We are always trying to re-calibrate our sense of market value. I don’t believe we are living in the past. It can’t be that the true value of a win to a team has suddenly plummeted. So how has the cost of a win fallen so suddenly, even as revenue continues to rise?
I agree with you about aging curves and the failure of the labor side to anticipate/react. Teams have now almost universally adopted value-focused, sophisticated accurately analytical approaches that take full advantage of a system that took as a fundamental assumption the payment of stars for their previously demonstrated production.
Actual on-field value shifted younger. MLB wisely negotiated for cheap amateur intake and the players assented while also failing to push up the earnings for young MLB players. The result is at a minimum a window within which teams can get the production they want for less.
Even within this world, the Albies contract stands out … as do a few others, as I have stated throughout the winter. It’s a bit stunning to me that the players’ assn hasn’t figured out some way to protect its own long-term collective earning/bargaining power. As I said in the chat, the concept of investing in players’ future earnings (eg Big League Advance) seems quite promising … there’s also insurance. Perhaps there ought to be more work done on these kinds of fronts.
By all means, it’s correct to point out the Chris Davis and Pujols and Miggy et al deals. They aren’t giving their money back, true. But … we called those deals out at the time also!
“the staggering overall commitment is fraught with risk … it is difficult to see this deal creating surplus value for Detroit, and rather easy to see how it could end up working out poorly for the club”