Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Under fire, baseball union may add legal firepower | NBC Sports Boston

This. The MLBPA has sold out younger players (including amateur, minor leaguers, and 1-3 year players) and made them even cheaper and more valuable. The middle class is now paying the price for their greedy, short-sighted, and simplistic thinking.

So the union surrendered the extra year. And then . . .

“Starting in the 1986 offseason, I started getting calls from all of these mid-level free agents,” said Orza. “[Guys] who aren’t getting offers, who aren’t getting jobs. Who eventually left the game. And they couldn’t understand why.

“And I had to explain to them: That what we had done in ’85 is, we made people who had two to three years of service much more valuable to the clubs. Because they could get the same [type of] player, but much cheaper now, ‘cause the [two- to three-year guys] didn’t have any [arbitration] rights.

“The number of players from zero years of service to three years of service in 1987 was 28.4 percent higher than the numbers of players in that same category in 1985. Where did those additional players come from? The guys whose jobs they were taking were the very guys who didn’t see how [the] fate of the salary-arbitration eligibles [affected] them.”

Orza sees a similarity today.

“What’s happening now is the Players Association has made young players, very young players, extremely attractive to clubs.”

Jim Furtado Posted: March 07, 2018 at 04:54 PM | 43 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cba, free agency, mlbpa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John Northey Posted: March 07, 2018 at 06:09 PM (#5635089)
Bingo. The smart move now for the union is to fight to get arbitration back to 2 years of service, but try for 1 year and work up to 2 with that being a hill to die on. Also jump the minimum wage to at least $1 million and working its way to $2 million over the contract ideally. That puts an effective salary floor of $50 million on all teams by the end of the deal. Also they need to either put international players into the draft or something as they are so cheap now vs other players it is crazy.

A change needed for competitive purposes is to flip the draft. Slots 1-20 go from the team with the best record that didn't make the playoffs getting the #1 pick, down to the worst team in MLB getting the 20th. 21st to 30th go to the playoff teams based on regular season record. Simple, encourages all teams to fight to the end. Want that high pick, don't tank, play hard start to end. Losing 100+ only loses fans it doesn't get you good players. If a team or two end up horrible and out of contention year in year out then look at adjustments.
   2. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 07, 2018 at 06:13 PM (#5635090)
Decouple signing a free agent from any sort of penalty for the signing team. There is no reason to disincentivise a team from signing a player who has successfully completed his indentured servitude to the team that owned him for a decade. Giving an athlete a chance at finally achieving his fair market rate is a player’s due. Adding draft pick forfeiture, spending caps, and financial penalties to punish the signing team is nothing but artificial suppression of player compensation and should never have been allowed to happen.
   3. dejarouehg Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5635117)
I' sure I'll contradict myself numerous times but here goes.....

Orza was a dick who is most responsible for the PED stubbornness on the player's part and the subsequent dilution of baseball's statistical validity. However, I'd definitely want him on my side were I in a LvM battle.

Minimum salary should go up and there should be automatic mandated performance bonuses. (Aaron Judge should get an extra $XXXXX based on the MVP votes he received. A rookie pitcher gives a team 100 innings, give the player an extra $100K, etc....)

There's also the issue of college players likely reaching free agency later in age than HS draftees or foreign players b/c of their later start. I think the PA should try to get the free agency trigger to be based on age, not years of service. Some players are buried in MiLB because their pathway is blocked. It's not fair that their career should get started later b/c of that. (The example of Ryan Howard comes to mind, even though the Phillies eventually (and stunningly) gave him his big contract prior to having to do so.)

My (non-violent) jingoistic nature forces me to resent that more lucrative opportunities that foreign born players often have over American born. All players (of a certain verifiable age) should be draft eligible, though I'm adamantly opposed to any ceilings/caps/limitations on what teams can sign players to. The draft, as anti-free market as it is, is needed to disperse talent. Outside of that, let market forces determine player value within that draft confine, subject to a minimum amount for each round. If the parties can't reach agreement after a year, then the player goes through the draft again. If no agreement can be reached then, they're a free agent.

