2018 MLB off-season news & notes discussion thread

[bleedblue1223]

And the ability to make the playoffs is ultimately due to the impact of the position of your best player, the caliber of that player, and how long you hold onto that player. NFL has great parity, but the Patriots dominate because of Brady and Belichick, arguably the 2 most important pieces in the sport and they have the best in each spot. NBA teams that dominate because they have the true elite superstars. Penguins win because of Crosby/Malkin. Hockey takes a bit more pieces than those other 2, but baseball requires a lot more and you don't even need the most elite players to win, which is why you get more variety in winners, those teams don't have sustained success. The Royals had just a 2 1/2ish year window.

 

[Belieber]

You realize, most of the clubs on that list are big revenue clubs, right?

Tampa bay, Colorado, Arizona, Miami have all made the World Series and in two cases won the World Series in the past 20 years. Are the white Sox a big market team? Are they top 15 in revenue? They won a World Series. It’s a 30 team league, not everyone can win.

And lots of teams have spent crazy money with no results, look at the Mariners, nationals, angels, Mets and cubs from 2000-2015, Yankees only have one World Series appearance in 16 years for all their billliones spent.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

A's signed Jerry Blevins to a minor league deal. 1.5 if he makes the team (he will).

Was previously on the team from 07-13.

 

[robert terwilliger]

here's the problem i have:

"back in the day" the league was run by teams willing to spend. there is no argument from me on that. in years since, we've seen countless changes to help [small market team]

- the draft went from "i won't sign with [small market team], i want 45 million dollars!" to teams being capped wrt what they can spend on the entire draft, even slot limits.
- the cbt has effectively neutered teams willing to spend from spending too much as they're not keen on not only supporting the [small market team], but signing [big money free agent] and paying a tax on top of it!
- the international signings have been changed and capped as well.
- additional draft picks were given to teams deemed at a market disadvantage, which said teams could trade.

at what point in this does the problem of [small market team] being unable to build a winner become the fault of [small market team] and not the teams that actually spend the money they bring in on talent? are we ever going to blame the [small market team] of mlb when they cry poor and want more from mlb instead of investing in their product, or is the fact that neither ownership group gave a wet shit about whether the team was competitive as long as that money kept a'rollin' in?

because even with everything i listed, there's still the fact that all 30 mlb teams are making millions before even selling tickets from bam, local and national tv deals. some teams use that money and put it towards their team, understanding that building a brand that is successful is a lot more valuable than building one too afraid to actually spend on itself. you can make all the excuses you want for the [small market team] but in reality, the deck has been stacked against any of the teams who are actually trying to win baseball games!

cry for the second tier free agent all you like btw, that's a completely separate issue. the mlbpa f***ed those guys long before any mlb team ever did.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Add the fact being in a 'small market' doesn't mean the owner(s) is smalltime at all.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Add the fact being in a 'small market' doesn't mean the owner(s) is smalltime at all.

It's more high rev vs low rev teams. St. Louis isn't a big market, but it's a cash cow, not enough to be exactly on par with the huge spenders, but big enough to compete with the big boys.

I also don't think fans should expect owners to throw their personal fortune at a club and lose a ton of money in the process. You still have a handful of clubs with negative operating income in any given year.

 

[bleedblue1223]

here's the problem i have:

"back in the day" the league was run by teams willing to spend. there is no argument from me on that. in years since, we've seen countless changes to help [small market team]

- the draft went from "i won't sign with [small market team], i want 45 million dollars!" to teams being capped wrt what they can spend on the entire draft, even slot limits.
- the cbt has effectively neutered teams willing to spend from spending too much as they're not keen on not only supporting the [small market team], but signing [big money free agent] and paying a tax on top of it!
- the international signings have been changed and capped as well.
- additional draft picks were given to teams deemed at a market disadvantage, which said teams could trade.

at what point in this does the problem of [small market team] being unable to build a winner become the fault of [small market team] and not the teams that actually spend the money they bring in on talent? are we ever going to blame the [small market team] of mlb when they cry poor and want more from mlb instead of investing in their product, or is the fact that neither ownership group gave a wet **** about whether the team was competitive as long as that money kept a'rollin' in?

because even with everything i listed, there's still the fact that all 30 mlb teams are making millions before even selling tickets from bam, local and national tv deals. some teams use that money and put it towards their team, understanding that building a brand that is successful is a lot more valuable than building one too afraid to actually spend on itself. you can make all the excuses you want for the [small market team] but in reality, the deck has been stacked against any of the teams who are actually trying to win baseball games!

cry for the second tier free agent all you like btw, that's a completely separate issue. the mlbpa ****ed those guys long before any mlb team ever did.

Are you really arguing that the high revenue clubs are at a disadvantage compared to the lower revenue clubs? Baseball has always been the sport that most rewarded the high revenue clubs, and frankly still is. If MLB was more comparable to the other leagues, international prospects would be in the draft and the good teams wouldn't have a chance at the top guys. Every other league has caps on how much you can sign draft picks for. Baseball is still the most rewarding league to big spending clubs.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Tampa bay, Colorado, Arizona, Miami have all made the World Series and in two cases won the World Series in the past 20 years. Are the white Sox a big market team? Are they top 15 in revenue? They won a World Series. It’s a 30 team league, not everyone can win.

And lots of teams have spent crazy money with no results, look at the Mariners, nationals, angels, Mets and cubs from 2000-2015, Yankees only have one World Series appearance in 16 years for all their billliones spent.

None of those clubs have ever had sustained success. They have success for a short period when they draft well, and then they lose those guys. Arizona had that stretch with Johnson and Schilling back in the day. Like KC, they have to take advantage of a very small window. Chicago or Boston is a big market. Money isn't a guarantee to win, no one is even making that argument, but it is something you need to have for sustained success, otherwise you better hope you are good at perpetually rebuilding.

 

[robert terwilliger]

what i'm arguing is that the advantage is gone.

any minute advantage that the [big market teams] have is now based on building winning teams for the last number of years. money is capped and small market teams are still being subsidized by revenue sharing and draft picks but you're still making excuses for the small market teams.

my point stands. there is nothing stopping these teams from drafting, developing and turning their fortunes around anymore. mlb hard capped the draft, medium capped international spending and put a soft cap in place. now teams that want to spend really can't. the advantages are gone; you have to lay blame at the feet of teams who are incapable of building something eventually. right?

 

[bleedblue1223]

what i'm arguing is that the advantage is gone.

any minute advantage that the [big market teams] have is now based on building winning teams for the last number of years. money is capped and small market teams are still being subsidized by revenue sharing and draft picks but you're still making excuses for the small market teams.

my point stands. there is nothing stopping these teams from drafting, developing and turning their fortunes around anymore. mlb hard capped the draft, medium capped international spending and put a soft cap in place. now teams that want to spend really can't. the advantages are gone; you have to lay blame at the feet of teams who are incapable of building something eventually. right?

Sure, you blame the teams for not winning. It's only their fault for not winning a championship because as you can see Kansas City won a championship, not saying it's impossible. Lets not also act that's it's a level playing field. Even if these clubs draft well and develop and build a stud roster of young guys, they won't be able to retain them. Kansas City will never have a payroll on par with a high revenue club. The idea that those clubs are just hoarding a giant pile of cash is simply non-sense.

Now, it's also partly their fault for not being a high revenue club. If a market like St. Louis can build what they did, then other small and mid market clubs can too.

I just feel like there is this belief from fans that believe those low revenue clubs have the ability to spend $150M+ on payroll and that's simply not the case.

 

[Winger for Hire]

We'll never truly know because they refuse to open the books, because then they can't cry poor or beg for tax dollars, but for some reason teams have no problem reporting every single cent of a player's new deal with exact buyout amounts, options, and clauses.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We'll never truly know because they refuse to open the books, because then they can't cry poor or beg for tax dollars, but for some reason teams have no problem reporting every single cent of a player's new deal with exact buyout amounts, options, and clauses.

You can see the data on Forbes.

You also fail to realize why the salaries are made public. It provides bargaining power for the players to know how much a comparable player makes, and it's necessary for any sort of luxury tax or salary cap system. Those numbers have to be public.

