Boras Clients

[Slateman]

It's a really bad deal for Snell, though.  He (Boras) needed to maximize the earnings bounce for a guy coming off a Cy Young year.  He didn't do that.  All he did was buy him one year of downside protection: if Snell has a bad year this year, he gets one more chance to get back to top form...and then probably still takes a lot less money due to age.  If that Yankees offer was as reported, he's going to have trouble hitting that total earnings over the next 5 years even if he pitches reasonably well.

At Snell's age, assuming he doesn't win another Cy Young this year, his next contract is probably $10m+ lower AAV than what he's getting now.  That's not exactly ideal for a guy in his 30s coming off a Cy Young. 

The team control/free agency in baseball is bad for pitchers, in general. Most have a limited time frame for health and productivity, and they generally dont get to free agency during that window. It was always understood that contracts would be the make up for that.

Snell is also at the same age/level Scherzer was when he signed that deal. Maybe 270 million was a stupid high ask, but the Yankees offer of 150 million was a silly lowball offer. Particularly when all of baseball is moving away from being a "workhorse" and emphasizing stuff over going deep into games.

[Slateman]

It's still stoopid money.  We tend to get jaded and speak in $MM's as though it were walking around money.  Hopefully this is the start of a major market correction in professional sports contracts.

Only if ownership gets the same correction. Owners are making tens/hundreds of millions off their teams. The players are both the workforce and the produce. As such, they should command a significant portion of the revenue.

[nfotiu]

i imagine declining TV ratings are an increasing problem for the MLB.

MLB was the most exposed to the cable sports bubble.  I imagine their ratio of local TV revenue to eyeballs actually watching was the highest by far of any sports.   NFL has the viewership to mostly back up their TV revenue.   NBA has some rich national and international deals that people watch, and neither they or the NHL were getting as much money for their local TV deals as MLB does. 

[nfotiu]

Only if ownership gets the same correction. Owners are making tens/hundreds of millions off their teams. The players are both the workforce and the produce. As such, they should command a significant portion of the revenue.

Some of the correction is owners unwilling to take on guaranteed dead money when they can't count on revenue going up and up.   Theoretically, it should encourage more players to sign some 8-10 year deals while they are still a few years from free agency.   Better to take 100-250 now vs hoping for 200-400 later.   That might mean leaving Boras for some of these guys.

[Slateman]

Some of the correction is owners unwilling to take on guaranteed dead money when they can't count on revenue going up and up.   Theoretically, it should encourage more players to sign some 8-10 year deals while they are still a few years from free agency.   Better to take 100-250 now vs hoping for 200-400 later.   That might mean leaving Boras for some of these guys.

Baseball just came off back to back, record setting revenues. If they can't find a way to make this profitable, then maybe they shouldn't be in this business anymore. But nothing has really changed from last offseason regarding revenue projects, yet they were more than willing to drop stupidly large contracts on Bogaerts, Turner, Judge, Correa, Swanson, ect. Its not like Boras was the only one asking huge amounts.

This is ownership being greedy. Its pretty obvious. Same as always, they are trying to get leverage on the players.

[HalfSmokes]

MLB was the most exposed to the cable sports bubble.  I imagine their ratio of local TV revenue to eyeballs actually watching was the highest by far of any sports.   NFL has the viewership to mostly back up their TV revenue.   NBA has some rich national and international deals that people watch, and neither they or the NHL were getting as much money for their local TV deals as MLB does. 

It will be fun to see what happens when teams need fans to pay for streaming packages. How many people will bother for a tanking team (which seems like most of the league)

[nfotiu]

Baseball just came off back to back, record setting revenues. If they can't find a way to make this profitable, then maybe they shouldn't be in this business anymore. But nothing has really changed from last offseason regarding revenue projects, yet they were more than willing to drop stupidly large contracts on Bogaerts, Turner, Judge, Correa, Swanson, ect. Its not like Boras was the only one asking huge amounts.

This is ownership being greedy. Its pretty obvious. Same as always, they are trying to get leverage on the players.

They found a way to being profitable.  Not signing up to pay Blake Snell 30 million per year into his late 30s.

Revenue projections have change a lot this offseason.  Half the teams have uncertain tv deals, and the other half are facing declining tv revenues and most all them have no idea what that is going to look like 4-5 years down the road when they're being asked to commit to contracts.   They should have saw it coming before this offseason, but it seems they were in a bit of denial.

Teams will spend money where it's a good bet that the money will help them win for most of the contract.  Shying away from bad contracts is just smartening up a bit.

[Natsinpwc]

Additionally Snell does not throw strikes so even when pitching well does not go long into games.  Taxes your bullpen. 

[Slateman]

Additionally Snell does not throw strikes so even when pitching well does not go long into games.  Taxes your bullpen. 

Somehow a two time Cy Young winner "taxes your bullpen."

[varoadking]

Only if ownership gets the same correction.

I'm all in on that...

[Dave in Fairfax]

Additionally Snell does not throw strikes so even when pitching well does not go long into games.  Taxes your bullpen.

Somehow a two time Cy Young winner "taxes your bullpen."

I'd think it taxes your fielders a bit more, since they are chasing down outs rather than watching K's.

For what it's worth, though, here are the average number of innings per start for last year's Cy Young vote-getting starters. Snell is near the bottom, but the difference does not seem that significantly below average. One extra out per start would put him right in the middle. It's obviously some extra work, but would an extra 10-11 innings from your relievers over the course of the entire season really tax your bullpen? I think I'd agree with Slateman.

Logan Webb   6.55
Framber Valdez   6.38
Gerrit Cole   6.33
Zac Gallen   6.18
George Kirby   6.15
Chris Bassitt   6.06
Pablo López   6.06
Corbin Burnes   6.05
Zack Wheeler   6.00
Luis Castillo   5.97
Kevin Gausman   5.97
Spencer Strider   5.83
Justin Steele   5.77
Sonny Gray   5.75
Kodai Senga   5.74
Zach Eflin   5.73
Blake Snell   5.63
Kyle Bradish   5.62

[Natsinpwc]

Somehow a two time Cy Young winner "taxes your bullpen."

I'd think it taxes your fielders a bit more, since they are chasing down outs rather than watching K's.

For what it's worth, though, here are the average number of innings per start for last year's Cy Young vote-getting starters. Snell is near the bottom, but the difference does not seem that significantly below average. One extra out per start would put him right in the middle. It's obviously some extra work, but would an extra 10-11 innings from your relievers over the course of the entire season really tax your bullpen? I think I'd agree with Slateman.

Logan Webb   6.55
Framber Valdez   6.38
Gerrit Cole   6.33
Zac Gallen   6.18
George Kirby   6.15
Chris Bassitt   6.06
Pablo López   6.06
Corbin Burnes   6.05
Zack Wheeler   6.00
Luis Castillo   5.97
Kevin Gausman   5.97
Spencer Strider   5.83
Justin Steele   5.77
Sonny Gray   5.75
Kodai Senga   5.74
Zach Eflin   5.73
Blake Snell   5.63
Kyle Bradish   5.62

That was last year.  He’s only done 180 innings twice in his career.  The other years were below 130 innings. 

[Dave in Fairfax]

It's hard to make a judgment about his time in Tampa Bay since you have to consider that club's approach to pitching. When he went to San Diego, his average innings per start went up each year, from 4.77 to 5.33 to 5.63.

[Slateman]

Somehow a two time Cy Young winner "taxes your bullpen."

I'd think it taxes your fielders a bit more, since they are chasing down outs rather than watching K's.

For what it's worth, though, here are the average number of innings per start for last year's Cy Young vote-getting starters. Snell is near the bottom, but the difference does not seem that significantly below average. One extra out per start would put him right in the middle. It's obviously some extra work, but would an extra 10-11 innings from your relievers over the course of the entire season really tax your bullpen? I think I'd agree with Slateman.

Logan Webb   6.55
Framber Valdez   6.38
Gerrit Cole   6.33
Zac Gallen   6.18
George Kirby   6.15
Chris Bassitt   6.06
Pablo López   6.06
Corbin Burnes   6.05
Zack Wheeler   6.00
Luis Castillo   5.97
Kevin Gausman   5.97
Spencer Strider   5.83
Justin Steele   5.77
Sonny Gray   5.75
Kodai Senga   5.74
Zach Eflin   5.73
Blake Snell   5.63
Kyle Bradish   5.62

There is at least 1 Cy Young winner each of the last three seasons with less than 200 innings pitched. Burnes won with like 165 innings. Snell also strikes a lot of guys out.

[Slateman]

That was last year.  He’s only done 180 innings twice in his career.  The other years were below 130 innings. 

Glasnow has never done it. He's only done 120 innings once. Yet he managed to get 5/136. Snell has pitched way more innings, has two Cy Youngs, and has been utterly dominant in the playoffs.

The push away from the amount of innings to the quality of innings has been universal in MLB.  Going over 200 innings is a rarity. 4 of the last 6 Cy Young winners have been under that mark.

[IanRubbish]

Glasnow has never done it. He's only done 120 innings once. Yet he managed to get 5/136. Snell has pitched way more innings, has two Cy Youngs, and has been utterly dominant in the playoffs.

Glasnow is incredibly injury prone, but his deal also only pays him through his age 34 season, and that's with an option year.  Boras wanted to get Snell paid through his age 39 season, which no one was going to do. 

Overall, Boras' failures this offseason are good for the sport.  Ironically, the players union continually fights against a salary cap, but the problem is that would also guarantee them a specific share of revenue.  Without it, teams can be creative and stop being foolish about handing out $250 million+ contracts that pay players into their late 30s/early 40s.   But seeing that the two of the worst overpaying teams are in the NL East, can't say the players' and Boras' foolishness is bad for the Nats.

[Slateman]

Glasnow is incredibly injury prone, but his deal also only pays him through his age 34 season, and that's with an option year.  Boras wanted to get Snell paid through his age 39 season, which no one was going to do.

But a whole bunch of teams did that the last couple of years. Aaron Judge, Xander Bogaerts, Trea Turner, Brandin Nimo, Jacon deGrom, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Brandon Nimo, Corey Seager, Marcus Semien, Freddy Freeman, Yu Darvish, and Manny Machado all got contracts into their mid-to-late 30s.

The years were seen as a way to spread the money out and avoid the luxury tax.

Overall, Boras' failures this offseason are good for the sport.  Ironically, the players union continually fights against a salary cap, but the problem is that would also guarantee them a specific share of revenue.  Without it, teams can be creative and stop being foolish about handing out $250 million+ contracts that pay players into their late 30s/early 40s.   But seeing that the two of the worst overpaying teams are in the NL East, can't say the players' and Boras' foolishness is bad for the Nats.

No, its bad for the sport. Now every team is going to do this with all pitchers.

Baseball doesnt need a salary cap. Baseball needs owners who actually want to win. The only way the players would agree to a cap is if they got a salary floor that was with 75% of it. And they'd want way more money up front, during the minors.

Salary caps are used to put a glass ceiling on players' salaries. Its why every other sports league makes raising the cap a huge part of their negotiation. Right now, players get a greater percentage of revenue than the capped sports:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1377940/sports-league-revenue-player-pay/

All a salary cap would do is decrease player pay. Especially without salary floor rules that the NFL has. And the owners wont agree to that. Half the teams have a payroll under 150 million. 10 of them are under 100 million.

About half the teams in baseball dont care about putting a competitive product on the field. They simply see their team as a quick 75-150 million in profit, and a way to increase their real estate holdings.

Boras is an ass, but he isnt bad for the sport. Owners treating their teams as a side business and collatoral for real estate loans is whats inhibiting baseball.

[Natsinpwc]

But a whole bunch of teams did that the last couple of years. Aaron Judge, Xander Bogaerts, Trea Turner, Brandin Nimo, Jacon deGrom, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Brandon Nimo, Corey Seager, Marcus Semien, Freddy Freeman, Yu Darvish, and Manny Machado all got contracts into their mid-to-late 30s.

The years were seen as a way to spread the money out and avoid the luxury tax.

No, its bad for the sport. Now every team is going to do this with all pitchers.

Baseball doesnt need a salary cap. Baseball needs owners who actually want to win. The only way the players would agree to a cap is if they got a salary floor that was with 75% of it. And they'd want way more money up front, during the minors.

Salary caps are used to put a glass ceiling on players' salaries. Its why every other sports league makes raising the cap a huge part of their negotiation. Right now, players get a greater percentage of revenue than the capped sports:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1377940/sports-league-revenue-player-pay/

All a salary cap would do is decrease player pay. Especially without salary floor rules that the NFL has. And the owners wont agree to that. Half the teams have a payroll under 150 million. 10 of them are under 100 million.

About half the teams in baseball dont care about putting a competitive product on the field. They simply see their team as a quick 75-150 million in profit, and a way to increase their real estate holdings.

Boras is an ass, but he isnt bad for the sport. Owners treating their teams as a side business and collatoral for real estate loans is whats inhibiting baseball.

And notice what happened with all the pitchers you listed.  But you can’t figure out why teams are wary of signing older and injury prone pitchers.  Glasgow is a risk also. But the Dodgers needed a starter.   They might lose Buelher after this year.  And they have deep pockets.  There are really just a few teams bidding on the big money guys.  SD got out of that game this year.  And Boston no longer seems inclined to spend big dollars.  Shrinking market for the high priced guys. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

That was last year.  He’s only done 180 innings twice in his career.  The other years were below 130 innings. 

It's not leaving games early that is taxing on a staff as much as missed starts due to injuries. Those sub-130 inning seasons aren't 32 starts with a 4 inning average. His K/9 has been consistently over 11 since 2018. It's not his inability to strike out guys that's the problem. It's that his WHIP is driven by BBs. It's somewhat DiceK-ish, minus the slow pluck your eyes out unwatchable pace.

[IanRubbish]

All a salary cap would do is decrease player pay.

No salary cap could actually be decreasing pay by allowing teams, like this one, to tank for years.  Moreover, the draft pick gimmicks they put into the current CBA haven't done much to prevent teams like the Nats, A's, or Pirates from not spending.  Either way, highly unlikely there'll be a salary cap in the next CBA regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

[Slateman]

No salary cap could actually be decreasing pay by allowing teams, like this one, to tank for years.  Moreover, the draft pick gimmicks they put into the current CBA haven't done much to prevent teams like the Nats, A's, or Pirates from not spending.  Either way, highly unlikely there'll be a salary cap in the next CBA regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

A salary cap doesnt prevent teams from tanking. It would absolutely cap player salaries. Without a floor, the non-spending teams wont magically start spending. So all its going to do is prevent the teams who are willing to spend from spending on addtional players.

Yankees, Dodgers, Phillies ... they'll spend right up to the limit. But the Pirates, Rays, and A's still wont do crap. So then the players either have to take less money from someone else or sit out the year.

[HalfSmokes]

A salary cap doesnt prevent teams from tanking. It would absolutely cap player salaries. Without a floor, the non-spending teams wont magically start spending. So all its going to do is prevent the teams who are willing to spend from spending on addtional players.

Yankees, Dodgers, Phillies ... they'll spend right up to the limit. But the Pirates, Rays, and A's still wont do crap. So then the players either have to take less money from someone else or sit out the year.

There would never be a cap without a floor

[Slateman]

There would never be a cap without a floor

Only way the players would agree.

And half the owners wont agree to a floor. NFL and NBA are at 89% and 90% of the cap limit for the floor. Even with a low cap of 130 million, there are ten teams in baseball that arent willing to spend that much now.

And that 115 million is more than Oakland has spent in the last three seasons combined.

[IanRubbish]

A salary cap doesnt prevent teams from tanking.

When implemented with a salary floor like the NFL, it makes tank jobs last 1-2 years max.  It doesn't stop teams like Raljon or the Jets from being dysfunctional and losing for years on end, but the 5 year rebuilds this franchise does would be much harder to pull off.  Either way, won't happen and I'm pretty sure the term "salary floor" is understood to increase the cardiovascular health risk of our fine lead owner.

[IanRubbish]

Another loss for Boras, Jordan Montgomery finally signs....a one year deal.