Full Disclosure - Anti-Union/Pro Management (except as it relates to the NFLPA) though in this battle I'm a "pox on both their houses" type of guy.
   4. ptodd Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:04 PM (#5635120)
Players become free agents no later than after their age 28 season regardless of service time. In return , contracts to players after players age 34 season are no longer guaranteed with a 10% buy out.

Then try and get the following

Expand rosters to 28 players or get MLB to increase the number of teams to 34

Increase LT threshold and have increases pegged to MLB revenue growth

Increase pre arb minimum so that 2nd year players make 50% more than first year players and 3rd yearvllayers make 50% more than 2nd year players. Have the minimum salary pegged to MLb revenue growth

End the tax on teams who sign FA players who have refused the QO

Double 40 man roster Minor league salaries

In return, MLBPA agrees to allow teams to buy out guaranteed contracts at 50% should performance decline to replacement level for 2 consecutive without an injury being the principle reason. The algorithm to decide this will be determined and agreed. A 3 member medical arbitration panel will decide any disputes

MLBPA will also agree to contracts where incentives may be based on on field performance and not just awards and PA/IP

MLBPA will also take upon itself to insure on behalf of teams all FA contracts against injury. Since they insure the group as a whole their premiums will be lower. MLB will pay half the cost to MLBPA

Protecting teams from bad contracts leaves more money for new FA and younger players


Then on competition.

Teams who fail to achieve a 500 record for 5 consecutive years forfeit revenue sharing dollars for 3 years.

   5. ptodd Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5635125)
#3. On players stubborness over PED,'s. Did you know MLB arranged seminars at owners/GM meetings to ensure they understood the performance enhancement benifits of PED's. Did you know teams educated their players on how to properly use PED's?

Its not like MLBPA was resisting any initiative by MLB to eliminate PED's

MLB got involved and pushed testing only when Congress threatened to implement their own program on MLB and players after the BALCO scandal
   6. Sunday silence Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:19 PM (#5635128)
Losing 100+ only loses fans it doesn't get you good players.


But if your theory is true, then there's no need to disincentive tanking, is there?

BUt I agree with the rest of the stuff, a lot of good comments here.
   7. ptodd Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:26 PM (#5635134)
So basically Orza said MLB after getting a major concession that made young players more valuable , MLB proceeded to engage in collusion. History repeats.

Left unsaid is maybe MLB sees such concessions as a weakness that they subsequently test with an organized effort to suppress FA prices. MLBPA is being tested. Hopefully they have some fight left in them. As Orza points out one thing that is different is players salaries are at the point where a little less may not be enough to motivate players to strike. More to lose.

Also, I dare say they may now be split among foreign and domestic born players. Not sure thats the case but it was the foreign players who were most against a global draft something the MLBPA would otherwise have readily agreed to. Now international money being tied to signing QO FA is another excuse not to sign them. So dumb.
   8. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5635139)

Then try and get the following

Expand rosters to 28 players
I can't fathom any reason why anyone other than a fringe minor leaguer would support this. It won't help increase payrolls -- there's a fixed amount of playing time regardless of how many players are on the roster -- and of course will only serve to make games more unwatchable.
   9. Walt Davis Posted: March 07, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5635142)
An idea: For FA and arb purposes, service time includes 40-man roster time. (Actual ML service would still play a role in the size of the arb award.)

1. It has a similar effect as an age-based FA limit. A few college players who are quite borderline might not get to FA until age 30 or later (drafted at 21-22, 3 years, then 40-man).

2. It may cut down a bit on service time games. (See Anthony Rizzo ... but not Bryant.) Some promotions might get accelerated (might as well have him in the majors as on the 40-man) and others delayed (keep him off the 40-man until he's ready for the majors) ... but they have to balance those games against rule 5.

