Bargain Hunting for Next Offseason

It seems odd in an article about under the radar, bargain bin,  potential free agents that losing Trevor May is mentioned. Without a great 2020, May would be that type of free agent.

Interesting statement: "and players again stand to make less than they deserve." Doesn't the market determine what they are worth and what they deserve?  

Personally, I see it as well past time that older players with questionable expectations are getting less dollars and less years. Sure makes sense to me that teams are more hesitant to sign some of these big names to shorter contracts for less money. I know lots of people here have talked a lot the past few winters about how poorly some big named players did after signing big, but not as big as hoped, contracts. 

Hopefully, the trade-off will be more dollars to the really good younger players early in their careers and maybe a few more dollars for the top prospects after they are added to the 40-man and still in the minors.

If Marwin has a good 2020, not so sure he doesn't re-sign with the Twins for another season or two but at less than he is currently earning due to age and the fact that I think FA is going to adjust downward for a number of players due to losses incurred in 2020. What Marwin has is a better bat than Hernandez. If Adrianza is brought back, you already have a Hernandez type on your roster who may be a better hitter. Not saying he would be a bad signing just the opposite, but he could be redundant with the guys already on the roster.

Quintana would be very interesting. Honestly, I think I'd rather have Odorizzi back. And I'm expecting 3yrs in the $15-16M range, less than what he would have gotten had 2020 been a normal full year with no pandemic. But I think that's going to be true for a lot of guys. I'd almost wonder, with top prospects being delayed due to a missed season, FA $ dropping, Hill and a couple other guys potentially coming off the books, could the Twins afford to keep Odorizzi AND sign Quintana? Hill is going to be prorated like everyone, but he had the potential to earn up to $14M IIRC. could he essentially replace Hill???

I'd rather keep May over Herrera. Period.

With a little luck, wisdom and maturity, the one good thing that will come out of this pandemic and mixed up short season is the owners and players association realizing how important coming to some sort of mutually beneficial labor resolution really is for all involved. Both sides have power. Both sides need and want baseball for income. Period. The public also wants and needs baseball.

With fear, change of lifestyle, loss of jobs and income, missing sports in general, can baseball suffer another work stoppage at this point? The ramifications could be heavy for both sides I regard to finances and public opinion, which will in return further affect income and profitability. FA and even trades, as well as options and the such, could and will be affected next off-season. How much will each side be willing to lose even more? Let's hope cooler and smarter heads will prevail?

Doc, we're on the same page with these players.

Interesting statement: "and players again stand to make less than they deserve." Doesn't the market determine what they are worth and what they deserve?  

 

 

Exactly true.  MLB is a perfect look into an unregulated capitalism, or free market economy.  Yes, it is only a small sample size, but shows what a free market can look like.  Specifically, when there is a monopoly.  MLB has a monopoly on baseball, basically in the whole world.  Sure, you can play in other leagues if you are not up to snuff for MLB, but MLB is the top league with the most money, not that Japan is much to sneeze at. 

However, as the players argue about not having a cap, it also means there is no floor.  What keeps the game going is that both sides want to make money, and they both want to make the most they can.  Both need to balance the risk of making nothing though by asking for too much.  It is almost like a teeter totter, as long as both sides stay in the air they both make money and the game is played, but once one try to get too greedy then the game is not played and no one has fun or makes money. 

So when a player feels he is underpaid, what is he recourse, hold out, but there are hundreds of players willing to take his place, and the teams have them in their system.  Of course the more you separate yourself from the pack, with higher WAR the more money you can command.  If you are close to replacement level, why should a team pay you more than the league minimum that a replacement level player may be worth?

During the two off-seasons mentioned, prior to the huge signings of last couple seasons.  I was expecting the players to start to look at change in CBA.  Still think they will, but my guess to get it they will need to give up on salary cap.  Gone are the days of 5 plus year deals for 30 plus year old players.  Too many teams have learned the hard way there is too much risk in those contracts.  If you are in 27 age range at free agency, you are considered possible HOF player and so teams willing to take that 7 to 10 year contract risk, because one you get more years of good play, and assume they regress like normal HOF path players they will still be worth something late in deal.

To get better FA deals, players need to get to be a FA before the age of 30 now.  Only way to do that is to reduce the amount of years they remain under team control.  They can get this, but I bet it will require salary cap.  Salary caps are not as bad as players would think, because they also always come with a floor.  What that means is no more just loading up on low cost replacement players while you "rebuild" knowing you cannot compete but you keep your stars in the minors while letting players you will one day cut loose when your stars are hitting prime at age 27 and still making third year minimum. 

The salary floor would help those age 31 to 35 players the most.  It would also allow younger players to earn more quickly.  For easy math, lets say cap is 200 mil and floor is 100 mil.  Only 3 teams over 200 mil, and 8 under 100 mil some as low as 56 mil and a couple right around 100.  Without knowing the revenue breakdown that would set up the cap, this cap would greatly increase the amount the players would get paid as a whole.  It would maybe reduce what an individual gets paid, but would raise the player pay overall.  Of course this is very simple break down, and local tv contracts really drive what local teams can earn, but the luxury tax basically is a salary cap at this point anyways.  Why not get the floor?  Teams like Oakland and the Rays pay very little for the wins they get, because they spend smarter not bigger.   Both under 100 mil payrolls, rays as low as 65 mil.  They get revenue sharing from the luxury taxes paid by the likes of LA and New York.  Do they reinvest into payroll, doubt they do, because they can win without spending.  Imagine if they had to spend 35 mil more, assuming they could afford it.