Page 1 of 4
The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 08:44 am
by mattmitchl44
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.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 08:51 am
by rockondlouie
I'd deal Burly midseason.
Hand I. Hererra a 1st baseman's mitt this spring (as soon as he's cleared to throw) and then move him there after Burly is dealt.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 08:53 am
by ecleme22
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…
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 09:07 am
by earp
Owners want cost certainty
Players want earlier pay and higher minimums
Current: $740k (2026 season)
Expected ask: $80M–$100M
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 09:14 am
by dugoutrex
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…
yup - and now Tommy is way overpaid
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 09:29 am
by Ozziesfan41
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
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 09:32 am
by Carp4Cy
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…
There is somewhat of a discount , but for top talent its nowhere near the same as in baseball. See Cooper Flagg and Wemby's rookie contracts. They are making 8 figures, not 6.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 09:56 am
by bccardsfan
The only way to pay for bringing younger players' salaries into the range Matt suggests is to either decrease the profit by ownership or lower the salaries of the extremely well paid top tier of players. I sincerely doubt either group will give up much. The younger players see a $35M per season multi-year contract given out to a few vets on each team and aspire to that, not seeing that they would be better off making $5-9M really early in their careers, and have salaries at the top reduced. Something has to give, but I doubt owners and high paid vets (and young superstars) are going to want to give up much.....
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:09 am
by Hoosier59
bccardsfan wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:56 am
The only way to pay for bringing younger players' salaries into the range Matt suggests is to either decrease the profit by ownership or lower the salaries of the extremely well paid top tier of players. I sincerely doubt either group will give up much. The younger players see a $35M per season multi-year contract given out to a few vets on each team and aspire to that, not seeing that they would be better off making $5-9M really early in their careers, and have salaries at the top reduced. Something has to give, but I doubt owners and high paid vets (and young superstars) are going to want to give up much.....
Whenever players like Tucker, and Soto receive the ridiculous contracts they have, players aspire to do the same. Both players have flaws in their games. I think they see the deals Ohtani and Judge get and feel like, oh those are elite guys and deserve what they get, but when Soto, Tucker, and players like them get paid stupid money, they can easier compare themselves to them. Soto can hit and get on base, but that’s it. Hes terrible defensively, and not a good base runner. Tucker is a very good player, but not great at any one thing.
What players need to realize is that there are only a few owners willing to spend outrageously, and once their rosters are full, or they have the team assembled like they want, the money dries up!
Owners need to police their own, somehow, and not let a few ruin the game! More penalties need to be applied to curb their excessive spending, and if that doesn’t work add on even more, until they do.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:27 am
by Jatalk
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?
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:45 am
by Red7
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.
That’s not taking into account guys like Burleson are paid before they even put on a professional uniform.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:49 am
by mattmitchl44
bccardsfan wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 09:56 am
The only way to pay for bringing younger players' salaries into the range Matt suggests is to either decrease the profit by ownership or lower the salaries of the
extremely well paid top tier of players. I sincerely doubt either group will give up much. The younger players see a $35M per season multi-year contract given out to a few vets on each team and aspire to that,
not seeing that they would be better off making $5-9M really early in their careers, and have salaries at the top reduced. Something has to give, but I doubt owners and high paid vets (and young superstars) are going to want to give up much.....
My point being that the "extremely well paid top tier of players" is a small minority of the MLBPA, and definitely not the population the owners should worry about winning over if they want to get 51+% of players to approve a new CBA. As long as every player gets one vote, what the minority of "extremely well paid top tier of players" wants should be fairly moot.
And it is on the owners to put together a compelling proposal (higher ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.) to prove to these "Alec Burlesons" that they should support the new paradigm instead of the old one.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:52 am
by mattmitchl44
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.
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:53 am
by mattmitchl44
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?
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:56 am
by ecleme22
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?
Re: The future of baseball may rest on the "Alec Burlesons"
Posted: 25 Feb 2026 10:58 am
by scoutyjones2
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