ohfan67 said:

Not sure if this has been proposed, but one way to deal with the situation would be for players to be arbitration eligible the second they walk on the ML field, keep the same number of years of team control, but get rid of the goofy gimmick that makes a few weeks at the start of the season matter in terms of service time. That would drive up the salaries of the good young players but allow teams to have some predictability/longer return on investment. No proposal is going to totally solve all the related problems, but keeping it simple would help. Paying young players for their performance is incredibly fair and would provoke less angst about a delay in making tons of cash. 

 

But back to Nottingham. I don't think he's on the opening day roster (whenever that opening day finally happens). I think Rutschman is the opening day catcher and there's a more experienced backup (more experienced than Nottingham). If Nottingham looks great in spring training (which is likely to be late and shorter than normal IMO), then maybe he's on the opening day roster. 

Paying players through arbitration for the first three years may be fair to the players but its not fair to low revenue teams that paid to develop them.   A player has a great rookie year and all of a sudden he is getting paid 15-20m a year.  That  would kill the low revenue teams.  They would have to trade every good player they developed soon after he reaches the majors.     Franco would not have signed a long term contract with the Rays because he would not be earning 1-8m a year for the first 5 years. He would be getting 15m the first year.

[wildcard]

5 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

Well, as long as this thread has gone totally off the rails then here's my two cents.  Baseball is sorta unique in that some players are signed at age 16 and others at 21 or 22.  I perceive that eligibility for free agency is turning out to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room in any proposed new CBA.  Why not just do away with the Arbitration process altogether.  After 3 years service time a player becomes a "restricted" free agent (sorta like the NBA and NFL).  The player's team has the right to match any other teams offer for that player.  It seems to have worked well in other sports.

The Yankees and Dodgers would love that but Tampa would never win anything again.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The Yankees and Dodgers would love that but Tampa would never win anything again.

Is this some alternative reality in which the Yankees and Dodgers don't, for the most part, abide by the soft salary cap?

I'd hate for Stu to make a few less million a year.

[rudyrooster]

Players want an earlier chance at more money.  Always follow the money.  That's why I think think this "work stoppage" could significantly disrupt the 2022 season.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

Players want an earlier chance at more money.  Always follow the money.  That's why I think think this "work stoppage" could significantly disrupt the 2022 season.

Owners want to make as much money as possible.  Always follow the money.  That's why I think think this "work stoppage' could significantly disrupt the 2022 season.

[rudyrooster]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Owners want to make as much money as possible.  Always follow the money.  That's why I think think this "work stoppage' could significantly disrupt the 2022 season.

Point well taken.  Does this constitute an "impasse"?  If so we may not see major league baseball in 2022.  Heaven forbid.

[sportsfan8703]

15 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

Players want an earlier chance at more money.  Always follow the money.  That's why I think think this "work stoppage" could significantly disrupt the 2022 season.

Weren’t players getting more money?  Did you see the contracts being handed out?  

[NCRaven]

Owners and players lost a lot of revenue or salaries, respectively, in 2020.  With attendance restrictions and the reluctance of fans to be around large groups, owners lost a not insignificant amount in 2021.  I doubt either side wants a long work stoppage.

But, there is no shortage of stubbornness on either side, that’s for sure.

[Sports Guy]

58 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Maybe but you are also forgetting another reason guys aren't prematurely promoted to the majors.  Options.

Why, less time in the minors and the organization  overall means less of a need to worry about this.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Weren’t players getting more money?  Did you see the contracts being handed out?  

Did you see the contracts the last few off-seasons leading up to this one?

Someone with a suspicious mind might even think the owners were colluding to make the overall situation look better for the players by planning a one year bump in contracts before the lockout.

[SteveA]

10 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Weren’t players getting more money?  Did you see the contracts being handed out?  

Nope, pretty much stayed the same the last 6 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

The superstars are getting more.  But the 2nd tier free agents are getting nothing.   As a whole, salaries have plateaued for quite a while.

And, according to the players, overall MLB revenue is up (with the exception of Covid), so the owners are getting more and the players are not keeping up.  We can't verify this because we don't know what overall MLB revenue is.

[rudyrooster]

2 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Weren’t players getting more money?  Did you see the contracts being handed out?  

Yep, I saw them.  Free agents are gonna get their money.  MLBPA wants more opportunities for "younger" players to make big bucks.  As an example,  how much is John Means worth right now on the open market?  I'll guess some MLB team would pay him right now 3 years/27 million dollars.  Under the current arbitration system Means is projected to make 3.1 million for the 2022 season.  Some form of earlier "restricted" free agency is needed.

[turtlebowl]

7 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Nope, pretty much stayed the same the last 6 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

The superstars are getting more.  But the 2nd tier free agents are getting nothing.   As a whole, salaries have plateaued for quite a while.

And, according to the players, overall MLB revenue is up (with the exception of Covid), so the owners are getting more and the players are not keeping up.  We can't verify this because we don't know what overall MLB revenue is.

The real problem in my opinion with Salaries plateauing as a whole is actually a result of the steroid era ending.  Go back 12 to 15 years ago, huge contracts were being thrown out to guys that were 32+ years old hitting free agency for their second go round.  Teams have almost completely stopped doing that.  Maybe a perfect example of this is Adam Jones.  At one point when his contract expired with the O's, teams may have been lining up to offer a 4 or 5 year contract.  We saw in his situation that wasn't the case and that has become true almost across the board for those 30 somethings.  Kind of funny that by ending that steroid  ERA it actually really saved the owners money.  

The players need to make more $ earlier as they aren't getting it later in their careers.  I agree with the concept of restricted free agency of some sort.  If you have a superstar, you can keep them on your team as long as you are willing to pay market value for them.  

Ultimately the fix needs to allow teams to keep the players they develop and not be serving as a minor league team for the high revenue teams.  That doesn't mean teams get off cheap as that isn't fair to the players who shelf life is now shortened without PED's.  The question is where is the balance and will the owners and players agree to anything????