2020 MLB Spring Training (2 Viewers)

[Eephus]

Baseball is doomed until they modify their financials.  The fact that these contracts are guaranteed ensures that only a select 4 to 6 teams can have "stars" like this on their team.  How many teams can afford to gamble for 10/12 years at 35 million per year for one player?

We have no way of knowing which teams can afford what but roughly a third of clubs have recently been willing to play in the deep end of the free agent pool.  Boston is one of them.

There are a ton of issues to be discussed as part of the upcoming CBA negotiations.  I doubt the MLBPA will be willing to give concessions of max amount or max term of player contracts without some movement by ownership towards a salary floor.  There currently teams spending 25-30% of the CBT threshold on player salaries.  I know the CBT is not the same as a salary cap but the NBA and NFL have a salary floor set at around 90% of the cap number. 

I don't expect much movement on this particular issue because it affects a small minority of players and is largely self regulating as revenues expand or contract.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Is that a joke?

No.  The Angels have the best player in baseball and they can't even get to the postseason.  Every single team can afford these big contracts.  I applaud the teams like the Rays for finding good guys at discount prices.  

 

[TheIronSheik]

Scott Kazmir looking to make a comeback.

I have to say, I really liked this dude.  He was lights out for a year or two.  I remember when the Astros got him, I was so excited and he kind of was in the late stages of his decline at that point.  I wouldn't mind seeing this cat get another chance. 

 

[Bull Dozier]

No.  The Angels have the best player in baseball and they can't even get to the postseason.  Every single team can afford these big contracts.  I applaud the teams like the Rays for finding good guys at discount prices.  

The fact that high priced free agents don't guarantee post season success isn't the issue.  The fact that some teams can make a high priced mistake, and still afford to sign more high priced free agents is an unfair advantage over teams that can't afford to make mistakes, that don't exist in the other major sports.

 

[Anarchy99]

This may seem like a dumb question, but how scaled down are things in smaller markets for baseball? I have only lived in the New York, Boston, and Los Angeles markets . . . and those teams essentially have the ability to write blank checks and have no budgets. If a team like Kansas City signed two guys for a total of $500 million, would that almost guarantee the franchise would lose money for a decade?

 

[Eephus]

The fact that high priced free agents don't guarantee post season success isn't the issue.  The fact that some teams can make a high priced mistake, and still afford to sign more high priced free agents is an unfair advantage over teams that can't afford to make mistakes, that don't exist in the other major sports.

If big market teams truly had an unfair advantage, there would be a corresponding disparity in wins and losses over time.  That hasn't been the case in baseball.  Low payroll clubs have consistently been able to punch above their weight.

Every club has a bad contract or two on the books.  It's true that richer clubs can absorb more of them but that's not the main difference between success and failure.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The fact that high priced free agents don't guarantee post season success isn't the issue.  The fact that some teams can make a high priced mistake, and still afford to sign more high priced free agents is an unfair advantage over teams that can't afford to make mistakes, that don't exist in the other major sports.

But you don't have to spend money to win.  Again, everyone can afford everyone.  And there's a salary cap.  

If you look at the payrolls, the teams near the bottom did just as well as the teams near the top.  Why would you want to spend big money if you don't need to?

 

[Eephus]

And there's a salary cap.  

The CBT really isn't a salary cap, at least not like the way it works in the NFL or NBA.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The CBT really isn't a salary cap, at least not like the way it works in the NFL or NBA.

I get that.  But teams aren't blowing past the cap to pay huge luxury taxes.  

 

[Anarchy99]

But you don't have to spend money to win.  Again, everyone can afford everyone.  And there's a salary cap.  

If you look at the payrolls, the teams near the bottom did just as well as the teams near the top.  Why would you want to spend big money if you don't need to?

One of the issues is small market teams turn out to be developmental programs for the big market teams. Someone like Tampa Bay will get a guy to over perform and then lose him to a team that can afford a big free agent contract. So Tampa Bay has to find a cheap replacement and develop someone new (and then lose that player too eventually). I don't know if that falls under the banner or fair or unfair, but many times that's how it plays out.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Pablo Sandoval signs with the Giants.  

Oddly enough, the Phillies were looking at him.  I feel like it's safe to say that the Phillies are already out of contention for the 2020 season. :(

 

[Eephus]

I get that.  But teams aren't blowing past the cap to pay huge luxury taxes.  

But they're gaming the current system to minimize their penalties.

