290C0F0F1A310C040611630 wrote: Easy way to fix this issue. Also one in which the players would approve. MLB needs to institute a minimum payroll floor for all teams. There’s no way a cap will ever get passed but a minimum floor would. This would ensure that owners such as Nutting or the Marlins ownership spend on the ML payroll commensurate to the revenue MLB is creating. For example; if the average team payroll is say 150M. Then you set a minimum of say 120M or whatever the weighted numbers support.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Players Association Files Grievance
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Players Association Files Grievance
I would be very surprised if the union pursued a floor. They have opposed any suggestion of that in the past. Their concern was that it would lead to a ceiling as well, and they didn't want a salary cap. The union is upset now because they can see what they did to themselves by agreeing to the luxury tax, which is in essence a soft cap.
Does anyone know what the rules are on revenue sharing monies? Presumably the agreement has criteria. I'm just curious what the four teams are alleged to have done improperly. They certainly spent more than 20 or 30 MM on payroll, so that can't be the test.
Does anyone know what the rules are on revenue sharing monies? Presumably the agreement has criteria. I'm just curious what the four teams are alleged to have done improperly. They certainly spent more than 20 or 30 MM on payroll, so that can't be the test.
-
johnfluharty
Players Association Files Grievance
373B3A6168616964637C66510 wrote: Easy way to fix this issue. Also one in which the players would approve. MLB needs to institute a minimum payroll floor for all teams. There’s no way a cap will ever get passed but a minimum floor would. This would ensure that owners such as Nutting or the Marlins ownership spend on the ML payroll commensurate to the revenue MLB is creating. For example; if the average team payroll is say 150M. Then you set a minimum of say 120M or whatever the weighted numbers support.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3488
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
Players Association Files Grievance
6560676169637A676E7D7B760F0 wrote: Easy way to fix this issue. Also one in which the players would approve. MLB needs to institute a minimum payroll floor for all teams. There’s no way a cap will ever get passed but a minimum floor would. This would ensure that owners such as Nutting or the Marlins ownership spend on the ML payroll commensurate to the revenue MLB is creating. For example; if the average team payroll is say 150M. Then you set a minimum of say 120M or whatever the weighted numbers support.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
The Players Association is a very strong union, and I think they could negotiate a floor without agreeing to a ceiling or salary cap. I am concerned that they may want to reduce the years of control teams have with a player, or attempt to negotiate free agency before the current six year arrangement. The next CBA negotiations will be interesting. The union is not very happy about the slow signing of free agents this offseason.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
The Players Association is a very strong union, and I think they could negotiate a floor without agreeing to a ceiling or salary cap. I am concerned that they may want to reduce the years of control teams have with a player, or attempt to negotiate free agency before the current six year arrangement. The next CBA negotiations will be interesting. The union is not very happy about the slow signing of free agents this offseason.
Players Association Files Grievance
The player's union used to be relatively strong, but that's no longer the case. Over time, the players have agreed to a) the arbitration system, which is essentially a rookie salary cap that lasts years longer than the other major sports b) the luxury tax, (which big market teams (Yankees) are using as a soft salary cap) without a corresponding salary floor.
While the players were focused on shiny big contracts for a handful of players, the owners managed to drive down the player's share of revenue to about 40 percent. Players in the other leagues with caps/floors? High forties to fifty percent.
And that forty percent number will probably go down based on the inactivity this season. Owners have have subscribed to idea of not paying for declining years. So huge Giancarlo Stanton contracts are a thing of the past.
The players should should negotiate for a floor, because the owners are taking an increasing share of the revenue. That 50 million from MLBAM? It's clearly not going to the players.
While the players were focused on shiny big contracts for a handful of players, the owners managed to drive down the player's share of revenue to about 40 percent. Players in the other leagues with caps/floors? High forties to fifty percent.
And that forty percent number will probably go down based on the inactivity this season. Owners have have subscribed to idea of not paying for declining years. So huge Giancarlo Stanton contracts are a thing of the past.
The players should should negotiate for a floor, because the owners are taking an increasing share of the revenue. That 50 million from MLBAM? It's clearly not going to the players.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Players Association Files Grievance
7D6D6C5B4D4D412E0 wrote: Since the Bucs are now the only team to not sign a free agent to a MLB contract this offseason, maybe it would be a good plan to sign someone now to show the Players Association they are complying with revenue sharing rules.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
Why doesn't it matter how many moves in general or minor league contracts? Aren't minor leaguers in the Union too.
This will be kind of interesting. I don't really see a case, but I am sure I am a little bias. Funny how this is happening this year and not previous years. Other teams would be in question too.
The Brewers, for example, had such a low payroll last year but they make two trades to raise their payroll to where the Pirates are and all of the sudden they are trying to win? For some reason, that doesn't matter. Silly.
It happens this year because three teams have definitely tanked trying to improve the roster. Silly is using the Brewers or the Astros which you have used in the passed as examples.
You don't think the Brewers significantly improved their roster? They might be where we are money wise (I think they are over), but they sure as hell have a better chance to win.
Bottom line ... Nutting got a check for 50 million from the Disney thing. He will add another check between 20-40 million in revenue sharing. Our payroll will be less than those numbers, is revenue sharing check is 30 or more million. Please don't add the 2.5 million we are sending to SFG as something to our payroll that helps this roster. He will be pocketing more than he spent on that $$$ alone.
That is the gripe and that is a good gripe to have. I don't think there have been three teams like this purge in the same season and not really do anything to improve their club.
You are in defense mode for the Pirate brass, which is very typical.
Every year, there are rebuilding teams. Where was the grievances before?
The Brewers and Astros tanked as they rebuilt. Now, they are very good (Astros) and pretty good (Brewers) going forward. Yes, the Pirates are in the same ballpark as the Brewers' payroll. The Brewers made trades to bring up their payroll to be near the Pirates. But that is ok? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The grievance is about spending money, payroll.
Once again, it isn't defense mode. It is being fair.
Players Association Files Grievance
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a work stoppage next time the contract comes up for review. The players are now understanding what an error it was to agree to the luxury tax provisions. On revenue sharing, the monies are to be used to "improve" the team, but I haven't seen any definition of 'improve.' It could be the players think the Pirates are using the money to sustain the current level, not get better (or even more appealing, they could be looking at the players NH signed to those minor league contracts and wondering how they could possibly improve a team). Unless there's a solid, objective definition for improvement, I don't see this going too far.
Incidentally, people keep bringing up the BAM money in the context of revenue sharing. That isn't revenue sharing money and it isn't revenue from the business operation. As I understand it, it's the conversion of an asset from the investment in BAM to the cash value of that investment, like selling your car and putting the money in the bank.
Incidentally, people keep bringing up the BAM money in the context of revenue sharing. That isn't revenue sharing money and it isn't revenue from the business operation. As I understand it, it's the conversion of an asset from the investment in BAM to the cash value of that investment, like selling your car and putting the money in the bank.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Players Association Files Grievance
5473785B160 wrote: The player's union used to be relatively strong, but that's no longer the case. Over time, the players have agreed to a) the arbitration system, which is essentially a rookie salary cap that lasts years longer than the other major sports b) the luxury tax, (which big market teams (Yankees) are using as a soft salary cap) without a corresponding salary floor.
While the players were focused on shiny big contracts for a handful of players, the owners managed to drive down the player's share of revenue to about 40 percent. Players in the other leagues with caps/floors? High forties to fifty percent.
And that forty percent number will probably go down based on the inactivity this season. Owners have have subscribed to idea of not paying for declining years. So huge Giancarlo Stanton contracts are a thing of the past.
The players should should negotiate for a floor, because the owners are taking an increasing share of the revenue. That 50 million from MLBAM? It's clearly not going to the players.
It also doesn't help the Union that the $100 million contracts have been failures overall. How many of those players lived up to those deals? How many of them actually helped their teams going forward?
This is only happening because there are some star power names still on the market. They thought they would cash in instead of signing an extension and they were wrong.
While the players were focused on shiny big contracts for a handful of players, the owners managed to drive down the player's share of revenue to about 40 percent. Players in the other leagues with caps/floors? High forties to fifty percent.
And that forty percent number will probably go down based on the inactivity this season. Owners have have subscribed to idea of not paying for declining years. So huge Giancarlo Stanton contracts are a thing of the past.
The players should should negotiate for a floor, because the owners are taking an increasing share of the revenue. That 50 million from MLBAM? It's clearly not going to the players.
It also doesn't help the Union that the $100 million contracts have been failures overall. How many of those players lived up to those deals? How many of them actually helped their teams going forward?
This is only happening because there are some star power names still on the market. They thought they would cash in instead of signing an extension and they were wrong.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Players Association Files Grievance
474245434B4158454C5F59542D0 wrote: Easy way to fix this issue. Also one in which the players would approve. MLB needs to institute a minimum payroll floor for all teams. There’s no way a cap will ever get passed but a minimum floor would. This would ensure that owners such as Nutting or the Marlins ownership spend on the ML payroll commensurate to the revenue MLB is creating. For example; if the average team payroll is say 150M. Then you set a minimum of say 120M or whatever the weighted numbers support.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
Maybe a soft tax like we're seeing right now with the "ceiling."
Either way I wouldn't want to see either without better revenue sharing. Maybe if those players in MLB camp stay there all season, someone will realize that once the handful of teams with billion dollar TV deals spend up to the limit, there's no room for anyone else or reason to go out and get guys.
You are probably correct about the union pursuing a floor in the next CBA. This would stop teams from tanking like the Astros and Cubs did a few years ago . I am in agreement with a floor because this would make teams try to compete each year. I don’t want a team such as the Bucs to sign some washed up player to meet the floor level, but possibly it would make them spend a little more money to retain a player for an additional year or two.
Think they can get a floor without having to agree to a celiling?
Maybe a soft tax like we're seeing right now with the "ceiling."
Either way I wouldn't want to see either without better revenue sharing. Maybe if those players in MLB camp stay there all season, someone will realize that once the handful of teams with billion dollar TV deals spend up to the limit, there's no room for anyone else or reason to go out and get guys.
Players Association Files Grievance
393B212731540 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a work stoppage next time the contract comes up for review. The players are now understanding what an error it was to agree to the luxury tax provisions. On revenue sharing, the monies are to be used to "improve" the team, but I haven't seen any definition of 'improve.' It could be the players think the Pirates are using the money to sustain the current level, not get better (or even more appealing, they could be looking at the players NH signed to those minor league contracts and wondering how they could possibly improve a team). Unless there's a solid, objective definition for improvement, I don't see this going too far.
Incidentally, people keep bringing up the BAM money in the context of revenue sharing. That isn't revenue sharing money and it isn't revenue from the business operation. As I understand it, it's the conversion of an asset from the investment in BAM to the cash value of that investment, like selling your car and putting the money in the bank.
While I understand what you're saying about the BAMTECH money, I believe most people are saying you got 50M plus x-amount of revenue sharing and you still won't sign any FA's?
Incidentally, people keep bringing up the BAM money in the context of revenue sharing. That isn't revenue sharing money and it isn't revenue from the business operation. As I understand it, it's the conversion of an asset from the investment in BAM to the cash value of that investment, like selling your car and putting the money in the bank.
While I understand what you're saying about the BAMTECH money, I believe most people are saying you got 50M plus x-amount of revenue sharing and you still won't sign any FA's?