2019 MLB Thread

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Probably more Phillies fans than Nationals fans.

Not even close, although there certainly was a vocal minority of Phillies fans who had a lot more to cheer for by the later stages of the game. Loud booing for Harper, although not by me. The cheer when Max struck him out was the loudest noise of the night. I did cheer that. Nats fans didn't have much to celebrate after that.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

LOL.

Acuna was making 560,000 this season, and was under contract through 2023. The new contract begins now, with an average value north of $12.5m annually.

And he's getting paid $1m per for the next two years (better than renewal, certainly) and is under team control until he's 30, now.

Tell me you really, truly, honestly believe that he'd get paid fairly under current market trends as a 30 year old free agent.

The point is, this is a dude who's been held up as a superstar-in-waiting; if not Mike Trout, then maybe a half-step below that. One of the very best young players in baseball, and certainly one of the youngest superstars in the game.

And he just signed an extremely team-friendly 10-year extension.

Take off your rose-colored Braves fan glasses for a moment, Jon. You're allowed, as a fan, to be elated that your team locked down your young stud for the effective remainder of his peak earning years.

But you cannot, objectively, tell me that an extension like this one is indicative of a healthy free agent market. That's the cherry on top of the shit sundae from the last couple weeks with a bunch of stars signing extensions rather than risk getting slow-played in the market the way the big names of the last two years have been.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

remainder of his peak earning years.

Isn't this the point here? Owners have overpaid 30+ year old players for years and have finally figured out how dumb that is after getting burned so many times. So they're taking advantage of those control years, which I think savvy OOTP players figured out how to do before they did.

Obviously the players will negotiate differently next time, but, we would never accuse the players of acting unfairly for taking advantage of the rules in place to maximize their own value. For example, I wouldn't want my team's GM to act in willful ignorance of the concept of control years when forming a roster and deciding when to call guys up (though there's an idea out there now that it's immoral to consider such things.) I also wouldn't my GM to commit $95 million to Pablo Sandoval, or $100+ million to Craig Kimbrel.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

For example, I wouldn't want my team's GM to act in willful ignorance of the concept of control years when forming a roster and deciding when to call guys up (though there's an idea out there now that it's immoral to consider such things.)

Well, it is against the rules. That's why they have to pretend that the demotions are based on performance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well, it is against the rules. That's why they have to pretend that the demotions are based on performance.

It's against the rules if the concept of service time crosses the GM's mind in making transactions?

Edit: How would we react if the owners complained about something in the CBA being unfair to them years after they agreed to it? Is it an immoral if a player declares free agency as soon as they're permitted to? Especially if they say, unperformed or were injured the year before, robbing the team of production in a contract year?

I think when there's a contract with dates or times or other triggers that was entered into between well-represented millionaires on both sides we can expect the parties to maneuver as tightly around those triggers as they can. But there's a double standard regarding how we react to the different parties doing that with CBAs.

I just skimmed a law review article about whether the more blatant examples of service time manipulation violates the CBA, but as always with this debate, it evolved into a conclusion that it was simply unfair because the players didn't think of this when they negotiated, and that everybody should agree to rectify the problem next time. When looking at it from players perspective, we all suddenly pretend that CBA is constructed by a third-party whose goal is objective fairness. And that one side, but not the other, should make concessions in the name of general objective fairness.

[JPhillips]

It's at least enough of a worry that nobody in baseball management is willing to say they are manipulating service time.

[cartman]

This pitch breaks the laws of physics

99 mph shouldn't move like that. 🤯 pic.twitter.com/MHx38w33TS

— MLB (@MLB) April 3, 2019

[Vince, Pt. II]

That thing was filthy.

[tarcone]

Wow. Nasty.

[cuervo72]

whoaaaa

[EagleFan]

How? Was that honestly not a doctored video? Or a doctored baseball?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

How? Was that honestly not a doctored video? Or a doctored baseball?

Thats a hard screwball, but Fernando never threw 99.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

I just skimmed a law review article about whether the more blatant examples of service time manipulation violates the CBA, but as always with this debate, it evolved into a conclusion that it was simply unfair because the players didn't think of this when they negotiated, and that everybody should agree to rectify the problem next time. When looking at it from players perspective, we all suddenly pretend that CBA is constructed by a third-party whose goal is objective fairness. And that one side, but not the other, should make concessions in the name of general objective fairness.

The problem is that the players whose earning potential is being severely limited never had a chance to vote on the current CBA. And it'll always be easier for current players to vote to give themselves more money & curtail future players earnings.

Then you factor in how many teams just aren't trying to win, and don't want to pay anything above the minimum for above replacement level depth guys, and you get the current climate.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Thats a hard screwball, but Fernando never threw 99.

FernandoMania!!!!

I loved that guy

[stevew]

Yeah but let's see him do that vs 3 batters every night.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The problem is that the players whose earning potential is being severely limited never had a chance to vote on the current CBA. And it'll always be easier for current players to vote to give themselves more money & curtail future players earnings.

.

What is the practical relevance of this? How this "problem" fixed? Should teams unilaterally not hold new players to the terms of the CBA, and protect those players since the union refuses to? Why are the GMs and owners more responsible for the well-being of these players than the union? Should players extend the same courtesy to new GMs and owners?

The union makes a bad deal, protects certain players at the expense of others, but they're not the bad guys somehow. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Make concessions for what they really want, but then cry about making those concessions. And then talk about the agreement from a 3rd-party perspective of objective fairness, even though that's not how CBAs are created. We rightfully mock teams when they do the same thing.

[molson]

Meanwhile, Chris Davis is 0 for 17 with 11 strikeouts. He's making $23 million this year, and next year, and the year after that. We can factor in the teams who aren't trying to win, but let's also factor in the players who suck or just don't care after they get paid and how it impacts future contracts for similarly-positioned players. Players got used to these stupid contracts for flawed players but they don't have a moral entitlement to receive them forever when there's smarter ways to build teams, especially under the existing rules.

[JPhillips]

I don't think of it in moral terms. The owners are just setting themselves up for a strike if they make it much harder for players to cash in. The worst part of it, IMO, was the collection of good players that signed one year minor league deals.

It's like the country at large, if the guys at the top take even more, that's going to lead to instability.

[PilotMan]

Oh it's definitely coming to a head. The players are ready to go for blood and the owners aren't planning on giving in. Guaranteed money is killing the long term contracts for the mid and above mid guys. Teams go for broke on a few players and when they suck like Davis there's nothing they can do, and no outlet. The players are tired of the fake cap, and teams efforts to stay below it, and once all the teams decided to treat it as such, the money just isn't there to pass around. Strike is going to happen. I don't see any way around it.

Meanwhile, the Reds are off to a screaming start. They won on opening day, then have dropped 5 straight including 2 straight shut outs. They also set the team record for lowest attendance at 7700 during the first week. Granted it was 30 degrees, but it's a rough go of it right now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Oh it's definitely coming to a head. The players are ready to go for blood and the owners aren't planning on giving in. Guaranteed money is killing the long term contracts for the mid and above mid guys. Teams go for broke on a few players and when they suck like Davis there's nothing they can do, and no outlet. The players are tired of the fake cap, and teams efforts to stay below it, and once all the teams decided to treat it as such, the money just isn't there to pass around. Strike is going to happen. I don't see any way around it.

It doesn't seem like the same union of years past. It's hard to see them sacrificing too much when we got to this place through a disinterest in protecting the younger players who weren't in the union yet.

I guess the luxury tax could be a rallying point. But that still only impacts so many players and teams.

