It's a valid point: you are penalizing the owners who want to win without the same ramifications on the blood-suckers that exist for the shared revenue, which is largely derived from the teams that want to win! The Pirates got the same share of the "Strauss" batting helmet advertising for the playoffs that the Dodgers got even though the many people around the world saw the ad because of Ohtani who was being paid by the Dodgers.
JB…my wishlist item for next year: could you do an update on the piece from 2023 (I think) going in depth on the competing development plans around Citi Field? I found it fascinating. Might be the only one though!
I don’t understand how a team can be penalized for going over a certain threshold that wasn’t established when they went initially went over. That seems nonsensical to me.
It’s more than nonsensical. It could be illegal. I would imagine that if the owners insisted on putting retroactive penalties in place Cohen could successfully sue them under a number of contractual theories (such as a duty of good faith and fair dealing or promissory estoppel). The owners would probably have to grandfather prior deals in and only apply new penalties prospectively. So while there are certainly other implications in committing to long term contracts such as facing large penalties for new contracts over the threshold I doubt the Mets have to worry about contracts being signed now having unexpected new penalties attached to them.
When they added the cap to the NHL they included the ability to pay out a certain percentage of a contract (I think it was 2/3 of the remaining value) and that contract wouldn't count against the cap. I really don't remember the specifics as it was almost 20 years ago at this point, but I have to imagine there would be options similar to that if they added a cap in baseball.
I've been thinking about the Mets' offer of 3/$90 for Pete.
One thought was, um, you know how most folks agree that Pete made a mistake by turning down the Mets' offer of 7/$158? Is he making a similar mistake by turning this down?
But the bigger thought is that this offer -- leaked to the public -- allows the Mets to stake out some powerful territory. How does a rival team, let's call them the Mariners or the Giants, compete with that? By length, I would think. Four years? Five years? And at what price? Do they offer 5/$125? Is that even better?
I'd have to think the Mets will get a chance to respond to any offer on the table. And while they would walk away, I think they'd be willing to go 5 years, probably hoping for 4 years. Do teams see this as a way of being used by Boras? Why engage with Pete if Cohen gets the final word? So the only way to get him is to bring an offer to a place where the Mets are unwilling to go.
Let's think about it this way. Imagine you are a rival team, the Giants, say, and you want Pete Alonso. What offer could you make that would get the deal done? What would it take for the Mets to walk away . . . and for Pete to walk away from NYC and 3/$90?
I respectively disagree with both of these comments. Pete is not dumb. He paying a agent (who is assole scumbag) to do his negotiations. I think when it gets close he would speak up and say "look i'll take less to go back to the Mets.. I do in fact think Srems wants him back epecially with Soto in the lineup. If Veintos has a year 2 like Alverez (and we dont know if he will ever come bck to the power htter he was year 1) then the lineup hs some huge holes. All cant be filled bu Pete but a big one can.
I think Stearns and the Mets want Pete back -- at a salary that is commensurate to his skills, anticipated production. He could be a big piece in the puzzle.
In other words, they want the house, they just think the owners are asking for far too much. They are willing to overpay, but not ridiculously. So they are waiting out the market, fingers crossed. It's a gamble, letting the market decide, but it's also their only true option, since they are unwilling to wildly overpay. Pete, so far, is not giving the team any options, no clear path to an agreement. He wants more than he's worth. I contend that it would be "dumb" -- or, okay, a massive miscalculation -- if Pete walks away from Cohen and the Mets to go play elsewhere.
We see these articles asking, "What's the holdup between the Mets and Alonso?" And my answer is that it's 100% Alonso.
It might also be that Pete's unrealistic & unyielding sales price will force Cohen & Stearns to pivot. At which point, where would that leave Pete?
If this ends up at 5/$135, I'd be good with that, though 4 years feels better (4/$115).
Why are we going beyond "Pete is massively dumb enough" to blow up his career? Stearns does not want him but is smart enough to steer the discussion towards Pete's obstinance. Pete is lowering his worth. Yes, "massively dumb" was an apt description.