Take Steven Souza. I'm not quite sure when he was added to the 40-man, looks like it could have been no later than 2012. So either he wouldn't have been added -- and therefore available in the rule 5 -- or he'd have been an FA after this year.

He would have been eligible for "arbitration" in 2015 which was really his first year in the majors. I'd expect this process to work as "Mr. arbitrator, he's never played in the majors, we're offering him the league minimum." "Sounds right to me." If he'd then had a big year, he'd get a nice raise in his 2nd year arb. (I've long favored an increase in the min and substantial automatic pre-arb raises so I'm assuming that's here anyway ... but a guy like Souza, with his 40-man time counted, would have the option of taking them to arb for more than the standard year-2 salary.

One potential drawback from the Union's perspective is that maybe too many players would enter FA every year.

But it likely leads to young players making more money and, either way, not being quite such a long-term cheap option for teams. The Rays would still have gotten three super-cheap years out of Souza but they (or now the DBacks) wouldn't also be getting three quite cheap arb years. It's not just that Neil Walker has lost a potential employer to Brandon Drury this year, it's that Drury will likely be taking jobs from the next Neil Walkers for the next 3 years too.

Looking at Drury, I think he'd have just finished his 4th 40-man season so he's have 2 not 4 years until FA.

Not that this is any real improvement on an age-based FA (and there may be drawbacks I don't see), I just like that it fits into MLB's existing rules about player retention, it just starts the counting earlier. Seems simpler and I'm guessing teams would fight tooth and nail over an age-based FA. It still gives teams some flexibility on playing service time games but I think will put them under pressure for earlier promotions (and therefore earlier FAs) as well as more 40-man/early service guys being made available to other teams where they might fit better. You also avoid arguing over how to define "28". :-)
   10. Sunday silence Posted: March 07, 2018 at 08:20 PM (#5635145)
what is it about 28 man rosters that would make MLB any more unwatchable David? Its not like we dont have 40 man rosters in Sept .
   11. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 07, 2018 at 08:21 PM (#5635146)
what is it about 28 man rosters that would make MLB any more unwatchable David?
The additional 3 relievers.

Its not like we dont have 40 man rosters in Sept.
Exactly. Have you watched any September games lately?
   12. Sunday silence Posted: March 07, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5635155)
connecting FA time to time on the 40 man roster is a very good insight indeed. that only makes sense
   13. Ziggy's screen name Posted: March 07, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5635167)
Teams tanking needn't be a problem to either of these parties. Wins are worth more to the Yankees than they are to the Rays, so both sides should be trying to move wins from the Rays to the Yankees (and Red Sox and etc). As it is the MLBPA doesn't like tanking because it takes bidders out of the market for players. But you'd think they could come up with some kind of "revenue sharing" for players as well. Both sides could win if the teams for whom wins are most valuable win a large percentage of the games, and the weaker teams, and players on the weaker teams, are subsidized by the stronger teams.*

You guys wouldn't like this, because you're fans of baseball in general, and would like to see someone other than the Yankees or Red Sox win sometimes. But the fans don't have a seat at the table, and there are possible outcomes which are good for the players and the owners, although bad for the fans.

*I was going to say something about how they should fix the games in favor of the high $/win teams, but they already have. That's exactly what revenue sharing is, it's what lets the Rays not even try to field a competitive team. Yankees fans shouldn't complain about this, it's basically just the Yankees buying wins. (And hence MLB maximizing total revenue.)
   14. dejarouehg Posted: March 07, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5635168)
#3. On players stubborness over PED,'s. Did you know MLB arranged seminars at owners/GM meetings to ensure they understood the performance enhancement benifits of PED's. Did you know teams educated their players on how to properly use PED's?


What does this have to do with my point?