[PilotMan]

Personally, it would be really nice if the players went to bat for the minor league players, although it would probably kill the entire minor league system if the got forced improvements out of the owners.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Meanwhile, the Reds are off to a screaming start. They won on opening day, then have dropped 5 straight including 2 straight shut outs. They also set the team record for lowest attendance at 7700 during the first week. Granted it was 30 degrees, but it's a rough go of it right now.

And it's been the fault of the offense. The pitching, so far, has been great.

[molson]

MLB batters are hitting .235 so far over about 6,700 at-bats.

Batters probably do worse in early April than their season-long average every year, but that .235 number would be the worst season-long average ever. As in, going back to and including the 1871 National Association.

Last year teams hit .244 over March/April on their way to an overall .248 season-long average.

And of course batters are also well on pace to shatter the all-time strikeout rate record again. Teams are averaging 8.95 strikeouts per game so far.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

What is the practical relevance of this? How this "problem" fixed? Should teams unilaterally not hold new players to the terms of the CBA, and protect those players since the union refuses to? Why are the GMs and owners more responsible for the well-being of these players than the union? Should players extend the same courtesy to new GMs and owners?

The union makes a bad deal, protects certain players at the expense of others, but they're not the bad guys somehow. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Make concessions for what they really want, but then cry about making those concessions. And then talk about the agreement from a 3rd-party perspective of objective fairness, even though that's not how CBAs are created. We rightfully mock teams when they do the same thing.

Reducing years of control on ELC's to be more in line with other sports would be a start. Tying years of control directly to when an organization signs a player instead of having a two tiered system where they have X years of minor league control, then a new clock starts once they hit the majors would be beneficial. (And you could either do it with different limits on years for foreign signings, HS draftees & college draftees, or make it strictly age based where every player will be eligible for UFA the first year after they're 27 or something unless they sign an extension. Maybe even introduce an RFA system for arb-eligible players.)

If you've read my earlier thoughts I'm no fan of the union, I don't see a way a current generation of players in the middle/downside of their careers don't get hurt in the exchange, and I think making guys like Machado, Harper & Kimbrel who refused to budge on exorbitant demands the faces of what's wrong is a joke, but like JPhillips has repeatedly pointed out the owners also aren't spending any $$$ (even on 1-year contracts) for proven MLB talent like Jose Iglesias to fill out their depth chart. This wasn't something negotiated away by the union, it's a change in how almost all teams operate that's been accelerated in the past couple offseasons under the guise of sabermetrics. (And I'd argue MLB's draft/IFA pools that disproportionately favor the worst teams by record also helps make tanking more attractive than finishing with 75-85 wins.)

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Personally, it would be really nice if the players went to bat for the minor league players, although it would probably kill the entire minor league system if the got forced improvements out of the owners.

I don't think it would kill the minor league system to pay minimum wage to players, and owners going to congress to argue against just that is one of the more tone deaf moves in recent years MLB, MiLB Lobbying Pays Off In 'Save America's Pastime' Act

I also don't understand why minor league teams (at least those controlled by the parent club) don't offer decent postgame spreads. With all the focus on nutrition and physical development in all pro sports now it seems insane that teams won't spend that pittance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Reducing years of control on ELC's to be more in line with other sports would be a start. Tying years of control directly to when an organization signs a player instead of having a two tiered system where they have X years of minor league control, then a new clock starts once they hit the majors would be beneficial. (And you could either do it with different limits on years for foreign signings, HS draftees & college draftees, or make it strictly age based where every player will be eligible for UFA the first year after they're 27 or something unless they sign an extension. Maybe even introduce an RFA system for arb-eligible players.)

Are you saying that what the players should demand, (and if needed, be willing to strike over), or that the owners should just unilaterally give them this outside the scope of the CBA negotiations?

I'm seeing a lot of articles about how the next CBA "should" contain this stuff, and how the current setup is objectively unfair and the players are being wronged, but it's really just more a description of what one side wants.