I'd hate to think he is dumb, but he may be misguided. He also may be willing to wait it out to see if someone blows him away with a better offer. I don't think he gains anything by signing now instead of late January. Well, unless of course, Bregman or Santander (who could play 1B) signs a team friendly deal. Then, maybe I'd put the dumb tag on the Polar Bear. I hope he and Boras are wise enough to stay in close contact with Stearns to make sure they aren't stuck with the Giants or nothing.
“Only 12.5% of the positional players who have suited up since the turn of the century (2000) have accumulated at least 4.0 WAR after turning 33.”
I would venture to say typically it’s the guys who put up some >4 WAR seasons before they were 33 who also put them up after they were 33. Alonso has done it in 3 of his 6 years as a major leaguer, which is far above average, I’d venture to say. So we’re looking at a higher percentage really. Kind of cherry picking stats to make it seem like Alonso has only a 1/8 chance of putting up such a season on the back end of a 6 year deal. And what if he put up a 3? Or another 2.1 like he did this year? Is it gonna kill the team? It’s not unplayable.
He's a good player and should make meaningful contributions for the next 3-5 years, diminishing over time. The question is how much to pay him. The bar isn't whether he'll kill the team or not. It's about if that's the most efficient way to spend $30 million dollars. As you know.
But the immediate need has to come first. We speak with such surety that he is great signing for a 3 year deal but terrible after that. That those final 3 years will be so bad as to disqualify the greatness of having him for the next 3 years. But meanwhile we’ve got nothing for this year, much less for the following two. Congratulations though, you also have nothing for the 3 years after that. Thank goodness. Can’t wait till 2028, when thank Goodness we won’t be stuck with Pete Alonso. That will be so good!!
In order to institute a cap, wouldn't MLB have to open its books? That may be a worse scenario than actually trying to enforce a cap. Are MLB owners prepared for that? I doubt it.
I think it is highly likely that a large part of the 2026 season is lost, if not the entire thing. You now have three groups of owners, heavy spenders, mids, and non spenders. That’s going to create some real issues in terms of them getting on the same page sooner or later. As for the players, they had an insurrection last year. It’s ultimately going to be a battle between younger controlled players and well the Pete Alonso’s. There are far more young players.
A salary floor helps the players regardless of age if implemented at the right level. It would also force some owners to sell or relocate if they really can’t make the business work. It doesn’t hurt any owners already operating near or above it.
A salary cap could hurt owners like Cohen, Guggenheim, and Steinbrenner, but it would be set above 300M to appease the union so not too much.
The average payroll was about 167M last year. The top ten teams were all above 200M. The bottom half of teams were all below 150. If you set the floor at the average, that adds about…900 million in payroll. That’s pretty damn compelling from a player point of view imho. I’d also create a 2-4 man inactive list to end the shuttling of players to and from the minors, that’s 60-120 major league jobs.
Television is the key here. When Diamond Sports went bankrupt many smaller market teams were affected by this in a huge way. I’m not sure anyone recalls how many teams had to scramble last year trying to figure out how to get their games televised. Bally sports took some and I believe MLB network added a few too. Small market teams rely on these deals. The big market teams have their own TV channels like the Mets have SNY and Yankees have Yes. Both cable channels suck wind all season until baseball begins. This seems to be a complicated situation. Big market teams carry the rest of the league and I believe share with small market teams through the MLB. Players are going to want some things with their union. Big market teams are going to want higher salary caps. I foresee a shit show that could knock out a whole season. That would really suck. It’s always the fans who suffer. When it’s all said and done ticket prices will be higher along with concession stand items. The fans won’t be considered here at all. Sounds a lot like our govt but hey, I’m just a fan.
A lot of tinkering on such an unimportant industry. Why is everyone so afraid of the free market? Bunch of commies!
MLB Owners seemingly hate both the player and the game.
It's a valid point: you are penalizing the owners who want to win without the same ramifications on the blood-suckers that exist for the shared revenue, which is largely derived from the teams that want to win! The Pirates got the same share of the "Strauss" batting helmet advertising for the playoffs that the Dodgers got even though the many people around the world saw the ad because of Ohtani who was being paid by the Dodgers.
😜
JB…my wishlist item for next year: could you do an update on the piece from 2023 (I think) going in depth on the competing development plans around Citi Field? I found it fascinating. Might be the only one though!
I don’t understand how a team can be penalized for going over a certain threshold that wasn’t established when they went initially went over. That seems nonsensical to me.
It’s more than nonsensical. It could be illegal. I would imagine that if the owners insisted on putting retroactive penalties in place Cohen could successfully sue them under a number of contractual theories (such as a duty of good faith and fair dealing or promissory estoppel). The owners would probably have to grandfather prior deals in and only apply new penalties prospectively. So while there are certainly other implications in committing to long term contracts such as facing large penalties for new contracts over the threshold I doubt the Mets have to worry about contracts being signed now having unexpected new penalties attached to them.
Totally agree.
When they added the cap to the NHL they included the ability to pay out a certain percentage of a contract (I think it was 2/3 of the remaining value) and that contract wouldn't count against the cap. I really don't remember the specifics as it was almost 20 years ago at this point, but I have to imagine there would be options similar to that if they added a cap in baseball.
Ask Chris Drury how that's going...the only thing I'm wondering is if Drury will get fired before he can trade Chris Kreider...
I wondered the same thing.
I've been thinking about the Mets' offer of 3/$90 for Pete.
One thought was, um, you know how most folks agree that Pete made a mistake by turning down the Mets' offer of 7/$158? Is he making a similar mistake by turning this down?
But the bigger thought is that this offer -- leaked to the public -- allows the Mets to stake out some powerful territory. How does a rival team, let's call them the Mariners or the Giants, compete with that? By length, I would think. Four years? Five years? And at what price? Do they offer 5/$125? Is that even better?
I'd have to think the Mets will get a chance to respond to any offer on the table. And while they would walk away, I think they'd be willing to go 5 years, probably hoping for 4 years. Do teams see this as a way of being used by Boras? Why engage with Pete if Cohen gets the final word? So the only way to get him is to bring an offer to a place where the Mets are unwilling to go.
Let's think about it this way. Imagine you are a rival team, the Giants, say, and you want Pete Alonso. What offer could you make that would get the deal done? What would it take for the Mets to walk away . . . and for Pete to walk away from NYC and 3/$90?
I respectively disagree with both of these comments. Pete is not dumb. He paying a agent (who is assole scumbag) to do his negotiations. I think when it gets close he would speak up and say "look i'll take less to go back to the Mets.. I do in fact think Srems wants him back epecially with Soto in the lineup. If Veintos has a year 2 like Alverez (and we dont know if he will ever come bck to the power htter he was year 1) then the lineup hs some huge holes. All cant be filled bu Pete but a big one can.
I think Stearns and the Mets want Pete back -- at a salary that is commensurate to his skills, anticipated production. He could be a big piece in the puzzle.
In other words, they want the house, they just think the owners are asking for far too much. They are willing to overpay, but not ridiculously. So they are waiting out the market, fingers crossed. It's a gamble, letting the market decide, but it's also their only true option, since they are unwilling to wildly overpay. Pete, so far, is not giving the team any options, no clear path to an agreement. He wants more than he's worth. I contend that it would be "dumb" -- or, okay, a massive miscalculation -- if Pete walks away from Cohen and the Mets to go play elsewhere.
We see these articles asking, "What's the holdup between the Mets and Alonso?" And my answer is that it's 100% Alonso.
It might also be that Pete's unrealistic & unyielding sales price will force Cohen & Stearns to pivot. At which point, where would that leave Pete?
If this ends up at 5/$135, I'd be good with that, though 4 years feels better (4/$115).
Why are we going beyond "Pete is massively dumb enough" to blow up his career? Stearns does not want him but is smart enough to steer the discussion towards Pete's obstinance. Pete is lowering his worth. Yes, "massively dumb" was an apt description.
I'd hate to think he is dumb, but he may be misguided. He also may be willing to wait it out to see if someone blows him away with a better offer. I don't think he gains anything by signing now instead of late January. Well, unless of course, Bregman or Santander (who could play 1B) signs a team friendly deal. Then, maybe I'd put the dumb tag on the Polar Bear. I hope he and Boras are wise enough to stay in close contact with Stearns to make sure they aren't stuck with the Giants or nothing.
“Only 12.5% of the positional players who have suited up since the turn of the century (2000) have accumulated at least 4.0 WAR after turning 33.”
I would venture to say typically it’s the guys who put up some >4 WAR seasons before they were 33 who also put them up after they were 33. Alonso has done it in 3 of his 6 years as a major leaguer, which is far above average, I’d venture to say. So we’re looking at a higher percentage really. Kind of cherry picking stats to make it seem like Alonso has only a 1/8 chance of putting up such a season on the back end of a 6 year deal. And what if he put up a 3? Or another 2.1 like he did this year? Is it gonna kill the team? It’s not unplayable.
He's a good player and should make meaningful contributions for the next 3-5 years, diminishing over time. The question is how much to pay him. The bar isn't whether he'll kill the team or not. It's about if that's the most efficient way to spend $30 million dollars. As you know.
But the immediate need has to come first. We speak with such surety that he is great signing for a 3 year deal but terrible after that. That those final 3 years will be so bad as to disqualify the greatness of having him for the next 3 years. But meanwhile we’ve got nothing for this year, much less for the following two. Congratulations though, you also have nothing for the 3 years after that. Thank goodness. Can’t wait till 2028, when thank Goodness we won’t be stuck with Pete Alonso. That will be so good!!
In order to institute a cap, wouldn't MLB have to open its books? That may be a worse scenario than actually trying to enforce a cap. Are MLB owners prepared for that? I doubt it.
This is why it’s been speculated that we may lose an entire season due to the next labor dispute
I think it is highly likely that a large part of the 2026 season is lost, if not the entire thing. You now have three groups of owners, heavy spenders, mids, and non spenders. That’s going to create some real issues in terms of them getting on the same page sooner or later. As for the players, they had an insurrection last year. It’s ultimately going to be a battle between younger controlled players and well the Pete Alonso’s. There are far more young players.
A salary floor helps the players regardless of age if implemented at the right level. It would also force some owners to sell or relocate if they really can’t make the business work. It doesn’t hurt any owners already operating near or above it.
A salary cap could hurt owners like Cohen, Guggenheim, and Steinbrenner, but it would be set above 300M to appease the union so not too much.
The average payroll was about 167M last year. The top ten teams were all above 200M. The bottom half of teams were all below 150. If you set the floor at the average, that adds about…900 million in payroll. That’s pretty damn compelling from a player point of view imho. I’d also create a 2-4 man inactive list to end the shuttling of players to and from the minors, that’s 60-120 major league jobs.
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2
The owners would initiate a lockout rather than make a good faith effort to enact a salary cap? Salary Caps SUCK.
To initiate a salary cap, you’d also need a salary floor. It’s not going to happen. They’ll just further penalize the high spending teams like usual.
Losing an entire season is unacceptable and should be avoided at all costs. What is most galling is that most fans will agree with the owners.
JB, the king of graphs, strikes again!
Television is the key here. When Diamond Sports went bankrupt many smaller market teams were affected by this in a huge way. I’m not sure anyone recalls how many teams had to scramble last year trying to figure out how to get their games televised. Bally sports took some and I believe MLB network added a few too. Small market teams rely on these deals. The big market teams have their own TV channels like the Mets have SNY and Yankees have Yes. Both cable channels suck wind all season until baseball begins. This seems to be a complicated situation. Big market teams carry the rest of the league and I believe share with small market teams through the MLB. Players are going to want some things with their union. Big market teams are going to want higher salary caps. I foresee a shit show that could knock out a whole season. That would really suck. It’s always the fans who suffer. When it’s all said and done ticket prices will be higher along with concession stand items. The fans won’t be considered here at all. Sounds a lot like our govt but hey, I’m just a fan.