Its not like MLBPA was resisting any initiative by MLB to eliminate PED's


Certainly true to a point - but when the issue was brought to a head, no one was more indignant or uncooperative than Orza

MLB got involved and pushed testing only when Congress threatened to implement their own program on MLB and players after the BALCO scandal


Rick Helling and Kenny Rogers raised the PED concerns themselves prior to all this and Orza led the faction to maintain the status quo.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: March 07, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5635190)
I don't like the idea of a reverse draft or "finish below 500 long enough and you're penalized." There are lots of reasons stuff like that happens and run of bad luck by a Tampa would doom that franchise -- in a baseball sense! If our goal is to destroy baseball in Tampa or Miami, cutting them off from a major source of revenue is a great way to do it.

I think it's more than just nitpicking (but maybe not) but I think the teams will always consider it important to distinguish between common revenue and shared revenue. Common revenue is national media deals, merchandising, MLBtv, etc. That is owned by the clubs collectively and so revenues are and should be divided collectively. Shared revenue is the big market teams putting some of their revenue in the pot to be shared by small market teams. (There's also lux tax, international signing and other penalties which are shared between MLBPA and MLB but are not part of shared revenue.)

The shared revenue is the stick and the carrot. You're never going to be able to cut the Marlins off from the common revenue. But the shared revenue isn't THAT much -- I think it used to be about the same size as common, I suspect common has grown faster though. But say it's $40 M each, if the only stick you have is the $40 M shared, every team's payroll hits that level.

But yes a "sensible" approach to me seems to be that min payroll should be at the common plus shared, say $80 M today. But not on an annual basis necessarily but average over 3 years (or 5 years). If you don't meet that target then you forfeit a level of shared (but not common) revenue to make it up. So say you spend $200 in 3 years instead of $240, then you lose out on $40 M of shared revenue -- in one year, over the next 3 years? (Or you pay it back but the options are equivalent.)

But that raises the question of who are you paying it to? Here maybe you get creative with small market teams that won. That $40 M gets spread around to the other teams receiving shared revenue based on some performance formula -- maybe even one that sends some of that money back to the violating team.**

There seems to be something in the human psyche, and maybe especially the American human psyche, that leads to the belief that punishing those who are already downtrodden will force them to become better. Taking money away from bad baseball teams is going to make them worse baseball teams, not better ones.

Yes, reduce the incentive to lose but don't double it by implementing a penalty for losing. One bad GM taking over for a fired GM whose competitive team finally hit the wall of being too old could ruin a team forever.

** Possibly easier to implement by only confiscating shared revenue from teams based on 3-year payroll coupled with poor performance.
   16. . Posted: March 08, 2018 at 06:37 AM (#5635222)
No one's looking at the true root cause of this, which is the fact that salaries are negotiated based on imperfect information, ex ante -- i.e., before the player provides the value to the team. Making things perfectly "fair" would require a system wherein the players get a certain percentage of the aggregate revenues and then at the end of the season -- ex post, after the production is known -- distribute them to the membership based on performance. (*)

But when you have a system of negotiated compensation, based not on actualities but projections, there's no way to make it really "fair." Jose Altuve is not getting "equal pay for equal work." No one who outperforms their negotiated number is.

(*) I'm pretty sure the NHL offered this system to its players during the negotiations surrounding the eventually lost 2004-05 season.
   17. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 07:21 AM (#5635233)
Shared revenue is the big market teams putting some of their revenue in the pot to be shared by small market teams welfare.


Dishonest euphemisms are what got us to the current condition. Let’s do better going forward.
   18. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 08, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5635295)
Take a good piece of the common TV/merchandising revenues and directly subsidize the salaries of veteran players. You can pay a rookie for 500k out of your pocket, or you can sign a vet for $1.5 million paid by the league office. Maybe increase the subsidy the longer the player's been in the league.


   19. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 08, 2018 at 10:00 AM (#5635302)
You guys wouldn't like this, because you're fans of baseball in general, and would like to see someone other than the Yankees or Red Sox win sometimes. But the fans don't have a seat at the table, and there are possible outcomes which are good for the players and the owners, although bad for the fans.


In the long run any outcome that's bad for fans is always, unavoidably, bad for owners and players, because all the money comes from fans.