 

[Anarchy99]

I get that.  But teams aren't blowing past the cap to pay huge luxury taxes.  

But small market teams aren't spending anywhere near the cap, let alone going over it. It's a fact that they have a harder time keeping the players that they developed and they have to be better at replenishing them. I suppose it's a dual edge sword. They really can't afford to spend $300-400 million on one player . . . but they also don't have to worry about eating the contract of a $400-400 million player. They have to live within their means.

 

[TheIronSheik]

But small market teams aren't spending anywhere near the cap, let alone going over it. It's a fact that they have a harder time keeping the players that they developed and they have to be better at replenishing them. I suppose it's a dual edge sword. They really can't afford to spend $300-400 million on one player . . . but they also don't have to worry about eating the contract of a $400-400 million player. They have to live within their means.

Those teams can afford to pay those players.  They just don't want to.  Mainly because it doesn't guarantee anything.  Places like Philly, NY and Boston want to see superstars.  They fill seats by paying for the best players.  Places like KC and STL don't need to pay for superstars because their fanbase will support no name guys who perform.  

 

[Eephus]

This may seem like a dumb question, but how scaled down are things in smaller markets for baseball? I have only lived in the New York, Boston, and Los Angeles markets . . . and those teams essentially have the ability to write blank checks and have no budgets. If a team like Kansas City signed two guys for a total of $500 million, would that almost guarantee the franchise would lose money for a decade?

It's an unanswerable question.  Teams are privately held and have not been forthcoming about their financials.  Teams like the Royals are benefiting from revenue sharing payments of over $100M per year.  The club also sold for a billion dollars last year.  The leader of the new ownership group was previously a minority owner of the Clevelands so he's not some sucker coming in off the street.

 

[Eephus]

Pablo Sandoval signs with the Giants.  

How can we miss the Panda if he never goes away

 

[Bull Dozier]

But you don't have to spend money to win.  Again, everyone can afford everyone.  And there's a salary cap.  

If you look at the payrolls, the teams near the bottom did just as well as the teams near the top.  Why would you want to spend big money if you don't need to?

There's no floor, as that's an issue.  Teams spending little money can strike lightning, but they do not compete consistently year in and year out like the largest markets do.

And no, money is not the only thing.  You need good management and decision makers in place.  But, all things being equal, having more money to spend is an advantage.  To deny that is just silly and illogical.

 

[TheIronSheik]

There's no floor, as that's an issue.  Teams spending little money can strike lightning, but they do not compete consistently year in and year out like the largest markets do.

And no, money is not the only thing.  You need good management and decision makers in place.  But, all things being equal, having more money to spend is an advantage.  To deny that is just silly and illogical.

Pretty sure Oakland and Tampa disagree with you.

 

[Eephus]

There's no floor, as that's an issue.  Teams spending little money can strike lightning, but they do not compete consistently year in and year out like the largest markets do.

And no, money is not the only thing.  You need good management and decision makers in place.  But, all things being equal, having more money to spend is an advantage.  To deny that is just silly and illogical.

Big market teams won the most games in the past decade.  The Yankees and Dodgers led their leagues with 921 and 919 wins respectively.  The Marlins finished 212 games behind the Dodgers but only 126 games behind the second NL wild card team the Brewers.

Tampa and the Oaklands finished fifth and sixth in the AL standings.

 

[Anarchy99]

Those teams can afford to pay those players.  They just don't want to.  Mainly because it doesn't guarantee anything.  Places like Philly, NY and Boston want to see superstars.  They fill seats by paying for the best players.  Places like KC and STL don't need to pay for superstars because their fanbase will support no name guys who perform.  

So by extension, are you suggesting fans of teams like PHI / NY / BOS WON'T support no name guys who perform? I live in Boston now . . . fans only care about winning, and big names that don't do anything will get booed and run out of town.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Based on this ranking (first google result for baseball market rankings), the bottom fifteen markets have won 5 of the last 20 WS titles.  Only one WS title from the smallest 11 markets in the last 20 years.  But no, money doesn't matter.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide0

 

[Eephus]

Based on this ranking (first google result for baseball market rankings), the bottom fifteen markets have won 5 of the last 20 WS titles.  Only one WS title from the smallest 11 markets in the last 20 years.  But no, money doesn't matter.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide0

That article isn't very quantitative.

26 of the 30 MLB franchises have made the post-season in the past decade.  The big market Yankees and Dodgers top the list with seven appearances each.  The four that haven't made the playoffs (Seattle, White Sox, Miami, San Diego) are better characterized by poor management than market size.

