• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

MLB Spring Training Boycott or Late Reporting?

Knight

Red Shirt
20 Year Member
So apparently there is uproar about the stalled and late movement in the free agent market. Some agents are saying players are discussing some kind of hold out related to spring training. In solidarity of course. One agent suggested that teams are making a coordinated effort to hold back free agent signings.

At first when I heard this I thought it was the MLBPA protesting the potential of the pitching clock. But I guess it is bigger.

I hate to see this. MLB is in a really good place right now. I hope it doesn't happen. And players I think would have to expect there would eventually be a slow down in the size of contracts. It can't keep going exponentially up forever.
 
Last edited:
Scott Boras is "leaking" all these stories. Most of the unsigned free agents are his clients. He promised them the moon, and the market correction is making him look bad. He is going to every outlet he can to make it look like the owners are collectively driving the market down. His players must be getting anxious with pitchers and catchers reporting soon and they don't have a home.
 
Scott Boras is "leaking" all these stories. Most of the unsigned free agents are his clients. He promised them the moon, and the market correction is making him look bad. He is going to every outlet he can to make it look like the owners are collectively driving the market down. His players must be getting anxious with pitchers and catchers reporting soon and they don't have a home.

Maybe he can start an expansion team with his clients. Or pull a Lavar move and take his clients to Japan or Korea!
 
The success of the Cubs and Astros, two teams which tanked to get better, has a lot of team general managers thinking twice about the benefit (or lack of benefit) of high priced players. WSJ article indicated about 1/3 of teams are rethinking how to move from mediocre to seriously having a chance to win it all. Article indicates signing high priced players doesn't necessarily pay off. Teams are becoming much more data driven in their assessment of players and what gives the team the best shot at winning more games. It's the free market at play here, IMO. Have to subscribe to read the full article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ri...ket-1517928548?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2
 



I love my Astros but tanking for three years to get all those high draft pics reminded me of a Florida team that did that twice. It's tough to go into the year telling your fans we have a shot when that is a lie. Still it's my favorite pro sport.
 
At least it worked for the Astros. Lots of teams have tanked for years and never have anything to show for it. Multiple times. Once could say the Royals tanked for 15 years with all the sell offs they did.
 
The success of the Cubs and Astros, two teams which tanked to get better, has a lot of team general managers thinking twice about the benefit (or lack of benefit) of high priced players. WSJ article indicated about 1/3 of teams are rethinking how to move from mediocre to seriously having a chance to win it all. Article indicates signing high priced players doesn't necessarily pay off. Teams are becoming much more data driven in their assessment of players and what gives the team the best shot at winning more games. It's the free market at play here, IMO. Have to subscribe to read the full article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ri...ket-1517928548?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2
Did the cubs truly tank? Or were they just bad and finally had a plan that worked? Tanking seems to be a major dumping of everyone for a period of time. I'm not sure the Cubs did that. Though it worked for the Astros, it seems harder to do in MLB then NBA. Takes longer for players to develop in baseball.
 



Did the cubs truly tank? Or were they just bad and finally had a plan that worked? Tanking seems to be a major dumping of everyone for a period of time. I'm not sure the Cubs did that. Though it worked for the Astros, it seems harder to do in MLB then NBA. Takes longer for players to develop in baseball.

The article referred to the Cubs as "tanking". I'm not a Cubs fan so I couldn't tell you but the writer seems to think they did. It's very hard to tank a team & keep a fan base happy. Astros almost lost a generation of fans; it was excruciating to watch (or not watch which was the problem). It worked for us because we have one of the best GMs in the business and an owner who didn't micromanage every move. Jim Crane let the professionals do their job. 3 straight years of getting the #1 pick worked for us, even though one year was a total bust. Another one didn't sign but the next year we got the #2 pick, which in hindsight should have been the #1 pick. Trading veterans helped a lot to build the minor league clubs supporting the team. Analytics is huge with Luhnow, our GM. Northwestern MBA who loves dissecting #s and good at it. Collects data other teams haven't discovered yet (remember the Cardinals stealing our data?) Moneybag on steroids. We hung on to Altuve and Springer, then got really lucky with Correa. Many of our players were not much before our coaches got a hold on them, especially in pitching. We have some very sharp people at the top. Other teams are watching what they do & how they do it. No longer the Lastros.
 
I am no baseball expert, just a big fan of the game. Here is my thoughts. I think the term "tanking" is a little harsh. When you have a team with many overpriced and under performing veteran players like the Cubs had at one time with mediocre success, at some point you have to realize your strategy is not working. So they start trading those players for future draft picks or farm system players to try and build for the future. I would not call that tanking, I would call that smart management. The cubs were not the first team to do that and they won't be the last. Without that big change in front office management which lead to the overhaul of players, the cubs would still be looking for a WS title. Also, one could argue that the turn around was too quick to put the tanking tag on them.
 
I am no baseball expert, just a big fan of the game. Here is my thoughts. I think the term "tanking" is a little harsh. When you have a team with many overpriced and under performing veteran players like the Cubs had at one time with mediocre success, at some point you have to realize your strategy is not working. So they start trading those players for future draft picks or farm system players to try and build for the future. I would not call that tanking, I would call that smart management. The cubs were not the first team to do that and they won't be the last. Without that big change in front office management which lead to the overhaul of players, the cubs would still be looking for a WS title. Also, one could argue that the turn around was too quick to put the tanking tag on them.

Very good points. The term tanking probably is too harsh. It's a semantic term that means different things to different people. In the Astros case, the previous owner micromanaged the acquisition of players to a point our minor league teams were among the worst and so was our major league team. New owner hires a new GM who is free to manage with a plan and strategies to get the organization turned around. The owner stays out of it and lets the GM do what he was hired to do. Produce a winner. Worked pretty well.

Another point in the WSJ article I thought was interesting is that some teams are questioning the cost vs benefit of hiring high priced players on the free market (money ball movement). Teams have been collecting data on such moves and questioning if its the best way to go. Some are concluding it isn't the best way. Overall point is that data gathering (and the decisions on what data to monitor), particularly with such a statistics driven sport, can be very useful in making wise management decisions. Fascinating time in the sport!
 
Altuve will sign a 150 million dollar contract for 5 years starting in 2020. ASTROS should be in the hunt for a few year's.
 



I've questioned for some time the cost/benefit of free agents, especially those over 35. If I was a GM I would not sign a player over 35 to more than a one year deal without some big performance guarantees built in. Most players peak between 25-32.
 
I've questioned for some time the cost/benefit of free agents, especially those over 35. If I was a GM I would not sign a player over 35 to more than a one year deal without some big performance guarantees built in. Most players peak between 25-32.
I agree. I'd much rather pay Altuve his 30 million than Pujols.
 

I see sports illustrated picked Washington - Yankees world series. East coast would love it.
 

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top