Furcal picks Dodgers

[rem]

I've decided that baseball owners are just determined to be morons when it comes to Free Agency and there's nothing which can be done about it.

Sure you can construct a well-reasoned argument for why this signing is a prudent move (and I'd hope that you can, for christ's sake). I understand and accept those arguments but I still wouldn't touch this contract. There's gotta be better things you can do with 13M.*


*Yes, Hollis, I like short term contracts. And no that wasn't a “athletes make too much money” post.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by remangiii

There's gotta be better things you can do with 13M.

Put it in hedge funds?

You can collect all the shared revenues, pay only minimum salaries, and invest all your money elsewhere. I am sure your franchise value would still go up fast enough. The franchise value of MLB teams grew over 50% in the past few years.

[rem]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Put it in hedge funds?

You can collect all the shared revenues, pay only minimum salaries, and invest all your money elsewhere. I am sure your franchise value would still go up fast enough. The franchise value of MLB teams grew over 50% in the past few years.

That's obviously not my point. I guess what I was trying to say is: "Just because you can sign someone, ir doesn't mean that you have to."

I also don't quite understand why if one player gets a contract why did all of the other players immediately deserve at least as much?

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

To be fair, two years ago neither were at the top of their positions. Both had a great 2005.

In the current marketplace, I think Furcal is worth his contract even in an average season.

[darkhorse]

With Furcal off the market, who's the top prize remaining?

[TonyJ]

A.J. Burnett I guess. I'm not a fan though.

[sebastian0622]

Nomar's on the market...

[TonyJ]

He's likely looking at a one or two year deal though. Injury risk is too great. Actually, Damon may now be the top prize. We'll see if Bora$ gets him that seven year deal.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by remangiii

I also don't quite understand why if one player gets a contract why did all of the other players immediately deserve at least as much?

That's because it's not how the market works. People talk about how early contracts set the market, but it's actually just early contracts that signaled the market.

All contract negotiations happened in parallel, and earlier contracts are just early signals of people's perceived value/price in the current market.

It's actually not that different from the regular job market. Like right after Katrina, the wage for low level jobs became very high. It's not that someone started paying employees higher wages so everyone else had to follow, and you'd be misguided if you think those employers are stupid for paying such high wages.

[Skipaway]

Top FA is Roger Clemens.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Top FA is Roger Clemens.

True, but seemingly it's a one team market. Does one team count as a market?

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

He's likely looking at a one or two year deal though. Injury risk is too great. Actually, Damon may now be the top prize. We'll see if Bora$ gets him that seven year deal.

But with what Damon/Boras is asking, and with the kind of deal Nomar might be, he could be a more lucrative target. I know I'd rather have Nomar at 2 years/anything reasonable compared to Damon at 5+ years at 10+ mil.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

True, but seemingly it's a one team market. Does one team count as a market?

The team is competing with other jobs or works Clemens can do, be it housekeeping or sitting at home watching TV.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by remangiii

I also don't quite understand why if one player gets a contract why did all of the other players immediately deserve at least as much?

You should revisit that thought after arbitration.

The idea that a player's salary is based on other player's salaries and relative performance isn't just chapter 12 in Captalism for Dummies, it's part of the pre-free-agent contract process outlined in the CBA.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

It's not that someone started paying employees higher wages so everyone else had to follow

Actually, that's exactly how many industries work. I've had jobs in the past where I was vastly overpaid based on the local economy because the company pay scales were based on national averages rather than anything that actually made sense.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

You should revisit that thought after arbitration.

The idea that a player's salary is based on other player's salaries and relative performance isn't just chapter 12 in Captalism for Dummies, it's part of the pre-free-agent contract process outlined in the CBA.

Which do you think leads to more inflation in contracts, free agency or arbitration? I'm guessing owners would have a lot easier time with cost control without the latter.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Actually, that's exactly how many industries work. I've had jobs in the past where I was vastly overpaid based on the local economy because my pay scale was set on national averages for the position I held.

But that's the result, not the reason. Pay scale is set differently for different jobs mostly due to the ease for recruiting. More people willing to move for a certain job would make the pay more consistent nationally. MLB players are like that. Low level jobs are usually the opposite, and you'd see wild differences even in neighboring cities.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Which do you think leads to more inflation in contracts, free agency or arbitration? I'm guessing owners would have a lot easier time with cost control without the latter.

I dunno, I tend to think arbitration is incredibly fair in general. In terms of baseball salaries, from what I've seen, the contracts negotiated through arbitration are fairly conservative.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Which do you think leads to more inflation in contracts, free agency or arbitration? I'm guessing owners would have a lot easier time with cost control without the latter.

Teams figured it out the past few seasons and non-tendered a lot of players.

You flooded the free agent market with more talents, and you avoid the arbitrations.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Low level jobs are usually the opposite, and you'd see wild differences even in neighboring cities.

The company I'm thinking of (and won't name) used national average salaries to determine pay scales for every position, entry level, engineering, management, whatever. AFAIK that's pretty standard nowadays in most corporations.

Even at a place like McDonald's, isn't the salary structure fairly rigid regardless of the actual economy an individual franchise is operating in? I don't really sports as being much different than McDonald's or WalMart...each sport is basically a single business with multiple franchises that all have to deal with a similar salary structure regardless of local economy. The Royals don't get any advantages over the New York teams when it's arbitration time, for instance.