Joel Sherman wonders if front offices have finally figured out that big free-agent signings are not worth it. He is commenting on the frozen hot-stove season:
But now I think it is even deeper than that. The groupthink has simply come to believe — after more than four decades of evidence — that the massive free-agent deal is more likely to go badly than well; and if nothing else, these analytic front offices understand odds.
An aside to say I am an advocate for players making a ton of dough in a $10 billion-a-year industry. But they are part of a flawed system in which free agency does not come until after six seasons — and often seven as organizations shrewdly (deviously?) manipulate service time. Free agency should come after four years (with governors put in place to prevent the big-market clubs from scarfing up all the talent). This would allow more players to enter the market in prime years.
If, on average, a player’s best seasons come from 25 to 29, the current setup ensures teams will, for the most part, be buying too many declining seasons, maybe even from the outset of a deal.
Or just eliminate the reserve clause entirely and pay players what they are worth, rather than artificially tamping down their salaries.
In addition to the front office getting smarter, this year there are a high number of good players available. A high supply of talent is basically driving down prices. It’s a buyer’s market, and the buyers are willing to wait out the players.
from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2llvGAN
No comments:
Post a Comment