An evening spent with Scott Boras

[Warehouse]

1 hour ago, EddeeEddee said:

I think the solution is make none of these contracts guaranteed.  If the player fails to make the team at the beginning of a season or is hurt for a certain amount of time then the contract should become cancelable, so long as that same money is used to pay for other players.

 

This would be terrible for competitive parity.  Imagine the Yankees can just cut DJ LeMehieu and Anthony Rizzo and replace with better high-end free agents. The reason smaller market teams can compete despite large payroll disparities is because of the inefficiencies of long term guaranteed contracts.  Take that away and projected WAR going into a season is going to correlate much closer to size of payroll.

[EddeeEddee]

14 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

This would be terrible for competitive parity.  Imagine the Yankees can just cut DJ LeMehieu and Anthony Rizzo and replace with better high-end free agents. The reason smaller market teams can compete despite large payroll disparities is because of the inefficiencies of long term guaranteed contracts.  Take that away and projected WAR going into a season is going to correlate much closer to size of payroll.

That's a really interesting point and kind of fascinating to think about.  But you're only looking at how hypothetical non-guaranteed deals would benefit the rich teams.  Existing long term, sunk cost contracts I think hurt the poorer teams more.  When they go bad they discourage teams like the Orioles from ever doing them again.  If only the Orioles could have gotten out of Chris Davis' contract.  

If the deals were not guaranteed then the smaller market teams could perhaps afford to go after some of these players.  But also I don't think the reason you bring up is a justifiable reason for keeping guaranteed deals.  It's a side effect that many of these deals hurt the wealthy teams in the long run.  The reason all MLB deals are guaranteed is because of the strength of the players union.  

But I kind of agree with you that non-guaranteed deals may not work in MLB as well as in the NFL.  The NFL teams share TV revenue.  There's more economic parity across the league.  Yes, some teams are wealthier because of other revenue streams, but greater economic parity means small market teams can also hand out big contracts. 

You may be right that non-guaranteed contracts would favor the wealthy teams a bit more in MLB, but I think it's really hard to say without seeing it in action.  Many players do come back from injury or poor performance.  So, say, if the Red Sox could have cut Chris Sale rather than trade him away, he could have been picked up by a smaller market team and succeeded there instead.

There is a way to make MLB contracts like non-guaranteed deals.  Just do 1, 2 or 3 year deals with many option years at the end.  But if all, or even most, teams started doing this then the players union would scream collusion.  It would end up in court, or in a strike, or both. 

I like the idea of allowing deals to be guaranteed for no more than a set number of years -- maybe 3-4 years -- after which each year is a mutual option or opt out year.  I also like the idea of allowing contracts to be reduced due to long term injury, but only if there is some kind of injury fund that allows players to get paid a minimum -- or maybe a percentage amount relative to their deal -- and pays for all medical and recovery costs related to injury. 

It's a complicated subject, but I think these huge contracts will ultimately become unsustainable.  

[SteveA]

33 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

That's a really interesting point and kind of fascinating to think about.  But you're only looking at how hypothetical non-guaranteed deals would benefit the rich teams.  Existing long term, sunk cost contracts I think hurt the poorer teams more.  When they go bad they discourage teams like the Orioles from ever doing them again.  If only the Orioles could have gotten out of Chris Davis' contract.  

If the deals were not guaranteed then the smaller market teams could perhaps afford to go after some of these players.  But also I don't think the reason you bring up is a justifiable reason for keeping guaranteed deals.  It's a side effect that many of these deals hurt the wealthy teams in the long run.  The reason all MLB deals are guaranteed is because of the strength of the players union.  

But I kind of agree with you that non-guaranteed deals may not work in MLB as well as in the NFL.  The NFL teams share TV revenue.  There's more economic parity across the league.  Yes, some teams are wealthier because of other revenue streams, but greater economic parity means small market teams can also hand out big contracts. 

You may be right that non-guaranteed contracts would favor the wealthy teams a bit more in MLB, but I think it's really hard to say without seeing it in action.  Many players do come back from injury or poor performance.  So, say, if the Red Sox could have cut Chris Sale rather than trade him away, he could have been picked up by a smaller market team and succeeded there instead.

There is a way to make MLB contracts like non-guaranteed deals.  Just do 1, 2 or 3 year deals with many option years at the end.  But if all, or even most, teams started doing this then the players union would scream collusion.  It would end up in court, or in a strike, or both. 

I like the idea of allowing deals to be guaranteed for no more than a set number of years -- maybe 3-4 years -- after which each year is a mutual option or opt out year.  I also like the idea of allowing contracts to be reduced due to long term injury, but only if there is some kind of injury fund that allows players to get paid a minimum -- or maybe a percentage amount relative to their deal -- and pays for all medical and recovery costs related to injury. 

It's a complicated subject, but I think these huge contracts will ultimately become unsustainable.  

