February 8th, 2016 at 6:00 am 
by Ron Cervenka Howie Kendrick is a Dodger again. His new manager is happy, his coaches are happy, his teammates are happy and most Dodger fans are very happy. And although Kendrick himself is happy to be back with his old team after signing a deferred two-year / $20 million contract last Thursday, he definitely isn’t happy with the system that got him there.
“I figured there would be quite a few suitors for me and nobody was really calling. Here it is, getting close to spring training and you keep hearing the same thing over and over – nobody wanted to give up that draft pick. It was a shocker.” – Howie Kendrick
“I’m thankful for the Dodgers and I’m glad I’m going back,” Kendrick told USA Today’s Bob Nightengale last week. “But I just never thought free agency would be like this.”
Kendrick, who turns 33 in July, declined the Dodgers $15.8 million qualifying offer last November choosing instead to test free agency for the first time in his 10-year MLB career.
“When you get to free agency, you’re supposed to be a free agent,” Kendrick said. “Now, with this qualifying offer, teams are trying to decide ‘Do I make my major league team better or minor league system better?'”
Kendrick’s first attempt at free agency didn’t go anything like he thought it would.
(Video capture courtesy of SportsNet LA)
Kendrick declined has qualifying offer fully believing that he would be highly sought coming off of his successful .295 / .336 / .409 – nine home run, 55-RBI season with the Dodgers. But instead, his phone remained silent during the off-season.
“I figured there would be quite a few suitors for me and nobody was really calling,” said Kendrick. “Here it is, getting close to spring training and you keep hearing the same thing over and over – nobody wanted to give up that draft pick. It was a shocker.”
Although Kendrick’s new contract with his former team is for two years / $20 million and not the one-year / $15.8 qualifying offer that he declined, he and his agent Larry Reynolds bring up a valid point about teams choosing to put more emphasis on future draft picks than acquiring free agents and losing a first (or second) round draft pick in the process.
“The teams are placing a very high value on draft picks and this contributed to the limited market for Howie,” Reynolds told Nightengale. “And it looks like some of the others are having the same challenges.”
But what Kendrick and every other free agent are overlooking is that they are the one’s who created this situation by demanding (and getting) ridiculously insane multi-million dollar / multi-year contracts that basically put a gun to owners’ heads when it comes to reducing payroll. It’s causing team owners to focus more on rebuilding from within by intelligent drafting and player development instead of spending a lot of money on free agents and forfeiting a draft pick.
To be fair, it was the team owners themselves that brought about free agency in the first place. After more than a century of strong-arming players through the obsolete and grossly unfair reserve clause and by ignoring the warning signs from several failed legal attempts to overturn it, the MLB Players Association (through the tremendous efforts of association president Marvin Miller and players Curt Flood, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally) finally succeeded in bringing long-overdue free agency to major league baseball. After 106 years the pendulum finally began swinging in the players’ favor and it hasn’t slowed down since.
It’s been 40 years since the Seitz decision brought free agency to Major League Baseball. Is the pendulum finally beginning to swing in the owners direction again? (Photo credit – Hoylen Sue)
But for as much as players embraced free agency, baseball fans loathed it. It changed their beloved game and our national pastime forever. Gone were the days where players remained with one team for their entire careers. They bailed on their teams (and their fans) opting to chase the almighty dollar instead of chasing a World Championship – and who can blame them? I mean, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here. It’s no longer about obtaining financial security for the rest of their lives, it’s about obtaining financial security for their children’s children’s children’s lives. But at what point will these guys realize that there really isn’t a whole lot of difference between making $15 million a year and making $30 million a year? It’s still more money than they’ll be able to spent in three lifetimes.
With the current MLB-MLBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) due to expire in December, you can bet that, among other things, this free agency qualifying offer thing will be at or near the top of the agenda for revision – at least for the players association, that is. It will probably cause the current qualifying offer draft pick exemption to be increased from the top-10 to the top-15 or perhaps even the top-20. Heck, it may even cause the five-year-old failed qualifying offer system to vanish completely in lieu of some different (and yet unknown) system.
But one thing that you can absolutely count on. If the Major League Baseball Players Association – the single-most powerful labor organization in the world – continue to have their way, that free agency pendulum will never again swing in the owners direction – not ever.
