Baseball stoppage 2022?

[KCRfan1]

This is only 3 short years away.

Players are handsomely paid and both owners and players would be foolish to not get things settled ahead of time.

What is everyones thoughts?

The STL Post Dispatch has a great article, but I can't get it to link.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

This is only 3 short years away.

Players are handsomely paid and both owners and players would be foolish to not get things settled ahead of time.

What is everyones thoughts?

The STL Post Dispatch has a great article, but I can't get it to link.

My thought is:

SHUT-UP!!

Do we really have to start worrying about that now?


.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

This is only 3 short years away.

Players are handsomely paid and both owners and players would be foolish to not get things settled ahead of time.

What is everyones thoughts?

The STL Post Dispatch has a great article, but I can't get it to link.

I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have - the players seem to have really lost big in the last CBA negotiations on many fronts (I'm guessing the article you reference may address that - I know Yahoo has recently in a story about Machado/Harper/big contracts). I think a work stoppage is inevitable.

The players may get paid handsomely, but I think they deserve it and more (that includes minor league players). The owners are lining their pockets even more, and I'd rather see more money go to the talent on the field.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

The big contracts from the 90s and 2000s are becoming a thing of the past. The myth is that these players make huge money and don’t need any more. The reality is that it’s tough to get that big money today and very few do. Take Aaron Judge for example. In his first 2 years he has made $1.1 million - total. Nice money for us but way less than he deserves. He won’t be a free agent until 2023 when he is 31 years old and then good luck. It seems that teams have finally learned that they shouldn’t pay a 30+ year old player a monster contract because their best years are behind them - see Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Zito, A-Rod, etc, etc. The market took a big swing last year when the contracts stopped all at once and a lot of players were left taking a fraction of what they would have received a couple years earlier or got nothing at all. The 2 players that got big money - Hosmer and Darvish are already looking like a disaster. Harper and Machado are still waiting because no team is looking to burden themselves with a player for 10 years - those deals almost never work out for the team. And those guys are rare because they got into baseball so young.
The league is going to have to do something. Players need to be able to make money in their 20s because a lot of players in their 30s are getting smaller deals or just find themselves unemployed and disappear because there are plenty of guys in the farm system who can take their place. At the same time attendance is declining. So baseball has a lot of problems and they are heading for an inevitable clash. I hope they learned from 1994 and never strike again but they have to start working on a new deal sooner rather than later to avoid a huge problem. You are right to be worried because if baseball goes on strike again it may not recover.

[rats60]

Players are eligible for arbitration after 3 years and start getting big money then. Kris Bryant made almost 11 million dollars last year with only 2 years experience and will make over 12 this year. Bryce Harper got 13.6 and then 21.6 million in arbitration years. Mike Trout by signing a longer term deal is getting 34 million before he can be a free agent. It is a two sided sword. Owners don't want to pay a young guy big money because he has 1 good season, they want him to prove himself over a longer period before he starts getting paid big bucks. They are also paying out big signing bonus when players are drafted. Aaron Judge will be fine if he keeps performing.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Originally Posted by rats60

Players are eligible for arbitration after 3 years and start getting big money then. Kris Bryant made almost 11 million dollars last year with only 2 years experience and will make over 12 this year. Bryce Harper got 13.6 and then 21.6 million in arbitration years. Mike Trout by signing a longer term deal is getting 34 million before he can be a free agent. It is a two sided sword. Owners don't want to pay a young guy big money because he has 1 good season, they want him to prove himself over a longer period before he starts getting paid big bucks. They are also paying out big signing bonus when players are drafted. Aaron Judge will be fine if he keeps performing.

When you have a union, the interests of the majority have to be represented. So the elite players you mentioned above made nice money and will be fine. Mookie Betts made $2 mil his first 3 years in baseball - total, $10 mil last year and $20 next year - because he’s a huge talent. But for a majority of the players your first 7 years under team control are difficult and most players don’t have that kind of leverage to negotiate but at the same time can’t leave. So they are at the mercy of the team. Then when free agency comes around most players are 30 and teams don’t want them. It was different a few years ago when a 30 year old could get $50-100 mil and never had to worry about money. Mike Moustakas is a perfect example. He’s had a decent career and is a very good player. Last year he took a 1 yr $5.5 mil deal and this year he hasn’t signed yet and no one seems to be throwing offers out there. They would rather bring up kids from the farm. If Betts was a free agent right now he would be looking at $30+ mil per year instead of $20. If Moustakas had negotiating power 5 years ago he could have had the chance to get a big multi year deal. And that’s where the next CBA is going to lead. Players are going to be free agents much sooner in their career.

