No, not here, in the MLB. I see a few people complaining about the slow offseason for free agents and blaming it, in part, for teams not wanting to compete this next season. i.e., those teams are in a rebuilding phase.
What do people think?
Tanking...
Moderators: nuzzy62, simballerific
Re: Tanking...
Tough call. I think we are in an age where contracts have gotten way ahead of themselves due to inflation and, in many cases, expectation v. reality in terms of value. Look at Jimmy G's insane contract in San Francisco (NFL). Not that he isn't worth the contract, or doesn't deserve it, but he's lucked into a situation where that is the new standard for players and someone luckily was willing to pay him. Watch Kirk Cousins hold out for either a massive payday, or a massive loss with some sad 1-Year deal somewhere. It's back and forth.
Didn't mean to skew to football, just brings up my point here in baseball.
I think teams are starting to see how developing their own teams is a recipe for winning championships. The Astros, Cubs, Giants, and Royals all won rings in 5 of the last 6 series. 3 of those 4 teams were bottom-feeders only a few years ago. But they all developed their own guys, created chemistry that helped in those tough stretches and when needing the energy to rally, and now can call themselves champs. Teams like my Dodgers or the Yankees have been criticized for buying players and having massive payrolls, but ultimately have no hardware on their shelves in the past few years. Ironically, both those teams are now having some success and looking like real contenders again based more on some of their homegrown talent (Seager/Bellinger for Dodgers, Judge/Sanchez for Yanks) than the contracts they buy up (though Stanton going to the Yankees is a new exception).
NEITHER the Dodgers or Yankees have otherwise overpaid to bring in top talent like they once have. A handful of teams have made trades for superstar-caliber talent. But the return for those guys hasn't been up to par as it should or once was. Teams appear to be valuing time and patience rather than throwing money around and trying to get a cheap season that hasn't proven to be successful even in the biggest markets.
It's a shame that, unlike the NFL, the MLB is stuck with guys getting low-ball offers in comparison to other players. Guys that signed 2-3 years ago were still part of that "buy high" strategy for teams. I think thats gone and there will be a significant dropoff for players regular-season salaries. I think the only exception would be a homegrown player getting a massive contract to stay with the homegrown team. Guys like Seager, Trout, Judge, Bryant will likely get monster paydays from their own teams. Sure, they'd probably get those offers out on the market too. But those 2nd-tier guys (like JD Martinez), ones that impact but don't completely alter a franchise, are gonna have trouble justifying a team overpaying (by today's new standards) rather than being patient and developing the talent in the pipeline.
I feel as though i'm thinking and typing at the same time and not typing everything i'm thinking, and thus if the above is very confusing or doesn't read well, I apologize. Hahahaha.
Didn't mean to skew to football, just brings up my point here in baseball.
I think teams are starting to see how developing their own teams is a recipe for winning championships. The Astros, Cubs, Giants, and Royals all won rings in 5 of the last 6 series. 3 of those 4 teams were bottom-feeders only a few years ago. But they all developed their own guys, created chemistry that helped in those tough stretches and when needing the energy to rally, and now can call themselves champs. Teams like my Dodgers or the Yankees have been criticized for buying players and having massive payrolls, but ultimately have no hardware on their shelves in the past few years. Ironically, both those teams are now having some success and looking like real contenders again based more on some of their homegrown talent (Seager/Bellinger for Dodgers, Judge/Sanchez for Yanks) than the contracts they buy up (though Stanton going to the Yankees is a new exception).
NEITHER the Dodgers or Yankees have otherwise overpaid to bring in top talent like they once have. A handful of teams have made trades for superstar-caliber talent. But the return for those guys hasn't been up to par as it should or once was. Teams appear to be valuing time and patience rather than throwing money around and trying to get a cheap season that hasn't proven to be successful even in the biggest markets.
It's a shame that, unlike the NFL, the MLB is stuck with guys getting low-ball offers in comparison to other players. Guys that signed 2-3 years ago were still part of that "buy high" strategy for teams. I think thats gone and there will be a significant dropoff for players regular-season salaries. I think the only exception would be a homegrown player getting a massive contract to stay with the homegrown team. Guys like Seager, Trout, Judge, Bryant will likely get monster paydays from their own teams. Sure, they'd probably get those offers out on the market too. But those 2nd-tier guys (like JD Martinez), ones that impact but don't completely alter a franchise, are gonna have trouble justifying a team overpaying (by today's new standards) rather than being patient and developing the talent in the pipeline.
I feel as though i'm thinking and typing at the same time and not typing everything i'm thinking, and thus if the above is very confusing or doesn't read well, I apologize. Hahahaha.
Re: Tanking...
I also think it is a direct cause/effect from the steroid era. During that time you could sign a guy at 32 to 4-6 year contract and he would have some great years (sometimes even career years) making the signing worth it. Then PED's were stopped and older players were still signing these huge deals. Then all of a sudden their production declines like it should've in the first place. Now a 34-35 yo isn't going to produce like he's in his prime anymore.
I really think this is part of the building through your system demographic and also partly a market correction.
I'm not saying that they've used PED's, but would Miggy and Pujols have been offered those long contracts had the steroid era not occurred? I think teams are scared to get tied down to those long term contracts.
And if I was a GM, I would NEVER, EVER, sign a pitcher to those 6-8 year deals. Pitching is too fickle, it'd be 3 years max for me. Granted, there are a few pitchers who are worth it, but sooooo many who were not.
I really think this is part of the building through your system demographic and also partly a market correction.
I'm not saying that they've used PED's, but would Miggy and Pujols have been offered those long contracts had the steroid era not occurred? I think teams are scared to get tied down to those long term contracts.
And if I was a GM, I would NEVER, EVER, sign a pitcher to those 6-8 year deals. Pitching is too fickle, it'd be 3 years max for me. Granted, there are a few pitchers who are worth it, but sooooo many who were not.
Re: Tanking...
In a world of free agency the only thing that would stop that is teams should all have an equal chance of getting the first overall pick. Teams need to stop getting rewarded for finishing last. They should be getting punished and the teams with the better scouting system and better coaches should be rewarded.
Re: Tanking...
I wish someone would do an analysis of some of the recent long-term deals.
I look to the Angels and Pujols - they certainly aren't getting value and way overpaid with an albatross of a contract. Maybe this is a market correction where long-term contracts will only be issued sparingly. Why can't saddled with a guy who isn't worth it?
I look to the Angels and Pujols - they certainly aren't getting value and way overpaid with an albatross of a contract. Maybe this is a market correction where long-term contracts will only be issued sparingly. Why can't saddled with a guy who isn't worth it?