Kenley Jansen: Only 6 NL Teams are Trying this Season

[Tomj14]

 

 I was just thinking if a team wants to rebuild and act like a small market team, they shouldn't get the revenue sharing benefits that MLB provides.

Totally agree with that.

That is why it makes it tough in baseball.

Usually I am not a big comprehensive change guy, but in baseball I think it all needs to be looked at. Starting at trading picks and go up from there.

If you end up with a top 3 pick a few years in a row, you might not be spending (probably not) a bunch at the major league level, but those 3 picks aren't cheap either and if you spend a millions of dollars looking for international prospects that probably should be considered as well.

 

I really don't see the teams tanking as the problem, it is teams like Tampa, Florida and maybe even Oakland and KC, that are bad and when they actually hit on a few players they trade them away and start over again.

Does anybody expect the Cubs or Astros to say well our three year run is over and our players are close to free agency lets start the tanking process all over?

[Shaitan]

I think it's all of the factors mentioned combined. The market is attempting to correct itself and spiralling out of control (8 year deals, etc), but it's also alarming that so many players remain unsigned. Lynn, Cobb, Walker: these aren't peripheral or one-dimensional talents like we've seen waiting to sign in previous years.

[Dantes929]

 

It's real hard to feel sorry for millionaires fighting especially when the single mom is working a full time job plus two part time jobs and she can't afford the $30 ticket to the ball game.

 

The only thing I can add is this... if you have the advantage (the owners do) and you have labor peace. Don't grab for more (The Owners did).  

 

Your last paragraph describes the problem perfectly. You have more sympathy for the 2nd year player and less sympathy for the FA vet. The front office looks like it agrees by using decline phase data to adjust payment to the FA Vet. The front office would probably love to pay the 2nd year all star player what they are worth but... well they can't... because they OWN that player. 

 

They don't have to. 

 

The players were OK with this as long as they got their money at the end.

 

Now... they are not getting the money at the end either. 

 

I have no choice but to side with the ball players while I struggle to pay for my kids education and weddings. 

To elaborate, I have little sympathy for the front office.    The model was designed for X amount to be distributed out in salaries and as you pointed out the owners are not doing it but it is kind of hard to blame them.     No one of them should be paying Cobb 80 mil for 5 years if they think it is a bad deal just for the sake of spending more money to make the owners overall look like they are spending a lot of money. 

 

Most players are those in the first 6 years who are comparatively underpaid for their production or average players that get 1 or two year contracts based on their value.    The rallying cry for the new CBA though seems to be for the benefit of the elite few that are making really big money but think they are not getting enough years of really big money. 

    Hosmer shouldn't be arguing that his ability to make 160 mil over the next 8 years was in peril.   He should be arguing that he should have  made 100 mil for what he has already done in his career.   Common sense says their next contract should do away with decline phase contracts and simply pay more for prime production.    

[REPETE]

 

To elaborate, I have little sympathy for the front office.    The model was designed for X amount to be distributed out in salaries and as you pointed out the owners are not doing it but it is kind of hard to blame them.     No one of them should be paying Cobb 80 mil for 5 years if they think it is a bad deal just for the sake of spending more money to make the owners overall look like they are spending a lot of money. 

 

Most players are those in the first 6 years who are comparatively underpaid for their production or average players that get 1 or two year contracts based on their value.    The rallying cry for the new CBA though seems to be for the benefit of the elite few that are making really big money but think they are not getting enough years of really big money. 

    Hosmer shouldn't be arguing that his ability to make 160 mil over the next 8 years was in peril.   He should be arguing that he should have  made 100 mil for what he has already done in his career.   Common sense says their next contract should do away with decline phase contracts and simply pay more for prime production.    

What needs to happen is a complete overhaul.  Baseball owners have huge disparities in revenue opportunities (compared to other sports).  Example:  Twins TV contract.

