Kenley Jansen: Only 6 NL Teams are Trying this Season

[TheLeviathan]

The NHL system for amatuers and two way contracts could conceivably work in baseball.

[ashbury]

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.

This works when there are enough altruists. But what you are describing seems closely related to what economists/philosophers call the Tragedy Of The Commons - everyone is in general agreement that a nice jointly-shared thing is worth maintaining, but everyone is in individual agreement that someone else should do the bulk of the work to do so.

 

I'll also offer pre-existing conditions in the Health Insurance realm as another analogy, with a devout hope that this doesn't turn into a massive tangent.

 

Basically, no one wants to get left holding the bag, and everyone is desperately scared they are about to.

[Dantes929]

 

This works when there are enough altruists. But what you are describing seems closely related to what economists/philosophers call the Tragedy Of The Commons - everyone is in general agreement that a nice jointly-shared thing is worth maintaining, but everyone is in individual agreement that someone else should do the bulk of the work to do so.

 

I'll also offer pre-existing conditions in the Health Insurance realm as another analogy, with a devout hope that this doesn't turn into a massive tangent.

 

Basically, no one wants to get left holding the bag, and everyone is desperately scared they are about to.

You are right that there are not enough altruists.     Not enough people thinking big picture and the common good.

As far as baseball goes, I am a numbers guy but still have a hard time wrapping my mind around the sheer volume of the money being generated by baseball.   How is it possible?   Where does it all come from such that Mauer can be paid 40k every time he comes to bat and that is just one player and one at bat.    I consider myself to be a big baseball fan but I only go Opening Day with my son and watch all the other games on TV.    Big money on TV but how is that even possible?    I consider myself to be immune to the commercials which pay for it.   Its all just mind boggling.    Sorry this is my last post on the topic.    I barely have time to get a Dairy Queen before stopping at Target on my way to Treasure Island Casino.

[Riverbrian]

 

This works when there are enough altruists. But what you are describing seems closely related to what economists/philosophers call the Tragedy Of The Commons - everyone is in general agreement that a nice jointly-shared thing is worth maintaining, but everyone is in individual agreement that someone else should do the bulk of the work to do so.

 

I'll also offer pre-existing conditions in the Health Insurance realm as another analogy, with a devout hope that this doesn't turn into a massive tangent.

 

Basically, no one wants to get left holding the bag, and everyone is desperately scared they are about to.

 

Yeah Kinda.

 

I'm going with... A controlled burn... self inflicted damage for the overall good. A few crumbs of good will.

 

We might still be under the rule of England if King George III would have said... "Sure bring some representatives over here. We will pay the travel expenses out of the taxes we collect". 

 

The Lutheran Church may not have been created if the Catholic Church would have just said... "I'm alright with 42 of these 95 theses things you nailed to the door". 

 

I think it was Brock who was quoting "The Grapes of Wrath" in one of the political Forums that applies here.

 

"Here is the Node, you who hate change and fear revolution"   

[SweetOne69]

What really annoys me about the baseball pay system is the Prince Fielder situation.  He is physically unable to play Baseball and is not on any roster and Detroit and Texas must continue to pay him $24M/year for 3 more years.  Fielder will make $106M after his last game played.

 

It's one thing to pay an injured player when there is the option of him returning to the game, but the be forced to pay a player for 4.5 years when he will never play again is wrong.  There should be some out in this type of situation.

[Otto von Ballpark]

What really annoys me about the baseball pay system is the Prince Fielder situation. He is physically unable to play Baseball and is not on any roster and Detroit and Texas must continue to pay him $24M/year for 3 more years. Fielder will make $106M after his last game played.

 

It's one thing to pay an injured player when there is the option of him returning to the game, but the be forced to pay a player for 4.5 years when he will never play again is wrong. There should be some out in this type of situation.

There is an out, it's called insurance. Those details generally aren't made public, though.

[brvama]

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.

 

This pinpoints the problem - underpaid in early years and overpaid the later years. I think it'll take a combination of moves to correct that. First thing I do is raise the minimum. Then lower the years of control by the team. And institute a merit pay system.

I've always favored merit pay but setting it up is difficult generally, but with baseball/sports one has stats to quantify performance, thus merit. Maybe using a merit arbitration process for younger ball players (would create uncertainty on payrolls tho).

For lowering the years of team control to free agency, give the teams a chance to match an offer for those years given up.

[Mike Sixel]

What really annoys me about the baseball pay system is the Prince Fielder situation. He is physically unable to play Baseball and is not on any roster and Detroit and Texas must continue to pay him $24M/year for 3 more years. Fielder will make $106M after his last game played.

 

It's one thing to pay an injured player when there is the option of him returning to the game, but the be forced to pay a player for 4.5 years when he will never play again is wrong. There should be some out in this type of situation.

Wait...a player gets hurt, and can't play, and should not get paid? Why not? They signed a contract. I have no idea why he should not be paid. Help me understand why.

[SweetOne69]

 

Wait...a player gets hurt, and can't play, and should not get paid? Why not? They signed a contract. I have no idea why he should not be paid. Help me understand why.

He should not get paid because he is actually in breach of contract since he is unable to perform his duties.

[Mike Sixel]

He should not get paid because he is actually in breach of contract since he is unable to perform his duties.

No, he's not. Factually speaking, he's not.

[Riverbrian]

 

He should not get paid because he is actually in breach of contract since he is unable to perform his duties.

 

Players would never run into walls. They would take their effort down to 80% if injuries voided the contract. 

[SweetOne69]

There are 2 sides to every contract.  The team agrees to pay a player's salary and the player agrees to play to the best of his ability.

 

Fielder is unable to do so.  Also, Fielder knows that he is exploiting a loophole in the system by refusing to file his retirement papers with the league.  Eventhough he hasn't played since 2016, he won't be eligible for HOF consideration until 2025 (5 years after he officially retires in 2020).

[Mike Sixel]

You seem to be arguing that if a pitcher blows out his arm, at work, he not get paid. That's about as bad an idea as I can imagine.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There are 2 sides to every contract.  The team agrees to pay a player's salary and the player agrees to play to the best of his ability.

Well, the actual contract language is quite different than that. But even so, Fielder was determined to be medically unable to play baseball, so being inactive was indeed "the best of his ability." The Rangers were free to dispute that determination, but it appears they chose not to. They were also free to negotiate a "void in case of injury" clause to his contract that would have applied, but they chose not to. I'm not sure why you think Fielder should recognize a contract clause that doesn't exist.

 

 

Also, Fielder knows that he is exploiting a loophole in the system by refusing to file his retirement papers with the league.  Eventhough he hasn't played since 2016, he won't be eligible for HOF consideration until 2025 (5 years after he officially retires in 2020).

Not true. HOF eligibility has nothing to do with "filing retirement papers". Fielder will be eligible in 2022 along with David Ortiz, as both last played in 2016:

 

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/future-eligibles

 

Johan Santana got hall of fame votes this year, and I'm not sure if he's ever technically retired. He was on a minor league with the Blue Jays as recently as 3 years ago.

[ashbury]

Boston Globe published an article looking at the various causes of the free agency situation. It's behind a partial paywall, in case you read more than a few Globe articles online: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/03/09/here-why-baseball-free-agents-had-such-bad-offseason/4wm4rQEmb1yQVQQ9pFxggL/story.html

 

I didn't spot anything major that hadn't already been discussed here, but it's a good overview that covers many angles. The Twins' Derek Falvey is quoted at one point.

 

In it, is one assertion that "the most productive players are in their early- and mid-20s". I took a look on b-r.com at the top 20 WAR position players and pitchers in 2017, and found that among those batters, the median age was indeed 26.7, but with pitchers it was 29. I imagine there are studies that delve into the matter more deeply than this quick measure, but it does suggest looking at starting pitchers differently than position players for this kind of analysis. (The next paragraph in the article reduces the scope of discussion to batters, so maybe a slight editing was missed.)

[Riverbrian]

 

The value of the contract should only be determined by what is needed to get the player into your uniform. 

 

If it takes a 15 year guaranteed contract... that is what it takes. 

 

Do you want the player? That is the only question that must be asked before signing your name. If Pujols is making 30 million at age 41... the Angels know that they will probably not get full value but they signed the contract because that is what it took to get him into an Angels Uniform because the Cardinals also offered him 10 years. 

 

Players are living year to year until they reach free agency. They have no security until they reach free agency. They can be out of baseball and looking for a job as a Maytag repairman because they ran into that wall and injured themselves. The players who survive that, stay healthy, are talented enough to help a team and reach free agency should be paid.

 

I have no problem with them getting guaranteed money after they paid the dues. I have no problem paying them in decline phase. It is unfortunate that the Rangers have to pay Fielder and that the Angels have to pay Josh Hamilton. But... they wanted the player... they were aware of the risk and the price they paid was what it took to get them in uniform. 

 

When Pujols is 41 years old and making 30 million in the last year of that contract. Nobody should complain about it. The Angels wanted him and they got him.. they WON!!! 

 

[ashbury]

If it takes a 15 year guaranteed contract... that is what it takes. 

 

Do you want the player?

I don't think that's how a negotiation goes, unless I am misunderstanding you greatly.

 

I want Lance Lynn. I think he's worth a 2-year contract, and a third-year option based on performance numbers would sit well too. For more than that term, though, he becomes more trouble (to the front office, and their planning) than he is worth.

 

If it takes a 15-year guarantee because some other team is currently offering 14, let them have him and then they can deal with the aftermath.

 

If it takes a 15-year guarantee because he has turned this into a test of wills, he can sit, as far as I am concerned.

 

I have the same position even if the guarantee is 3.

 

Actual dollar values, I'm a little more flexible about. But if $25M this year is what it takes for Lynn, probably that limits me as a GM more than I want. I could use that money to take on an expiring contract at the trade deadline for instance.

 

With it being a buyer's market, I see nothing wrong with trolling for value, and find out which fish nibbles at the smaller bait. That's because there is always a great deal of uncertainty. You don't actually know what the player's view is.

 

In a soft market, Falvine has come away with LoMo and Addison Reed (AdRe?). In a seller's market, their approach might have come away empty.

[nicksaviking]

 

There are 2 sides to every contract.  The team agrees to pay a player's salary and the player agrees to play to the best of his ability.

 

Fielder is unable to do so.  Also, Fielder knows that he is exploiting a loophole in the system by refusing to file his retirement papers with the league.  Eventhough he hasn't played since 2016, he won't be eligible for HOF consideration until 2025 (5 years after he officially retires in 2020).

 

How is it any different than if any of us get injured at work? If we are salaried employees under a contract we still get paid. If you're an hourly employee you get workman's comp/disability.

 

Not paying an injured employee is real third world kind of balony. Should WNBA players also not get maternity leave?

[gocgo]

I used to think that the NFL had it right with the salary cap, but there is an issue with it that I think needs to be addressed and that is that states without a state income tax have a negotiating advantage over high tax states like NY.

 

Now it wouldn't break my heart at all to see the Yankees get screwed over because for a lot of years they have held an advantage over smaller market teams.  I would like to see a salary cap put in for MLB, but there are issues with that even if you put in an adjustment for high tax states.  For example, the Yankees have the YES network that brings in a pile of cash and furthers their brand.  The players want a piece of that pie.  They don't want to be held under the restrictions of a salary cap while the owners rake in a kings ransom from the TV revenue.  Has the luxury tax evened the playing field?  IMO, not really.  Teams that are willing to pay the tax are the same teams that can afford to pay the tax.  It's not so much a penalty as just a cost of doing business and that business is putting a winner on the field.

