If you watched the Kansas City Royals last year, you knew second base was a problem. Sure, the outfield — held together last year by duct tape, Elmer’s glue and a little courage — was the biggest problem, but the free agent class of outfielders was pretty thin. Acquiring an impact player who played on the field would be easier.
Kansas City was of course linked to (and ended up acquiring) several outfielders, but they were also reportedly interested in infielders such as CJ Abrams And Brendan Donovan. The cake in the sky that suited the Royals perfectly was Bo Bichette. Bichette had hit free agency and alerted teams that he was comfortable moving to second base. It would cost a lot of money, but a combination of injury history and a lower cap hit limited the average annual value (AAV) he would have to some extent.
Advertisement
At least that’s what we all thought, because Bichette signed three years and $126 millionthe whopping sum of $42 million per year, from the New York Mets.
This came just days after the Los Angeles Dodgers struck the hornet’s nest again by signing Kyle Tucker to a four-year, $240 million contract. There is deferred money because, of course there is, but that represents a current AAV of a whopping $57.1 million. That’s not all, folks, because the Dodgers’ luxury tax situation means they’ll end up paying — sit down if you haven’t already — $119.9 million. annually for the privilege of watching Tucker roam the outfield.
Although the Tucker deal is absurd, there is usually one every year. Last year it was Juan Soto. The year before, it was Shohei Ohtani. The year before, it was Aaron Judge. Small market teams simply can’t dedicate the average $40 million per year (or more!) needed to secure the biggest names in the market.
Bichette types, on the other hand, are a theoretically accessible asset, as small market teams can pay $25 million to $30 million per year to make a difference. We don’t even need to look to other teams; the traditionally misers The Royals did it to extend Bobby Witt Jr.. And at the start of free agency, Bichette was projected to be in the $25-30 million per year range over about six to eight seasons. The Phillies ended up offering seven years and 200 million dollarswhich Bichette refused. But at $42 million AAV? Regardless if it’s for fewer years, that functionally puts guys like Bichette out of the mix for 80% of the league.
Advertisement
No one should blame Tucker or Bichette for accepting these offers. These are interesting deals where both players can have their piece of the pie and eat it too, as both players will have the opportunity to test free agency again after their 30 seasons.
Likewise, no one should blame the Dodgers or Mets for doing what they did and for the spending sprees they did. In fact, more teams should be more like them. The main reason the Dodgers can spend so much money is because they generate gigantic revenue. As for the Mets, well, Steve Cohen is by far the richest owner in Major League Baseball, and they also play, you know, in New York. In other words, both teams are spending because they have money.
I think you can absolutely blame teams for not spending to the best of their abilities. Some landlords are notoriously cheap (cough Pittsburgh cough) and cry poor all the time, hoping that we trust them even if they refuse to open their books. But this doesn’t solve the main problem: some teams win orders of magnitude more than others, and even more fairness between teams does not mean total fairness.
To some extent, baseball has always been a bit like that. But I think this is all reaching a critical point. The Dodgers’ continued dominance has exposed the flaws of a system that fails to distribute wealth. Baseball relies on a large number of players, and unlike football, basketball, or hockey, you can’t build an entire team around one star player at a key position. What should happen is that the turnaround time for unlucky teams is short and anyone can win the championship.
Advertisement
This is not the case. MLB has become a pay-to-play league; over the last decade of the World Series, the median participant–mediannotice–had the fifth highest payroll of its season. In total, 80% of participants ranked in the top 10 in pay. No one in the bottom third of the MLB payroll has won a World Series since the Florida Marlins in 2003.
Yes, a run-of-the-mill team can go on a cheeky little run and maybe play in a league championship series. Yes, small market or cheap teams can knock out big market, big pocket teams in the playoffs. Yes, you can make the playoffs on a shoestring budget.
But I don’t think it’s very interesting that the teams with a lot of money are the ones signing all the top free agents and fighting to lift the Commissioner’s Trophy. I think this stunts the growth of the league when there are only a limited number of landing spots for big players. And if players like Bichette and Tucker agree to shorter deals to push them even further out of the realm of possibility for even middle-tier teams, well, it sure looks like we’re headed for a work stoppage that, while unfortunate, might just have to result in a solution that isn’t the status quo.
