STLtoday.com

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:04 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

I'm not proposing such. I'm just using the best available information to put the inequity in the current system into context. I think the owners should be proposing a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.? That does not solve everything but would make the situation considerably more "just."

However you want to measure it, fWAR or otherwise, are we really defending Arenado making ~$30 million for what he did for the Cardinals last year vs. Burleson making the ML minimum?

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:04 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

I'm not proposing such. I'm just using the best available information to put the inequity in the current system into context. I think the owners should be proposing a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.? That does not solve everything but would make the situation considerably more "just."

However you want to measure it, fWAR or otherwise, are we really defending Arenado making ~$30 million for what he did for the Cardinals last year vs. Burleson making the ML minimum?

Is it 'just' for Edman and Arenado to be making the money their making in 2026?

bibletec wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 12:19 pm These are good discussions and I’m sure this is being discussed everywhere. I know the players union wouldn’t go for a fair and balanced system. Unions, in their basic premise, are good but they exploit those premises. That isn’t just the baseball union, that is most unions. The right thing to do is pay a person what they’re worth. If a younger player is a 2.5 war pay him what that is worth. If a veteran player was once an 8 war player but he is now a 2.5 war player he gets paid what he is worth. Then comes the intangible bonus system. These are entertainers.They bring people to the game which means revenue to the owners. How much is each entertainer worth? That is where the bonus would come in and each market may be different. Having the actual base pay the same based on war, or whatever measure would be best, could create a fairer way to pay players based on performance. Just a thought.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:52 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:27 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:44 am It's easy to demonstrate that, if the economic system of baseball were "just" based on actual production, Alec Burleson should have probably already make $12+ million (a prorated ML minimum for 2022, 2023; about $3.5 million for 2024; and about $9 million for 2025) for his ML career. Under the existing system he's actually made just over $2 million ($3 million of you count his original $700K signing bonus when drafted). So his account might be considered about $10 million "in arrears" right now.

And that "in arrears" isn't related to "the owners should just pay more money to the players." It's based on that, for example, $5.28 billion went to pay player salaries in 2025, Burleson (2.1 fWAR) produced about 1/500th of the total "value" in MLB in 2025, so $5.28 billion/500 = ~$10 million (a more detailed calc gets to ~$9 million). So, even given just the size of the "pie" as it is, Burleson has been far short of getting his slice of the "pie".

He will make $3.3 million for 2026, but he if has another season consistent with 2025, he'll actually fall about another $6 million "in arrears."

In short, under the current system - even if Burleson remains healthy and productive as he was in 2025 - he'll never make up for what he already is "in arrears" in ARB-1, ARB-2, or ARB-3. Under the current system, Burleson's only hope of making up what he will be "in arrears" by the time he's through his first six years is to:

(1) remain consistently healthy
(2) remain consistently productive and
(3) then convince some team to give him a contract in FA which, in addition to paying him for what he does going forward, makes up for what he is "in arrears" from his first six seasons.

This systematic situation affects the vast majority of players as they work through their ML career, and for a sizeable fraction of them likely never gets balanced out in the long run if they never get that FA contract that balances the books.

This is where the owners need to come to the table with a proposal that does much, much better for this vast majority of players early in their careers - there needs to be a transformation to the system that puts these "Alec Burlesons" less "in arrears" from the beginning. If the owners want enough players (51%?), enough "Alec Burlesons," to support a new CBA that gives the owners what they may want (salary caps, salary floors, etc.) to improve competitiveness in MLB, winning over enough players to that CBA, IMO, has to be based on addressing this situation for players in their early careers.

You realize you are talking about an average to average plus player making millions. And the owners should do better?

As I already stated, you can easily calculate the "value" what Burleson has already done, whether you call him an "average" player or what. It's just simple math.

And, again, it's not about "the owners should just pay more money to the players." It's about the current system inherently directing a lot of money to the wrong players.

