OnlyBucs

6F4E466F444C2B0 wrote: Here is an interesting article from Jonah Keri at CBS Sports



MLB GMs Make Sense of the Bryce Harper and Manny Machado Market and the Changing Dynamics of Free Agency



Good read.  Tell me what you all think.


I read an article earlier today decrying the non-signings of Machado and Harper. That cbssports article addresses a lot of the reasons that those two haven't come to terms with any team yet.



From my point of view I see Andrew McCutchen as the perfect example of why caution should be applied by a GM to sign Harper and Machado to their anticipated 10 year $30M/season deals. At age 26 Cutch had a resume similar to both Harper and Machado. If Cutch had been a UFA and signed a deal like the one above he'd be owed $120M over the next 4 years. Instead, the Phillies have him signed for a cost of $62M over the next 4 seasons. Personally, I don't think Cutch's production is worth that much, but it's certainly better for a team to pay $62M than almost double that amount. Who can blame a GM for wanting to pay for peak production only during a player's peak production years.

I appreciate the idea of paying for production at the later ages. How do you all feel about the players, when they are young and productive, being locked into a fixed six-year salary scale? It would seem that may be unfair in the other direction.

5A58424452370 wrote: I appreciate the idea of paying for production at the later ages. How do you all feel about the players, when they are young and productive, being locked into a fixed six-year salary scale? It would seem that may be unfair in the other direction.


Talking about things that make you say "Hmm!" Your question is worth further discussion.



And I want to add another idea to your question. Why is MLB so stingy with players in MiLB? Yes the top draftees and foreign prospects get some big bucks to sign but most of these kids get little to no money to live on both during the season and especially in the off-season.

My view from the nest..

I think there maybe bidding war(behind closed doors) between the 2 players and the owners to see which can be the best deal for an x amount of yrs and x amount of dollars and the rest will be bread crumbs so to speak for the other players. I wont be surprised if there is a flurry of FA signings after 1 or both are signed, especialy if its real close to spring training time.

76746E687E1B0 wrote: I appreciate the idea of paying for production at the later ages. How do you all feel about the players, when they are young and productive, being locked into a fixed six-year salary scale? It would seem that may be unfair in the other direction.


Aren't they fairly locked in now? For first 3 years (other than super two) the pay rate doesn't change much at all. Then comes arbitration which seems to be based on a combination of performance and years of service.



Gerritt Cole made:



512,500

531,000

541,000

3,750,000



Josh Bell made:



549,000

572,500

0E0C161006630 wrote: I appreciate the idea of paying for production at the later ages. How do you all feel about the players, when they are young and productive, being locked into a fixed six-year salary scale? It would seem that may be unfair in the other direction.


I feel like the only "fair" solution to these issues would be a restructuring of MLB's CBA and team payroll standards. However, since the Players Union signed off on the current CBA which put this system in place, I can't feel too badly for the players.

Brewers sign Yasmani Grandal. One year $18.25 million.



This division is not getting easier and the Pirates are not keeping pace.

7D5A51723F0 wrote: Brewers sign Yasmani Grandal. One year $18.25 million.



This division is not getting easier and the Pirates are not keeping pace.
When the GM announces their goal is to win 78-82 games and hope to occasionally overachieve, it's clear they have no intention of keeping pace. Sadly, the goal of the other division teams appears to be to win 83 or more games. NH won't try to compete with that.

Well, when the standards are impossibly high . . .



You just have to wonder what the end game is here. Does Nutting think people will pay forever for a mediocre team? (Or maybe they will.) I could easily see the Pirates sinking to the bottom of the Central this year.

0C283C34315D0 wrote: I appreciate the idea of paying for production at the later ages. How do you all feel about the players, when they are young and productive, being locked into a fixed six-year salary scale? It would seem that may be unfair in the other direction.


I feel like the only "fair" solution to these issues would be a restructuring of MLB's CBA and team payroll standards. However, since the Players Union signed off on the current CBA which put this system in place, I can't feel too badly for the players. 


Couple more offseasons like the past two and the Players Union will want some major changes to the next CBA. A work stoppage in my opinion would not be out of the question.