 

High draft picks get a nice bonus, but everyone down the line is playing in the minors for peanuts.  So when do they get paid?  After 2-6 years in the minors, followed by 6 productive seasons.  But small/mid market teams need that control, as that's their "window". They may overpay for a FA during that window, but it makes no sense to give them 5-8 years of big $$, knowing they won't be competitive for the last 3 years of that deal.  1-2 guys getting big money, then not producing, or the rest of the team not developing as hoped, hamstring a small/mid team into 5 years of mediocrity at best.   

 

If players want more money on the front end, they have to agree that long term contracts are not guaranteed.  Give players earlier options for FA, and the Twins become even less competitive, as the big spenders get the quality years out of Buxton & Sano.  Small market teams need young players at cheap salaries, before they get wooed away by the big $.  Look at Houston.  

 

Otherwise, the small market teams truly become the farm system of the big boys.

[ashbury]

    Hosmer shouldn't be arguing that his ability to make 160 mil over the next 8 years was in peril.   He should be arguing that he should have  made 100 mil for what he has already done in his career.  

This is a nice summary.

 

The downside is that market forces are the easiest way to accomplish this, but going that route at an earlier point in the career comes at the cost of potentially ripping a fan-favorite player from the team earlier than at present. Sports franchises aren't dealing in commodities like soybeans.

[Tomj14]

 

This is a nice summary.

 

The downside is that market forces are the easiest way to accomplish this, but going that route at an earlier point in the career comes at the cost of potentially ripping a fan-favorite player from the team earlier than at present. Sports franchises aren't dealing in commodities like soybeans.

I would argue that fans care more about winning then the players. So if your team continues to win, the fans would be fine with swapping out players. Example the patriots.

 

The hard part about paying earlier in the players career, is that the players that don't turn into stars will end up getting less money. Look at the NFL players basically all good players get a decent first FA contract and after that they have to start taking less money.

 

Maybe part of the solution is a higher base salary for example 1 million.

[Mike Sixel]

There are clearly issues that need to be worked out. From the draft and international free agency, to paying minor league players, to how to pay major league players. I can see small changes, and huge changes, as possibilities.

 

But, every league is struggling with how to pay players. In the NFL, middle tier players are not paid well. In the NBA, the number of awful contracts and tanking teams is too high.

 

I am not sure what the answers are, but a salary floor is not one of them, imo. Why should a team be forced to sign mediocre players? And if you increase pay for existing players, how do you have money for free agency the next year, if you want to jump in?

[Dantes929]

 

There are clearly issues that need to be worked out. From the draft and international free agency, to paying minor league players, to how to pay major league players. I can see small changes, and huge changes, as possibilities.

But, every league is struggling with how to pay players. In the NFL, middle tier players are not paid well. In the NBA, the number of awful contracts and tanking teams is too high.

I am not sure what the answers are, but a salary floor is not one of them, imo. Why should a team be forced to sign mediocre players? And if you increase pay for existing players, how do you have money for free agency the next year, if you want to jump in?

I know I am dreaming here but in my framework where every team ponies up a percentage of gross revenue to a pot and the pot is then distributed based on production (WAR?) then there would be no point to free agency since you wouldn't get a pay raise anyway.   I know its not going to happen but it would solve the problem of owners not paying enough overall and I really like the idea of teams keeping all their own players that they have developed.   Bad teams still improve by better draft spots.   

[mikelink45]

The real injustice is the pay in the minor leagues.  That is where something needs to change.  The stupidity of big contracts to stars after their peaks is foolish.  Raise the minimum pay so players get more in their initial years, pay more to minor leagues and let the market set itself like it is doing right now with Free Agents.  According to one post here Lynn turned down a 2 year $20 Million contract offer from the Twins.  So move on from him.  Look at the foolish talk about $40 mil per year for Bryce Harper - how many pennants has he helped them win?  I loved the 87 and 2017 Twins and the 59 White Sox - teams that played hard and maximized their talent.

