Union chief: Baseball's market shift seems suspicious

[cephasjames]

Ex-Detroit Tiger Tony Clark: One-third of MLB teams not trying to win title
Union chief: Baseball's market shift seems suspicious

“When you have a historical number of free agents on the market, when you have a historical number combined with the quality of the free agents on the market, it begs the question as to whether or not there is an interest across all 30 teams to be the last team standing,” Clark said. “And to the extent that we are in a climate that that does not appear to be the case, it is a concern.”

So, Tony Clark thinks the lack of big name FA signings is suspicious and concerning. I'm wondering if there is more hesitancy on the part of owners to sign big, long-term contracts for older players who mostly struggle to actually be viable players the entire contract. What do y'all think is going on with the strange FA market this year?

[G-Force]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Ex-Detroit Tiger Tony Clark: One-third of MLB teams not trying to win title
Union chief: Baseball's market shift seems suspicious


So, Tony Clark thinks the lack of big name FA signings is suspicious and concerning. I'm wondering if there is more hesitancy on the part of owners to sign big, long-term contracts for older players who mostly struggle to actually be viable players the entire contract. What do y'all think is going on with the strange FA market this year?

Teams are getting smarter and realizing the vast amount of overspending that goes on. Of course, not all do (see the Hosmer contract). Hosmer's getting $20M or something like that this season. Lucas Duda replaces him for $3.5M. I feel comfortable saying Hosmer won't be 6 times more valuable than Duda this season.

GH

[swampdragon]

Part of the problem is just Boras misreading the market, and part of it is the Yankees and Dodgers wanting under the salary cap and therefore being unavailable to jack up the price tags.

More of the problem is lack of competitive balance. The Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Dodgers, and Cubs are good enough that a number of teams have picked the next few years to just rebuild rather than engage in the futile exercise of trying to beat them. The Nationals have one more year to be on that list. That just does not leave many openings. It's one thing to take on the Yankee wallet under normal circumstances, and quite another to fight them when they have this many good, cost-controlled young players.

[Raidergoo]

The MLBPA has a right to be suspicious, as previous owners and commissioners were convicted liars, cheats, and thieves. MLBPA have had an easy time for more than 40 years, because owners and GMs have been easy marks. That time is past. Many of today's GMs have an extremely good grasp on math and how to buy low and sell high.

One of the article cites that Jake Arrieta, Lance Lynn, and Greg Holland are not signed. None of them are worth a taking a risk on anything more than a 1 year deal. I'd give Arrieta $9 million, Lynn $8 million, and Holland $3 million. Any long term deal for these "All-Stars" is an irrational risk. Moustakas, Walker, and Lucroy are in the same boat. They were good one, and now are fading into memory.

[Le Grande Orange]

I doubt MLB owners would be dumb enough to collude to restrict the free agent market. They tried that in the latter half of the 1980s, got caught, and were hammered for it. CBAs since then have included provisions for triple damages should MLB owners ever get caught doing something like that again.

The new version of the luxury tax probably has something to do with it, given the implementation of several thresholds, each with a more harsh penalty, and for the first time, its highest available selection in the amateur draft potentially being affected.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The new version of the luxury tax probably has something to do with it, given the implementation of several thresholds, each with a more harsh penalty, and for the first time, its highest available selection in the amateur draft potentially being affected.

From 2003 through 2011 the luxury tax threshold basically kept pace with the growth in average club revenue. But after 2011, the luxury tax threshold fell significantly behind revenue growth, and will not keep pace through the years covered under the current CBA.

From 2003 to 2011, the luxury tax threshold grew from $117 million to $178 million. That's an increase of $61 million in dollar terms; the 2011 threshold was 1.52 times larger than that of 2003. But the 2018 luxury tax threshold is only $19 million higher than the 2011 figure, or just 1.11 times larger. By the last year of the CBA, 2021, the luxury tax threshold will be only $32 million above its 2011 value, or 1.18 times larger.

[actionjackson]

Tony Clark signed this deal. He has nobody to blame except himself for the "salary cap" fallout.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Tony Clark signed this deal. He has nobody to blame except himself for the "salary cap" fallout.

The MLBPA has generally been pretty good at getting minimum salaries, benefits, and the like to mostly track the industry's growth in revenue. But it seems in regards to the luxury tax its negotiators either conceded on the luxury tax in order to get concessions from MLB in other areas, or simply focused more on the procedures for free agency. (It's interesting to note how much those procedures have changed in the last three CBAs as compared to the four prior.)