Should players be guaranteed a career in baseball?

[Frobby]

40 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

But then the best players need to play at "market rates". If I can get a guy at $600K who will OPS .750 vs paying a 30-year old $8 million for a .765 OPS, I'm going to go with the $600k guy. 

Well, that is my point, though maybe we are looking through opposite ends of the telescope.   $600 k isn’t a “market rate,” it’s an artificially low rate set in the CBA, and which the players are trying to change.   And if the rate for productive younger players goes up, it benefits the older players because the teams won’t be so quick to replace them if the younger players are more expensive than they are today.   And longer term, even if those older players do get cut, at least they will have earned something a little closer to their actual value when they were first starting out, though still discounted.   

I do like the bonus pool concept, to distinguish the guys who actually are making significant contributions to their team from the guys who can’t hold a job.   But I also do think the minimums should be higher.   

 

[forphase1]

36 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I'm against any system that forces teams to start overpaying 30-somethings again just because they have to make a floor. 

As much as I respected Adam Jones as a player, it was clear he was done as an effective major league player when he was given away to the Phillies. Pre analytics, Jones would have probably had signed another three year contract worth well over $10 million per year and some team would have had an old, unproductive player that probably would have run out there everyday due to his salary and respect for the player.
 

This is key to me.  I don't want to see a system in place where washed up players are signed to stupid contracts based on past performance.  I think young players should get more money based on how they perform, but I'm not sure I like the idea of earlier free agency.  Selfishly I want smaller market teams to be able to hold onto their drafted guys as long as possible, though I think they should get paid better based on how they perform.  If I was MLB, I'd go with the players offer of the pool of money to be paid to the top players, I don't think 100M was unreasonable, but likely that number gets reduced to 75ish when all things are done, but not alter the timeframe for when players hit free agency really.  Again, I don't want AR or GRod or any of our other young up and coming talent to be able to go to another team any quicker than is necessary.  I'd rather the O's have the option to keep them and pay them properly than losing them earlier.  I'm fine with changing some things so the system can't be quite manipulated as it currently is, but I'm not in love with the quicker to free agency side.  Pay them what they deserve, sure, but still keep that control as long as you can.  JMO.

[Tony-OH]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, that is my point, though maybe we are looking through opposite ends of the telescope.   $600 k isn’t a “market rate,” it’s an artificially low rate set in the CBA, and which the players are trying to change.   And if the rate for productive younger players goes up, it benefits the older players because the teams won’t be so quick to replace them if the younger players are more expensive than they are today.   And longer term, even if those older players do get cut, at least they will have earned something a little closer to their actual value when they were first starting out, though still discounted.   

I do like the bonus pool concept, to distinguish the guys who actually are making significant contributions to their team from the guys who can’t hold a job.   But I also do think the minimums should be higher.   

 

I don't really disagree. Again, I have zero issues with minimums being raised and bonus money for good performing pre arb players. 

[Sports Guy]

I don’t particularly care what the system is.  Just operate intelligently and you will be just fine.

Every “small market” team that cries woe is me could spend more money if they wanted to.  
 

I also think the system is irrelevant in terms of the best players keep getting paid more and more.  That’s just how it works in sports.  It will continue to happen whether a cap exists or whatever. (See the NFL and rising contracts)

No matter the system, you can stay away from irresponsible spending and you certainly can stay away from irresponsible long term contracts.  

[Tony-OH]

13 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

This is key to me.  I don't want to see a system in place where washed up players are signed to stupid contracts based on past performance.  I think young players should get more money based on how they perform, but I'm not sure I like the idea of earlier free agency.  Selfishly I want smaller market teams to be able to hold onto their drafted guys as long as possible, though I think they should get paid better based on how they perform.  If I was MLB, I'd go with the players offer of the pool of money to be paid to the top players, I don't think 100M was unreasonable, but likely that number gets reduced to 75ish when all things are done, but not alter the timeframe for when players hit free agency really.  Again, I don't want AR or GRod or any of our other young up and coming talent to be able to go to another team any quicker than is necessary.  I'd rather the O's have the option to keep them and pay them properly than losing them earlier.  I'm fine with changing some things so the system can't be quite manipulated as it currently is, but I'm not in love with the quicker to free agency side.  Pay them what they deserve, sure, but still keep that control as long as you can.  JMO.

The reason I like having an aged base initial free agency system is it will get good players to the majors quicker. Let's see all players become free agents on their 28th year season. If a system like this was in place, Rutschman would have spent most of 2021 with the Orioles instead of in the minor leagues. Maybe even GRod would have been taking starts in Baltimore. If teams aren't worried about starting clocks, they will bring up younger better players earlier. 

Now would this system screw us with Rutschman? Perhaps, but if Adley is as good as advertised, the Orioles can be aggressive and sign him to a contract that would take him into his early 30's.

So basically teams would also be incentivized to signed someone of these younger good players to earlier contracts giving them more money early on.

[Sports Guy]

Btw, they absolutely should pay the younger guys more and/or give them a chance at FA sooner.  That’s a no brainer to me.

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

 

I think we all can agree the younger players salaries pre-arb probably needs some adjustments. I like the idea of the top 75-100 valued players getting some kind of automatic bump and top 30, getting a significant bump. 