 

Teams did not just start tanking - The Philadelphia A's, owned by hall of fame coach Connie Mack who said - "The best thing for a team financially is to be in the running and finish second. If you win, the players all expect raises."   He sold off his players because he did not have sufficient funds, but this is a story like the Houston Astros - the A's finished dead last in the AL seven years in a row from 1915 to 1921, and would not reach .500 again until 1926. The rebuilt team won back-to-back championships in 1929–1930 over the Cubs and Cardinals.   The great depression forced him to sell Jimmy Foxx and other stars and they never recovered.  So they moved to Kansas City where we have another fascinating story.

 

In Kansas City the owner of the team, Arnold Johnson, essentially let the team become a Yankee farm team - making trades that filled the needs of the Yankees and did nothing for the A's.  http://www.baseball-almanac.com/corner/c042001b.shtml   Interesting to note that when this was written the Yankees and Twins lead off the introduction.   One study showed the difference in WAR, but the real difference was that the Yankees had needs for roles to be filled and they did that as well as doubling the WAR the A's got.  Then the A's moved to Oakland.

​And Oakland might have developed Moneyball, but what have they done since Canseco, Bando, Hunter, McQwire??? https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/index.shtml  

 

For years the Yankees dominated the standings in the 1950s and only a few teams really challenged them.  There has never been a year when more than 1/4 - 1/3 of the teams were really in the hunt for first place.  

​Today the dialogue is all a woe-is-me because of the free agent market, but it needs some historic context and a little more wisdom on all sides. 

[Mike Sixel]

I know I am dreaming here but in my framework where every team ponies up a percentage of gross revenue to a pot and the pot is then distributed based on production (WAR?) then there would be no point to free agency since you wouldn't get a pay raise anyway.   I know its not going to happen but it would solve the problem of owners not paying enough overall and I really like the idea of teams keeping all their own players that they have developed.   Bad teams still improve by better draft spots.

 

I actually want more free agency, so players have more control over their lives.

[ashbury]

I actually want more free agency, so players have more control over their lives.

Yes and no. When a new player comes in, some roster slot is taken away from an incumbent player who may very well have been happy in his present circumstance. If he's no good anymore, so be it, but if he's able to latch onto a job somewhere else, it means a move which is undesirable even if he chooses the destination. Such is life, but I'm just pointing out it's not quite so simple.

[TheLeviathan]

The players are gearing up for an ugly, ugly fight.  

 

I don't think baseball will truly fix these issues until they find a better way to split media revenues and get away from local contracts.  Ever since the first few major media contracts were signed the escalation in free agency prices and the resulting counter-measures by front offices have been building to this.

 

It won't be solved easily.  I'm not sure it can be solved until MLB goes to a revenue format closer to the NFL or NHL.  (I think the NHL is a better model for baseball to follow in general, but it has problems as well)

[Mike Sixel]

Yes and no. When a new player comes in, some roster slot is taken away from an incumbent player who may very well have been happy in his present circumstance. If he's no good anymore, so be it, but if he's able to latch onto a job somewhere else, it means a move which is undesirable even if he chooses the destination. Such is life, but I'm just pointing out it's not quite so simple.

Good point. Just shows how complex this really is.

[Dantes929]

 

I actually want more free agency, so players have more control over their lives.

You are way more altruistic than I am.    We are all controlled by various things.  Family, work, etc.   I guess I am not concerned at all with men playing baseball for a living, making millions of dollars having even more control over their lives.    I am more attached to the team and like following the players as they come up and develop as it pertains to the Twins.      More free agency just makes it more of a game of musical chairs and holds less interest for me.   

[Mike Sixel]

You are way more altruistic than I am. We are all controlled by various things. Family, work, etc. I guess I am not concerned at all with men playing baseball for a living, making millions of dollars having even more control over their lives. I am more attached to the team and like following the players as they come up and develop as it pertains to the Twins. More free agency just makes it more of a game of musical chairs and holds less interest for me.

Fair for sure. I only root for laundry now, Adrian Peterson taught me that lesson. At least on the field. Off the field? I root for labor.

[Riverbrian]

 

The CBA should be improved, but I don’t see the evidence for a major problem here. Mike Moustakas, Lance Lynn and Alex Cobb not getting $80M deals? JD Martinez and Yu Darvish not getting $150M?

Also, as Thrylos mentions, it seems like Jansen is undercounting. In the NL, four teams are sitting out free agency - Atlanta (waiting for prospects to mature instead of signing more Markakises or Dickeys), Cincinnati (aimless, hopeless), Miami (yeah, they’re tanking) and Pittsburgh (trying to have an upside of being a first round playoff loser while possibly being what is nicely called “cheap”). The other eleven teams are all making investments to win, either now or in the near future.

 

6 is a light number but the point is still the same. 

 

After the Cubs and Astros won World Series titles fairly shortly after executing a complete rebuild... precedent has been set. So... now we got a bunch of teams jumping in and giving it a try. 

 

Teams looking for supplemental help out of FA's this year was down quite a bit. You got a combo of the competitive balance tax on the upper end and the tear it down and rebuild happening on the lower end. 

 

The Teams in the middle who might be ready to spend a little like the Twins, Rockies and Brewers are not historical Market Price Setters.

 

The Yankees, Dodgers, Tigers, White Sox, Giants, Nats, Cards, Cubs, Phillies, Blue Jays, Braves are teams that have jumped into Free Agency fairly aggressively in years past.

 

This year... everyone of those teams is either out or being very cautious either due to the CBA or rebuilding. 

 

It's a perfect storm year and we will have to see what happens next year but I get feeling that it will get worse especially if the Brewers win the world series and show that another complete rebuild team can win it all. 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

 

Does anybody expect the Cubs or Astros to say well our three year run is over and our players are close to free agency lets start the tanking process all over?

 

Honestly... you never know. If the Cubs sign a few more Jason Heyward types and keep trading from the farm for the Quintana's of the world to constantly go for it. Down the road... They might look the Tigers from last year and say... OK... let's reset. 

 

The Astros... right now no... They have a healthy farm system and a young healthy roster but they might have to let Altuve and Springer go elsewhere because they don't want to pay Dodger and Yankee money and if the prospects don't adequately replace them... Well... maybe. 

 

So... Honestly... you never know. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I actually want more free agency, so players have more control over their lives.

 

I agree completely... I can choose where I work. I've always had that choice. 

 

But as a fan I disagree. I want Buxton to be here for awhile before he signs with Atlanta. 

 

I like the system the way it was... and I wish the owners would just pay the FA's... Consider it back pay if you have to. 

[Dantes929]

 

I agree completely... I can choose where I work. I've always had that choice. 

 

But as a fan I disagree. I want Buxton to be here for awhile before he signs with Atlanta. 

 

I like the system the way it was... and I wish the owners would just pay the FA's... Consider it back pay if you have to. 

"I like the system the way it was... and I wish the owners would just pay the FA's... Consider it back pay if you have to."   

 

That's an argument for paying Mauer a lot of money to keep him but I don't think any owner wants to pay back pay for a guy that played for someone else.  Its essentially what they are doing now and it is falling apart.      Might work if there was a way to make the original team pony up for part of the contract as back pay but then why not just have them pay it to start with.

 

"I agree completely... I can choose where I work. I've always had that choice."

 

I don't know what you do except write kick ass blogs for the opening game of each Twins series so maybe its true for you but even a statement that simple is fraught with variables and trade offs for most people.       You can't  choose to work on Wall Street in Winona.  You might want to work as a scout for the Twins but if they say we are sending you to Venezuela for 6 years you can say you have the choice not to go but then you might lose the choice on what you do.   Add in another variable for how much you make and where you want to live and throw in family and you will find that most people don't have all the choices you think they do.    

Again, if you are talking established players you are talking about guys that make a huge amount of money presumably doing what they love doing and the trade off might be playing at beautiful Kaufman Stadium rather than beautiful Target Field for 81 days out of the year.

