Olney on free agency trends

[NCsoxfan]

Good article by Olney about what FA has turned into. Since it's insider, here is an excerpt (all I can provide)

 

The agent touched on a damaging part of the trend for free agents: Because so many players have to settle for one-year deals this winter, almost all of them will be looking for spots next winter, increasing the flood of players looking for jobs.

 

The greater the supply of available players, the more that the salaries are depressed for players who aren't the elite free agents.

 

"When 80 percent of the players get 20 percent of the money," one agent said, "they will realize that the system that they bargained for was horrific."

 

Clubs that are going to lose have no incentive to spend. As a result of the tens of millions of dollars gleaned from television and MLB.com deals, teams no longer have to rely on attendance as their primary source of revenue. Clubs have no incentive to spend money on players to improve their ability to compete, and some teams are choosing to keep their money rather than make their clubs incrementally more competitive, or spend on a name player like Napoli.

[ptatc]

Good article by Olney about what FA has turned into. Since it's insider, here is an excerpt (all I can provide)

 

The agent touched on a damaging part of the trend for free agents: Because so many players have to settle for one-year deals this winter, almost all of them will be looking for spots next winter, increasing the flood of players looking for jobs.

 

The greater the supply of available players, the more that the salaries are depressed for players who aren't the elite free agents.

 

"When 80 percent of the players get 20 percent of the money," one agent said, "they will realize that the system that they bargained for was horrific."

 

Clubs that are going to lose have no incentive to spend. As a result of the tens of millions of dollars gleaned from television and MLB.com deals, teams no longer have to rely on attendance as their primary source of revenue. Clubs have no incentive to spend money on players to improve their ability to compete, and some teams are choosing to keep their money rather than make their clubs incrementally more competitive, or spend on a name player like Napoli.

Its not just the clubs that think this way. Its also many of the fans. Just look at the posts on this one. If the team doesn't have a chance to win the world series they should tank the season for better draft picks.

[Panerista]

Its not just the clubs that think this way. Its also many of the fans. Just look at the posts on this one. If the team doesn't have a chance to win the world series they should tank the season for better draft picks.

I wouldn't go as far as saying "tanking is necessary". I would go as far as saying good drafting and system building are more critical now than ever before, and teams are less and less likely to let their home grown assets leave. As a result, the quality of free agents is bad, teams overpay bad free agents, and they lose.

 

I mean this isn't as bad as the NBA, where if you don't have a generational talent, you're not winning championships, but being bad at least prevents management from trading away young talent for a short fix.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sox-35th

[witesoxfan]

Good article by Olney about what FA has turned into. Since it's insider, here is an excerpt (all I can provide)

 

The agent touched on a damaging part of the trend for free agents: Because so many players have to settle for one-year deals this winter, almost all of them will be looking for spots next winter, increasing the flood of players looking for jobs.

 

The greater the supply of available players, the more that the salaries are depressed for players who aren't the elite free agents.

 

"When 80 percent of the players get 20 percent of the money," one agent said, "they will realize that the system that they bargained for was horrific."

 

Clubs that are going to lose have no incentive to spend. As a result of the tens of millions of dollars gleaned from television and MLB.com deals, teams no longer have to rely on attendance as their primary source of revenue. Clubs have no incentive to spend money on players to improve their ability to compete, and some teams are choosing to keep their money rather than make their clubs incrementally more competitive, or spend on a name player like Napoli.

 

I don't buy what the agent is saying. Players are looking for one year deals so they can have a good year and net a multi-year deal. They do not "have" to settle for a one year deal. I have no basis for this other than deductive reason, but to assume that Jose Bautista didn't have a multi-year offer in the range of $12-15 million is absolutely ludicrous. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/01/blue...e-bautista.html

 

As the story goes - $17 million guaranteed, $18 million mutual option, $500K buyout, attendance bonuses, and a $20 million vesting option for 2019. I feel the Jays caved in, not the player, in this regard. That mutual option has about a 1% chance of being picked up by both sides, so he will receive $17.5 million to play for one year in Toronto. The qualifying offer is $17.2 million. How is that unfair to the player?

 

Teams are making multi-year offers. Players are declining those to attempt to cash in later. Ask Matt Wieters and Colby Rasmus how that worked out.

