MLB Offseason 2018-19: SIGN KIMBREL AND KEUCHEL YOU FUCKS

[Jayson1]

No shit, I've been saying that since last year, that the owners got the soft cap they wanted as a PR cudgel because the union is run by fucking worthless morons, starting with Tony Clark. "They're saving money for Machado and Harper," y'all said. "This is a weak free agent class," y'all said back then.

Uh huh. It's collusion, plain and simple.

If the union doesn't strike in 2021, then I hope Marvin Miller's zombie corpse rises from the grave and eats every single leader of the MLBPA.

I agree the owners basically got the better end of the deal and really got one over with the players union but does that really count as collusion? I thought collusion is when everyone sort of gets together and agree's that they aren't going to spend a X amount of dollars on specific players. Isn't what they are doing more likely just them taking advantage of a bad deal the players union agreed to?


Jason

 

[Yanks]

So what are you saying Timby, teams have to off stupid 10-year 400 million dollar contracts?

The players wanted to be free agents, so they put themselves in the market.

I'm not understanding your anger.

I for one am glad the Yankees aren't spending like idiots.

 

[Yanks]

Timby,

What is your issue with the free agent market?

Are you saying the teams should be MADE to offer stupid 10-year contracts at stupid $$$$ levels?

What's the issue with the current contract?

 

[Herbert]

If there's collusion going on (and I have no idea if there is), then they need to be held accountable for that.
If owners are starting to act like responsible businessmen and not throw stupid years and money at players, then I applaud them for it.

 

[Timby]

Timby,

What is your issue with the free agent market?

Are you saying the teams should be MADE to offer stupid 10-year contracts at stupid $$$$ levels?

What's the issue with the current contract?

The issue is that ever since the dawn of free agency since the Seitz decision, that's been the gentleman's agreement: Teams get to horrifically underpay players for their first six years of service time, and then those players get their payday.

What part of "the players are earning a historically low percentage of revenues when MLB makes more and more money every passing year" passes you by?

I mean, imagine if this was happening in the NBA, where most players are signing their supermax deals within a week or two of the offseason beginning. If generational-level talents were still sitting on the sideline two weeks before training camp opened, the NBPA would be shitting bricks, and justifiably so.

 

[Yanks]

I agree about the 6 year thing. That does seem too long.

So, what percentage of the revenues is fair? Not sure the NBA is a fair comparison. One after can have much more of an impact there.

 

[Scout101]

Harper, for example, was offerered 300M+ and turned it down, so not all on the teams. There was money on the table...

 

[Timby]

Harper, for example, was offerered 300M+ and turned it down, so not all on the teams. There was money on the table...

That was a so-called "offer" almost certainly leaked by the Nationals, who have a pretty good level of control over the local beat writers. They don't own the papers like the Red Sox do with the Boston Globe, but it's not far from it.

Any time you hear about a team offering a certain amount of money and a player turning it down, it's the front office trying to negotiate through the media to drive down the player's market. It's been that way since the '80s.

So, what percentage of the revenues is fair? Not sure the NBA is a fair comparison. One after can have much more of an impact there.

I'm not an economist, I work in marketing, but even I can tell you that without stars, there are no butts in seats, there's no beer being sold for fifteen bucks a cup, there's no jerseys and shirtseys and hats being sold ... and all that goes straight to ownership.

Without labor, there's no baseball. And for labor to be making a ridiculously low percentage of revenues is like a restaurant owner robbing a bartender of his tips, saying, "Well, you just worked, but *I* made the real money."

 

[BillJ]

That was a so-called "offer" almost certainly leaked by the Nationals, who have a pretty good level of control over the local beat writers. They don't own the papers like the Red Sox do with the Boston Globe, but it's not far from it.

Pretty sure Boras came out and said the Nationals had offered $300 million.

 

[Timby]

Pretty sure Boras came out and said the Nationals had offered $300 million.

He never said it, the Washington Post reported it (which generally means the team leaked it). Boras only said that the Nationals' offer was an "olive branch."

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Not that Boras is above the same shenanigans the teams use.

 

[Timby]

Not that Boras is above the same shenanigans the teams use.

Hey, his job is to get his clients the most money humanly possible; that's the job of any representative.

I mean, beyond two generational, HOF-type players in Harper and Machado who hit free agency at 26--which never fucking happens--the best starting pitcher and the best reliever are still sitting out there unsigned.

Corbin and Donaldson are the only players to get over $20MM AAV, and Donaldson's was a one-year deal. Eovaldi is the second-largest contract at 4 / 68. Anyone who doesn't think there's collusion happening has their head in the sand.

Edit: Shit, Joey Votto and Robinson Cano are both five years into 10-year deals and both have produced so much value in those five years that it is highly likely their deals will be "worth it" overall. Like, Cano need only be worth ~6-8 WAR total over the next 5 years--which is a near-certainty--to make that deal a good one by the simplistic $/WAR shorthand.