[Mike Sixel]

"I like the system the way it was... and I wish the owners would just pay the FA's... Consider it back pay if you have to."

 

That's an argument for paying Mauer a lot of money to keep him but I don't think any owner wants to pay back pay for a guy that played for someone else. Its essentially what they are doing now and it is falling apart. Might work if there was a way to make the original team pony up for part of the contract as back pay but then why not just have them pay it to start with.

 

"I agree completely... I can choose where I work. I've always had that choice."

 

I don't know what you do except write kick ass blogs for the opening game of each Twins series so maybe its true for you but even a statement that simple is fraught with variables and trade offs for most people. You can't choose to work on Wall Street in Winona. You might want to work as a scout for the Twins but if they say we are sending you to Venezuela for 6 years you can say you have the choice not to go but then you might lose the choice on what you do. Add in another variable for how much you make and where you want to live and throw in family and you will find that most people don't have all the choices you think they do.

Again, if you are talking established players you are talking about guys that make a huge amount of money presumably doing what they love doing and the trade off might be playing at beautiful Kaufman Stadium rather than beautiful Target Field for 81 days out of the year.

Most people can't be traded to another company. Most people aren't required to do their trade for six to ten years with one company before they can switch companies. That's pretty obviously what he meant.

[ashbury]

Most people can't be traded to another company. Most people aren't required to do their trade for six to ten years with one company before they can switch companies. That's pretty obviously what he meant.

Most people don't pull down $500K a year once they've reached the requisite skill level to do the job.

 

Most people aren't arguably one of the 750 best in the world at what they do, at least not in a field millions of people give a try at one point or other in their lives.

 

Brian's post had value, but most analogies break down eventually and this one probably sooner than many.

[bird]

The greed, on every front, is suffocating: fans, advertisers, agents, players, owners, the tax man...

 

Now, when I execute the bloodless coup (again, nonviolence is a goal, not a promise), things will change.

 

Revenues are $250M. Rostered players will get half of that. The old 50% of revenue thing. That's $6.25M each, or 5% each on average, for every year.

 

We will have a goal of fair pay, equal pay, and living wage pay. All the way through the organization and beyond. We'll insist on audited compliance by our affiliates, vendors, suppliers, etc. 

 

Our minor league players and staff will enjoy the best compensation and benefits in baseball, bar none. This goes far beyond W-2 income and meal money to focus on physical and mental health, education, family support, legal help, etc.

 

The entire payroll structure will be transparent. In fact, the entire financial operation will be open to the scrutiny of the public. However, I personally will retain autonomy, and will bask in the glory and humbly accept the gratitude my benevolence earns me.

 

We will ask our field staff to declare when a player becomes a Long Term Core player. Our goal will be to accelerate his compensation up to the $6.25M or 5% level by year two of that declaration.

 

If a player, through arbitration or by demand, reaches beyond a "value" of $12.5M, or 10%, he will be declared a Dangling Piece of Trade Bait and advertised to the marketplace as such. He will be traded for developing talent and replaced, ideally from within the system.

 

At any given time, a bona fide HoF type will surface. If the field staff declares such a player to be a "Future Hall of Famer", this rare player will be eligible to be paid 20%, or $25M, annually, on contracts never to extend for greater than five years. While the goal will be to retain said player for his entire career and perhaps beyond in some capacity, he will be traded if he insists on being paid more, and every image of him will have an inscription reading: HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? For every player receiving this designation, roster payroll will increase during his tenure by $12.5M.

 

Should the team, as expected under my leadership, go hog wild, become a dynasty of never-before-seen precedents, and make more than $250M? Ticket prices and concessions will be reduced to get the damn figure back down, with an emphasis on having a whole boatload of seats available for less than the cheapest ticket offered by our new AAA affiliate, the Pacific League champion St. Paul Saints.

[ashbury]

Should the team, as expected under my leadership, go hog wild, become a dynasty of never-before-seen precedents, and make more than $250M? Ticket prices and concessions will be reduced to get the damn figure back down, with an emphasis on having a whole boatload of seats available for less than the cheapest ticket offered by our new AAA affiliate, the Pacific League champion St. Paul Saints.

