Baseball’s Embattled Middle Class

Every spring, MLBPA chief Tony Clark travels around Florida and Arizona, visiting with all 30 major-league teams. He travels to learn of concerns and ideas from major-league players, and to communicate matters of importance. Clark also makes himself available to beat writers following major-league clubs.

In the spring of 2015, as collective bargaining talks loomed, I was in Bradenton, Florida, covering the Pirates. When Clark arrived at Pirates camp, I asked him if what players once considered a nonstarter, a salary cap — one that would guarantee a 50-50 revenue split — had become more palatable.

I asked him if any player that spring had expressed concern regarding the owners’ share of revenues, which has continued to increase over the last two decades. The trend has gained some attention in recent years at multiple media outlets.

“You’re the first person to ask,” Clark said.

I asked several union reps early that season whether there was interest in guaranteeing a split of revenues, which in 2015 and 2016 would have added tens, if not hundreds, of millions of additional dollars more into players’ bank accounts. But as we saw with the new CBA deal reached earlier this offseason, players and the union ostensibly seem most interested in protecting a player’s maximum earning potential.

Said former Detroit Tigers union rep Alex Avila: “When players hear ‘salary cap,’ to them it sounds like a limit.” Some players to whom I presented the idea of a revenue-sharing cap worried about adding framework that could be detrimental to players should careers begin to lengthen or revenue shares swings back into players’ favor.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

But while the top earners among MLB players continue to do very well and while the average salary is at a record high, baseball’s middle class – in particular its lower middle class – is shrinking.

Beyond changes made to the qualifying offer, the new CBA does little to help the type of veteran free agent that remains unsigned as the opening of spring training draws nearer. The new CBA does little to address players’ lessened share of revenues. It does little to address productive players in their pre-arb years who feel underpaid.

For the purposes of this piece, I defined as “wealthy” those players earning at least three times the average player salary for that year. I considered the “minimum” earners to be compensated within 10% of the league minimum to cover most players with pre-arbitration status. All other players I combined into the “middle class” group, I used USA Today’s salary database of Opening Day payrolls as the research source. Sean Dolinar created these aesthetically pleasing charts.

In 1995, 147 players opened on MLB rosters at or near the league minimum salary. In 2006, the number had increased to 241. Last season? That number jumped to 333.

I also defined a “lower middle” group – those making up to twice the league minimum – which has been particularly encroached upon by the increased number of players being paid league minimum or something close to it.

A number of factors are conspiring against players’ revenue share and the lower-middle class of player.

Since PED testing began in 2004, player age is trending younger. There have been hundreds of fewer seasons from 30-somethings. The average hitter’s and pitcher’s age was 28.8 years in 2006. Last season, the average ages had declined to 28.4 and 28.3, respectively. (In 2001, the average batter age was 29.1 years; the average pitcher age, 28.7.) Teams have also become less interested in paying the veteran, mid-tier player when similar production is available from a pre-arbitration asset.

While there’s a luxury tax included in baseball’s CBA on certain payroll thresholds, there are no mechanisms forcing teams to meet payroll floors. The disparities between MLB revenue growth and players’ salary growth have held relatively steady since the turn of the century.

From 2003 to -16, MLB revenues have grown by 144% while player salaries have grown 84%.

Since 2003, MLB revenues have generally beat player salary growth by percentage year to year:

An embattled, endangered middle class is not unique to baseball. FiveThirtyEight found most Americans are no longer middle class.

While players are not in need of charity or tip jars and while the average salary exceeds $4 million, the application of something like the NBA’ soft cap-and-floor system to baseball, players would significantly increase their earnings.

This is what I found for Trib Total Media in 2015:

Using the NBA’s model, (if MLB) had instituted a salary cap-and-floor system for this season, 19 teams would have opened under the salary floor by a combined total of $413.5 million in payroll.

On March 11, 2016, about a year after I spoke with Clark, David Freese was interviewed in the same area of the McKechnie Field media workroom in Bradenton..

Freese seemed relieved to have found work. He had just signed a one-year, $3 million deal with the Pirates. Weeks earlier, he watched from his St. Louis home in February as full-squad workouts began. He became anxious as MLB Network began to broadcast highlights of exhibition games in early March and he remained unsigned. This was a former World Series MVP. This was a third baseman with a career 115 wRC+ mark. A year earlier, he had posted a 110 wRC+ with the Angels in 121 games. This was a middle-class ballplayer. But he was also the type of player for whom the industry increasingly did not want to pay.

Freese was 32. He was above league average, but not significantly so. He was the type of player, producing the type of numbers, teams would rather compensate near the league minimum. And after a strong first half in 2016, rather than test the open market in an industry that generated nearly $10 billion in revenue last season, Freese elected to sign a modest two-year extension. After the deal was announced, he told the media gathered before his locker, that his experience, his wait, the previous offseason had played a role in his decision. He didn’t want to be sitting at home in March again.

Said Freese to Yahoo! national baseball scribe Tim Brown last spring:

“The game’s definitely getting younger. Me personally, that felt like that this [2015-16] offseason. You sit back and, ‘Wow, this game got young.’ And I get it. I understand, they’re pushing prospects.”

Teams will pay for quality in free agency – there have been 53 $100 million-plus contracts signed since 2007 – but there are a number of free agents still available who are likely beginning to feel what Freese experienced as last winter began to thaw.

Consider FanGraphs’ top-50 free agents of the 2016-17 offseason. The top 19 free agents have all reached agreements this offseason. But note the amount of players ranked between 21-50, let alone those free agents not ranked, who are still looking for work less than a month before camps open.

Top Remaining Free Agents
FA Rank Player Crowd Proj. Projected WAR
20 Matt Wieters 3y/$40.3 1.9
23 Mike Napoli 2y/$20.9 1.0
24 Jason Hammel 3y/$35.6 1.5
27 Greg Holland 1y/ $8.2 0.2
31 Sergio Romo 2y/$13.6 0.1
36 Joe Blanton 2y/$13.1 0.3
39 Brandon Moss 2y/$23.8 0.5
41 Angel Pagan 2y/$16.7 0.5
42 Chase Utley 1y/$9.1 0.7
43 Doug Fister 2y/$19.2 1.2
46 Colby Lewis 1/$7.5 1.1
48 Pedro Alvarez 2y/$10.9 1.0
49 Jonathan Papelbon 1y/$6.0 0.0
50 Erick Aybar 1y/$5.5 0.4

The middle class of ballplayer, the Freeses of the sport, are perhaps becoming endangered.

There’s no mechanism forcing teams to spend. There’s no tax or penalty on low-end payrolls. There’s little reason for the game to halt its trend of becoming younger.

While teams are perhaps operating logically and rationally, is the union? Or is the union too concerned with the upper 10% of its constituency? While many fans care little for squabbles between billionaires and millionaires, these trends could eventually set the stage for a larger labor fight, which could threaten something about which fans care deeply: labor peace.





A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Baltar
9 years ago

I don’t see a problem here. Those unsigned free agents have made millions of dollars; they could make millions more if they sign at little more than the minimum.
I live decently, but not as decently as I’d like, on $1250 a month Social Security plus a few hundred a month I take from my savings after working hard all my life.
Want to trade lives with me, Matt Wieters?

SteveM
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

I hear what you’re saying, but you’re missing the point. If you had the unique and highly marketable skills of, say, a major league baseball player, would you be pleased to see the owners of your potential employers make massive profits based on your performance while only sharing a very small piece of those profits with you? Would the fact that you only likely have about 5-10 years, or 15-20 if you are uniquely blessed and fortunate, to earn a living in the field for which you’ve trained essentially your entire life make you more, or less, understanding of the owners’ greed?

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

I think two points are being conflated.

1. The owners are pocketing more of the revenue.
2. The middle class is disappearing.

And I don’t think they’re all that related. Go back and look at the projected WARs in that table. These guys aren’t unemployed because the owners are cheap and refusing to put a quality product on the field. They’re unemployed because they just aren’t that good. We have a better grasp than ever of the value players provide in all three facets of the game, and with that knowledge comes the realization that you can get 90% of the value at 10% of the price from a kid as opposed to these veterans.

DDMember since 2020
9 years ago

Then perhaps the solution the MLBPA should try is to establish a salary floor, and significantly raise the minimum and pre-arb salary levels to make the value-cost proposition more level between low-mid priced vets and prospects. Something like a qualifying offer-style calculation for post-arb player salaries to set the minimum each coming year?

scooter262
9 years ago
Reply to  DD

It seems like the best solution is to pay the younger, very talented players more. I don’t know any good ways to do this, but maybe the MLBPA can figure it out?

The dollars going to aging, average-ish players will continue to fall, as teams get smarter.

Teams still should have some control over young players, but there needs to be a mechanism to drive more of the players total salary to the arb/pre-arb guys.

Lanidrac
9 years ago
Reply to  DD

Yeah, a salary floor sounds good. I don’t think the pre-arb salaries need to be significantly higher, and with a good floor it wouldn’t be necessary. It would force cheapskates like the Rays and Athletics to both hold on to some of their more expensive arbitration eligible players and sign some of these fringe-type free agents rather than always restocking with cheap prospects, some of whom would benefit from not being rushed to the big leagues before they’re ready.

Then when teams go into a full rebuild, they’ll still need to fill out their roster with some more expensive veterans on one or two year contracts rather than dumping just about any veteran of value and completely tanking with at least a couple of years of 95+ loss seasons before turning things around. They may lose their chance to gain a few extra low-tier prospects but nothing that will significantly slow down the rebuild, and their fan bases won’t have to suffer through some absolutely embarrassing teams in the meantime, while once again prospects won’t be rushed into Major League starting jobs that they’re just not ready to have.

ice_hawk10
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

then they are free to try to negotiate higher salaries. nobody is obliged to pay them however.

Lanidrac
9 years ago
Reply to  ice_hawk10

Um, the entire point of being pre-arbitration eligible those first three years is no, they can’t negotiate their salaries at that point, at least not with any kind of leverage beyond the MLB minimum salary.

Baltar
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

I didn’t miss that point; I just don’t sympathize with it.

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

Now that I know you don’t sympathize, I’ll get Tony Clark on the horn and tell him to stand pat.

Curious Gorge
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

TampaRay,
Are you the same guy that goes wacko when people call the Rays “Tampa Bay”?

tuna411
9 years ago
Reply to  SteveM

And if you had those skills but choose to hold out for an amount you shall not get, whose fault is it?

I do not own a company but I hate watching the ‘gifted’ athlete, who thinks he is entitled to millions upon millions of dollars for playing a game, **leak** their demands in order to drive up their price. greg.holland, I am looking at you!! You haven’t pitched in a season and a half, you are coming back from MAJOR arm surgery and you want to be paid FULL price WITH an opt out? You are a fxxking greedy ass bastard. And people, don’t tell me they have they right to ask because it all begins with the douchbag borasssss.

It used to be the owners screwing the players. Now it is the players screwing the owners…

Curious Gorge
9 years ago
Reply to  tuna411

Quick, somebody get Tuna a couple bags of Xanax…

Cheer up snowflake!

EasyenoughMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

My reading of the piece is that the author is suggesting that if a balance isn’t maintained between player earnings and owner profits (especially when owners’ choose to put an inferior quality product on the field to line their own pockets) will lead to labor instability, which hurts everyone (owners included).

Johnny Dickshot
9 years ago
Reply to  Easyenough

I don’t think there’s any evidence here to suggest (and the author doesn’t suggest it) that the result of the shrinking lower middle class is an inferior product.

For one thing, the phenomenon is simply that the players in the lower-middle class will take less money to compete with younger, cheaper players. That doesn’t mean they’ll play worse. And, of course, more opportunities for younger, cheaper players at the expense of lower-middle class players may result in a better overall product in the end, because more “wealthy” players are produced.

I mean, basically, we’re talking about the effect of teams not paying premiums for the Craig Paquettes, Lenny Harrises, and Neifi Perezes of the baseball world anymore, and instead giving those PAs/innings to minimum-salaried players.

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

I’d rather somebody just posted “First” than have to see a comment like this at the top.

evil kevin towers
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

matt wieters is 30 years old. its not his fault you spent your life not saving for retirement.

Johnny Dickshot
9 years ago

I think the biggest failing from the players’ side in the recent CBA was the failure to secure a raise of the yearly minimum salary, which would not have required a fundamental change to baseball’s overall salary structure (like instituting a salary cap-and-floor system would have).

A raise of the yearly minimum would also have had the effect of mitigating what I believe is the biggest reason for the shrinkage of the middle class, which derives from teams’ analytical realizations that the marginal benefit in performance (if any) from the lower middle class doesn’t justify paying a premium over younger, cheaper players. Sawhick makes this point in a bit of an aside (“Teams have also become less interested in paying the veteran, mid-tier player when similar production is available from a pre-arbitration asset.”), but I think it is the primary driver of the phenomenon presented.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago

You’re getting warm, but the biggest issue is the effective seven years of service time. The overwhelming majority of MLB players will provide their most AAV in Wins during this seven year period. By the time they are free to negotiate their first contracts like a normal US citizen they are viewed as being on the other side of their careers, commonly referred to as “The wrong side of thirty.”

Why is there so much agreement in Internet discussions that MLB players should not have the right to be paid for what they are really worth in any given year? Why is MLB owned and controlled by RepubliCrats who in their time outside of MLB champion the “Free Market”, but who in their MLB time demand Cuban Socialism for themselves?

If Mike Trout was worth $40 million last year then that’s what he should have been paid. Trout won’t even get that much the last year of the contract that he was basically forced to sign as so many other MLB players are. The Pirates clearly committed the felony crime of Extortion against Gregory Polanco,yet there is not one article to be found in the corporate MLB media reflecting this known fact.

MLB players are one of only 750 people on this planet. That is an extreme example of uniqueness, yet their compensation is a fraction of what they are really worth for the first seven years of their career.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

“of the contract that he was basically forced to sign as so many other MLB players are.”

What do you mean by this?

booj11
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

Those rookie contracts are pernicious. Clubs deserve some compensation for the risk of their investment (after all, baseball players are extremely volatile assets), but the market for those young talents would surely support more investment.

But good luck getting a union comprised of largely veterans (and led almost exclusively by veterans) to come to share their free agency cash haul with the younger guys. They’ve have come of age in a system that promised them a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow–it’s foolish to expect them to vote to decrease the length of that rainbow and share the pot more ways. Key negotiators are negotiating based on their own interests and the immediate interests of its current members (who are unlikely to remain members by the end of the contract) at the expense of the union as a whole. This is the agency problem laid bare–economic hazing.

Solution: mandate minor leaguers in the MLBPA or disband it all together. (The idea of people who can hire individual agents needing union representation is a preposterous holdover from a bygone era.)

DDMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  booj11

They wouldn’t be asked to share their free agency haul, we’re talking about shifting more revenue from owners to players, so they can keep their big contracts, and a good chunk of the extra funds would go to pre-arb guys.

booj11
9 years ago
Reply to  DD

Rich people don’t just bend over and take it. That’s how they got rich.

YKnotDisco
9 years ago
Reply to  booj11

booj11: That’s exactly how some became rich! Think of a particular industry…

booj11
9 years ago
Reply to  YKnotDisco

forgive the language, but it’s not the whores that get rich. it’s the pimps.

bjsguess
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

I’m 100% for this – “MLB players should … have the right to be paid for what they are really worth in a given year”.

That would mean non-guaranteed contracts. The ability to boot guys from the team that are injured, performing poorly, etc, etc. You can’t have it both ways – a strong union that protects players from any downside while at the same time forcing the owners to assume all risk.

If it were me, there would be no CBA. There would be no union. Players all start as free agents and negotiate with teams freely until an agreement by both parties is reached. The CBA does nothing but line the pockets of the owners while simultaneously protecting the very best players. Fans and non-elite players are the ones getting screwed (relatively speaking).

Smurrman
9 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

You could keep that thought without having non guaranteed contracts though. Just change it to players should have the right to get paid what they’re worth at the start of their contract. If a player gets injure d or sucks that should be on the team.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  Smurrman

Why should that be on the team?

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

A players contract is guaranteed because an individual owner guaranteed that players contract. Some players are signed to “split contracts” so they can be dropped from the team at the team’s discretion.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

They signed guaranteed contacts for the amount they signed it for. Not for the amount the player was worth that year. You can’t just say they signed guaranteed deals so they’re stuck with them and also say that the players should get paid for what they were worth. It doesn’t work both ways.

Lanidrac
9 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

First of all, it’s only 6 years of control, not 7.

Second, it’s really not a good idea to pay unproven players market value in the hope that you hit on the next Albert Pujols or Mike Trout. That’s why players have minimal leverage during their first 3 years. Even the NFL has finally started to figure out that these huge rookie contracts don’t make sense.

Third, the escalating arbitration system is in place as a compromise between escalating players’ salaries towards market value and allowing the teams that drafted and developed them to still keep them for a reasonable period of time at a decent discount. After all, developing homegrown players (as well as sometimes being able to sign them to hometown discount early contract extensions) is the only way the poorer teams can manage to compete with the rich teams.

Overall, that system in not broken. Rather, it’s providing incentive for teams besides the rich ones to spend more on lesser players, whether it’s a salary floor, significantly raising the low end salaries across the board, raising arbitration salary standards, or some kind of combo.

jianadaren
9 years ago
Reply to  JimmieFoXX

The impact of the 7 years’ service time is mitigated by increases in minor league, pre-arb, and arb pay.

Mike Trout would only be worth $40M because the 7-year rule gives owners excess profits to compete over and makes elite talent artificially scarce on the open market. Basically, if Trout becomes a free agent today, he’ll get $40M per year, but if everybody becomes a free agent today, Trout would get closer to $20M.

So yeah, the 7 year rule is an injustice, but it’s mostly an injustice at the expense of great players who lose their greatness before the 7 years in favour of great players who stay great until after 7 years. It doesn’t favour the owners that much in the end – it just dictates which players get paid.

AngelsLakersFan
9 years ago

What’s disappointing to me is that we have a multi-billion dollar industry, almost entirely exempt from competition in the market place, with an economic model designed to benefit the fewest possible people in the biggest way.

We have maybe a couple dozen players working on mega-contracts paying them over $20m per year. You have 30 owners and their partners making probably twice what the top players make annually, and then you have the thousands of minor leaguers making less than minimum wage.

Teams are not likely to spend significantly more money than they are currently, but how they spend their money could be radically changed.

Miguel Cabrera gets a $300m contract because he’s Miguel Cabrera and the Tigers have $300m laying around with not all that much else to spend it on.

We have a draft system that forces players to negotiate with one team – one team who is not even allowed to spend what they feel a player may be worth. After 6 years in the minor leagues that player might finally reach the major leagues, where he has to play another 6 years before he finally has the right to negotiate with every team – at a point in his career where he has already provided the vast majority of the value he will ever provide to a club.

Limiting access to talent is what drives salaries to such heights for certain players. $8m per war sounds absurd, and it is, but it only is true because teams are making so much money, and there is just so few wins available on the market at any given time.

Lanidrac
9 years ago

Perhaps, but it’s much better than the alternative where the rich teams buy up all the best talent and always win like in the days before farm systems. You have to balance the idea of fair pay with the idea of competitive balance in the game itself. The only way to absolutely accomplish both is to combine a completely open market with a strict salary cap and floor that all teams could reasonably meet, which would just put an even higher percentage of the revenue in the owners’ pockets than they already get now.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

This is a suckers argument. Revenue sharing would cure every point you are espousing.

AngelsLakersFan
9 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

I agree there has to be balance, but balance is not a word I’d use to describe the current system.

It is absolutely possible to change the distribution of money in the sport without upending competitive balance. Revenue sharing between teams solves this, but if the owners aren’t comfortable with that, then a guaranteed revenue split with players and owners can take you the rest of the way.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago

I’m not sure that a plausible rise in the minimum salary would make much difference. Let’s say that the minimum salary roughly doubled or tripled from $535k to $1 million or $1.5 million. Tough to see how that roughly $500k to $1 million difference has much impact on the appetite to sign Napoli at $10 million per year or Papelbon at $6 million per year.

I think the real point is the big drop-off in appetite for certain types of players once they’re not starting caliber.

Part of it’s money, but a lot of it is roster flexibility. For example, we see some players on this list who aren’t really good enough to start but don’t have much positional flexibility on a bench: Napoli, Moss, Utley. Maybe Colby Lewis would be nice to sign as a 6th or 7th starter for rotation depth. But, unlike a young pitcher, Lewis can’t be stashed in AAA until needed. And any of these players take up not just a 25 man roster spot but also a 40 man roster spot that a lot of teams might rather use on a potential long-term asset: either to protect a minor leaguer or to take a player in the Rule 5 draft.

TLDR version: when we get into backup quality players, considerations like positional flexibility, ability (or lack thereof) to send a player to the minors, and taking up a spot on the 25 man and 40 man rosters matter more than an incremental $500k or $1 million of salary. A higher minimum salary would channel more total money to players, but I don’t think it would have much impact on teams’ appetite to sign a player such as Napoli, Papelbon, or Lewis.

John
9 years ago

Belatedly, welcome Travis! And thanks for this piece. I know everyone here has one type of analysis or another that they’re looking for, and this is mine. I like the takes on my team here (since my team only has an SB Nation blog, and it’s only OK), and I really like the podcast (bring back practical analytics), but this is the type of writing I come for.

And as far as I can tell, this is take is part of a group of takes unique to Fangraphs: detailed and extensive analysis of the labor situation, written to be legible to a non-specialist.

TKDCMember since 2016
9 years ago

I think you can look at this from both the team and the player perspective.

From the team perspective, there may be a new consensus that the additional cost of middle-class veterans (those worth less than 1 WAR) is not worth what they cost. Maybe teams have decided that “veteran presence” is not worth $1 million. A quad-A player in his mid-20s can be paid $500,000 and if it isn’t working out, he can be released or demoted, and his salary can be shifted to a new option.

Then there is the player. Something that is not discussed is what some of these players are willing to play for. Freese took $3 million. Would he have taken $1 million? Several of those 19 players listed above have made tens of millions of dollars. They may be unwilling to play for close to the big league minimum, if there is not a reasonable expectation of then getting a larger payday on their next deals.

jfree
9 years ago

There’s no mechanism forcing teams to spend. There’s no tax or penalty on low-end payrolls. There’s little reason for the game to halt its trend of becoming younger.

Golly. It’s almost like Monopoly 101. Whodathunkit?

mike sixelMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  jfree

The NFL has a floor, and it is getting younger. A floor does not fix this, there is almost no middle class in the NFL now. Stars and rookie contract players….

Lanidrac
9 years ago
Reply to  mike sixel

The NFL also has a strict cap that results in many veterans every year getting released and scrambling for new jobs while they’re still good players just because their teams no longer have the cap room for them. It’s like every team is the Rays but they just cut the players rather than trading them for prospects.

An MLB floor without any kind of hard cap wouldn’t have that problem. Besides, players have always aged out of the NFL at a much younger average age in general than they do in MLB due to the contact nature of the sport.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
9 years ago

“middle class” doesn’t mean that

ice_hawk10
9 years ago

if salaries are at all a problem (a dubious assertion in any industry where the minimum wage is more than 10x the average American salary, regardless of what owners make, which i couldn’t care less about), the focus should be less on improving the lot of old players and more on why the young guys only make the minimum. why should the more valuable players get the league minimum (or well below market in arbitration)? those are your most “precarious” workers anyhow. mid-30’s DH’s have already made millions, but i might have a smidge of sympathy for the 24 year old who is one career ending injury away from flipping burgers for the rest of his days (even though i’d still say he’s an idiot if he didn’t invest his draft/international signing money, or do well enough in school to later attend college). give the young guys a bump and the old guys we’re hand-wringing over become relatively more valuable. that or remove a year of control. that would right this “problem” real quick, although no doubt then there’d be whining about competitive balance.

Graves
9 years ago

Great article, I have been thinking about this. Would love to see a minimum salary floor implemented, but not sure how it would work. I also think that players should be allowed to reach Free agency a little sooner. Also pay Minor Leaguers more, this would benefit the players, the owners, and the sport.

JimMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Graves

Yes, indeed: pay minor leaguers more.

bjsguess
9 years ago
Reply to  Graves

How does it benefit the owners? Or even the sport? All of your proposals simply benefit the player. A noble endeavor but completely one-sided.

JimmieFoXX
9 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

Serious question.

What do the owners bring to the table?

We all know what the players bring, what the taxpayers bring and what the fans of MLB bring. I can’t think of any reason whatsoever for the “owners” to exist in the game.

Fireball Fred
9 years ago

The changing nature of pitching is a major driver of this trend. (1) Velocity is stressed, so young pitchers are brought up sooner. (2) Pitching staffs have expanded so most bench position players must be able to play CF/SS – less demand for aging corner guys who provide “a bat off the bench.” I agree that the long wait for free agency (or a big payday) is a problem; it’s less reasonable as the development cycle shrinks.

Kyle Sharamitaro
9 years ago

What I wonder about, and what we cannot know, is of those players listed above that are unemployed, (1) who has turned down MLB contract offers due to valuing themselves above what was given, and (2) what were those offers.

I think that somewhere amidst this discussion is the players and their agents’ evaluation of themselves… We saw it with even some of the premier free agents this year, and until their demands came back to meet the market, even they could not get a job.

I understand these are two different classes of players we are talking about. I would argue that though the dollar amounts are different, the the struggles are not unsimilar.

The David Freese comp is a good one… He chose to (perhaps) give up a chance at max dollars in order to secure a job. I am quite certain that at least SOME of the players listed above, thus far, have chosen to do the opposite.

I’m not for one way versus the other, but, in my opinion, it’s a part of this discussion that warrants attention.

williamnyy
9 years ago

This article continues the growing incorrect narrative that MLB players’ share of revenue is falling significantly, when, in fact, it has been fairly stable since 2004 (see here: http://tinyurl.com/zkdgnsh).

Also, you can’t look at average salary, and salary distribution, without considering the number of MLB players earning a paycheck each season. In 1995, there were 1133. Last year, there 1353. Those extra players are likely at the bottom margin, and likely to skew the average number down. Without determining why there are so many more players each season, it’s hard to draw conclusions based on the data above.

Slacker GeorgeMember since 2016
9 years ago

Great article Travis.

In Craig Edwards article on this site in Aug 2015, he ended with:
“While still more perception than reality at this point, the union is likely to view BAM Tech as an attempt to shield even more revenue from the players, which could present itself as a problem in the next negotiations for the Collective Bargaining Agreement. As revenues have soared, players have received a significantly smaller piece of the pie. The union will not likely care for any arguments that revenue is not as high as they believe it to be when money is still going into the owners’ hands.”

Did your talk with Tony Clark touch on this and if so, can you share?

Link http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlbam-and-the-future-of-mlbs-revenues/

calively
9 years ago

I’m curious to see what the author and others think about the following idea I have in my head. This list of “top remaining FA’s” consists of about 15 players, most of which could certainly still contribute, if only on 1 year, prove it sort of deals. But perhaps certain teams don’t believe they could contribute more, or in the right way, than the 25 players they have chosen for their roster. I believe that the 26 man roster might would help with some of these guys earning contracts. That adds 30 players to the major league level (one per team). While many teams, especially those in rebuilding phases, may choose to add a younger player to their roster, many win now teams, or those straddling the .500 line, may choose to add these players to their roster, since it clearly is not an issue of available money. Maybe it is about marginal value. Maybe so much talent has been infused into the league that these 15 are not considered ‘worthy’ of a roster spot. But they might would benefit from the addition of 30 new roster spots. Thoughts?

Cavarretta
9 years ago

I hate that as a fan my interests are naturally aligned with the owners – I want my team to spend money as efficiently as possible so that they can put lots of good players on the field. I’d rather root for players to be paid what they deserve.

barry6124
9 years ago

I would like to see the splits for all years between 1995-2016. It looks like you could be cherry picking by selecting what appear to be two random data points between ’95-’16. It could be cyclical and the peaks and troughs are getting higher but not to the degree you are showing.

Rainja182
9 years ago

I think this is the next market inefficiency waiting to be tapped. Pay a couple of these guys well below their true market value, then trade them for prospects by the deadline. If you look at it strictly in the fiscal sense, It would basically be a way to ‘buy’ prospects from other teams. Obviously, some teams already do it to a certain extent, but if a team went all-in on this strategy one year, it would be a nice way for a middling team with extra roster space and little to no chance of competing, to net some young prospects of varying degrees of talent.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Rainja182

That’s sort of the point, though: most of these players don’t project to have much value. Only a couple project anywhere close to a league average starting player (2 WAR), and those two have the caveats of being a catcher with really poor pitch framing that’s not in the WAR calculation (Wieters) and being a starting pitcher who was shut down with a late season elbow injury (Hammel).

There’s an opportunity cost beyond money of signing any of these players. Each player takes up a 25 man roster spot – certainly seems like that’s an issue for a player such as Napoli with limited positional versatility, but who doesn’t really project as good enough to start. Each player also takes up a 40 man roster spot, which teams might prefer to use on a long-term asset.

MTfor42Member since 2025
9 years ago

Looks like the middle class players ought to try to pull off an Eric Thames and play overseas

Paul22
9 years ago

If you look at the numbers the wealthy class has dropped proportionately even more than the middle class. The lower class though (those making near the minimum) is booming and the minimum in the next CBA is set to rise negligibly (tied to CPI and not MB revenue growth, are they nuts?).

Its hard for me to understand how players are not concerned about the reduced share of revenue or see that the latest CBA essentially capped salaries (and the last CBA got the ball rolling linking the LT with revenue sharing rebates).

I used to think MLB players were collectively the more intelligent group of professional athletes. However, with NFL players getting 53% of the pie and MLB players only getting 43% (and dropping, rapidly), this may be my mistake. Perhaps this is die to the relative lack of education among MLB players now with the increasing mix of players south of the border who are added to all the players drafted out of HS.

Clark himslef I dont believe even has a college degree although I recall reading he went to night school after college majoring in history, so maybe he does now. But still, most of the MLB union heads were lawyers so he may be the most uneducated rep the players have had .

williamnyy
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul22

The player’s share is not dropping and is about 50%, not 43%. I am not sure why this point keeps getting fabricated. In past analyses on FG, and so I assume this one as well, calculations have been based on gross revenue and have excluded postseason pools and benefits from the compensation side of the equation. That is what leads to the distorted 43% figure and the erroneous conclusions that result.

frugalscottMember since 2025
9 years ago

I can accept the premise that perhaps players should be looking for a larger percentage of revenues. Perhaps. It’s a discussion worth having. I don’t think that using these players as the faces of that discussion is the best approach. Take a look at the careers of these guys. They are all a roll of the dice, at best. Each has had some productive seasons and each has had some very unproductive seasons. It does not seem like good business to bet on aging, inconsistent players. In Wieters’ case, when he has had productive seasons, most of his value has been defensive. Good defensive catchers are becoming much easier (and cheaper) to find. The rest are guys who, at their ages, may put up 2WAR, but they are also capable of netting negative WAR. At least with younger players, there is a perceived upside.

Mike NMN
9 years ago

The CBA really hurts the younger player, by having him play for MLB minimum earlier in his career, capping his earnings through arbitration, giving the teams the ability to play with things like service time, and then using that control, when the teams want it, to sign talent to lower cost extensions. That’s really where the problem is. MLBPA failed when they didn’t meaningfully raise these salaries–in fact, the last CBA was a rollover to the league. But these “middle class” players have a real problem–they don’t offer skills so much better than replacement value that a team isn’t tempted to either go bargain basement or youth and hope to catch lightening in a bottle for a fraction of the price. And there’s one more problem that many of these players have–pride. Jim Thome took a pay cut from $13M to $1.5 M between 2009 and 2010. He wanted to stay in the game. Not everyone can deal with that.

Hats4Bats
9 years ago

The players prioritized work rules over salary in the CBA negotiation. Can’t fault them for that.