2018 Season MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

[andyb]

Did not see the MLB in-season thread so here we are.

Fangraphs has MLB revenues increasing and player salaries decreasing. This dispute is not going to end well:

MLB Opening Day Payrolls Down from 2017 | FanGraphs Baseball

[julio]

The article appears to be basically accurate, although I found its organization and presentation a bit unhelpful. The author says he's going to compare 2017 Opening Day payrolls to 2017 Opening Day payrolls. OK; but then he veers into discussions of individual teams, groups of teams, etc. He's completely buried the lede, if the headline indicates what he's trying to communicate. It isn't until you get to nearly the end of the piece that the author mentions the overall change in payrolls, and then it's in one sentence, almost a throw-away. And based on the numbers in his team-by-team tables, his overall numbers are slightly off.

The real, overall story: Overall Opening Day Payroll dropped from $4.1 billion in 2017 to $4.05 billion in 2018, a decline of $55.4 million, or 1.35%. The author assumes that overall MLB revenue is increasing by about 5% (a reasonable assumption, but of course we don't know), and concludes that player compensation as a % of revenue is declining (which it probably is).

I found all the stuff in the first 3/4 of the article to be...well frankly, just noise. The only important information here is the overall change, which the author barely addressed. Team-by-team payrolls should be expected to fluctuate up and down, as teams go through development/competitiveness cycles; overall payroll, relative to overall revenue, is the only thing that's relevant to management-labor issues (which is the subject that drives this article).

Moreover - and the author doesn't address this at all in the article - the longer-term issue is whether the 1.35% decline in overall 2018 payroll represents the beginning of a trend, or whether it reflects some kind of one-time correction. One might argue that what we saw in the 2018 free agent market was - finally! - a recognition that overpaying players in their 30s for performance in their 20s that they have little hope of repeating in the future is foolish. If that is the case, one would perhaps expect to see a bit more correction in the next couple of years, as players in their mid-30s come to understand that they've reached retirement age, followed by a resumption of salaries tracking revenues, albeit with an overall younger player base.

[andyb]

There is definitely noise in that data on fluctuation.

There is also some considerable disagreement out there on the percentage of revenue that MLB players receive. Clearly benefits have gone up but what makes me think the players are getting taken is that payrolls have not gone up as fast as revenues have. That makes me think teams are doing a better job of classifying revenue outside of what is in the MLBPA agreement. The players can't really talk about this externally because they agreed to this.

Bottom line is that the players negotiated a bad deal. They focused on small items like the schedule instead of the actual share of the revenue pool they receive. The MLB teams "justify" pay cuts on their analytics. This justification is a bit unfair though as teams are using the data to maximize profits as much as performance. The Phillies' deal for Arrieta can still help them win games even if it is not profitable in a WAR/$ sense.

Where the agreement has gone off the rails is when teams game service time and analytics to suggest that a player's pre-free agency years are more valuable than post-free agency years. Per dollar this is true. Performance-wise though if a team can acquire WAR simply for money it might not fit the per dollar equation.

The players have every right to be annoyed at the situation even if it is largely their stupid negotiation that got them there.

[allentown]

Where the agreement has gone off the rails is when teams game service time and analytics to suggest that a player's pre-free agency years are more valuable than post-free agency years. Per dollar this is true. Performance-wise though if a team can acquire WAR simply for money it might not fit the per dollar equation.

Since only 8 position players can be on the field at a time and only 5 pitchers in a rotation, it is natural that the big FA $ will go only to the exceptional talents. WAR value should not be linear, it should be exponential -- a 5 WAR player is rare; a 2 WAR player isn't. Rare talents excite fans and sell tickets and advertising. Just a tad below average talent is fairly fungible and after the reality that the 'name' has aged into a 'didn't you used to be?', is of marginal value to a team, unless that FA is filling an otherwise unfillable hole on a contending team. I think baseball analytics likely say that adding a 2 WAR player to a losing team doesn't excite fans or hype revenue. Baseball analytics and baseball business analytics will both show draft picks to be more valuable than many teams formerly thought.

The players recognized this as much as the owners did. That's why QOs are so expensive and the players wanted to do away with FA compensation. A lot of teams seem to have adopted the NBA approach that if you are going to finish in the bottom third or even bottom half, then you might as well stink and get one of the top 5 picks. Adding the middling FA or two to a bottom third team is a negative all the way around. With higher international budget allocations and bonus small-market charity draft picks, MLB seems to be encouraging small revenue and losing teams to build from within and spend more in the draft and internationally and less on FA. The players couldn't possibly have missed those changes in the last contract.

The decline in payrolls seems like just scatter on the graph. I'm guessing that with primo FAs coming up, either to sign big deals with their present team or on the open market, that the payrolls will be climbing again over the next two years.

The owners will always have an advantage in negotiations if specific numbers are in the contract, rather than formulae. The owners are much better able to project future revenue increases. The players would be well advised to demand minimum team salaries and a higher lux tax level. I suspect the owners conned them with a phony picture of future revenue growth. Minimum and maximum total team salaries as a percentage of prior year revenue is less likely to go awry.

Player salaries should actually be rising as a share of total revenue, because owner expenses are very unlikely to be rising as fast as revenue has risen, so even if the split on revenue didn't change, profit and team value would be up substantially.

[Austinfan]

In terms of quality of play, investing more in amateur player acquisition and development is better than spending money on declining free agents. Baseball has the most expensive player development of any sport, colleges don't prepare most kids for ML baseball, they need 2-4 years of minor league experience, HS 4-6. The NBA development league is a joke, the real development leagues outside of the NCAA are foreign baskeball leagues, and hockey does the same with players in the SHL, KHL, etc., although maintaining an AHL and ECHL team is a real expense.

Given the competition for athletic talent, baseball as a whole would benefit from shifting resources from free agents to amateur player acquisition (and minor league salaries to a lesser extent, but the real talents get serious bonus money, not just 1st rd but much deeper in the draft, including college tuition which is worth spending a few years in the minors for kids from working class and middle class families).

[flyers19rw]

I may be wrong but the lack of competition has an impact on payrolls. Basically, we know who the PO teams will be in the NL-Nats, Cards, Dodgers, SF and AZ or, remotely, Colorado. The same is virtually true in the AL- Yanks, BoSox, Astros, Cleveland and the Angels. What motivation is there for other teams to do to stretch their budgets? Are the Twins, Brewers or Cards going to make the dance? Highly doubtful unless one of the front runners totally collapses.
Although MLB can’t mirror the NFL’s possibility of on any given Sunday, it needs to create an any given season approach. Seeing the Yankees acquire Stanton or the BoSox Sale ruins the competitive possibilities of the sport. Mickey Mouse attempts at leveling the plain through competitive picks, revenue sharing that goes into the owners pockets instead of player salaries, affordable luxury taxes attached to mediocre penalties are not the answer. The solution is the one that management abhors-a hard salary cap. Owners will fight this as they watch the former national pastime slip in popularity behind pro football, college football, the NBA, NCAA basketball and soon, various levels of international soccer.

[julio]

Owners will fight against a hard salary cap? Ownership abhors a salary cap? I didn't realize this. I thought that was the MLBPA's position.

[zambonir]

Indeed, that's why we didn't have baseball in 1994. It's certainly possible that a small handful of the richer teams don't really want a cap (and they don't like paying the tax either). Those same teams would probably be happy if some of the small markets didn't even exist. But overall MLB has always wanted to have one. Badly. It may not be exactly like it was then because I suspect some of the small market teams and owners (i.e. Selig and company) aren't as powerful as they were, but MLB would take a hard cap in a second, and the union would fight it. In truth the new taxes are probably working as intended, that just doesn't help the players.

[Austinfan]

The players would accept a cap, with a larger share of revenue, salary floors and much more revenue sharing.
The owners would love a cap, but the big market teams abhor revenue sharing and the small market teams will oppose a higher floor unless they get more revenue sharing.

My compromise would be a cap, more revenue sharing, higher floors, higher percentage to players and a cap on FA contracts (length, size), similar to the NBA that keeps franchises from getting crippled by bad long-term contracts.

[andyb]

n terms of quality of play, investing more in amateur player acquisition and development is better than spending money on declining free agents.

Per dollar maybe. But amateur and international player acquisition is strictly limited to pools (and weren't you the one arguing that the Phillies should not trade for the international pool max?). Thus there are no variables in amateur player acquisition. Teams should max out and then figure out the next best way to make their team better.

Then the equation is trickier. If it will cost me Sixto Sanchez to acquire Gerrit Cole, maybe I should spend money on Jake Arrieta? That equation is different for teams with $200 million payrolls compared to teams with $100 million payrolls.

Obviously we all want to acquire 25-29 year olds in their prime with salaries limited by baseball's free agency rules. Those players don't grow on trees, however. So sometimes spending money on older players so you don't have to give up young talent IS the right answer.

There is also zero evidence that baseball is spending a greater share of their resources on amateur player acquisition than in the past. Frankly they are probably spending less since the pools are not growing as fast as baseball revenues. So when player salaries go down, the players are getting a raw deal. And MLB teams are making windfall profits collectively, whether it is collusion or not.

[andyb]

All the talk about Ohtani needing AAA seems a bit misplaced now. HRs in 3 straight games. Takes a perfect game into the 7th. Fastball averages 98. Wow.

The Magic of Shohei Ohtani’s Two-Way, One-WAR Week

[LoneStarPhan]

I know there was some discussion that the Phillies should make a big push for Ohtani. I think they did explore the possibility but I doubt seriously if they really had much chance. I strongly suspect Ohtani didn't seriously consider the Phillies.

[zambonir]

He didn't even consider the Yankees!

What I didn't realize is apparently every team besides Florida put in a bid, I had thought there were more teamsthan that sitting it out (that was in SI last week).

[Philsmania]

He didn't even consider the Yankees!

What I didn't realize is apparently every team besides Florida put in a bid, I had thought there were more teamsthan that sitting it out (that was in SI last week).

Did he consider any team not on the West Coast? I think the Rangers and maybe the Cubs, if memory serves me correctly.

[andyb]

I think he seriously considered the Cubs and maybe the Rangers at one point, though the point is no longer to lament what might have been. The point about Ohtani is to discuss what he is doing and it has been pretty amazing so far. If he averages 98 with his split he is kind of like Curt Schilling as a starter. As a hitter his swing looks a little long so he may end up with a low average, but that power is legit. It is like the criticisms of Alfaro's power last year at LHV as being mediocre. Maybe it was in terms of learning to use game power, but Alfaro's raw power was always there and at some point was going to be a factor. Ohtani's power is legit. He is facing better pitching now and will probably need to make some adjustments at some point, but it is reasonable to think he has the tools to be an all star hitter as well (even if the hitting part time thing means he never quite puts everything together offensively).

It is also great for baseball. I know personally I made a point to watch his debut on MLB network and will probably be taking in some late games because of him all year.

[Philsmania]

Another Mets catcher bites the dust...

Kevin Plawecki Has Hairline Fracture In Left Hand

[LoneStarPhan]

Too bad the Phillies are not trying to trade Rupp now. Where did Rupp end up? Don't think I recall hearing him signing with anyone but I would think he would have signed some type of deal shortly after the Phillies dropped him.

[zambonir]

He's on a minor league deal in Texas. Reality is there are probably five better catchers the Mets can get off the scrap heap, or they could actually give up something to get a truly better one. He might add a little bit with the bat though, if the alternative is below replacement level.

[LoneStarPhan]

I should have remembered that the Rangers picked up Rupp for organization coverage. Speaking of teams with things going badly, Texas is really struggling. Andros looks to be out for 6 to 8 weeks and Hamels is not looking good. His velocity is down and he is getting roughed up. The rest of the starting pitching is not good.

[andyb]

2018 free agent contract predictions:

Projecting paydays for next year's top free agents

Machado 8/300 (SS) or 8/264 (3B)
Harper 8/258
Donaldson 5/135

I think that underestimates Harper. His projections underestimate his health potentially and I just don't see him slotting behind Machado. If we are still looking for a 3B the Donaldson option for half the price will always be enticing.