redsoxsuck05 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 8 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: as they should, thats how businesses work, guys at the very top get paid the most. Ok Hayek Let me guess, we should disband the Players Union too? Anything that makes a dent in the owner's pockets is bad for society after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenSeattle Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 10 hours ago, mission27 said: It’ll be two years though tbh How can their age difference go from one to two years...?Birthdate: 4/16/1991 (27 y, 9 m, 3 d) Birthdate: 7/6/1992 (26 y, 6 m, 13 d) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 12 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said: Ok Hayek Let me guess, we should disband the Players Union too? Anything that makes a dent in the owner's pockets is bad for society after all. what are you talking about, owners do and should make the most money, this isnt hard to comprehend. Baseball needs some serious work on this but blaming owners cause the mlbpa didnt push for a minimum % revenue is moronic. You sure do get salty when common sense comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 People are ignoring that analytics is the reason salaries are going down. It's because front offices are getting smarter. The were spending so much on bad contracts (either paying more than a player is worth or paying for 10 years knowing the last 5+ will be horrible just to have the player for the first 5). That artificially increased the dollar value per win to an unsustainable level. Think about it. The way WAR is calculated is with a team of replacement players getting 48 wins. Yet the dollar value of a win was creeping up to $7+M. That means 4 10 win players costs you $280M a season but only gets you 88 wins. That is unreasonable. As more teams moved to analytics and started spending more wisely the dollar value of a win drops down to a more manageable and sustainable level. Therefore player salaries even if valued the same in WAR are going to drop. The problem is people always trying to base a persons contract on what someone else got when that was a bad contract. Especially one signed more than a couple years ago. Just because the Mets signed Cespedes to a really dumb contract doesn't mean that should be a baseline for guys like Harper. The other thing the players and fans fail to recognize is because the dollar value of a win is also simultaneously slightly devalued by guys playing great while still in arbitration, you can't win with a team full of guys being paid full value. You need to be looking for surplus value. If Manny Machado is worth 6.5 WAR that means you need 7 of him to make the playoffs. If we assume a team carrying a salary of $180 is reasonable for these franchises that is a little less than $26M a year. So the 7/175 reported isn't an unreasonable offer. Harper people are still buying on potential even though he is already 26. Whatever the reason (and I know injuries have played a part) he hasn't posted a 5 WAR season in the last 3 years. The media suggesting the guys could get near 35-40M/yr was absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 11 hours ago, GmenSeattle said: How can their age difference go from one to two years...?Birthdate: 4/16/1991 (27 y, 9 m, 3 d) Birthdate: 7/6/1992 (26 y, 6 m, 13 d) You’re either signing Machado now at 26 or signing Areenado in a year at 28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 35 minutes ago, mse326 said: People are ignoring that analytics is the reason salaries are going down. It's because front offices are getting smarter. The were spending so much on bad contracts (either paying more than a player is worth or paying for 10 years knowing the last 5+ will be horrible just to have the player for the first 5). That artificially increased the dollar value per win to an unsustainable level. Think about it. The way WAR is calculated is with a team of replacement players getting 48 wins. Yet the dollar value of a win was creeping up to $7+M. That means 4 10 win players costs you $280M a season but only gets you 88 wins. That is unreasonable. As more teams moved to analytics and started spending more wisely the dollar value of a win drops down to a more manageable and sustainable level. Therefore player salaries even if valued the same in WAR are going to drop. The problem is people always trying to base a persons contract on what someone else got when that was a bad contract. Especially one signed more than a couple years ago. Just because the Mets signed Cespedes to a really dumb contract doesn't mean that should be a baseline for guys like Harper. The other thing the players and fans fail to recognize is because the dollar value of a win is also simultaneously slightly devalued by guys playing great while still in arbitration, you can't win with a team full of guys being paid full value. You need to be looking for surplus value. If Manny Machado is worth 6.5 WAR that means you need 7 of him to make the playoffs. If we assume a team carrying a salary of $180 is reasonable for these franchises that is a little less than $26M a year. So the 7/175 reported isn't an unreasonable offer. Harper people are still buying on potential even though he is already 26. Whatever the reason (and I know injuries have played a part) he hasn't posted a 5 WAR season in the last 3 years. The media suggesting the guys could get near 35-40M/yr was absurd. Far too rational a comment for this forum. Clearly you needed to include multiple references: "Gross revenues...but the gross revenues!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, mse326 said: People are ignoring that analytics is the reason salaries are going down. It's because front offices are getting smarter. The were spending so much on bad contracts (either paying more than a player is worth or paying for 10 years knowing the last 5+ will be horrible just to have the player for the first 5). That artificially increased the dollar value per win to an unsustainable level. Think about it. The way WAR is calculated is with a team of replacement players getting 48 wins. Yet the dollar value of a win was creeping up to $7+M. That means 4 10 win players costs you $280M a season but only gets you 88 wins. That is unreasonable. As more teams moved to analytics and started spending more wisely the dollar value of a win drops down to a more manageable and sustainable level. Therefore player salaries even if valued the same in WAR are going to drop. The problem is people always trying to base a persons contract on what someone else got when that was a bad contract. Especially one signed more than a couple years ago. Just because the Mets signed Cespedes to a really dumb contract doesn't mean that should be a baseline for guys like Harper. The other thing the players and fans fail to recognize is because the dollar value of a win is also simultaneously slightly devalued by guys playing great while still in arbitration, you can't win with a team full of guys being paid full value. You need to be looking for surplus value. If Manny Machado is worth 6.5 WAR that means you need 7 of him to make the playoffs. If we assume a team carrying a salary of $180 is reasonable for these franchises that is a little less than $26M a year. So the 7/175 reported isn't an unreasonable offer. Harper people are still buying on potential even though he is already 26. Whatever the reason (and I know injuries have played a part) he hasn't posted a 5 WAR season in the last 3 years. The media suggesting the guys could get near 35-40M/yr was absurd. Yeah but you’re ignoring the actual market dynamics. If every player were a free agent at once your math might hold but these are incredibly scarce resources. Realistically the formula is: Money available to spend on free agents divided by WAR in the free agent pool The numerator is shrinking massively due to external and structural factors. This is different than a few years back when teams were re allocating FA dollars from big name older players to younger players like Porcello and Heyward. They aren’t re allocating to win more. They are actively pulling back. Most of the best players in baseball are pre-FA players. Teams would love to spend money on them but they aren’t available. So that goes both ways. Some teams benefit because they have 6-7 WAR superstars they are paying peanuts. But it also means those same teams and others have a **** ton of money to splash around on the few 6-7 WAR players who hit the market who can get them over the hump. Its not like teams are taking this money they’ve saved the past 3 years and spending it elsewhere. The Yankees don’t actually think not signing Machado makes them a better team. They just believe - correctly - that they can not sign Machado and Harper, still be almost as good, and let another $20 or $30 or $50 million drop to the bottom line. Why are teams allocating less to free agents? Two main drivers imo: - teams realized tanking worked and now half the teams in MLB at least are not really in on free agents - the luxury tax is acting as a de facto cap. The owners always wanted one but the PA wouldn’t go for it and they weren’t able to collude to put one in place. This is what economists call a focal point equilibrium in game theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 15 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said: Ok Hayek Let me guess, we should disband the Players Union too? Anything that makes a dent in the owner's pockets is bad for society after all. Hayek would get rid of the government sanctioned monopoly the MLB owners have too tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: what are you talking about, owners do and should make the most money, this isnt hard to comprehend. Baseball needs some serious work on this but blaming owners cause the mlbpa didnt push for a minimum % revenue is moronic. You sure do get salty when common sense comes into play. Not the owners fault. Although Ive gotta say a strike will be very bad for everyone. Probably best for the owners to come to a better deal next time around for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, mission27 said: Money available to spend on free agents divided by WAR in the free agent pool The numerator is shrinking massively due to external and structural factors. That is false. 1. Just because money is available doesn't mean it should be spent 2. You are assuming the players are using that formula which they aren't 3. Players are worth what they are worth. They don't become worth more just because there are only a few that are FAs. Value isn't a year to year thing. That is exactly what teams were doing before and why there are so many bad contracts. They paid absurd amounts to the best FA just because they were the best FA, not because they were worth it and it cripples them for years to come. 4. When players are asking for long term deals you definitely can't look at it based on a single year of available budget. 9 minutes ago, mission27 said: Its not like teams are taking this money they’ve saved the past 3 years and spending it elsewhere. The Yankees don’t actually think not signing Machado makes them a better team. They just believe - correctly - that they can not sign Machado and Harper, still be almost as good, and let another $20 or $30 or $50 million drop to the bottom line. That is what is called good business. At some point people have to stop treating sports as different. The goal of any business is to make money. More specifically the optimum amount of money. There is always a balance between quality of the product and revenue. You can spend a ton to make the best product but if that doesn't result in a comparable increase in revenue to increase or at least maintain profit then that isn't what any business does. No business will spend a ton of money to slightly improve a product that won't result in higher revenue. Same goes for sports. This is a business, plain an simple. Owners are just getting better at knowing where their profit margins are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 31 minutes ago, mse326 said: That is false. 