The bottom line is, "non guaranteed deals" are perfectly legal right now.  They even happen sometimes ("team options").   But of course they are not very attractive to players so the players ask for guaranteed deals and almost always get them.

So why would the players ever bargain away this right?   In the NFL they exist in conjunction with a salary cap.   That will never fly with the MLB players union.   The NFL was able to force a cap in place because so many of their players have such incredibly short careers that the union has rarely had the nerve to really threaten any kind of legitimate work stoppage.   It's been 40+ years I think.

[OriolesUpAndDowns]

10 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Oh it’s an incredibly dumb contract for the Giants but they are quickly becoming a really bad franchise imo.

Agreed.  That seems crazy for that kind of money over 6 years for a guy who is more then likely past his prime. 

 

With the taxes out there, that's like a 6 year 80 million dollar contract for him. 

[EddeeEddee]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

The bottom line is, "non guaranteed deals" are perfectly legal right now.  They even happen sometimes ("team options").   But of course they are not very attractive to players so the players ask for guaranteed deals and almost always get them.

So why would the players ever bargain away this right?   In the NFL they exist in conjunction with a salary cap.   That will never fly with the MLB players union.   The NFL was able to force a cap in place because so many of their players have such incredibly short careers that the union has rarely had the nerve to really threaten any kind of legitimate work stoppage.   It's been 40+ years I think.

Non-guaranteed deals I would say are legal only until the majority of the league insists on doing them in large numbers -- at which point the union would scream collusion.  So, while they could be done here and there in the form of a 1 or 2 year deal with several option years, they would not be "legal" at a greater scale in the sense the union would fight them, I'm guessing in court, or failing that, a strike. 

My point is I don't think guaranteed long-term deals with massive yearly salary increases are sustainable.  Last offseason we saw the failure of both Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery to get long-term deals.  I think that could happen more often because the Pay TV industry is on such shaky ground.  Ohtani and Judge look like they are worth every penny they're getting now, but it will be interesting to see how they look in 5 years. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, OriolesUpAndDowns said:

Agreed.  That seems crazy for that kind of money over 6 years for a guy who is more then likely past his prime. 

 

With the taxes out there, that's like a 6 year 80 million dollar contract for him. 

All of it isn't subject to California State tax.

[OriolesUpAndDowns]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

All of it isn't subject to California State tax.

 Does he just get CA taxes on game checks from home games? 

 

[Just Regular]

Matt Chapman's career to date production is also crazy for the salaries he's been paid.

It is a good long term expectations managing thing some Orioles fans feel like because of Chris Davis we can never do this again, but I truly belleve David Rubenstein doesn't feel that way.    John Angelos made his choices how to act, and new ownership can make theirs.

Boras has 5 Octobers with Gunnar to work the angles it is an ownership level decision.    One thing I picked up from Brendan Fournie yesterday was "financial tolerances" as a phrase for describing what he helps the Orioles know.

 

[OriolesMagic83]

4 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

The problem is not the amount of money the players are making as a whole.  The problem is the amount of money individual star players are making and the number of guaranteed years. 

Ohtani is a special case because of his star power in Japan and Korea, but in general these massive contracts are not only rarely worth it, they make it too difficult to pay for other quality free agents at other positions.

I think the solution is make none of these contracts guaranteed.  If the player fails to make the team at the beginning of a season or is hurt for a certain amount of time then the contract should become cancelable, so long as that same money is used to pay for other players.

 

Or maybe if you have one of these mega contracts say top 50 contracts in baseball, you have to maintain average production at your position.  If you are below average production, a 2nd below average consecutive year the team could chose to void your contract.  If you are making $30 million/yr, I don't think it's unreasonable to earn your contract by providing average production.  Now all a player has to do is stay alive and be able to sit in the dugout. 

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Or maybe if you have one of these mega contracts say top 50 contracts in baseball, you have to maintain average production at your position.  If you are below average production, a 2nd below average consecutive year the team could chose to void your contract.  If you are making $30 million/yr, I don't think it's unreasonable to earn your contract by providing average production.  Now all a player has to do is stay alive and be able to sit in the dugout. 

If a guy outperforms a contract he get automatic escalators?

[OriolesMagic83]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

If a guy outperforms a contract he get automatic escalators?

Lol, sure.  This is all hypothetical since the union is ready to strike when they hear about voiding contracts.

[24fps]

There has never been a situation that can't be improved by adding complexity.

Amirite?

[Can_of_corn]

13 hours ago, OriolesUpAndDowns said:

 Does he just get CA taxes on game checks from home games? 

 

Each State gets to tax on what was earned there.

[OriolesUpAndDowns]

12 hours ago, 24fps said:

There has never been a situation that can't be improved by adding complexity.

Amirite?

Did you pull that from opm.gov leadership principles

[24fps]

32 minutes ago, OriolesUpAndDowns said:

Did you pull that from opm.gov leadership principles

Nah, I learned it by hanging out here.