That's why shortsighted thinking can be so dangerous: when fans don't like the product--in fact, when they fall short of loving the product, when they become ambivalent about the product--they don't go on strike. They slowly drift away.
   20. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 08, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5635319)
Dishonest euphemisms are what got us to the current condition. Let’s do better going forward.
This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my question to you: (a) Do you advocate absolutely no revenue sharing whatsoever? and (b) If so, how do you envision having a functional, competitive league?

Do you have a straight answer this time?
   21. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 08, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5635320)
Walt: the problem we all are really trying to grasp and address is owners of small market teams who are not really interested in trying to win, who are just soaking up revenue sharing money as personal profit.

Sharing of baseball revenues isn't welfare; it's naturally appropriate because it takes two teams to stage a baseball game and the Yankees need enough opponents to credibly fill a 162 game schedule. Worldwide interest in watching the Yankees play 162 times a year would crater if the Red Sox, Mariners and Angels were the only other teams on their schedule.

But there IS a serious problem, which corrodes the competitiveness of the game, with leeches buying small market teams purely to soak up the residual revenue the big teams generate. Loria with the Marlins is the ur-example but the owners of the Pirates, Rays and Athletics have also been playing that game for years. Those teams have had a few short runs of success when they happened to be run by smart people who made good decisions, but it's irrelevant to ownership; they get their profits whether the team wins or loses, so long as payroll (not just on MLB players but on everything else, too) stays low, low, low.

The existence of small market teams isn't the problem; those owners are the problem, and they need to be removed from the game.

But there's no way to accomplish that that I'm aware of or can think of. All other purported solutions to the revenue sharing/small market "problem" aren't really addressing the problem and are just spinning wheels.
   22. Buck Coats Posted: March 08, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5635401)
What about tying revenue sharing directly to wins? Take X million of the revenue sharing money, say that the 10 (or whatever the number is) revenue-sharing receiving teams combined for Y (Wins over 60 or something), then each team gets an extra X/Y for each extra win they get. The whole point is that these "leech" teams don't have an incentive to win. Well we always talk about the theoretical "marginal value of a win" - if we actively increase the marginal value of wins for revenue-sharing teams won't they want to spend? If every extra win means an extra million for the Marlins (above whatever they actually get for an extra marginal win) aren't they now a lot more likely to invest money in payroll?
   23. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5635409)
Do you have a straight answer this time?


When you claim to want a serious discussion but open with such a dishonest premise you're basically projecting your own disingenuous approach on others. In fact, I've consistently been willing to have straight, serious discussions about this issue since I joined BBTF, only to be repeatedly met with the same empty, dismissive, and unprincipled reposes (seriously, how many times can people type arguments "If the Yankees don't like it they can quit the league" as if that were some sort of zinger). Going a bit further, a bit of acknowledgement that most everything I'd claim was happening (teams pocketing the money while continuing to demand more artificial suppression of player salaries) has actually happened would be a positive way of demonstrating your goodwill in this discussion.

(a) Do you advocate absolutely no revenue sharing whatsoever?


There's an enormous amount of revenue sharing even without the forced redistribution favored by the Budshoviks. For example, MLB's national TV contract pays out equally for all teams, not according to ratings, popularity, or team success. This is a clear case of popular, successful teams subsidizing the revenue of unpopular teams.

Consider also the revenue sharing that occurs for all MLB merchandise. The most popular jersey sold last year was that of the Yankees' young, exciting slugger Aaron Judge. And yet in the current scheme of things, every single team in the league shares the sale of that jersey equally (unless purchased at Yankee Stadium). Since popular teams will obviously sell more merchandise of all stripes than unpopular teams, this is another form of revenue sharing that is rarely discussed.

If so, how do you envision having a functional, competitive league?


