I think what would be useful is to not necessarily raise the team salary, but to raise the league minimum salary along with a cap on top salaries. That would bring all the salaries closer to the average in a different way, emphasizing roster building over collecting stars.
Though of course none of this matters one bit unless there's some sort of TV revenue sharing which of course isn't going to happen. Forget the Nutting hate for a moment--consider that you have some teams with 50 million TV deals and others with billion dollar plus deals. No owner and no salary scheme is going to fix that. I know it's easier to blame one villain and to think how it would be all better if you could get rid of him, but it's not that simple. The problem is deeper than that, involves more teams than just the Pirates, and is never going to be fixed.
MLB PA v Owners
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
MLB PA v Owners
664B46575041561615240 wrote: Just read that the Bucs projected payroll for 2020 is the second lowest of the 30 teams. The labor agreement has two years remaining, and I would be very surprised if the players union does not want to incorporate some type of payroll floor to their salary structure. When teams like the Brewers and Reds are spending in excess of 30 million dollars more on their team payroll the union is going to arrive at some floor average that teams must spend each year, or they will be penalized. This low team payroll which Nutting and the Pirates are doing will force them to spend a certain amount or pay a tax, or lose revenue spending money, or relinquish draft picks. I think this will be an issue with the players union.
It's well known that Nutting is a raging cheapskate. But a payroll floor presents problems. It's hard to look at the Pirates roster this year and say anyone is really underpaid. That's Nutting's system. Operate with players who don't yet command high salaries and move them when they get to that point. So a payroll floor would require teams either to overpay players who haven't accrued the service time or productivity to warrant it or to demand a team makes roster changes to add more expensive players. And it's hard to justify ordering a team to make roster changes. As Pirate fans, we know all to well what Nutting is up to. But there are other small market teams who occasionally go thru a rebuild that results in a very low payroll for a few years while the roster consists of young players before they become productive and earn higher salaries. Such teams would be forced by MLB to overpay young players to meet a threshold even though they intended to pay them when the time was right. Of course the time is never right with Nutting. but it doesn't seem fair to punish every team because of him.
I expect the players to argue for higher minimum salaries, start arbitration and free agency earlier. None of these are good for a team that wants to have a low payroll.
On the other hand, there is no reason for players and other owners to care about low payroll teams either.
It's well known that Nutting is a raging cheapskate. But a payroll floor presents problems. It's hard to look at the Pirates roster this year and say anyone is really underpaid. That's Nutting's system. Operate with players who don't yet command high salaries and move them when they get to that point. So a payroll floor would require teams either to overpay players who haven't accrued the service time or productivity to warrant it or to demand a team makes roster changes to add more expensive players. And it's hard to justify ordering a team to make roster changes. As Pirate fans, we know all to well what Nutting is up to. But there are other small market teams who occasionally go thru a rebuild that results in a very low payroll for a few years while the roster consists of young players before they become productive and earn higher salaries. Such teams would be forced by MLB to overpay young players to meet a threshold even though they intended to pay them when the time was right. Of course the time is never right with Nutting. but it doesn't seem fair to punish every team because of him.
I expect the players to argue for higher minimum salaries, start arbitration and free agency earlier. None of these are good for a team that wants to have a low payroll.
On the other hand, there is no reason for players and other owners to care about low payroll teams either.
MLB PA v Owners
I think a salary floor is imperative. It doesn't come down to just forcing owners to pay more for the same players. If an owner was below the salary floor, he could go out and get back up players from other teams rather than just playing with LMG's and pocketing the rest. It would be good for baseball too as it would allow capable major league baseball players to play rather than sitting the bench on a team that is willing to pay more. Worse, some teams stock their farm systems up with major league ball players because guys like Nutting will not pay them. Thus, a perfectly good major league baseball players is kept in the farm system while the Pirates play with minor leaguers. There have even been players who retired because all the teams who are willing to pay are filled. So long as BOB is able to fill up a good part of his roster with LMG's and pocket the revenue sharing, he will continue to do so.
-
Bobster21
MLB PA v Owners
6E757879707C731D0 wrote: I think a salary floor is imperative. It doesn't come down to just forcing owners to pay more for the same players. If an owner was below the salary floor, he could go out and get back up players from other teams rather than just playing with LMG's and pocketing the rest. It would be good for baseball too as it would allow capable major league baseball players to play rather than sitting the bench on a team that is willing to pay more. Worse, some teams stock their farm systems up with major league ball players because guys like Nutting will not pay them. Thus, a perfectly good major league baseball players is kept in the farm system while the Pirates play with minor leaguers. There have even been players who retired because all the teams who are willing to pay are filled. So long as BOB is able to fill up a good part of his roster with LMG's and pocket the revenue sharing, he will continue to do so.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
MLB PA v Owners
5A777A6B6C7D6A2A29180 wrote: I think a salary floor is imperative. It doesn't come down to just forcing owners to pay more for the same players. If an owner was below the salary floor, he could go out and get back up players from other teams rather than just playing with LMG's and pocketing the rest. It would be good for baseball too as it would allow capable major league baseball players to play rather than sitting the bench on a team that is willing to pay more. Worse, some teams stock their farm systems up with major league ball players because guys like Nutting will not pay them. Thus, a perfectly good major league baseball players is kept in the farm system while the Pirates play with minor leaguers. There have even been players who retired because all the teams who are willing to pay are filled. So long as BOB is able to fill up a good part of his roster with LMG's and pocket the revenue sharing, he will continue to do so.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
---
If rebuilding is the problem, I would have no issue with spreading the floor over a 5 year period. Instead of a 100 million floor, say a $500 million floor over 5 years. Then a team could spend less than $100 million in the first year of the rebuild and more than $100 million in the last year of the rebuild. If an owner didn't want to commit $500 million over 5 years, then he should get out of baseball.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
---
If rebuilding is the problem, I would have no issue with spreading the floor over a 5 year period. Instead of a 100 million floor, say a $500 million floor over 5 years. Then a team could spend less than $100 million in the first year of the rebuild and more than $100 million in the last year of the rebuild. If an owner didn't want to commit $500 million over 5 years, then he should get out of baseball.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
MLB PA v Owners
That's not really fixing the problem though. Why should some teams have a chance to be good every single season while almost all of the others have a shot about once a decade if they get lucky and IF THEY DO EVERYTHING RIGHT. Taking the Pirates' real issues out of it for now, I like to look at the Royals. They clearly did things right right way. Clever talent evaluation, development, might have had one of the best front office runs in recent memory. They got to the top. If they were that clever and good why should they not have a shot to keep that up instead of being forced to blow it all up and suck for the forseeable future? If they were in NY or LA or Chicago instead of Kansas City they could have. There will never be a Kansas City dynasty no matter how brilliant they are.
MLB PA v Owners
41737F7F6B597A737E7B7473120 wrote: That's not really fixing the problem though. Why should some teams have a chance to be good every single season while almost all of the others have a shot about once a decade if they get lucky and IF THEY DO EVERYTHING RIGHT. Taking the Pirates' real issues out of it for now, I like to look at the Royals. They clearly did things right right way. Clever talent evaluation, development, might have had one of the best front office runs in recent memory. They got to the top. If they were that clever and good why should they not have a shot to keep that up instead of being forced to blow it all up and suck for the forseeable future? If they were in NY or LA or Chicago instead of Kansas City they could have. There will never be a Kansas City dynasty no matter how brilliant they are.
this is correct but I don't think anyone in baseball is pushing for a level playing field among the teams. If MLB was starting over today I think that would be a priority.
this is correct but I don't think anyone in baseball is pushing for a level playing field among the teams. If MLB was starting over today I think that would be a priority.
MLB PA v Owners
5C6E62627644676E6366696E0F0 wrote: That's not really fixing the problem though. Why should some teams have a chance to be good every single season while almost all of the others have a shot about once a decade if they get lucky and IF THEY DO EVERYTHING RIGHT. Taking the Pirates' real issues out of it for now, I like to look at the Royals. They clearly did things right right way. Clever talent evaluation, development, might have had one of the best front office runs in recent memory. They got to the top. If they were that clever and good why should they not have a shot to keep that up instead of being forced to blow it all up and suck for the forseeable future? If they were in NY or LA or Chicago instead of Kansas City they could have. There will never be a Kansas City dynasty no matter how brilliant they are.
---
Clearly, what you are saying is true, but the economics of baseball is unlikely to change.
---
Clearly, what you are saying is true, but the economics of baseball is unlikely to change.
-
GermanTownship
MLB PA v Owners
I have been saying this quite a few times on this issue. The only way baseball is going to get “fixed”, is by having a true salary cap. Look at what the salary cap has done in all of the other professional sports, football, hockey, and basketball. It has brought parity. If not for the cap, many teams in cities would have ceased to exist. Teams like the Dallas Cowboys would be the Yankees, if there was no cap in football. If baseball has to shut down for a season, like hockey, and also for football, which used replacement players for a brief period, which proved to be a joke, let it happen. Small market clubs would almost cease to lose their better players to the Yankees, RedSox, and other big market teams. Teams like the Pirates today are like the Kansas City A’s of the 1950’s, a major league farm team. The Yankees got many a great young players, in return getting older vets.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
MLB PA v Owners
6D4F58474B447E455D445942435A2A0 wrote: I have been saying this quite a few times on this issue. The only way baseball is going to get “fixed”, is by having a true salary cap. Look at what the salary cap has done in all of the other professional sports, football, hockey, and basketball. It has brought parity. If not for the cap, many teams in cities would have ceased to exist. Teams like the Dallas Cowboys would be the Yankees, if there was no cap in football. If baseball has to shut down for a season, like hockey, and also for football, which used replacement players for a brief period, which proved to be a joke, let it happen. Small market clubs would almost cease to lose their better players to the Yankees, RedSox, and other big market teams. Teams like the Pirates today are like the Kansas City A’s of the 1950’s, a major league farm team. The Yankees got many a great young players, in return getting older vets.
Having only a cap wouldn't force owners like Nutting to spend up to it. He'd simply continue spending the way he has, even if better players are available due to the cap restriction. If a floor doesn't accompany the cap, I don't believe much will change for a franchise like the Pirates.
And I believe that the cap and floor have to be very close together. like only $20 million apart, or even less. If a cap is placed at, say, $175 million, and the floor at $125 million, the Pirates, under Nutting, will always be at the floor and would continue to remain non-competitive far more years then not.
Having only a cap wouldn't force owners like Nutting to spend up to it. He'd simply continue spending the way he has, even if better players are available due to the cap restriction. If a floor doesn't accompany the cap, I don't believe much will change for a franchise like the Pirates.
And I believe that the cap and floor have to be very close together. like only $20 million apart, or even less. If a cap is placed at, say, $175 million, and the floor at $125 million, the Pirates, under Nutting, will always be at the floor and would continue to remain non-competitive far more years then not.