 

[Eephus]

Big market teams certainly have advantages but they would have them under any scenario.  Baseball teams get a larger share of revenue from local media deals than in the NFL or NBA.  There's no way to equalize revenues and any changes to max contracts or salary caps would be subject to collective bargaining with the MLBPA.

Even with huge differences in payroll, baseball maintains a decent amount of parity.  Teams that spend wisely and do a good job developing talent are consistently able to compete.  This isn't a case like European soccer leagues where the top teams are preordained every year.

It's funny that this discussion was triggered by the fractured Betts/Boston relationship.  The Red Sox are a big market team by any definition.  It's ludicrous for them to be crying poor mouth.  They're a national brand that's near the top in local television revenues and attendance.  They've spent lavishly on free agents in the past and probably will do so in the future going forward.  They're paying Rusney Castillo $10M and he's not even on their 40 man roster.  If they don't want to pay market rate for Mookie, that's their prerogative.  They can trade him before the deadline in exchange for future assets.  There are a lot of things wrong with the current CBA but this isn't near the top.

 

[Hov34]

The fact that high priced free agents don't guarantee post season success isn't the issue.  The fact that some teams can make a high priced mistake, and still afford to sign more high priced free agents is an unfair advantage over teams that can't afford to make mistakes, that don't exist in the other major sports.

If big market teams truly had an unfair advantage, there would be a corresponding disparity in wins and losses over time.  That hasn't been the case in baseball.  Low payroll clubs have consistently been able to punch above their weight.

Every club has a bad contract or two on the books.  It's true that richer clubs can absorb more of them but that's not the main difference between success and failure.

I rotation of "low payroll clubs" can play with the big boys for a couple of years, but then it's back to "re-building".  The teams that print monopoly money can consistently "compete" where the small market teams have to have everything go right or they have no chance and may doom their club for the next few years.

 

[shadyridr]

Isn't the reason the Sox are talking about trading Mookie because of poor contracts to Sale and Price?

And isn't the top team for his services the Padres? The same team that signed Machado?

 

[shadyridr]

I dunno. Not saying big market teams don't have an advantage but the biggest reason Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, and Yankees keep winning is the sheer number of great prospects their farm systems keep churning out. Yanks sucked for years spending money and finally turned things around with cheap guys like Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, Severino, etc. Dodgers have Bellinger, Muncy, Seager, Bueller.  What big name free agents have the Dodgers signed? Astros Altuve, Bregman, Springer, Correa 

 

[Eephus]

I dunno. Not saying big market teams don't have an advantage but the biggest reason Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, and Yankees keep winning is the sheer number of great prospects their farm systems keep churning out. Yanks sucked for years spending money and finally turned things around with cheap guys like Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, Severino, etc. Dodgers have Bellinger, Muncy, Seager, Bueller.  What big name free agents have the Dodgers signed? Astros Altuve, Bregman, Springer, Correa 

The Yankees and Red Sox have a terrible recent track record with big dollar free agents.  Stanton, Ellsbury, Sandoval, Crawford, Castillo, Gonzalez, Price, etc. may have helped put fans in the seats but haven't directly translated to wins.

I think high revenue clubs have other advantages than just being able to bid on top free agents.  They've reaped benefits from their investments in international academies, scouting and analytics.  These are relatively low dollar items that shouldn't have a barrier for entry by smaller market clubs.

I think the biggest advantage the big markets have is their ability to insulate themselves from their own bad decisions.  Every franchise makes them but big payroll teams can absorb them better.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The purpose of talk radio is to suck

Well that is a given.

 

[Gally]

The purpose of talk radio is to suck

No.....that is not the purpose.....it's just a byproduct...….

 

[Eephus]

I rotation of "low payroll clubs" can play with the big boys for a couple of years, but then it's back to "re-building".  The teams that print monopoly money can consistently "compete" where the small market teams have to have everything go right or they have no chance and may doom their club for the next few years.

I follow a big market club in the midst of a rebuild.  The Giants have averaged 90 losses the past three seasons and will probably be around that number in 2020.  They've continued to rake in money but made some poor personnel decisions trying to extend the core's window. Three world championships in the past decade softens the blow a lot though.

I'd argue the rich clubs have less of an advantage today than during much of the game's history.   The draft, the CBT, free agent compensation and MiLB roster rules have all helped to increase parity.  But if you want a level playing field, join a redraft league.

