Mark Teixeira mostly nails value in MLB:
“Agents are probably going to hate me for saying it. You’re not very valuable when you’re making $20 million. When you’re Mike Trout, making the minimum, you are crazy valuable. My first six years, before I was a free agent, I was very valuable. But there’s nothing you can do that can justify a $20 million contract.”
Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Albert Pujols come to mind as three players who at their peak were valuable at the $20 million level. Free agency makes up for all the residual value players don’t receive when they are subject to the reserve clause. That’s why the Cardinals were actually smart to let Pujols go; they made their money off him, and the big contract he required would just cause them to lose most of the gain from his younger years. I truly hope that some day players and teams figure out they are better off paying players what they are worth in the moment, rather than making up for previous value.
Why? As it stands, the underpayment players have to suffer during their slave years gets compensated by their overpayment after free agency, assuming they make it that far. If teams figured out what was best for them and didn’t pay free agents above their marginal revenue product, then the players’ share of overall MLB revenues would shrink dramatically. Isn’t it a more just world when the people who actually provide the entertaiment get the proceeds from your ticket purchases, rather than the middlemen (owners)?
Dan Rosenheck » I would have players be free agents all the time, so that players would always get what the market would bear. I assume, in that situation, the money that flows to older players now would simply flow to younger ones. I don’t think the amount of money would be lower, just going to who is actually producing the value.
And I don’t think it’s a more just world the way you describe it. In fact, I don’t believe that “just” has anything to do with it. Owners will make as much as they can, players will make as much as they can, and the market should decide the size of the pie. By controlling the freedom of the players at any point in their careers, the system in unjust.
If players want the proceeds from the ticket sales, they should then form a league they own. The players at some point decided it was better to have a separate owner who’s outlook was long term, who took care of all the infrastructure needed to provide the revenue streams that made the players rich. If the players are happy with their compensation, then they should be happy the owners make enough money to provide the players wealth.
Supposedly Charley Finley proposed making all players free agent eligible after year 1. Supposedly Marvin Miller was against the idea as the surplus of free agents would suppress prices.
I am in favor of ending the reserve clause, but that’s what the players have agreed to. Teams would be forced to offer young players Longoria type contracts before they finished their first season or even played their first game. Those players who do not accept might find themselves languishing in the minors for a couple extra years until they fully develop so the team can maximize their 1 year.
The leagues would get younger pretty quick as there would not be much money left for non-elite older players. I look back at the 1967 Red Sox and am shocked how many players they had under 25 with only a sprinkling of veterans (Yaz at 28 was an old man on that team).
Players would not go for it though, and owners would be fearful of such a large change, especially those with deep farm systems.
It would end the days of Arod and Pujol type contracts and end the pay discrepancies among players with comparable talent.
Hm, so David doesn’t think “just” has anything to do with it, and also that the system is unjust!
I think it’s very unclear how the market would shake out if the reserve clause were gone. What pft says about the league getting younger, seems logical, but then again, the change would obviously make young players much, much more expensive than they are now, so shouldn’t that affect the mixture in the *opposite* direction (namely, more veterans, since youngsters are no longer a bargain)? And surely overall more money would be going to players than is heading their way now, since for the most part teams now play veterans based on their expected win contribution, which they would presumably continue to do, while they get rookies almost for free, which they would no longer be able to do.
Has J. C. Bradbury ever written about this?
If teams really were willing to think it through, as opposed to being willing to exploit players during their first four or five years, they’d realize how much better it would be. Instead of hamstringing your payroll with “veterans” earning far more then they are worth, pay them what they are worth from the start, and then have their salaries follow the value they produce as they age. Then, “veteran” players wouldn’t have to be forced out as they decline, because they wouldn’t be earning $20 million per just because they used to be great.
I agree with David “just” does not have anything to do with it.
James » The point I tried to make was that “just” shouldn’t be the point. If someone wanted a more “just” system, however, all players getting paid what they deserve based on their production is the better system.
Owners and players are going to make what the market bears. I don’t care how that money is distributed between them. I do think the system will be better off if the players who produce the most value make the most money, no matter where they are in their careers.