It's just bad in a human way. For fans who only care about winning it's not a bad thing. And truth is, I don't have any answers to fix it.
But what is worth? Is a player in 2024 getting $20 mil a year worth more than a player in 2000 getting $5 mil? I believe you're figuring the league making the actual worth of a player, but let's say this... If employee A at a job gets paid $25/hr when everyone else is making $20 an hour you'd say he's worth more to the company. But what if others got raises to $28/hr and he didn't yet. Is he suddenly worth less? My point being, other players getting paid shouldn't dictate a players worth. I believe the league is overpaying their players in the first place. $25 mil a year on a winning team is worth more I believe than getting paid $30+ on a losing team. And yes my math checks out Imagine, getting paid $12 mil a year and people think you are not valued. It's all an ego thing with players and owners as players want bragging rights and owners want to feel like they circumvented the system. That's all that is. Getting paid $200 mil over 8 years compared to $150 mil over 6 years isn't going to break anyone's bank in the future. Most likely that extra $50 mil will never see the light of day in that players lifetime. So if Bregman leaves over $50 mil and 2 years or so then power to him for taking the money, but he'll never be on a winning team like he has been and may never sniff the playoffs again. He should seriously ask himself, is that worth it?
I wonder if there is a way to compensate players for prior performance. What if in the CBA they can add a provision where based on some measureable that players can have some of their FA contract omitted from the AAV in the CBA? It would be a bad precedent to use actual performance number like WAR, HR, or, OPS but what if it was based on playing time? For example, if a player started 100+ games or a pitcher starts 20+ in each of the 5 seasons leading up to his FA, then $5M of his AAV won't count toward CBA if he resigns with his team instead of moving on? It would benefit teams to resign stars and help them make a bit more because of being good, or at least available during controllable seasons. What do you think?
Such is life. I was far more valuable in my youth than later in my career too. Alas it took some years to develop a reputation for dependably excellent results. Even worse, later when I was in the position to make those decisions I too demanded young men must prove themselves over time. It is a lesson we all have to learn or suffer the consequences of putting untested people in situations they are not prepared for.
How about having a money pool from teams that go for service time paid by the league. Salaries are kept lower to allow this pool to happen but once a player hits certain milestones then the league steps in and provides the incentives. Perhaps 1000 games played the player gets a $10 mil contract bump that year (again without cost to his team or hit against the cap) for example. Players would never go for less salary, but perhaps keep salaries as they are and over time implement this. Reward players who maybe got hosed early in their career or were late bloomers in their 30s.
Baseball & Bregman aside… these are, however unfortunate, times we all live in. Youre either a producer & own the payroller account(s), or youre a cog in a system consuming every other producer’s widgets. nobody deserves to be underpaid in a system which cons humans into paying back institutional debt with an undervalued compensatory package. And Id go further to argue that most everyone here could agree with theyve been undervalued & underpaid at any one point throughout their careers. But “buy low, sell high” is the intrinsic nature in which capitalistic society has been bred upon.
The difference is in pro sports, there is a short window of peak ability. The system is designed to pay players the smallest amount during the physical peak and give the owners an excuse to not pay the players once they have earned control over their own careers. And worse, they have turned fans against the players - thinking they are greedy and not deserving. I understand the concept of not paying $MM to aging, declining players. But the idea that fans think they are greedy and selfish after working years to get to a point where they have control and trying to make up for years of being paid pennies or dimes on the dollar, is sad.
Except Bregman will probably end up on one of the teams that can afford him and that is usually a winning team on the West or East coast. If Soto doesn't sign with the Yanks, they will go hard after him. Mets, Nationals, and Phillies are all in the hunt for the playoffs next year and all could sign Bregman. If you said you can pick one of Bregman or Tucker, I would pick Tucker, but it looks like Tucker is out of the picture by most accounts. If we don't sign Bregman than you might as well trade Tucker and Framber, because we have too many holes to fill. My bet is we sign or trade for one good outfielder or 1st baseman, put Dicenzo at third and go status quo for a year. We will let Tucker and Framber walk after this year unless we are out of it by the trade deadline. If we are they will trade both for a lot less than they could get in the off-season. I wouldn't be surprised if we sign Verlander on the cheap as well. I would love a trade for Roberts, but my guess is our CF will be either McCormick, Myers with a spattering of Leon.
Dezenzo is playing 1b and LF in winter ball. I think the Astros have given up on both he and Whitcomb playing 3b.
I never thought I would say this but I would trade Tucker now. We made our comeback last year without him and he has underperformed in the playoffs. He is my favorite player and I still remember defending him as a rookie when he struggled for so long, but if we can get a haul of prospects, go for it. Losing him for nothing would be terrible unless we reach the WS in '25. Signing him long term would be fine but it doesn't appear to be in the cards. Once we get into the season, I don't think trading him in-season will be an option because this team will be in the playoff mix.
Nobody believes pro baseball players are ever getting paid pennies on the dollar. Quite the opposite is true. Fans across the board are more likely to agree that pro athletes are obscenely overpaid. As a true capitalist I believe they should make all that the market will allow, not a penny less, and just as importantly not a penny more.
I'm specifically speaking of players before reaching arbitration. For example: Does anyone here think Victor Caratini should be making 7 times more than Yainer Diaz? What about Mauricio Dubon making 4 1/2 times more than Jeremy Pena last year?