Your question is perplexing; prior to the rise of Budshovism in the late-90s, are you saying we didn't have a functional, competitive league? I know the owners complained they were on the verge of bankruptcy unless they got their hands on Mr. Steinbrenner's money but that always struck me as about as genuine a plea as Oral Roberts saying the Lord would call him home unless he got more donations from the rubes.
   24. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 02:28 PM (#5635548)
There's an enormous amount of revenue sharing even without the forced redistribution favored by the Budshoviks.
And, as always, your analysis ignores that the Yankees are not just giving money to the other teams; they're paying for their territorial rights.
   25. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5635552)
And, as always, your analysis ignores that the Yankees are not just giving money to the other teams; they're paying for their territorial rights.


So they pay the same as the Mets?
   26. Ziggy's screen name Posted: March 08, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5635553)
YR's criticism of revenue sharing really doesn't make any sense. Revenue sharing encourages teams to not even try to be competitive, which means that they won't even put up a fight against the Yankees. If YR wants the Yankees to wins baseball games, he should support revenue sharing. All revenue sharing is is the Yankees buying wins from the Rays by paying them to not field a competitive team. That's GREAT for Yankees fans.
   27. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5635581)
YR's criticism of revenue sharing really doesn't make any sense. Revenue sharing encourages teams to not even try to be competitive, which means that they won't even put up a fight against the Yankees.


If so, then the league should come out and admit it, rather than couch their schemes in lofty-sounding platitudes about "fairness" and "competitive balance" and "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

All revenue sharing is is the Yankees buying wins from the Rays by paying them to not field a competitive team.


It's really more like the Yankees buying yachts for Jeffrey Loria, but whatever keeps you in good graces with the petit bourgeoise.
   28. . Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5635604)
Things like territorial rights and drafts are the problem. The only "fair" system is one like European soccer, wherein players can just play where they want each season and there are no (what should be illegal, but inexplicably aren't) agreements among competitors to restrict entry and competition.

There's nothing "fair" about a draft wherein competitors agree that employees can only negotiate an employment contract with one of them. So none of the American big four can be or are "fair" to the players.(*) After that, it's lipstick on a pig. Some lipstick is a nicer color than other lipstick, but nothing more.

(*) Or for that matter fans and other stakeholders.
   29. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5635606)
For example, MLB's national TV contract pays out equally for all teams, not according to ratings, popularity, or team success. This is a clear case of popular, successful teams subsidizing the revenue of unpopular teams.


The only reason that teams would be "unpopular" is because the national TV contract doesn't let them play during the Sunday night baseball games, thus depriving them the opportunity to be "popular".
How often did the Padres, Rays, Marlins, or A's appear on the Sunday night baseball game last year? A combined total of ONE game. The Marlins played the Mets on April 9th.

The Cardinals appeared 7 times. The Yankees appeared 6 times. The Red Sox and Mets appeared 5 times. The Cubs and Nationals appeared 4 times.

Those six teams appeared in 21 of the 26 Sunday night games, and were paired up 12 of the times.

Fourteen of the MLB teams NEVER appeared on the Sunday night broadcast.
Rays
Jays
White Sox
Royals
Twins
A's
Mariners
Braves
Phillies
Reds
Brewers
Diamondbacks
Rockies
Padres


   30. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5635612)
The only "fair" system is one like European soccer, wherein players can just play where they want each season and there are no (what should be illegal, but inexplicably aren't) agreements among competitors to restrict entry and competition.


Players are still under contracts and can't just jump from team to team at will.
As well, many of the leagues require a minimum number of "home grown" players on each team.
The EPL says you must have 8 "home grown" English players on each squad.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5635615)
The only reason that teams would be "unpopular" is because the national TV contract doesn't let them play during the Sunday night baseball games, thus depriving them the opportunity to be "popular".

No. They're not popular because they have few fans. Either b/c their market is small, or they stink.

Putting the Marlins on Sunday every night isn't going to get them fans.
   32. . Posted: March 08, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5635618)
Players are still under contracts and can't just jump from team to team at will.


