It's worse than that - they'll almost certainly decline his 2019 option to throw another $2 million cherry on top of that shit Sunday.

Preller really ****ed that team up last year.

****ing opt-out clauses....MLB already has fully guaranteed contracts and now they're getting opt out closes included on even the mid-range FAs. It's hard to cry for owners when there's this much money in the system, but the MLBPA sure has cut some sweet deals for their players.

It appears to me that the Royals are positioning themselves to pick up someone in the Rule 5 draft. I believe they only have 38 people on the 40 man roster right now. With numerous gaps to fill in the bullpen, a spot in the rotation, LF, RF, and potentially 2b, I suppose it would make sense to look at low-cost options such as a Rule 5 candidate. Would anyone care to speculate on who they may be targeting?

Players are getting screwed. 39% of league revenues, down from 50% historically.

http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/visu...aphs033115.jpg

I have no idea who they might target to ADD to the team. But, I fear the Royals organization might lose Brooks Pounders.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp...vkey=news_milb

That's in large part due to the cost controlled players who's salaries haven't budged much at all.

The MLBPA has never really concerned themselves with those guys, they're more worried about FAs. The cost of a win share on the open market is keeping pace with the increase in inflation.

So 'players' in general aren't getting screwed - a small subset of them are; guys with 1-3 years of MLB service time.

Who cares what the reasons are? They got 50% for decades after FA was granted and now it's fallen. Any Union worth its salt will reverse that or strike.

Isn't than an oxymoron ?

You really are simple, aren't you?

The reasons are absolutely critical to how it's addressed. The veterans control the influence of the MLBPA, not the young pups. The MLBPA isn't going to do a damn thing to deal with the 1-3 year players as it would act to the detriment of the veteran players (just as the NFLPA had no problem blowing apart the Rookie wage scale to further benefit the veterans).

The MLBPA will focus their efforts on adding the DH to the NL (another 15 jobs for aging veterans that can't play the field anymore) and the elimination of the QO that has served to suppress salaries for middle-tier FAs who are tagged with it.

They'll burn their capital up there.

The reason they're not getting as much revenue has little to with the FA/arb divide. It's owners paying massive amounts for teams (and in many cases, their share of renovations) instead of on payroll.

I wonder if KC would consider a bad contract swap with San Diego, or Vice-Versa.

San Diego gets Infante plus a prospect of minor value, KC gets Shields and $15 million over the life of that deal.

KC gets a guy who can be a No. 3-type starter for three more years, San Diego gets $48 million in salary relief.

But they're also taking on Infante's salary, no? So Shields and the $65 million he's owed over the next 3 seasons comes off the books (offset to $50 million for your cash kicker) but the $16 million Infante is owed over the next 2 comes back over.

So the Padres get $34 million in salary relief. They also only get 2 years of a replacement level player vs. 3 years of, what, 2.0-2.5 WAR/season pitching? Conservatively let's say Shields is probably a 2 WAR pitcher for the next 3 seasons, yielding a total of 6 WAR.

It's close. If I'm the Padres I probably don't make that deal because at the very least they're only dealing with a 3 year obligation. If you can get wins at 6 million/win share on a term of only 3 years, you're doing okay. Hell, most models put it at about $7 million/win now (and some even at $8 million per). Most of the time you'll have to take a substantially larger gamble than that by going to 4-5 years. I also think there's a decent chance that Shields is more of a 2.5 WAR pitcher over those 3 years, shifting the calculus pretty strongly against SD.

It would be an offer worth making, but if I'm SD, I wouldn't give the $15 million kicker. I figure if I'm taking on Infante, you're getting Shields for 3/$50 million (because I'm getting nothing back in Infante; dude is straight up replacement level). If Shields is a 2 WAR/season pitcher, you're looking at the higher side of the wins/season $$, but that would be expected due to the fairly short term.

Infante and a plate of ribs?

I've been wondering if the Royals might kick the tires on Shields for a while.

He could fill Jeremy Guthrie's role of eating 200+ innings while giving our bullpen some much needed relief.

Davis, Herrera and Holland were all ridden hard over the past two seasons (not at all the fault of Yost, but this is inevitable when you make two runs into deep October). If the Royals can find a way to get the Padres to eat some of that contract, there's a decent chance that Dayton would be interested.

Throw in Wil Myers while you're at it, because it would be pretty funny if Myers came back to KC with Shields and finally became the stud everyone envisioned.

Very doubtful-like almost zero chance.

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/12/02/...e-of-his-life/