 

Putting in a salary floor might help, but what about the teams like Miami or TB that might have a legitimate star on their team, but still lose and don't draw the fans?  I don't have any answers, but I do know that baseball has an issue with non-competitive teams...and a lot of them!  Winning draws fans but it also draws players.  The best players want to compete for a championship.  Jake Arrietta wants to win and compete for a championship.  There are a ton of teams that could offer him what he's asking, and he would probably still say no.

 

Does the MLB draft even the playing field?...not the way the NBA and NFL drafts do.  Those players are ready to contribute right away or much sooner than the average MLB player.  Vary rarely does it happen in MLB where a player is drafted and ready to compete at the highest level from day 1.

[jkcarew]

Whining.  The MLBPA is one year into a CBA that doesn't do anything to increase the percentage of revenue spent on salaries.  And that percentage had already spent a decade trending horribly for the players when they negotiated the current deal.  That's not the owners fault.  It's a union that has always been heavily dominated by domestic/US, top-end MLB player perspective.  Now, they are coming off a horrendous decade-plus in terms public relations and negotiating outcomes.  They need to look at their own leadership.

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't think that's how a negotiation goes, unless I am misunderstanding you greatly.

 

I want Lance Lynn. I think he's worth a 2-year contract, and a third-year option based on performance numbers would sit well too. For more than that term, though, he becomes more trouble (to the front office, and their planning) than he is worth.

 

If it takes a 15-year guarantee because some other team is currently offering 14, let them have him and then they can deal with the aftermath.

 

If it takes a 15-year guarantee because he has turned this into a test of wills, he can sit, as far as I am concerned.

 

I have the same position even if the guarantee is 3.

 

Actual dollar values, I'm a little more flexible about. But if $25M this year is what it takes for Lynn, probably that limits me as a GM more than I want. I could use that money to take on an expiring contract at the trade deadline for instance.

 

With it being a buyer's market, I see nothing wrong with trolling for value, and find out which fish nibbles at the smaller bait. That's because there is always a great deal of uncertainty. You don't actually know what the player's view is.

 

In a soft market, Falvine has come away with LoMo and Addison Reed (AdRe?). In a seller's market, their approach might have come away empty.

 

I'm not advocating bidding against yourself but at some point the buyer and seller have to reach an agreement. 

 

I'm sure the Angels would have preferred to give Pujols a 5 year deal but it took 10 because the Cards presented an offer of 10. 

 

When Bryce Harper hits the stage next year. If the Dodgers want him and the Yankees have offered a 15 year deal... the Dodgers will probably have to do the same or lose a player that they want. 

 

If you going to purchase some Bark Art and you are bidding against 5 others. You'll have to make a decision that you are comfortable with but if you want the Bark Art you'll have to pay the price that Bark agrees with to make it happen. 

 

If you are worried about the Bark Art losing value (IT WON'T) and try to negotiate some kind of safety net. That's fine if Bark agrees but Bark may not agree if I'm willing to buy the Bark Art with no loopholes because Bark would be crazy to do so.  

 

Do you want the Bark Art or not? That's the question.

[Dantes929]

 

The value of the contract should only be determined by what is needed to get the player into your uniform. 

 

If it takes a 15 year guaranteed contract... that is what it takes. 

 

Do you want the player? That is the only question that must be asked before signing your name. If Pujols is making 30 million at age 41... the Angels know that they will probably not get full value but they signed the contract because that is what it took to get him into an Angels Uniform because the Cardinals also offered him 10 years. 

 

Players are living year to year until they reach free agency. They have no security until they reach free agency. They can be out of baseball and looking for a job as a Maytag repairman because they ran into that wall and injured themselves. The players who survive that, stay healthy, are talented enough to help a team and reach free agency should be paid.

 

I have no problem with them getting guaranteed money after they paid the dues. I have no problem paying them in decline phase. It is unfortunate that the Rangers have to pay Fielder and that the Angels have to pay Josh Hamilton. But... they wanted the player... they were aware of the risk and the price they paid was what it took to get them in uniform. 

 

When Pujols is 41 years old and making 30 million in the last year of that contract. Nobody should complain about it. The Angels wanted him and they got him.. they WON!!! 

I would concede all that but how can anyone have a problem with the owners saying.   "Wait, this is insanity.    I'm not going to sign him to a contract that pays him 30 mil at age 41 because I've studied all the other long term contracts and the odds aren't good that he will be worth that over the term of his contract".     I think every one can agree that in Puljols case if Puljols had demanded 30 million a year until he reaches 46 years old would have been pure nonsense.    Assuming that is the case everyone would agree there is a point where too much money for too many years doesn't make sense.    I think many of the contracts have already exceeded that point and apparently the owners finally agree with me.     If the norm was for the players in free agency to be paid huge amounts of money for just their prime years and just now the players started negotiating for the huge amounts for their prime years and way beyond you would probably think they were being unreasonable and it would take you quite a few years before you started to accept that as the norm.    I'm just positing that your first instincts would have been correct.      I'm not defending the owners here.   I think the money should be spent on the players and that stars should be paid.    I feel some similarities to politics.     You all are defending the right of those that have already made lottery money to make even larger lottery money for more years.     Guys that have already made tens or hundreds of millions  just don't get much consideration from me.    Its the guys that admittedly make pretty good money already but should be getting lottery type money but don't that get more of my empathy.    There should be more lottery winners rather than fewer guys winning larger lotteries.

[Mike Sixel]

Whining. The MLBPA is one year into a CBA that doesn't do anything to increase the percentage of revenue spent on salaries. And that percentage had already spent a decade trending horribly for the players when they negotiated the current deal. That's not the owners fault. It's a union that has always been heavily dominated by domestic/US, top-end MLB player perspective. Now, they are coming off a horrendous decade-plus in terms public relations and negotiating outcomes. They need to look at their own leadership.

100 %

[gunnarthor]

If I have to care who ends up with the money - owners or players - I'll always side with the players. Owners are given everything. **** em.

[Riverbrian]

 

I would concede all that but how can anyone have a problem with the owners saying.   "Wait, this is insanity.    I'm not going to sign him to a contract that pays him 30 mil at age 41 because I've studied all the other long term contracts and the odds aren't good that he will be worth that over the term of his contract".     I think every one can agree that in Puljols case if Puljols had demanded 30 million a year until he reaches 46 years old would have been pure nonsense.    Assuming that is the case everyone would agree there is a point where too much money for too many years doesn't make sense.    I think many of the contracts have already exceeded that point and apparently the owners finally agree with me.     If the norm was for the players in free agency to be paid huge amounts of money for just their prime years and just now the players started negotiating for the huge amounts for their prime years and way beyond you would probably think they were being unreasonable and it would take you quite a few years before you started to accept that as the norm.    I'm just positing that your first instincts would have been correct.      I'm not defending the owners here.   I think the money should be spent on the players and that stars should be paid.    I feel some similarities to politics.     You all are defending the right of those that have already made lottery money to make even larger lottery money for more years.     Guys that have already made tens or hundreds of millions  just don't get much consideration from me.    Its the guys that admittedly make pretty good money already but should be getting lottery type money but don't that get more of my empathy.    There should be more lottery winners rather than fewer guys winning larger lotteries.

 

I believe there is no question that teams are typically not getting value at the end of most long FA contracts. Sometimes they don't get them in the middle or at the beginning and it's expensive. 

 

I believe that any GM with the slightest sense of metrics can see that. I think it is undeniable. 

 

I think where you and I are on opposite sides is this:

 

You look at Pujols getting paid 30 Million at age 41 and you say... I don't want to eat that. 

 

Where I have already eaten it. I ate it the minute I signed the contract and I baked it right into the spreadsheets because I wanted the player right now. 

 

If you look at each contract year... Age 41 is going to be ridiculous. I believe the Angels knew that but they wanted the player right now... to win right now. They will have time to set up for the back half of the contract later. 

 

I totally get why the GM's might be pulling back on the long contracts to players in their 30's. It can't be argued but I am saying to the GM's and Owners. You may want to be careful here. The Owners may have adjusted based on solid metric reasoning but they just changed a game that they were already winning.

 

The players will see the game change and adjust themselves accordingly. The players may win at this new game. 

 

Only because I love weird analogies. If the Owners are playing basketball against the players and the players are fine losing by 20 points but all of a sudden the owners take out knives... they are no longer playing basketball. 

 

Let sleeping dogs lie. 

[ashbury]

but I am saying to the GM's and Owners. You may want to be careful here.

I believe this is just exceedingly long-sighted and good. If the owners feel there is a problem, negotiate at the next CBA bargaining session. Meanwhile, pay more attention to the spirit of the current agreement than to the letter of it.

 

If we were in a recessionary economic environment, where ownership was currently shouldering more of the burden of risk, I'd probably feel a little differently. But in any economic environment, the players always shoulder a lot of risk.

 

One of my guiding principles: "He is no fool who loses what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."

[Dantes929]

Yeah.  I get it.    The market value for Puljols in his best years was probably 40 or 50 mil and the contract was actually structured to pay him more each year until 41 which dovetails nicely with your position.    I've kind of thought all along that these contracts really should be shorter and if it is for more money that is just fine.   More money per year and maybe even a lot more money per year but fewer years.   Of course then it  affects how the salary cap comes into play.    Just seems like there should be a better system..   Maybe leave the system as is but require all teams that are short of spending 52% (or whatever agreed upon %) of gross revenue pay the difference evenly to all its players.   It would compensate those that are in the earlier years better and also motivate the owners to try to get better players for its 52%.    

On a related topic I really don't like at all that the Twins might favor Hughes for a spot possibly based solely on the fact that they are paying him a lot of money. 

[ashbury]

On a related topic I really don't like at all that the Twins might favor Hughes for a spot possibly based solely on the fact that they are paying him a lot of money. 

Has anything been stated or is it just an assumption? Because an equal assumption is the lack of an easy way to send him to AAA could also be what gives him precedence in early-season planning over a younger player with minor league options.

[Dantes929]

 

Has anything been stated or is it just an assumption? Because an equal assumption is the lack of an easy way to send him to AAA could also be what gives him precedence in early-season planning over a younger player with minor league options.

Rhett Bolinger from the Twins mlb page.  "Hughes will get the longest look because he's owed $26.4 million over the next two seasons, while only $500,000 of Sanchez's $2.5 million deal is guaranteed."     It may be just an assumption on his part.    What is the difficulty in sending Hughes down?   I know you are right but don't remember why.      Just seems like based on the not so recent past Meija should be favored.   Both Hughes and Sanchez have ERA's north of 5.87 over the last two years.   Meija came in last year with a 4.5 ERA.   Not great either but about league average.   With him I believe there is a more reasonable expectation that he can either duplicate that or do better.  

[ashbury]

What is the difficulty in sending Hughes down?  

Hughes has more than 10 years' service time, which is above the threshold where he can't be sent to AAA without his permission - I forget what that threshold is, seven years or so.. He probably doesn't have minor league options remaining anyway.

 

My question of whether it has been stated that his salary is the reason for favoritism is probably unfair, after I thought about it, since a FO won't state such a thing directly. The reporter/columnist could be offering his own analysis, or might be a conduit for something the FO wanted to have out there. Sanchez is a different matter than other guys on guaranteed contracts - adding Sanchez definitely costs new money while someone like Mejia's salary is pretty much a given.

 

I just don't think it's a certainty what role the salary has - but roster decisions come down to other things such as the necessity to either have the player be on the 25-man or else be removed entirely. There's a correlation because the guys with high salaries usually have the most constraints on what you can do with them - it still doesn't mean money is the motivating factor. (Maybe.)