KeithStone53151

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage. Yes, that one I'd classify as decent but probably not feasible for a few reasons. As you state, the larger markets would cry. However, that is a practical sticking point. This isn't so much like the NBA or NFL. Markets matter a bit more in the MLB and it could truly hurt the league's earning power if the Yankees are continuously hamstrung. The NBA is a bit of a closer example though not perfect. The Knicks are stupid and the league is doing fine, but I do think that if all of the huge markets cannot pay bigger players in the MLB how much it would thrive financially if the league's goal is to keep upping profits/revenues every season. Player salaries would also be drained a bit by this so the players also may not like it. Huge markets bid and set major asking prices on players which drives up cost in the absence of a harder salary cap. A floor helps a bit, but in theory, the players could probably have a bit of a gripe there. They have to like the idea that Bryce Harper will have 10 suitors driving up the price on him and in turn, on player salaries down the line for the teams that miss out on him. How is the cap enforced? Is it like the NBA where the teams can keep going further and further into the luxury tax zone as long as they're willing to pay and keeping their own players? To an extent, that's what the large markets have already done the past few years. A floor would ensure players get x% of the revenue. I'd be open to letting teams go over the cap line with severe penalties, like 100% for the first 20 million and 200% beyond that...something like that. At least that way the Dodgers might be spending $200-220 million while most other teams are between $145 and 155 million. That's a far cry from 2017 when the Dodgers had an opening day payroll of $247 million while 7 teams opened under $100 million and league average was $138. The big market advantage would be significantly diminished. And honestly if baseball becomes less profitable because the Yankees and Dodgers and Cubs aren't always in the playoffs to drive up ratings, too friggin bad. The argument that the most profitable teams should have an advantage is crap. How much less money would be in baseball if the small market teams weren't part of the league? Your point that guys like Harper/Machado/Kershaw/whomever would make less money is probably accurate to some degree as teams would still have to fill out the rest of their roster, but it wouldn't matter at all to the players side as a whole as they would still be getting x% of the profit...there would be no way for owners to collude or manipulate anything as they would be entitled to x%. I read somewhere that players salaries have steadily been at 56% of revenues. Maybe set the floor for 53% of revenues and the caps at 60% of revenues. You'd think the end result would be around 56%.

Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them. You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well. It's the agent's responsibility to properly assess the market and help players make the best decisions. That doesn't seem to be what's happening, mostly just whining/complaining/cries of collusion with nothing getting done. It's hard to know who's specifically at fault with the delayed market without knowing actual offers. Based on what Darvish signed for and what's been reported about him and others, the offers seem significant enough and not wildly unreasonable low balls. Also Boras has a reputation for being a "jagoff" as you put it, and there have been reported asking prices for his clients specifically that are wildly ridiculous. I imagine teams would line up to offer 1 year deals or even 2 year deals with an opt out after year 1 so these players can get in on the 2018-19 frenzy. The 2 year option mitigates some injury risk and lets players bet on themselves for one more year and hope to maximize their earnings.

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage.

This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players. And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold. Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground. Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid. I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year.

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game. This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players.

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards. Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names. Fair enough, I'm sure the agents/players won't have any problem with teams overpaying for consolations prizes that everyone knows won't perform up to contract expectations.

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me. Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons? From reading through this, the general consensus is the system needs to be adjusted as players decline quicker without PED support. Players should be paid more in their primes/more productive years. I don't think anyone has a good answer for how in a way that will keep all 3 parties happy(small market/big market/players). Crying foul now that teams got smarter and aren't standing in line to dole out stupid contracts anymore is a poor stance that agents/players insist on taking.

I hope teams aren't that stupid. Him missing half a season would be a team missing 50% of one of his "good" seasons. How would that increase his value? He certainly wouldn't get paid as if he pitched that whole season...

I wonder if Burgos has a future in the organization as a coach. I wouldn't be surprised at all. It seems like Burgos maximized his results based on his physical abilities. I know he didn't make the majors, but him making it to the majors at all with the stuff he has is generally surprising and commendable. We seem intent on keeping him around.

I agree about the 13 pitchers. You can do that when you have this much versatility in the lineup. The early-season schedule is a valid point though. Checking it now... Yeah, the thing with 4 starters and 8 relievers is not happening. 29 games in 31 days from 4/2 through 5/2. 13 pitchers is the way to go IMO. As the roster stands now, absolutely. I thought there was a chance we'd go 12 pitchers if we made 2 SP additions, but that doesn't seem realistic at this point. Even adding 1 guy, I still think we'd want 13 considering Woodruff is less established and we have the flexibility.

Media owes evidence not agents. I have a job and the burden isnt on me. Also those reported offers are bull. Source. My 15 years as an agent. Also commish citing his own network. Do you know definitively that they are bull? Most of these aren't your clients, do agents have a network where they share what they are being offered with other agents? I get why agents don't want to share negotiation information with the general public, and you absolutely don't owe us anything. But trashing owners in the media and calling collusion with no evidence to support your claims other than owners aren't meeting outlandish contract demands isn't going to do much to get public support. Almost every article related to the slow offseason sites the 2018-19 free agent class as part of a reason for the slow market. There are probably 6-7 players better than the very best player available in this FA class, including the likely $400 million dollar man. Do you disagree with the notion that teams want to get under the luxury tax this year and save some money to spend on some of these star players?

The agents of players will tell you the stuff being reported isn't accurate. Then offer no facts or evidence to the contrary, but trust them...the players are all getting screwed.

