Baseball stoppage 2022?

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by steve B

I suppose if I was an owner, I'd move along an average or slightly better player who is at a point where they'll get a couple million. Especially if I can replace them with a guy from the minors at half a million.

Although fan popularity should count for something, it didn't help Daubach or any other guys in a similar situation.

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

Yeah, if I have to pay a handful of millions more to keep a young star/difference maker (Mookie Betts?) then I'm going to want some older vet on the downside of his career (Kimbrel?) to take a haircut as his production declines or I'll look elsewhere at a cheaper price.

You guys are really hitting at home with the Red Sox players...

I have found my opinions on team/players to be an interesting dichotomy: on one hand, I really appreciate value and economic efficiency and I enjoy looking at how teams are effectively built and the value of getting a player on a good contract; on the other hand, I think the players are the game, so to speak, and deserve every penny they can get.
The current system seems to be in place to keep costs down, so I don't begrudge any player - from Mike Trout and Mookie to any Quad-A guy or player heading to Japan or Kyler Murray - from trying to get as much as they can before their time is up on the playing field. In the end, I want to see the great talent on the field, even though I appreciate how teams are constructed, etc.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

You guys are really hitting at home with the Red Sox players...

I have found my opinions on team/players to be an interesting dichotomy: on one hand, I really appreciate value and economic efficiency and I enjoy looking at how teams are effectively built and the value of getting a player on a good contract; on the other hand, I think the players are the game, so to speak, and deserve every penny they can get.
The current system seems to be in place to keep costs down, so I don't begrudge any player - from Mike Trout and Mookie to any Quad-A guy or player heading to Japan or Kyler Murray - from trying to get as much as they can before their time is up on the playing field. In the end, I want to see the great talent on the field, even though I appreciate how teams are constructed, etc.

For me the Red Sox thing is mostly because that's the team I follow. Daubach was a favorite of many people, and to my thinking he got jerked around a lot. Of course it's always possible the owners knew something the fans couldn't, like a lingering health problem or something like that. They have moved a few players who haven't done all that well later on.

There were other players treated the same way during that time, from many teams, even future hall of famers.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...018-story.html


The previous Red Sox owners were worse, they hurt the team for years by basically ignoring the draft and making things difficult for the plyers they drafted. One year they had a high pick, the guy before and after him got signing bonuses in the six figures, the offer to their draftee? 5000. he wouldn't sign despite the probability that he wouldn't get much more being picked lower the next season, if at all and said he'd never play for the team.


I figure the value of a player to the team businesswise, is also partly the merchandising. I don't know enough about how the pay for that happens exactly, but I do know the team gets a cut of the licensing.

[packs]

Personally, I'm glad that players are seeing their salaries drop. How many times do you have to see a guy like Homer Bailey make 20 plus mil a year for being a bum?

Now that ownership is no longer bidding against themselves, I believe that young talent will sign extensions during their preliminary contracts a la Mike Trout and we may begin to see a return to the days when great players spend their careers in one city fearing a volatile free agent market.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

Personally, I'm glad that players are seeing their salaries drop. How many times do you have to see a guy like Homer Bailey make 20 plus mil a year for being a bum?

Now that ownership is no longer bidding against themselves, I believe that young talent will sign extensions during their preliminary contracts a la Mike Trout and we may begin to see a return to the days when great players spend their careers in one city fearing a volatile free agent market.

I think it's easy for fans to hold contracts against players, but I'd rather see players get more money. The alternative is for the record revenues to line the pockets of the owners, rather than the talent that produces the game we love.

I also think that players staying with a single team their whole career is fairly far down the list of priorities I have for the game and what I'd like to see. I suppose there is a very minor amount it would matter, but that argument has always seemed more of a media-driven narrative to help fill air time rather than any point with substantial merit. And it doesn't bother me in the least that some of my favorite players today and from the past, including David Ortiz, JD Martinez, Pedro, etc., spent time with other teams during their careers.

[packs]

I would be hoping that decreasing expenses would mean more purchasing power for the fans. Every year there are stories about how much it costs to see a game and I can’t help but think part of that has to do with inflated salaries.

Players feeling like free agency is a risky proposition would lend to increased competition as teams remain strong with a core group of players that stay together for more than 3 or 4 seasons. Maybe that’s not on the forefront of your mind if you like a team with purchasing power but it would be if you love, say, the A’s.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be hoping that decreasing expenses would mean more purchasing power for the fans. Yankee Stadium is an insanely expensive place but you’re paying for an insanely expensive team. Every year there are stories about how much it costs to see a game and I can’t help but think part of that has to do with Jacoby Ellsbury making 20 plus while playing worse than I do when he can even get on the field.

Players feeling like free agency is a risky proposition would lend to increased competition as teams remain strong with a core group of players that stay together for more than 3 or 4 seasons.

I remember reading in recent years how players salaries and ticket/concession prices basically have no relationship. A quick google search shows some stories going back 15 years about how they're not related - even if it seems like they may be when watching Ellsbury from the stands.

It seems the current system has already created an environment where free agency is a risky proposition, but the result seems to be that there are extreme haves and have-nots - a bunch of teams that are tanking, not trying to win and barely participating in free agency, and another group of really great teams, who are playing hard ball as they know they don't have competition for players (a la JD Martinez one year ago, and perhaps Harper/Machado/Kimbrel this year).

[packs]

Have and have nots is a good point, and I definitely agree there are teams who don’t care if they win whether players are less expensive or not.