[JPhillips]

I think the players need to throw a lot at the owners, ELCs, service time, baseball revenue definition, minor league pay/benefits, etc. They should be willing to give on some of it, but they should also be ready to strike if they don't get some big movement their way.

I'm fine with moving to a system that rewards current/future performance more than past, but the system now makes it impossible to earn when you're young and more and more difficult to earn when you're older. Players need to be ready to walk if that isn't changed significantly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Reducing years of control on ELC's to be more in line with other sports would be a start.

Why in the flying fuck would owners OR fans want that? The benefit would be solely to the players (who are free to bargain for that but I took your suggestion to be more unilateral than bargained. My apology if I misread)

I don't think it would kill the minor league system to pay minimum wage to players

By all means, let's cut jobs for players and wipe out entire leagues/levels. Because there won't be some magical massive increase in spending, it'll just be redistributed among fewer teams.

I also don't understand why minor league teams (at least those controlled by the parent club) don't offer decent postgame spreads.

I suspect this actually might be logistics as much as money. Though you'd certainly see some cases where the money becomes absurd as well (the options for late night catering in some of the markets will be limited at best & you'd see insane pricing from almost the outset)

[molson]

Ya, I know in Boise - a pretty big market for a short-season rookie league team, home and road teams get Whole Foods catering, which is probably the best option in the city.

[JPhillips]

Minor league salaries are paid by the major league clubs. You could raise them way beyond minimum wage and no team would face closure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I know in Boise - a pretty big market for a short-season rookie league team, home and road teams get Whole Foods catering, which is probably the best option in the city.

fwiw, I thought about Macon (which no longer has a team but I knew it best in terms of minor league cities). The rape,rob, pillage pricing would have begun as soon as the few vendor options realized they had a client over a barrel.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Minor league salaries are paid by the major league clubs. You could raise them way beyond minimum wage and no team would face closure.

Will the union strike for that? Or for service time changes?

I keep reading that the CBA is unfair because the younger players didn't agree to it, but then that the solution is for it to be a part of the CBA next time. So either the union has to change what they care about, or we're saying that the owners should just do this on their own.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Will the union strike for that? Or for service time changes?

I doubt it, which is really short-sighted. They should be fighting to get the minor league players into the union.

[spleen1015]

Concerning the minor leagues, there was an article on the Athletic that talked about the lives of some of these players. They included salaries, etc.

Every team in MLB could increase the amount of money they spend on MiLB times 5 and still spend less than $20 million per year.

There is no doubt they could afford to increase MiLB salaries by a lot and they wouldn't even notice.

[tarcone]

I was talking to a HS baseball coach. He had a player that made it to AAA. He was making $80k when he retired. Not bad IMO.

EDIT: That was the mid 2000s

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I was talking to a HS baseball coach. He had a player that made it to AAA. He was making $80k when he retired. Not bad IMO.

EDIT: That was the mid 2000s

He must have been a free agent at some point and was signed to a bigger contract. The first seven years are under team control and minor league pay is significantly less than that and is only paid for the months of games, not even Spring training.

[stevew]

You get a lot more than the min if you ever hit the 40 man

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And it's been the fault of the offense. The pitching, so far, has been great.

Mark down a 3rd straight shutout for the Reds offense. In 3 games the pitching has allowed 5 runs, the offense has scored 0. Tremendous suckage.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Mark down a 3rd straight shutout for the Reds offense. In 3 games the pitching has allowed 5 runs, the offense has scored 0. Tremendous suckage.

So bad. Schebler is a mess. Matt Kemp? Haha.

[PilotMan]

I guess Chris Davis is now 0-38 going back to last season and 8 hitless at bats away from setting the all time mark. I'd love to get inside his head as he goes through this fall from 2015 to now.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying that what the players should demand, (and if needed, be willing to strike over), or that the owners should just unilaterally give them this outside the scope of the CBA negotiations?

