01-21-2019, 01:04 PM
This is pretty thought provoking: https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2019/1...ree-agency
The long and short of it is baseball operations people who assess players on performance metrics have concluded the most productive players peak at age 25. This means the current Free Agency rules that mandate a player be on a MLB 25 man roster for six seasons before gaining freedom of movement, are working dramatically against the interests of the players.
If the average MLB player doesn't get to an MLB 25 man roster until he is 20, by definition he will be past his prime - according to statistics - when he achieves free agent status. This means clubs can pay bottom dollar for the best years of a player's performance, and can justify paying less for free agents who have produced at a high level due to "past peak" concerns. What's crazy about this is most players don't get to 25 man rosters until they are 21+, so almost by definition free agents aren't that valuable.
Something has to give, and it seems to me it has two possible outcomes. First is that players get free agency after maybe 4 years instead of after 6. Second, minimum contracts will have to escalate substantially higher, to compensate for the money owners aren't any longer paying out for what used to be the biggest free agent signings because nobody wants to pay top dollar for past performance anymore. Scott Boras needs to re-think his model.
The long and short of it is baseball operations people who assess players on performance metrics have concluded the most productive players peak at age 25. This means the current Free Agency rules that mandate a player be on a MLB 25 man roster for six seasons before gaining freedom of movement, are working dramatically against the interests of the players.
If the average MLB player doesn't get to an MLB 25 man roster until he is 20, by definition he will be past his prime - according to statistics - when he achieves free agent status. This means clubs can pay bottom dollar for the best years of a player's performance, and can justify paying less for free agents who have produced at a high level due to "past peak" concerns. What's crazy about this is most players don't get to 25 man rosters until they are 21+, so almost by definition free agents aren't that valuable.
Something has to give, and it seems to me it has two possible outcomes. First is that players get free agency after maybe 4 years instead of after 6. Second, minimum contracts will have to escalate substantially higher, to compensate for the money owners aren't any longer paying out for what used to be the biggest free agent signings because nobody wants to pay top dollar for past performance anymore. Scott Boras needs to re-think his model.