Timmy doesn't want a long term deal

[nateistheshi]

Tim Lincecum Prefers Short-Term Deals: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com


Any guesses as to what his intent is with this?

 

[Heathbar012]

Tim Lincecum Prefers Short-Term Deals: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com


Any guesses as to what his intent is with this?

$120 million in 5 years one way or another?

 

[JTEGGER]

Tim Lincecum Prefers Short-Term Deals: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com


Any guesses as to what his intent is with this?

 

[calsnowskier]

I think this is the obvious argument. Timmeh has shown that he like doing commercials (ESPN, the vid game with e-Timmy, etc) and in NY he would have the potential to become a SUPER-SUPER star.

It sucks this could happen, but that is the reality of baseball today. The Spanks and Sox get who they want, then the Philths, then everyone else gets the scraps.

 

[JTEGGER]

I absolutely hate the system in place in MLB. The Yankees should win it every year w/ their payroll. That's why I love it so much when they don't.

 

[SF11704]

Yeah - it sucks. I live in NY and I see this with the NNY as well as BOS. There is no way to really stop this without imposing a hard payroll cap. Forcing the NNY or BOS to pay a penalty doesn't address the issue. Middle to low tier payroll teams will suffer untill this is fixed. Let's say that our (SF) payroll level was 150M (which will never happen) and we both Cain and Lincy wanted 25M each at some point. That means we invest 1/3 of our payroll on two players that will directly effect about 60 of our games. Leaves us about 100M for the entire supporting cast. In todays market you either pay them what they want or you let them walk. In time the smaller market teams will start looking like farm teams for the upper tier teams that have the money to spend. From what I can see the 2011 Philth are at 165M of which 57M is for the 4 starters and I think that price rises in 2012. Lee and Hammels will make it push 70M.

 

[Stokes1931]

Bring back the Reserve Clause!

 

[tzill]

Yeah - it sucks. I live in NY and I see this with the NNY as well as BOS. There is no way to really stop this without imposing a hard payroll cap. Forcing the NNY or BOS to pay a penalty doesn't address the issue. Middle to low tier payroll teams will suffer untill this is fixed. Let's say that our (SF) payroll level was 150M (which will never happen) and we both Cain and Lincy wanted 25M each at some point. That means we invest 1/3 of our payroll on two players that will directly effect about 60 of our games. Leaves us about 100M for the entire supporting cast. In todays market you either pay them what they want or you let them walk. In time the smaller market teams will start looking like farm teams for the upper tier teams that have the money to spend. From what I can see the 2011 Philth are at 165M of which 57M is for the 4 starters and I think that price rises in 2012. Lee and Hammels will make it push 70M.

A number of interesting assumptions here:

1. Cain and Tim will demand $25MM -- I'm not sure Cain would get that; Tim maybe.
2. $150MM payroll -- I don't see that happening until the ballpark is paid off in six years or so.
3. Oswalt comes off Philly's books next year ($2MM buyout). I'm not sure they'll reup him.

Overall, I agree we need a hard cap in MLB. But, that cap also has to extend to scouting and player development otherwise the Yank$, Red $ox, and Phillie$, etc. will simply enlarge their minor league system and gain unfair advantage there.

 

[calsnowskier]

A number of interesting assumptions here:

1. Cain and Tim will demand $25MM -- I'm not sure Cain would get that; Tim maybe.
2. $150MM payroll -- I don't see that happening until the ballpark is paid off in six years or so.
3. Oswalt comes off Philly's books next year ($2MM buyout). I'm not sure they'll reup him.

Overall, I agree we need a hard cap in MLB. But, that cap also has to extend to scouting and player development otherwise the Yank$, Red $ox, and Phillie$, etc. will simply enlarge their minor league system and gain unfair advantage there.

Baseball finances are MUCH more complicated than other sports due to the minor league systems. This is why a cap/floor system is unlikely to happen anytime soon (as well as the labor-structure).

However, given the fact that the Spanks and Sux have approx 4X the average payroll, they have still only won 3 of the last 10 series' (add Phily, and this becomes 4; add the G's and Halos and we have 6 of the last 10). That leaves the Cards, WSox, Fish and DBags as the other winners.

Not a horrible cross-section of payrolls, so is there REALLY a problem?

 

[SF11704]

Yeah - I just used the Cain and Tim item with a 150M level to raise the point of a team spending almost 1/3 of it's salary on two players - pitchers at that. I feel that straps a team on what else they can do. I just feel that the big spenders don't really face that situation. Realistically I can see them totalling 40M at some point (18M and 22M) and having a budget of about 125M-130M. Much easier for the NNY, BOS or Philth to handle that with 165M+ budgets. I also agree with extending the cap into scouting and player development. This most likely the main reason I hate the NYY. Just always seemed that they could get whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it and money never really effected their decisions. I was actually very surprised when Lee didn't sign with them as a FA

 

[SF11704]

Not a horrible cross-section of payrolls, so is there REALLY a problem?

Guess it depends on how the fan base is structured and what the expectations are. Almost all of us would hate to see Tim, Cain or MadBum walk. Any combination of these players leaving I think would leave Giant fans upset. Even if we lose with this core of pitchers it's somewhat OK. There is hope for next year. If we lost them it becomes easy to place blame on that particular event when things don't workout well. Teams with large payrolls can point at players that didn't produce and just purchase some new ones and move on to next year. Teams that lose key players to FA because of monetary considerations will point to management and the budget as the cause for a bad season (if it happens). Since 1995 the NYY have been in the post season every year but 2008. I think that money makes them competitive but can't promise a WS. But they are there each and every year. I'm not sure a NYY fan even worries about making the post season any longer.

 

[tzill]

Baseball finances are MUCH more complicated than other sports due to the minor league systems. This is why a cap/floor system is unlikely to happen anytime soon (as well as the labor-structure).

However, given the fact that the Spanks and Sux have approx 4X the average payroll, they have still only won 3 of the last 10 series' (add Phily, and this becomes 4; add the G's and Halos and we have 6 of the last 10). That leaves the Cards, WSox, Fish and DBags as the other winners.

Not a horrible cross-section of payrolls, so is there REALLY a problem?

Yes. When you have 1/3 of the league that KNOWS in March it has no chance..that's a problem.

Edit: and it's virtually the same 1/3 every year.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes. When you have 1/3 of the league that KNOWS in March it has no chance..that's a problem.

Pittsburgh, San Diego, KC...

These teams put themselves in those holes due to bad baseball management (but good financial management). I have no sympathy for these clubs.

Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Tampa are all lower-tier payroll teams that have done VERY well for themselves over the last 15 years or so (I include Tampa even though historically they are not good). They prove that it is possible.

The Cubbies are just a strange anomaly that needs to be removed from all discussion.

Even the Philths have not been a powerhouse team until the last few years, so that REALLY only leaves NNY and Bos as the perennials, and since '08, both of these teams have missed the playoffs. Also, look at the Mutts and Doggies. They have been HUGE losers in this time period despite being in the top two markets in the country.

Again, I ask...

Is there REALLY a problem?

 

[tzill]

Pittsburgh, San Diego, KC...

These teams put themselves in those holes due to bad baseball management (but good financial management). I have no sympathy for these clubs.

Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Tampa are all lower-tier payroll teams that have done VERY well for themselves over the last 15 years or so (I include Tampa even though historically they are not good). They prove that it is possible.

The Cubbies are just a strange anomaly that needs to be removed from all discussion.

Even the Philths have not been a powerhouse team until the last few years, so that REALLY only leaves NNY and Bos as the perennials, and since '08, both of these teams have missed the playoffs. Also, look at the Mutts and Doggies. They have been HUGE losers in this time period despite being in the top two markets in the country.

Again, I ask...

Is there REALLY a problem?

I think so. Sure, lower payroll teams occasionally make it to the post-season, but it’s so infrequent that it is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Over the past eight out of ten seasons, at least one team in the bottom third of payroll spending has made the playoffs. That would seem to indicate that low payroll teams can compete and that competitive balance isn’t an issue.

However, during those same ten seasons, six out of ten times at least five teams in the top third of payroll spending made the playoffs. In eight out of ten seasons at least four of the top spending teams made the post-season. In the other two seasons, three of the top ten payroll spending teams made the playoffs.

So in any given year, the top ten payroll teams claim four or five of the eight playoff spots, and the remaining twenty teams are left to fight over the scraps. Granted, there are occasional exceptions, but as a general rule, the more money a team spends, the more likely they are to make the post-season.

You can also split the teams in half based on payroll. By doing this, the numbers are at least equally convincing. Between 2000-2009, 80 teams went to the post-season (8 per year). Of those teams, 21 of 80 had payrolls in the bottom half of all teams. In round numbers, teams in the top half of payroll spending were about three times as likely to go to the playoffs than were their counterparts in the bottom half of payroll spending.

We need a salary cap and a salary floor to even the playing field.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think so. Sure, lower payroll teams occasionally make it to the post-season, but it’s so infrequent that it is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Over the past eight out of ten seasons, at least one team in the bottom third of payroll spending has made the playoffs. That would seem to indicate that low payroll teams can compete and that competitive balance isn’t an issue.

However, during those same ten seasons, six out of ten times at least five teams in the top third of payroll spending made the playoffs. In eight out of ten seasons at least four of the top spending teams made the post-season. In the other two seasons, three of the top ten payroll spending teams made the playoffs.

So in any given year, the top ten payroll teams claim four or five of the eight playoff spots, and the remaining twenty teams are left to fight over the scraps. Granted, there are occasional exceptions, but as a general rule, the more money a team spends, the more likely they are to make the post-season.

You can also split the teams in half based on payroll. By doing this, the numbers are at least equally convincing. Between 2000-2009, 80 teams went to the post-season (8 per year). Of those teams, 21 of 80 had payrolls in the bottom half of all teams. In round numbers, teams in the top half of payroll spending were about three times as likely to go to the playoffs than were their counterparts in the bottom half of payroll spending.

We need a salary cap and a salary floor to even the playing field.

In a simplified world, I agree 100%. But as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, MLB payroll is only a small part of the pie. You have scouting, development, international infrastructure, signing bonus', etc, etc, etc.

Matt Bush
Todd Van Poppel
Buster Posey

These are guys who went where they did in the draft primarily because of financial concerns. If you add an MLB salary structure, but ignore draft signing bonus', have you really fixed anything?

Matsusaka
Fukudome
Matsui

These are guys who came from Japan that required a payment from the MLB team to the Japanese team just for the right to negotiate. That sum was ridiculous for Matsusaka (50M, IIRC). Would this be included in the cap? If so, that gives a distinct competitive advantage to Japan/Korea/etc for the top players in the world. If not, what is the point of a cap/floor structure?

I am not against a structure. I HATE the idea of it, but I am willing to listen and argue. But I do not want to punish teams that go the extra mile to gain a competitive advantage through shrewd business practices (NYY with YES; SFG with the park and their locking up the SJ territory; etc) while rewarding teams for just cashing welfare checks (Fla, Pit, KC, SD, Clippers, Warriors, etc).

 

[Robotech]

Tim Lincecum Prefers Short-Term Deals: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com


Any guesses as to what his intent is with this?

I would take the security of the long term deal if I were him, even if it isn't as much as Yankee or Red Sox money. If he's waiting until he's unrestricted to get the offers from BOS and NYY, he has to remember that a lot can happen to his arm in the next 2 years. Maybe I'm being too risk averse.

If Timmy wants crazy money, then we just have to let him walk. He's done enough for us already, anyway.

 

[Robotech]

A number of interesting assumptions here:

1. Cain and Tim will demand $25MM -- I'm not sure Cain would get that; Tim maybe.
2. $150MM payroll -- I don't see that happening until the ballpark is paid off in six years or so.
3. Oswalt comes off Philly's books next year ($2MM buyout). I'm not sure they'll reup him.

Overall, I agree we need a hard cap in MLB. But, that cap also has to extend to scouting and player development otherwise the Yank$, Red $ox, and Phillie$, etc. will simply enlarge their minor league system and gain unfair advantage there.

Cain is not quite the same level as Lincecum. I expect Cain will get less. Cain is a horse, so maybe re-signing Cain and letting Lincecum walk would be the better strategy, baseball-wise at least. I would hope that losing Lincecum wouldn't hurt the Giants' too much marketing-wise.

 

[mistgl]

Cain is not quite the same level as Lincecum. I expect Cain will get less. Cain is a horse, so maybe re-signing Cain and letting Lincecum walk would be the better strategy, baseball-wise at least. I would hope that losing Lincecum wouldn't hurt the Giants' too much marketing-wise.

Cain will at least get 5/82.5

You can thank Lackey and Burnett for that.

 

[nateistheshi]

In a simplified world, I agree 100%. But as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, MLB payroll is only a small part of the pie. You have scouting, development, international infrastructure, signing bonus', etc, etc, etc.

Matt Bush
Todd Van Poppel
Buster Posey

These are guys who went where they did in the draft primarily because of financial concerns. If you add an MLB salary structure, but ignore draft signing bonus', have you really fixed anything?

Matsusaka
Fukudome
Matsui

These are guys who came from Japan that required a payment from the MLB team to the Japanese team just for the right to negotiate. That sum was ridiculous for Matsusaka (50M, IIRC). Would this be included in the cap? If so, that gives a distinct competitive advantage to Japan/Korea/etc for the top players in the world. If not, what is the point of a cap/floor structure?

I am not against a structure. I HATE the idea of it, but I am willing to listen and argue. But I do not want to punish teams that go the extra mile to gain a competitive advantage through shrewd business practices (NYY with YES; SFG with the park and their locking up the SJ territory; etc) while rewarding teams for just cashing welfare checks (Fla, Pit, KC, SD, Clippers, Warriors, etc).

Well there's been a lot of talk of adding a more strict draft slotting system in the next CBA, so that would eliminate big differences in the First Year Player draft where players can fall due to high demands. I agree that International players would be harder to regulate, but aren't nearly as big of an issue as an MLB ready star falling 10 draft spots due to bonus demands, or teams being unable to keep their star players. No, it isn't that these teams don't try to keep their star players either, the stars just know that in FA they'll make so much more due to the unlimited resources some teams can throw at them. For an example, the Pirates have been trying to sign McCutchen to an extension for roughly a year now and they've been unsuccessful.

I agree that a lot of the teams that are in the bottom 1/4 of the league in payroll and don't compete aren't trying very hard. On the other hand, having a cap as well as a floor would make the owners of these teams realize that they are going to have to greatly raise their payroll and they would lose money until they start investing in their team and winning. Maybe these owners don't care about their teams and don't want to start losing money, and they sell them to owners who are willing to spend more in order to cash in long-term. Yes, the Rays have been doing great but aren't selling tickets, but Tropicana field is by all accounts, a very shitty place.

A big problem is that even though the lowest payroll teams seem like the victims, almost everybody is a victim. This is proven by the fact that you cited the Giants as a team with shrewd business practices, yet the Yankees may easily price them out of the Lincecum sweepstakes. The Cardinals invest money in their team, yet it's entirely possible that one of the big spenders will still take the face of their franchise from them.

While spending lots of money doesn't guarantee success, spending lots of money smartly does, whereas spending half as much money as these superpowers smartly does not guarantee success in any way. Can anybody think of a GM that has done a better job in recent years than Alex Anthopoulos? Yet, unless the Jays practically double their payroll, does anybody think it's a smart bet that they'll make the playoffs in the current format for anytime in the next few seasons?

 

[tallglassofwater007]

Pittsburgh, San Diego, KC...

These teams put themselves in those holes due to bad baseball management (but good financial management). I have no sympathy for these clubs.

Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Tampa are all lower-tier payroll teams that have done VERY well for themselves over the last 15 years or so (I include Tampa even though historically they are not good). They prove that it is possible.

The Cubbies are just a strange anomaly that needs to be removed from all discussion.

Even the Philths have not been a powerhouse team until the last few years, so that REALLY only leaves NNY and Bos as the perennials, and since '08, both of these teams have missed the playoffs. Also, look at the Mutts and Doggies. They have been HUGE losers in this time period despite being in the top two markets in the country.

Again, I ask...

Is there REALLY a problem?

But those teams that have the huge payrolls are at least in contention every year. The smaller market teams have to build and then have a few year run and then start over again when all of their talent leaves for the bigger money.