Boras feeling the heat?

[southsider2k5]

Boras was a large part of building the beast that ownerships are now rebelling against.

[jenksycat]

Except is isn't really both ways, yes a few players get massive guaranteed contracts but the compensation is that ALL players are very cheap during their first 6-7 years which is their prime years. Sure it sucks you have to pay 30m to washed up pujols but both ways would mean giving pujols at 35 30 millions and trout or Bryant at age 24 50 millions per year instead of 500k.

 

The overpaying of (a few) veterans was the price owners paid for getting young talent to work for almost free. It worked excellent for the owners, sure there are the pujols deals but overall the players share of mlb revenue dropped a lot in the last 10 years (salaries went up but less so then mlb revenue).

 

If the teams now stop giving big contracts without raising young players pay (or shortening team control) that is simply a big pay cut while mlb makes more revenue than ever.

 

Sure owners need to make some profit and I think the tipping point isn't reached yet but if the players lose any more of the cake the union needs to do something.

 

 

Really the union did a bad job here. They were always selling the young guys but they didn't realize that teams got extra greedy (I.e. more efficient- which they can't be faulted for of course) and leaned more on young and cheap players instead of fulfilling their part of the deal and overpay the veterans. Union missed that trend.

 

I don't blame the GMs for finding a loophole and get more efficient but of course they can't continue to underpay young guys and get more efficient with veterans.

 

Owners need to make a decision which of the two groups they want to pay. Union will never get pay for both groups but no group of course isn't acceptable either.

 

It is both ways. You can't complain that 33 year olds aren't signing 150m deals anymore AND still have 100% guaranteed contracts. Way too much risk and it just took a good couple decades for teams to realize that.

 

If you want to say its a trade off for younger guys playing for peanuts fine, but there's nothing preventing a younger guy like Bryant from signing a 50m deal at 22 vs. betting on himself getting a 300m deal at 28. There's risk on both sides of that.

 

[Dominikk85]

Fortunately there is a trend of really good young players not signing extensions anymore. For a fringe guy like Anderson or singleton it makes sense but there is zero reason for a guy like Bryant or Harper to sign a 50m extension and hurt their future earning .

 

Agents of the really good guys need to make sure to find other income sources for the superstars (like doing tons of commercials) so that they don't need to sell themselves cheaply for security. Every year earlier counts in free agency. For a superstar one year earlier might be worth like 30m or so.

[Dominikk85]

It is both ways. You can't complain that 33 year olds aren't signing 150m deals anymore AND still have 100% guaranteed contracts. Way too much risk and it just took a good couple decades for teams to realize that.

 

If you want to say its a trade off for younger guys playing for peanuts fine, but there's nothing preventing a younger guy like Bryant from signing a 50m deal at 22 vs. betting on himself getting a 300m deal at 28. There's risk on both sides of that.

 

But it still less money than it used to be in an industry that is making more money. That is not acceptable. The owners should make profit but they can't cut player salaries while making more profit. No team ever was crippled by an albtratros contract.

 

I'm not saying teams should continue to sign pujols deals but they need to give the money they save back to the players in some way. It is really not about the players getting more, it just is about keeping their share of baseball revenue stable. I think a 50/50 revenue share between players and teams would be fair (like it is in nba). Maybe even 60/40 for the owners but players can't put up with any less.

[Balta1701]

But it still less money than it used to be in an industry that is making more money. That is not acceptable. The owners should make profit but they can't cut player salaries while making more profit. No team ever was crippled by an albtratros contract.

 

I'm not saying teams should continue to sign pujols deals but they need to give the money they save back to the players in some way. It is really not about the players getting more, it just is about keeping their share of baseball revenue stable. I think a 50/50 revenue share between players and teams would be fair (like it is in nba). Maybe even 60/40 for the owners but players can't put up with any less.

Then the league needs to take actions to make it possible for teams to compete at mid-levels of payroll. Teams may not be badly damaged by huge contracts in the modern league, but if spending $70 million in one offseason in new payroll like the 2015 White Sox did takes you from 73 wins to 76 wins, then that money was basically wasted.

 

Teams will not spend money if spending money does not give them a chance to earn more. Right now the league is staring up at the Yankees and Dodgers who are spending huge money and developing talent, and saying "The only way we can keep up with them is to do what the Indians and Astros and Cubs and Royals did - amass an overwhelming amount of young talent". And they're not wrong! That's the current path open to a title, either be the Yankees and Dodgers or do a full rebuild.