 

[Winger for Hire]

No, I know exactly why they're released and why they keep the books closed, you're the prime example of the result of it; it's to keep the fans' ire pointed at the players asking to be compensated and the answers to the questions of where the money is being spent theoretical.

The data on Forbes are estimates and guesses, nothing concrete.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No, I know exactly why they're released and why they keep the books closed, you're the prime example of the result of it; it's to keep the fans' ire pointed at the players asking to be compensated and the answers to the questions of where the money is being spent theoretical.

The data on Forbes are estimates and guesses, nothing concrete.

Don't assume my ire, you can look on this thread of what my views are. The guys getting screwed are the Whit Merrifield types, the late-bloomers that never have a chance to earn a big contract that they deserve. MLB just needs to make all players free agents by a certain age under 30, similar to what the NHL does. The guys at the top are whining about not getting their 8-10+ year monster deals, but that isn't the issue.

I rarely see people that are pro-owner. People are pro-parity and pro-balance. And they get sick of the pissing match between the players that have already made a ton of money and the owners. I don't care what Longoria says about the system, he's going to make more money in the worst years of his career than all his other years combined, and that's the problem. The system needs to shift, so players make money earlier, and teams don't get tied down to awful contracts. Clubs are now resisting those awful deals, but players aren't getting the benefit of being paid big money earlier.

 

[tony d]

For me, players are overpaid. I get they're entertainers and sports is a business now but no way does someone who hits a ball for a living, no way should he make as much money as these players make.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, if fans are for anything, it should be a more affordable experience. I get why prices are what they are, but that's at least what fans should be for. I don't take sides on the players vs owners pissing match.

 

[robert terwilliger]

The idea that those clubs are just hoarding a giant pile of cash is simply non-sense.

this is the real nonsense. i've said it a few times in this thread and elsewhere, the amount of money mlb brings in before a person comes to one of their games is staggering.

to fill that out, joe sheehan had a newsletter about a month ago which outlined what teams make before they even open the park.

broadcast rights for fox, espn and turner net teams about 50 million dollars before a ticket is sold. even teams that aren't on these networks get the same cut. sheehan brings up the marlins and the yankees. the yankees were on sunday night baseball five times (seemed like a lot more) and received 22 million dollars from espn. the marlins appeared zero times on sunday night baseball and received 22 million dollars. it doesn't matter, you get paid. plus, factor in your local tv deal (anywhere from 20-30 million dollars) and mlbam/bamtech whatever you want to call it, and you're clearing 100 million dollars before anyone parks a car.

the point is: there are teams who want to use this money to make their team better and they're being hamstrung. sure, smarter front offices play into it. you're paying guaranteed money. but again, this is taxing teams who want to win while ignoring the teams who are in year 14 of a "3 year rebuild" or who sold off anything not nailed down (or in the marlins' case, gave away what was nailed down with ****ing adamantium nails). soon, it's going to be time's up for the astros when bregman needs to be paid more than 599k for his work. and that's the point. they've shortened the market, stuck all the value on using guys when they're not being paid and then when it comes time for them to be paid..."well, it's just a tough market now and we need to get under the cbt" **** every inch of that.

these teams can absolutely hold a payroll. owners are billionaires. with a b. mlb made over 10 billion dollars last year. revenue has never been higher. yet still we hear the plight of those plucky small market teams and how, aw shucks, they just can't hang with those big market guys. it's bullshit.

 

[John Price]

this is the real nonsense. i've said it a few times in this thread and elsewhere, the amount of money mlb brings in before a person comes to one of their games is staggering.



these teams can absolutely hold a payroll. owners are billionaires. with a b. mlb made over 10 billion dollars last year. revenue has never been higher. yet still we hear the plight of those plucky small market teams and how, aw shucks, they just can't hang with those big market guys. it's bull****.

