Collusion

[misterManager]

What would happen to player development if players became free agents almost immediately after breaking into the league?

It would destroy the minor league farm system concept, IMHO.

It would be good for players, but likely a disaster for small-market teams.

This is the downside to any cut in the number of arbitration years. The big market teams will then just buy every star when he hits FA at 25 in this scenario. Seems like arb $ needs to kick in earlier, to get the best players the most money while they're earning it, while still keeping the small market teams able to have more than one year of success per decade. Even then you have to assume that there is less room for error for those small franchises.

[Jocephus]

I do. It's called Math.
by Derrick Goold 11:44 AM

Do you personally believe that there is some specific or even informal collusion among owners to drive down free-agent salaries in 2018?
by Andrew Rudolph 11:44 AM

[misterManager]

I do. It's called Math.
by Derrick Goold 11:44 AM

Do you personally believe that there is some specific or even informal collusion among owners to drive down free-agent salaries in 2018?
by Andrew Rudolph 11:44 AM

[Jocephus]

One Thing the Players Could Do Right Now

by Craig Edwards - February 12, 2018

Asking players not to sign extensions that will set them up for life is a difficult proposition. This is what I wrote last year when Carlos Martinez agreed to a deal that could prove incredibly team friendly:

It’s important to keep in mind that Martinez doesn’t get to make an extension decision 100 times and take the average outcome. He doesn’t even get to do it two times. He has this one decision to make, and passing up $50 million is a difficult decision.

The players and owners have agreed to a system that depresses salaries for a player’s first six-plus seasons in exchange for riches in free agency. That system favors smaller guarantees the further away a player is from free agency. Many players are willing to take a chance to get to free agency. Others are not, and teams still happily take advantage.

Overall, players would be much better off if nobody agreed to a contract extension before free agency — particularly that strain of deal that comes before a player reaches arbitration. Individual players, however, aren’t likely to feel the same way. The union needs to provide some sort of incentive or insurance should a player become hurt or otherwise regress as he proceeds through the arbitration process. Perhaps the MLBPA could offer a lump sum — like 10% of a potential contract offer — to be paid back with 10% of future earnings until it is fully reimbursed or forgiven if the player’s earnings never reach that level. Fantex is doing something like that on the open market, attracting players like Maikel Franco, Andrew Heaney, and Jonathan Schoop, but the player’s union might be in a position to offer better terms.

There’s not a whole lot the players’ union can do right now to battle back against the owners. One thing they can do to show unity and get themselves more money in the future is refuse to sign any contract extensions that gives away free-agent seasons. This has been a Scott Boras tactic for years, and it has generally gone very well for his clients. Rejecting that kind of money likely doesn’t make financial sense for some players, however, so the union needs to help those particular individuals to ensure solidarity. Simply advising against the deals isn’t going to be enough. Tangible, financial help is necessary to prevent players from agreeing to a lifetime of financial security. The CBA is going to be around for many more years. If players want to work within the system, getting as many of their peers to free agency as possible is the goal. The best way to do that is not to sign away prime, free-agent seasons for bargain prices.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/one-thi ... right-now/

[pioneer98]

This is good

The Market Has Come To The Mets, And That's Bad

Some of this can be connected to let’s say broader trends in the culture re: rich people not even pretending to give a [expletive] about anyone else anymore. There are various tactical reasons why a team might decide to retrench or actively tank a season or two, and incentives built into the collective bargaining agreement that provide cover for teams that don’t want to spend on players. But the only reason for a [expletive] third of the league to actively bag the offseason—and the only reason for the commissioner to defend it on the record—is that the plump John Galt cosplayers that own Major League franchises have decided that they really don’t care if you notice them actively bagging an offseason or two. It is not a new thing that powerful people would prioritize their own enrichment over broader obligations or that they would tell crude lies about doing so—that is, in fact, something like the history of these United States—but there is something insulting about how blithe and casual they are currently being about it, in baseball and elsewhere.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters this week that payrolls have kept pace with league revenues, which is a statement so hamfistedly and obviously false that it scans as an intentional provocation. Other statements—most recently the announcement that the commissioner’s office will unilaterally install some rule changes designed to speed up games, and will be notifying the Players Union and everyone else at a date to be determined—really just are actual overt provocations. A plurality of Major League teams taking the offseason all the way off falls somewhere in between those two. It can be explained in unconvincing terms; Manfred did so on Thursday, in a statement that included such soaring oratory as “the clubs have conducted themselves in a manner entirely consistent” with the collective bargaining agreement. But also there’s no real reason to explain it. It absolutely explains itself, and for months now the main question of this offseason has been not whether something untoward and anti-competitive is going on, but whether it’s the result of craven coincidence or craven collusion. Anyone can tell you that it’s wrong; the question is whether it’s actually illegal.

But I am not a lawyer, which is something I have in common with 38 percent of Deadspin’s readership. And anyway, as (actual attorney) Jason Wojciechowski wrote some years back, “if it’s not illegal, it’s legal” is not how the law works, in this area or in the broader breech in which we go about our days. Even an under-credentialed dope like me can tell you that this offseason has seen either the coincidental or coordinated collapse of basic good faith in a marketplace that cannot exist without them. I can also tell you what your favorite baseball team looks like once it slips the surly bonds of good faith business dealing. It looks like my stupid, stupid favorite team. It looks like the New York Mets.

[Momo]

But the only reason for a [expletive] third of the league to actively bag the offseason—and the only reason for the commissioner to defend it on the record—is that the plump John Galt cosplayers that own Major League franchises have decided that they really don’t care if you notice them actively bagging an offseason or two.

Meh.

It's not the only reason. It's a significant reason surely, but part of the reason is the MLBPA's complete failure to work the CBA in their favor to prevent the owners from doing this. Past veterans sold out the future for lining their own pockets and now new veterans are reaping what they sowed.

[Jocephus]

CJL: How do you respond to the folks on Baseball Internet calling FG “anti-labor” or whatever this offseason? FG obviously is not, but interested in your personal thoughts here


Jeff Sullivan: Nobody who works for FanGraphs is pro-ownership and anti-labor. The allegation is absurd


Jeff Sullivan: I understand that we’re entering an era where everyone hates every billionaire, and of course there are owners who don’t invest as much as they ought to. But we write about how the baseball industry functions. The players’ share of revenue hasn’t significantly decreased over the past several years

Jeff Sullivan: No one on staff doesn’t want the players to get paid. At the same time, it’s true that building through free agency isn’t the smartest idea. It’s also true that baseball has limited spending capability by putting caps on amateur investments


Jeff Sullivan: The solution is to direct more money to younger players. You raise minimum salaries, and you blow up arbitration. If there’s a problem developing, that’s how you fix it


Jeff Sullivan: Also, you pay the players in the damn minor leagues


Jeff Sullivan: This has gotten a little rambly, but whatever, it’s a chat

[Momo]

Yay Jeff. That's exactly what you do.

But the vet players will never go for it, and the owners won't in the foreseeable future either.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I'd say he's wrong about the players share of revenue not significantly decreasing over the past few years. Everything else is fine.

[Momo]

I'd say he's wrong about the players share of revenue not significantly decreasing over the past few years. Everything else is fine.

Maybe he means that revenue for the majority of players hasn’t declined? Or some kind of specific revenue division like that? I.e., revenue has decreased for the stars/vets, but the average players aren’t seeing that much of a decrease?

Dunno if that’s true either but it kind of sounds plausible.