• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The Toronto Blue Jays

MindzEye said:
Just on reported revenue, they dished out about 40% last year. I'd bet my left nut that their "baseball revenue" isn't nearly as strict the the NHL/NHLPA calculation of HRR is.



What's your point? The right move for these guys should always be to test the market and the market for a young superstar should be stupid. Harper is a hell of a bet to return about 50 WAR in value over the length of a 10 yr contract, at todays WAR-Dollar calculation that's well over 400 million in value. We're supposed to be mad that he turned down 300 million because it's a big number, without seeing what was out on the market?
Click to expand...

The market right now isn’t dishing out what he or Machado wants or they would of signed moons ago.

The big spenders have gone in a different direction from previous years

I bet your getting 4 years poor play from Harper on a 10 year deal .

You think Stanton will age well on his massive deal
 
Last edited:
GEEMAN said:
The market right now isn’t dishing out what he or Machado wants or they would of signed moons ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're telling me what I already know. What I'm saying is that the lack of suitors at those numbers is a symptom of the problem. These aren't old guys looking for stupid contracts that they're unlikely to return value on. This isn't 33 yr old Pujols, 31 yr old Ellsbury, etc, etc. These are 26-27 yr old perennial MVP candidates who are as good a bet as anyone in history to return value on one of these mega deals.
 
MindzEye said:
and this is the problem. MLB crushes the NBA and NHL in revenue, but gives it's players a significantly lower percentage of the pie.

It can be explained away in a bunch of different ways, but at the end of the day when 26 yr old superstars hit free agency and there isn't a line up of teams fighting to pay them market rates in a league with monstrous (and growing) revenues, there's a very real problem with the distribution of those revenues.



This is also part of the problem. If anything, MLB role players of any worth should be crushing a 5th-6th defender in career earnings, considering that MLB earns almost triple what the NHL does in revenue.

Kevin Pillar is an interesting example. He's returned 10.3 WAR in value so far in his career, in a perfect world he should have been paid 10.3 WAR's worth of salary (82 million according to Fangraphs). Instead, the Jays have received 82 million dollars worth of value on the field, and paid out somewhere in the range of 5 million for that. Pillar is now 30 and will never get a legitimately big pay day (especially in this nickle and dime era of team management). This is part of the problem. MLB needs a new system, badly.
Click to expand...

You can't expect guys to be paid FA prices for pre-FA years, so it's not like Pillar would have "deserved" 80M in pay so far. But you are right in that he's entirely the sort of player who gets screwed by the system. Players with a late start to the career, meaning their prime years are under the cheapest cost control there is, and then on top of that whose value is highly banked by their speed.

He's entering his age-30 season, and will finally make decent coin this year (5.8M salary), although is very much a non-tender risk going forward. Because of MLB's pay structure, he had to play essentially 5 seasons at the league minimum before he was even allowed into arbitration for the first time. And sure, he might last for another few years as a backup, but he's really lost any chance whatsoever at cashing in. By now, if they had a reasonably structure, he should have been through arbitration a couple times already, and probably should have been a FA this winter, in at least somewhat of a chance of cashing in.
 
UWHabs said:
You can't expect guys to be paid FA prices for pre-FA years, so it's not like Pillar would have "deserved" 80M in pay so far. But you are right in that he's entirely the sort of player who gets screwed by the system. Players with a late start to the career, meaning their prime years are under the cheapest cost control there is, and then on top of that whose value is highly banked by their speed.

He's entering his age-30 season, and will finally make decent coin this year (5.8M salary), although is very much a non-tender risk going forward. Because of MLB's pay structure, he had to play essentially 5 seasons at the league minimum before he was even allowed into arbitration for the first time. And sure, he might last for another few years as a backup, but he's really lost any chance whatsoever at cashing in. By now, if they had a reasonably structure, he should have been through arbitration a couple times already, and probably should have been a FA this winter, in at least somewhat of a chance of cashing in.
Click to expand...

I don't expect a guy to be paid FA rates right out of the box. I'm just pointing out how silly the current system is using the example of a role player type that I was given. A guy like Pillar not hitting free agency until he's well too told to get a good long term deal fitting of his impact (what kind of a deal would 27 yr old 3+ WAR gold glove Pillar have gotten?) is part of exactly what's wrong with the system.

The owners get the best years of a player's career for a relative pittance and are now refusing to compete for free agents, that's a problem.
 
the current salary progression is somehow still based on the old timey reality that a player's prime years were between the ages of 28-32.

Most players went through long apprenticeship periods and very teams trusted their 21 yrs old to handle regular playing time.

The maturity curve has changed dramatically -- ie. Vlad hasn't turned 20 yet and the Jays are viewed (correctly) as holding him back.
 
For one thing, the major league minimum should be at least 1M. Probably 1.5.
 
Oh yeah, MLB needs a bunch of stuff

- Much higher minimum salary
- Much lower cap on controlled years for players over a certain age. There's no way that we should have had control of Donaldson and Pillar until they were on the wrong side of 30, that's ****ing crazy. I get wanting to keep control of a kid like Vladdy until he's 25-26 yrs old, that just good for smaller markets and isn't really going to hurt their career earnings much at all. But treating Vladdy and the Pillar's of the world the exact same is just unfair to later blooming prospects, especially considering how shit minor leaguers get paid.
- Cap on contract length (8 years)
- 50/50 rev split with an actual accounting system in place, min and max caps with buffers (luxury and poor taxes) built in.
 
Oh yeah, MLB needs a bunch of stuff

- Much higher minimum salary
- Much lower cap on controlled years for players over a certain age. There's no way that we should have had control of Donaldson and Pillar until they were on the wrong side of 30, that's ****ing crazy. I get wanting to keep control of a kid like Vladdy until he's 25-26 yrs old, that just good for smaller markets and isn't really going to hurt their career earnings much at all. But treating Vladdy and the Pillar's of the world the exact same is just unfair to later blooming prospects, especially considering how shit minor leaguers get paid.
- Cap on contract length (8 years)
- 50/50 rev split with an actual accounting system in place, min and max caps with buffers (luxury and poor taxes) built in.
 
MindzEye said:
Yes, you're telling me what I already know. What I'm saying is that the lack of suitors at those numbers is a symptom of the problem. These aren't old guys looking for stupid contracts that they're unlikely to return value on. This isn't 33 yr old Pujols, 31 yr old Ellsbury, etc, etc. These are 26-27 yr old perennial MVP candidates who are as good a bet as anyone in history to return value on one of these mega deals.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of suitors looking to spend just not at the money that gives the player the GDP of a small country.
When the heavy spenders are saying no maybe the WAR calculator needs to be adjusted.

I nearly crapped my pants when Pillar delivered 80 mil worth of value . He clearly should of earned more but shit that number hurts.
 
GEEMAN said:
There are plenty of suitors looking to spend just not at the money that gives the player the GDP of a small country.
When the heavy spenders are saying no maybe the WAR calculator needs to be adjusted.
Click to expand...

The heavy spenders are saying no because they're hoarding a disproportionate amount of revenue, not because the players aren't worth those dollars within that eco system.

I nearly crapped my pants when Pillar delivered 80 mil worth of value . He clearly should of earned more but shit that number hurts.
Click to expand...

That's over 6 seasons in the richest of the north american sports leagues not named the NFL. That number is what it is, there shouldn't be an emotional reaction to it. Owners aren't lowering ticket prices, broadcasters aren't lowering ads rates and fees charged to cable companies...why are the player's the ones we expect to get less?
 
CH1 said:
For one thing, the major league minimum should be at least 1M. Probably 1.5.
Click to expand...

I agree but this may open up a can of worms and affect elite player salaries . Most teams have about 15-20 players making 500-600K to round out their roster . Let’s say minimum salaries are set at 1.5 mil . That’s 15-20 mil extra in immediate payroll increases . This equals one top salary on a top tier team .

Now the Red Sox immediately jump into luxury territory without a move and spending 10-12 % more .

Small market teams with more players making 500k will be spending 30% or more on immediate increases .

This will affect player compensation .
 
This guy called the Stanton deal before anyone a few years ago apparently (followed by Rosenthal, Heyman and a few others):

DfineNrmLC

Per Source: Angels and Mike Trout are discussing an 8yr deal between 350-375, 40 Million ++ AAV. Full no trade clause would be in the deal.
 
MindzEye said:
Really weird that a small market team could afford 30 million a year eh?
Click to expand...

You got your wish ....the market is back

He took the cash cause no one was going there

He will probably opt out in 5 years when team still can`t win provided he is still an elite player
 
Eh...there should have been 8-10 teams lining up on day 1 with this offer. We shouldn't be on the eve of spring training with 1 of the 2 of them still being out there.
 
GEEMAN said:
The market right now isn’t dishing out what he or Machado wants or they would of signed moons ago.

The big spenders have gone in a different direction from previous years

I bet your getting 4 years poor play from Harper on a 10 year deal .

You think Stanton will age well on his massive deal
Click to expand...

LOL. This post did not age well.

Anyways, good signing by the Pads. Machado's remaining elite years line up well with Tatis Jr's cheap and controllable years.
 
the folks over at the Athletic have done countless pieces on how Machado and Harper are very likely to return value on their contracts, basically no matter what you pay them.

it is incredibly rare for two players that are as gifted as they are to become free agents so young. they're still in their primes. this situation is not analagous to the Miggy, Prince, Pujols, etc contracts. the Padres may have just gotten Machado at a steal.

this also means that Harper will now likely be looking for a bigger AAV than Manny...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top