Non Mets Off Season News

[Ceetar]

Fowler now gets to test the waters either of the next two years if he wants. I don't know if it's coincidence, but there seems to be a lot pushing for opt outs in that crazy free agent class in two years.

Wild conspiracy theory here, but were the players union to push for a larger slice of the pie in negotiations, it'd certainly benefit anyone hitting free-agency the next year or two over people signing long term deals now wouldn't it?

[Frayed Knot]

Unlike the NFL or NBA or NHL, there is no "slice of the pie" formula in baseball; no percentage that is designated strictly for the players.
Fowler, like every other FA, is simply going to make whatever he can in his next negotiations.

I think it's obvious that he erred in rejecting the QO since that's where he wound up anyway and for half the price and it's not like the mutual option he got for '17 makes up for it.
I don't know what happened between him and Baltimore -- it seems like HE backed out but it's not clear.

[Centerfield]

Kinda sucks if you're Baltimore. Swing and miss on Cespedes, you have to outbid yourself like 3 times to bring back Davis, and Dexter Fowler spurns you.

I think they should let Brother Mouzone handle some negotiations.

[Lefty Specialist]

Centerfield wrote: Kinda sucks if you're Baltimore. Swing and miss on Cespedes, you have to outbid yourself like 3 times to bring back Davis, and Dexter Fowler spurns you.

Plus you come to an agreement with Gallardo only to find out he may be damaged goods when he takes his physical.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Unlike the NFL or NBA or NHL, there is no "slice of the pie" formula in baseball; no percentage that is designated strictly for the players. Fowler, like every other FA, is simply going to make whatever he can in his next negotiations. I think it's obvious that he erred in rejecting the QO since that's where he wound up anyway and for half the price and it's not like the mutual option he got for '17 makes up for it. I don't know what happened between him and Baltimore -- it seems like HE backed out but it's not clear.

there's no formula, but I'm sure the players are aware they're getting less and less of the pie. Even if nothing actually happens, I suspect the issue will get raised meaning it might be in the owner's best interest if that number starts heading in the order direction for the NEXT negotiation.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: there's no formula, but I'm sure the players are aware they're getting less and less of the pie.

Really?

Even if nothing actually happens, I suspect the issue will get raised meaning it might be in the owner's best interest if that number starts heading in the order direction for the NEXT negotiation.

I think the LAST thing the players want is to introduce is the concept of a percentage of revenue as a basis for their pay.

[Frayed Knot]

Ian Desmond to Texas on a one-year deal.
Another guy settling for a deal about half of the QO he rejected.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ian Desmond to Texas on a one-year deal. Another guy settling for a deal about half of the QO he rejected.

And now it turns out that Desmond has signed with the Rangers to be their full-time LF.

So Ian, other than your rejection of the long-term offer (7/$115 ?) two years ago, then the $15.8 mil QO this winter, and now losing your position, how's it going?

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: there's no formula, but I'm sure the players are aware they're getting less and less of the pie. Really? Even if nothing actually happens, I suspect the issue will get raised meaning it might be in the owner's best interest if that number starts heading in the order direction for the NEXT negotiation. I think the LAST thing the players want is to introduce is the concept of a percentage of revenue as a basis for their pay.

You don't think the players union is aware that league revenue is increasing at a greater rate than player salaries? That's gotta be up there near the top of their concern list.

[Edgy MD]

Every year, there's somebody totally and utterly scrod by rejecting that QO. Desmond doing it on top of having rejected that long-term deal suggests he's got nobody to blame but the man in the mirror. But memories of the long-term offer are probably what led to his faith that that a bigger deal would be out there for him.

Mets may have to calculate into their negotiations the downside of jumping in on Asdrubal Cabrera and not pursuing Desmond and waiting him out, but the downside of waiting, of course, is coming home empty.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: You don't think the players union is aware that league revenue is increasing at a greater rate than player salaries? That's gotta be up there near the top of their concern list.

