GatewayRedbirds.com

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I don’t think I’ve seen that ITT. Just that younger players should get paid more, not necessarily who they play for

How else are you going to force owners to pay younger players what they're worth, if not through free agency? I think it's what Farewell Friends was suggesting here:

Farewell Friends wrote:Yeah, when the PA gets around to addressing a system that forces Kris Bryant to play seven seasons before reaching free agency then I'll take their complaints more seriously. They keep agreeing to CBAs that try to reward veterans at the expense of younger players, who, duh, are a better value.

I’m fine with that and must have read past that reply. There are a lot of “six years of team control seems pretty fair” comments here tho.

A system where players are controlled on the front half of their careers AND constricted on the back half won’t last.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I’m fine with that and must have read past that reply. There are a lot of “six years of team control seems pretty fair” comments here tho.

A system where players are controlled on the front half of their careers AND constricted on the back half won’t last.

I think we have yet to see them being constricted on the back end. I still think all of these guys will get paid, eventually. Some of them are asking for insane money (Holland), and others have offers, but not from the team that they want (Darvish). Both sides are being stubborn.

I’m not so sure. I hope they do

Last time I checked Fangraphs was part of the Deep State lulling fans into accepting collusion, so props to Sullivan for going rogue.

misterManager wrote:
The point Jeff Sullivan made is that we need to change the verbiage from "bad contract" to "player-friendly" and a "good" contract to "team-friendly." We prop up the cause of owners saving money on the best players every time we say that Yelich or whomever is signed to a great contract. Inherent in that is the idea that the player would earn more on the free market had he not signed an extension when he was first breaking into the majors.

Fair.

MrCrowesGarden wrote: A system where players are controlled on the front half of their careers AND constricted on the back half won’t last.

Nor should it.

Salaries aren't that restricted on the back end but all the players have to compete with young players that are getting better and better. The floor has really been raised on "replacement level". Just one example....The Cardinals got 3.5 WAR out of Aledmys Diaz. As soon as he struggled he was basically discarded for Dejong. Neither of these guys were top 100 prospects. Ten years ago, I'd have been floored if you told me the Cards would give up that quickly on a rookie SS that put up 3.5 WAR. Now it's fairly routine. If a cost controlled player like Diaz can be discarded that easily, then the veterans that have to be paid millions also have a tough hill to climb. They are more proven but they cost a lot more. When a team has a "hole" in their lineup or farm system today, it's doesn't mean they have nothing. It means they probably have 2 or 3 guys in the minors that they can give a shot for really cheap and see if they work out, and if they don't they just move on to the next one. I'm exaggerating a bit because even the Cards have Fowler and Ozuna etc but I think this is part of what is going on here.

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.

cardstatman wrote: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.