TheFantasyStud wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:15 am If you really wanted correct pay for play.
You’d pool a % of revenue from all 30 teams. Say 60% of Gate, TV and Merch. Put it all in a big pool. Divide it up by total WAR $ value dividend by total players. Pay each player based on what they produced each week. Have a minimum per player like $1,000,000 per year sot hat they have stability and a base. Might be harder for them to qualify for a mortgage on a mansion, lol but they should still be able to by a decent casita.
All teams would be able to fight for talent based on playing time and not ludicrous contracts. Players could opt to switch to a different team every so many years. Maybe at 8 years and then every 2 years thereafter. Teams could only keep roster 40 mlb contracts. Might see more franchise players but you’d also allow players to be more likely to end up with a team that they prefer.

Not saying I’d vote for a system like that but it would be away to pay for what is produced and take away all of the disparity between markets.

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:58 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:44 am It's easy to demonstrate that, if the economic system of baseball were "just" based on actual production, Alec Burleson should have probably already make $12+ million (a prorated ML minimum for 2022, 2023; about $3.5 million for 2024; and about $9 million for 2025) for his ML career. Under the existing system he's actually made just over $2 million ($3 million of you count his original $700K signing bonus when drafted). So his account might be considered about $10 million "in arrears" right now.

And that "in arrears" isn't related to "the owners should just pay more money to the players." It's based on that, for example, $5.28 billion went to pay player salaries in 2025, Burleson (2.1 fWAR) produced about 1/500th of the total "value" in MLB in 2025, so $5.28 billion/500 = ~$10 million (a more detailed calc gets to ~$9 million). So, even given just the size of the "pie" as it is, Burleson has been far short of getting his slice of the "pie".

He will make $3.3 million for 2026, but he if has another season consistent with 2025, he'll actually fall about another $6 million "in arrears."

In short, under the current system - even if Burleson remains healthy and productive as he was in 2025 - he'll never make up for what he already is "in arrears" in ARB-1, ARB-2, or ARB-3. Under the current system, Burleson's only hope of making up what he will be "in arrears" by the time he's through his first six years is to:

(1) remain consistently healthy
(2) remain consistently productive and
(3) then convince some team to give him a contract in FA which, in addition to paying him for what he does going forward, makes up for what he is "in arrears" from his first six seasons.

This systematic situation affects the vast majority of players as they work through their ML career, and for a sizeable fraction of them likely never gets balanced out in the long run if they never get that FA contract that balances the books.

This is where the owners need to come to the table with a proposal that does much, much better for this vast majority of players early in their careers - there needs to be a transformation to the system that puts these "Alec Burlesons" less "in arrears" from the beginning. If the owners want enough players (51%?), enough "Alec Burlesons," to support a new CBA that gives the owners what they may want (salary caps, salary floors, etc.) to improve competitiveness in MLB, winning over enough players to that CBA, IMO, has to be based on addressing this situation for players in their early careers.

ridiculous

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:58 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:44 am It's easy to demonstrate that, if the economic system of baseball were "just" based on actual production, Alec Burleson should have probably already make $12+ million (a prorated ML minimum for 2022, 2023; about $3.5 million for 2024; and about $9 million for 2025) for his ML career. Under the existing system he's actually made just over $2 million ($3 million of you count his original $700K signing bonus when drafted). So his account might be considered about $10 million "in arrears" right now.

And that "in arrears" isn't related to "the owners should just pay more money to the players." It's based on that, for example, $5.28 billion went to pay player salaries in 2025, Burleson (2.1 fWAR) produced about 1/500th of the total "value" in MLB in 2025, so $5.28 billion/500 = ~$10 million (a more detailed calc gets to ~$9 million). So, even given just the size of the "pie" as it is, Burleson has been far short of getting his slice of the "pie".

He will make $3.3 million for 2026, but he if has another season consistent with 2025, he'll actually fall about another $6 million "in arrears."

In short, under the current system - even if Burleson remains healthy and productive as he was in 2025 - he'll never make up for what he already is "in arrears" in ARB-1, ARB-2, or ARB-3. Under the current system, Burleson's only hope of making up what he will be "in arrears" by the time he's through his first six years is to:

(1) remain consistently healthy
(2) remain consistently productive and
(3) then convince some team to give him a contract in FA which, in addition to paying him for what he does going forward, makes up for what he is "in arrears" from his first six seasons.

This systematic situation affects the vast majority of players as they work through their ML career, and for a sizeable fraction of them likely never gets balanced out in the long run if they never get that FA contract that balances the books.

This is where the owners need to come to the table with a proposal that does much, much better for this vast majority of players early in their careers - there needs to be a transformation to the system that puts these "Alec Burlesons" less "in arrears" from the beginning. If the owners want enough players (51%?), enough "Alec Burlesons," to support a new CBA that gives the owners what they may want (salary caps, salary floors, etc.) to improve competitiveness in MLB, winning over enough players to that CBA, IMO, has to be based on addressing this situation for players in their early careers.

ridiculous

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 13:54 pm

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:58 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:44 am It's easy to demonstrate that, if the economic system of baseball were "just" based on actual production, Alec Burleson should have probably already make $12+ million (a prorated ML minimum for 2022, 2023; about $3.5 million for 2024; and about $9 million for 2025) for his ML career. Under the existing system he's actually made just over $2 million ($3 million of you count his original $700K signing bonus when drafted). So his account might be considered about $10 million "in arrears" right now.

And that "in arrears" isn't related to "the owners should just pay more money to the players." It's based on that, for example, $5.28 billion went to pay player salaries in 2025, Burleson (2.1 fWAR) produced about 1/500th of the total "value" in MLB in 2025, so $5.28 billion/500 = ~$10 million (a more detailed calc gets to ~$9 million). So, even given just the size of the "pie" as it is, Burleson has been far short of getting his slice of the "pie".

He will make $3.3 million for 2026, but he if has another season consistent with 2025, he'll actually fall about another $6 million "in arrears."

In short, under the current system - even if Burleson remains healthy and productive as he was in 2025 - he'll never make up for what he already is "in arrears" in ARB-1, ARB-2, or ARB-3. Under the current system, Burleson's only hope of making up what he will be "in arrears" by the time he's through his first six years is to:

(1) remain consistently healthy
(2) remain consistently productive and
(3) then convince some team to give him a contract in FA which, in addition to paying him for what he does going forward, makes up for what he is "in arrears" from his first six seasons.

This systematic situation affects the vast majority of players as they work through their ML career, and for a sizeable fraction of them likely never gets balanced out in the long run if they never get that FA contract that balances the books.

This is where the owners need to come to the table with a proposal that does much, much better for this vast majority of players early in their careers - there needs to be a transformation to the system that puts these "Alec Burlesons" less "in arrears" from the beginning. If the owners want enough players (51%?), enough "Alec Burlesons," to support a new CBA that gives the owners what they may want (salary caps, salary floors, etc.) to improve competitiveness in MLB, winning over enough players to that CBA, IMO, has to be based on addressing this situation for players in their early careers.

ridiculous

deep

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:36 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:04 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

I'm not proposing such. I'm just using the best available information to put the inequity in the current system into context. I think the owners should be proposing a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.? That does not solve everything but would make the situation considerably more "just."

However you want to measure it, fWAR or otherwise, are we really defending Arenado making ~$30 million for what he did for the Cardinals last year vs. Burleson making the ML minimum?

Is it 'just' for Edman and Arenado to be making the money their making in 2026?

If you assume that the total money going to the players, $5.28 billion, is constant, no, Arenado, for example, should not be getting as big of a piece of that as he is.

Details were calculated elsewhere (not the same as the $8-$10 million per fWAR for just FAs), but for $30 million in 2025, Arenado should have produced about 7 fWAR. He produced about 1.

Fans seem to sometimes want to rationalize the vast overpaying of Arenado, Anthony Rendon, etc. as OK because, well, they are just "sticking it to" the greedy billionaire owners. But in reality, they are "sticking it to" the other players and the fans just as much, if not more.

bibletec wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 12:19 pm These are good discussions and I’m sure this is being discussed everywhere. I know the players union wouldn’t go for a fair and balanced system. Unions, in their basic premise, are good but they exploit those premises. That isn’t just the baseball union, that is most unions. The right thing to do is pay a person what they’re worth. If a younger player is a 2.5 war pay him what that is worth. If a veteran player was once an 8 war player but he is now a 2.5 war player he gets paid what he is worth. Then comes the intangible bonus system. These are entertainers.They bring people to the game which means revenue to the owners. How much is each entertainer worth? That is where the bonus would come in and each market may be different. Having the actual base pay the same based on war, or whatever measure would be best, could create a fairer way to pay players based on performance. Just a thought.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 17:12 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:36 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:04 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

I'm not proposing such. I'm just using the best available information to put the inequity in the current system into context. I think the owners should be proposing a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.? That does not solve everything but would make the situation considerably more "just."

However you want to measure it, fWAR or otherwise, are we really defending Arenado making ~$30 million for what he did for the Cardinals last year vs. Burleson making the ML minimum?

Is it 'just' for Edman and Arenado to be making the money their making in 2026?

If you assume that the total money going to the players, $5.28 billion, is constant, no, Arenado, for example, should not be getting as big of a piece of that as he is.

Details were calculated elsewhere (not the same as the $8-$10 million per fWAR for just FAs), but for $30 million in 2025, Arenado should have produced about 7 fWAR. He produced about 1.

Fans seem to sometimes want to rationalize the vast overpaying of Arenado, Anthony Rendon, etc. as OK because, well, they are just "sticking it to" the greedy billionaire owners. But in reality, they are "sticking it to" the other players and the fans just as much, if not more.

You said: Fans seem to sometimes want to rationalize the vast overpaying of Arenado, Anthony Rendon, etc. as OK because, well, they are just "sticking it to" the greedy billionaire owners. But in reality, they are "sticking it to" the other players and the fans just as much, if not more.

I've been on CT for a while and I've literally never seen this rationale. You kind of jumped the shark here.

I brought up Arenado because in sports, you do have young players making less and older players making more.

Is it 'unjust!' that Burleson made the money he did last year? No. He was/is an unproven player the Cardinals took a chance on. AND HE HAD HIS FIRST YEAR OF ARB THIS YEAR. It worked out great, but AB didn't want an arb hearing. He could've probably received more!

With AB, the SYSTEM WORKED!

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 17:24 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 17:12 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:36 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:04 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:56 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:53 am

Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:29 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:53 am This is a nothing burger.

In almost every sport, young players get paid less than their value (if they do well), then receive a bump at FA.

See Edman.
See Donovan in 2028…

Yea the young players get paid less than their value and older veterans get paid way more than their value

Why is that a good thing? Why should the system be as skewed as it is?

So should all contracts be figured out at the end of the season based on WAR?

I'm not proposing such. I'm just using the best available information to put the inequity in the current system into context. I think the owners should be proposing a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.? That does not solve everything but would make the situation considerably more "just."

However you want to measure it, fWAR or otherwise, are we really defending Arenado making ~$30 million for what he did for the Cardinals last year vs. Burleson making the ML minimum?

Is it 'just' for Edman and Arenado to be making the money their making in 2026?

If you assume that the total money going to the players, $5.28 billion, is constant, no, Arenado, for example, should not be getting as big of a piece of that as he is.

Details were calculated elsewhere (not the same as the $8-$10 million per fWAR for just FAs), but for $30 million in 2025, Arenado should have produced about 7 fWAR. He produced about 1.

Fans seem to sometimes want to rationalize the vast overpaying of Arenado, Anthony Rendon, etc. as OK because, well, they are just "sticking it to" the greedy billionaire owners. But in reality, they are "sticking it to" the other players and the fans just as much, if not more.

You said: Fans seem to sometimes want to rationalize the vast overpaying of Arenado, Anthony Rendon, etc. as OK because, well, they are just "sticking it to" the greedy billionaire owners. But in reality, they are "sticking it to" the other players and the fans just as much, if not more.

I've been on CT for a while and I've literally never seen this rationale. You kind of jumped the shark here.

I brought up Arenado because in sports, you do have young players making less and older players making more.

Is it 'unjust!' that Burleson made the money he did last year? No. He was/is an unproven player the Cardinals took a chance on. AND HE HAD HIS FIRST YEAR OF ARB THIS YEAR. It worked out great, but AB didn't want an arb hearing. He could've probably received more!

With AB, the SYSTEM WORKED!

Just because we're inculcated to the notion of "younger players making less and older players making more" doesn't mean - in particular to the extent it occurs in baseball - that it SHOULD be that way.

Again, I'm talking about a higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.

This re-thinking of how quickly/well younger players should be paid fits right in with the idea of having a salary floor of $125-$130 million. With more revenue sharing and a salary floor, teams like Tampa Bay, etc. will be better able to pay the young talent they depend on a more representative salary.