2020-21 Baseball Offseason Thread

PECOTA likes the Mets in a runaway. Makes the whole concept questionable.

 

Low-payroll teams won’t be able to keep their young, inexpensive players as long. They’ll have to compete with the big market teams for more players, but more likely, they won’t even bother doing that. Instead, they’ll lose their talented young players a year or two after they arrive in the bigs.

In addition, players will reach free agency probably one extra time in their career, again costing teams more money overall.

Right now, teams control the player for what, six or seven years after calling them up? So a team like the Pirates drafts the next Mike Trout and they keep him in the bigs for five years before deciding to trade him with two years of control left for maximum value.

If you allow players to reach free agency after four or five years, those teams are going to end up trading them after two or three seasons and never get to realize any real return on the player. They certainly aren’t going to sign the studs in free agency. But they will have to compete for some free agents to fill out their rosters.

So, instead of retaining Next Mike Trout for five or six seasons, he goes to the Dodgers at age 24 and the Pirates end up over spending on Next Aaron Hicks. The premium talent just flows up to the big spenders sooner.

 

I think you're overlooking that there will be a lot *more* players available in free agency though, because teams won't be able to tie up everyone via means like arbitration. Like, what if Gary Sanchez was a FA when he was 25? Maybe the Yankees move on at that point. Maybe he wants to leave to play for a team that guarantees he'll be the primary starter. The Red Sox certainly benefited from a guy being a free agent at 27.

And yeah, all teams would have to pay more out to players. That's part of the problem right now - revenue to players has been decreasing, partly because of cheap owners, but also partly because of smarter front offices.

 

I like the idea of tying revenue sharing to performance. Start with a base and everyone gets more determined by wins. 65+ you get X dollars. 70+ you get X more, etc. It should force teams to at least try to compete.

 

It might keep the top salaries lower (and I’m not convinced that would even be the case), but the low spenders aren’t going to compete for those players anyway. They’re going to lose their talent and be unable (or unwilling) to spend what it takes to sign comparable talent. So they’re going to end up spending more on lesser talent because they couldn’t afford to keep their own guys for as long.

It would only exacerbate the disparity between the big spending and low spending organizations.

 

I don’t give one fuck about the owners. Too hard to compete? Then sell the fucking team. I’ll side with players every time, and it’s fucking horse shit that a team can control rights for six or seven years.

 

The problem is the owners in those situations don't sell. They don't even care as long as they are making a profit and the value of their fancy toy keeps growing, which it will even if they lose.

Take the Pirates as an example. It isn't Bob Nutting who suffers. He doesn't give a damn. It is the fans in that city.

 

That also isn't going to change. There is no way the owners are going to make a fundamental change that costs them a larger percentage of the revenue. The players probably won't fight for it, either, because then they are creating a benefit for the guys that follow them rather than themselves.

I have to agree with pern. Allowing players to reach free agency sooner would just widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The one problem I have with his scenario is the idea that the Pirates would hold on to the next Mike Trout that long. He would be making too much in arbitration. They would be dealing this imaginary player by the end of his third or fourth season if they even waited that long. Hell, some of the justification I've heard for that disgraceful Chris Archer deal was that the Pirates weren't going to be able to sign Austin Meadows, who hadn't even played a full season in the majors yet at the time of that trade.

 

Before anyone tells the MLBPA to change the system, look at the landscape. MLB is the only sport without a salary cap. The players have worked hard to get to where they are and its come at some costs but at least they have higher salaries and guarantees than any other major sport (well except "[world] football", still can't believe that Messi contract, just WOW). Yeah some teams are dying from a competitive standpoint, but there remains high competition for stars, look at how Bauer just got $102M; he's only done what 1/3 of what a Bumgarner has done and yet he's getting $40M! in 2021.

 

Also true. That is kind of my point. Neither of the two primary negotiating units, the players or the owners, really wants significant change. Neither really seems to care if some franchises are hopeless or if the deck is stack to a ridiculous degree. The only stakeholders who care are the fans, and the only way they have a voice is if they stop buying tickets and watching on television. The ticket-buyers may not come all the way back once COVID allows it, but the fans clearly aren't interested in changing the channel.

 

The union represents more than the superstars.

The Pirates are starting children next year. I will bet folding money there will be very good ML players retiring early because no one wants to sign solid veterans anymore.

 

My quack theory: the market inefficiency is now solid veterans as everyone hoards young players.

This would’ve been the offseason for somebody to Astroturf a championship contender.