1. Just because money is available doesn't mean it should be spent 2. You are assuming the players are using that formula which they aren't 3. Players are worth what they are worth. They don't become worth more just because there are only a few that are FAs. Value isn't a year to year thing. That is exactly what teams were doing before and why there are so many bad contracts. They paid absurd amounts to the best FA just because they were the best FA, not because they were worth it and it cripples them for years to come. 4. When players are asking for long term deals you definitely can't look at it based on a single year of available budget. That is what is called good business. At some point people have to stop treating sports as different. The goal of any business is to make money. More specifically the optimum amount of money. There is always a balance between quality of the product and revenue. You can spend a ton to make the best product but if that doesn't result in a comparable increase in revenue to increase or at least maintain profit then that isn't what any business does. No business will spend a ton of money to slightly improve a product that won't result in higher revenue. Same goes for sports. This is a business, plain an simple. Owners are just getting better at knowing where their profit margins are. It’s more complicated than that. There are two businesses here, the players and the owners. Players are not employees in the traditional sense and there isn’t a free market for their services. Their relative share of the pie is based on collective bargaining between the two sides. Bottom line is the PA messed up and things are getting out of whack. And value is market driven. Supply and demand. If a win is worth $x, a win on the free agent market is worth some multiple of that, because those players are actually available and scarce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 9 minutes ago, mission27 said: It’s more complicated than that. There are two businesses here, the players and the owners. Players are not employees in the traditional sense and there isn’t a free market for their services. Their relative share of the pie is based on collective bargaining between the two sides. Bottom line is the PA messed up and things are getting out of whack. And value is market driven. Supply and demand. If a win is worth $x, a win on the free agent market is worth some multiple of that, because those players are actually available and scarce. They aren't two business. You think this is the only business that deals with unions and a CBA? And absolutely are employees. And there is free market when they are free agents. You can say they messed up in not demanding a floor (I agree) but the issues with guys like Harper and Machado aren't those teams. It's teams that are spending more than what any reasonable floor would be realizing the market was out of whack before with salaries to high and are now correcting while the players aren't realizing that or don't care and think it should stay that way. Again supply and demand only works with FA contracts that are 1 year. As soon as multiple years are involved that goes away and it is about value because the money you spend now you can't spend later. A team may not choose to spend it later but the option is there. You can't just spend it because it's available unless it does nothing to opportunity cost. Multi year deals do that. Value is also based on what it adds to a team. Contrary to what everyone wants to believe, wins aren't really the primary goal. So what they add in wins is irrelevant. Its what they add in revenue since profit is the primary goal as it is IN EVERY SINGLE FOR PROFIT BUSINESS. Sports are not different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 It’s not a free market. It’s a government protected monopoly. If it wasn’t... and the players left and started their own league... where would the revenue go? Would it stay with the pinstripes or would it go with Aaron Judge and Bryce Harper? The owners own the stadiums and the IP. The players own themselves. It’s two separate entities... and I’d argue more of the value lies with the players than the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 17 minutes ago, mission27 said: It’s not a free market. It’s a government protected monopoly. If it wasn’t... and the players left and started their own league... where would the revenue go? Would it stay with the pinstripes or would it go with Aaron Judge and Bryce Harper? The owners own the stadiums and the IP. The players own themselves. It’s two separate entities... and I’d argue more of the value lies with the players than the owners. Government doesn't protect monopolies, it prohibits them and this one just isn't prohibited. There is no general free standing anti-trust principle. If anything this is the freest market of the sports because there is no government interference. You also can't blame it on the monopoly given that the other sports don't have the anti-trust exemption and work in the same way. Hell for many years the MLBPA was the strongest of the sports unions despite having to deal with the exemption. The players are free to leave and try to start their own league. They would just likely fail because fans would stay with their MLB team and not go to the new league.. Revenue would go with wherever the patrons went. If they stayed patronizing the Yankees it would stay there, if they decided instead to patronize where Harper and Judge went it would go there. Yes the owners are the owners, very good. The players own themselves just like every employee owns themselves I'm not sure what you are getting at. That isn't two separate businesses. Any agreement is between two or more entities that doesn't make them separate businesses per se. They can agree to a CBA and contract or not. The value lies with the competition. The owners are the ones who put on the competition and take the liability for its costs. Not the players. That is why the owners get a bigger chunk. Just like Boxing promoters get the big money because they are the ones taking the risk. And the players don't have more of the value. That is why the league stays afloat even as players leave. Look at any sport when replacement players have been used. Revenue decreased but not nearly enough to say that the players had most of the value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Guys arent getting paid for the same reason NFL teams dont pay RBs... rookies are under team control for so long, and for such a small amount of money that it makes zero financial sense to have a team full of veterans... especially when the LT has penalties such as draft picks and international money, no one wants to deplete their farm system for any FA At this point these FAs need to accept what the market is and just sign a STD with incentives or something and an opt out. 4 years 110m or something. just get the deal done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.