I have no idea if that's even accurate.
But even if so, players' salaries are limited now only by their ability to negotiate, I have no idea why they'd also want to tie it to a percentage of something they can't control.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Every year, there's somebody totally and utterly scrod by rejecting that QO. Desmond doing it on top of having rejected that long-term deal suggests he's got nobody to blame but the man in the mirror. But memories of the long-term offer are probably what led to his faith that that a bigger deal would be out there for him.

I think that, like the pre-bust housing market, there has been a perception among players that salaries were destined to always move in only one direction to the point where every contract offered now should be turned down because it's almost certainly to be trumped by a new one if you just wait until next week/month/year, so guarantees be damned and betting on yourself was a virtual no-lose move.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: You don't think the players union is aware that league revenue is increasing at a greater rate than player salaries? That's gotta be up there near the top of their concern list. I have no idea if that's even accurate. But even if so, players' salaries are limited now only by their ability to negotiate, I have no idea why they'd also want to tie it to a percentage of something they can't control.

I'm not suggesting they want to tie it to a percentage, merely that they want more. It's greater than one player's ability to negotiate. We're seeing record contracts, but just barely.



A lot of this has to do with how more and more of the revenue is of the fixed, television contract, variety and less performance based, coupled with luxury taxes and revenue sharing makes going really crazy with salaries not really financially sound. But it's pretty clear that owners are pocketing more and more money and that the players aren't getting quite as big a proportion.

I don't know what the obvious answer is, salary cap/floors? remove revenue sharing? cut a year off pre-FA service time? but I'd be shocked if it's not one of the points they plan to bring up next year.

[Frayed Knot]

So if they are making proportionally less the solution for them would be fewer rules not more.
Salary caps, even if accompanied by floors, exist for the sole purpose of limiting salaries and guaranteeing owner profits (despite what the ESPN crowd will try and tell you about promoting 'parity') so the players certainly don't want to go that route.

The things most likely to change in a future CBA would be adjustments to revenue sharing and/or a change in FA compensation -- both of which are designed to act as a drag on overall payroll -- although FA compensation has been getting reduced in recent years so it's tough to point to that as a culprit.
The whole idea of the signing team losing a draft pick in addition to the losing team gaining one was based on limiting how many players one team (read: rich teams) could sign in a given year, but that's more of an out-dated concept in this rev-sharing era.


The bottom line is that, no, I don't think players rejecting QO's is part of some strategy based on the idea that they're betting on conditions being different in a year or two. After all, you could accept a QO and still be a FA next year too. I think Desmond simply picked a bad year to have a bad year and has effectively bet on himself twice in the last three years and lost out both times. But that's the nature of a free market and those things will continue to happen in a freer market as well.
As for Fowler & Baltimore: I don't know what the hell happened there. He rejects $15.8/1-year to go for $33/3 and then rejects that for $8/1 all to wind up back where he started?!?!??

[Ceetar]

So if they are making proportionally less the solution for them would be fewer rules not more. Salary caps, even if accompanied by floors, exist for the sole purpose of limiting salaries and guaranteeing owner profits (despite what the ESPN crowd will try and tell you about promoting 'parity') so the players certainly don't want to go that route. As for Fowler & Baltimore: I don't know what the hell happened there. He rejects $15.8/1-year to go for $33/3 and then rejects that for $8/1 all to wind up back where he started?!?!??

I wasn't talking QOs, more about Fowler and say Heyward. It seems weird to specifically have an opt-out only in the most competitive free agent class. It feels like something is up.

The Salary cap/floor would have to be negotiated in a way to raise the numbers overall obviously.

$3,762,899,113 was the overall 2015 payroll.

That works out to 125,000,000 on average. If you set that as the floor, with increases tied to revenue or simply increases every year, you'd guarantee the players more money overall, barring 3-4 teams going Dodger crazy and jumping up to 300, which is an extreme case and unlikely.

