The way the union has sold young players down the river so consistently has amazed me, that was always gonna come back to bite them. Extra years on team control, extreme limitations to draft bonuses, and the qualifying offer. Between the time they are drafted and free agency, teams control basically a full decade of a players career, without any long term security. Then they make a qualifying offer to hurt their free agency as one final kick in the ass. Then they hit free agency, with 60-75% of their best years already gone, and then expect to get paid. Teams were gonna wise up eventually. With many team not trying to win on top of all of this. Players are gonna figure out a salary cap/floor while taking back some of the team control years is in their best interest.
The lack of parity now is a result of parity a couple years ago. Almost everyone was going for it with little regard for the future. Problem I see is that a lot the great teams today are rich and stacked such that it may take a little longer than usual to swing back to having parity.
This of course leads to who really wants parity and who doesn't. As WS Victors, I am pretty sure Houston baseball folks do not right now.
It's been inevitable for some time that the economic model of MLB will change drastically. Just a matter of when.
It boils down to the fact that owners, gm’s and fans realize that paying a late 20’s/early 30’s player big money for past performance is dumb. If free agency were earlier, there would be more signings... but again, smaller market teams would be at a disadvantage. The article postulates that perhaps a cap is the only way to get some sort of consistency from year to year.
Some may not realize that cutting edge analytics is not just about getting better players, but also how to take advantage of whatever economic model is in place. The more often they change the model, the greater the advantage teams with analytic superiority will have.
I dont know the history, but can I assume that the players are the ones most opposed to a cap? Perhaps if we let the current model run along a bit longer, the players tune will change?
Analytics is about getting better players using whatever tools are available. Limiting money spent inefficiently allows teams to spend it on more productive ways.
The Astros drafted George Springer in June of 2011. He was in AA in 2012, which is basically a stone's throw from the majors. He will hit free agency in November 2020, 9.5 years after we drafted him. He will be 31 years old, with likely only 2-4 more really good years, yet the union expects him to make 80% of his career earnings with his career 75% over. I'm sure we will make him a QO as well. The funniest thing is that all of us fans here are almost universal in our feelings on the matter. We love George, but giving him more than a 4/5 year deal would simply be a bad investment because..... Spoiler George isn't gonna be homeless anytime soon, he will be paid handsomely. But for anybody that goes to college, this current system is really f**ked up.
That's pretty much what the article is hinting at. I don't think its that dire... and it may be in the players best interest to get more of a lawyer/corporate type as their union head, vs a former player. And if it does come to a cap, I'd expect an NBA-like model first/formost. The NBA players don't seem to be complaining too much. Rookies have similar set arbitration like deals, but for a shorter period of time. There is then a limit on a max FA deal, but players can earn more if they stay with their own team. Then there's all sorts of super-max criteria for extensions, again favoring the current team, but players can still choose to go elsewhere and eventually establish those same contract parameter protections. Also, other than being a pitcher, everyday baseball players have some of the best longevity in terms of injury-risk and career sustainability. I'm not sure why they're that reluctant to forego the shorter deals at the large amounts/year.... that sort of mindset is going to have to shift as well.
If anything, this current shift... and possible new CBA deal that could further define contracts, has to favor the Astros possibly being able to extend some of their core guys now. The best of the best are still going to be paid handsomely. And guys like Correa, who were so young at their debut, will still have plenty of prime years left at FA... but for Springer and Altuve, makes more sense to secure something more longer term now, vs. 2-3 years from now.
I think: Free agency should be based on age, not service time. Players should enter free agency at age 26 or 27. Any years prior to that should be at league minimum. Arbitration should go away. Players on the 40 man roster should be paid the mlb minimum regardless of whether they are in the majors. There should be an international draft or a single draft through which all players must enter the league. Minor leaguers should be paid a salary that allows them to live without having to find other means. Could be as little as $30K/yr. There should be penalties for low payrolls just as there are for high payrolls (luxury tax). I’m fine with the QO system, draft bonus pools (although set bonuses would work fine too), Rule 5 draft, minor league options, and 25/40 man roster limits.
We have all seen a bad contract cripple a franchise for years. Heck, teams pay teams with money and bargain basement prospect returns to get from under debilitating contracts. Sometimes the players regress horribly, other times even though they are MVP’s, they consume all the available salary capability by a team. Big contracts are bad unless you are going all in with an already complete team. The ideal way to be competitive is to have a good mix of young hyper talented players, and solid affordable veterans. And at that point go after the high priced players on short term deals.
I say compensate teams who are nourishing the baseball talent. There is a lot of money, Time, and effort to get a prospect through a system and into the majors. Guys can realistically spend 3-6 years in the minor league system. That’s is opportunity cost for teams who groom one player and may ultimately lose him for little or no compensation. After a big market team ponies up the money. Some teams can afford a multitude of bad contracts, others can afford even one bad one. We can all agree that teams operate under different economic Scope. Baseball is different from other sports in that, even the most touted prospects need minor league seasoning before they can make it to the big leagues. So how do you get all parties to play under the same rules? Because, I think a lot of teams liked the Astros way and are going to blow it up to rebuild it. But if 8-12 teams are thinking that way, it’s going to produce a very watered down product.
Regular season is watered down, but you also end up with some great playoff teams. 2017 Dodgers were stacked and still came across a better team.
Some have suggested penalizing the team that finishes dead-last in the MLB, in order to discourage teams from actively trying to lose. If enough fans begin to perceive the MLB as un-entertaining due to having too many teams not immediately interested in contending, there is in theory the possibility that fans develop enough interest in college baseball (just as they have for college football and basketball) that college games would be widely aired to TV. HOwever I think MLB would step in and rescue its product before it got to that point.
"Most starters could be GREAT closer if given the chance"? It's one thing for a starter to make the transition to a closer, but to say that "most" of them would also be "great" as a closer is total BS.
I meant to say good starters, not just any starter. But yes, if plus starters were told to just go out there and pitch one great inning, most of them would be very good at it. But nobody ever does it because it's a waste of resources. If somebody can be good at starting, then they start. If any of our starters, save for maybe McHugh, were made into relief pitchers, they would be awesome. I imagine even McHugh would be pretty damn good at it if he fully bought in. Starters often go through the order with a hand tied behind their back, just so they are better prepared to face it a second time.
It is why for the most part I'm against closers in the HOF, with Rivera the exception. Most of these guy including Rivera were initially starters, but it didn't work out.
