Players vs owners: Whose side are you on?

[SonOfJack]

In regards to the current drama between the players and the owners, which side are you on?

 

 

[SilverBullet]

Owners.

 

Players are complaining that not enough free agents are being signed. It's not that teams don't wanna sign them it's that talent evaluation has evolved and teams now realize that signing a 30 year old player for 5 to 6 years is a huge waste of money and oftentimes becomes a liability and a hindrance towards future team construction. 

 

It's more common sense than the players want to admit. 

 

Teams should not be forced to spend on players if they truly don't think the players are worth the dollars they're signing for. 

 

 

[Michael]

Players. Profits in baseball are way up and the owners don't want to pay their players. Kind of ridiculous.

 

 

[fanofthefish]

I'll always favor the players, but  in this case I have to agree with the owners for finally showing some financial reservations to overpaying for players. Even larger market team that agreed to long term deals with A-Rod or Pujols teams were hamstrung paying for the declining production of these aging players. Looking at the current crop of remaining free agents, Martinez  will turn 31 this season, Jake Arrieta will be 32, these guys are clearly too old for ten year contracts in a post steroid era of the game. Sadly for Boras and the players they'll  have to accept that 4-5 year deal with an option year or two is the best teams are going to do.

 

 

[SilverBullet]

I'll always favor the players, but  in this case I have to agree with the owners for finally showing some financial reservations to overpaying for players. Even larger market team that agreed to long term deals with A-Rod or Pujols teams were hamstrung paying for the declining production of these aging players. Looking at the current crop of remaining free agents, Martinez  will turn 31 this season, Jake Arrieta will be 32, these guys are clearly too old for ten year contracts in a post steroid era of the game. Sadly for Boras and the players they'll  have to accept that 4-5 year deal with an option year or two is the best teams are going to do.

 

Yea normally I'd go with the players but this specific situation has the owners making a ton of sense and players are just gonna have to adjust. 

 

 

[el_gmac]

 

 

 

[el_gmac]

On a serous note I hope this is the beginning on overpaying Millionaires to play baseball.and that team gets smart and try to armed a championship team with less and less payroll. Maybe tix prices , beer and hotdogs doesn't cost you 3 x the price.

 

 

[SilverBullet]

On a serous note I hope this is the beginning on overpaying Millionaires to play baseball.and that team gets smart and try to armed a championship team with less and less payroll. Maybe tix prices , beer and hotdogs doesn't cost you 3 x the price.

 

serious*

 

 

[SonOfJack]

serious*

 

Don't just assume he's not looking to produce serum.

 

 

[SilverBullet]

Don't just assume he's not looking to produce serum.

 

Wow. 

 

 

[el_gmac]

serious*

 

you're not a serious* composition teacher

 

 

[SilverBullet]

I agree with MLB on this... 

 

[ATTACH]1744._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[fish20]

Im almost always on the pro player side on most topics, but this seems like a combo of both sides fault.  As usual in a controversy, its somewhere in the middle rather than the extremes.  I think the market for free agents has gotten way too out of control and teams are finally starting to realize that absent special circumstances like the final piece on a championship team, signing top free agents to huge deals is not a good idea.  I think its up to MLB to do something to put either more value somehow on free agents or less value in young players.  IDK whether its to change the team control rules or what the issue is, but i think there needs to be some sort of change if this continues to be the case.

 

The players union and owners need to come up with some sort of compromise but its going to be difficult to come to an agreement because the 6 years of team control and service time rules are so beneficial to teams.  I think its time to change it to 6 flat years of team control once a guy reaches the majors for the first time and maybe change the rules from 3 years of minimum salary + 3 years of arbitration to maybe something like 2 years of minimum salary + 4 years of arbitration or just getting rid of the 6th year of team control altogether.  but as it is right now, the teams are just doing the smart business moves by playing within the rules and purposely manipulating the service times of their players regardless of the MLB readiness. 

 

I think we're heading to a lockout when the CBA is up. 

 

 

[fish20]

It sounds like Hosmer and Martinez have offers on the table that are more than fair. Not sure what Darvish's best offer is.

 

I agree with this too.  I was just trying to come up with some potential options that might be in play when the players union and owners inevitably have a lockout/strike. I dont think it makes much sense in baseball to sign most of these free agents to the monster contracts they have been signing in recent years.  It makes sense in certain situations for teams that are missing a piece or need a star to build around (although true building block stars rarely get to free agency), but generally, a guy like JD Martinez is not worth nearly what he thinks he's worth.

 

 

[pollythewog]

the players including milb players who have horrible deals

 

 

[Milanos81]

I'm quite new into finding out the contract situations, team control, arbitration etc and so coming from someone who's used to UK sports contracts and salaries then my initial thought is that 6 years team control is too long (especially the way it’s being manipulated by clubs). I think this creates a situation whereby a lot of players are getting up towards the 30 y.o. mark come FA time, having not earned a huge amount of money (comparatively – I think the disparity is ridiculous but that’s for another day!)

 

The players are therefore holding out for one big long payday rather than maybe 3 shorter ones which seems like the it would have been most sensible option. If you produce for the first 3 or 4 years then you get another good contract for the next 3 or 4 etc. The clubs are wary of the 6-10 year deal but understandably players still want that length of guarantee the way it’s all set up right now.

 

So at the moment, I can see both sides. Probably slightly on the owners side as there’s only a certain amount of money to go round when teams like the Yankees, Giants, Dodgers etc try to stay within the $197m luxury tax cap this year. That means everyone needs to be a little smarter about what they are asking for/offering.

 

 

[fish20]

I'm quite new into finding out the contract situations, team control, arbitration etc and so coming from someone who's used to UK sports contracts and salaries then my initial thought is that 6 years team control is too long (especially the way it’s being manipulated by clubs). I think this creates a situation whereby a lot of players are getting up towards the 30 y.o. mark come FA time, having not earned a huge amount of money (comparatively – I think the disparity is ridiculous but that’s for another day!)

 

The players are therefore holding out for one big long payday rather than maybe 3 shorter ones which seems like the it would have been most sensible option. If you produce for the first 3 or 4 years then you get another good contract for the next 3 or 4 etc. The clubs are wary of the 6-10 year deal but understandably players still want that length of guarantee the way it’s all set up right now.

 

So at the moment, I can see both sides. Probably slightly on the owners side as there’s only a certain amount of money to go round when teams like the Yankees, Giants, Dodgers etc try to stay within the $197m luxury tax cap this year. That means everyone needs to be a little smarter about what they are asking for/offering.

 

I too am not an expert on the service time rules, but i agree and I think that is the thing that will eventually be compromised on.  Either 6 years is too long and the team control needs to be shorter or the service time needs to be more simple and not able to be manipulated to keep guys under team control for so long or a combination of the 2.  I think you are on to something with the free agency not occurring for most players until them getting around 30 where it is statistically proven (without roids) that players have already peaked.

 

I think they eventually compromise on this exact issue.