The Scalpers of the nation thank you. They will be the main beneficiaries, moreso than the little guy.

[Platoon]

It seems part of this is the perfect storm as some have mentioned. But another part is the change is the type of FO personnel and analytics. Example: For years the Twins seemed to levitate in the middle. Not spendimg big bucks on FA to make a true run at a pennant, yet signing enough mediocre veterans to win enough games to stay out of the top of the draft. See Phil Hughes. Sounded good to a lot of fans, but mostly did little to make the team playoff caliber. The new FO types seem to have come to the conclusion that the older FA are not worth the money as that few have the ability to advance you past what you have already, and cheaper. Does WAR encourage that analysis? Quite likely. The new FO types also seem to be more proactive. Either go for it, or set things up to go for it. (tanking).

 

All sports tank. But it seems MLB unique form of minor leagues, options, 3 year minimum salaries. 3 year arbitration, and individual media contracts exacerbate the problem.

 

The league is a franchise. For the franchise to be successful they have to "give" each franchisee an opportunity to be successful, all things being equal. That can never happen if they turn the players into FA at an earlier age. Or start trading draft picks. Don't get me wrong, I am with the players. But their overall success and income level will be improved if they decide that a restructure is necessary, but that the goal is not seeing a few players get more, but all get something more. And that it is in their best interest to have as many teams competitive as possible. And for their part the owners will have to solve the inequitable amount of media contract revenue available to each team. While I don't have the answer, it's not going to be solvable by a simple tweaking of this system. Baseball talent, ergo baseball contracts analysis has changed forever. The league and players will have to adjust to that fact.

[Riverbrian]

 

The greed, on every front, is suffocating: fans, advertisers, agents, players, owners, the tax man...

 

Now, when I execute the bloodless coup (again, nonviolence is a goal, not a promise), things will change.

 

Revenues are $250M. Rostered players will get half of that. The old 50% of revenue thing. That's $6.25M each, or 5% each on average, for every year.

 

We will have a goal of fair pay, equal pay, and living wage pay. All the way through the organization and beyond. We'll insist on audited compliance by our affiliates, vendors, suppliers, etc. 

 

Our minor league players and staff will enjoy the best compensation and benefits in baseball, bar none. This goes far beyond W-2 income and meal money to focus on physical and mental health, education, family support, legal help, etc.

 

The entire payroll structure will be transparent. In fact, the entire financial operation will be open to the scrutiny of the public. However, I personally will retain autonomy, and will bask in the glory and humbly accept the gratitude my benevolence earns me.

 

We will ask our field staff to declare when a player becomes a Long Term Core player. Our goal will be to accelerate his compensation up to the $6.25M or 5% level by year two of that declaration.

 

If a player, through arbitration or by demand, reaches beyond a "value" of $12.5M, or 10%, he will be declared a Dangling Piece of Trade Bait and advertised to the marketplace as such. He will be traded for developing talent and replaced, ideally from within the system.

 

At any given time, a bona fide HoF type will surface. If the field staff declares such a player to be a "Future Hall of Famer", this rare player will be eligible to be paid 20%, or $25M, annually, on contracts never to extend for greater than five years. While the goal will be to retain said player for his entire career and perhaps beyond in some capacity, he will be traded if he insists on being paid more, and every image of him will have an inscription reading: HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? For every player receiving this designation, roster payroll will increase during his tenure by $12.5M.

 

Should the team, as expected under my leadership, go hog wild, become a dynasty of never-before-seen precedents, and make more than $250M? Ticket prices and concessions will be reduced to get the damn figure back down, with an emphasis on having a whole boatload of seats available for less than the cheapest ticket offered by our new AAA affiliate, the Pacific League champion St. Paul Saints.

 

I think this will screw everything up beyond recognition and that is why we should absolutely do it. I don't even care if it would work. 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Most people don't pull down $500K a year once they've reached the requisite skill level to do the job.