Not a huge fan of Boras, but I'd suggest a player deserves the largest amount that a team is willing to pay. That's what his players expect when they hire him, after all. Ultimately every free agent will get the largest amount a team is willing to pay......unless he turns down a better offer. "Deserve" makes me laugh.......what somebody "deserves" is not some cut and dried figure that an agent gets to decide. Each club will have a different interpretation......assuming they are interested at all. Did Cain get what he deserved? Depends if he stays healthy and performs well in the next 4 or 5 years. Clubs are trying to evaluate the future......not pay for the past. Boras doesn't try to get what he thinks is fair based on a players performance/stats/age/etc. He manipulates every data point he can to get his player the best possible deal he can. Which I understand is what an agent should do, but the extremes he goes to end up hurting players sometimes(Rafael Soriano anyone) and end in terrible deals for the teams more often than not. So you tell me if it's fair that he get his player far more money than he's worth and said player doesn't put up nearly the results expected? In the end, he's made a career of taking advantage of dumb GM's/owners that cave to the pressure to win. Well now a good chunk of those GM's that he screwed over with awful deals don't have jobs anymore(gee...I wonder why) and are replaced by much smarter GM's that see through his nonsense and aren't going to risk their jobs making bad signings. I believe this offseason would be much different if he didn't have any marquee free agents. I hope some of his more greedy free agents sit out half a season waiting for their fantasy land contract demands to be met...and cave to 1/2 year deals after firing Boras and try to reset their value for 2019.

Looking simply at opening day 2017 salaries vs current projected salaries for 2018...average payroll for OD 2017 was $138 million vs current 2018 projections with an average of $120 million. The $120 million doesn't include the Cubs signing Darvish, it is also missing some arbitration numbers and a large number of league minimum salaries. Factor those things in, and many of these free agents inevitably signing for big $/year amounts...average opening day payrolls will probably go up by a decent amount when all is said and done.

Every year many guys that had decent seasons the year before end up getting replaced by younger options. There's also generally a top down approach keeping middle-class guys like cashner from getting contacted. I'm sure he's talked to teams, but the Brewers/Twins/Phillies/other teams are targeting Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta/trades first with Cashner as a backup plan. Also, I'm not sure why a team needs to discuss anything but money with an agent. These teams have information coming out their ears on every single player, they know every single stat and attribute of every player before they call an agent. I love the quote from Boras, he's seeking what players deserve, that gave me a good laugh. Not once in his life has he ever seeked what a player deserved. I'd feel for the players a bit, but I'd somewhat enjoy if some of his players remained unsigned into May/June/July and fired him for better representation. That guy is a prick, and absolutely terrible for the sport.

Fans and posters might be serious (for whatever reason), but I doubt that Stearns and Counsell are. They are probably licking their chops at the possibility of a .880-.900+ OPS Braun in the middle of what this lineup could really be. If Braun is healthy, he plays. Not sure why we want to continuously debate that. Braun will hit 3rd 5-6 days per week when healthy, as he has the last 10 years at a high level with minimal signs of slowing down...certainly not enough for him to not be the very best hitter on the team. Better than Santana, better than Cain, Yelich is the only player that might be Braun's equal or close to it. I mean I get that some of you have outside the box takes sometimes, but let's be somewhat realistic here. Braun is more likely to throw on the Bernie Brewer suit every game than he is to be a platoon bat...even a soft platoon.

I believe I heard the Dodgers say they are concerned about Kershaw's injury history and are moving him to a swingman role to limit his risk of injury...come on you guys

They might demand Hader for both guys, which isn't happening. For Archer maybe we can get by giving up santana, burnes, peralta. For Colome maybe Ortiz and Lutz gets it done. That would severely dent the farm though.

Do you think they'd have interest in Taylor Williams or Jacob Barnes? Tack one of those guys onto a bit of a megatrade with Cleveland.

It sounds like many Indian fans would like to sell high on Mejia if you read their board. Can you provide a link? Must be defense/power concerns.

Santana won't be traded for just Corbin. Corbin will be one small piece to the puzzle. That said, I'd take Garcia for just $ over Corbin.

I don't see Arcia moving in any trade. If you remove Adames and Arcia, it's very lopsided in our favor.

For those eyeing up Mejia for Santana+, the Indians brought in some minor league depth at catcher. Probably is unrelated, but possible that the added depth allows them to move Mejia...

I honestly think the discussion is a waste of time as I don't see him approving a trade. The Dodgers don't have a need and there the lists ends, plus they'll probably be signing Harper next offseason to further diminish the need. And I don't see Braun being benched while healthy a significant amount. It will be occasional rest days. I don't see a situation where he's healthy and sitting the bench and getting fed up with Counsel. Have to be honest. If I'm the manager, right now Braun is a bench player. And it has nothing to do with stuff like "not liking Braun" or "sick of Braun's contract." If I'm Counsell it's the simple matter of wanting Yelich in left, Cain in center and Santana in right. Would try Braun at first base but considering the way Thames hit RHP last year, Braun would likely be on the worse end of a platoon situation there. And as far as working him into the outfield, I'd be just as motiviated to play Phillips as Braun when facing right handed pitching. Yelich and Santana seem to be fairly durable. When Cain misses time, Yelich and Santana still play the corners and Broxton/Phillips plays center. I still think chances are pretty likely that Santana gets moved, but if opening day arrives and Santana, Thames and Phillips are all on the roster, I'd probably have Braun sitting on the bench the majority of the time. If you ignore the contracts and all other aspects, Braun is still the very best hitter on the team when healthy and should be playing 5-6 games a week when healthy. I'm sure that's what we'll see regardless of the moves made.

I think we should definitely check in on the price tag. I'm absolutely open to Colome. We'd likely nail down a top 5 bullpen adding him. SP should be a higher priority though.