407D636E616B60426A7D6C6A6B0F0 wrote:
The current dynamic is definitely going to lead to a strike, I fear that the small market teams are going to bite everyone's face off if pushed to accept a salary flood. So instead, I think the compromise is going to address the arbitration system and push the league away from that and to an RFA period. How that is resolved will show where the small market teams truly are.
I don't think so. There's far more downside for players than owners and a strike really doesn't give them leverage in negotiations. Especially since their their individual business model is measured in years while the owners' is in decades.
There hasn't been a strike in any major sport since 1994.
Free Agency
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Free Agency
0522290A470 wrote:
The current dynamic is definitely going to lead to a strike, I fear that the small market teams are going to bite everyone's face off if pushed to accept a salary flood. So instead, I think the compromise is going to address the arbitration system and push the league away from that and to an RFA period. How that is resolved will show where the small market teams truly are.
I don't think so. There's far more downside for players than owners and a strike really doesn't give them leverage in negotiations. Especially since their their individual business model is measured in years while the owners' is in decades.
There hasn't been a strike in any major sport since 1994.
the NHL owners did lock out the players in 2012 though.
The current dynamic is definitely going to lead to a strike, I fear that the small market teams are going to bite everyone's face off if pushed to accept a salary flood. So instead, I think the compromise is going to address the arbitration system and push the league away from that and to an RFA period. How that is resolved will show where the small market teams truly are.
I don't think so. There's far more downside for players than owners and a strike really doesn't give them leverage in negotiations. Especially since their their individual business model is measured in years while the owners' is in decades.
There hasn't been a strike in any major sport since 1994.
the NHL owners did lock out the players in 2012 though.
Free Agency
416766716777040 wrote:
The current dynamic is definitely going to lead to a strike, I fear that the small market teams are going to bite everyone's face off if pushed to accept a salary flood. So instead, I think the compromise is going to address the arbitration system and push the league away from that and to an RFA period. How that is resolved will show where the small market teams truly are.
I don't think so. There's far more downside for players than owners and a strike really doesn't give them leverage in negotiations. Especially since their their individual business model is measured in years while the owners' is in decades.
There hasn't been a strike in any major sport since 1994.
the NHL owners did lock out the players in 2012 though.
I should clarify, while there have been work stoppages in all four major sports since 1994, all of them have been lockouts initiated by the owners. They are the ones who get the leverage when there are no games. Not the players.
The current dynamic is definitely going to lead to a strike, I fear that the small market teams are going to bite everyone's face off if pushed to accept a salary flood. So instead, I think the compromise is going to address the arbitration system and push the league away from that and to an RFA period. How that is resolved will show where the small market teams truly are.
I don't think so. There's far more downside for players than owners and a strike really doesn't give them leverage in negotiations. Especially since their their individual business model is measured in years while the owners' is in decades.
There hasn't been a strike in any major sport since 1994.
the NHL owners did lock out the players in 2012 though.
I should clarify, while there have been work stoppages in all four major sports since 1994, all of them have been lockouts initiated by the owners. They are the ones who get the leverage when there are no games. Not the players.
Free Agency
Several things that I see happening with free agency.
1) It appears that most major league owners/gm's are re-thinking the appropriate number of years to sign the best free agents to. This year its Machado and Harper. Many scribes were speculating on how they would get 10+ years and $300 mil because of their age and past production. It now appears that if they want top dollar, that they may need to accept a lesser number of years in a contract. Frankly, this makes sense to me. Six to seven year deals still represent a lot of guaranteed pay to the player (reward) and a lot of risk to a team.
2) Players who are nearing the end of a career and who have provided only moderate production in the past year or two are experiencing problems landing more than a 1 year or a 1 year with a buy-out option contract. Again, this makes sense to me. While veteranoisity has some value, is Neil Walker and his .670 ops and limited defensive value, at this stage of his career, really worth more than $2 mil? Although he is still largely unproven at the MLB level, wouldn't you rather take the chance that Jose Osuna could provide more offensive production?
3) Older players appear to be trying to hang on longer than in the past. I believe this is partly because the pay is that good. While $2 mil seems like nothing in the world of baseball, there are not that many jobs out at which a 33 year old would get a guaranteed contract to earn $ 2 mil for 6 - 8 months of work. And, if you suddenly revive your career, you may get an opportunity to earn an equal or greater amount for one or more several years.
4) Teams have a lot of dollars and time invested in minor league players, and only a limited amount of time (roster space) to see if they can develop and become productive major leaguers. In short, everyone should anticipate a lot of turn-over at the major league level; it's part of baseball.
As noted by Bobster, the 53% unsigned free agent number means little to nothing with Barolo Colon is on the list.
1) It appears that most major league owners/gm's are re-thinking the appropriate number of years to sign the best free agents to. This year its Machado and Harper. Many scribes were speculating on how they would get 10+ years and $300 mil because of their age and past production. It now appears that if they want top dollar, that they may need to accept a lesser number of years in a contract. Frankly, this makes sense to me. Six to seven year deals still represent a lot of guaranteed pay to the player (reward) and a lot of risk to a team.
2) Players who are nearing the end of a career and who have provided only moderate production in the past year or two are experiencing problems landing more than a 1 year or a 1 year with a buy-out option contract. Again, this makes sense to me. While veteranoisity has some value, is Neil Walker and his .670 ops and limited defensive value, at this stage of his career, really worth more than $2 mil? Although he is still largely unproven at the MLB level, wouldn't you rather take the chance that Jose Osuna could provide more offensive production?
3) Older players appear to be trying to hang on longer than in the past. I believe this is partly because the pay is that good. While $2 mil seems like nothing in the world of baseball, there are not that many jobs out at which a 33 year old would get a guaranteed contract to earn $ 2 mil for 6 - 8 months of work. And, if you suddenly revive your career, you may get an opportunity to earn an equal or greater amount for one or more several years.
4) Teams have a lot of dollars and time invested in minor league players, and only a limited amount of time (roster space) to see if they can develop and become productive major leaguers. In short, everyone should anticipate a lot of turn-over at the major league level; it's part of baseball.
As noted by Bobster, the 53% unsigned free agent number means little to nothing with Barolo Colon is on the list.