This cannot go on much longer.

[seawolf17]

[my private fantasy world] Okay, Sandy. It's time to get Darvish, Moustakas, Arrieta, Hosmer, Lucroy, Martinez, and Lance Lynn in a room. $10M each for 2018, let's win a fucking championship, and then you can all be free agents again and make even BIGGER money. [/my private fantasy world]

[MFS62]

seawolf17 wrote: [my private fantasy world] Okay, Sandy. It's time to get Darvish, Moustakas, Arrieta, Hosmer, Lucroy, Martinez, and Lance Lynn in a room. $10M each for 2018, let's win a fucking championship, and then you can all be free agents again and make even BIGGER money. [/my private fantasy world]

And I will gladly gag Scott Boras, tie him up, and throw him in a dumpster while this is going on. And I'll keep him there until all the players are signed.
Let's do it!
Later

OE: I'd do it even if you don't do that.

[bmfc1]

The Players apparently agree with the title of this thread and are considering a boycott of spring training:
[tweet:16juie3l]https://twitter.com/bvanwagenen/status/959461867990155265[/tweet:16juie3l]

[Ceetar]

well, i'm not sure one agency's PR speaks for the entirety of the players, especially since he doesn't even pick the number of actual unioned players and just mentions the 40 man x 30 clubs. (which also excludes the minor leaguers)

[nymr83]

i dont care about spring training games or who shows up to them.

[Edgy MD]

That's a shot across the bow if ever I saw one.

Brodie got Yoenis Céspedes the highest annual salary of any outfielder ever (at least, until next season), got Robinson Cano his $200 million contract, and got Tim Tebow ... a job! Boras Shmoras.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Whatever happened to Bean Stringfellow?

Are the players thinking of boycotting spring training? Or just not playing in the games?

I don't care about the games either, but if they don't get played, it will surely delay the start of the regular season, and that I do care about.

[Edgy MD]

It would also cost the owners revenue as well as the cities they made deals with.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yes. That's why I can (sort of) envision a spring training where the players do their workouts and everything, but sit out the games. They'll get in shape, and see live pitching in batting practice and stuff, but the owners would feel the pinch of the canceled games.

But I think that there would have to be at least a week's worth of exhibition games before the regular season could start. Maybe a player boycott of spring training games could run until around March 20. That would definitely provide a financial hit.

[Ceetar]

This is one agent's threatening memo, if there were serious and actual discussions it'd come from a different source.

The veterans all take off the early spring games after like 2 innings or so and are replaced by minor leaguers not represented by the union.

[nymr83]

once it affects the regular season i'd care.

but to me, this one is on the players (and Jeter) - the teams have gotten wiser about where the value lies and the current CBA, which the players were happy with, has plenty of mechanisms to discourage spending with no collusion required (Encourages tanking, penalizes signing good but not great free agents with draft pick loss, and the luxury tax threshold that rests when you go under is a HUGE culprit. the Yankees might already have signed Moustakas and Walker if they werent trying to reset their tax for a year)

The other big problem is letting Derek Jeter buy and gut a baseball team. the teams that traded for Stanton, Ozuna, Yelich, and Gordon could have been homes for Martinez, Walker, and others and the Marlins won't make corresponding signings. a fire sale like that one definitely depresses free agency.

MLB players remember: BLAME JETER!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I don't think there's any colluding going on. But I do think that the players will be taking a tougher stance in the next CBA. I've heard talk of instituting a minimum payroll for each team.

[Vic Sage]

Unless there is real evidence of collusion, any boycott or strike would be awful for the union, since it would basically be an admission that the deal that they willingly negotiated and signed is not a good one. At least in football, when a player under contract holds out, its because his deal is NOT GUARANTEED. Those deals bind one party and not the other; unilateral deals like that are inherently unfair, and the only option that players working under a bad unilateral deal like that have is to hold out. Not so in baseball. Their contracts are guaranteed, and current deals are based on a CBA that the players negotiated and willingly signed. Collusion is easy to say, but harder to prove. And there is plenty of evidence to support an alternate theory: that any competent GM would operate this way under the current CBA's rule. If they don't like how GMs are operating, then they can try to negotiate a better deal the next time.

[nymr83]

agree with Vic.

I'd like to see the next CBA change the rules in a bunch of ways.

NFL strangely enough has minimum spending but also maximum. since MLB doesnt have a hard cap maybe it shouldn't have a hard floor, but an "anti-luxury tax" where if you dont spend enough you have to pay into a pool for X (union/league can decide what the pool goes for - how about medical expenses for anyone who doesnt have the years of service time towards lifetime insurance and suffers a career ending injury? i'm sure they could think of others that wouldnt be a tough swallow)

[Frayed Knot]

- one agent saying that "a boycott of spring training may be a starting point if behavior doesn't change" isn't quite the same as saying players are considering it much less that it's a likely scenario
- he might want to address those players reportedly sitting on existing offers--in some cases multiple, multiple year, six-figures-plus ones--as part of the reason for the log jam
- and if the next group of players is waiting to see what the first group does (ie. establishes a market) then that can't be all on the owners either
- I had previously never heard of Brodie Van Wagenen. Wonder what his non-porn name is?

[Edgy MD]

Well you are missing out on all the excitement that following each and every action Brodie undertakes can bring you.

The cool thing is that if anybody is sitting on an offer of that length, it's Boras client J.D. Martinez. if Boras posts that screed, it's transparently self-serving and nothing more. So Brodie is carrying water for somebody else's client.

Nice work, gents.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: ... if anybody is sitting on an offer of that length, it's Boras client J.D. Martinez.

Reportedly both Darvish and Hosmer are.
Hosmer is said to be holding out for eight years and one or both of them are trying to see if one or both of the Yanx and/or Dodgers will be able to create enough "cap" space left and jump in.

[nymr83]

Hosmer's offer is supposedly from the Padres - they aren't contenders and I honestly thinks its a really bad idea for them. If I were them, I'd say the offer is on the table until Monday and then we're calling Duda/Morrison's agents about 1-2 year deals.

[ashie62]

IMHO Players are being offered contracts that express their value in the "here and now." Sadly, it feels like teams are doing auction fantasy with the $26 budget.

It becomes very unfunny if deGrom & Noah get away from us.

Should Hosmer and Moustakis get crushed on money I could see something like former Royals teammates showing up late for camp.

It might be a fugly fans and players Season of Discontent.

Geez, Bruce looks expensive at 39 million.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: Hosmer's offer is supposedly from the Padres - they aren't contenders and I honestly thinks its a really bad idea for them. If I were them, I'd say the offer is on the table until Monday and then we're calling Duda/Morrison's agents about 1-2 year deals.

Duda would crush it in San Diego.

Just my impression based on nothing scientific, of course, but I think he'd be a baseball-mashing demigod there.

[Guest 41Forever]

It's tough to prove, or even suggest, collusion when there are $100 million contracts out there that players aren't signing.

[ashie62]

Like who?

[Frayed Knot]

Ashie62 wrote: Like who?

As mentioned several times earlier in the thread, there are reports that both Yu Darvish (Milwaukee and I think at least one other) and Eric Hosmer (SD & KC) have standing offers for contracts north of $100 mil but are stalling with the idea that even better ones could be forthcoming, and that others are waiting for those two to sign before they choose to latch on with anyone lest they maybe leave dollars on the table.
And that's fine if that's what they want to do, but you can't do that AND complain about the slow pace of signings.

[seawolf17]

But has anyone from a team actually confirmed that? Have the Red Sox actually said "Hey, we offered the guy 5/125?" I don't think so. It's all "sources," which can potentially be a load of crap.

I'm not saying there *is* collusion, but it's really weird that there are *this* many big names still floating around in February.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Unless there is real evidence of collusion, any boycott or strike would be awful for the union, since it would basically be an admission that the deal that they willingly negotiated and signed is not a good one. At least in football, when a player under contract holds out, its because his deal is NOT GUARANTEED. Those deals bind one party and not the other; unilateral deals like that are inherently unfair, and the only option that players working under a bad unilateral deal like that have is to hold out. Not so in baseball. Their contracts are guaranteed, and current deals are based on a CBA that the players negotiated and willingly signed. Collusion is easy to say, but harder to prove. And there is plenty of evidence to support an alternate theory: that any competent GM would operate this way under the current CBA's rule. If they don't like how GMs are operating, then they can try to negotiate a better deal the next time.

Sure, but that's the fun part. This isn't Tony Clark making a threat that had he'd have to make good on or utterly lose face. This is an agent trying to scare up some action by stirring up shit. Yay! February drama!

[Zvon]

Let'em play chicken. I don't care until things start to thaw out in a month or so. We can be pretty sure that we have what we basically have, Metswise. Even though we're not quite sure what that is.

[Mex17]

Edgy MD wrote: if Boras posts that screed, it's transparently self-serving and nothing more. So Brodie is carrying water for somebody else's client. Nice work, gents.

Nymr83 wrote: If I were them, I'd say the offer is on the table until Monday and then we're calling Duda/Morrison's agents about 1-2 year deals.

Can collusion run both ways? What if the agents are in agreement with one another that the smaller guys are not going to sign until the bigger guys get theirs? Said differently, could Morrison and Duda's agents theoretically be in agreement with Boras that they are not going to undercut the market for Hosmer?

[Edgy MD]

No, the American way is that labor gets to organize.

But Duda's agent (The Beverly Hills Sports Council, glad to meet you) is obliged to be working for Duda. And I'm not seeing an end game for him in that scenario.

[Mex17]

Edgy MD wrote: Duda's agent (The Beverly Hills Sports Council, glad to meet you) is obliged to be working for Duda.

There's the rub. If you were Duda and you don't know where you are headed or if you are headed anywhere at all, would you not be a little miffed that your family's future is being held up over Hosmer being a whiny bitch over not getting a guaranteed eighth year? And what if you actually did find out that your agent has a back room handshake deal with Boras saying that he is not going to shop you to KC or SD out of a concern that Hosmer won't be best served by that?

All of that is speculative, of course.

[Mex17]

Edgy MD wrote: And I'm not seeing an end game for him in that scenario.

The end game would be the persistently escalating aggregate AAV for the players that Van Wagenen mentioned in his Twitter post. A more lucrative Hosmer contract might better serve that as opposed to a more moderate Duda contract. Hence the incentive for agents to "collude" with one another.