But you'd need a rolling increase anyway, and by increasing the floor say 20 million every year you'd force competition, you'd force teams to actually have to sign players (and you'd avoid constant embarrassment by the Marlins and others actively cheating the game out of money) You could set the cap ridiculously high, 200k, or even have it a soft cap and increase the revenue sharing numbers above it to help the smaller teams reach the floor. I dunno, I think it'd be interesting and wouldn't really harm the game or competitiveness in any way. I don't know if you could convince the cheaper teams to agree to it, but maybe the rolling increase helps that.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: I wasn't talking QOs, more about Fowler and say Heyward. It seems weird to specifically have an opt-out only in the most competitive free agent class. It feels like something is up.

Opt-outs are found among the top FAs contracts because they're the ones who can swing them in negotiations and they tend to see them as a win-win. If they continue to perform at an upper level then they get to go FA again, and if not they still have the original guaranteed money from the original deal.
It's like no-trade clauses; EVERY player would like one but only the best positioned in negotiations get one.



As far as the floor/ceiling stuff goes, the clubs are never going to agree to a floor (and certainly not one which start at the current average) and will point to recent history like Houston's where a floor wouldn't have allowed them to break down in order to (successfully) build up again (or it would certainly make such a route much tougher and longer).
The NFL works with a floor/hard-ceiling system but they need to there because so few meaningful players ever get to the FA stage. Also, the players are currently pursuing a lawsuit because they claim **SURPRISE** that the owners are underreporting revenue and therefore the cheating the players out of their share.

[Edgy MD]

The NFL has a puppet union. Salary caps are awful.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, I didn't phrase myself correctly in that previous answer.
The NFL doesn't need a system with a cap & floor but it's one the players feel they need to agree to because they don't have truly open FA-gency that will allow salaries to seek their market level.

Because MLB does have one that allows most players to reach a point to sell themselves on the open market before becoming old and gray then they have no incentive to agree to a cap and the owners aren't going to want any part of a floor.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: The NFL has a puppet union. Salary caps are awful.

Salary rules are less awful than teams routinely cheating the league, and therefore the players, out of money. Miami runs dangerously close to taking in more in revenue sharing than they spend on players.

You could argue that it's in the best interest of the fans to not have teams that categorically are not trying to compete. There are going to be a lot of awful Braves-Phillies games this year for example.

And there would be teams up against the cap that would be willing to move dead weight that tanking teams would be willing to deal with, in exchange for say a pick or a prospect. If the Yankees were up against a cap they'd seemingly be willing to pay to let CC or Texiera play badly for the Braves

Of course, you'd run into similar issues about the teams not having the motivation to truly spend because the cost-value ratio wouldn't be great pushing towards the top of a cap. Of course, that's true now anyway and isn't going away.

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, I didn't phrase myself correctly in that previous answer. The NFL doesn't need a system with a cap & floor but it's one the players feel they need to agree to because they don't have truly open FA-gency that will allow salaries to seek their market level. Because MLB does have one that allows most players to reach a point to sell themselves on the open market before becoming old and gray then they have no incentive to agree to a cap and the owners aren't going to want any part of a floor.

My point is that the players are NOT reaching market level contracts. What's happening is just shy of collusion. I'm merely suggesting it might be in the best interest of the MLBPA to give up the allusion that they WILL in fact start getting bigger contracts and look for a way to force the issue. Salary caps may be extreme, but I just threw it out there because it's a common thing. There are various other ways they could achieve this, and again my main point is that this IS an issue that's going to be raised.

[Frayed Knot]

I'll likely live to regret asking this, but how are FA-eligible players being denied market rates for their services, and who is colluding and how?

[Edgy MD]

I certainly don't argue for revenue sharing. At least, I don't argue for luxury taxes.

I'm good with the opposing team a cut of the broadcast revenues for a particular game (rather than any pooling) just like they'd traditionally gotten a cut of the gate.

And I equally don't stand for incentivizing tanking. All I said is that salary caps are awful. If you don't like tanking, join me in rooting for a regulation/promotion system.

But man, look at us. All we all willing to just blow things up over poor Ian Desmond.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: I'll likely live to regret asking this, but how are FA-eligible players being denied market rates for their services, and who is colluding and how?

I've said it a bunch of times, the owners are getting richer and richer and players salaries are not keeping pace. Collectively they make the teams much more money than they cost, hence they're undervalued.

Edgy MD wrote: I certainly don't argue for revenue sharing. At least, I don't argue for luxury taxes. I'm good with the opposing team a cut of the broadcast revenues for a particular game (rather than any pooling) just like they'd traditionally gotten a cut of the gate. And I equally don't stand for incentivizing tanking. All I said is that salary caps are awful. If you don't like tanking, join me in rooting for a regulation/promotion system.

I'm not saying you do. Removing the revenue sharing and the luxury taxes might be better than a salary cap. I'm not necessarily pro-salary cap, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it went that way. I just think it could be better.

I'm very anti-relegation/promotion. Even if we could do the crazy amount of overhauling to implement it, I don't think it'd have any chance of catching on and I can't think of anything it really adds

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I'm very anti-relegation/promotion.

Well, then, there we are.

Ceetar wrote: I can't think of anything it really adds

Well, there's the phrase I typed RIGHT BEFORE I INVOKED IT about disincentivizing tanking. Really, now.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I'll likely live to regret asking this, but how are FA-eligible players being denied market rates for their services, and who is colluding and how? I've said it a bunch of times, the owners are getting richer and richer and players salaries are not keeping pace. Collectively they make the teams much more money than they cost, hence they're undervalued.

That answers neither question that I asked.
How are FA players being denied an open market?
Who is colluding and how?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't like the idea of relegation/promotion either. It might be a fun thing to play around with in OOTP or something like that, but in real life it's not at all practical, at least not as long as AAA teams get their players supplied to them by the big league teams.

[Ceetar]

yea, too much. banishing a team for having a bad season is fairly harsh, and it also pushes a "just don't be _that_ bad" mentality. And it's still going to relegate teams that aren't tanking, that just happen to be the worst. Sorry Reds, Votto and Frasier got hurt in June and now you don't have a major league team next year.

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I'll likely live to regret asking this, but how are FA-eligible players being denied market rates for their services, and who is colluding and how? I've said it a bunch of times, the owners are getting richer and richer and players salaries are not keeping pace. Collectively they make the teams much more money than they cost, hence they're undervalued. That answers neither question that I asked. How are FA players being denied an open market? Who is colluding and how?

they're not being denied an open market, they're being denied fair market worth. There seems to be an unwritten cap on both annual value and even length that isn't growing at the same rate as revenue is. I'm not saying it's active collusion, but there's a little bit of 'breaking the seal' to it that everyone's afraid to be the first team to pay someone $45 million because then suddenly it'd become the norm. This might very well come to a head with Bryce Harper.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: yea, too much. banishing a team for having a bad season is fairly harsh

If you disagree, that's fine. But pretending you haven't read what I typed is what's maddening.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: yea, too much. banishing a team for having a bad season is fairly harsh If you disagree, that's fine. But pretending you haven't read what I typed is what's maddening.

no, I didn't pretend I didn't read it, i dismissed it and stated my opinion that I don't see any benefit to it, and then when pressed I explained why I don't think what you said is a benefit.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: they're not being denied an open market, they're being denied fair market worth.

A free and open market is what determines fair worth.
Arbitrary numbers that lay down specific caps & floors, or schemes that fix payrolls to a certain percentage of revenues, are what skew it.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: yea, too much. banishing a team for having a bad season is fairly harsh If you disagree, that's fine. But pretending you haven't read what I typed is what's maddening. no, I didn't pretend I didn't read it, i dismissed it and stated my opinion that I don't see any benefit to it, and then when pressed I explained why I don't think what you said is a benefit.

I don't think we don't use language the same way.