Indians Ownership Discussion

[bigfoot5415]

Definitely makes a ton of sense to me. I don't understand why this isn't standard practice throughout the league, especially in a sport that has embraced analytics for such a long period of time. Maybe the Tatis Jr. contract signals a new direction in how pre-arbitration is handled, but up until recently, it seems like pre-arb agreements typically mean a club gets to lock up a player for his more productive years at a lower AAV than he would get on the open market after he is no longer under team control. Inevitably, some players will fail to meet the expectations the club had for him, but that is where a FO's ability to evaluate their own young talent comes into play. Not to mention, a player locked up pre-arbitration still has all the incentive in the world to perform well to earn another his subsequent lucrative contract. Is it not quite that simple, or am I just preaching to the choir?

Whats funny about the Tatis deal to me is that he is an exceptional player who will likely have a tremendous career. His production will likely exceed that deal.

However, want kind of balls do you have to make that sort of call after less than a full season's production? Hell of a shrewd deal & wont interfere with the Machado contract, but man that was a huge risk.

 

[sportscoach]

Can he love anyone?

Can he?

How can he love you if he can't love himself!?!?

Do you know what love is, @sportscoach?

I want you to show me!

There is a thing called MILFs but that's a topic for a different thread lol

 

[bs80]

Whats funny about the Tatis deal to me is that he is an exceptional player who will likely have a tremendous career. His production will likely exceed that deal.

However, want kind of balls do you have to make that sort of call after less than a full season's production? Hell of a shrewd deal & wont interfere with the Machado contract, but man that was a huge risk.

No doubt, that deal was batshit crazy in that it blew any sort of precedent completely out of the water. That's why I referenced it in my previous post -- perhaps the league has caught on to this inefficiency and the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way?

 

[sportscoach]

Definitely makes a ton of sense to me. I don't understand why this isn't standard practice throughout the league, especially in a sport that has embraced analytics for such a long period of time. Maybe the Tatis Jr. contract signals a new direction in how pre-arbitration is handled, but up until recently, it seems like pre-arb agreements typically mean a club gets to lock up a player for his more productive years at a lower AAV than he would get on the open market after he is no longer under team control. Inevitably, some players will fail to meet the expectations the club had for him, but that is where a FO's ability to evaluate their own young talent comes into play. Not to mention, a player locked up pre-arbitration still has all the incentive in the world to perform well to earn another his subsequent lucrative contract. Is it not quite that simple, or am I just preaching to the choir?

First threeish years of a players contract in MLB only costs a team about 1.6ish million dollars... Once they get into arbitration, that's when contracts can skyrocket. Lindor went from 600k to 10 million in the first year of arbitration. Lindors was on the high side, but players get the raise during those seasons, which teams can non-tender them if they don't like the possible price, while if they do an extension, the player is guaranteed all that money outside of the option years if those are in the extension contract. So if you are going to extend someone you really are guaranteeing them more money so they better be apart of the nucleus or you wasted money...

 

[bs80]

First threeish years of a players contract in MLB only costs a team about 1.6ish million dollars... Once they get into arbitration, that's when contracts can skyrocket. Lindor went from 600k to 10 million in the first year of arbitration. Lindors was on the high side, but players get the raise during those seasons, which teams can non-tender them if they don't like the possible price, while if they do an extension, the player is guaranteed all that money outside of the option years if those are in the extension contract. So if you are going to extend someone you really are guaranteeing them more money so they better be apart of the nucleus or you wasted money...

Yup, that much I was able to figure out all by myself haha. I think the way players are paid in baseball is freaking nuts, but that's another argument for another day. But yes, I understand therefore, that if a pre-arb extension goes into effect immediately, then such a deal after just one year of service is monumentally different than such a deal after four years of service, since in the former, the club is effectively forfeiting three years of control at a dirt-cheap cost.

The other thing, though, is that time and time again, because of the rising revenue in all sports, a contract signed today that may seem ridiculous could look entirely reasonable in a few years, provided the player has performed according to expectations. The extension that Mahomes signed last year? That was such a no-brainer for the Chiefs IMO -- I didn't even know that 10-year contracts in the NFL were a thing! At the time of the signing, I bet just about everyone across the nation believed that he would continue to be a damn good QB for the duration of the contract. And I bet that when all is said and done, if he actually honors the remainder of his contract, he'll be considered one of the most underpaid players in the league.

All that to say, pre-arb extensions seem to be a huge win for the club, and I guess in a way could be considered the club's reward for identifying and developing its own young talent.

 

[southernflyer]

Whats funny about the Tatis deal to me is that he is an exceptional player who will likely have a tremendous career. His production will likely exceed that deal.

However, want kind of balls do you have to make that sort of call after less than a full season's production? Hell of a shrewd deal & wont interfere with the Machado contract, but man that was a huge risk.