 

[Yanks]

I'm not an economist, I work in marketing, but even I can tell you that without stars, there are no butts in seats, there's no beer being sold for fifteen bucks a cup, there's no jerseys and shirtseys and hats being sold ... and all that goes straight to ownership.

Without labor, there's no baseball. And for labor to be making a ridiculously low percentage of revenues is like a restaurant owner robbing a bartender of his tips, saying, "Well, you just worked, but *I* made the real money."

Gonna be a hard sell when the minimum wage is $555.000.00.

So is Tampa Bay robbing tips?

 

[Timby]

Gonna be a hard sell when the minimum wage is $555.000.00.

So is Tampa Bay robbing tips?

Okay, let me put it this way, and I think I've said this before. I make mid-five figures in my current job. Given my company's revenue and the value I provide, my compensation is pretty fair.

Without labor, there literally is no baseball, and superstars provide a ridiculous amount of value. MLB teams are making more money than they ever have in history.

There are so many other sources of income that people like to forget, and not just the television, concession, advertising, and merchandise sales which, in addition to the ticket sales, are all subject to revenue sharing.

Let's take the Cubs, for example. The Ricketts family owns practically all of Wrigleyville now, which includes bars, restaurants, retail stores, apartments, rooftop views of Cubs games, and a massive luxury hotel, all of which are packed to the gills during every home game, and every cent of that money they get to keep for themselves, because they're not technically associated with the Cubs and are therefore not subject to revenue sharing. The amount of cash they rake in because of the team is so absurdly high that giving Bryce Harper a 10 / 350 million deal would be a drop in the bucket. But they (and every other MLB team owner) have the public believing that the players are being unreasonable and asking for too much money because most of us working class shlubs would die to have a $3 million per year job, not comprehending just how much more than that their bosses are making.

 

[Yanks]

I think any 10-year contract is nuts...

You seem to think that 500+k as a minimum salary is not enough?

Who care what the owners are making as long as everyone unde them is paid equitably?

If I we Hal, I'd cut all ticket prices in half. .... or elimated them all together... the Yankees still make enough to double their payroll.

 

[BillJ]

You seem to think that 500+k as a minimum salary is not enough?

If players are expected to work under a salary-cap system, either official or unofficial, then there needs to be a floor to guarantee players a percentage of revenue.

The best place to start is to raise the minimum salary to the $2-3 million dollars range for every player on rosters prior to September 1st. Players that come to rosters post-September 1st should be guaranteed a million dollar pro-rated salary.

 

[Timby]

The best place to start is to raise the minimum salary to the $2-3 million dollars range for every player on rosters prior to September 1st. Players that come to rosters post-September 1st should be guaranteed a million dollar pro-rated salary.

The owners will let that happen over their dead bodies.

 

[Jayson1]

Okay, let me put it this way, and I think I've said this before. I make mid-five figures in my current job. Given my company's revenue and the value I provide, my compensation is pretty fair.

Without labor, there literally is no baseball, and superstars provide a ridiculous amount of value. MLB teams are making more money than they ever have in history.

There are so many other sources of income that people like to forget, and not just the television, concession, advertising, and merchandise sales which, in addition to the ticket sales, are all subject to revenue sharing.

Let's take the Cubs, for example. The Ricketts family owns practically all of Wrigleyville now, which includes bars, restaurants, retail stores, apartments, rooftop views of Cubs games, and a massive luxury hotel, all of which are packed to the gills during every home game, and every cent of that money they get to keep for themselves, because they're not technically associated with the Cubs and are therefore not subject to revenue sharing. The amount of cash they rake in because of the team is so absurdly high that giving Bryce Harper a 10 / 350 million deal would be a drop in the bucket. But they (and every other MLB team owner) have the public believing that the players are being unreasonable and asking for too much money because most of us working class shlubs would die to have a $3 million per year job, not comprehending just how much more than that their bosses are making.

I understand baseball teams rely on players to make tons of wealth but then again don't players also rely on them to get paid a great deal of money for a skill that has little value outside of playing in the major leagues? It seems like both sides need each other so I am not sure the owners are totally screwing over the players. Granted I have never minded players getting big contracts and I would proably be more strongly on the side of labor if the amount of money involved was far less like iit is with most other workers around the world but it's still hard to see the players having a truly bad deal with the amount of money they still are making. When people are "settling" for millions of dollars that still feels like a good type of job to have.

Jason

 

[BillJ]

The owners will let that happen over their dead bodies.

Probably. Though the players can't continue allow a luxury-tax/draft pick compensation model without a revenue floor. It is damaging their earning power. And I'm not talking about the Harper/Machado/Trout's of the world, they will get theirs.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Real-definitely-not-satire headline: "Jose Canseco, baseball scientist, says we can uncover the mysteries of time travel if we listen to aliens."

I always knew he was all kinds of cuckoo, but these tweets are a special brand of cuckoo.