 

Most people aren't arguably one of the 750 best in the world at what they do, at least not in a field millions of people give a try at one point or other in their lives.

 

Brian's post had value, but most analogies break down eventually and this one probably sooner than many.

 

Yep Analogies will break down under scrutiny but I don't expect people to scrutinize mine. It would cramp my style... and the scrutinizer will just come down with a dull headache. 

 

[Platoon]

Yep Analogies will break down under scrutiny but I don't expect people to scrutinize mine. It would cramp my style... and the scrutinizer will just come down with a dull headache.

Worse yet, it could help you get elected!

[Riverbrian]

 

"I like the system the way it was... and I wish the owners would just pay the FA's... Consider it back pay if you have to."   

 

That's an argument for paying Mauer a lot of money to keep him but I don't think any owner wants to pay back pay for a guy that played for someone else.  Its essentially what they are doing now and it is falling apart.      Might work if there was a way to make the original team pony up for part of the contract as back pay but then why not just have them pay it to start with.

 

"I agree completely... I can choose where I work. I've always had that choice."

 

I don't know what you do except write kick ass blogs for the opening game of each Twins series so maybe its true for you but even a statement that simple is fraught with variables and trade offs for most people.       You can't  choose to work on Wall Street in Winona.  You might want to work as a scout for the Twins but if they say we are sending you to Venezuela for 6 years you can say you have the choice not to go but then you might lose the choice on what you do.   Add in another variable for how much you make and where you want to live and throw in family and you will find that most people don't have all the choices you think they do.    

Again, if you are talking established players you are talking about guys that make a huge amount of money presumably doing what they love doing and the trade off might be playing at beautiful Kaufman Stadium rather than beautiful Target Field for 81 days out of the year.

 

Yeah I over simplified my point but even that Wall Street guy who can't work in Winona (actually with computers... they can) can still go from Goldman Sachs to BOA if he chooses. That's why they are getting those real competitive job offers with all that cocaine. 

 

But I don't want to get bogged down in that point... Like Ash mentioned... Ball players are compensated handsomely for the inconvenience so the comparable isn't always going to hold water when you try to compare it to the freedom a truck driver enjoys. 

 

My real point is getting tangled with your point.

 

I'm saying that paying free agents in decline phase is the price that owners should pay for not having to pay them during their prime years. The players union screwed up and the owners are taking advantage of the screw up and it will get more pronounced because the metrics are screaming they shouldn't pay the decline phase player and the old school GM has been replaced by the Metrics People who can hear the screaming. 

 

I'm saying that the owners should consider not taking advantage of the screw up... let sleeping dogs lie. If they close the door on paying the decline phase free agent because of the metrics screaming at them. They will force the players union to try and open a new door during prime years and if that happens... Watch the market forces drive free agent costs to unheard of levels. The Pujols contract will look like mine in comparison. 

 

Back Pay was a bad example on my part.

 

It's more like... the player went through the process in good faith with the hope of getting paid at the end and when they finally arrive... it ends up not being there because the metrics killed it.

 

Kind of like Social Security being gone... right about the time I'm going to my mailbox. 

 

 

 

 

[jimmer]

 

 

It's more like... the player went through the process in good faith with the hope of getting paid at the end and when they finally arrive... it ends up not being there because the metrics killed it.

 

Kind of like Social Security being gone... right about the time I'm going to my mailbox. 

Yeah, supposedly gone a couple years after I start collecting. No government should be allowed to keep pulling from that Trust set up for the people. I'm reeeeaaaaally glad I'm not going to have to depend on it, just in case it is gone.  

[Riverbrian]

 

Yeah, supposedly gone a couple years after I start collecting. No government should be allowed to keep pulling from that Trust set up for the people. I'm reeeeaaaaally glad I'm not going to have to depend on it, just in case it is gone.  

 

I was depending on it. 

 

It was going to be my RV Gas Money!!!