 

And that appears to me to be the biggest sticking point in the negotations.

Players wanted a $105 million dollar fund created by the owners to be distributed among pre-arb players who meet certain performance criteria.

Owners offered $10 million.

So far the players have knocked $5 million off their ask, and want $100 million, while the owners have upped their offer to $15 million.

Still a significant difference.   I think if that can be overcome the other issues will fall into place, but they are way apart right now.

[Hallas]

16 hours ago, wildcard said:

Well that is messed up.   Rosario is a 6 year free agent.   That is exactly what the union wants.  Free Agents can sign anywhere for their best deal.  MLBTR is projecting he will sign  2/15m.   What the heck is wrong with that?

The issue is that teams play service time games to maximize the amount of time where players play for anywhere from 5-60% of their market value.  I think you're missing the point, which is that the discrepancy between pre-arb and arbitration-eligible players is so high that teams will go through all sorts of hoops to keep players under these terms for as long as possible, and consider FA players expendable unless they're willing to sign for extremely depressed rates, or their performance is so good that it's not reproducible from the pre-FA talent pool.  It's not at all about whether Plutko or Rosario should be entitled to an MLB job.  (though they are definitely good enough to contribute somewhere.)

 

IMO any attempts to fix this by covering loopholes that remove the most egregious cases misses the point.  The only solutions to this are to raise the league-minimum salary, remove a cost-controlled year, or add an arbitration year.

I actually think removing a cost-controlled year will actually depress FA salaries to some extent, but AFAIK it is nearly a non-starter among owners.

[wildcard]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Should anyone’s job be guaranteed?  I don’t really get the point of this thread either.

The point of the thread was to generate some good discussion and it appears to be doing that.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The point of the thread was to generate some good discussion and it appears to be doing that.

I'll agree with the discussion part.  The good part...not so much.

[Aristotelian]

Also, another option for the players to guarantee more dollars up front is what Schoop did with Fantex. I'm not sure if Fantex still exists but in principle the idea could work. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2016/04/27/franco-schoop-mchugh-selling-future-earnings-for-cash-now/83615112/

 

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, SteveA said:

And that appears to me to be the biggest sticking point in the negotations.

Players wanted a $105 million dollar fund created by the owners to be distributed among pre-arb players who meet certain performance criteria.

Owners offered $10 million.

So far the players have knocked $5 million off their ask, and want $100 million, while the owners have upped their offer to $15 million.

Still a significant difference.   I think if that can be overcome the other issues will fall into place, but they are way apart right now.

The owners’ proposition is absurdly low, if you’re going to go to this concept.   That’s $500 k per team.   Meanwhile the average team probably has 5-7 pre-Arb guys making significant contributions.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Also, another option for the players to guarantee more dollars up front is what Schoop did with Fantex. I'm not sure if Fantex still exists but in principle the idea could work. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2016/04/27/franco-schoop-mchugh-selling-future-earnings-for-cash-now/83615112/

 

Fantex essentially went out of business after a year or two, except for running off its existing contracts.   

[OriolesMagic83]

On 2/13/2022 at 6:07 PM, wildcard said:

This stuff wreaks of entitlement to  me.

I am reading this article about how players over 30 are get cut out of the game.  The charts are nice.  Its written well until I get to the examples.

They are crying about Adam Plutko not being able to find a job in the majors at 30.   They say he is  a AAAA player but somehow I am supposed  to feel sorry for the guy.   He had to go to Korea to pitch.

Adam Plutko is not pitching in the majors because he could not get major league hitters out.  Period.  He picked the industry he is working in.  He knows that out of 50 draft choice signed by the his club that probably 3 or 4 will play 5 years in the majors. He is 30.  He can go do something else if he is not good enough to play.  Its a free country.

Next Ed Rosario.  He's 30.  And  a free agent.  A fairly average left fielder that can't hit lefties.   He has made  21M so far in his MLB career.  But somehow I am supposed to feel this guy is being wronged .   What?

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2222664/with-a-labor-war-coming-the-mlbpa-should-start-prioritizing-the-99

I came out of college and sold mainframe computers in the Baltimore area.   My firm had 10 salesmen.  5 made a pretty good living at it.  2 were in training trying to learn the business.  Their changes of being successful was probably less than 20%.  The other 3 had talked there way into a chance.   It was a revolving door for those people.  No safety net. Make it or find something else to do.

My 2nd job was in Washington as a salesman to Government.   The day I walked in the door as a experienced salesman they told  me I had 18 months to show what I  could do.  I was not alone.  In the 20 years I was there I saw many, many people go find something else to do.  A few succeeded. 

Whether  someone starts a software company or a restaurant or does a hundred other jobs, they have to prove their worth to succeed.   To stay.

Why should baseball players be any different?

What about Chris Davis, he has to switch careers at 37?  Do you guys have no heart? 

[OriolesMagic83]

The late 1990's/early 2000's Orioles were the patron saint of overpaying mediocre early 30's players.  It seems like some years, the O's had 4 or 5 players who were on mid tier free agent contract, but they were definitely on the downside of the career.  Veterans just knew if you were on the decline, but good in the past, the O's would give you a contract. 

There are many views on Elias, but I can't see him ever handing out free agent contract to over 30 mediocre players.