Willy Adames goes to San Fran 7 years, $182 million

[Thurston Fluff]

Thinking about it a bit more I wonder if small market teams are ok with the current system because without it the price of players in their prime would have to go up. If we accept players are going to get a certain amount of the total pie the only thing to be figured out is how to spread that set amount around to the players. The current system pays older players well past their prime a significant portion of it. Mostly paid by large market teams that can waste their money. That leaves less money for players in their prime, which in turn gives small market teams access to them. The players are ok with that because they know their payday is coming. Take away the past their prime, making too much for their abilities from the equation and the cost of productive players in their prime would have to go up.

[tmwiese55]

I think when I've looked into this in the past with a "why don't 3/4 of the teams vote together to change this" type perspective the reason I found isn't that the teams wouldn't do it, it is that they also need the players union to do it, and they won't. So the small market teams don't bother with it knowing the Union will block it.  So avoiding the fight/strike issues of it

[sveumrules]

10 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

I think when I've looked into this in the past with a "why don't 3/4 of the teams vote together to change this" type perspective the reason I found isn't that the teams wouldn't do it, it is that they also need the players union to do it, and they won't. So the small market teams don't bother with it knowing the Union will block it.

Yup. MLBPA believes the market system gets their players the most money.

[tmwiese55]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Yup. MLBPA believes the market system gets their players the most money.

Right, which is probably technically true as the current system allows for teams to spend so much they lose money on a yearly basis. A cap system would be like the NFL sharing the known money.    However, there is probably an argument an NFL/NBA type system would be better for the overall union members as it would spread the wealth around instead of it being so top heavy for the few who get the lottery ticket like Soto while so many other toil away from ages 18-32 making minor league pay, then league min/arby until they're too old to get a big pay day.  NBA is the best example of that, they've held down the elite elite guys salaries so all the 3-4th tiers and role players can still get set for life contracts.   There's probably a debate among the players on this

[sveumrules]

7 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

There's probably a debate among the players on this

There definitely is.

Jack Flaherty, Ian Happ and Lucas Giolito all allegedly were pushing for Harry Marino (who helped minor leaguers into the union) to replace Bruce Meyer (who led talks for the 2022 CBA). Some even characterized it as an "attempted coup" or "mutiny attempt".

All three were replaced as player reps on the 2024 MLBPA subcommittee.

Apparently Tony Clark's contract runs through 2027.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

6 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

There definitely is.

Jack Flaherty, Ian Happ and Lucas Giolito all allegedly were pushing for Harry Marino (who helped minor leaguers into the union) to replace Bruce Meyer (who led talks for the 2022 CBA). Some even characterized it as an "attempted coup" or "mutiny attempt".

All three were replaced as player reps on the 2024 MLBPA subcommittee.

Apparently Tony Clark's contract runs through 2027.

Yeah, this is a thoughtful discussion.

The politics of pro sports unions are fascinating. Not sure there's another industry where the spread between senior members and entry-level members is so wide. And MLBPA has clearly sided mainly with more veteran players in its negotiations. That makes sense on some level, as those players are more veteran, have more experience, and are probably more willing to speak up in meetings and such.

 

[BrewerFan]

12 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

Right, which is probably technically true as the current system allows for teams to spend so much they lose money on a yearly basis. A cap system would be like the NFL sharing the known money.    However, there is probably an argument an NFL/NBA type system would be better for the overall union members as it would spread the wealth around instead of it being so top heavy for the few who get the lottery ticket like Soto while so many other toil away from ages 18-32 making minor league pay, then league min/arby until they're too old to get a big pay day.  NBA is the best example of that, they've held down the elite elite guys salaries so all the 3-4th tiers and role players can still get set for life contracts.   There's probably a debate among the players on this

I don't know that it is true. I don't know the current system does maximize the revenue for players.

I don't know what % of revenue is going to the players this year, but it'd been trending down for a while, even with the massive money spent by the top few teams, it was ~38%, 39% of revenue was spent on players. 

NFL, NBA, NHL, they get 48%-51% of revenue.

But those leagues, the NFL in particular, they take all that TV money, put it in one pot and each team gets a check at the start of the year. That check is enough to cover the Packers operating expenses for the year. Maybe not in a year in which they go nuts with signing bonuses or basically circumvent the cap...but plenty to cover the salary cap and then some. 

