Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Conrad's avatar

I'd just like to say that I really love these Friday posts and look forward to them every week.

Ed B's avatar

I do have a concern about the validity of using the $8M/WAR figure universally. If teams weren't getting younger pre-arbitration players at bargain-level salaries, their dollars would have to be spread more. Assuming teams are still going to spend the same ballpark amount on salaries, the overall salary budget divided by everyone's WAR would decrease the overall cost per WAR. So while it is true that it is 8M free agent dollars per WAR, should that be the basis of overall team value for $/WAR? It certainly wouldn't be if everyone was a free agent like Marvin Miller feared.

Free agents benefit by everyone else making less. I guess the argument was that a rising tide raises all boats, but in this case the tide is strictly for free agents while younger players struggle. I am all in favor of players getting paid, but the current system is heavily weighted towards free agents (just like other entertainment stars).

The median salary of MLB players is about $1.5M. If everyone was a free agent, it would be interesting to see if the $/WAR was linear or more exponential for big stars. I'm not sure what "fix" I would propose or whether a fix is even desired. It seems obvious that the MLBPA likes the slant towards free agents.

33 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?