Opinion: MLB's free agency freeze is an embarrassment for baseball

 

[bleedblue1223]

this is the real nonsense. i've said it a few times in this thread and elsewhere, the amount of money mlb brings in before a person comes to one of their games is staggering.

these teams can absolutely hold a payroll. owners are billionaires. with a b. mlb made over 10 billion dollars last year. revenue has never been higher. yet still we hear the plight of those plucky small market teams and how, aw shucks, they just can't hang with those big market guys. it's bull****.

Revenue is high and expenses are high, that doesn't mean profits are high for low-revenue clubs. Owners aren't going to throw their personal fortune away to run a sports team. Should some of those lower end clubs have higher payrolls in today's market, absolutely, but to what degree? The fact that we have hockey teams spending more or as much as some baseball clubs is insane. The only way you get payroll minimum is with a salary cap though. If the cap is set very high though, then it won't be a big deal, but that would be the concern. The high revenue clubs will always be able to do more than the low revenue clubs, that's not bull****, but it's also not that big of a problem.

This also has very little to do with Harper and Machado. Clubs just don't want to give 8+ year deals. Those contracts rarely work out. And if they want top dollar on top of the term, then it's just going to push teams away. Just because they are young doesn't mean much, just look at Heyward. The big stars need to adjust expectations. The days of Boras getting everything he wants is over.

The blueprint for championship teams lately has been to suck and get top draft picks. We shouldn't go back to the days where picks could hold teams hostage, but maybe we go to a lottery system to discourage tanking. Since you are able to control players for so young at inexpensive contracts, it's simply smart for low revenue clubs to tank and accumulate young talent, and then repeat. Would you rather be a low-revenue club that is never good enough to win, but never bad enough for top draft picks, or be like the Marlins during that stretch 97-03?

What benefit does signing a bunch of mediocre players to overpriced deals provide? And what higher priced free agents would actually want to sign for a team like the current Royals or current Marlins?

 

[bleedblue1223]

Maybe you do sort of a anti-luxury tax where you lose draft spots if you don't spend a certain % of revenue or set figure on payroll.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Yeah, if fans are for anything, it should be a more affordable experience. I get why prices are what they are, but that's at least what fans should be for. I don't take sides on the players vs owners pissing match.

"I don't take sides between owners and players" is implicit support for ownership.

 

[bleedblue1223]

"I don't take sides between owners and players" is implicit support for ownership.

No, no it's not, but you should also noticed I used the word pissing match. The whining back and forth, I don't take sides on that. I'm on the players side to get to free agency quicker, and the owners side for avoiding the super long-term deals.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

It's more high rev vs low rev teams. St. Louis isn't a big market, but it's a cash cow, not enough to be exactly on par with the huge spenders, but big enough to compete with the big boys.

I also don't think fans should expect owners to throw their personal fortune at a club and lose a ton of money in the process. You still have a handful of clubs with negative operating income in any given year.

The last part is what rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I don't expect owners to put themselves in debt over a team (if that is ever the case, the league should step in and force a sell), but these guys often own as a luxury. They've made (or often inherited) their wealth in other areas. These guys don't make a peep when they're profits are hand over fist, but the second they get out of the green and somewhere near the red they want empathy. They won't be getting any from me.


Most of us poor folk have to ride out the bad times whether it be the economy, stock market or job market.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The last part is what rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I don't expect owners to put themselves in debt over a team (if that is ever the case, the league should step in and force a sell), but these guys often own as a luxury. They've made (or often inherited) their wealth in other areas. These guys don't make a peep when they're profits are hand over fist, but the second they get out of the green and somewhere near the red they want empathy. They won't be getting any from me.

Most of us poor folk have to ride out the bad times whether it be the economy, stock market or job market.

The public funding of stadiums needs to end, completely agree, along with other corporate welfare that they get. That's what annoys me about it. Owners should should cover costs with their own money and debt, fans just shouldn't expect them to lose money by signing players they can't afford. If they can't afford to simply run a team, even on a reduced payroll, then they shouldn't own a team. I'm not sure how many are looking for empathy, but they shouldn't receive any. Even if they lose money, none of us are forcing them into bad business decisions.

It's disgusting what some owners do when they try to hold cities hostage into giving them great tax breaks or raising public money.

 

[Elvis P]

Will the Phils deal Sixto for Realmuto?