 

[Hov34]

I'd argue the rich clubs have less of an advantage today than during much of the game's history.   The draft, the CBT, free agent compensation and MiLB roster rules have all helped to increase parity.  But if you want a level playing field, join a redraft league.

It's still an advantage I wish my Twins were saddled with.

 

[Anarchy99]

Isn't the reason the Sox are talking about trading Mookie because of poor contracts to Sale and Price?

And isn't the top team for his services the Padres? The same team that signed Machado?

The Sox are talking about trading Mookie because Betts has shown no signs of wanting to stay in Boston, wants essentially the same deal as Trout, and has basically said he wants to be a free agent. Boston can either trade him, hope to re-sign him in an open market, or get whatever pick they would get for him leaving as a free agent. They have been said to have made 3 offers to Betts, and all of them he quickly declined and they were over $100 million apart in all of them. So far he has said no hometown discount and he was to see what he is worth on the open market. The luxury tax threshold is a different issue. It's not like they want to trade Mookie, but if he doesn't want to sign they are kind of in a bind.

 

[shadyridr]

The Sox are talking about trading Mookie because Betts has shown no signs of wanting to stay in Boston, wants essentially the same deal as Trout, and has basically said he wants to be a free agent. Boston can either trade him, hope to re-sign him in an open market, or get whatever pick they would get for him leaving as a free agent. They have been said to have made 3 offers to Betts, and all of them he quickly declined and they were over $100 million apart in all of them. So far he has said no hometown discount and he was to see what he is worth on the open market. The luxury tax threshold is a different issue. It's not like they want to trade Mookie, but if he doesn't want to sign they are kind of in a bind.

If the numbers you posted are true they are completely low balling him

 

[Capella]

All baseball teams rake in money. Not all spend it. The rays can’t spend what the Yankees do but their payroll is a farce. Good thing they have brilliant baseball minds on staff. 

 

[Eephus]

It's still an advantage I wish my Twins were saddled with.

Try winning a playoff game

 

[Anarchy99]

If the numbers you posted are true they are completely low balling him

I heard a discussion on the radio and it seems like Boston started with fewer years and lower AAV and have been slowly upping their offers. Betts has been using the Trout deal as a barometer. Boston is up to the $300 million I mentioned. Betts apparently said his hometown discount is $5 million off of what Trout got . . . and even then he would prefer to be a free agent. The point being, he hasn't exactly come across as loving the Sox and wanting to spend his whole career in Boston. It's essentially been quite the opposite, where he's said he could care less if he plays for Boston or anywhere else. At least that's how things are getting reported. Whatever the actual numbers are, if he doesn't want to stick with the Sox, what else can Boston do but trade him?

 

[shadyridr]

I heard a discussion on the radio and it seems like Boston started with fewer years and lower AAV and have been slowly upping their offers. Betts has been using the Trout deal as a barometer. Boston is up to the $300 million I mentioned. Betts apparently said his hometown discount is $5 million off of what Trout got . . . and even then he would prefer to be a free agent. The point being, he hasn't exactly come across as loving the Sox and wanting to spend his whole career in Boston. It's essentially been quite the opposite, where he's said he could care less if he plays for Boston or anywhere else. At least that's how things are getting reported. Whatever the actual numbers are, if he doesn't want to stick with the Sox, what else can Boston do but trade him?

They can offer him a legit deal

 

[Chemical X]

I heard a discussion on the radio and it seems like Boston started with fewer years and lower AAV and have been slowly upping their offers. Betts has been using the Trout deal as a barometer. Boston is up to the $300 million I mentioned. Betts apparently said his hometown discount is $5 million off of what Trout got . . . and even then he would prefer to be a free agent. The point being, he hasn't exactly come across as loving the Sox and wanting to spend his whole career in Boston. It's essentially been quite the opposite, where he's said he could care less if he plays for Boston or anywhere else. At least that's how things are getting reported. Whatever the actual numbers are, if he doesn't want to stick with the Sox, what else can Boston do but trade him?

the trout angels, harper phils and machado pads all missed the playoffs.  the mistake teams make is thinking guys are irreplaceable.  

 

[Anarchy99]

They can offer him a legit deal

Which would be? (IE, years and total $$$)

 

[shadyridr]

Which would be? (IE, years and total $$$)

At least 10/350

 

[Eephus]

One of the issues with the current system is that superstars basically get one shot at a megadeal.  Assuming a top prospect reaches the big leagues at age 23, he'll be eligible for free agency at age 29 after six years of team control.  They're incentivized to get as long a guaranteed term as possible because they'll be into their decline by the next time they're a free agent.

