Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Collusion or just fianlly wising up?
10 months ago  ::  Jan 27, 2018 - 6:22PM #1
RobS44
Posts: 5,360
Less than 3 weeks before pitchers and catchers report some 110 FA are still out there in what has, essentially, been a non-existent FA market.  As you would expect Boras is grousing about it and players are beginning to express their frustration with the situation.

Are teams colluding to drive down the market or do you think they are finally wising up to the fact that the short term gain to handing out long, expensive contracts is inevitably followed a few years later of "how do we get rid of this guy," especially when the FA is 30 or older.

Case in point, Boras was initially looking for 7/$200+ for JD Martinez.  Boston has reportedly drawn a line at 5/$100-$125.  The only other team to express interest in Martinez appers to be AZ and they are widely believed not to be on a position to beat 5/$100.  Collusion or realization that anything more than 5/$100 is a losing proposition?
10 months ago  ::  Jan 27, 2018 - 7:54PM #2
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 12,880

The last modification to the Luxury Tax I think went too far.  None of the 30 teams are willing to stay above that at those penalties.

10 months ago  ::  Jan 27, 2018 - 8:24PM #3
bumper
Posts: 4,833

they were slow learners ...

10 months ago  ::  Jan 27, 2018 - 8:43PM #4
yank0428
Posts: 15,620

I thought this was a Trump thread.

10 months ago  ::  Jan 27, 2018 - 10:09PM #5
davis2
Posts: 15,489

Guess the owners' greed is gonna screw the sport again...

10 months ago  ::  Jan 28, 2018 - 8:15AM #6
NW
Posts: 13,046

Jan 27, 2018 -- 7:54PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


The last modification to the Luxury Tax I think went too far.  None of the 30 teams are willing to stay above that at those penalties.




There are only a few teams in serious danger of approaching the luxury tax zone.  I think the bigger issue is that baseball has become a young man's game again.  I've been saying for 2 to 3 years that 35 is the new 40 in baseball.  Part of it is a result of the steroid fallout but part of it is due to the current game being more favorable to the athletic and flexible player, something that generally drops off drastically post 30 (see Ells and Gardner).  The only exceptions are pitchers and more specifically relievers, which is why their market has been strong this winter.


With these older players in free agency becoming less desirable because they're less productive, teams aren't willing to pay as much.  If the union claimed collusion, all you'd have to do is take a sample of WAR v. salary for players over 35 and you'll see that management is more than justified.  If I were the union next time around, I'd bargain for earlier free agency, maybe cutting an arbitration year or a team control year.  That would at least make first-time free agents more desirable.

10 months ago  ::  Jan 28, 2018 - 9:23AM #7
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 12,880

Jan 28, 2018 -- 8:15AM, NW wrote:


Jan 27, 2018 -- 7:54PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


The last modification to the Luxury Tax I think went too far.  None of the 30 teams are willing to stay above that at those penalties.




There are only a few teams in serious danger of approaching the luxury tax zone.  I think the bigger issue is that baseball has become a young man's game again.  I've been saying for 2 to 3 years that 35 is the new 40 in baseball.  Part of it is a result of the steroid fallout but part of it is due to the current game being more favorable to the athletic and flexible player, something that generally drops off drastically post 30 (see Ells and Gardner).  The only exceptions are pitchers and more specifically relievers, which is why their market has been strong this winter.


With these older players in free agency becoming less desirable because they're less productive, teams aren't willing to pay as much.  If the union claimed collusion, all you'd have to do is take a sample of WAR v. salary for players over 35 and you'll see that management is more than justified.  If I were the union next time around, I'd bargain for earlier free agency, maybe cutting an arbitration year or a team control year.  That would at least make first-time free agents more desirable.




Maybe they need to loosen some of the restrictions on the banned list.

10 months ago  ::  Jan 28, 2018 - 11:26AM #8
Lulu
Posts: 3,086
Owners are finally wise that salaries and contracts are out of control.
The  Baseball union is too powerful, most powerful union in the country.
10 months ago  ::  Jan 28, 2018 - 12:21PM #9
GottaGoToMo
Posts: 74,061

Jan 27, 2018 -- 8:43PM, yank0428 wrote:


I thought this was a Trump thread.





LOL ... same here.

10 months ago  ::  Jan 28, 2018 - 12:21PM #10
Bats
Posts: 7,985

Jan 27, 2018 -- 6:22PM, RobS44 wrote:

Less than 3 weeks before pitchers and catchers report some 110 FA are still out there in what has, essentially, been a non-existent FA market.  As you would expect Boras is grousing about it and players are beginning to express their frustration with the situation.

Are teams colluding to drive down the market or do you think they are finally wising up to the fact that the short term gain to handing out long, expensive contracts is inevitably followed a few years later of "how do we get rid of this guy," especially when the FA is 30 or older.

Case in point, Boras was initially looking for 7/$200+ for JD Martinez.  Boston has reportedly drawn a line at 5/$100-$125.  The only other team to express interest in Martinez appers to be AZ and they are widely believed not to be on a position to beat 5/$100.  Collusion or realization that anything more than 5/$100 is a losing proposition?



Boras needs to have JD Martinez at 7/$200, which is about $28.6 mil  per year.  JD Martinez is a nice player, but he's no superstar. Boras is clearly paving the path for his work this coming November with Bryce Harper.  By raising the value of the floor, he obviously raises the value of the ceiling. If Martinez can get signed for 28.6 mil per year, Boras will argue that Harper is worth so much more and set his value to a starting point somewhere in the range of $40-50 mil per year. This would probably put Machado at $35, $40 mil per year? Probably?

Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum