The Precarious Position of the Pending Free Agent

One day earlier this season, a seasoned big league reliever took stock of his career.
He has spent five years in the majors, handling his share of high-leverage innings and generally performing well. This coming fall, he is set to reach a magic number: six years of major league service, earning him the right of free agency for the first time in his career. He will hit the open market still in his prime, hoping to land a trifecta that he’s so far been denied – the ability to choose his employer, garner a long-term commitment and earn a salary determined by open competition for his services.
He’s not looking forward to it.
“You talk to some of your buddies that are in it and it’s a miserable experience,” the reliever told me recently, “because you don’t know where you’re going to go, no team wants to give you the value you think you’re worth, and you’re like, ‘Am I going to have a job? Where am I going to go? What am I going to do?’”
He is hardly alone. This spring, I’ve spoken to a number of players who are set to reach six years of service by the end of the 2024 season. They range from some of the best players at their positions to journeymen just hanging on, and all were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about approaching such a consequential milestone. For many, it will have taken a decade or more – of minor league seasons, of call-ups and send-downs and other detours – to finally have the ability to exert some control over their careers.
And they have mixed feelings about it.
They watched this past winter as standout players like Cody Bellinger, Blake Snell and others were forced to settle for pillow contracts rather than long-term guarantees. Juan Soto will make his bag this offseason, but after seeing the open market shun a two-time Cy Young winner and a former MVP, players on the verge of free agency can’t help but wonder how rudely it might treat them. Some are well over 30 years old, meaning they’ll reach free agency at ages for which teams are typically loath to pay. They’re hoping for the best, but several say free agency seems something less than it’s cracked up to be.
“Free agency this year was really strange,” said one hitter. “Super strange.”
“For the first time in a while,” said another, “it’s just not as clear what free agency can present to a player.”
“You feel like you’ve reached this part of your career where it’s a thing to celebrate,” said a pitcher, “and then you start to wonder, ‘Well, what am I going to be celebrating? What is this going to look like?’”
To reach this point requires mettle. Players have weathered meager minor league salaries, sudden employer changes and punishing arbitration hearings. Most players never get this far, but the ones who do are told they’ll be rewarded for completing the journey. The closer you get, though, the more a question begins to nag.
What if the promised land sucks?
…
When you’re a rookie, none of this seems real. The glow of the big leagues is intoxicating, and it’s easy to get drunk on the promise of a long and storied major league career. A rookie’s mind is either too overwhelmed to consider a possible business decision six years down the road, or too naïve to treat it as anything other than a fait accompli. You assume you’ll get there because nothing has yet told you it might not happen.
Or, more accurately, that it probably won’t.
“To bank on anything for six years,” said a pitcher, “is crazy.”
By the time players reach five years, they’ve inevitably learned this lesson. Almost all have struggled and been sent down. Some have been taken on and off the 40-man roster. Several have been waived or traded and had to start over, proving themselves to a new team. All the while, they’ve watched as a brutal process of attrition filtered out many of their teammates.
“It’s a long time to get to that free market,” said one player. “A high percentage of guys don’t make it past a year, and most guys don’t make it past three years.”
No one knows this better than a major league reliever. The ones I spoke to for this story all underscored just how fungible their position is. “If you’re down for a couple months, it’s just, ‘All right, see ya.’ We’re expendable,” said a middle reliever. Sometimes, said another, that means pitching “on a night you might be a little banged up” because the other choice may be pitching for nobody. “There’s really no room for error,” said a third. “You have to bring it every day.”
Though starting pitchers and everyday players enjoy a greater measure of certainty, laboring without a guarantee of future employment is kind of the gig. Reaching arbitration after three years provides a welcome bump in pay – “You always hear the saying, ‘Take it to ‘traish,’” said one reliever – but the process can be brutal. An arbitration hearing can amount to an hours-long critique of a player’s value, often in disagreement over just a few hundred thousand dollars. And even though it represents a player’s first real chance to advocate for his own value, much remains out of his control.
Performance in a player’s last pre-arb year carries outsized evaluative weight, locking them into a rough pay scale no matter how much they improve in future years. “I would have liked to have a better platform year,” said one hitter. At least you can control your platform year; there’s little influence to exert over others at your position in your service class. “If you get a guy who takes a bad deal from a team because he doesn’t have a good agent, or he doesn’t have any leverage and he just feels like he needs to take whatever deal gets offered,” said a pitcher, “the whole market gets reset.”
Still, that bad deal is at least guaranteed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Going to a hearing can be a matter of principle for players, but as many learned this spring, it exposes them to more risk. Some were alarmed that the Giants could cut an established player like J.D. Davis and pay him just a fraction of the salary he’d just won in a hearing; while negotiated one-year contracts for arbitration eligible players are fully guaranteed under the most recent CBA, that provision does not guarantee contracts reached through a hearing. There are no guarantees, it shows, until they’re written into your contract.
“At any time, the team can be done and decide to non-tender you,” a hitter said. “It still feels like you’re playing every year for your job the following year. It’s an incredible amount of stress. Nobody’s sitting here asking people to feel bad for us. But it makes it hard to let the best version of yourself show up every day when you’re constantly feeling like you’re playing for job security.”
No wonder the game has seen a run of young players agreeing to early-career extensions that are both lucrative and team-friendly. They land life-changing money and no longer have to trek the long and narrowing path to free agency. Though the players union stresses the importance of setting a player’s value on the open market, few who have had to grind just to reach five years begrudge anyone who took an early payday.
“Before approaching this personally, guys turning down big numbers, I flinched at it,” said one hitter. “I always understood the narrative that as a union, as an association, we have to move the needle for the wave of players after us. I get that. But it was hard for me to see early in my career because I felt like so much needed to happen between now and then.”
These players are much closer now, but a lot still could happen to derail them. If they struggle, they could be designated for assignment and released or outrighted to the minors before crossing the six-year threshold. If their team falls out of the playoff picture, a trade becomes more likely, uprooting players and their families in the middle of the year. An injury – an ever-present risk, especially for pitchers – would guarantee them service time but tank their value at the worst possible moment.
Then, even if they survive that final gauntlet to reach the open market, they may get their asses kicked. Players feel strongly that it shouldn’t be that way – “It’s hard to get there, and if you do, you should get paid for it,” one pitcher said – but they’re also pragmatists who know better than to stand on stubborn principle. If the open market isn’t going to treat you well, because you’re too old or because your position is too expendable or because teams just don’t want to spend money that particular winter, then maybe a team-friendly extension in the hand is worth more than a lucrative deal in the free-agent bush.
“It would be silly and a little bit irresponsible,” said one hitter, “to not take that into account.”
…
This isn’t to say free agency has lost all its luster, of course. “Agency” is the key part of the term. Not all free agents will get paid, at least not as much as they’d hope, but all of them will get to choose.
For so long, players don’t have that luxury. In what other profession can someone go a decade or more without having any choice about where to work? The current system has been codified in the CBA for decades – and was even more restrictive before the players organized – so it may be easy to take its effects for granted. But not when you’re on the precipice of finally being able to make decisions about your own career.
“It’s crazy. I’ve had zero say where I’ve been for 14 years,” said one pitcher. “To have the opportunity is probably what players look forward to the most.”
They’d like to get paid, too, either in free agency or earlier in their careers. To that end, the players offer varying solutions, some more attainable than others.
Everyone would like a shorter runway to free agency – “Maybe two years of league minimum and two years of arb,” said one hitter – although the players as a whole might not like the concessions the owners would demand to secure such an overhaul. Those who have been closer to the bargaining process know that. “Everybody would love to get to free agency sooner,” said a hitter who says he keeps up with the union’s efforts. “Is it realistic? I don’t know.”
The latest CBA did do more to funnel money to pre-arbitration players, raising the minimum salary and establishing a bonus pool to be distributed among top performers. One pitcher noted most of the players receiving that money are the uber-talents who are already likely to be offered lucrative extensions or land large free-agent deals, but others pushed back on such criticism. “More can always be done,” a hitter said. “But I do think the system is pretty good.” Another wouldn’t change a thing, despite having been released at one point in his arbitration years. Reaching six years is supposed to be hard. “The system in place, it’s been there for a while and a lot of guys have gone through it,” he said. “Like everything in the game, you’ve got to earn it.”
One solution that generated discussion amidst the sluggish spring was the idea of a signing deadline. The union has never advocated for such a measure publicly, and Scott Boras, the game’s most powerful player agent, has lambasted it as a giveaway to ownership; it’s perhaps telling that commissioner Rob Manfred was the one to float the idea. Still, with players having watched their colleagues hang on the open market deep into March, their curiosity about the benefits of a deadline hasn’t evaporated.
“That’s the thing I’ve been hearing mostly,” a pitcher said, “and it seems like there’s maybe some traction there.”
Even if a deadline wouldn’t be sound policy – teams can choose to not spend rather than embroil themselves in a bidding war, but free agents can’t realistically take their talents to another professional league – its lingering popularity demonstrates how much the specter of this past winter clouds the minds of players approaching free agency for the first time. They want the right of free agency, but they want it to be worth it. They don’t want to sit at home for months wondering where they’ll play, only to settle for a short-term deal that lands them in the exact same predicament a year later. No one wants to join the Boras Four.
Still, as poorly as those free agent forays went, those players still got to choose their employer. That’s what players covet as much as anything. “You used to hear this all the time as a player, that the goal was free agency,” said one pitcher. He offers an amendment to that, though: “Six years is the goal, but six years while still having more than one team interested in you is the goal.”
That pitcher is a reliever, one who knows that even at his best, he’s likely to live the rest of his career off one-year deals. But if a player is good and lucky and happens to time the market just right, it’s possible to fully grasp that brass ring. Not every free agent cashes in, but some do.
“I imagine if you’re coming off finishing six and having a good year,” said one hitter, “it’d be pretty fuckin’ cool.”
Zach Buchanan has covered baseball for more than a decade. He has been a beat writer covering the Diamondbacks and Reds, and more recently covered prospects for The Athletic. He lives in Arizona.
excellent read, thank you!
I agree. This is super-solid reporting, with excellent analysis threaded into it throughout.
Oh yah, been saying for years that FA is shot NFL style for players. MLB has made up aloooooot of rules to make itself basically the NFL but baseball: outside of the occasional uppity whale the league can sic its brainwashed fans and state media on, players allowed to reach FA are generally not wanted due (Aging, injury, or to knock down salary etc). We saw the signs way back when MiLB and split contracts started becoming more common in the middle of the 2010s and obviously the already forgotten pandemic only made things worse
If these idiots think a new rule with a deadline will help…When will people learn that states and their made up rules and made up money are not for them? It’s so insane how dumb and under the thumb we are, easily leveraged and bought out seeking their solutions to our problems lol
go off queen
A signing deadline is unlikely to be implemented, and even if it was, MLB players are still quite a bit better off than NFL players with their guaranteed contracts and lack of a hard salary cap (which in the NFL causes many good players to be released each season just to save cap space).
I agree. The MLBPA will be best served by dropping its so-called “negotiations” and “leaders” — quislings and traitors to human freedom! — and instead adopting a purely anarchist platform, denouncing The Man, rules, and bedtime.
We’d all be best served by a lot of that, brother, even the most bought in among the legions of suckers
Ngl it’s been almost a decade since the flood but I’m still surprised at how old and conservative most of the internet is now. Surprised because you almost have to literally gouge your eyes, cut your tongue, and blow out the ear dreams to miss how dumb on purpose so-ciety and it’s play pretend baby dollhouse economics is
Every few years we get people freaking out about veterans not getting contracts of the expected size, but that’s probably more of the “new normal” than Avisail Garcia and Mitch Haniger getting $45M contracts. There were writers here (who I don’t especially miss, the pieces on this were not nearly as good as the one I’m commenting on right now which is excellent reporting) who wrote about how shocking it was that guys projected for 1.5 fWAR weren’t getting contracts with AAVs of $14M a year.
I wonder when everyone is going to collectively realize that free agent contracts are largely driven by idiosyncratic factors relating to ownership wanting to spend more in a given winter. This is a feature and not a bug of the players’ approach to collective bargaining and free agency. They have rejected a floor and cap because they believe, correctly, that owners aren’t restrained enough to keep salaries down without explicit collusion. So every few years we go through a cycle where the Jim Cranes or Jerry Reinsdorfs seem to be really into the idea of mid-level free agents, and those guys get paid for a few years. And then it settles down again, like it did this winter, where no one wanted to pay Amed Rosario coming off a bad year. The same thing happens (to a lesser extent) at the top of the free agent market, where some teams simply don’t have an appetite to hand out $300M contracts in a winter, where they might in other years.
Now, I think that turning a year or two of pre-arbitration into arbitration (or raising the minimum salary further) is a worthy goal and is probably more important than messing around with free agency directly. I’m not sure what the players would have to give in this scenario–I would think an international draft would not be sufficient, and as the article notes whatever it is may be too much for the players to give away. One way to make free agents more attractive is to raise the cost of the alternative (players under team control), although it would also dump more free agents onto the free agent market as non-tenders become more common. But even then, I kind of think that’s not a bad thing? That players get more choice earlier in their careers?
Arbitration and/or free agency should have an age component. So 6 years of major league service time or age 28 (or whatever) and you become a free agent
Adding an age component like that isn’t fair for the teams who discover a post-breakout player at 25 or older.
I think the only thing that would convince the owners to give up any years of control is a cap. It might even take that to trade minimum salary years for arb years. The owners have it pretty good in general and don’t really want a lot more other than a cap. Otherwise, they are probably happy to argue over just what the minimum salary will be and finding creative ways to pretend they are disincentivizing things that fans don’t like (service time manipulation, “tanking”) without actually changing their behavior on those fronts.
But they HAVE changed their behavior on service time manipulation with the new disincentives for it.
In general, I agree with your post.
To be fair there aren’t disincentives here, there are incentives for teams to promote guys in hopes they have 1 of the top rookies and gain a draft pick. The players gained the benefit of accruing a full service year (if they hadn’t done so) but only for the top few of them.
The rising minimum and the bonus pool for pre-arb players have been the most significant changes for most players – a big win for the PA. But that may indirectly contribute to the financial replaceability of lower level free agents – the category mostly discussed in the article. The oddity of the bonus pool structure is that it’s the 1st instance of player compensation costs being amortized across the teams rather than being borne by the employer team only. Creeping socialism – for the owners!
Over the last few years, I’ve been thinking that the best simple fix that wouldn’t create a new exploitable problems for the players would be to have much higher minimum salaries. Something like $2.5 million a year for players on active rosters and $500k for players on the 40.
On its own, it would create a de facto salary floor. It would get more money to players earlier in their careers, which would give them more leverage when considering extensions and FA. And it would reduce the opportunity cost of signing a mid-tier free agent, so you won’t have as many veterans wash out of the game before their ability falls below replacement.
You’d also take some of the sting out of pitchers being relegated to relievers, so players might be more open to experimenting with various roles.
I would expect some of the increased payroll to come at the expense of the top tier stars, but there would still be billionaires’ egos and their unwillingness to lose auctions to minimize that effect.
And I think the players could get that change (or maybe at 75% of those numbers) without agreeing to a hard salary cap. Agreeing to an international draft and giving back super-2 arb (which wouldn’t be as necessary if pre-arb pay was 3x current levels) might suffice.
Agree with this. Minimum salary (along with a basket of other benefits that accrue to every or almost every player, like pension and health care) is by far the most important thing for the majority of players. MLBPA has historically been caught in a fairly classic labor-aristocracy problem where it negotiates much harder for the top earners than it does for the larger majority of players; they’ve made a massive correction in the last decade, but there’s still further to go.
I agree. The players have done better on this front recently but a minimum salary of, say, $1.5M would really change the game for players in a number of different ways.
Players and agents should try and adjust their free agency to the year a new CBA is signed. The money flows.
This explanation doesn’t hold up because almost every team was signing these deals.
Marlins w/ Soler and Garcia, Giants w/ Soler, Phillies w/ Walker/Castellanos/Schwarber, Royals w/ Lugo, DBacks w/ Gurriel, and a bunch of other teams and guys.
What’s more the shift in FA spending wasn’t limited to these mid-tier guys. Matt Chapman’s one or two tiers above this and also got a contract wildly outside of what comparable players have been getting. Also depth pieces were getting way better deals earlier vs later. Every team was handing out bigger contracts early in the offseason (and in recent offseasons) vs later.
I’ve said this before, but I think the answer’s that big spenders like Padres/Phillies/Dodgers/Mets/Rangers/etc were behind the increasing contract sizes and once they got too far into lux tax problems the market crashed.
Most of these teams have been competitive for several years at this point and have aging cores/big payroll commitments and the newer competitors like Orioles/Tigers/Reds haven’t been picking up the slack w/ FA aggressiveness. This might partially be b/c of Orioles were sold mid-offseason but it’s still a concern that the market could be depressed for a few years while the big spenders unload their current contracts.
A lot of that has to do with how much teams are willing to spend on pretty good but not great players. They’ll sign the 1-2.5 WAR guys at 10-15 AAV across 1-3 years no problem, because even if those players decline or get hurt they’re not going to greatly affect the team’s bottom line.
It’s those 3-4 WAR guys who were 5+ WAR guys a while ago, the guys who yo-yo between 2-5 WAR depending on their health and where the ball lands after they throw or hit it, etc., that end up getting less than what they think they’re owed. The Boras Four this past offseason are pretty good players, but they have some flaws and inconsistencies that keep them from getting megadeals. Bellinger’s sketchy health and middling EVs; Chapman’s declining defense, power, and high K%; Snell’s wildness and inability to go deep into games from year-to-year; Montgomery was just your run-of-the-mill #4 starter not too long before his recent breakout.
Couple this with how many teams had already spent in the feeding frenzy of the past 2 offseasons before then, and the combination of low demand and limited supply has depressed free agency to the point where it wasn’t until spring training was basically almost over before the reigning NL Cy Young winner accepted a pillow deal.
As much as these guys want to get to free agency sooner, it would be bad for them overall. There already is a revenue issue in MLB. This would exacerbate things. You could end up with a lot of haves and have nots which is bad overall for the growth of the game. You need to have most all teams viable vs just a handful.
I like the idea of performance pay for younger players or other ways to re-distribute the pie more evenly. It’s a bit of a puzzle to me that the players association doesn’t seem to, but without a floor or cap it would seem to exacerbate competitive disparities.
Imagine Baltimore having to pay this young core what they are producing. Maybe Baltimore would, but Cleveland wouldn’t, so all those guys get traded or non-tendered to the Yankees and Dodgers.
I think that in that case, the teams could just not spend the money and they’d be in the same place as before?
No, they’d be in a much worse place, because they wouldn’t even get to keep their young stars for those first 6 years at discounted salaries.
The whole reason why it takes 6+ years before free agency is a necessary evil for competitive balance, so the smaller markets are able to keep the players they draft and develop through a decent chunk of their prime years.
That is certainly not the *reason* why, historically, but it is true that the Guardians and Brewers would have to think up some new approaches to how they do things. Or you would have to come up with a new revenue sharing model to make up for it. I don’t really see “underpay players early in their careers” as being the best approach to competitive balance.
I’d think it has more to do with creating an incentive to develop young players. In European soccer that incentive is the ability to “sell” young players.
I see it as zero sum in money plus leverage.
Established productive players would hit free agency closer to their peak and have more leverage but they’d also have a wider range of outcomes and more uncertainty. The one thing that would happen is a higher utility for early extensions, which would favor classical type prospects.
Now for relievers and batters with a nonstandard skillset it’s difficult. And there’s way more of those. It would be more difficult to build a profile and to have a late breakout. On the other hand there could be more opportunities and more trust in AAAA type players. Though I can’t take it as far as to argue ~everyone’s in DFA hell so no one’s in DFA hell~.
From the teams side I think there would be slightly more parity because there’s more room for gains from early extensions and good prospect evaluation.
Those gains would be more than lost with the years of control the smaller markets would collectively lose on all their players who don’t sign early career extensions.
Depends on how much of a bargain arbitration years are and how much they are worth in prospects. 10 years ago I would have agreed right away, today it’s less certain.
[deleted]
I reject the characterization of “forced”.
They absolutely could have gotten long term guarantees, they just wanted more than the market was willing to pay.
Right, barring collusion they weren’t forced to do anything. Snell reportedly turned down 6/$150M from the Yankees thinking there was a better deal out there. He gambled and it didn’t pay off. Sucks for him but that’s life; most of us don’t have a $62M contract to fall back on after we make a bad bet.
I’m starting to think that he wasn’t super excited about playing for the Yankees. He made some comments after he signed with the Giants about how he was so happy to stay on the West Coast, enough that I think if any west coast team had offered him that deal he would have taken it.
This also doesn’t mean he was “forced” into anything, just that he’s a real human being who likes living on the west coast and already is a millionaire so he would take less money to live where he wants.
Yep, and teams smartly waited for the free agents to walk back on their demands. This isn’t 2019 when you had Bryce Harper and Manny Machado both hitting free agency at age 26 after some great seasons. This isn’t the 2021-22 offseasons when the market was flooded with good to great players across the board and every team who had a tiny amount of money to spend got after it. The best players this time around all had rather inconsistent track records of health, performance, or both. Hell, even Ohtani’s not 100% ready to go back to his 2-way job yet, and he’s going to be the highest paid retiree in the sport come 2033. The monster contract isn’t going away, because there will be unicorn players and teams wanting to make a big splash. Juan Soto, will get his 10+/400M+ deal in 2025, Ha Seong Kim will reject his player option, hit the market, and possibly get his 5/120 or so, etc.
This is such great work and so revealing – and it’s bittersweet knowing that Zach’s new job will mostly take him away from the baseball beat. Thanks so much for all the great work, man! Hope Voice Media Group treats you right!
Near as I can tell, the only folks who would see a benefit from a signing deadline are the pundits who despair of writing topics in the offseason. I guess I can see a small argument from ownership vis-a-vis the financial incentive to keep baseball in the headlines, but I would hope the MLBPA would get something useful for giving up such a silly point.
I’m curious how players approached the choice side of free agency. Did they spend more of road trips investigating clubhouses and organizations, or exploring cities?
Also, MLB players play under a lot of pressure and scrutiny already. And they’re super competitive. To what extent does upcoming free agency add to the pressure?
“Am I going to play in New York or Chicago? Will I make $x million or $y million…”
—What’s the tier above first-world problems?
“In what other profession can someone go a decade or more without having any choice about where to work?”
Physicians and military members, to name a few.
That line really rankled!
Management consultants have had to travel 70%+ of the time to client locations no matter where they are “based”.
Virtually any clerical profession (minister, priest, rabbi, imam…). You usually go where someone is needed.
*looks at real-time sin heat map*
Well there seems to be a lot of sinning in New Jersey today…off I go!
What a nightmare! I don’t know how I will sleep at night worrying about these guys making tens of millions of dollars playing a game for a living!
Sorry to hear of your sleep problems, but if the choice is tens of millions of dollars going to those who play the game or going to those who, well, I don’t know what billionare owners of multi-billion dollar assets do, study their bank balances?, but whatever it is it isn’t play the game, I’ll go with those who play the game every time.
I agree, this person’s complaints about superstar player salaries are misplaced, the owners are a much more salient example of this wealth distribution problem. That being said, I think it would be better if the league could have less of a pay disparity between the best and worst players (including the minor leagues, frankly). This would also probably lower the the salaries of the richest players at the same time, so maybe that commenter’s sleep would improve a bit too.
It’s pure jealousy, just unadulterated envy, plain and simple. “Those guys get paid to play a game! I get paid $13.42 an hour to stamp sheet metal! Life worked out waaaay better for one of us…”
For many, it will have taken a decade or more – of minor league seasons, of call-ups and send-downs and other detours – to finally have the ability to exert some control over their careers.
That is part of the cost of MLB’s anti-trust exemption. MLB gets to decide what players have to give up in order to eventually be admitted into the monopoly beneficiary’s tent. And that’s a better deal than muni taxpayers or sports fans ever get.
If owners could ever figure out how to generate more revenue by having spectators watch owners own rather than watch players play, then MLB would cease recognizing the players union.
Don’t know what it would all look like without the anti-trust exemption – but Oakland would certainly have a hometown baseball team beyond next year.
Without anti-trust exemption the A’s would have moved to San Jose. You’d have lower revenue teams selling themselves to the highest paying municipality. NFL controls all media revenues at the league level so the franchises basically improve their values by extracting free real estate from the highest bidder.
The sport would look more like soccer in UK or Germany (with a real governing body for the sport) – or like the NIBL/BAA/NBL/ABL leagues before the NBA of old (with no governing body for the sport).
Few/no threats of relocation and extortion for stadiums because there are many many teams (hence many more playing opportunities too). Every town draws a population, has local sponsors/owners, local rivalries. Hence local teams don’t think of moving. They think of promotion or relegation – which is what affects the media contracts and the championships/schedule. Player contracts also tend to be transferable.
Just a completely different world.
The MLB minimum should be at least $2MM.
So salary floor of $56 million or something. $4 million would make it over $100 million. Then the 2024 Padres would have about $120 million to spend on discretionary players rather than the $170 million or whatever now. That doesn’t seem bad. They’d have 2 $30m guys and 6 $10m guys or something. A 4 year path to FA would give players agency earlier. A smaller gap between minimum and mid level FA could mean more demand for the top 30% of role players
This was an incredibly cool piece – thank you!
Please, this isn’t how markets work unless there’s collusion. Stop pushing this idea, it isn’t true.
This is a fantastic article – great look behind the scenes and some real honest takes from players. This is the kind of journalism that makes me happy to be a sustaining member of Fangraphs. Really nice, work, Zach.
Its weird because its not a free market right now. So much blatant collusion going on. Collusion is all everyone talks about inside mlb and agencies right now. Throughout MLB history collusion has been proven every 20 years or so. Its been about 30 so its coming soon.
Job hunting is hard for everyone. And, I am not anti-Boras, but don’t you have to factor him into all of this? Drew, Morales, Loshe, Bellinger, Snell, Montgomery, Chapman – I am sure there other guys who signed late, but these are all Boras’ guys. Great rewards sometimes come with great risk. If you want a “generational contract” or want to “re-set the market” for your position, that’s fine with me. Rumors are most if not all these guys turned down offers they did not like – only to settle for less. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
Harper and Machado signed late for big bucks. It sometimes works.