I see no problem with owners, whether they can afford more or not, setting a budget. I say this as a fan of teams that I wish would spend more freely. There is also nothing wrong with a player, especially a pitcher, trading potential money for security. Yes, Bumgarner will end up making less money than he might have. On the other hand, he might have ended up like Matt Harvey, who will make a lot less than Bumgarner.
Hi Joe, if you were magically put in charge of the compensation system for baseball, and asked to set up a system to maximize utility for players, owners AND fans; do you know what kind of system you would set up?
No human being who gets ten million dollars is underpaid. If someone finds the cure for cancer by themselves and gets only ten million dollars for it, OK, they may be underpaid. It's just insane to talk about a baseball player with tens of millions of dollars as being underpaid.
Second career for Joe! MLBPA rep and contract negotiator! I’m only kidding a little. Your point about owning managing to convince fans to side against the players at almost every turn is very well taken. Players create 100% of the value in MLB and (I think) get less than 50 cents on the dollar. It’s time for a realistic look at the league’s anti- trust exemptions and a hard nosed approach to the next labor agreement by the players, stars and regular Joes alike.
Love the idea of a sprawling, joyous baseball book! Since you asked for thoughts, here’s one that comes to mind:
A book about significant moments in each baseball city’s history (Royals winning the 2015 World Series, Cubs and Red Sox breaking their curses, Yankees playing baseball after 9/11, Roberto Clemente’s death to Pittsburgh, etc.) with a focus on speaking with the people in each city and what that moment meant to them. How it maybe connected the city or joined fathers to their sons and daughters. How it continues to resonate in the city years, even decades, after the event, in ways that go beyond baseball. Sounds like it could make a fascinating book about baseball as foundational to American life across the country and could tap into the nature of wonder, which you are always interested in exploring.
Hi Joe. I’ve asked before, but each day can you provide the link to your first two at bats. So for player 100, we’ll be able to read 3 separate stories? After a while it’ll whittle down to 2 stores a day, then only the current one. I’d love to see different stories on Arky Vaughn, for example. So the current list will be on The Athletic, the prior 2 here. Got my fingers crossed. Thanks.
Hi Joe. Thank you for the interesting piece. Apologies for the nitpick, but I think you inadvertently wrote "Scherzer" instead of "Strasburg" in the sixth paragraph of the Strasburg and Bumgarner section.
The centerfielder comparison was enlightening. I think it demonstrates the value to Hall of Fame voters of having a unique selling point. For Andruw Jones, he was considered the best centerfielder ever, as you mentioned, whereas Kenny Lofton was more of an all-around excellent player. Jim Rice made the Hall of Fame on the strength of being "the most feared batter of his time" (ugh). Omar Vizquel may reach the hall for being the best defensive shortstop since Ozzie Smith. Apparently, marketing can help.
The entirety of the lyrics to "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" can easily be read/heard as somebody who is really dealing with a lot of crap - "troubles" if you will, telling off someone who's full of overzealous cheer. If you read "our" to refer to "us, not you, the person I am singing to", it's a very dark song indeed!
But it was written for Meet Me In St Louis, and in fact the original context was a mother (Judy Garland!) singing it to her 5 year old who was sad that the father was leaving them for awhile to take a job promotion across the country, but hopefully they *would* all be together some day. So it wasn't caustic out the gate; still very melancholy in both lyric and setting, of course.
I'm glad you touched on this topic! It's sort of a favorite of mine when it comes to Christmad songs. Yet another in a long tradition of misunderstood lyrics, eg REM "The One I Love".
Boras somehow got Harvey $12 million from the Angels last year, which was fairly ridiculous at the time and looks even more ridiculous in hindsight. Think what you will about Boras - the man is really good at his job.
In re “Merry Little Christmas” - the origins of the song are rooted in WW2. There were no shining stars upon the highest bough, and the troubles that “next year” would be out of sight, were quite in evidence. It’s really meant as a wistful and sad song. A little Christmas was the most anyone could have, and the songer wasn’t going to be with family even for that much, and maybe not ever again.
Judy Garland sings a magnificent version of the song, with original lyrics, well worth the three minutes.
"Bumgarner will get paid millions and millions of dollars less than he was worth while baseball owners pocketed the difference."
That's way too simplistic a view, and perhaps even a false equivalency. Money that wasn't spent on Bumgarner was spent on other players who helped the Giants win three championships. Bumgarner got a guaranteed contract regardless of his health; the fact that you can discuss his situation and Harvey's in the same email without acknowledging the false equivalency is really disappointing.
Virtually every team approaches each season with a payroll budget, in terms of a range if not a spot target. Having certain players locked up on deals allows for allocation of other resources to fill needs. How is that built in quicksand?
Bumgarner was a rookie in 2010, so his salary was irrelevant that to that title. He signed his ill-fated extension in 2012, so that team was pretty much already in place, so his salary was irrelevant to that title, too. So really, what you're saying is that Bumgarner getting paid pennies compared to his value for seven years allowed the Giants to sign Tim Hudson and Jake Peavy for a combined $25 million in 2014. Pretty sure the Giants could have afforded to pay Bumgarner a higher salary AND afforded Peavy and Hudson. But sure, it's the children that are wrong.
Sigh. Bumgarner signed a contract in 2012 where neither party knew what his health or performance would be in any future year. All contracts discount the risk of injury or underperformance.
So what relevance does that have on the Giants winning a title in 2010 or 2012 or even 2014? You specifically said the savings from Bumgarner allowed the Giants to win three titles. You are now making a case about risk management, which is wholly irrelevant to winning three World Series titles.
I'm saying that any contract signed in 2012 helps set team payroll and helps teams allocate the rest of their money to the other players they decide to sign. Which is basic common sense.
So your basic common sense says the Giants won the 2014 World Series specifically because of Bumgarner's contract? What about 2012? How did that extension help them in 2012 (especially considering it didn't kick in until 2013)?
It is helpful to know those facts, but I can see where someone could say, Bumgarner didn't get everything he could, but he did make millions, so it pretty much worked out. Whereas Harvey is in the story for a contrast, he wasn't as "selfish" as Stras, and it didn't work out, and we don't remember or care. (I'm just giving my thoughts - I'm not particularly familiar with any of these contracts.)
What I'm trying to say - and perhaps did a poor job of saying! - is that while there are plenty of reasons to eye-roll at MLB owners and how they handle payroll, giving out pre-arbitration deals to pitchers that wind up looking *undervalued* because the pitcher stayed healthy and performed well completely miss the risk calculus involved by the team owner in awarding said contract. Yes, that Bumgarner contract worked out well for the Giants because Bumgarner stayed healthy and performed. It would not have worked out if he got hurt or didn't perform. I don't enjoy seeing good journalists cherry-pick team-favorable pre-arb deals as being unfair to the player (or the sport in general) given the risk calculus involved in such contracts, especially for pitchers. And Matt Harvey is the exact opposite of that coin. So to include them both in the same article while lamenting the "under-value" Bumgarner contract just doesn't read well to this reader. Your mileage may vary. Again, there are plenty of reasons to eye-roll at owners. This is not one of them, IMHO.
Matt Harvey isn't the same coin as Bumgarner if the point you are trying to make is risk management. Bumgarner signed an extension that worked out amazingly poorly for the player and amazingly well for the team. The other side of that coin is a player that signs an extension and gets hurt. Matt Harvey is not that.
Bumgarner's extension worked out "poorly for the player and amazingly well for the team" (which is a very arguable statement... but whatever) worked out because he was healthy and performed. Matt Harvey turned down extensions, got hurt, and didn't get paid. So, yes, they are flipsides of the same coin.
I see no problem with owners, whether they can afford more or not, setting a budget. I say this as a fan of teams that I wish would spend more freely. There is also nothing wrong with a player, especially a pitcher, trading potential money for security. Yes, Bumgarner will end up making less money than he might have. On the other hand, he might have ended up like Matt Harvey, who will make a lot less than Bumgarner.
Agree. And as a fan I care. Players should strike. Salary caps are one sided.
Hi Joe, if you were magically put in charge of the compensation system for baseball, and asked to set up a system to maximize utility for players, owners AND fans; do you know what kind of system you would set up?
That's a good question. I'd like to know what anyone's answer to it is.
No human being who gets ten million dollars is underpaid. If someone finds the cure for cancer by themselves and gets only ten million dollars for it, OK, they may be underpaid. It's just insane to talk about a baseball player with tens of millions of dollars as being underpaid.
Second career for Joe! MLBPA rep and contract negotiator! I’m only kidding a little. Your point about owning managing to convince fans to side against the players at almost every turn is very well taken. Players create 100% of the value in MLB and (I think) get less than 50 cents on the dollar. It’s time for a realistic look at the league’s anti- trust exemptions and a hard nosed approach to the next labor agreement by the players, stars and regular Joes alike.
Players don't create 100% of the value, though.
Love the idea of a sprawling, joyous baseball book! Since you asked for thoughts, here’s one that comes to mind:
A book about significant moments in each baseball city’s history (Royals winning the 2015 World Series, Cubs and Red Sox breaking their curses, Yankees playing baseball after 9/11, Roberto Clemente’s death to Pittsburgh, etc.) with a focus on speaking with the people in each city and what that moment meant to them. How it maybe connected the city or joined fathers to their sons and daughters. How it continues to resonate in the city years, even decades, after the event, in ways that go beyond baseball. Sounds like it could make a fascinating book about baseball as foundational to American life across the country and could tap into the nature of wonder, which you are always interested in exploring.
Hi Joe. I’ve asked before, but each day can you provide the link to your first two at bats. So for player 100, we’ll be able to read 3 separate stories? After a while it’ll whittle down to 2 stores a day, then only the current one. I’d love to see different stories on Arky Vaughn, for example. So the current list will be on The Athletic, the prior 2 here. Got my fingers crossed. Thanks.
Hi Joe. Thank you for the interesting piece. Apologies for the nitpick, but I think you inadvertently wrote "Scherzer" instead of "Strasburg" in the sixth paragraph of the Strasburg and Bumgarner section.
The centerfielder comparison was enlightening. I think it demonstrates the value to Hall of Fame voters of having a unique selling point. For Andruw Jones, he was considered the best centerfielder ever, as you mentioned, whereas Kenny Lofton was more of an all-around excellent player. Jim Rice made the Hall of Fame on the strength of being "the most feared batter of his time" (ugh). Omar Vizquel may reach the hall for being the best defensive shortstop since Ozzie Smith. Apparently, marketing can help.
The entirety of the lyrics to "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" can easily be read/heard as somebody who is really dealing with a lot of crap - "troubles" if you will, telling off someone who's full of overzealous cheer. If you read "our" to refer to "us, not you, the person I am singing to", it's a very dark song indeed!
But it was written for Meet Me In St Louis, and in fact the original context was a mother (Judy Garland!) singing it to her 5 year old who was sad that the father was leaving them for awhile to take a job promotion across the country, but hopefully they *would* all be together some day. So it wasn't caustic out the gate; still very melancholy in both lyric and setting, of course.
I'm glad you touched on this topic! It's sort of a favorite of mine when it comes to Christmad songs. Yet another in a long tradition of misunderstood lyrics, eg REM "The One I Love".
Worth noting that Boras was also Harvey's rep. He can't do the same job for everyone, as the last several offseasons have shown.
Boras somehow got Harvey $12 million from the Angels last year, which was fairly ridiculous at the time and looks even more ridiculous in hindsight. Think what you will about Boras - the man is really good at his job.
In re “Merry Little Christmas” - the origins of the song are rooted in WW2. There were no shining stars upon the highest bough, and the troubles that “next year” would be out of sight, were quite in evidence. It’s really meant as a wistful and sad song. A little Christmas was the most anyone could have, and the songer wasn’t going to be with family even for that much, and maybe not ever again.
Judy Garland sings a magnificent version of the song, with original lyrics, well worth the three minutes.
So good, so true. The context in Meet Me In St Louis is also fascinating and is yet another reason why I find the song itself to be so intriguing.
Good luck with the Baseball 100, Joe.
Gee, Scott Boras for HOF!
I'm afraid it's coming to that.
"Bumgarner will get paid millions and millions of dollars less than he was worth while baseball owners pocketed the difference."
That's way too simplistic a view, and perhaps even a false equivalency. Money that wasn't spent on Bumgarner was spent on other players who helped the Giants win three championships. Bumgarner got a guaranteed contract regardless of his health; the fact that you can discuss his situation and Harvey's in the same email without acknowledging the false equivalency is really disappointing.
"Money that wasn't spent on Bumgarner was spent on other players who helped the Giants win three championships."
Yeah, there's basically no way to know that this is true, so to offer it with any kind of authority is to build your argument on a beach of quicksand.
Virtually every team approaches each season with a payroll budget, in terms of a range if not a spot target. Having certain players locked up on deals allows for allocation of other resources to fill needs. How is that built in quicksand?
Bumgarner was a rookie in 2010, so his salary was irrelevant that to that title. He signed his ill-fated extension in 2012, so that team was pretty much already in place, so his salary was irrelevant to that title, too. So really, what you're saying is that Bumgarner getting paid pennies compared to his value for seven years allowed the Giants to sign Tim Hudson and Jake Peavy for a combined $25 million in 2014. Pretty sure the Giants could have afforded to pay Bumgarner a higher salary AND afforded Peavy and Hudson. But sure, it's the children that are wrong.
Sigh. Bumgarner signed a contract in 2012 where neither party knew what his health or performance would be in any future year. All contracts discount the risk of injury or underperformance.
So what relevance does that have on the Giants winning a title in 2010 or 2012 or even 2014? You specifically said the savings from Bumgarner allowed the Giants to win three titles. You are now making a case about risk management, which is wholly irrelevant to winning three World Series titles.
I'm saying that any contract signed in 2012 helps set team payroll and helps teams allocate the rest of their money to the other players they decide to sign. Which is basic common sense.
So your basic common sense says the Giants won the 2014 World Series specifically because of Bumgarner's contract? What about 2012? How did that extension help them in 2012 (especially considering it didn't kick in until 2013)?
It is helpful to know those facts, but I can see where someone could say, Bumgarner didn't get everything he could, but he did make millions, so it pretty much worked out. Whereas Harvey is in the story for a contrast, he wasn't as "selfish" as Stras, and it didn't work out, and we don't remember or care. (I'm just giving my thoughts - I'm not particularly familiar with any of these contracts.)
What I'm trying to say - and perhaps did a poor job of saying! - is that while there are plenty of reasons to eye-roll at MLB owners and how they handle payroll, giving out pre-arbitration deals to pitchers that wind up looking *undervalued* because the pitcher stayed healthy and performed well completely miss the risk calculus involved by the team owner in awarding said contract. Yes, that Bumgarner contract worked out well for the Giants because Bumgarner stayed healthy and performed. It would not have worked out if he got hurt or didn't perform. I don't enjoy seeing good journalists cherry-pick team-favorable pre-arb deals as being unfair to the player (or the sport in general) given the risk calculus involved in such contracts, especially for pitchers. And Matt Harvey is the exact opposite of that coin. So to include them both in the same article while lamenting the "under-value" Bumgarner contract just doesn't read well to this reader. Your mileage may vary. Again, there are plenty of reasons to eye-roll at owners. This is not one of them, IMHO.
I think I'm good with that. I think Harvey isn't so much similar to Bum, as different than Stras. Bum is the middle case between the two.
Matt Harvey isn't the same coin as Bumgarner if the point you are trying to make is risk management. Bumgarner signed an extension that worked out amazingly poorly for the player and amazingly well for the team. The other side of that coin is a player that signs an extension and gets hurt. Matt Harvey is not that.
Bumgarner's extension worked out "poorly for the player and amazingly well for the team" (which is a very arguable statement... but whatever) worked out because he was healthy and performed. Matt Harvey turned down extensions, got hurt, and didn't get paid. So, yes, they are flipsides of the same coin.
Please argue how Bumgarner's extension didn't work out poorly for him and amazing for the Giants. Thank you.
I should have smelled troll earlier. My bad.