$40 Million for at most 35 games?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Trevor Bauer will be paid more than a Million Dollars per start!

Nice work if you can get it.



.

Salaries across sports are out of whack. Bauer is a good pitcher, but it's an awful lot for him. He's getting more than anyone, Cole, Scherzer, Degrom, etc. It's ridiculous. Makes you wonder what a guy like Koufax or Gibson would get if they pitched today.

[yanksfan09]

Yea, hard to believe that number for Bauer! There wasn't even any gate revenue last year for MLB and the contracts are going this crazy? I don't even view Bauer as a top pitcher. He was great in the shortened season last year for 11 starts. However in 2019 he had a 4.48 era and 1.249 whip. His career ratios : 3.90 era and 1.265 whip. That's the type of pitcher that's going to receive record annual contract value?

Scary to think what the top few players will bring when they hit the market next.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

Yea, hard to believe that number for Bauer! There wasn't even any gate revenue last year for MLB and the contracts are going this crazy? I don't even view Bauer as a top pitcher. He was great in the shortened season last year for 11 starts. However in 2019 he had a 4.48 era and 1.249 whip. His career ratios : 3.90 era and 1.265 whip. That's the type of pitcher that's going to receive record annual contract value?

Scary to think what the top few players will bring when they hit the market next.

ERA was 2.21 in 2018 so 2 out of his last 3 years were great. He was clearly the top pitcher on the free agent market.

[todeen]

He has said he wants to have short contracts worth a lot of money. Some teams will like the idea of paying up front, rather than giving out a Homer Bailey contract. If he is great this year, or next year, everything will out fine for the Dodgers, and both parties will separate mutually respecting the other.

However, I think the real problem are the rules that tether rookies to their "home team." They can't maximize their contracts up front, and then they get screwed on the tail end of their careers. Manipulating player service time by keeping the top promising players in the minors to get one more contract year out of them does not endear a rookie to their bosses.

[Mike D.]

It's a 3-year deal, with him making $45 million in 2022...with opt outs after the 1st and 2nd seasons.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's a 3-year deal, with him making $45 million in 2022...with opt outs after the 1st and 2nd seasons.

I would think that if Bauer is looking at 2022 as a contract year, he will put up the numbers he needs to opt out, and land another stellar contract. I think he has the grit to do it.

[nat]

The third year is at 17. No way he takes that unless his arm actually falls off of his body. On the other hand, the second year is for 45 - hard to see him turning that down. So basically it's 85/2 with a 17m insurance policy.

Crazy money for Trevor Bauer. Paid by the team that probably needs him the least.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by todeen

He has said he wants to have short contracts worth a lot of money. Some teams will like the idea of paying up front, rather than giving out a Homer Bailey contract. If he is great this year, or next year, everything will out fine for the Dodgers, and both parties will separate mutually respecting the other.

However, I think the real problem are the rules that tether rookies to their "home team." They can't maximize their contracts up front, and then they get screwed on the tail end of their careers. Manipulating player service time by keeping the top promising players in the minors to get one more contract year out of them does not endear a rookie to their bosses.

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

There are no perfect solutions. But small market teams do win, and win World Series: Nationals, Astros, Rays, Oakland, San Diego. They have figured out how to win under current rules, and will continue to figure out ways to win with new rules. Personally, I think the current strategy of tanking is horrendous, and that the commissioner and players union should figure out some remedy. Parody has worked in other major sports, and should be figured out in MLB.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

What exactly is a small market team, though? Don't they have a billionaire owner too?

[MooseDog]

The Oakland A's would be considered a "small-market" team despite being in a major metro area. They don't have much of a TV contract, apparel sales are probably far lower than say the Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox (I don't think that revenue is shared) and I even think for some reason they don't get a share of MLB TV revenue any more.

This plus an ownership group that is happy to be competitive, mildly profitable and has trained the fan base to not get attached to any particular players since they'll be gone in 3-4 years. We're basically an MLB "farm system" for the rest of the league.

Also playing in a 55 year old football stadium unfavorable to hitters doesn't make the team a prime destination for marquee players.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

What exactly is a small market team, though? Don't they have a billionaire owner too?

All of the money is from apparel and tv contracts. When the Dodgers landed their last tv contact, it gave them the ability to spend extravagantly. They were established long before the Padres, win more often, and have a historical following. All of that makes them the largest draw in the region for MLB, hardly any competition. Whereas the Reds are surrounded by other clubs with larger fan bases: the Cubs to the north, and St. Louis to the south. Even the Brewers and Pirates draw away possible fans. So the Reds tv money is far less, and their apparel as well. And the one farther goes outside of Cincinnati, the fewer fans one meets. Whereas when I went to Derek Jeters final series in Seattle, there was hardly a Mariners fan to be seen. I was swamped in a sea of black and white and pin stripes.

As for every owner being billionaires, that answer is simple: these men and women became billionaires by spending other peoples money. They don't spend their own, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaires. They are not going to spend $300 to $400 million of their own money to sign a Trout, Harper, Tatis, Machado. They will spend tv money, ticket money, and apparel money. And if that pot of money is substantially smaller in a small market team, than the players are going to be paid contracts of small markets. Homer Bailey's and Votto's contracts are the killer of competition for the Reds.

Further, in the last couple of years the competitive balance checks have grown smaller as well since the big spenders have attempted to go under the defacto salary cap. Its just another stream of revenue that got pinched.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk