A Second Slow Free Agent Offseason

[mouse]

I doubt any work stoppage (at least by disgruntled players) addresses salary caps or floors. The players have been opposed to that in any form -- they don't want a cap on what they can earn. Maybe if they see it's all going to Machado and Harper they'll change their minds, but I don't see that coming at this point. They are going to want to do away with the minimum salary for three years and three of arb salaries. They really would like free agency from the start. We may end with teams having a three year window before free agency starts. Teams like Pittsburgh will become feeders for teams with resources (which is basically what we are now, only muted due to the six-year window). Salary caps have been an owners' issue and would likely take a lockout.

[notes34]

55574D4B5D380 wrote: I doubt any work stoppage (at least by disgruntled players) addresses salary caps or floors. The players have been opposed to that in any form -- they don't want a cap on what they can earn. Maybe if they see it's all going to Machado and Harper they'll change their minds, but I don't see that coming at this point. They are going to want to do away with the minimum salary for three years and three of arb salaries. They really would like free agency from the start. We may end with teams having a three year window before free agency starts. Teams like Pittsburgh will become feeders for teams with resources (which is basically what we are now, only muted due to the six-year window). Salary caps have been an owners' issue and would likely take a lockout.
I would be ok with 3 year window before free agency, if it comes with a salary floor/cap.

[fjk090852-7]

0D0C1706105057630 wrote: I doubt any work stoppage (at least by disgruntled players) addresses salary caps or floors. The players have been opposed to that in any form -- they don't want a cap on what they can earn. Maybe if they see it's all going to Machado and Harper they'll change their minds, but I don't see that coming at this point. They are going to want to do away with the minimum salary for three years and three of arb salaries. They really would like free agency from the start. We may end with teams having a three year window before free agency starts. Teams like Pittsburgh will become feeders for teams with resources (which is basically what we are now, only muted due to the six-year window). Salary caps have been an owners' issue and would likely take a lockout.
I would be ok with 3 year window before free agency, if it comes with a salary floor/cap.
If the players get to reduce the six to three year window I am sure the owners will want something in return such as a cap and floor. These next negotiations are going to be very difficult.

[Bobster21]

I would hate a 3 year window for free agency. Few players reach their potential in their first 3 years. It's already bad enough with pitchers, who generally take more time to reach their potential than hitters. The Pirates go thru the growing pains with young pitchers only to see them walk within about a year of becoming the pitcher the team had hoped they would become. It would be difficult for teams to know what to pay a free agent pitcher after 3 years as suitors would be bidding more on potential than productivity. And a small market team would say goodbye to young hitters as soon as they become productive. I believe a 3-year window for free agency would absolutely doom the Pirates.

[Ecbucs]

614C41505746511112230 wrote: I would hate a 3 year window for free agency. Few players reach their potential in their first 3 years. It's already bad enough with pitchers, who generally take more time to reach their potential than hitters. The Pirates go thru the growing pains with young pitchers only to see them walk within about a year of becoming the pitcher the team had hoped they would become. It would be difficult for teams to know what to pay a free agent pitcher after 3 years as suitors would be bidding more on potential than productivity. And a small market team would say goodbye to young hitters as soon as they become productive. I believe a 3-year window for free agency would absolutely doom the Pirates. 


I think three year would doom Bucs too. Possibly go to 5 (if it is five full years you can have a player for 6 seasons) but anything lower than that would kill low budget teams.



I don't think a floor and cap are even on the table among the owners. They would have to agree it is a good idea before even starting to talk to players. The luxury tax does seem to work as the high payroll teams usually try to avoid going over it. A cap of $200 million with a floor of $100 million does nothing to help the Pirates. Several teams would still spend $100 million more than the Pirates.



A cap of $200 million with a floor of $140 would help the Pirates but the Pirates would be against it.

[Quail]

113736213727540 wrote: I would hate a 3 year window for free agency. Few players reach their potential in their first 3 years. It's already bad enough with pitchers, who generally take more time to reach their potential than hitters. The Pirates go thru the growing pains with young pitchers only to see them walk within about a year of becoming the pitcher the team had hoped they would become. It would be difficult for teams to know what to pay a free agent pitcher after 3 years as suitors would be bidding more on potential than productivity. And a small market team would say goodbye to young hitters as soon as they become productive. I believe a 3-year window for free agency would absolutely doom the Pirates. 


I think three year would doom Bucs too.  Possibly go to 5 (if it is five full years you can have a player for 6 seasons) but anything lower than that would kill low budget teams.



I don't think a floor and cap are even on the table among the owners. They would have to agree it is a good idea before even starting to talk to players.  The luxury tax does seem to work as the high payroll teams usually try to avoid going over it.  A cap of $200 million with a floor of $100 million does nothing to help the Pirates. Several teams would still spend $100 million more than the Pirates.



A cap of $200 million with a floor of $140 would help the Pirates but the Pirates would be against it.




I'd love to see a salary floor of around $140M. It just might put enough of a drain on Nutting's revenue-sharing cash cow that he'd be willing to sell the franchise.

[SammyKhalifa]

3317030B0E620 wrote: I would hate a 3 year window for free agency. Few players reach their potential in their first 3 years. It's already bad enough with pitchers, who generally take more time to reach their potential than hitters. The Pirates go thru the growing pains with young pitchers only to see them walk within about a year of becoming the pitcher the team had hoped they would become. It would be difficult for teams to know what to pay a free agent pitcher after 3 years as suitors would be bidding more on potential than productivity. And a small market team would say goodbye to young hitters as soon as they become productive. I believe a 3-year window for free agency would absolutely doom the Pirates. 


I think three year would doom Bucs too.  Possibly go to 5 (if it is five full years you can have a player for 6 seasons) but anything lower than that would kill low budget teams.



I don't think a floor and cap are even on the table among the owners. They would have to agree it is a good idea before even starting to talk to players.  The luxury tax does seem to work as the high payroll teams usually try to avoid going over it.  A cap of $200 million with a floor of $100 million does nothing to help the Pirates. Several teams would still spend $100 million more than the Pirates.



A cap of $200 million with a floor of $140 would help the Pirates but the Pirates would be against it.




I'd love to see a salary floor of around $140M. It just might put enough of a drain on Nutting's revenue-sharing cash cow that he'd be willing to sell the franchise.






You'd be dooming franchises in about 10-12 cities if you do that.  At least not without revenue sharing. 



Sure some SM teams will have salaries around there, but not every single year.  The Brewers are spending now but they sure werent a few years ago when their salary was something like 70MM.  They'd be in a constant fight to hit that number and not have the room to make a big move like they seem to be now.



And if the salary cap is double the floor I'm not really sure what changing the numbers really does.  It's all still relative.  I certainly wouldn't feel any better knowing that we handed some player more money than they deserved just because the Pirates were contractually obligated to.

[BenM]

I don't see a major change in the economics of baseball coming from the next labor negotiations. Players aren't going to strike. They realize that the owners can easily outlast them. There hasn't been a strike in any major sports since that last baseball strike in the nineties because players realize they always lose.



All of the work stoppages since then have been owner initiated lockouts. And in this case, I think the owners are pretty happy. For big market clubs the luxury tax serves as a convenient reason to limit total payroll. It's functioning as a very soft salary cap. For small market teams, the lack of a salary floor is great because they can spend as little as they want in order to maximize profit. (Owners also seem to have made peace with sending revenue sharing to teams whose commitment to using those funds to improve the team is questionable. The last one I remember making a public fuss about it was George Steinbrenner.)



I don't see the motivation for either party to make major changes.

[Ecbucs]

0423280B460 wrote: I don't see a major change in the economics of baseball coming from the next labor negotiations. Players aren't going to strike. They realize that the owners can easily outlast them. There hasn't been a strike in any major sports since that last baseball strike in the nineties because players realize they always lose.



All of the work stoppages since then have been owner initiated lockouts. And in this case, I think the owners are pretty happy. For big market clubs the luxury tax serves as a convenient reason to limit total payroll. It's functioning as a very soft salary cap. For small market teams, the lack of a salary floor is great because they can spend as little as they want in order to maximize profit. (Owners also seem to have made peace with sending revenue sharing to teams whose commitment to using those funds to improve the team is questionable. The last one I remember making a public fuss about it was George Steinbrenner.)



I don't see the motivation for either party to make major changes.


I think this is right. The next way to get an influx of revenue is to expand.

[BenM]

Machado's camp is claiming that a mystery team has joined the bidding.



Here we go!