 

Until that dynamic is changed, then this is going to be the setup in the league. A sub .500 team isn't going to buy its way to competing for a wild card, let alone a championship; their only route to success is to rebuild. Throw in an occasional disaster like the Marlins on top of that and you've got the current league struccture.

[LittleHurt05]

Then the league needs to take actions to make it possible for teams to compete at mid-levels of payroll. Teams may not be badly damaged by huge contracts in the modern league, but if spending $70 million in one offseason in new payroll like the 2015 White Sox did takes you from 73 wins to 76 wins, then that money was basically wasted.

 

Teams will not spend money if spending money does not give them a chance to earn more. Right now the league is staring up at the Yankees and Dodgers who are spending huge money and developing talent, and saying "The only way we can keep up with them is to do what the Indians and Astros and Cubs and Royals did - amass an overwhelming amount of young talent". And they're not wrong! That's the current path open to a title, either be the Yankees and Dodgers or do a full rebuild.

 

Until that dynamic is changed, then this is going to be the setup in the league. A sub .500 team isn't going to buy its way to competing for a wild card, let alone a championship; their only route to success is to rebuild. Throw in an occasional disaster like the Marlins on top of that and you've got the current league struccture.

 

Or the extremely wealthy owners can stop crying poor and spend at higher levels of payroll?

[Balta1701]

Or the extremely wealthy owners can stop crying poor and spend at higher levels of payroll?

They will only do that if it gives them a chance to put a team in the playoffs.

 

Take another example - Detroit. Detroit spent like it was going out of style the last couple years. They started last year with the 4th highest payroll in MLB on opening day. Was Detroit's spending a wise investment? God no. They wound up dumping their best players midseason because they were a 4th place team, after missing the playoffs the last 2 years. Why would I want my franchise to be like Detroit? They tried to do that and it was a crappy plan.

[LittleHurt05]

They will only do that if it gives them a chance to put a team in the playoffs.

 

Take another example - Detroit. Detroit spent like it was going out of style the last couple years. They started last year with the 4th highest payroll in MLB on opening day. Was Detroit's spending a wise investment? God no. They wound up dumping their best players midseason because they were a 4th place team, after missing the playoffs the last 2 years. Why would I want my franchise to be like Detroit? They tried to do that and it was a crappy plan.

 

After 4 consecutive division titles. I would love for my franchise to be like Detroit. They couldn't break through the playoff crapshoot, but it was still a great run.

[Eminor3rd]

Not really. I don't think a single franchise has been "crippled" by any FA in the last decade. What teams are doing is in response to the economic incentives currently in place. Those incentives, for the most part, encourage teams not to spend on FA.

 

I think that's a softer way of saying what I said. Boras has worked so hard to make free agents get paid MORE than they're worth, that he's essentially priced his clients out of teams' plans. He has made his own product so overpriced that the entire market has shifted to bypass him.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

Or the extremely wealthy owners can stop crying poor and spend at higher levels of payroll?

 

But this is a slippery slope, and the owners know it.

 

Okay, let's say the owners all collectively stop crying and decide to put more into payroll. Does Boras and the MLBPA then start saying, "Okay, I think this is fair now. We aren't going to ask more than we're being paid now"?

 

When it comes to finances, these sides are diametrically opposed. They have to constantly push against each other simply to avoid being swallowed up. If the owner's decide to give them 20% more, it doesn't erase the problem, it just means they now have to fight the exact same battle to avoid giving 25% more.

[jenksycat]

But it still less money than it used to be in an industry that is making more money. That is not acceptable. The owners should make profit but they can't cut player salaries while making more profit. No team ever was crippled by an albtratros contract.

 

I'm not saying teams should continue to sign pujols deals but they need to give the money they save back to the players in some way. It is really not about the players getting more, it just is about keeping their share of baseball revenue stable. I think a 50/50 revenue share between players and teams would be fair (like it is in nba). Maybe even 60/40 for the owners but players can't put up with any less.

 

They're not cutting salaries, they're just not giving out stupid salaries anymore. I'm not going to fault them for that, if you want them to make less money (which I agree with) then outlaw public funded stadiums, raise payroll floors, and pay minor leaguers more. Complaining that aging players aren't getting ridiculous contracts anymore isn't the answer.

[zisk]

But this is a slippery slope, and the owners know it.

 

Okay, let's say the owners all collectively stop crying and decide to put more into payroll. Does Boras and the MLBPA then start saying, "Okay, I think this is fair now. We aren't going to ask more than we're being paid now"?

 

When it comes to finances, these sides are diametrically opposed. They have to constantly push against each other simply to avoid being swallowed up. If the owner's decide to give them 20% more, it doesn't erase the problem, it just means they now have to fight the exact same battle to avoid giving 25% more.

 

 

I'd be cool with owners not spending on questionable free agents if they would lower prices on tickets with the savings.

 

I always go at least once a year to a home game, but if it were a little less expensive I would definitely go more often. FWIW

 

I'm 55 and am financially comfortable. Its got to be tough for younger less affluent people to afford a day at the park.

[greg775]

I'd be cool with owners not spending on questionable free agents if they would lower prices on tickets with the savings.

 

I always go at least once a year to a home game, but if it were a little less expensive I would definitely go more often. FWIW

 

I'm 55 and am financially comfortable. Its got to be tough for younger less affluent people to afford a day at the park.

 

Amen.

But that ship has sailed. If you want a good seat, not some ridiculous nosebleed, you will pay huge bucks. And baseball wasn't designed to be a sport for the elite. There are so many games it was supposed to be the affordable sport. Baseball and the NBA now are for the elite (if you want a good seat). Ridiculous but it won't ever change.

 

As far as baseball players, they are screwed because of modern sabes and metrics. Now 32 is considered old and in the past baseball players easily could play til 40 and were very productive. Now the cliche is you can't sign anybody to a significant deal over 32.

Lorenzo Cain is 31 and people are thrilled he's gone. Because they think he'll hit .140 as a 36 year old in his final year of contract. The players are in trouble cause they are now ancient at 30 cause of the Sabes people.

[Bob Sacamano]

I'd be cool with owners not spending on questionable free agents if they would lower prices on tickets with the savings.

 

I always go at least once a year to a home game, but if it were a little less expensive I would definitely go more often. FWIW

 

I'm 55 and am financially comfortable. Its got to be tough for younger less affluent people to afford a day at the park.

 

How "younger" are you talking?

[Bob Sacamano]

Amen.

But that ship has sailed. If you want a good seat, not some ridiculous nosebleed, you will pay huge bucks. And baseball wasn't designed to be a sport for the elite. There are so many games it was supposed to be the affordable sport. Baseball and the NBA now are for the elite (if you want a good seat). Ridiculous but it won't ever change.

 

As far as baseball players, they are screwed because of modern sabes and metrics. Now 32 is considered old and in the past baseball players easily could play til 40 and were very productive. Now the cliche is you can't sign anybody to a significant deal over 32.

Lorenzo Cain is 31 and people are thrilled he's gone. Because they think he'll hit .140 as a 36 year old in his final year of contract. The players are in trouble cause they are now ancient at 30 cause of the Sabes people.

 

Of course players can still play well into their 30s. But for the most parrt, they're declining. I'm not surprised you don't get this though. (Oops fed the troll again)

[Soxfest]

Sorry Bor-ASS people do not want to give 10 year contracts to a 31 year old anymore. Boo hoo

[caulfield12]

But it still less money than it used to be in an industry that is making more money. That is not acceptable. The owners should make profit but they can't cut player salaries while making more profit. No team ever was crippled by an albtratros contract.

 

I'm not saying teams should continue to sign pujols deals but they need to give the money they save back to the players in some way. It is really not about the players getting more, it just is about keeping their share of baseball revenue stable. I think a 50/50 revenue share between players and teams would be fair (like it is in nba). Maybe even 60/40 for the owners but players can't put up with any less.

 

You’ve just stated the problems of current labor markets around the world.

 

Owners are making and taking a bigger and bigger share of the pie...workers have become more and more productive and efficient, but are making an increasingly decreasing share of revenue.

 

What is fair/just/equitable?

 

Of course, in real life, MLB theoretically has a strong labor union (the opposite of realtime economic world trends) and a supply of labor that can’t be outsourced or replaced.

 

Players are earning more than ever before, it’s just that owners’ shares and franchise value escalation is climbing even more rapidly, and that’s partly a symptom of the huge financial growth since 2009 for the top 20%. Another factor is steroids not extending careers into the late 30’s or early 40’s.

Edited January 27, 2018 by caulfield12

[SCCWS]

If their revenue was affected up or down it's really just a drop in the bucket. As I mentioned up thread because of the national money pouring in from revenue sharing, MLBAM, etc -- winning has never been more decoupled from revenue.

 

Baseball's economics are broken right now. We need a salary floor and to seriously reconsider revenue sharing and the bulls*** "small market" compensation crap. There are no "small markets" in MLB right now -- only profitable markets and more profitable markets.

 

 

 

Not really. I don't think a single franchise has been "crippled" by any FA in the last decade. What teams are doing is in response to the economic incentives currently in place. Those incentives, for the most part, encourage teams not to spend on FA.

 

Major League Baseball (MLB), with its 30 teams, generated around 9 billion U.S. dollars in total revenue in the 2016 season, almost twice the revenue generated ten years ago, when total revenue was at 5.5 billion U.S. dollars. On average each team generated almost 300.9 million U.S. dollars in revenue in 2016.

 

Boston, for example, has revenue growth of about $20 Million every year. They continually pay huge salaries, have a string of players who seem to underproduce based on their mega salaries and their owner's keep smiling as the armored trucks keep making deliveries.

Edited January 27, 2018 by SCCWS

[LittleHurt05]

But this is a slippery slope, and the owners know it.

 

Okay, let's say the owners all collectively stop crying and decide to put more into payroll. Does Boras and the MLBPA then start saying, "Okay, I think this is fair now. We aren't going to ask more than we're being paid now"?

 

When it comes to finances, these sides are diametrically opposed. They have to constantly push against each other simply to avoid being swallowed up. If the owner's decide to give them 20% more, it doesn't erase the problem, it just means they now have to fight the exact same battle to avoid giving 25% more.

 

Nobody ever has enough money, so that's gonna happen no matter what. That can be countered with, the owners are worth nine/ten figures, do they really need to raise ticket prices or not sign any free agents?

 

I don't have as much of a problem with teams doing complete rebuilds like the Sox or Atlanta, because they have a plan and a window where they plan to be competitive. It's teams like Pittsburgh and Tampa who kind of compete, but never put in the assets, while the owners are worth so much and will make so much money off the team in the long run, but claim small market.

[SCCWS]

Nobody ever has enough money, so that's gonna happen no matter what. That can be countered with, the owners are worth nine/ten figures, do they really need to raise ticket prices or not sign any free agents?

 

I don't have as much of a problem with teams doing complete rebuilds like the Sox or Atlanta, because they have a plan and a window where they plan to be competitive. It's teams like Pittsburgh and Tampa who kind of compete, but never put in the assets, while the owners are worth so much and will make so much money off the team in the long run, but claim small market.

 

Agree. I think Boston is a good example. They have signed some huge contracts, many of which have turned out to be for players who under-performed afterwards. But every year, their revenue goes up about $20 Million. So their ownership is going to continue as long as the Brink's trucks keep dropping off bundles of money.

 

In the last 10 years, MLB teams total revenue has doubled.

 

[wrathofhahn]

The teams that signed Pujols Fielder Ellsbury etc may be tired of setting their money on fire. But I would ask you how many of those franchises are having financial problems because of it. They may not have gotten player production vs dollars spent but did the signing of those players generate income? Did they sell more tickets?? Did they sell more merchandise? Did their advertising revenue increase. These owners are not dummies. They are making money by the truckloads. When their bottom line gets affected they will watch what they spend on salaries. But if spending X ( even if they don't get their true value) nets them X+ they will continue to spend millions on salaries to make more millions in revenue.

 

The answer is no those teams have not gotten a good return on their investment and since we have one of these players on the roster ourselves lets just keep things honest. Does Shields sell more merchandise? Does he draw fans? Does he increase advertising revenue?

 

I mean what you are saying is nuts. The other problem is most of these players switch teams so the fan attachment is not there after they struggle Pujols is he beloved by Angels fans? No. Was Fielder beloved by Tigers fans? Ellsbury with Yankee fans?

 

Except is isn't really both ways, yes a few players get massive guaranteed contracts but the compensation is that ALL players are very cheap during their first 6-7 years which is their prime years. Sure it sucks you have to pay 30m to washed up pujols but both ways would mean giving pujols at 35 30 millions and trout or Bryant at age 24 50 millions per year instead of 500k.

 

The overpaying of (a few) veterans was the price owners paid for getting young talent to work for almost free. It worked excellent for the owners, sure there are the pujols deals but overall the players share of mlb revenue dropped a lot in the last 10 years (salaries went up but less so then mlb revenue).

 

Why would opposing GM's care how much surplus value a player produced for an opposing club? Their job is to produce wins for their club not right some sort of inequality between a player and their old club. Should we sign Jose Bautista to a six year 200 million deal because the Blue Jays were able to extract so much surplus value through his prime years?

 

I mean comeon.

 

I think that's a softer way of saying what I said. Boras has worked so hard to make free agents get paid MORE than they're worth, that he's essentially priced his clients out of teams' plans. He has made his own product so overpriced that the entire market has shifted to bypass him.

 

It's complicated but that is a large part of the issue. I also think what doesn't get discussed enough as well is the impact of IFA. If you are a rebuilding club would you rather sign someone like Robert or Cain?

 

Lets say your window of contention is three years in the future. Well that makes Cain what 35. Robert was 19 and would be 22-23 and just ready to be called up. Which makes more sense?

 

The other issue that Boras has is once teams decide to forgo traditional FA and instead devote resources to scouting and the draft along with IFA then they also look to at that point sell off their own assets for prospect capital because that allows them to burn through cheap veterans and keep control of their prospects until they are ready to compete. For example for the Q trade. Q had 4 years of control when he was moved but three of those years of control are not valuable to a team that is rebuilding.

 

Eloy on the other hand has six years but you can keep him in the minors for one year or two years and call him up when you feel the team is closer to contention. For us Hahn has hinted at it being 2020 so lets say we call Eloy up in june to keep his clock set back a year. That means when Hahn feels we will be contenders Eloy will have FIVE years of control Q would have ONE year then be a FA.

 

I know it's a little convoluted but the idea is to have as many players become good at the same time to keep your window open as long as possible. Which makes perfect sense. The problem for Boras is these players eventhough under contract are essentially competing with top FA. If you are the Astros why sign Arrietta when you can just trade for Cole on a 1yr deal. I mean if you are going to extend anyone you would probably prefer it to be your own core players over a player whose 30+ with a declining fastball.

 

If you are the Cardinals and you need a corner OF would you rather trade for 27 year old Ozuna with two years of control remaining (4.8 WAR)? Or sign a 30 year old JD Martinez to a six year 200 million dollar deal or if you are lucky maybe he'll settle for 5 years 150 million (3.8 WAR)?

 

So yeah if you managed to get through this wall of text basically what I'm saying it's a combination of things that is causing this but the main reason is teams are just being smarter and rebuilding teams are realizing that while rebuilding their young players who won't be around when they are good have surplus value to teams that are looking to contend, it makes more sense to spend their budget on IFA, and contending teams realize inorder to keep their window open for as long as possible they need to extend the best YOUNG players on their roster and not be tied down to bad longterm deals for 30+ plus veterans. So they are using trades for shortterm upgrades rather then FA.

Edited January 27, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[mmmmmbeeer]

I don't have any issues with the annual values of today's contracts and, if Boras can prove that owners can afford high annual salaries based on a team's earning, I don't have any issue with those values increasing as franchise values increase.

 

What I despise are these long-term deals. I know it's cost us some FAs in the past, but I like the Sox position on contract length. I think we'll see this spread throughout the league as time goes on. Arbitration years often take a guy to what, 27-28yo? Then a team is supposed to burn a 10 year contract in the 200-300M range of guaranteed money on this player? That's just bad business and those types of contracts need to come to an end.

 

Shorten team control, increase league minimums, toss in a payroll floor...there are numerous ways owners could negotiate a contract length stipulation in the next CBA and I think it'd solve a lot of competitive issues in the league.

[caulfield12]

The answer is no those teams have not gotten a good return on their investment and since we have one of these players on the roster ourselves lets just keep things honest. Does Shields sell more merchandise? Does he draw fans? Does he increase advertising revenue?

 

I mean what you are saying is nuts. The other problem is most of these players switch teams so the fan attachment is not there after they struggle Pujols is he beloved by Angels fans? No. Was Fielder beloved by Tigers fans? Ellsbury with Yankee fans?

 

 

 

Why would opposing GM's care how much surplus value a player produced for an opposing club? Their job is to produce wins for their club not right some sort of inequality between a player and their old club. Should we sign Jose Bautista to a six year 200 million deal because the Blue Jays were able to extract so much surplus value through his prime years?

 

I mean comeon.

 

 

 

It's complicated but that is a large part of the issue. I also think what doesn't get discussed enough as well is the impact of IFA. If you are a rebuilding club would you rather sign someone like Robert or Cain?

 

Lets say your window of contention is three years in the future. Well that makes Cain what 35. Robert was 19 and would be 22-23 and just ready to be called up. Which makes more sense?

 

The other issue that Boras has is once teams decide to forgo traditional FA and instead devote resources to scouting and the draft along with IFA then they also look to at that point sell off their own assets for prospect capital because that allows them to burn through cheap veterans and keep control of their prospects until they are ready to compete. For example for the Q trade. Q had 4 years of control when he was moved but three of those years of control are not valuable to a team that is rebuilding.

 

Eloy on the other hand has six years but you can keep him in the minors for one year or two years and call him up when you feel the team is closer to contention. For us Hahn has hinted at it being 2020 so lets say we call Eloy up in june to keep his clock set back a year. That means when Hahn feels we will be contenders Eloy will have FIVE years of control Q would have ONE year then be a FA.

 

I know it's a little convoluted but the idea is to have as many players become good at the same time to keep your window open as long as possible. Which makes perfect sense. The problem for Boras is these players eventhough under contract are essentially competing with top FA. If you are the Astros why sign Arrietta when you can just trade for Cole on a 1yr deal. I mean if you are going to extend anyone you would probably prefer it to be your own core players over a player whose 30+ with a declining fastball.

 

If you are the Cardinals and you need a corner OF would you rather trade for 27 year old Ozuna with two years of control remaining (4.8 WAR)? Or sign a 30 year old JD Martinez to a six year 200 million dollar deal or if you are lucky maybe he'll settle for 5 years 150 million (3.8 WAR)?

 

So yeah if you managed to get through this wall of text basically what I'm saying it's a combination of things that is causing this but the main reason is teams are just being smarter and rebuilding teams are realizing that while rebuilding their young players who won't be around when they are good have surplus value to teams that are looking to contend, it makes more sense to spend their budget on IFA, and contending teams realize inorder to keep their window open for as long as possible they need to extend the best YOUNG players on their roster and not be tied down to bad longterm deals for 30+ plus veterans. So they are using trades for shortterm upgrades rather then FA.

 

If we still had Tatis, Jr., we wouldn't even have to worry about signing Machado for $250-300 million. Being out of those sweepstakes, we could instead focus on the second tier of FA's (spreading money around) to give you solid 2-3 WAR players around our young core. If the White Sox put all their eggs in the basket of signing Machado or Harper and that FA then went all Albert Belle as an Oriole, that would put a huge dent in their competitive window unless we still hit on as many prospects as the Cubs managed to do.

 

We'd also CLEARLY have the best farm system in all of MLB, not an argument with 2-3 others teams currently staking a position.

Edited January 29, 2018 by caulfield12

[BlackSox13]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/tony...-offseason.html

 

This would appear to be getting worse. I love baseball and I was happy to welcome baseball back in April of 95 after the strike. However, if that s*** were to happen again, f*** the owners and players, I would would wash my hands of the sport for good. Going on strike hurts the fans and fans only.

 

Let's hope the owners and players pull their heads out of their asses.

Edited February 3, 2018 by BlackSox13

[wrathofhahn]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/tony...-offseason.html

 

This would appear to be getting worse. I love baseball and I was happy to welcome baseball back in April of 95 after the strike. However, if that s*** were to happen again, f*** the owners and players, I would would wash my hands of the sport for good. Going on strike hurts the fans and fans only.

 

Let's hope the owners and players pull their heads out of their asses.

 

They can moan and groan all they want but GM's are just smarter now.

 

It's not like team payrolls aren't going up they are just being smarter with how they devote their resources.