 

They are probably mentioning 1-2 WAR players like Chris Carter, Mike Napoli, Jason Hammel, and the like, for having not signed yet, even though it's February 4th. "Well, you're a 1-2 WAR player with a lot of reasons to question your long-term health as an employee of this organization." Carter does not make near enough contact nor play enough defense to justify a multi-year deal, Mike Napoli is old, and Jason Hammel has consistently been a dud in the second half (career ERA: 1st - 3.99 2nd - 5.06, FIP: 1st - 4.05, 2nd - 4.48, xFIP: 1st - 3.98, 2nd - 4.20) and has never thrown 178 innings or more in a season in his career.

 

Beyond that, clubs that are going to lose absolutely have incentive to spend. The Cubs brought in Scott Feldman on a 1 year, $6 million deal and acquired Jake Arrieta and Pedro Strop. They have no incentive to spend EXCESSIVELY, but they have incentive to spend.

 

I have not read this article, and don't want this Filibuster'd, but this sounds like a bulls*** excuse from a union executive b****ing about his members not getting "the money" "they deserve," wholly failing to understand the rapidly evolving market that is the MLB in general. As boring as this has been, this offseason has probably seen the most amount of reasonable and justifiable deals in the history of the league. If we are really questioning the Kendrys Morales deal as one of the worst, then I think we've reached a new peak.

[Dominikk85]

I don't buy what the agent is saying. Players are looking for one year deals so they can have a good year and net a multi-year deal. They do not "have" to settle for a one year deal. I have no basis for this other than deductive reason, but to assume that Jose Bautista didn't have a multi-year offer in the range of $12-15 million is absolutely ludicrous. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/01/blue...e-bautista.html

 

As the story goes - $17 million guaranteed, $18 million mutual option, $500K buyout, attendance bonuses, and a $20 million vesting option for 2019. I feel the Jays caved in, not the player, in this regard. That mutual option has about a 1% chance of being picked up by both sides, so he will receive $17.5 million to play for one year in Toronto. The qualifying offer is $17.2 million. How is that unfair to the player?

 

Teams are making multi-year offers. Players are declining those to attempt to cash in later. Ask Matt Wieters and Colby Rasmus how that worked out.

 

They are probably mentioning 1-2 WAR players like Chris Carter, Mike Napoli, Jason Hammel, and the like, for having not signed yet, even though it's February 4th. "Well, you're a 1-2 WAR player with a lot of reasons to question your long-term health as an employee of this organization." Carter does not make near enough contact nor play enough defense to justify a multi-year deal, Mike Napoli is old, and Jason Hammel has consistently been a dud in the second half (career ERA: 1st - 3.99 2nd - 5.06, FIP: 1st - 4.05, 2nd - 4.48, xFIP: 1st - 3.98, 2nd - 4.20) and has never thrown 178 innings or more in a season in his career.

 

Beyond that, clubs that are going to lose absolutely have incentive to spend. The Cubs brought in Scott Feldman on a 1 year, $6 million deal and acquired Jake Arrieta and Pedro Strop. They have no incentive to spend EXCESSIVELY, but they have incentive to spend.

 

I have not read this article, and don't want this Filibuster'd, but this sounds like a bulls*** excuse from a union executive b****ing about his members not getting "the money" "they deserve," wholly failing to understand the rapidly evolving market that is the MLB in general. As boring as this has been, this offseason has probably seen the most amount of reasonable and justifiable deals in the history of the league. If we are really questioning the Kendrys Morales deal as one of the worst, then I think we've reached a new peak.

 

MLB salaries are actually dropping dramatically. Teams have realized that paying mediocre veterans is stupid and you can get almost the same production out of a minimum salary guy.

 

The union made a bignore mistake of only caring about vets (no salary cap, guaranteed contracts...) and ignoring the young players that they are so underpaid now that they take away jobs from the mediocre veterans.

 

The union needs to fight for the costs controlled players getting more expensive or having less control years so that vets become more attractive again.

 

And of course bautista could have gotten a longer contract but not a decently paid one. Of course those contracts are more reasonable from the owners perspective but overall the owners are robbing the players.

 

Owners should make a profit, as they carry the risk but the players share of the revenue has dropped more than 10 percent in the last decade.

 

[Dick Allen]

MLB salaries are actually dropping dramatically. Teams have realized that paying mediocre veterans is stupid and you can get almost the same production out of a minimum salary guy.

 

The union made a bignore mistake of only caring about vets (no salary cap, guaranteed contracts...) and ignoring the young players that they are so underpaid now that they take away jobs from the mediocre veterans.

 

The union needs to fight for the costs controlled players getting more expensive or having less control years so that vets become more attractive again.

 

And of course bautista could have gotten a longer contract but not a decently paid one. Of course those contracts are more reasonable from the owners perspective but overall the owners are robbing the players.

 

Owners should make a profit, as they carry the risk but the players share of the revenue has dropped more than 10 percent in the last decade.

The average major league salary was a recorded high $4.4 million last year with a record 127 players making at least $10 million. Salaries aren't dropping, they are being re-distributed. Napoli is a 35 year old who put up a 1.0 WAR. Carter is 30 and put up a 0.9. Added together they didn't equal Todd Frazier and we have posts here that claim Frazier was terrible last year. They aren't getting paid because the information says they shouldn't.

[rowand's rowdies]

Anyone think it's also in small part to the fact that most teams have now been burned at least once, sometimes many times by a big bad free agent signing? Which teams have been burned the most?

[GreenSox]

First, I think that advanced analytics has a lot to do with this. Chris Carter is both a 40 home run guy and a 1 WAR player. Teams value players differently. They also realize that they can get more value out of a cheap young player than an average veteran in many cases.

I also never understood why the players association was so hell bent on no international draft.

A draft would, among other things, improve the competitive balance...and with that comes less tanking/rebuilding. The reason teams need to rebuild is that many front offices are incapable of evaluating budding talent, signing it and developing it. So they have to get it pre-packaged and pre-evaluated from other orgs that know what they are doing. A draft gives the franchises with less skilled front offices a better chance.

Edited February 4, 2017 by GreenSox

[Dominikk85]

The average major league salary was a recorded high $4.4 million last year with a record 127 players making at least $10 million. Salaries aren't dropping, they are being re-distributed. Napoli is a 35 year old who put up a 1.0 WAR. Carter is 30 and put up a 0.9. Added together they didn't equal Todd Frazier and we have posts here that claim Frazier was terrible last year. They aren't getting paid because the information says they shouldn't.

 

That is not true.salaries go up but slower than mlb revenue. Of course the top salaries went up more but there is no re distribution happening, what happens is that the overall share pf the players goes down.

 

The players share dropped from 56 percent in 2002 to 40 percent.

https://www.google.de/amp/www.fangraphs.com...-android-huawei

 

Of course more players make 10m but that doesn't account for baseball inflation.

[ptatc]

First, I think that advanced analytics has a lot to do with this. Chris Carter is both a 40 home run guy and a 1 WAR player. Teams value players differently. They also realize that they can get more value out of a cheap young player than an average veteran in many cases.

I also never understood why the players association was so hell bent on no international draft.

A draft would, among other things, improve the competitive balance...and with that comes less tanking/rebuilding. The reason teams need to rebuild is that many front offices are incapable of evaluating budding talent, signing it and developing it. So they have to get it pre-packaged and pre-evaluated from other orgs that know what they are doing. A draft gives the franchises with less skilled front offices a better chance.

The only things the players association is concerned about, rightfully so, are things like increasing players salary, benefits and retirement. Thus, a draft of any kind decreases salary and player movement. They don't care about making teams competitive, that isn't their job.

[BlackSox13]

Anyone think it's also in small part to the fact that most teams have now been burned at least once, sometimes many times by a big bad free agent signing? Which teams have been burned the most?

Definitely a factor. Thinking off the top of my head over the last 20-30 years, the Yanks probably have the biggest laundry list of bad contracts. The list goes on and on for them. Boston has had some bad contracts too and then the Dodgers bailed them out with the Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford trade. Panda's current contract is a shiny example of polished s*** and Hanley's contract is a bit ugly too. But yeah, the Yanks are the perfect example of bad contracts. Hendry handed out some bad contracts in his time running the north side team. In all fairness, the Dunn contract turned to s*** as well.

[GreenSox]

The only things the players association is concerned about, rightfully so, are things like increasing players salary, benefits and retirement. Thus, a draft of any kind decreases salary and player movement. They don't care about making teams competitive, that isn't their job.

But having more teams competitive would increase player movement and player salaries.

The lack of competitive teams is a reason for the current situation.

[ptatc]

But having more teams competitive would increase player movement and player salaries.

The lack of competitive teams is a reason for the current situation.

I don't think that more competitive teams would effect the draft, international or otherwise. The players fought for FA and limiting the draft for a reason. More competitive teams won't effect FA either. If the teams really don't need to get substantially better, they won't hand out multiple FA deals, maybe only one to get them over the top.

 

The only way to really increase salaries is to just let the players go free without restrictions. The international draft would just limit some movement and not allow these players to get the best deal. This is why other leagues put caps and such on teams.

[GreenSox]

Well there are a lot of free and available players who aren't getting signed so I wonder if that model as a way to maximize player value isn't obsolete. There's a cap on what a team can pay international signees so I don't see how a draft affects total dollars. And if you aren't competitive you aren't putting much money into free agents.

I would think issues like roster expansion, cutting back season to 154 games and expanding playoffs would be more player friendly.

Edited February 5, 2017 by GreenSox

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Well there are a lot of free and available players who aren't getting signed so I wonder if that model as a way to maximize player value isn't obsolete. There's a cap on what a team can pay international signees so I don't see how a draft affects total dollars. And if you aren't competitive you aren't putting much money into free agents.

I would think issues like roster expansion, cutting back season to 154 games and expanding playoffs would be more player friendly.

Without commenting on FA salaries I often think the 162 game schedule is long overdue for a change but not sure if extended playoffs is needed . Pitchers already have too many injuries and extended playoffs would mean more short starting rotations when the 4th starter isn't usually used ( dependent on the type of series( 1/3/5/7 games). Obviously the farther you go in the playoffs means the best pitchers in the game will go through the most stressful innings . Not sure risking the health of the biggest pitching names in baseball is a very prudent idea. 1 game series seems so un baseball like when the season is based on having a great teams and a 1 game playoffs might hinge on who has the best 1 or 2 starting pitchers. Playoffs then become not who has the best team but who has the the best 2 starters and the best 2 bullpen pieces. The long season is a test of the depth of talent and short playoff series just contradict that.

 

But I am sure if the season ever gets shortened playoffs probably would be expanded .Playoffs games generate much more revenue for most teams so why not just make it more like hockey and decrease the regular season to 100 games and have all playoff series be 7 games except the 1st round with top teams getting byes. Now that idea is too radical and would screw with the record books but makes more sense and would give teams a lot more incentive to be competitive .

[caulfield12]

Without commenting on FA salaries I often think the 162 game schedule is long overdue for a change but not sure if extended playoffs is needed . Pitchers already have too many injuries and extended playoffs would mean more short starting rotations when the 4th starter isn't usually used ( dependent on the type of series( 1/3/5/7 games). Obviously the farther you go in the playoffs means the best pitchers in the game will go through the most stressful innings . Not sure risking the health of the biggest pitching names in baseball is a very prudent idea. 1 game series seems so un baseball like when the season is based on having a great teams and a 1 game playoffs might hinge on who has the best 1 or 2 starting pitchers. Playoffs then become not who has the best team but who has the the best 2 starters and the best 2 bullpen pieces. The long season is a test of the depth of talent and short playoff series just contradict that.

 

But I am sure if the season ever gets shortened playoffs probably would be expanded .Playoffs games generate much more revenue for most teams so why not just make it more like hockey and decrease the regular season to 100 games and have all playoff series be 7 games except the 1st round with top teams getting byes. Now that idea is too radical and would screw with the record books but makes more sense and would give teams a lot more incentive to be competitive .

 

 

It might make sense to limit April and September games, but those last thirty give teams an additional opportunity to look at their 40 man roster.

 

With content providers like cable/satellite, they want as many live games as possible to justify those packages...which of course flows from the original broadcast rights deal.

 

154 is more realistic, because of historical precedent. Of course, you also have add ons like WBC and games in Japan, Australia, Mexico, etc.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It might make sense to limit April and September games, but those last thirty give teams an additional opportunity to look at their 40 man roster.

 

With content providers like cable/satellite, they want as many live games as possible to justify those packages...which of course flows from the original broadcast rights deal.

 

154 is more realistic, because of historical precedent. Of course, you also have add ons like WBC and games in Japan, Australia, Mexico, etc.

No matter how long the season is teams will always need to look at their rosters and adjust accordingly. More teams in the playoffs with a shorter season will provide programming content that will generate higher ratings . Might not be on the localized networks but spread amongst the channels like TBS, ESPN, FOX CSNBC. MLBN with funds most likely distributed to all teams but more to the teams involved in the playoffs. Most local afilliates are owned by a larger conglomerate anyway like CSN Chicago by NBC which would probably also be in the mix to pick up playoff games. I just think 154 games with extended playoffs still makes the season too long and increased injury risk to superstars as well as all players. I know a much shorter season is a radical idea and many things including broadcast rights contracts would need to fall in line so the odds of it ever happening are very long indeed but I still think it makes more sense.