I'm seeing a lot of articles about how the next CBA "should" contain this stuff, and how the current setup is objectively unfair and the players are being wronged, but it's really just more a description of what one side wants.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why in the flying fuck would owners OR fans want that? The benefit would be solely to the players (who are free to bargain for that but I took your suggestion to be more unilateral than bargained. My apology if I misread)

Oh for sure this isn't something the owners should give away. I think contract length limits (at least for UFA's) are something that'll help the owners. I'm not sure a salary cap is necessary with how much teams are scared of the Luxury Tax, but you could probably get a lot of concessions for that one. And individual max salary brings some of its own problems, but that could push some money back into the middle class.

I suspect this actually might be logistics as much as money. Though you'd certainly see some cases where the money becomes absurd as well (the options for late night catering in some of the markets will be limited at best & you'd see insane pricing from almost the outset)

Buy a dozen loaves of bread, 15 pounds of lunch meat etc. & stick it in a couple coolers. Amazon Prime some cases of protein bars & gatorades. You don't need a lavish set of choices like an MLB spread, just something a little more nutritious than 24 hour McDonald's.

Originally Posted by molson

Will the union strike for that? Or for service time changes?

I keep reading that the CBA is unfair because the younger players didn't agree to it, but then that the solution is for it to be a part of the CBA next time. So either the union has to change what they care about, or we're saying that the owners should just do this on their own.

I'm not even sure minor league salaries are part of the CBA, since minor league players aren't part of the MLBPA. The Blue Jays unilaterally upped pay to a more livable wage and it's still nothing compared to MLB payroll numbers. Keep in mind that as part of the argument that players are seasonal, spring training is unpaid for minor leaguers.

After a 40 per cent raise, a first-year Triple-A player will make roughly $3,050 per month or $15,250 for a five-month season. In Double-A, players will get 50 per cent boost to about $2,550 per month or $12,750 per season. Single-A players receive a 56 percent raise to just less than $2,400 per month or a shade below $12,000 per season.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I guess Chris Davis is now 0-38 going back to last season and 8 hitless at bats away from setting the all time mark. I'd love to get inside his head as he goes through this fall from 2015 to now.

I really don't understand why they don't release him. The contract is a sunk cost and having him around young players taking a roster spot doesn't help. I wonder if they are hoping he gets hurt to collect some insurance money or something.

[PilotMan]

Since then he's up to 0-40 now, with 6 at bats to tie. I don't know either. The team still has to pay him another 69 million after this year. I guess he's gonna play whether he wants to or not. It's not like they have a whole lot of reason to replace him with someone who will make them winners.

[molson]

Maybe at some point he takes a little less money to just go away and not have to show up for work and go through the motions. If those types of buyouts are allowed in MLB.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

If those types of buyouts are allowed in MLB.

Yeah, they are.

[bhlloy]

Trout now has 5 homers in 4 games including 4 in this series - if the Angels hang on today he basically won an entire series by himself. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Since then he's up to 0-40 now, with 6 at bats to tie. I don't know either. The team still has to pay him another 69 million after this year. I guess he's gonna play whether he wants to or not. It's not like they have a whole lot of reason to replace him with someone who will make them winners.

I think that either he needs a good solid dozen at bats against Trevor Rosenthal, or Rosenthal does. Could go either way.

[tarcone]

Trevor Rosenthal is one of those "What could have been" guys

[JPhillips]

Infinite ERA is the best, right?

[stevew]

I'd probably be batting Davis lead-off. Make him play shortstop as well.

[spleen1015]

You play him because he's the reason why you suck now. His contract ruined the franchise for years.

What else is there to do? Play him so that his suckage gets you more top picks.

With 6 years left on the contract he was bad. Not terrible, but bad.

With 5 years left on the contract, he pretty much had the worst season in the history of MLB.

This year with 4 years left on the contract, he's even worse than that.

So, you keep playing him until you reach the point where you don't suck any more. That's likely 2-3 years down the road.