Free agency requirements haven't changed since 1976. Arbitration eligibility hasn't changed much since '91. Player career length has changed *a lot.* Service time declined 23% from 2003 to '19. Manfred wrote that MLB players have the best deal. They don't. thescore.com/mlb/news/22411…
There's been this pivot over a period of years where owners/MLB seems to be OK with the 1%ers, the Boras clients, getting their paydays. But the other 99%? That's the battleground.
Manfred even wrote in his letter about the November record signings ($1.3 billion of $1.9b tied to 10 players). 'See everything is fine.' But changes to arb and FA eligibility? Min salary hike? Pre-arb bonus pool? MLB not having that - despite dramatic changes to career arcs.
And that power of revenue-sharing? It doesn't show up in payroll figures. The difference between top 5 and bottom 5 payrolls in the tax-and-share era has generally been *greater* than the period before it. Would it be a greater spread without rev sharing, sure, but ...
The Pittsburgh Pirates' record FA deal was Francisco Liriano's 3y/$39m pact. Cleveland's is 3y/60 to E. Encarnación. The Rays win regularly without major FA spending. The FA/arb system is broken despite MLB/Manfred suggesting it isn't.
I understand why it's hard for many in the public to sympathize with millionaire players, especially with all the pandemic-related job loss. But the thing is most players aren't millionaires and don't retire as such. They make it to the top of their field but time there is short.
I've mentioned this before, but in speaking to @RobScahill last year, who finished just shy of 3 years of service, he estimated a player with 2+ years like him, who saved 25% of income (which would be rare, he thought) would walk away with $155-160k in savings. A nice sum but...
The player had negative cash flow exp of MiLB baseball and is probably a decade removed from any sort of education. They need second careers. They don't have a max pension. This fight really ought to be about this group. The most common career.
Re: the "competitive balance tax"
In 1995 (last year before tax-and-share) the top five payrolls were a combined 2.4x greater than the lowest five.
In 1999, the divide had grown to 3.7x.
In 2010, the gap was 3.3x.
In 2019, last full year pre-COVID, it was 2.8x.
In 1995 (last year before tax-and-share) the top five payrolls were a combined 2.4x greater than the lowest five.
In 1999, the divide had grown to 3.7x.
In 2010, the gap was 3.3x.
In 2019, last full year pre-COVID, it was 2.8x.
Related to all this: keep in mind that no major N. American pro league leans on its minimum salaried players like MLB and no pro league pays a lower min. salary. ...
In 2019, last year I have game-level data, pre-arb players accounted for 63.2% of all players to step on the field. They accounted for 53.6% of days of service time accumulated, but only 9.8% of player pay. (In NBA, only 3% of the league is at or close to min salary, 23% in NHL)
The difference between actual base salary earnings and what a player would earn on a dollar-per-WAR basis. (and keep in mind the vast majority of players are under 30): 
I'll end the thread there. I hope it was useful. Thanks for reading /
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