They pretty much can if a team wants them to transfer. The only trivial restriction is the various transfer windows. Players move by the bushelful in the mid-season window. If a guy plays for Everton and Man U wants him in the mid-season window, and he wants to play for Man U, he will wind up playing for Man U. Not always to be sure -- he still is under contract to Everton -- but many, many times.

As well, many of the leagues require a minimum number of "home grown" players on each team.
The EPL says you must have 8 "home grown" English players on each squad.


Utterly trivial as compared to something like a draft. A European soccer player can't literally work anywhere he wants any day he wants, but he can pretty much pick his employer at his leisure in the same way any other European worker can.

Moreover, European soccer doesn't have silly, anti-competitive things like territorial rights and the requirement to be a franchise to compete.
   33. Walt Davis Posted: March 08, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5635634)
Sure but the main reason the Yanks, Cubs, etc. are "popular" nationally is because they have restrictive rights to large markets. Fox likes big city teams in the WS not because people in Oklahoma City want to watch the Yankees but because a lot of the 20 million people in the NY metro area want to watch the Yankees (but don't want to watch the Royals).

The easiest solution to tanking and revenue sharing is to let the Rays, Marlins, A's move to New York.

#21: I'm aware what the problem is, I've been talking it about it for a few years now. I'm just saying that the proposed solutions of tying revenue sharing money tightly to winning would have meant we'd have never see the recent Royals' success. How much was ownership greed and how much was Allard Baird's incompetence is unknowable I suppose, but that team was a shambles when Moore took over.

The Padres were very cheap from 2009-13 though did pull off one winning season. Then they bumped payroll, then Preller had that horrible expensive offseason then he had little choice but to change course now they just signed a big FA ... but it's still just that one winning season in the last 10. "Punishing" this team for poor performance is not going to turn them into a winner.

You want to punish teams for pocketing shared revenue, not for poor performance. One Allard Baird can mean a franchise is going to lose for 5 straight years and the next GM is going to take over a mess. If that next GM is AJ Preller then you're going to keep losing. Even if that next GM is Dayton Moore (or Theo Epstein), you might be looking at another 3 years of losing and even then maybe needing some luck in drafting ... except that now with clever reverse ordering, you're drafting 9th not 2nd so you never get Kris Bryant.

Somebody always finishes last. Unless we want every season to have teams crammed between 70 and 92 wins, meaning that every season is pretty much determined purely randomly. there are going to be some real stinker teams and those stinker teams are not going to be able to turn it around overnight even if you threaten their profits. And then when you take that money away, what are they supposed to do then to start winning?

There is of course no natural way to balance a league where 2 teams have exclusive rights to a local population of 20 million while others have exclusive rights to a local population of only 1.5 million. In many ways, the problems in MLB are not the Marlins but the Mets and historically the Cubs and currently the Phillies -- teams in large markets that are some combination of incompetent and cheap. They are wasting huge league-given advantages.

Also while the Yankees obviously need teams to play, it's simply incorrect to think they need the Rays or Royals or A's. The Yanks, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox would be no worse off in a 24-team league or probably even a 16-team league. Possibly they'd be even better off (from a fan, attendance, revenue perspective). From a league perspective sure, if there's a potential $100 M in revenue in Tampa and $150 in Milwaukee (and you can get some rich bastards to pay several hundred millions for the right to collect it) then you might as well be there to collect it. But YR is certainly correct that the Rays need the Yanks, not vice versa.


   34. Zach Posted: March 08, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5635650)
#21: I'm aware what the problem is, I've been talking it about it for a few years now. I'm just saying that the proposed solutions of tying revenue sharing money tightly to winning would have meant we'd have never see the recent Royals' success. How much was ownership greed and how much was Allard Baird's incompetence is unknowable I suppose, but that team was a shambles when Moore took over.

