You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
MLBTR Live Chat With Tim Dierkes
powered byJotCast
Prev Page View Full Chat
Tim Dierkes
4:49
I don't know that I'd call it greed.  MLB teams are like 30 decent-sized, separate businesses.  I'd love to have a few beers with each owner and try to understand why they set their payrolls where they do.  I think if the free agent freeze reminds us of anything, it's that MLB teams are corporations first and foremost.  Whether that's good or bad I don't know, but it becomes problematic to me when they take tax dollars for stadiums (stadia?)
Jeff
4:49
How un-American is it to go against the owners? They create jobs and many only require hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to do it.
Tim Dierkes
4:51
I know you're being sarcastic...and while I would say that in a technical sense, 75% of fans are on the ownership side rather than the player side, I don't think fans see it that way.  I'm guessing most fans don't even really think of "ownership."  They just see players making an insane amount of money compared to normal people, and feel like they're getting enough/too much and do not feel sympathy if the $300MM offer becomes $200MM.  That's reasonable enough.
Is it really worth it?
4:51
Was just chatting with a colleague - if the rumored offers to Machado of 7-$210 from Yanks (this weekend) and 7-$225/$250 from the White Sox a while back actually occurred, is this offseason still strike-worthy? Or did expectations simply get too high?
Tim Dierkes
4:53
I think expectations of $300-400MM were reasonable given growth in MLB's revenue and given these players' age/ability relative to other free agents.  However, I don't know that A) the union could convince players to strike with a $4MM average salary and B) whether the players could even come out ahead in doing so, in that unlike '94, the players would be the ones asking for major change from the status quo.  That would both villainize the players more than usual and force them to make concessions.
4:54
Back in 1994, the owners were trying to implement a salary cap where there was one.  It was easier for the players to just say, "Nope, not doing that."  Now it's the owners who can say "Hey, you're making enough money already" and probably have the public on their side.  Not that the public was on the players' side in '94 - in a strike, no one really wins.
Doug
4:54
Would Harper sign today for $326 over 12 years with an opt out after 4? Might not be the AAV he was looking for but beats out Stanton’s deal.
Tim Dierkes
4:55
I think if you bumped it to maybe $336 over 12 he'd sign today.  $28MM per year would be a nice benchmark because it tops the $27.5MM A-Rod and Cespedes got, and to still get the all-time record on top, he'd come out feeling good even though he didn't get the $400MM+ he thought he would.
Bridich Boi
4:56
Over Under 10/300 for Arenado
Tim Dierkes
4:56
Under
CT
4:56
Everyone thought Harper would beat Stanton's deal do you think Trout will in a couple of years
Tim Dierkes
4:56
I think he'll get past 325, but not by as much as I used to think.
AC
4:56
Chances of Gio gonzalez signing with the mets?
Tim Dierkes
4:56
I don't think they will.  How much better is Gio than Jason Vargas anyway?  Little bit
George
4:57
I keep reading that 26 year old superstars are worth the 10 year investment at big $$$ but that is clearly not always true. What might an Andrew McCuthchen have received in FA at age 26 or 27?  How underwater would that contract be now and would have been for almost its entire duration?   There are plenty of star players that decline in their late 20s, maybe they don't fall off a cliff but they become ordinary or above-average and no longer elite.  Teams have figured out the risk reward on long-term contracts, 10 year deals are dead.
Tim Dierkes
4:59
OK, let's say Cutch signed for 10/300 prior to age 26.  We'd have six years in the books, $180MM paid.  He put up 28.9 WAR during that span, with three monster years at the beginning.  If you had paid $6.2MM/WAR for Cutch through 60% of his deal, you'd be thinking right now: Hell yeah!
Would you be excited to pay him $120MM over the next four years?  Of course not.  The idea is you banked some 6-8 win seasons at a bargain and used that to win a WS during that time.
A Guy
5:00
What would you do to try to encourage teams to contend instead of tank?
Tim Dierkes
5:01
I think the MLBPA has the right idea.  Let's start rewarding the worst teams with the best picks.  We can't go and give the WS winner the #1 pick too, but we can certainly shake things up where winning 60-odd games does not guarantee you a top-five pick, especially if you do it multiple years in a row.
Ryan
5:01
How does a one year deal make any sense for Machado? He's coming off his best offensive season statistically and doesn't cost a draft pick because he couldn't be QO'd. If GM's aren't willing to give him what he wants, why would they change their minds a year from now when he is a year older and probably has a QO attached?
Tim Dierkes
5:02
It doesn't.  But I don't think anyone said a one-year deal made sense for him.  I guess the rationale could be that with a different market and different suitors (and no immature on-field behavior in 2019), maybe better offers materialize, but there's no guarantee of that.
A Guy
5:02
Which team are you most disappointed in for not trying to contend?
Tim Dierkes
5:03
The Blue Jays and Rangers come to mind.
Obed
5:03
Why don't the players go on strike now and re-negotiate a new and better CBA?
Tim Dierkes
5:04
A strike is a last resort.  It sounds like the sides are at least exchanging ideas, and that seems like a positive.  Plus, it's just bad faith when you strike 60% of the way into an agreement.  We have three years for them to work on a new CBA that would go into effect after the current one ends.  I think at the least, the players have to accept that the new paradigm of MLB free agency is here to stay until then.
5:05
I always enjoy our time together.  See ya next week!!!
Connecting…