[Leon]

I never really watched MLB the way I did before 1994, after the strike. I said F MLB for the strike and never went back. Never really missed it either. I still love the game though.

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

The big contracts from the 90s and 2000s are becoming a thing of the past. The myth is that these players make huge money and don’t need any more. The reality is that it’s tough to get that big money today and very few do. Take Aaron Judge for example. In his first 2 years he has made $1.1 million - total. Nice money for us but way less than he deserves. He won’t be a free agent until 2023 when he is 31 years old and then good luck. It seems that teams have finally learned that they shouldn’t pay a 30+ year old player a monster contract because their best years are behind them - see Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Zito, A-Rod, etc, etc. The market took a big swing last year when the contracts stopped all at once and a lot of players were left taking a fraction of what they would have received a couple years earlier or got nothing at all. The 2 players that got big money - Hosmer and Darvish are already looking like a disaster. Harper and Machado are still waiting because no team is looking to burden themselves with a player for 10 years - those deals almost never work out for the team. And those guys are rare because they got into baseball so young.
The league is going to have to do something. Players need to be able to make money in their 20s because a lot of players in their 30s are getting smaller deals or just find themselves unemployed and disappear because there are plenty of guys in the farm system who can take their place. At the same time attendance is declining. So baseball has a lot of problems and they are heading for an inevitable clash. I hope they learned from 1994 and never strike again but they have to start working on a new deal sooner rather than later to avoid a huge problem. You are right to be worried because if baseball goes on strike again it may not recover.

[Django7975]

Leon. I agree. Is the same for me. Being a Braves fan and suffering through all the home town choking of the early 90’s then the strike of 94 right when we felt like we were going to finally win one. Then 95 came and braves won. I honestly could have cared less. I have just now got back into watching baseball like I did before the 94 junk last season. Acuna makes the league minimum. Chopfest prices for signatures are crazy this year. I don’t know where they game is headed but I love the books of older players like Kit Carson And 3 finger ol mordecai brown. I wish we could go back to those days and just forget the money. Such a shame to me why the worship of mammon must bastardize all good things. Shame shame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KCRfan1]

The Moustakas contract was closely followed by us in KC. It was strongly rumored he had a 4 year 60 mil offer from the Angels, and turned it down for more.

Not many teams needed 3rd base help, and that greatly limited his suitors and Moose settled for a 1 year 6 or 7 mil deal. ( You better believe the wife had A LOT to say to the agent and the hubby about this decision! )

This is purely on his agent and lastly on Moose.

The agent works for the player, not the other way around. Moose is a SoCal guy, his wife is a SoCal girl, and this is where their family is. The Angels make perfect sense as a landing spot for Moose.

Now Moose is a year older and STILL waiting for a contract and is an afterthought to the big names. He and his agent made a huge mistake potentially passing on a contract for more money. As a side note, surprisingly, Moose kept the agent. I think I would have fired my agent after that mess.

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

When you have a union, the interests of the majority have to be represented. So the elite players you mentioned above made nice money and will be fine. Mookie Betts made $2 mil his first 3 years in baseball - total, $10 mil last year and $20 next year - because he’s a huge talent. But for a majority of the players your first 7 years under team control are difficult and most players don’t have that kind of leverage to negotiate but at the same time can’t leave. So they are at the mercy of the team. Then when free agency comes around most players are 30 and teams don’t want them. It was different a few years ago when a 30 year old could get $50-100 mil and never had to worry about money. Mike Moustakas is a perfect example. He’s had a decent career and is a very good player. Last year he took a 1 yr $5.5 mil deal and this year he hasn’t signed yet and no one seems to be throwing offers out there. They would rather bring up kids from the farm. If Betts was a free agent right now he would be looking at $30+ mil per year instead of $20. If Moustakas had negotiating power 5 years ago he could have had the chance to get a big multi year deal. And that’s where the next CBA is going to lead. Players are going to be free agents much sooner in their career.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Django7975

I wish we could go back to those days and just forget the money. Such a shame to me why the worship of mammon must bastardize all good things. Shame shame

Maybe money wasn't a big concern in the 1800s, but it wasn't too long after the turn of the century that money had already taken a hold in the sport (see battles of salary, including Tris Speaker and Babe Ruth, not to mention the Black Sox scandal). I'm not a historian, but I'd wager that the different leagues at the time wanted to kill off others because of the finances, too.

Originally Posted by rats60

They are also paying out big signing bonus when players are drafted. Aaron Judge will be fine if he keeps performing.

Money in the draft and in the international market is basically capped now, too. The owners have done a great job in building a system that limits their biggest expense, the workforce on the field, while the MLBPA has done a really bad job in representing their members.

The record bonus for a draftee is $8 million by Gerrit Cole (Pirates) in 2011. Last year's first overall pick got $7.5 million (under the slot amount of just over $8 million). Using an inflation calculator, Cole's $8 million in 2011 translates to nearly $9 million for 2018. Meanwhile, MLB had the 16th consecutive year in setting the record for revenue (despite down attendance and flat TV revenue) (source: Forbes).

I think the players see this as a raw deal and will take a strong stand to really change the current system, and I doubt the owners will give in easily. And my impression is that with so much youth in baseball now, there aren't many players that were even old enough to remember the 1994 strike (a 30-year-old player in 2018 would have been 6 in 1994). It's going to be ugly.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

When you have a union, the interests of the majority have to be represented. So the elite players you mentioned above made nice money and will be fine. Mookie Betts made $2 mil his first 3 years in baseball - total, $10 mil last year and $20 next year - because he’s a huge talent. But for a majority of the players your first 7 years under team control are difficult and most players don’t have that kind of leverage to negotiate but at the same time can’t leave. So they are at the mercy of the team. Then when free agency comes around most players are 30 and teams don’t want them. It was different a few years ago when a 30 year old could get $50-100 mil and never had to worry about money. Mike Moustakas is a perfect example. He’s had a decent career and is a very good player. Last year he took a 1 yr $5.5 mil deal and this year he hasn’t signed yet and no one seems to be throwing offers out there. They would rather bring up kids from the farm. If Betts was a free agent right now he would be looking at $30+ mil per year instead of $20. If Moustakas had negotiating power 5 years ago he could have had the chance to get a big multi year deal. And that’s where the next CBA is going to lead. Players are going to be free agents much sooner in their career.

The unions in Sports really haven't looked out for the average players interests for quite some time. The big stars? Sure, the everyday players even the merely just above average aren't helped at all. There's always a way around the CBA. Like the collusion, or the period a few years ago where players who were solid everyday players were being cut outright and new teams would sign them to a minor league contract. That happened a lot right when they got to the point where the pay tiers/arbitraton kicked in.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

If you want to see something truly eye opening take a look at the free agent tracker. There are a ton of 28-35 year old players who are not yet unsigned - a lot of familiar names of players who have been productive but are now replaceable. Come spring, many of these guys are going to have to take minor league deals, sign for 1 year at close to minimum or retire and start a new career as the rosters fill up. The players know what’s going on and it’s only a matter of time before they’ve had enough.

[steve B]

I suppose if I was an owner, I'd move along an average or slightly better player who is at a point where they'll get a couple million. Especially if I can replace them with a guy from the minors at half a million.

Although fan popularity should count for something, it didn't help Daubach or any other guys in a similar situation.

[mckinneyj]

Originally Posted by steve B

I suppose if I was an owner, I'd move along an average or slightly better player who is at a point where they'll get a couple million. Especially if I can replace them with a guy from the minors at half a million.

Although fan popularity should count for something, it didn't help Daubach or any other guys in a similar situation.

Yeah, if I have to pay a handful of millions more to keep a young star/difference maker (Mookie Betts?) then I'm going to want some older vet on the downside of his career (Kimbrel?) to take a haircut as his production declines or I'll look elsewhere at a cheaper price.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by steve B

I suppose if I was an owner, I'd move along an average or slightly better player who is at a point where they'll get a couple million. Especially if I can replace them with a guy from the minors at half a million.

Although fan popularity should count for something, it didn't help Daubach or any other guys in a similar situation.

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

Yeah, if I have to pay a handful of millions more to keep a young star/difference maker (Mookie Betts?) then I'm going to want some older vet on the downside of his career (Kimbrel?) to take a haircut as his production declines or I'll look elsewhere at a cheaper price.

You guys are really hitting at home with the Red Sox players...

I have found my opinions on team/players to be an interesting dichotomy: on one hand, I really appreciate value and economic efficiency and I enjoy looking at how teams are effectively built and the value of getting a player on a good contract; on the other hand, I think the players are the game, so to speak, and deserve every penny they can get.
The current system seems to be in place to keep costs down, so I don't begrudge any player - from Mike Trout and Mookie to any Quad-A guy or player heading to Japan or Kyler Murray - from trying to get as much as they can before their time is up on the playing field. In the end, I want to see the great talent on the field, even though I appreciate how teams are constructed, etc.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

You guys are really hitting at home with the Red Sox players...