Yeah, it's not just a question of incentives. You could have sent enforcers with billy clubs to Kauffman stadium, with orders to go nuts if Muser mismanaged the bullpen, and it was still going to happen.
   35. Zach Posted: March 08, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5635652)
The problem with the free agent market right now is that an average veteran making average money is the worst deal in the game. He's much more expensive than rookies, and stars give better production per dollar.
   36. Zach Posted: March 08, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5635654)
Here's a philosophical question for you: if you pass on the worst deal in the game, are you really tanking? Nobody except maybe the Yankees or Dodgers can buy a playoff spot paying the going rate for every marginal win.
   37. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 08, 2018 at 05:43 PM (#5635661)
The easiest solution to tanking and revenue sharing is to let the Rays, Marlins, A's move to New York.


If that was a real solution you’d see the Budshoviks agitating to remove all territorial rights across the board, and yet you never do. Why is this so?
   38. Stevey Posted: March 08, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5635694)
The MLBPA has sold out younger players (including amateur, minor leaguers, and 1-3 year players) and made them even cheaper and more valuable. The middle class is now paying the price for their greedy, short-sighted, and simplistic thinking.


Ok, we make young players more expensive. How exactly does that get teams to spend more on older players? The only way would be to make younger players at least as expensive as older players. If teams are picking the 500k 1 WAR player over the $5M 1 WAR player, they're still going to pick the first guy as long as he's making $4.9M or less, leaving the latter out of a job no matter what.
   39. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 09, 2018 at 08:17 AM (#5635850)
The only reason that teams would be "unpopular" is because the national TV contract doesn't let them play during the Sunday night baseball games, thus depriving them the opportunity to be "popular".


BY GUM YOU'VE CRACKED THE EGG! Quick, write to MLB and tell them they've been doing this all wrong - they need to insist that their national TV deal includes an equal number of games from EVERY team and that this will make the deal MORE valuable, not less, increasing the valuation of every team in baseball with the stroke of a pen and the click of a remote!

Quick, no time to gab, get on the phone now! Dial 800-TOP-DERP!
   40. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 09, 2018 at 09:36 AM (#5635879)
One thing the union could revisit next time is the DH in the NL. It should be pretty low hanging fruit now if Moustakis is going for $6 million.
   41. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 09, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5635887)
Re: 23, so you're saying your position is this?

'Take away all revenue sharing except the national TV contract and MLB merchandise, and the league will be fine in terms of competitiveness, apparently because nothing major has changed in baseball economics in the last 25 years.'

This seems flawed.
   42. Baldrick Posted: March 09, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5635980)
Under fire, baseball union may add legal firepower | NBC Sports Boston

No one else is bothered by the double use of fire in the headline?
   43. jmurph Posted: March 09, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5636000)
No one else is bothered by the double use of fire in the headline?

You mean because they missed an obvious opportunity to add a third usage?
Under fire, baseball union may add legal firepower, fire back | NBC Sports Boston

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(322 - 1:52pm, Dec 11)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3521 - 1:51pm, Dec 11)
Last: Fourth True Outcome

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot
(5 - 1:50pm, Dec 11)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogMets, Yankees, Marlins In Talks On Three-Team Deal - MLB Trade Rumors
(40 - 1:50pm, Dec 11)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogNicholas Castellanos may be Tigers trade chip
(3 - 1:48pm, Dec 11)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogSmith, Baines elected to Baseball Hall of Fame
(482 - 1:47pm, Dec 11)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(463 - 1:47pm, Dec 11)
Last: Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!)

NewsblogAnalytics' rise a leading topic at Winter Meetings
(11 - 1:45pm, Dec 11)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-11-2018
(6 - 1:38pm, Dec 11)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks hunt for value, not trades at MLB winter meetings
(9 - 1:35pm, Dec 11)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(412 - 1:34pm, Dec 11)
Last: soc40

NewsblogBryce Harper Does Not Renew Lease at Arlington Condo
(3 - 1:14pm, Dec 11)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogJustin Masterson is retired and doing missionary work
(2 - 12:04pm, Dec 11)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(99 - 11:54am, Dec 11)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(302 - 11:46am, Dec 11)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.4776 seconds
46 querie(s) executed