Posted in 
Good article.
Both sides have gone through a period of greed, although the players much more recently, with little respect for the other side or the fans who pay to attend the games. With more reasonable contracts surely fans could pay less to take their families to games and those young families are the future of the game.
I think what FAZ are doing by building and acquiring international free agents is to circumvent being strangled by free agency. That is, become deep enough that they can replace players who flee to free agency with others waiting in the wings and be able to trade those closing in on free agency. Also becoming versatile enough that three good players can replace two very good ones.I think on principle they do not want to be held hostage by players seeking huge contracts while on the downhill side of their careers. I’m not saying there should not be free agency. It has gotten out of hand and unreasonable.
By spending somewhat wildly as they have done in the international market in the past year FAZ have decided to pay up front and have team control of players for a specified period of time without being put under the gun. Are the signings of Cubans Sierra, Diaz,, Estevez and Alvarez risky ventures? For sure but no more risky that big bonuses for players in the First year Player Draft and I submit less risky that long, expensive free agent contracts. The Dodgers, in particular, have forged a somewhat long period of futility in the free agent market.
The signing of a long term costly free agent should be a rarity and seen as the missing piece to compete the puzzle, not to build it.
One way to at least get the pendulum to swing toward a more reasonable balance is to build, build, build and not buy, buy, buy.
Is Howie Kendrick now the poster boy for the players association to sabotage the present qualifying offer system?
Well said Ron.
It’s certainly not the same as it was before free agency. It was fun growing up an LA Dodger fan from ’59 on. A new team in LA that was immensely popular, and equally successful. We had great names who who seemed like they were always in the pennant race. That’s not true of course but it seemed like it. But something else that changed with free agency is the popularity of the game. As guys changed uniforms seemingly as often as they changed socks, and the cost of attending a game went from a few bucks to a few hundred bucks, the popularity of the game increased. We fans continue to pay whatever we are asked to pay. Without us, none of what Ron talks about would happen. We’ve had every opportunity to say “ef this, I’ll find something else to do.” We didn’t, and we won’t. We’ll continue to go. We’ll most definitely continue to go.
And, something else. Maybe there is good reason why no other team thought Howie was worth money and a draft pick. He only played 117 games last year. Was it smart to sign a guy who was going to be disappointed to play here? And what does this do for Kike’s confidence? If I’m him, I’m pissed.
While I agree wholeheartedly with both of you guys (Bluenose and Badger), there are a couple of factors that perhaps you may be overlooking.
First and foremost is that it is no longer ticket prices or hot dog sales that dictate player salaries – at least for large-market teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.; it is / are the long-term TV rights deals such as SportsNetLA for the Dodgers and the YES network for the Yankees (etc.).
Secondly, I have always been one who gets incensed every time I hear players, their agents and their association accuse owners of collusion. How is it that the MLBPA can cry foul when team owners decide to put their foot down to try to stop skyrocketing (and insane) free agent salaries while team owners can say (or do) nothing about them?
Mark my words – you will hear players and the MLBPA use the word “collusion” when it comes to the reason why owners are choosing not to sign free agents because they do not want to give up their first (or second) round draft pick when the two sides meet in December to decide on a new collective bargaining agreement. This is absolute nonsense. This isn’t a premeditated plot to screw free agents trying to land long-term multimillion-dollar contracts, it’s basic business sense of trying to save money while (as Harold says) “build, build, build and not buy, buy, buy.”
As far as Howie Kendrick goes, I beg to differ with you Badger. There were only five players last season who played more games than Howie (AGon, Joc, Rollins, Ethier and Turner). I think that F&Z have clearly shown us that they prefer platooning over having so-called everyday players – with AGon and (probably) Seager being the exception in 2016. This is something that certainly doesn’t bode well with signing free agents to long-term expensive contracts – and (in my opinion) I do not see Howie’s two-year / $20 million contract as being either.
Ron, while I agree that TV deals drive the crazy level of the contracts, ticket prices, parking, hot dogs, and other game day purchases have gotten out of control. I just read where a Pavilion seat for one game was nearly $50. How does a family go to the games? I remember going to Dodger games and sitting in LF Pavilion for $2.00, and with $.50 Ladies Night it was a great date. There was a 10 year period that I averaged 60-70 games a year, all out in LF Pavilion. I have not been back to Dodger Stadium since the 1999 season, because I moved to Northern California. Having a son who played professionally, I became a huge fan of minor league baseball. From Batavia, to Piedmont, to Clearwater, to Reading, Scranton, Trenton, Pawtucket, and Syracuse I loved minor league games. When I moved to Sacramento, I purchased season tickets to the Sacramento River Cats games. Tickets, parking, food, and souvenirs were reasonably priced because there was no $206 million pitcher. I will see four professional baseball games this year, all OKC Dodgers at River Cats in May.
I do not begrudge players making as much as they can. Their fair market value is what someone is willing to pay. But as long as the players can request an opt out clause, I have no problem asking teams to give up a #1 draft pick if they sign a player who has refused a Qualifying Offer from their prior team. If it hurts the players ability to move, oh well!! I guess they should have accepted the Qualifying Offer.
The top players are playing with monopoly money. There is no way a pitcher who starts 33 games and pitches 200 innings is worth $206 million. But as long as fans are willing to pay $50 for a Pavilion seat, and there are 3.7 million in attendance, there will be no change. What will it take $100 Pavilion seats before people stop showing up?
“It’s no longer ticket prices that dictate players salaries”
Did you mean to put it that way?
Players salaries are now dictated by what tv advertisers, and fans, are willing to pay. Check the FCI indexes of MLB teams and you will see an avg ticket price of $28.94, avg premium of $97 and an FCI of a remarkable $211.68. It went up 2.5% in ’15. The Dodgers remained in the high middle at $218.94, up 5.4%. And here’s an interesting side note – the Dbacks were dead last on that FCI list. That’s about to change. Will Arizona fans pony up? If they win, you bet your ass they will.
It’s my opinion these numbers are driven by market factors and of course star power. Take the Rays and compare them to the Dodgers or Yankees. The Rays don’t draw. I don’t believe in that market they ever will. Not much star power on those teams. Fans there don’t much give a damn until they make the playoffs. More fans leave Chavez in the 7th inning than show up in Tampa or Oakland. The same basic truths exists with several other teams. But, look at the most valuable franchises and what do you see? Large markets, rabid fans, and star power. Advertisers love star power. We have it. Or, maybe we used to have it?
It would appear the Dodgers, large market, 3.7 million b.i.s. a every year, $8 billion tv contract, having hired braintrusts from both Tampa and Oakland, are leaning toward less star power and more a small market Moneyball approach. Will the fans of Los Angeles, who live in the star capital of the world, buy into this paradigm? My guess is – oh hell yes. Baseball fans, true baseball fans, aren’t real cerebral in their approach. We’ll pay no matter what. At least, I think that’s true. There was a bit of a boycott going on at the end of the McCourt era, but my guess is we will support this analytics approach, at least for a while. We’re junkies, and the Dodgers have an enormous fan base from which to suck revenues. This new plan will probably work. I think the key will be creating our own new stars. If Seager, Urias, Puig, et al live up to their billing, and we actually win, people will show up. The tv money is already there so owners are pretty much guaranteed a profit.
I hope the plan works.
The D-bags wouldn’t sign Kendrick because they didn’t want to give up a 2nd-round pick, but they happily traded the number one overall pick from 2015 for Shelby Miller. What am I missing? You can’t value draft picks that high one day and not the next, or can you? Is the 2016 draft class really that great?
I did not really think the way you stated it. Dansby Swanson was a 2015 first overall number one that was traded for Shelby Miller, a good but hardly great pitcher, and pitcher Aaron Blair, a #1 (36th overall) in 2013. So the DBacks basically traded a 2013 #1, their 2015 and 2016 top draft picks for Greinke and Miller. They included Inciarte for good measure. I could not understand why the DBacks would lose what they did and not go for it all by not signing Kendrick. That made no sense to me.
I think it says that they (D-Backs) as well as myself value Shelby Miller a lot more so than Howie Kendrick. His best years are behind him and now the Dodgers have $17M invested in their second base position this year. I personally would have waited until someone finally decided to pay Kendrick $10M per year and taken the draft pick, otherwise it makes no sense to sign Utley as quickly as they did as no one was going to sign him to a $7M deal. Does anyone really think there is a plan?
From what Roberts told us at FanFest, Turner Utley and Kendrick will platoon at 3B and Kendrick, Utley and Kiké (and perhaps Johnson) at 2B.
It’s looking like not many guys will exceed 140 games this season, which is the F&Z way.
It tells me that they do not have 8 good position players to take the field. No Major League player enjoys playing one day and having the next off or the next 2. No way of acquiring the proper repetition and consistency needed to be successful. Has the FAZ way won anything before?
I think it’s a great idea. At least for the teams and their fans. When teams rather keep a player than let him go to free agency, they give him a Qualifying Offer. Then they get a Draft Pick from the team that eventually signs the player. This situation causes teams to feel they’d rather keep their Draft Pick and in most cases a player ends up signing with the team he just left.
If teams are more interested in keeping their Draft Pick, well that’s their problem. They’d rather give up their chance to win more often and build up their future. I think this doesn’t only hurt the team in the meantime but also their fans.
Maybe they should just take off the word “Free” since the player is no longer free because they ‘Cost” teams Draft Picks”.
This was a great article.
Teams gave up draft picks before the QO system went into effect, in fact the team “losing” the FA got either a first or second round pick from the team signing him, along with a “compensation” pick between rounds. There was an exception for teams with a pick in the top ten. But it made losing a free agent more attractive to small market teams than it is now.
I wonder if more teams today aren’t even trying. Teams like Tampa and Milwaukee just take the revenue sharing and could care less if they draw 5,000 fans per game.
They also QA a player just to get the draft pick. Last year the Dodgers QA’d HanRam. I really doubt they wanted to keep him.
That may stop with players starting to accept the QA.
Totally off-topic but we need to know.
Is the new comment editing plug-in that we recently added to the site working ok for you guys? If not, we’ll dump it.
It’s supposed to have a 60-minute limit but it seems to remain active longer than that.
Please let me know and thanks in advance.
I’m new here, so don’t know what it was like before. The post I just put up was a reply to Badger3’s 6:42 AM comment, but it put it at the bottom. I was quite slow in writing it as I was doing some chores at the same time. I’m not sure how long I took writing it. That could have something to do with it.
That has happened before too.
Editing now: This one posted where it should have.
I think the comment editing plug-in is great. I often wondered why we couldn’t edit our comments on the blog. It’s about time. Thanks.
I really doubt Howie is disappointed to be back with the Dodgers. He is disappointed over not getting the “big” contract. Personally, I don’t know why the Snakes didn’t just make the deal. They’ve already mortgaged their future (again). I seriously doubt losing a 2nd round draft pick is going to make much difference.
As for Kike, he’s a competitor. All he needs is a fair chance and he’ll run with it. This stuff about plenty of plate appearances to go around sounds good, I guess, but this isn’t Little League. The idea is to put the best team out there every game.
I see many comments about the Dodgers not having a true lead-off batter. I’ll differ on that. I think Kike is the man for the job. The only real weakness is that he doesn’t hit RHP well. With good coaching and experience he can learn. Send him out to sink or swim my bet is he’ll be swimming in no time. Other than that I don’t think there’s a better teacher than Maury Wills. Then again, maybe Maury can teach him to switch-hit too. Some guys take to switch-hitting like they’ve been doing it all their lives, others never get it. He won’t know ’til he tries.
Kike plays the game with such enthusiasm. If he’s out there at the top of the order everyday that can rub off on the whole team.
I’m like you RTR. Aside for the first inning, the leadoff spot is somewhat moot, although it can be important when the line-up turns over with less than two outs.
I wouldn’t even mind see Joc in the leadoff role – at least until he starts tearing it up like he did in April last season. Then again, if he doesn’t have a good spring, he may start the season at OKC – with Kiké starting in CF (which I’m ok with).
[…] ThinkBlueLA.com discuss the free agency pendulum […]
I s’pose y’all figured that “QA” there was s’posed to be “QO”. I just noticed that.