I think it goes beyond that. The Astros are actually looking for starting pitching in trade. There is no doubt that the Astros philosophy is to value starting pitching well above everything else.
I wouldn't go as far as saying Astros value starting pitching above all else. They likely value starting pitching during a player's club control years or players under cheap contracts very highly because they likely think teams are paying more than they can afford for elite starting pitching after free agency. I do think the Astros would go for a SP in free agency for three years...four at the most. Wei-Yen Chen, Kazmir, Gallardo, and Iwakuma appear to be the best that are likely to sign for 3 or 4 years. That said, I suspect Astros value Correa above any starting pitcher as he's likely to produce a lot over the next 6 years with less risk to injury and aging.
But are they? I know the local TV deals are starting to get more scrutinized... but the national TV deals that MLB signs (and each team gets a cut of) are still going up up up despite ratings going down down down. Even though cord-cutters, DVR's, and multiple digital outlets give TV watchers more options than ever.... live sports are still highly unique and for advertisers, may be the last resort for them to have a captive audience (hence why the distribution rights values continue to go up for all sports, regardless of ratings).
CBA is up after next season. I suspect at some point, players are going to realize as a group that they are going to keep getting less and less of MLB revenues as more and more playing time is shifted to younger players prior to free agency.
I don't see that happening very much right now (unless a lot of these free agents end up not being able to find jobs)... maybe the players could have a bigger issue if more and more teams adopt the Astros strategy of low-payroll/accumulate assets... which "should" drive prices down.
It already is happening. In last 5 years, plate appearances have dropped from 41% to 35% for 30+ players. Basically, about a 30+ year old hitter per team has been replaced by a club controlled player in last 5 years. It hasn't affected the guys that make the big dough and can affect how a season plays out, but basically not much of a reason to sign a 0-2 WAR free agent when there is a guy in the minors that can do his job half as well for a tenth the cost.
Just going to spew some thoughts off the top of my head for a minute.. Isn't that how most industries work? And how they should work? At a Fortune 500 company, the VPs get the big bucks, but the 20 year experience guys who aren't good enough will either get paid equal to the 10 year people, or get replaced by promoting from within (SP3 becomes SP2, SP4 becomes SP3) and then bringing in new grads (minors dude fills SP4 slot) to build out the "team". I think that's more efficient for companies from a bottom-line perspective. I guess the question is, would that company's products be better if they kept the "better players". I bet that could be true, similar to how a baseball team might get a win or 2 more if they went the other direction..harder to say in the business world of course. I suppose the difference is that we're trying to care only about wins with baseball, but in business, products + profits both matter. Trying to remove economics from baseball when the owners pay for the team and make/lose money on the team is difficult, though.
But is that really enough to induce a work stoppage as your previous post suggested? Are these non-superstar veterans really going unsigned? Or still being signed and eventually replaced/benched sooner than they have in years past (as rebuilding teams now have that sort of sell-assets/call up the minor leaguers post-super 2 deadline stuff down pat). The players union still wants to see overall salaries go higher (which they are), they want to see the average veteran salary high (which it is), and they don't want to see veterans just sitting there out of work (which they aren't). Given the astronomical figures being signed by the best players right now... and numbers expected to continue to rise... any sort of work stoppage induced by the players would be an unmitigated PR disaster.
MLB is an extreme case. Most industries don't have a draft that determines a new hire has to work at X company to stay in that industry for 7-11 years at supressed fixed or arbitrated salaries such that the owners of the companies and the best of the best in the industry have their salaries augmented by money that would go to the new hires in a free market.
Yes. Yes. No...but time manipulation is going on as well and allows a team an extra year of club control for a great player further reducing overall player salaries. The best players free agent salaries are going up, but even those aren't increasing at the rate of MLB revenues. From a couple years ago, http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/4962321-74/free-players-agency#axzz2jY69F53l Raymond Sauer, a writer for The Sports Economist and an economics professor at Clemson, notes that a productivity shift from older to younger players means there are fewer “market wage” contracts and more “restricted, less-than-market-wage” deals. Said Sauer: “(It’s) a recipe for owner profits.” It would be a PR disaster. Basically, Billionaires are making a ton of money. A small group of veteran players is making a ton of money. Minor leaguers and young players are being thrown under the bus by the veterans. Players are going to have to give up higher salaries for the best players in exchange for a significant increase in salaries to guys under club control. edit: I should also note more players are signing extensions reducing player wages even more on average. These deals are usually beneficial for the owner and the player as well. The pays less for players overall and the individual player does get some fallback in case they get injured or suck (see Singleton, Grossman). Baseball revenues was a 50/50 split 15 years ago between owners and players. Now, players are getting less than 37%.
And I don't see that happening... nor do I see the younger/cheaper players uprising in order to force a change as all of them have dreams of one day breaking the bank (even though only a select few will actually do so). That being said, I think you're over-estimating the its only a small group of veteran players that are making good money. I mean, freakin Colby Rasmus (far from the best OF in the game) will be making $16 million next year, and likely could have gotten a multi-year deal wort $12 million/year on the open market. Scott Feldman and J.A. Happ are both able to pull down $8-12 million/year for being largely mediocre. Basically, if you're good enough to play baseball for more than your arbitration-year contracts (even if you're not a superstar), you're going to be making very good money... at a rate that is still rising. If you're not good enough to play after your arbitration years (guys like Robbie Grossman come to mind)... you're a career minor leaguer... which hasn't really changed much from years past.
How much would Correa earn next season if he was a free agent? Divide that number by two...is that more than 16 million for Colby plus 0.5 million for Correa? Colby's salary is artificially jacked up because the rest of the Astros are on fixed salaries.
Sure, I get all that... what I'm asking is who will force the change? Just like you say a select few veterans are the ones paid an exorbitant sum... at the same time, its only a select few club controlled guys who are unfairly paid nothing. The vast majority of club controlled guys (the non-stars) are appropriately paid (with arbitration set up to give them the deserved raises once they perform at a certain level). There will never be a perfect system... but baseball is still set up in a way that the ones most screwed (the young club-controlled "stars") are also the ones with the least amount of tenure, least amount of clout, and the least likely to be able to force a strike.
Santana, Singleton, and Hoes are the only ones with any significant at bats that for their careers have been overpaid that were position players for Astros last year. Even Carter and Gattis have been significantly underpaid even with the egg they laid last year. Players are going to have a significant problem that their salaries have dropped from 50% to about 37% of revenues over last 15 years.
I doubt they make many changes to the CBA. If the players start pushing too hard for revenue sharing, the owners will simply respond by saying they want a salary cap. I could see the players union wanting the teams to have a salary floor to stop teams (ahem) from tanking by not spending any money, then collecting high draft picks. The Astros really made this an issue since the last CBA. That would up the average amount of revenues directed to players, while creating more competitive balance around the league.
I think agents have already told players that luxury tax is effectively acting as a salary cap that all but the Dodgers have tried not to be over by anything significant for any period of time. With Yankees, Red Sox effectively capped, smaller markets aren't pressured to push contracts of good, not great players and still be competitive. I see players demanding floor. Owners countering with cap. Lots of arguing. Maybe a strike. Maybe players caving. However, I expect MLBPA should fear continuing with no floor more than a cap. Without a floor or higher minimum wage, players piece of revenue is going to continue to shrink even with cries that Price is making 217 million, Colby 16 million. Owners are making a killing right now.
Does this mean that Sipp will be unaffordable now? If Perez gets $3.5M/year, Sipp will likely get $6M or $7M per year, likely a 3-4 year contract, no?
I am not so sure that the Astros ever seriously intended to resign Sipp. What this (and the market as a whole) tells me is that the Astros are probably going to push harder for a trade.
I doubt Sipp gets 4 years or 6MM-7MM per year. I think he'll be choosing between 2/10MM or 3/13MM, somewhere in that range. I'm guessing he'd take a guaranteed 3rd year, if offered. I'd like for him to come back, but would understand if we opted not to match a 3yr offer.