If there's to be a baseball equivalent of the 5 year NBA supermax contract, I think the MLBPA would want a year or two shaved off the initial team control period in exchange.  I doubt the small market teams would be in favor of this change.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Try winning a playoff game

Over the line!

 

[Bull Dozier]

I dunno. Not saying big market teams don't have an advantage but the biggest reason Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, and Yankees keep winning is the sheer number of great prospects their farm systems keep churning out. Yanks sucked for years spending money and finally turned things around with cheap guys like Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, Severino, etc. Dodgers have Bellinger, Muncy, Seager, Bueller.  What big name free agents have the Dodgers signed? Astros Altuve, Bregman, Springer, Correa 

This is a comical take and shows your bias.  For what stretch did the Yanks suck for years?  I assume you must be talking about 13-14, which was the only back to back years the Yankess missed the playoff since 1994.  The Yankees missed the playoffs 4 times since 2000.

That article isn't very quantitative. 

26 of the 30 MLB franchises have made the post-season in the past decade.  The big market Yankees and Dodgers top the list with seven appearances each.  The four that haven't made the playoffs (Seattle, White Sox, Miami, San Diego) are better characterized by poor management than market size.

I didn't want to spend a lot of time, so I just grabbed the first list I found.  It might not be perfect, but I think it is pretty good.  Not sure what changes to the list could be made that would significantly change the results.

Making the playoffs isn't the goal, winning a championship is.  The Twins made the playoffs this year, but their one series showed the huge gap in talent they have to be able to compete for a title.

While there are some top teams built around home grown talent, the difference between small and big market teams is keeping that core together.  Small market teams can bring a young core up together and compete briefly, but can't afford to keep everyone together once they hit free agency.

The Dodgers have a nice young core of cheap players, but if they were a small market team, they would have lost Kershaw a long time ago, wouldn't have kept Jansen at that salary, wouldn't have resigned Turner to a big contract after he broke out, and wouldn't have afforded Russ Martin, Ryu, Hill, etc.  Take those salaries off the Dodgers, and you still have a nice core, but not a constant WS favorite.  Yanks, etc, are have their young core bolstered by huge salaries small markets teams don't have scattered through their roster.

 

[shadyridr]

@Bull Dozier

You said making the playoffs is not the goal, winning a championship is.

Yankees haven't won a championship since 2009. Hence my comment Yankees have sucked for years.  Yet you lambast me for saying that because Yankees only missed playoffs twice. 

So which is it?

 

[RnR]

How can we miss the Panda if he never goes away

don't act like you weren't wearing your panda beanie at the old folks home when you sent this

 

[Bull Dozier]

@Bull Dozier

You said making the playoffs is not the goal, winning a championship is.

Yankees haven't won a championship since 2009. Hence my comment Yankees have sucked for years.  Yet you lambast me for saying that because Yankees only missed playoffs twice. 

So which is it?

You're right.  I was arguing against Euphus and yourself at the same time and combining your arguments.  My bad.

That said, being in the playoffs 16 times out of the last 20 years does not qualify as sucking.  Just because you happen to have a few young players under team control while having the largest payroll in baseball continuously, and signing the best free agent pitchers available does not equate to what small market teams need to do to win.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Giants kicking the tires on Hunter Pence.  Getting the old crew back together.

Giants - "What's up Panda?"

Sandoval - "You son of a #####.  I'm in."

 

[Anarchy99]

Panda brings back bad memories as a Red Sox fan. They paid him $90 million to play in 161 games to have a .646 OPS and 71 OPS+. He made Carl Crawford look like a bargain (signed for $142 million, also played in 161 games with a .711 OPS and 89 OPS+). 

 

[bryhamm]

I am biased by the Twins experience with Mauer, and not being a Mauer fan, but I'd rather get nothing and be able to put someone else in the lineup.  Being forced to play a guy for under average production just because you are paying him $20M+ is a disaster.  The money is spent, so getting a younger bat in the lineup to develop and see what you have would be much more productive, particularly for a losing team, IMO.

Fowler and Carpenter for the Cardinals

 

[TheIronSheik]

Jon Heyman must really hate the Astros.  I saw last night he was railing against them for not informing the other candidates that they didn't get the job.  Seems like such a weird thing to be upset about.  Really kind of feels like nitpicking at this point.