Started By
Message

re: MLB teams won't sign players they don't want to pay for...

Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:30 am to
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:30 am to
quote:

And with post-season issues


He had a bad series against the Astros, prior to that he was fine in the playoffs... He had a 3.52 ERA over 4 previous playoff starts
Posted by SeeeeK
some where
Member since Sep 2012
28098 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:40 am to
quote:

i think a big part of it is that the lower 15 tv markets who get regional tv money from everyone need stricter rules on plugging that money back into baseball operations


The Pirates are the dirtiest, when it comes to this shite. I thought MLB made a rule, because of the pirates using all their salary tax rebates for Exec bonuses. MLB was pissed off big time, when some one in Pittsburgh outed them and their practices. I know several of the teams paying them salary tax cash were.
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:42 am to
I thought the Padres got in trouble a few years ago because of how low their salary was and the owner just taking the money from revenue sharing
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
145221 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:45 am to
Absolutely the pirates
Posted by AlexTheGreat
Member since Nov 2017
74 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:45 am to
I don't feel bad for the Veteran FA players cause they agreed to the shitty cba.

Extra chef in the clubhouse, more off days, less SNB, lifestyle stuff took precedence over actual financial issues and now you have to deal with it. The only ones I feel bad for are the younger players who the union dgaf anyways.

Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:50 am to
quote:

MLB teams won't sign players they don't want to pay for..


The effect of Moneyball
Posted by Tiger Ugly
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
14527 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 10:58 am to
quote:

He had a bad series against the Astros, prior to that he was fine in the playoffs... He had a 3.52 ERA over 4 previous playoff starts


Fair enough....3.52 is decent not great, 3 good outings and two terrible ones in 5 appearances. Cubs let him off the ropes early last year, he hung a few meatballs and they just missed 'em..... but you gonna break the bank for that?

Jake's ERA is 3.08 in 8 total post-season starts without even throwing his worst one out. They are the same age. And Yu has a pretty serious arm injury to boot.

They both want 6-year deals. Cubs are desperate to sign one more starter. Having said all that I'd take Yu over Jake but either deal is frought with significant down the line issues.

Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
71267 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:01 am to
quote:

they are absolutely going to a salary floor. its remarkable that the players union didnt push for one last year


The argument was always that a floor would give the owners justification for a cap.

Posted by LSU GrandDad
houston, texas
Member since Jun 2009
21564 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:02 am to
quote:

I know its ESPN so you already feel the stench radiating off of the writing


it's called marketing. I also call it "stirring the shite", we need to increase viewers and ad rates.

quote:

Owners finally wising up about dishing out a contract that will have no value in the later stages of a guys career (Pujols, Kemp, Mauer are just a few examples)


yea, these agents are just firing a volley. the LAST thing a free agent player in his midish 30
s wants is an extended work stoppage. or at least the ones with half a brain.

the owners aren't going to fall for this elementary opening gambit.
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
145221 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:04 am to
which we basically have now
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
85090 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:07 am to
quote:

For some reason, John Q. Public always chooses to identify with management in pro sports labor disputes. People mostly bitch about players making too much money, but rarely acknowledge the fact that ownership makes at least as much.


These idiots think players are spoiled when they're actually grossly underpaid for the first 6 or so years of their career.

ETA - shitty rookie deals they had no part in negotiating, mind you.
This post was edited on 2/3/18 at 11:11 am
Posted by SeeeeK
some where
Member since Sep 2012
28098 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:16 am to
If i'm the players, the #1 thing i would of went for, is earlier Free Agency.

Many of these guys are giving teams their biggest years on the cheap. And when they finally can become a UFA(26-27-28), they are on their last contracts, and teams aren't willing to pay you for your first 10 years, when all they get is the last 5 years of ur aging career. Those days are over.


Teams value picks 10x more than they did in the past. Many do not want to shed any picks to sign some one.

Posted by lsusa
Doing Missionary work for LSU
Member since Oct 2005
4611 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:30 am to
quote:

For some reason, John Q. Public always chooses to identify with management in pro sports labor disputes. People mostly bitch about players making too much money, but rarely acknowledge the fact that ownership makes at least as much.



It's pretty much standard thinking in so many aspects of our society today. People despise labor unions who advocate for the common man (yes, they do have some
Issues) despite they fact they've won everyone better wages, paid holidays, vacations, sick leave etc.

People bash folks on food stamps and section 8 housing despite the fact that the labor models of Wal Mart, McDonalds, and so many other businesses are predicated on it.

The owners of these baseball teams are multimillionaires who get taxpayer funded stadiums and make amounts of money the common man can barely fathom. People are paying to see the players play....I have no problem with them wanting to be paid what they think is fair.

If the owners are colluding to avoid that working people should be against it.

Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:50 am to
I never have understood teams paying lots of money for a player's declining years when so many never produce like they did before their big contract.

I will stay with what I know. Is Lance Lynn really worth $80-100MM for 5 years at this point in your career? Would you be stoked for your team to rush out and do that? If not, why should anybody else's?

The players agreed to the CBA, too bad they were stupid, maybe fix it next time if they have leverage.
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 11:59 am to
Then they need to talk to their union about having an opportunity to become FA earlier, or a team only controlling the first 4 years of a deal instead of 6.
Posted by SeeeeK
some where
Member since Sep 2012
28098 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 12:01 pm to
NHL was very similar, and players went all out to become free agents earlier. I believe their old model was 27 was when a guy could become UFA.

Now it's years on service time, so guys are getting that big contract still early in careers.

Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 12:02 pm to
Arrieta to the Rangers
Yu to the Brewers
Lynn to the Twins
Cobb to the Cubs
Cashner to the Brewers
Garcia to the Twins
Posted by msutiger
Shreveport
Member since Jul 2008
69637 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 12:03 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 3:16 pm
Posted by Overbrook
Member since May 2013
6091 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

Law associates bringing in all the dough for the partners but getting paid like shite.

Those examples can go work somewhere else. Athletes can't.
And the second the law associate brings in the his own clients, that's exactly what he does (or his current firm makes him partner).
Further, the working life of the athlete is short; the intern is underpaid for 4 years of that training, and then he's got 30 reap the rewards.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
85090 posts
Posted on 2/3/18 at 12:24 pm to
quote:

Then they need to talk to their union about having an opportunity to become FA earlier, or a team only controlling the first 4 years of a deal instead of 6.




This will never happen in any sport. Think about it - the current players in the union would have to vote for more money going to people who aren't currently in the league. You can forget about it.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram