Of course it will. There will be players whose contracts expire, who are still of some interest, at some level of compensation, to MLB clubs.
Now, that's not to say that a handful of major stars will come onto the open market each winter - the current situation. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that "the way it is now," or "the way it was when I..." is necessarily the only way it can be, or the best way it could be. Things change. ALL things change.
Clubs have decided to try to lock up their rising stars through what are now understood to be their most productive years - and that's now understood to be the late 20s through very early 30s, for most players. Many of those rising stars are opting for guaranteed multi-year contracts when those are offered - because complete financial security, and more money invested than they can realistically ever need, can be very compelling.
Some (see Matt Winkleman's Twitter for a good example) are appalled at this - because it looks as though some players are "leaving money on the table" - opting for security and guaranteed wealth, rather than gambling on their own continued health and production in pursuit of a bigger contract down the road.
Frankly, I find these arguments - and the anger about these contracts in some quarters - both silly and, frankly, saddening.
Why? Well, to take the "saddening" part first, because there's an assumption that runs through the arguments that "more money is always better," and that the chance for more money should be pursued, even at the risk of injury leading to less money. I find that sad, because - to be blunt - once you have enough money, adding more money really gets you precious little. Now, what is "enough" money will differ from person to person - but IMHO, anybody who doesn't consider $100 million "enough" should probably check out of the human race.
Why "silly"? These arguments tend to center around what is "fair." What is the fair share of total industry profits that should go to the players, vs. ownership? My view: We're talking about monopoly profits here, rates of return that simply would not exist if professional sports were really competitive industries (talking economic competitiveness here, not on-field). Independent leagues would appear, and compete for players, and for broadcast/cable/streaming contracts, until the rate of return on investment descended to roughly the level of investment in other competitive industries. But... that does not happen, because we're dealing with a monopoly here.
Again IMHO, there is no such thing as a "fair' distribution of monopoly profits - because monopoly profits are inherently unfair - to the consumer, who pays substantially more than a competitive market-clearing price for the product. Given that... People are arguing about which parties who are collaborating in an inherently unfair monopolistic industry should get how much of the monopoly profits. Why should we care? At all?
I can understand outrage at minor-leaguers being paid sub-minimum wages. I share that outrage. But that's not what most of these arguments are about - these people aren't advocating guaranteeing minor-leaguers a median income, or anything close to that (and minimum wage is far below median). They're mostly arguing about which major-leaguers should get how many $million per year. Why should we care? At all?
Enjoy the games. But don't be under the delusion that anybody you see on the field - unless you're watching minor-leaguers who aren't on the 40-man roster - are anything remotely like "underpaid."
Just my opinion.
