Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[gehringer_2]

34 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Passan spitballing 10/400+ for Skubal

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45006796/mlb-2025-contracts-passan-predicts-megadeals-600-million-henderson-de-la-cruz-tucker-skenes-skubal

 

Do you think Boras Venmo'd or direct deposited the gratuity?

[oblong]

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I agree with all this, although I would only say that although it's true Boras works for Skubal, I think it's unlikely he's going to meddle much with what Boras does, or even provide firm guidance for what should be negotiated by Boras, who's been through this rodeo since way before Skubal was born so he knows exactly how this works, and Skubal has little if any idea about that. I think it's most likely that Boras drives the negotiation process 100%, and his clients' involvement is limited to following Boras's recommendation on whether to accept or reject any offer he presents to the player.

I don't necessarily agree with the bolded part.  Yes, players focus on playing and all that entails but I don't think they're blind to the process or just go with whatever they're told, especially someone with a life changing contract waiting for them.  Skubal will get a deal that sets up his family for generations and puts them on a lifetstyle commensurate with hollywood and business moguls.  I don't expect Skubal to cave or give the Tigers a break but he will go where he wants to be if the price is also right because it's his life.

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't necessarily agree with the bolded part.  Yes, players focus on playing and all that entails but I don't think they're blind to the process or just go with whatever they're told, especially someone with a life changing contract waiting for them.  Skubal will get a deal that sets up his family for generations and puts them on a lifetstyle commensurate with hollywood and business moguls.  I don't expect Skubal to cave or give the Tigers a break but he will go where he wants to be if the price is also right because it's his life.

Appropos of this - I believe in a recent interview Tony Clark specifically mentioned Skubal as a guy on the Tigers who was 'engaged' on MLBPA issues.

[MichiganCardinal]

On 5/1/2025 at 11:31 AM, Motor City Sonics said:

But, I just have a strong feeling that we won't even have a season in 2027.   This upcoming CBA is going to be a war.  

I agree, and I would go a step further to say that I think the sport needs it. The owners need to enter the room and refuse to start negotiations without a salary cap. I don't care if they lose two seasons. They need to do it right.

The way it's heading with this pay-for-play nonsense, it's going to be the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers in a revolving door the next 5-10 years with billion dollar payrolls. The smaller markets, along with the cheap-to-reasonable owners (and I include Chris in that category) need to band together and say enough is enough.

A year of only MiLB would also be a breath of fresh air. That's a more fun product to attend at a cheaper price.

[chasfh]

51 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't necessarily agree with the bolded part.  Yes, players focus on playing and all that entails but I don't think they're blind to the process or just go with whatever they're told, especially someone with a life changing contract waiting for them.  Skubal will get a deal that sets up his family for generations and puts them on a lifetstyle commensurate with hollywood and business moguls.  I don't expect Skubal to cave or give the Tigers a break but he will go where he wants to be if the price is also right because it's his life.

I wouldn't say Skubal is completely ignorant of every aspect of negotiating a free agent contract, but I doubt that he's driving Boras throughout the negotiations. Most players are probably smart enough to know what they want as bottom line points and communicate those to agents like Boras, but not only do I doubt that players are savvy about the minute intricacies attended to evaluating competing proposals, I would bet that Boras is very good about leading players away from requests he views as suboptimal or even potentially destructive to careers, both theirs and his. I don't think Boras became the best negotiator in the game by taking orders from players like a restaurant waiter.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I agree, and I would go a step further to say that I think the sport needs it. The owners need to enter the room and refuse to start negotiations without a salary cap. I don't care if they lose two seasons. They need to do it right.

The way it's heading with this pay-for-play nonsense, it's going to be the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers in a revolving door the next 5-10 years with billion dollar payrolls. The smaller markets, along with the cheap-to-reasonable owners (and I include Chris in that category) need to band together and say enough is enough.

A year of only MiLB would also be a breath of fresh air. That's a more fun product to attend at a cheaper price.

I do care if they lose two seasons.  At my age, I don't want them to lose any seasons.  I think the argument about about large market teams dominating the game is overblown. People have been saying this my whole life, but the game has remained competitive and popular.   I don't think it's worth losing seasons.  That being said, I think a salary floor is more important to the health of the game than a salary cap.  I think teams slashing their budgets and not even attempting to win is a bigger problem  than teams spending more than everyone else.  

[gehringer_2]

I don't even think the salary cap is the issue as much as it is revenue nationalization and I don't see how you get there. What good will it do to have a cap if half the teams can't afford to get to it? There are some concepts out there that I think do work - capping single salaries at a % of a team total or a cap figure it good for any team sport, and simply fixing a total revenue % to go the salaries league wide is a core concept in winning long term labor peace. Right now the players will not give any ground on max salaries because they see big max numbers as what eventually pull everyone else up. I sort of doubt that is actually true but the if fixed the % of total revenue going into the salary pool it would break the tie between max and total salaries.

It's not for lack of workable concepts - the problem is the haves have gotten themselves into such an advantageoud position it's going to be impossible to get them to come back to the pack.

Edited May 6 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

philisophically the problem is you have one side (The players) with a single goal.  The other side is made up of factions with different goals.    Is the fact that the owners can't get their collective **** together a problem for the players to solve?

 

[KL2]

22 minutes ago, oblong said:

philisophically the problem is you have one side (The players) with a single goal.  The other side is made up of factions with different goals.    Is the fact that the owners can't get their collective **** together a problem for the players to solve?

 

While the players might have a single concept, make money. I would hardly classify it as a unified goal. Heck they had a mutiny last year because they couldnt get on the same page abotu who should be the focus of money-making growth. Young players? vets? top teir free agents? Middle tier?. There is also questions on if they can agree on what they want/prioritize when talking to owners as well. 

[MichiganCardinal]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I do care if they lose two seasons.  At my age, I don't want them to lose any seasons.  I think the argument about about large market teams dominating the game is overblown. People have been saying this my whole life, but the game has remained competitive and popular.   I don't think it's worth losing seasons.  That being said, I think a salary floor is more important to the health of the game than a salary cap.  I think teams slashing their budgets and not even attempting to win is a bigger problem  than teams spending more than everyone else.  

Fair. I was probably being a little hyperbolic, I'm sure I would care.

My overarching point is that the owners totally botched the 1994-95 lockout, and have been just punting the problem down the line ever since. The state of Major League Baseball right now is that you have five teams (NYY, NYM, LAD, PHI, and TOR) that make up about 30% of the total market space in the league. On the other end of the spectrum, you have a handful of teams whose fanbases naturally want nothing to do with them right now because their ownership is a mess and either can't or won't spend like they need to (MIA, TB, OAK, COL, PIT, CIN - CWS and MIL as well to a certain extent as well). And then you have everyone else, who try as they might, will never spend with the upper echelon, and so has to just hope to have their farm system can knock it out of the park once every decade in order for them to make a run -- just for them to sell everyone and everything when it comes time to pay up.

I do think it's fixable, but it's going to take a significant change, and I can't imagine any real fix happening without losing a season. I'm not smart enough to know all the solutions that are necessary, but I'm sure it is some combination of a floor, a cap, and revenue sharing.

[Hongbit]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

 

And Boras works for Skubal.  I see lots of comments like "No was Boras lets that happen..." all the time.  Ultimately it's up to the player.  The player has a responsibility to themselves and to his peers and those who follow. But that doesn't mean if Boras wants to be as cuthroat as possible the player has to go along. If there is such a thing as sentimental feelings or 'hometown discounts' that's ok.  Boras has to go along with it if that's what his client prefers. 

 

 

Typically, players that feel this way don’t hire Scott Boras.

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Typically, players that feel this way don’t hire Scott Boras.

and/or Boras isn't interested in those players as clients!

[Tigermojo]

Skubal is making over $10 million this year and he'll get a significant raise next year. He's already set for life so why not go for the biggest payout in two years? No I don't think the Tigers will be the team who signs him and I don't think they should.

[oblong]

I'm not at all suggesting Skubal will give a significant discount to the Tigers, or anything.  My point is that it's not always about squeezing every last nickel out of a team and ultimately it's the player that picks the contract for their reasons.  Scott Boras is Tarik Skubal's employee.   There's more to an agent's performance than just a contract and there's more to a contract than the dollars/years.

 

 

 

[Hongbit]

32 minutes ago, oblong said:

I'm not at all suggesting Skubal will give a significant discount to the Tigers, or anything.  My point is that it's not always about squeezing every last nickel out of a team and ultimately it's the player that picks the contract for their reasons.  Scott Boras is Tarik Skubal's employee.   There's more to an agent's performance than just a contract and there's more to a contract than the dollars/years.

 

 

 

By the same accord, he’s part of a very small players union.  One which the top players salaries raise the bar for everyone else.  If he’s loyal to his fellow players, he owes it to them to get the most possible as starting pitcher.  The next guy SP in line for a big deal is relying on him to squeeze out as much as possible.

Edited May 6 by Hongbit

[Motor City Sonics]

On 5/6/2025 at 4:01 PM, Hongbit said:

By the same accord, he’s part of a very small players union.  One which the top players salaries raise the bar for everyone else.  If he’s loyal to his fellow players, he owes it to them to get the most possible as starting pitcher.  The next guy SP in line for a big deal is relying on him to squeeze out as much as possible.

But think about it.   Partially because of what the Tigers did last year and what the Rays have been doing - the value of Starting Pitchers might not be as high it once was.    Starting pitchers are limited more than ever with number of innings and the Tigers proved that you can win without having a dominant rotation.  I mean, they had TWO starting pitchers, basically, the last two months of the season.  

I don't know, but I think it's better to have depth than height with starting pitchers.   Having 4 or 5 good starters and a great bullpen is better than having a dominant ace and then mediocrity.   With the one ace you may almost guarantee that 1 out of 5 games, but with depth you can aim towards realistically winning 3 out of every 5.  Over 162 games that's a big, big difference.   This 10/400 number ain't gonna do it.  Not with Steve Cohen in the game.   Skubal could get north of 50 million a year or one of these super long deferred-money deals.    If the Tigers offer 10/400,  Cohen's gonna offer 15/700 or something insane like that.   It's all play money to him like it was for Mr. I back in the day.    A lot of it will depend on how close the Tigers actually get to winning it all and how well guys like Max Clark, Kevin McGonigle and Jackson Jobe develop.

Right now the Tigers have 1 dominant ace,  2 really good dependable starters,  a question mark that may finally be showing he's worth the 1/1 pick  and a rookie who doesn't know what he's doing yet, but is still looking pretty good.   They are in great shape.  If they lose Skubal right now to an injury, they'd still be in the top third of the league in starting rotations and I think that's what they are going to try to build forever here.     Build such a solid foundation in all aspects that losing one or even two stars will not slow you down. 

Heck, to me their Offensive MVP last year was Parker Meadows.   When he finally returned those two months, they were a completely different team (once he figured it out) -- and the fact that he hasn't even played this year and they have the best record in the AL should give us a ton of confidence in the future.    Everyone is playing and everyone seems to be contributing, especially now that Sweeney and Keith have started hitting.      They just have a hell of a coaching staff and they seem to have an incredibly good development staff.  They aren't asking guys to try to do things they aren't good at.  They're simply putting them in places where they know they can thrive.   The downside of that is  other than maybe 2 or 3 players (Greene, Torres, Torkelson),  nobody is starting anywhere close to 160 games, but it seems like we're going to have 10 or maybe even 11 guys who play in 120 games.   AJ Hinch is playing Chess here.     An added bonus to that is every player on that bench needs to be mentally ready because they might get put in the game at any time and I think that just sharpens up EVERYONE.   

I am shocked it hasn't happened yet, but I fully expect them to have to put a pitcher in the field of play because they exhausted their bench.   

Edited May 7 by Motor City Sonics

[kdog]

I don't think they will but I'm not losing sleep over it. Giving him that kind of contract at age 30 is just too risky in this market. If they still have the pitching lab, I'm confident they can develop and find pitching in bulk.

[AlaskanTigersFan]

Dat boi jus upped his price a lil today I think.....

[SoCalTiger]

 

 I think Passan is correct 10/400 seems obtainable. I would not go there and doubt Harris will either. 

[RedRamage]

On 5/6/2025 at 1:12 PM, gehringer_2 said:

It's not for lack of workable concepts - the problem is the haves have gotten themselves into such an advantageous position it's going to be impossible to get them to come back to the pack.

Get a good team in a big market = better media deals = more revenue to spend on the team = better team in a big market = better media deals = ...

It's not quite as simple as saying that the small markets don't have the media revenue to compete, but I do feel that's a big part of it. I've always felt that not having a salary cap is kinda like letting some players use PEDs, and in fact letting the most successful a player gets letting them have more PEDs. It creates an uneven playing field for front offices. You could be the best GM out there in terms of picking players, but if the other guy can just throw more money at players that you want AND not suffer the same draw backs of making a mistake on a contract, you're not going to be as successful.

Now again this is only part of the problem. You have to have owners who WANT to win and are willing to pay to win. But a salary cap would at least level the playing field a bit.

But is it fair to players?

[monkeytargets39]

On 5/6/2025 at 12:57 PM, Tiger337 said:

I do care if they lose two seasons.  At my age, I don't want them to lose any seasons.  I think the argument about about large market teams dominating the game is overblown. People have been saying this my whole life, but the game has remained competitive and popular.   I don't think it's worth losing seasons.  That being said, I think a salary floor is more important to the health of the game than a salary cap.  I think teams slashing their budgets and not even attempting to win is a bigger problem  than teams spending more than everyone else.  

I agree, but my one area of concern is this:  you have teams like the NY and LA teams shelling out seemingly endless amounts of money for players.  Then you have the team owners in smaller markets who can’t compete with that even if they wanted to.  The high priced players aren’t going to go to the mid/lo-market teams even if they get offered comparable money.  So the players they’re able to put on the team are either very young or very flawed (or both) and it takes a lot of things to go right for those types of teams to turn into competitors.
 

So what is the incentive for owners of those teams to go out and spend extra money to get mid-level free agents that might actually come to their team?  Your team is still going to be considerably worse on paper than the top spending teams and you’re still highly unlikely to make the playoffs with any consistency.  Are fans going to pack the stadium to watch league average players any more than they would a team full of scrubs?  The only way to compete is to build from within and out-scout/draft/coach the big spenders.  Something that a couple orgs like TB and CLE are very good at and the Tigers have caught up now.  Even then, things can go south in a hurry with a couple key injuries.  
 

So if you’re the owner of a bad team- your options are:

1.) Spend truckloads of money—and it’ll probably take even more to bring Star players there than it would elsewhere.  If that player(s) doesn’t perform or suffers injury, you’re right back where you started but with way less capital.

2.) Heavily invest in your scouting/minor league infrastructure/coaching staffs/international prospects

3.) Don’t build up the team- trade assets as you develop them, and profit highly.

 

That said, people want to clown on the bad teams, but the only owners who it seems are actively not interested in building a winner are the As and the Pirates.  Every other franchise has had big signings recently or have had legitimate looking rebuilds recently with some of them just going sideways poorly.   So there’s no reason for a major reform just because a couple teams in a 30 team league aren’t trying.
 

So long story short, I agree with you that salary caps/money spent isn’t as big of an issue as people want it to be.  It would be nice if they could do something like set the maximum a player can receive either total or annual as a contract but then those deals can be loaded with uncapped high performance bonuses.  That way for every Aaron Judge or Ohtani contract that costs a lot but produces a lot, you could lessen the impact on owners for the Rendon or Bryant type situations.

Edited May 15 by monkeytargets39

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, SoCalTiger said:

 

 I think Passan is correct 10/400 seems obtainable. I would not go there and doubt Harris will either. 

Would be cool if they could do a deal like that but make it HEAVILY front loaded so if something does go sideways and he doesn’t age well, it won’t be a boat anchor to work with the last half of the deal.  Would also be nice if there was a workaround where the player wouldn’t be gouged with taxes on the front side of the deal also……

Edited May 15 by monkeytargets39

[RedRamage]

Just now, RedRamage said:

But is it fair to players?

Answering my own question because I like to hear myself talk (or type): Probably not entirely no... telling someone they can only earn x-amount of money because you want to make other teams remain competitive is a bit anti-capitalist. So is there a way to make it more fair?

My humble suggestion (which likely has a million holes in it) would be to:

• Set a salary cap, and a salary floor.
• Pool media deals... maybe something like 75% of media revenue goes into a common pot with 25% remaining with the original team.
• Cut up and distribute the media pool:
  • 75% goes to teams, 1/30th for each team.
  • 25% goes to players, not sure how to divide this up (evenly for each? based on years in MLB? I dunno)

But this goes back to owners needing to open some of the books up.

[Tenacious D]

56 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Would be cool if they could do a deal like that but make it HEAVILY front loaded so if something does go sideways and he doesn’t age well, it won’t be a boat anchor to work with the last half of the deal.  Would also be nice if there was a workaround where the player wouldn’t be gouged with taxes on the front side of the deal also……

Tigers are in a tough spot.  Any contract over 7 years would be foolish, and even that’s a stretch for a SP. if they approach this responsibly, and he goes elsewhere, they will get crucified by the media/fans.

[Motown Bombers]

Kansas City is the perfect example of why MLB needs a salary cap. The Royals won the World Series in 2015, because they drafted and developed well, but couldn't keep the team in tact. The Kansas City Chiefs are a near dynasty because they have good coaching, draft well, and have the best player in the league. If this were MLB, Mahomes would get an Ohtani like contract from New York or Los Angeles. The Jets have the longest active playoff drought in the NFL, and Los Angeles went 20 years without a team and the league thrived. There's a whole world outside of New York and Los Angeles and the NFL is the most popular sport because a team in Green Bay Wisconsin has equal opportunity as New York City.