This was Bud Selig's mission as commissioner, and he did some good work. Some of it is pretty gimmicky. The comp picks, whatever. He did increase revenue sharing...but it's not remotely similar to the other leagues. 

 

For now, the Brewers are competing by just doing more with less and their player development, and that can make it almost more fun at times...or maybe that's just rationalization, but it's better than calling the Brewers cheap constantly or pretending the chasm doesn't exist. 

[Playing Catch]

20 hours ago, sveumrules said:

There definitely is.

Jack Flaherty, Ian Happ and Lucas Giolito all allegedly were pushing for Harry Marino (who helped minor leaguers into the union) to replace Bruce Meyer (who led talks for the 2022 CBA). Some even characterized it as an "attempted coup" or "mutiny attempt".

All three were replaced as player reps on the 2024 MLBPA subcommittee.

Apparently Tony Clark's contract runs through 2027.

Right. This is why in my uneducated opinion, the mid-level players and the mid-level teams could team up to bargain.

There IS a hypothetical salary structure that could benefit the players AND competitive balance, I just don't know what it would be. Better compensation for minor leaguers and 40-man fodder was a good place to start. Mid-tier FAs, though, are problematic. But that has more to do with the ROI for teams signing them. Often times, AAAA-guys will end up performing just as well.

[owbc]

 

On 12/10/2024 at 11:02 PM, BrewerFan said:

I don't know that it is true. I don't know the current system does maximize the revenue for players.

I don't know what % of revenue is going to the players this year, but it'd been trending down for a while, even with the massive money spent by the top few teams, it was ~38%, 39% of revenue was spent on players. 

NFL, NBA, NHL, they get 48%-51% of revenue.

But those leagues, the NFL in particular, they take all that TV money, put it in one pot and each team gets a check at the start of the year. That check is enough to cover the Packers operating expenses for the year. Maybe not in a year in which they go nuts with signing bonuses or basically circumvent the cap...but plenty to cover the salary cap and then some. 

This was Bud Selig's mission as commissioner, and he did some good work. Some of it is pretty gimmicky. The comp picks, whatever. He did increase revenue sharing...but it's not remotely similar to the other leagues. 

 

For now, the Brewers are competing by just doing more with less and their player development, and that can make it almost more fun at times...or maybe that's just rationalization, but it's better than calling the Brewers cheap constantly or pretending the chasm doesn't exist. 

I think it's fair to ask what this spending spree is going to do for the Giants in terms of World Series odds or even playoff appearances. Assuming they sign Burnes or another high profile FA as well. 

In this new top-heavy era, we've got like 3-4 teams playing with monopoly money, but that leaves the #5-15 payroll teams in a weird spot where they are spending pretty heavily in free agency to keep up, while, in many cases, suffering a loss of local TV revenue. 

We could be in a situation where the Giants spend nearly half a billion dollars on two of our former players and I still might not want to swap their roster for ours. 

[tmwiese55]

Right, Giants are gonna be in a tough spot in 2-3 years paying the left of their infield like 60 mil as they turn into below avg players who hit .210.   

And to the above post, yes what can they really do with LA in their division. You're a big market so you have to spend but there's nothing you can really do to compete with LA in terms of buying enough players, so if you go that route you're gonna spend a ton of money just to come in 2-3rd place while probably having a large yearly financial loss on your books every year.  

[treego14]

[monty57]

It will be interesting to see how Adames does going forward. He's been a pretty solid 3-4 WAR player since his age 23 season. Interestingly, in the years that his offense has suffered, he's played better defense to keep his value up. 

2025 will be his age 29/30 season (turns 30 in Sept), so you'd think he'll have a few more 3-4 WAR seasons, where he'll "live up to" the contract, and then start to regress and be overpaid for the remainder of the contract. 

These are the type of contracts the Brewers shouldn't sign, so I have no problem with him leaving. If his offense hadn't slipped in '23, I think he'd have been traded away. Instead, we got to enjoy the best offensive year of his career, and will get a draft pick as compensation. 

He seems like a great guy, and I wish him well. I'm glad the Brewers didn't sign him to this deal, and think that they should (and will) continue to trade away most of their pending free agents when they have a year or so of "team control" left. In this case where they didn't do that, I'm glad that they got what will likely be Adames' career season in return for not getting anything back in trade.