I have found my opinions on team/players to be an interesting dichotomy: on one hand, I really appreciate value and economic efficiency and I enjoy looking at how teams are effectively built and the value of getting a player on a good contract; on the other hand, I think the players are the game, so to speak, and deserve every penny they can get.
The current system seems to be in place to keep costs down, so I don't begrudge any player - from Mike Trout and Mookie to any Quad-A guy or player heading to Japan or Kyler Murray - from trying to get as much as they can before their time is up on the playing field. In the end, I want to see the great talent on the field, even though I appreciate how teams are constructed, etc.

For me the Red Sox thing is mostly because that's the team I follow. Daubach was a favorite of many people, and to my thinking he got jerked around a lot. Of course it's always possible the owners knew something the fans couldn't, like a lingering health problem or something like that. They have moved a few players who haven't done all that well later on.

There were other players treated the same way during that time, from many teams, even future hall of famers.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...018-story.html


The previous Red Sox owners were worse, they hurt the team for years by basically ignoring the draft and making things difficult for the plyers they drafted. One year they had a high pick, the guy before and after him got signing bonuses in the six figures, the offer to their draftee? 5000. he wouldn't sign despite the probability that he wouldn't get much more being picked lower the next season, if at all and said he'd never play for the team.


I figure the value of a player to the team businesswise, is also partly the merchandising. I don't know enough about how the pay for that happens exactly, but I do know the team gets a cut of the licensing.

[packs]

Personally, I'm glad that players are seeing their salaries drop. How many times do you have to see a guy like Homer Bailey make 20 plus mil a year for being a bum?

Now that ownership is no longer bidding against themselves, I believe that young talent will sign extensions during their preliminary contracts a la Mike Trout and we may begin to see a return to the days when great players spend their careers in one city fearing a volatile free agent market.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

Personally, I'm glad that players are seeing their salaries drop. How many times do you have to see a guy like Homer Bailey make 20 plus mil a year for being a bum?

Now that ownership is no longer bidding against themselves, I believe that young talent will sign extensions during their preliminary contracts a la Mike Trout and we may begin to see a return to the days when great players spend their careers in one city fearing a volatile free agent market.

I think it's easy for fans to hold contracts against players, but I'd rather see players get more money. The alternative is for the record revenues to line the pockets of the owners, rather than the talent that produces the game we love.

I also think that players staying with a single team their whole career is fairly far down the list of priorities I have for the game and what I'd like to see. I suppose there is a very minor amount it would matter, but that argument has always seemed more of a media-driven narrative to help fill air time rather than any point with substantial merit. And it doesn't bother me in the least that some of my favorite players today and from the past, including David Ortiz, JD Martinez, Pedro, etc., spent time with other teams during their careers.

[packs]

I would be hoping that decreasing expenses would mean more purchasing power for the fans. Every year there are stories about how much it costs to see a game and I can’t help but think part of that has to do with inflated salaries.

Players feeling like free agency is a risky proposition would lend to increased competition as teams remain strong with a core group of players that stay together for more than 3 or 4 seasons. Maybe that’s not on the forefront of your mind if you like a team with purchasing power but it would be if you love, say, the A’s.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be hoping that decreasing expenses would mean more purchasing power for the fans. Yankee Stadium is an insanely expensive place but you’re paying for an insanely expensive team. Every year there are stories about how much it costs to see a game and I can’t help but think part of that has to do with Jacoby Ellsbury making 20 plus while playing worse than I do when he can even get on the field.

Players feeling like free agency is a risky proposition would lend to increased competition as teams remain strong with a core group of players that stay together for more than 3 or 4 seasons.

I remember reading in recent years how players salaries and ticket/concession prices basically have no relationship. A quick google search shows some stories going back 15 years about how they're not related - even if it seems like they may be when watching Ellsbury from the stands.

It seems the current system has already created an environment where free agency is a risky proposition, but the result seems to be that there are extreme haves and have-nots - a bunch of teams that are tanking, not trying to win and barely participating in free agency, and another group of really great teams, who are playing hard ball as they know they don't have competition for players (a la JD Martinez one year ago, and perhaps Harper/Machado/Kimbrel this year).

[packs]

Have and have nots is a good point, and I definitely agree there are teams who don’t care if they win whether players are less expensive or not.