Arena The Major League Baseball Thread

Yankees investigated for possible tampering with Mike Trout.

 

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/10138301/juan-uribe-agrees-two-year-deal-los-angeles-dodgers]Uribe[/url] re-signs with the Bums (for 2 years, $15 million)

Here's hoping that his 2013 wasn't a complete fluke.

 

Ha ha, Boras is stupid -- Yankees offered same years at 140mm...

 

I'm curious to see once Selig is gone, how long it takes to institute a salary cap in baseball. I'm not sure how long their current CBA is for, but clearly the need for a cap is there with these contracts getting more and more atrocious. First it was the pitchers, and the fact each one that hits the market feels they need to be paid higher than the guy before him. Mind you, these are guys to play once every 5th day, yet demand $20 million per year. Then it's these mega contracts, A-Rod, Pujols, Hamilton, Cano, which are just vast overpayments that are going to drag on long after the player has stopped being productive. Now we see even leadoff hitters like Ellsbury and Choo getting huge deals. What's worse is that in baseball, the contracts are all but fully guaranteed, so the player can totally rest assured that no matter how he performs, he still gets his money, even if it's after he's stopped playing. I remember reading something a few years ago that said Bobby Bonilla was still getting paid by the Mets, and would be for about 20 years until his contract was fully paid off. The MLB players union clearly wields too much power, but I think Selig still has nightmares from the 1994 strike, and so he has bowed to every wish the players union wants. I will be very interested to see what stance the next commisioner takes on this issue.
I'm a fan of a big market club, but I would fully support a cap. There will always be teams that overpay players, but a cap would help to at least control the market a bit. There would be no 7-10 year contracts, and certainly no $200 million contracts given out. Heck, it might even lower the number of $100 million contracts we see.

 

Baseball is awash in cash, set for record revenues (between $8 and $8.5 billion this past year) and has experienced unprecedented harmony between the owners and the players association. There's no way the next commissioner will screw that up by pushing for a salary cap. Even small market teams are signing record TV deals, which is where all these large salaries are coming from.

As for the Bobby Bonilla thing, yes the Mets are paying him $1 million a year until 2020-something as a buyout of the last year of his contract. That buyout gave the Mets the payroll flexibility to trade for Mike Hampton whose eventual signing with Colorado gave the Mets a supplemental draft pick which they used on David Wright. Few things have ever worked out so well for anyone.

Amazing.

 

I'm a Reds fan and I can say without hesitation that Choo is a very good, undervalued player—or was undervalued, because 7 years is 2-3 years too long for a player his age and 130 mill divided by 7 averages out to about 3-4 mill more than he should be making annually IMO (I was thinking he'd get 4 years, $60 mill, 5 years, $75 max. My buddy thought I was crazy when I told him I thought it would be that much). Boras could probably get 5 years, $100 mill for my Aunt Carolyn.

 

The Choo contract doesn't surprise me one bit. That is the power of Scot Boras. Boras is why many Indians fans, myself included, resigned ourselves to seeing him in another jersey. Just, many of us figured it would be pinstripes.

 

I'm surprised he didn't get more money. This is a much better contract for the Rangers than the Yankees got with Ellsbury. Ellsbury is more injury prone and his best skills, speed and defense, don't age nearly as well as Choo's best skill, getting on base. And if the Rangers put him in left field, he won't be a negative on defense.

Amazing.

 

The Yankees offered 7/140 and it was turned down... for 7/130...

 

With taxes considered, 130 in Texas is actually a good bit more than 140 in New York right?

 

According to reports, yes, we don't actually know how true that is, what the actual dollar amount was, and what incentives were included. Factors for Choo include no state income tax in Texas, Spring Training in Arizona and, based on overall performance last year, a better shot at the playoffs this season.

Amazing.

 

Please remember, all MLB players pay taxes for all 81 road games in those states -- it's only 81 home games (and any played in FL/WA) that are untaxed.

Also, for the agent, 7/130 theoretically looks worse than 7/140 since I'm pretty sure the agent's cut isn't against Net, but Gross...

 

Yes, but the top tax rate in NY is high enough that it makes up most of the difference and if he were to live in NYC, he'd be taxed that much more. In Texas he's guaranteed a minimum of 102 games a year untaxed (81 home games plus 9 in Houston, 9 in Seattle, and 3 in Tampa). There's also the very real possibility that Choo simply did not want to play for the Yankees. That has been known to happen from time to time. And given that when the offseason started people legitimately questioned whether Choo would clear $100 million, $130 looks pretty good.

Amazing.

 

If he didn't want to play in NY,that's cool -- but he could live in NJ and play in NY.

 

Yes, their zero championships to show for those moves are really working out.

Amazing.

 

One move that netted the second best player in franchise history? Yes, it worked. It has nothing to do with any other move they made.

Amazing.

 

The last I heard a decision on if his Japanese team will make him availible was coming this week. Perhaps as soon as Christmas eve or day. With the Yanks missing out on Choo I'd say they'll be the frontrunners to land Tanaka.

 

Well you mentioned the Bonilla and Hampton moves being rolled up as part of it, so yes it does have something to do with it. My original point however, is that it is utterly stupid to still be paying a player for 20 years after he's finished playing. It's just my opinion, and you are entitled to yours as well. I think most people would agree that it's a bit ridiculous, and that was also part of my original arguement for a cap and contracts that were not fully guaranteed.