It is a ballsy move in the "I'm not signing the checks" kind of way.

I know the economics have changed always increasing, but comparing to Trout's contract history: first three years at minimum, 4th year signed a 6 year/ $144 million contract that was later renegotiated into a 12 year, $426 million contract. Using spotrac up to the end of this season, Trout has been paid $167 million for 11 seasons so far. Add Trout's next three seasons and it comes out to $272 million over 14 seasons.

I view it from what if we had signed Grady Sizemore to a 14 year/ $175 million contract instead of the 6/$24 in 2006. Those 2011-2019 years would be worse complaining than when Swisher/ Pronk/ Bourne were dead wood on the team.

I think Tatis has a high likelihood of being a generational type player. Using minimum salary for three years and $75 million for the 3 arby years, how much more than a 8 year/$260 million contract would years 7-14 been if San Diego went through his arby years and then negotiated? 8 years/ $320 maximum? Maybe $340? Even $360 would be $45m/ year.

Paying the extra $60-80 million on the back end later after four plus more years of data is a much smaller risk than the possibility of an injury and then paying out almost $200 million with a higher likelihood of diminished results.

Maybe it would look better to me if SD wasn't paying Machado $30m a year until 2028 when he turns 35. Either this works with both players or the GM won't be around when the contract is over.

 

[xmasbuck]

Yup, that much I was able to figure out all by myself haha. I think the way players are paid in baseball is freaking nuts, but that's another argument for another day. But yes, I understand therefore, that if a pre-arb extension goes into effect immediately, then such a deal after just one year of service is monumentally different than such a deal after four years of service, since in the former, the club is effectively forfeiting three years of control at a dirt-cheap cost.

The other thing, though, is that time and time again, because of the rising revenue in all sports, a contract signed today that may seem ridiculous could look entirely reasonable in a few years, provided the player has performed according to expectations. The extension that Mahomes signed last year? That was such a no-brainer for the Chiefs IMO -- I didn't even know that 10-year contracts in the NFL were a thing! At the time of the signing, I bet just about everyone across the nation believed that he would continue to be a damn good QB for the duration of the contract. And I bet that when all is said and done, if he actually honors the remainder of his contract, he'll be considered one of the most underpaid players in the league.

All that to say, pre-arb extensions seem to be a huge win for the club, and I guess in a way could be considered the club's reward for identifying and developing its own young talent.

I agree with much of your post - still there's a difference in the NFL where there's a salary cap that incrementally increases yearly - and the wild Wild West that is mlb

 

[bs80]

I agree with much of your post - still there's a difference in the NFL where there's a salary cap that incrementally increases yearly - and the wild Wild West that is mlb

You could very well be right. The revenue is just a bit easier to track in the NFL because we can use the salary cap figure as a proxy. I was going off of my assumption that revenues in sports in general have been increasing as we move forward in time, except when stupid shit like a global pandemic gets in the way.

 

[Lee]

We’ve moved on to the intricacies of pre-arbitration contracts while also trying to comprehend why @sportscoach won’t love me.

He loves you because you ran a 4.2 in high school, he thinks of you as a brother.

Spoiler

Now that is what we call in the business a call back

 

[AZ_]

Seems relatively pertinent for this fan base.

 

[Ohio]

Seems relatively pertinent for this fan base.

Baseball doing something to actually help their sport?

Truly stunning.

 

[sportscoach]

Baseball doing something to actually help their sport?

Truly stunning.

Wish it was a hard cap not a tax cap though....

 

[BimboColesHair]

Tough to see the players approving that proposal since that $180 million will act as a pseudo hard cap with few teams willing to go over it, down from the current $210 million tax threshold. But certainly a start in the right direction for the first publicly made proposal.

Only way to get ownership to approve a hard salary floor is if there is stingier tax on the higher spending teams that is shared more with the lower revenue teams.

But a salary floor has long been rumored as one of the things that are almost virtual locks to be in the next CBA going back a few years. Both the owners and players like the idea a lot.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Seems relatively pertinent for this fan base.

Good luck with this. I don't think this has any chance.

Money is obviously important to field a competitive team. But it's not the only thing. Under this proposal Tampa Bay, the defending AL Champs would get about a $40 million bonus.

 

[sportscoach]

Tough to see the players approving that proposal since that $180 million will act as a pseudo hard cap with few teams willing to go over it, down from the current $210 million tax threshold. But certainly a start in the right direction for the first publicly made proposal.

Only way to get ownership to approve a hard salary floor is if there is stingier tax on the higher spending teams that is shared more with the lower revenue teams.

But a salary floor has long been rumored as one of the things that are almost virtual locks to be in the next CBA going back a few years. Both the owners and players like the idea a lot.

Do you think that hard salary floor will automatically go to like 100 million or go up gradually? What happens if a team is under it?