GatewayRedbirds.com

Felix The Cat wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.

Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?

As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.

Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?

ATCQ
11:04
Is it possible that between the Ozuna trade and the Piscotty trade, the Cardinals both improved their team AND their farm?

Jeff Sullivan
11:04
30-40% yes!

MinorLeagueGuy wrote:Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..

Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports that the Brewers are getting close to a trade.
The club has been shopping dynamic outfielder Domingo Santana this offseason, but have yet to find a potential match in any deal. The Brewers have a logjam of outfielders, so making a move prior to the start of spring training seems like an inevitability.

heyzeus wrote:

MinorLeagueGuy wrote:Brewers made offer to Yu. Theyre also on the verge of making a trade. Maybe one thing has to do with the other..

Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports that the Brewers are getting close to a trade.
The club has been shopping dynamic outfielder Domingo Santana this offseason, but have yet to find a potential match in any deal. The Brewers have a logjam of outfielders, so making a move prior to the start of spring training seems like an inevitability.

Seems crazy to me they'd be trading a 25 yo under cheap team control who just put up 30 HR and a .371 OBP in his first full MLB season. You do you, Brew crew.

Popeye_Card wrote:

Felix The Cat wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.

Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?

As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.

Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?

Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.

Famous Mortimer wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

Felix The Cat wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.

Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?

As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.

Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?

Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.

It seems that the unwritten agreement between ownership and players was that ownership would get the first six years cheap, then *whoever* would pay them a proper payday for their later years. Now, it would appear ownership is ignoring their side of things. You don't want to pay players going into their thirties, fine, but then reduce the automatic team control years (which is no better for the game or fans than the reserve clause was).

Popeye_Card wrote:

Famous Mortimer wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

Felix The Cat wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

ZigZagCardsFan wrote:Say what you will about the dollar amounts of contracts, but it's about time teams started getting smarter to the term of these deals.

Why? Did some owners go bankrupt?

As a fan I don't like seeing large percentages of payroll (no matter how large pay roll is) tied up in years 4, 5, 6, and 7 of deals for players that aren't worth deals that long.

Should older employees in other industries be paid less (instead of more) if they're less ambitious or less hard working as younger employees?

Well in an ideal world, yeah they probably should. But baseball is also much different than the real world, and even other major sports.

Pre-arb players make ~10-15% of the average MLB salary. ~1.5% of the top salaries. I can't think of many businesses where people who perform the same job have such a spread in earnings based on a few years of experience.

It seems that the unwritten agreement between ownership and players was that ownership would get the first six years cheap, then *whoever* would pay them a proper payday for their later years. Now, it would appear ownership is ignoring their side of things. You don't want to pay players going into their thirties, fine, but then reduce the automatic team control years (which is no better for the game or fans than the reserve clause was).

I don't think they're ignoring anything. It is the deal the player's union collectively bargained, which is dominated by the veterans. Vets get paid, rookies have to earn it. That's the way it has always worked. The players need to change their philosophy if they want better balance.

GM's are smarter now. They aren't going to keep signing veterans that don't provide value--that's a great way to lose your job.