Page 7 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 897

Thread: 2020 MLB Season Thread -- Rays v. Dodgers -- Small Payroll v. Large Payroll

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilchard View Post
    A lot of that's on Acuna's agent for signing him to ridiculously awful contract.
    What? Acuna signed a contract extension that extended what his rookie contract was. What he signed had no real bearing on the money he has made thus far. I actually think he made a couple hundred thousand more last season than he would have on the normal contract rookie minimum salary (which is like 500K a year for the first 3-4 years depending on if you are Super two or not).

    If you are talking about his signing bonus when he was 16, well that's a different discussion but it certainly wasn't that bad.

  2. #122
    This is kind of a more broad discussion than what we currently are talking about, but I don't at all understand when fans side with owners over players, in any sport. Why do we care more about protecting the money of billionaires than millionaires? I don't care how profitable an MLB team is, the investment by the owner should really be in the long term appreciation of the value of the team anyways. Owners regularly take money from players in CBA agreements in all kinds of ways that suck, and fans cheer it on because it helps the team they support, even if it hurts the players they like.

    Plus, I have no interest in siding with MLB owners when considering how terribly they regularly treat MiLB players, when they could really quite easily pump a few million more dollars into their farm system and allow their minor league players to make a livable wage.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by deacon14 View Post
    What? Acuna signed a contract extension that extended what his rookie contract was. What he signed had no real bearing on the money he has made thus far. I actually think he made a couple hundred thousand more last season than he would have on the normal contract rookie minimum salary (which is like 500K a year for the first 3-4 years depending on if you are Super two or not).

    If you are talking about his signing bonus when he was 16, well that's a different discussion but it certainly wasn't that bad.
    Deacon14, you are right that the amount Acuna has realized so far is embarrassing for the sport of baseball and his contract extension money will not kick in until later.

    And Pilchard, it was Albies extension that was bad, not Acuna.

  4. #124
    Yes, I'm talking about Acuna's 8 year $100 million contract extension (with two team options), which pays him far less than what would be his market value when he will be arbitration eligible and when he would otherwise be free agent eligible. It was a great deal for the Braves, and a bad deal for Acuna. Here is an excerpt from this article: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/4...atlanta-braves

    And [the contract] does, but it’s way closer to Eloy Jiménez’s contract than it should be. For starters, Jiménez had not made his big league debut when he signed his contract, while Acuña was an All-Star-caliber player in 2018, in addition to being a better athlete than Jiménez and more than a year younger. Yet Acuña gave away two extra years of team control for a contract that maxes out at just $124 million, or just $46 million more than Jiménez’s max. That’s less than a pittance for a team to pay for two extra years of a player who not only has higher upside than Jiménez but also has a longer (read: any) track record of big league success.

    The player most closely compared to Acuna is Juan Soto, and the Nats have already offered Soto a deal in excess of Acuna's contract, and with Boras advising Soto, Soto naturally declined. Acuna had the leverage for a better contract that would've paid more upfront money.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by krukow View Post
    Deacon14, you are right that the amount Acuna has realized so far is embarrassing for the sport of baseball and his contract extension money will not kick in until later.

    And Pilchard, it was Albies extension that was bad, not Acuna.
    My point is really just that young superstars in baseball don't make nearly the amount that they do in NBA or NFL, and even in NHL you can get to real money faster. It literally does not matter how good you are, you are making league minimum for your first 2-3 years on your rookie contract, unless you do what Acuna and Albies did and sign a contract to replace your rookie deal. What if Acuna didn't sign his guaranteed deal and got hurt this season and was never the same? A dude that was at the top of the game for multiple years would exit his career having made less than $2 million, even though he's been signed by the Braves since he was 16.

    I get it, there's more risk to young MLB players than NBA or NFL, as MLB kids may never even make the bigs. But that risk isn't offset by the pay disparity that happens when they do reach the MLB.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilchard View Post
    Yes, I'm talking about Acuna's 8 year $100 million contract extension (with two team options), which pays him far less than what would be his market value when he will be arbitration eligible and when he would otherwise be free agent eligible. It was a great deal for the Braves, and a bad deal for Acuna. Here is an excerpt from this article: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/4...atlanta-braves

    And [the contract] does, but it’s way closer to Eloy Jiménez’s contract than it should be. For starters, Jiménez had not made his big league debut when he signed his contract, while Acuña was an All-Star-caliber player in 2018, in addition to being a better athlete than Jiménez and more than a year younger. Yet Acuña gave away two extra years of team control for a contract that maxes out at just $124 million, or just $46 million more than Jiménez’s max. That’s less than a pittance for a team to pay for two extra years of a player who not only has higher upside than Jiménez but also has a longer (read: any) track record of big league success.

    The player most closely compared to Acuna is Juan Soto, and the Nats have already offered Soto a deal in excess of Acuna's contract, and with Boras advising Soto, Soto naturally declined. Acuna had the leverage for a better contract that would've paid more upfront money.
    But you missed my point. So far, Acuna hasn't reached the money in that deal yet, as it doesn't kick in for a few years. So the contract he signed has no real bearing on the discussion I am trying to have.

    If you wanna talk about his contract I'm happy to, because I think it's a more reasonable deal than media makes it out to be when considering the broken rookie contract and potential injury risk.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by deacon14 View Post
    But you missed my point. So far, Acuna hasn't reached the money in that deal yet, as it doesn't kick in for a few years. So the contract he signed has no real bearing on the discussion I am trying to have.

    If you wanna talk about his contract I'm happy to, because I think it's a more reasonable deal than media makes it out to be when considering the broken rookie contract and potential injury risk.
    Acuna's 8 year contract (with two years of team options - 10 years) kicked in for the 2019 season (that was year #1 of the 8 year deal). This year (year 2), Acuna is slated to make $1 million this year under that contract. That's more than the league minimum (barely), but he had the leverage to get paid a lot more. He is continually underpaid throughout the contract. It was a bad contract unless Acuna suffers a career ending injury.

    Every league, even the NBA, limits player compensation during their initial years in the league. For MLB players, it's six years of team control before they become a FA. In the NBA, its 4 years of rookie scale contracts, and then at least one year of restricted free agency. So, the NBA team control is one year shorter, but MLB careers are typically longer than NBA careers, and the MLB rosters are almost double the size, which lengthens veteran's careers. Understand that the duration of team control is going to be a big issue in the next MLB labor negotiation, and maybe the issue that leads to an work stoppage.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilchard View Post
    Acuna's 8 year contract (with two years of team options - 10 years) kicked in for the 2019 season (that was year #1 of the 8 year deal). This year (year 2), Acuna is slated to make $1 million this year under that contract. That's more than the league minimum (barely), but he had the leverage to get paid a lot more. He is continually underpaid throughout the contract. It was a bad contract unless Acuna suffers a career ending injury.

    Every league, even the NBA, limits player compensation during their initial years in the league. For MLB players, it's six years of team control before they become a FA. In the NBA, its 4 years of rookie scale contracts, and then at least one year of restricted free agency. So, the NBA team control is one year shorter, but MLB careers are typically longer than NBA careers, and the MLB rosters are almost double the size, which lengthens veteran's careers. Understand that the duration of team control is going to be a big issue in the next MLB labor negotiation, and maybe the issue that leads to an work stoppage.
    Yeah, I agree with most of this. Biggest disagreement is that it's really 7 years of control due to typical service time manipulation. Here's the breakdown difference for Acuna:

    Without signing the extension:
    2018: Partial League min (held back to not get a full year of service time)
    2019: League min
    2020: League min
    2021: Arbitration 1
    2022: Arb 2
    2023: Arb 3
    2024: Arb 4
    2025: FA

    Best way to figure out the amount he would have made is to compare to the current top paid guys in this system. Kris Bryant is in Arb 3 for 2020, and would have been paid around $45 million through that point without his signing bonus. Add in Arenado's record breaking Arb 4 amount ($26 million) and you are looking at $71 million on the full rookie deal to free agency. This is best case scenario, MVP type production on the rookie deal.

    With the extension:

    2019: $1 million
    2020: $1 million
    2021: $5 million
    2022: $15 million
    2023: $17 million
    2024: $17 million
    2025: $17 million
    2026: $17 million
    2027: $17 million (option)
    2028: $17 million (option
    2029: FA

    This is $100 million guaranteed, $114 million if both options are exercised. And with it, he is a FA at 31, compared to a FA at 27.

    Is he turning down potential cash, particularly in the 2025-2028 range? Absolutely, probably well over $100 million. But either way, at 27 or 31 years old, he probably is still getting a large second contract with his current career trajectory. This contract eliminated any risk of injury decimating his chance at being a multi-millionaire for life, and his pay in 2019-2022 is pretty much exactly what it would have been in the arbitration system. Signing this contract comes down to how risk-averse you are, and a kid of Acuna's background, who only got a $100k signing bonus originally, it makes perfect sense.

    Now if you wanna talk about Albies, I will have nothing but mean things to say about the front office of my favorite team.

  9. #129
    Also the way you compared the NBA isn't really accurate, because:

    A) Higher draft picks make substantially more more on the rookie scale. Better MLB rookies make the same amount as AAAA scrubs.
    B) RFA is much, much closer to free market dictation of salary than MLB's arbitration system, so calling it 5 years of team control/salary suppression is wrong.

  10. #130
    In the 2019 arbitration season, the Rockies offered $24 million for that year and Nolan Arenado (it was his sixth season) countered with a $30 million offer. He then settled on a multi-year contract. Those arbitration numbers are pretty close to what elite RFA get in hoop for their 5th season. The MLB draft bonus system and NBA draft salary scale aren't comparable, because it typically takes longer for MLB draft picks to actually play on the MLB level. For example, from the 2017 MLB draft, only one player to date has become a regular MLB player, Keston Huira. The 2017 NBA draft has already produced 3 players that made an NBA all-star game (Donovan Mitchell, Jason Tatum and Bam Adebayo). So, there is a tangible reason why NBA players get more right off the bat after their draft. Not saying the MLB situation shouldn't be tweaked (and it will be), but just comparing the NBA and MLB draft without context is not fair.

  11. #131
    Pilchard I agree that it’s comparing apples to oranges. I just brought it up because I feel as though rookie contracts in the MLB are incredibly team-friendly and anti-player, and even offsetting for prospect risk and MLB-ready timing of prospects, I feel as though NBA and NFL rookie deals are much more player friendly.

    Regardless, I think we are more talking around each other more than actually disagreeing, so I’m going to stop. If you have something specific that I’ve said that you disagree with go for it.

  12. #132
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    77,123
    David Price is giving $1000 to 200 minor leaguers to help them. If he can, why can't owners give every minor leaguer $10,000?

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    David Price is giving $1000 to 200 minor leaguers to help them. If he can, why can't owners give every minor leaguer $10,000?
    Owners should step up. Absolutely despicable how MLB teams AND the MLBPA have screwed over minor league players. Really hoping the MLBPA proposal back to the owners requires that all minor leaguers get paid through the rest of the season. That could help shift public opinion on the baseball labor dispute. Few will feel sympathy for Harper, Machado or Rendon losing a few million off contracts that will pay them 100s of millions of dollars, but there is (or should be sympathy) for those that truly need whatever they can get to support their family.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by deacon14 View Post
    This is kind of a more broad discussion than what we currently are talking about, but I don't at all understand when fans side with owners over players, in any sport. Why do we care more about protecting the money of billionaires than millionaires? I don't care how profitable an MLB team is, the investment by the owner should really be in the long term appreciation of the value of the team anyways. Owners regularly take money from players in CBA agreements in all kinds of ways that suck, and fans cheer it on because it helps the team they support, even if it hurts the players they like.

    Plus, I have no interest in siding with MLB owners when considering how terribly they regularly treat MiLB players, when they could really quite easily pump a few million more dollars into their farm system and allow their minor league players to make a livable wage.
    This is really where I am. I can't fathom how people can look at the situation and come to the sole conclusion that the players are being greedy, especially since the owners assume absolutely zero risk to their own health.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    This is really where I am. I can't fathom how people can look at the situation and come to the sole conclusion that the players are being greedy, especially since the owners assume absolutely zero risk to their own health.
    Clearly, the owners and the players are being greedy.

    As far as risking the health thing goes, as compared to basketball, football and hockey, playing baseball does not risk the players health any more than any other individual risks their health when he/she elects to venture out of his/her house these days. In Korea, they have been playing baseball for than a month, and no player has testified positive. Unlike the other major team sports, baseball does not require close personal contact. Plus, unlike basketball and hockey, the game is played outdoors. I understand there is some increased risk associated with travel, but baseball teams fly chartered flights and in most cases the team bus goes right on to the tarmac; they don't even walk through airplane terminals. In hotels, teams would be essentially quarantined on specific floors where no other guests would stay; the risk would not be playing or traveling, but when players choose to venture out in society, just like it is right now when no games are being played. On a youth/travel level, baseball has been and will be the first sport to return because it's not an inherently risky sport for the transmission of a virus. Further, MLB published detailed protocols which the MLBPA have amended to resolve the vast majority of the health issues.

    So, baseball players can talk about risking their lives or their health as a reason for no progress in the impasse with the owners, but that really doesn't play any part in the decision-making process as to whether or not there will be major league baseball. It's all about money, not safety, for both the players and the owners.

  16. #136
    The dugout is the biggest safety obstacle.

    Managers can't go face to face with an umpire while disputing a call.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilchard View Post
    Clearly, the owners and the players are being greedy.

    As far as risking the health thing goes, as compared to basketball, football and hockey, playing baseball does not risk the players health any more than any other individual risks their health when he/she elects to venture out of his/her house these days. In Korea, they have been playing baseball for than a month, and no player has testified positive. Unlike the other major team sports, baseball does not require close personal contact. Plus, unlike basketball and hockey, the game is played outdoors. I understand there is some increased risk associated with travel, but baseball teams fly chartered flights and in most cases the team bus goes right on to the tarmac; they don't even walk through airplane terminals. In hotels, teams would be essentially quarantined on specific floors where no other guests would stay; the risk would not be playing or traveling, but when players choose to venture out in society, just like it is right now when no games are being played. On a youth/travel level, baseball has been and will be the first sport to return because it's not an inherently risky sport for the transmission of a virus. Further, MLB published detailed protocols which the MLBPA have amended to resolve the vast majority of the health issues.

    So, baseball players can talk about risking their lives or their health as a reason for no progress in the impasse with the owners, but that really doesn't play any part in the decision-making process as to whether or not there will be major league baseball. It's all about money, not safety, for both the players and the owners.
    Sorry, you're wrong. The two highest paid players in the league both have pregnant wives. You don't think they're terrified of bringing something back to their compromised spouses? Also, Japan has had two positive tests since it restarted baseball, including their MVP.

    I wasn't only talking about players either - there's the countless operational and support staff to think about. If the owners came out and said they were going to use all the money they'd save on XYZ resources for their staff - or something that is the opposite of "we're going to pocket the $" - I think you'd see more flexibility from the players.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    Sorry, you're wrong. The two highest paid players in the league both have pregnant wives. You don't think they're terrified of bringing something back to their compromised spouses? Also, Japan has had two positive tests since it restarted baseball, including their MVP.

    I wasn't only talking about players either - there's the countless operational and support staff to think about. If the owners came out and said they were going to use all the money they'd save on XYZ resources for their staff - or something that is the opposite of "we're going to pocket the $" - I think you'd see more flexibility from the players.
    Unlike the monetary issues, the MLBPA and the MLB have essentially agreed to the health and safety issues if/when players return: https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mlb-and...-yet/313490590 . Further, both sides agree that any player that does not want to play does not have to play. If playing baseball was inherently dangerous as it relates to transmitting the virus, little leagues would not be returning to play: https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/06/05/re...league-seasons. Youth leagues won't have close to safety/testing measures in place that MLB will.

    The current dispute is about money only. If the owners agreed to a pro rata payment of each player's salary for 80+ games, the players would return tomorrow.

    Here is a detailed recap of the economics behind the dispute and a path to resolution: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...mbers-solve-it
    Last edited by Pilchard; 06-05-2020 at 04:34 PM.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    Sorry, you're wrong. The two highest paid players in the league both have pregnant wives. You don't think they're terrified of bringing something back to their compromised spouses? Also, Japan has had two positive tests since it restarted baseball, including their MVP.

    I wasn't only talking about players either - there's the countless operational and support staff to think about. If the owners came out and said they were going to use all the money they'd save on XYZ resources for their staff - or something that is the opposite of "we're going to pocket the $" - I think you'd see more flexibility from the players.
    This is correct, Pilchard you are way off base here. The health care protocols will get hammered out and yes nearly every player will play, but in no way does that diminish the fact that the players (not the owners) will be the only party exposing their health to whatever degree you want to assign to this issue.

    Furthermore, take the health out of it, when players are on the road, they are going to be treated like the Cuban National teams of old and the old Russian hockey teams where all activities are monitored so as to not defect. The protocols as currently drafted restrict their movements, associations, and personal freedoms off the field. Read through some of those provisions again. Then envision your profession cutting your guaranteed contractual salary in half (you agreed to that part), asking you to live your life under stressful and burdensome protocols...and then have your employer renege on your agreement and demand you take only 30% of your guaranteed salary.

    No one on this board would do their job for 30% of their pay, let alone with these life restrictions. The fact that the players are still negotiating should be applauded and when they ultimately do come to a deal they should be celebrated and ownership should be given zero credit for getting a product on the field.

  20. #140
    Guess those baseball players that traveled to TX participating in this week’s College Summer Baseball Invitational and playing for nothing are total daredevils. Same for all the college baseball players participating in Summer baseball leagues.


    How about all of those risky PGA golfers and caddies traveling en masse from Texas to SC to CT to Michigan to Ohio over the next month. More than half of those guys won’t get paid a dime as only the top 70 get a paycheck each week.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •