The Open Free Agent Market

[Noe]

All the talk about Ty Wiggington got me thinking about the actual cost of getting a similar player on the open free agent market.  I looked at Mark DeRosa, a player who has been very similar in career to Wiggington of sorts.  DeRosa played all sorts of positions for the Atlanta Braves trying hard to land a full time job with them.  Later, he spent some time with the Rangers, where he was on a similar path until the one day that second baseman Ian Kinsler went down to injury.  Even then, DeRosa was playing quite a bit as a RF for the Rangers.

All that meant that as a full time player, DeRosa produced his best career numbers:

over 500 ABs for the first time in his career
132 games played
.296 Batting average
.357 OBP
.456 SLG
.813 OPS
13 Homeruns
74 rbis

So this guy hits the open market last off season.  Those are good numbers, but not elite A-Rod numbers for sure.  It speaks to role player, complimentary starter.  So you figure this in days past was a 1.5 million per year player or so.  Maybe 2 million per year tops, perhaps a two year with an option sort of deal... at the high end.  But what the current open market for free agents produced for DeRosa was a 3 year deal at 4.3 million per year.  13 homeruns, 74 RBIs... 4.3 million per year for three years?  Nice.

So if you think the Astros can just dive into the open free agent market and pull back a third baseman that is inexpensive and can produce over 20 homeruns and over 80 RBIs, guess again on the cost.  Maybe it's good to look at Aubrey Huff: 21 homeruns, 66 RBIs, .813 OPS (looks similar to DeRosa) - contract: 3 years at 6.6 million per year.  Remember, the market has been going up, not down each off season (and I blame the over inflation on the spending madness by owners, not the players asking for stupid contracts).

So a GM better pay attention to the market before he thinks he can just go to his owner and ask for money to go buy a shiny new corner infielder.  At the inflation prices, you will be looking a complimentary type player... like DeRosa, like Huff... heck like Wiggington who is younger that the other two... at 3 years and of course probably in the neighborhood of 7 to 8 mil per year.  Soon enough, we will be seeing mid-level players making 10 million per year.  Out-freaking-standing!  We're not talking A-Rod here, we're talking the market to purchase just a complimentary player... oh and you better hope they deliver at the very least their usual numbers instead of career numbers.  Oh wait, let's see... oh yeah... Gary Mathews Jr.: 19 Homeruns, 79 RBIs, great defense in center.  10 million per year, 5 years. Oh yeah, we're there for career year guys for sure.

It means more and more that GMs will be trading for club controlled mid-level guys and we all will be left scratching our heads why in the world they would even bother trading for such a guy.  Prospects we understand.  Prized veteran players we understand.  But trading for mid-level complimentary performers?  Whaaa? 

Perhaps a foray into the market trends helps us understand.

[Arky Vaughan]

All the talk about Ty Wiggington got me thinking about the actual cost of getting a similar player on the open free agent market.  I looked at Mark DeRosa, a player who has been very similar in career to Wiggington of sorts.  DeRosa played all sorts of positions for the Atlanta Braves trying hard to land a full time job with them.  Later, he spent some time with the Rangers, where he was on a similar path until the one day that second baseman Ian Kinsler went down to injury.  Even then, DeRosa was playing quite a bit as a RF for the Rangers.

All that meant that as a full time player, DeRosa produced his best career numbers:

over 500 ABs for the first time in his career
132 games played
.296 Batting average
.357 OBP
.456 SLG
.813 OPS
13 Homeruns
74 rbis

So this guy hits the open market last off season.  Those are good numbers, but not elite A-Rod numbers for sure.  It speaks to role player, complimentary starter.  So you figure this in days past was a 1.5 million per year player or so.  Maybe 2 million per year tops, perhaps a two year with an option sort of deal... at the high end.  But what the current open market for free agents produced for DeRosa was a 3 year deal at 4.3 million per year.  13 homeruns, 74 RBIs... 4.3 million per year for three years?  Nice.

So if you think the Astros can just dive into the open free agent market and pull back a third baseman that is inexpensive and can produce over 20 homeruns and over 80 RBIs, guess again on the cost.  Maybe it's good to look at Aubrey Huff: 21 homeruns, 66 RBIs, .813 OPS (looks similar to DeRosa) - contract: 3 years at 6.6 million per year.  Remember, the market has been going up, not down each off season (and I blame the over inflation on the spending madness by owners, not the players asking for stupid contracts).

So a GM better pay attention to the market before he thinks he can just go to his owner and ask for money to go buy a shiny new corner infielder.  At the inflation prices, you will be looking a complimentary type player... like DeRosa, like Huff... heck like Wiggington who is younger that the other two... at 3 years and of course probably in the neighborhood of 7 to 8 mil per year.  Soon enough, we will be seeing mid-level players making 10 million per year.  Out-freaking-standing!  We're not talking A-Rod here, we're talking the market to purchase just a complimentary player... oh and you better hope they deliver at the very least their usual numbers instead of career numbers.  Oh wait, let's see... oh yeah... Gary Mathews Jr.: 19 Homeruns, 79 RBIs, great defense in center.  10 million per year, 5 years. Oh yeah, we're there for career year guys for sure.

It means more and more that GMs will be trading for club controlled mid-level guys and we all will be left scratching our heads why in the world they would even bother trading for such a guy.  Prospects we understand.  Prized veteran players we understand.  But trading for mid-level complimentary performers?  Whaaa? 

Perhaps a foray into the market trends helps us understand.

Noe, you don't understand. Our good players are worth other teams' great players.

[Fredia]

Noe, you don't understand. Our good players are worth other teams' great players.

i think you have your finger on the pulse of the whole situation.  well done

[Noe]

Which one of you two are being sarcastic.  Please raise your hand!

[Noe]

Noe, you don't understand. Our good players are worth other teams' great players.

It can happen, but you won't get the great players from other teams unless you are getting a soon to be free agent guy who may or may not play for you beyond this season.  So, yes, it can happen... but it is going to cost you in terms of good players.

I know that the next question is "Are you saying Jason Jennings is a "great" player?"  I'll leave that for someone else to answer because we've exhausted that one to death and that was not the intent of this thread.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on the value of young, major league ready pitching relative to everyday role players.  If everyday role players are fetching a premium, it would seem that young pitching is fetching even more unless your organization wants to shell out 10mil+ for a Burnett-Lilly-Meche-Suppan type deal (and why the probability that Houston won't sign Jennings, despite this season, is not as high as some may think if you ask me). 

[Froback]

It has long been true (although the relative values have become more obscene) that if you want to build a contending team you have two options:

1) Spend like the Yankees and Red Sox
2) Fill the majority of the team with young players under club control and a few high dollar veterans.

This is why teams who cannot spend like the Yankees and Red Sox NEED their farm system to produce talent.  You simply cannot afford to buy everything in FA money.  You HAVE to hit on some of your young prospects.  How many depends on how good the ones you hit on are.  Even when the Astros were making their big run, and Biggio and Bagwell were getting rewarded for past production via big contracts, the team still needed players like Oswalt, Ensberg (for 1 year at least), Wagner, Dotel, Lidge, etc.

The Astros for the past several seasons have been spending more and more money on older players.  And it has been working for them, but that method doesn't last long unless you can keep upping the ante on your spending, like the Yankees and Red Sox do, or get prospects to come along like the Braves have had.  So that is where the Astros are right now.  The prospects that they needed to develop to fill the holes now that they are unable or unwilling to spend the obscene money for, just are not there.  It is the risk they took along the way.

Think about where the team would be today IF Ensberg had built on his breakout season, or IF Burke really was a poor-man's Biggio, or IF Scott or Lane had produced as the team hoped, or IF Wandy could find a way to be consistent (cause he shows flashes of greatness).  This was the "next wave" the club was counting on.  They are not terrible players, but they are not producing as well as the team needed them to, to maintain the level of success they have had for the past 10 years.

[WulawHorn]

All the talk about Ty Wiggington got me thinking about the actual cost of getting a similar player on the open free agent market.  I looked at Mark DeRosa, a player who has been very similar in career to Wiggington of sorts.  DeRosa played all sorts of positions for the Atlanta Braves trying hard to land a full time job with them.  Later, he spent some time with the Rangers, where he was on a similar path until the one day that second baseman Ian Kinsler went down to injury.  Even then, DeRosa was playing quite a bit as a RF for the Rangers.

All that meant that as a full time player, DeRosa produced his best career numbers:

over 500 ABs for the first time in his career
132 games played
.296 Batting average
.357 OBP
.456 SLG
.813 OPS
13 Homeruns
74 rbis

So this guy hits the open market last off season.  Those are good numbers, but not elite A-Rod numbers for sure.  It speaks to role player, complimentary starter.  So you figure this in days past was a 1.5 million per year player or so.  Maybe 2 million per year tops, perhaps a two year with an option sort of deal... at the high end.  But what the current open market for free agents produced for DeRosa was a 3 year deal at 4.3 million per year.  13 homeruns, 74 RBIs... 4.3 million per year for three years?  Nice.

So if you think the Astros can just dive into the open free agent market and pull back a third baseman that is inexpensive and can produce over 20 homeruns and over 80 RBIs, guess again on the cost.  Maybe it's good to look at Aubrey Huff: 21 homeruns, 66 RBIs, .813 OPS (looks similar to DeRosa) - contract: 3 years at 6.6 million per year.  Remember, the market has been going up, not down each off season (and I blame the over inflation on the spending madness by owners, not the players asking for stupid contracts).

So a GM better pay attention to the market before he thinks he can just go to his owner and ask for money to go buy a shiny new corner infielder.  At the inflation prices, you will be looking a complimentary type player... like DeRosa, like Huff... heck like Wiggington who is younger that the other two... at 3 years and of course probably in the neighborhood of 7 to 8 mil per year.  Soon enough, we will be seeing mid-level players making 10 million per year.  Out-freaking-standing!  We're not talking A-Rod here, we're talking the market to purchase just a complimentary player... oh and you better hope they deliver at the very least their usual numbers instead of career numbers.  Oh wait, let's see... oh yeah... Gary Mathews Jr.: 19 Homeruns, 79 RBIs, great defense in center.  10 million per year, 5 years. Oh yeah, we're there for career year guys for sure.

It means more and more that GMs will be trading for club controlled mid-level guys and we all will be left scratching our heads why in the world they would even bother trading for such a guy.  Prospects we understand.  Prized veteran players we understand.  But trading for mid-level complimentary performers?  Whaaa? 

Perhaps a foray into the market trends helps us understand.

Noe- you are correct that the numbers are trending that way. I don't think that it can continue though. I'd think that you are going to see more young guys up-even if they ain't necessarily better than the older guys, b/c at a difference of 7 or 8 million a year you don't have to be as good as, you just have to be close.  Just what I see when I look in my crystal ball.

[Noe]

Noe- you are correct that the numbers are trending that way. I don't think that it can continue though. I'd think that you are going to see more young guys up-even if they ain't necessarily better than the older guys, b/c at a difference of 7 or 8 million a year you don't have to be as good as, you just have to be close.  Just what I see when I look in my crystal ball.

I'm not picking on you, but can you explain to me what you just said.

[WulawHorn]

I'm not picking on you, but can you explain to me what you just said.

Sure- if Mark Derosa in 3 or 5 years becomes worth 7 or 8 million dollars on the open market- teams are going to say- screw it- I can get Eric Bruntlett (or a guy just like him) to do the same thing for me (but not quite as well) for like $500k a year.  They are going to make those kind of decisions more frequently, and guys like Derossa will be out of a job (this is just my guess).

This happened in the NBA with the last collective bargaining agreement in the 90's.  They guaranteed vets with a certain amount of experience in the league a 7 figure salary and they found that there were no vets with that amount of service time in the league anymore at the end of the bench.  IOW you had to be really good and a key component on the team, otherwise they were going cheaper and younger.  Didn't keep guys around as much for "leadership" or "insurance" or the like.

I would have to think the same thing might happen in MLB if you see salary's for journeymen like Derossa get to the point you are talking about- b/c I can't see how the market could take that.

[Noe]

Sure- if Mark Derosa in 3 or 5 years becomes worth 7 or 8 million dollars on the open market- teams are going to say- screw it- I can get Eric Bruntlett (or a guy just like him) to do the same thing for me (but not quite as well) for like $500k a year.  They are going to make those kind of decisions more frequently, and guys like Derossa will be out of a job (this is just my guess).

This happened in the NBA with the last collective bargaining agreement in the 90's.  They guaranteed vets with a certain amount of experience in the league a 7 figure salary and they found that there were no vets with that amount of service time in the league anymore at the end of the bench.  IOW you had to be really good and a key component on the team, otherwise they were going cheaper and younger.  Didn't keep guys around as much for "leadership" or "insurance" or the like.

I would have to think the same thing might happen in MLB if you see salary's for journeymen like Derossa get to the point you are talking about- b/c I can't see how the market could take that.

Again, I blame the owners not the players or the GMs who do try to bring in market sanity.  Look, when A-Rod and Boras openly pronounce the market rate for his service is going to be 30 million a year, then you're looking at the first 200 million dollar contract for a player.  The way the MLBPA has looked at this is that as long as the upper echelon players move the scale upwards, the mid-level guys get to ride the coattails and move along with them.  Are they wrong?  They would be if GMs ran the money side, but too many owners have gotten involved now that we are seeing the effect that the MLBPA wished for.  And hence why you have peace in the CBA negotiations in the MLB that is unprecedented.  Then MLBPA has managed to make the dreams of the mid-level guys come true mainly because the owners have gotten the media market windfall and gate receipts to pay that sort of money without doing it in a debt services manner.

IOW - the market is such because the revenues are healthy for the MLB at this time.  Owners will spend and mid-level guys will get the money for the foreseeable future.  But I trust that "spend wisely" is still in effect for those GMs who know they have to spend money, but realize that spending 30 million on one A-Rod is probably foolish when you can buy 1 Zambrano and two mid-level guys for pretty much the same money.

See, I believe that Houston will spend like everyone else.  What they spend on is the key.  If you gotta spend, don't go after mid-level guys that you can trade for (Wiggington is a better example than Bruntlett).  But you do have to spend, so go get some pitching help.  Houston needs a middle rotation guy for the near future, either a solid #2 or #3 that can eat up innings and help bolster the starting five.

[WulawHorn]

Again, I blame the owners not the players or the GMs who do try to bring in market sanity.  Look, when A-Rod and Boras openly pronounce the market rate for his service is going to be 30 million a year, then you're looking at the first 200 million dollar contract for a player.  The way the MLBPA has looked at this is that as long as the upper echelon players move the scale upwards, the mid-level guys get to ride the coattails and move along with them.  Are they wrong?  They would be if GMs ran the money side, but too many owners have gotten involved now that we are seeing the effect that the MLBPA wished for.  And hence why you have peace in the CBA negotiations in the MLB that is unprecedented.  Then MLBPA has managed to make the dreams of the mid-level guys come true mainly because the owners have gotten the media market windfall and gate receipts to pay that sort of money without doing it in a debt services manner.

IOW - the market is such because the revenues are healthy for the MLB at this time.  Owners will spend and mid-level guys will get the money for the foreseeable future.  But I trust that "spend wisely" is still in effect for those GMs who know they have to spend money, but realize that spending 30 million on one A-Rod is probably foolish when you can buy 1 Zambrano and two mid-level guys for pretty much the same money.

See, I believe that Houston will spend like everyone else.  What they spend on is the key.  If you gotta spend, don't go after mid-level guys that you can trade for (Wiggington is a better example than Bruntlett).  But you do have to spend, so go get some pitching help.  Houston needs a middle rotation guy for the near future, either a solid #2 or #3 that can eat up innings and help bolster the starting five.

Like I said in my oriignal post- that's the way the dollars are trending right now, but I can't imagine it continues on indefinately.  AROD for $30 million a year makes sense to me on a certain level (you can't get anything like him from anyone except him- or maybe Pujols).  8 million per for a journeyman doesn't make sense, b/c you can come close to replacing those guys talents for a fraction.  I could be wrong though- I'm just guessing what the future will be like and maybe it isn't a problem and revenue continues to grow etc.

But I think we've seen most domestic revenue sources tapped. Almost everyone is in a newish stadium with luxury boxes. Many clubs own their own TV distribution networks. Their are ad billboards all over. Owners are getting (presumably) as much as they can from ticket prices. We've got satelite Radio and TV deals. Outside of exploding your market internationally I don't see where the extra revenue is going to come from that we've seen in record amount pour into MLB in the past couple year.  Juberno.

[Noe]

Like I said in my oriignal post- that's the way the dollars are trending right now, but I can't imagine it continues on indefinately.  AROD for $30 million a year makes sense to me on a certain level (you can't get anything like him from anyone except him- or maybe Pujols).  8 million per for a journeyman doesn't make sense, b/c you can come close to replacing those guys talents for a fraction.  I could be wrong though- I'm just guessing what the future will be like and maybe it isn't a problem and revenue continues to grow etc.

But I think we've seen most domestic revenue sources tapped. Almost everyone is in a newish stadium with luxury boxes. Many clubs own their own TV distribution networks. Their are ad billboards all over. Owners are getting (presumably) as much as they can from ticket prices. We've got satelite Radio and TV deals. Outside of exploding your market internationally I don't see where the extra revenue is going to come from that we've seen in record amount pour into MLB in the past couple year.  Juberno.

All MLB clubs live under the revenue/cost services rules born out of the disasters that almost happened in Arizona and Colorado.  Owners are not allowed to spend money, future expenditures, unless they can show that they are going to have revenue streams to cover the life of the contracts.  Anything above and beyond the reasonable threshold for spending against revenue generation is subject to stiff penalties including the MLB taking over your franchise.  When Colorado gave out very generous contracts to guys like Mike Hampton, they did so with little regard to future earnings to cover the life of the contract.  They came very close to going into MLB receivership and each and every owner in the MLB would've had to pony up the money to keep the franchise solvent.  Same with Arizona.  That is why there was serious talk about contraction of franchises a few years back that the MLBPA balked at.

So the foundation is in place already to place soft caps for owners.  The MLBPA feared those soft caps, but realized later that it is floating scale.  Meaning the more money you make to cover the cost of player salaries, the better the cap for owners.  No owner in the MLB spends money from their own pockets, it's not allowed.  Not even George Steinbrenner.  So if the trending is correct, there isn't a foreseable near future where your scenario will happen.  However, smart GMs will make the moves like Houston is doing to secure club controlled players who are major league ready to fill out important roles/complement jobs.  Not utility or minor leaguers types, but very good players along the lines of Wiggington.  You don't want to go into the FA market to pluck out a DeRosa for example, if you can trade for a Wiggington who is the same player.

But you do want to spend in the FA market because you almost have to in order to stay a contender and not go into rebuilding mode.  Drayton McLane is not a rebuilding mode type of owner, which is why the media slams against the owner perplex me somewhat.  They paint him out to be a miser, but he's far from it.  Any way, even if your prediction comes true in the somewhat near future, we're talking about this offseason to reload.

Look towards pitching in the FA market and look to spend (wisely) for the middle rotation types who chew up innings.  Makes for a much better bullpen too.

[WulawHorn]

All MLB clubs live under the revenue/cost services rules born out of the disasters that almost happened in Arizona and Colorado.  Owners are not allowed to spend money, future expenditures, unless they can show that they are going to have revenue streams to cover the life of the contracts.  Anything above and beyond the reasonable threshold for spending against revenue generation is subject to stiff penalties including the MLB taking over your franchise.  When Colorado gave out very generous contracts to guys like Mike Hampton, they did so with little regard to future earnings to cover the life of the contract.  They came very close to going into MLB receivership and each and every owner in the MLB would've had to pony up the money to keep the franchise solvent.  Same with Arizona.  That is why there was serious talk about contraction of franchises a few years back that the MLBPA balked at.

So the foundation is in place already to place soft caps for owners.  The MLBPA feared those soft caps, but realized later that it is floating scale.  Meaning the more money you make to cover the cost of player salaries, the better the cap for owners.  No owner in the MLB spends money from their own pockets, it's not allowed.  Not even George Steinbrenner.  So if the trending is correct, there isn't a foreseable near future where your scenario will happen.  However, smart GMs will make the moves like Houston is doing to secure club controlled players who are major league ready to fill out important roles/complement jobs.  Not utility or minor leaguers types, but very good players along the lines of Wiggington.  You don't want to go into the FA market to pluck out a DeRosa for example, if you can trade for a Wiggington who is the same player.

But you do want to spend in the FA market because you almost have to in order to stay a contender and not go into rebuilding mode.  Drayton McLane is not a rebuilding mode type of owner, which is why the media slams against the owner perplex me somewhat.  They paint him out to be a miser, but he's far from it.  Any way, even if your prediction comes true in the somewhat near future, we're talking about this offseason to reload.

Look towards pitching in the FA market and look to spend (wisely) for the middle rotation types who chew up innings.  Makes for a much better bullpen too.

The only thing I disagree with in your scenario is the idea that wigginton is a cheap alternative. For somebody good like that he's going to get arbitration the next two years.  He'll make somewhere between 4 and 5 million next year, and 5 and 6 the year after- so he's not super cheap- but cheaper than getting him (or someone like him) via free agency).

I agree with the point about the astros needing pitching. I think that they need a solid #2 type. Not Jennings (even prior to this year who is arguable about being a #2) but an Andy Pettite in NY before houston type #2.

Those guys don't grow on trees- I have no idea if there are any even out there on the market (Carlos Z is an Ace in my opinion).

[Arky Vaughan]

AROD for $30 million a year makes sense to me on a certain level (you can't get anything like him from anyone except him- or maybe Pujols).  8 million per for a journeyman doesn't make sense, b/c you can come close to replacing those guys talents for a fraction.

True. Theoretically the value of a player should be based on the availability of talent at that player's level. If the player is virtually one-of-a-kind or few-of-a-kind, like A-Rod or Pujols, then the value is extremely high. Conversely, if the player is replaceable by scores or even hundreds of other players, then the value should be considerably lower. This is true even if the difference in productivity between a few-of-a-kind player and a much more easily replaceable player is only 10% or 20%.

The trick, of course, is to properly assess the availability, and hence the value, as well as the productivity. The reason people think about this simplistically in fantasy baseball terms is that in fantasy baseball you can count every season how many players from last season were 1,000-point players, 800-point players, etc., and you can assemble your team accordingly, depending of course on whether you think players will repeat those performances. Unfortunately, real major-leaguers don't come equipped with price tags based on their past season's point totals.

[Twoniner]

AROD for $30 million a year makes sense to me on a certain level (you can't get anything like him from anyone except him- or maybe Pujols).  8 million per for a journeyman doesn't make sense, b/c you can come close to replacing those guys talents for a fraction.

I agree.   Pettitte at 12 million was it for us?   That would have been overpaying some for another sub 4 ERA here.

Woody at half the cost...  is throwing away 6 million dollars for performance we could get out of Round Rock.

I like this Wigginton deal, if the Astros can spend smartly around it.   I think Purpura and Drayton have some good examples from last offseason to learn from.   Paying up for a star in Lee- Very good so far.    Finding a cheap bargain in Loretta- Good.   Overpaying for mediocrity in Woody- not so good.

[Arky Vaughan]

I agree.   Pettitte at 12 million was it for us?   That's overpaying some for decent quality.

Woody at half the cost...  is throwing away 6 million dollars for replacement level performance. 

I like this Wigginton deal, if the Astros can spend smartly around it.   I think Purpura and Drayton have some good examples from last offseason to learn from.   Paying up for a star in Lee- Very good.    Finding a cheap bargain in Loretta- Good.   Overpaying for mediocrity in Woody- not so good.

I think they'd have split the difference between the $12 million they offered and the $16 million the Yankees offered, and given Pettitte $14 million, if he hadn't tried to hold them up for the player option.

[Noe]

True. Theoretically the value of a player should be based on the availability of talent at that player's level. If the player is virtually one-of-a-kind or few-of-a-kind, like A-Rod or Pujols, then the value is extremely high. Conversely, if the player is replaceable by scores or even hundreds of other players, then the value should be considerably lower. This is true even if the difference in productivity between a few-of-a-kind player and a much more easily replaceable player is only 10% or 20%.

The trick, of course, is to properly assess the availability, and hence the value, as well as the productivity. The reason people think about this simplistically in fantasy baseball terms is that in fantasy baseball you can count every season how many players from last season were 1,000-point players, 800-point players, etc., and you can assemble your team accordingly, depending of course on whether you think players will repeat those performances. Unfortunately, real major-leaguers don't come equipped with price tags based on their past season's point totals.

And the MLBPA likes to think that the gap between the elite and the not so elite is blurred by the money spent.  Meaning, you get an owner to give A-Rod 30 million, that means the Mark DeRosa's of the baseball world are now worth 10 mil a year.   Remember when giving A-Rod 10 million a year was enough to make your head spin?  I do.  Heck, I even remember thinking that giving him anything above 5 million (at one time) a year was scary.

[Arky Vaughan]

And the MLBPA likes to think that the gap between the elite and the not so elite is blurred by the money spent.  Meaning, you get an owner to give A-Rod 30 million, that means the Mark DeRosa's of the baseball world are now worth 10 mil a year.   Remember when giving A-Rod 10 million a year was enough to make your head spin?  I do.  Heck, I even remember thinking that giving him anything above 5 million (at one time) a year was scary.

Precisely. It's in the interest of MLBPA's members to promote this view of the world.

[WulawHorn]

And the MLBPA likes to think that the gap between the elite and the not so elite is blurred by the money spent.  Meaning, you get an owner to give A-Rod 30 million, that means the Mark DeRosa's of the baseball world are now worth 10 mil a year.   Remember when giving A-Rod 10 million a year was enough to make your head spin?  I do.  Heck, I even remember thinking that giving him anything above 5 million (at one time) a year was scary.

I don't think it should work like that, many GM's don't fall into that trap, but it only takes one to do a contract to give you that money and then you are a $10 million a year player.

[Noe]

I don't think it should work like that, many GM's don't fall into that trap, but it only takes one to do a contract to give you that money and then you are a $10 million a year player.

Cool. Duly noted. Thanks.