OnlyBucs

040809525B525A57504F55620 wrote:

This is just my opinion,but the next bargaining agreement may contain a salary floor. The Players Union cannot be very happy when a team like the Pirates only spends 60 to 65 million a year. It is less than two years away, but I will not be surprised if it is a part of the next labor agreement.
IMO that would be terrible for baseball without other changes.  That would hurt small market teams only.
I don’t see how it could hurt small market teams. If there was a floor the Pirates might sign a player like Josh Bell long term. Each season the floor would adjust. Possibly the initial year teams would have a  minimum payroll of 95 million dollars. The last thing I want small market teams to do is sign a player in order to meet the threshold. If there was a floor the Pirates could sign a mid range starting pitcher, and  not one from the bargain basement. Also if the investors in the teams were receiving revenue from MLB, television contracts etc. they would not receive as much, and it would go towards putting winning teams on the field, and not tanking a season.


Here's how it hurts small market teams. Let's exclude the Pirates because Nutting doesn't try to win. But in recent years Houston and KC have gone from small payrolls as they rebuilt to average or above average payrolls as they maintained their players and/or obtained additional quality players. The money they saved in the early stages of rebuilding enabled them to have more money in subsequent years to pay what it took when "the time was right." Forcing small market, rebuilding teams to increase spending when payroll is naturally low due to rebuilding with young players makes less money available when they need it most when the rebuild succeeds and the good players developed and/or acquired require higher salaries. Of course the time is never right for Nutting so a floor is reasonable for a miser like him. But other teams actually do spend when the time is right and the small payroll in the initial stages of the rebuild makes more money available later. For large market teams, it doesn't matter. They will always have the money they need. But small market teams might be efficiently managing their money at one point to have more available in ensuing years. Forcing them to spend more than they need to early in the rebuilding process might prevent them from being able to retain or acquire players important to their ability to seriously compete.

Bobster, what if there was a two (or three) year rebuilding exemption? You could dip below but only for a set time.

363A333E29752F3236342F3322696B1B3C365B0 wrote: Take a look at the nice salary bell curve for the KC Royals over the past decade.



The Red Sox or Yanks don't have to do that.



For a higher floor there will need to be better revenue sharing


Yes, exactly. To me that's the real inequity in baseball, worse even than the Astros scandal. If you're LA or NYY or Boston or the Cubs or the Dodgers you get to compete every year. Even under those circumstances you'll probably only win the WS once a decade or less. But at least you get a chance at the ring every year. If you're the Pirates, you only get an opportunity to compete a few times a decade, and only then if you're a little lucky.


What I am saying Kansas could still win a championship. There is a floor minimum teams must adhere to. There is already that ceiling which teams must remain under or pay the luxury tax. If a team A wants to spend 150 million so be it, if team B only wants to spend the salary floor that season they can without penalty. The Pirates will never be in the same revenue group as the big market teams, but a salary floor could give teams a better chance to compete, and not just tank a season and pocket revenue which could have made the team more competitive.

474B424F58045E4347455E4253181A6A4D472A0 wrote: Bobster, what if there was a two (or three) year rebuilding exemption? You could dip below but only for a set time.


In a different thread I suggested that a payroll floor average be used for precisely this reason: to allow teams a chance to go through a rebuild. Instituting a term of (for example) 5 years for calculating a team's average payroll to allow a team to achieve the mandated payroll floor would take into account a natural dip in payroll associated with a rebuild and incentivize (ie force) the team to spend above the floor as they gradually become more competitive.

6642565E5B370 wrote: Bobster, what if there was a two (or three) year rebuilding exemption? You could dip below but only for a set time.


In a different thread I suggested that a payroll floor average be used for precisely this reason: to allow teams a chance to go through a rebuild. Instituting a term of (for example) 5 years for calculating a team's average payroll to allow a team to achieve the mandated payroll floor would take into account a natural dip in payroll associated with a rebuild and incentivize (ie force) the team to spend above the floor as they gradually become more competitive.


That's the only way to do it. And there would have to be some exemptions. For example, let's say the Pirates made the payroll floor at the end of the prescribed period and they were paying Vazquez a lot of money when he suddenly ends up in jail. They shouldn't be forced to pay someone the same salary just to meet the minimum payroll when they can't find a player of equal talent and years of service.

6A474A5B5C4D5A1A19280 wrote: Bobster, what if there was a two (or three) year rebuilding exemption? You could dip below but only for a set time.
In a different thread I suggested that a payroll floor average be used for precisely this reason: to allow teams a chance to go through a rebuild. Instituting a term of (for example) 5 years for calculating a team's average payroll to allow a team to achieve the mandated payroll floor would take into account a natural dip in payroll associated with a rebuild and incentivize (ie force) the team to spend above the floor as they gradually become more competitive.


That's the only way to do it. And there would have to be some exemptions. For example, let's say the Pirates made the payroll floor at the end of the prescribed period and they were paying Vazquez a lot of money when he suddenly ends up in jail. They shouldn't be forced to pay someone the same salary just to meet the minimum payroll when they can't find a player of equal talent and years of service.   




I honestly don't have much sympathy for any owner.  If you're getting any revenue sharing $ and you dip below the minimum, the team pays the difference, even if it is because a player goes to jail.  Honestly, I'd allow teams to drop below the minimum, and escrow the funds, but they must be spent on payroll within 2 years, or lose the $.

I am all for a salary floor of $500 million over a 5 year period. If Nutting doesn't want to spend that, then he should get out of baseball.

766D606168646B050 wrote: I am all for a salary floor of $500 million over a 5 year period.  If Nutting doesn't want to spend that, then he should get out of baseball.
That is fine with me. If you cannot meet the salary floor get out, and let someone else own the team.

110A07060F030C620 wrote: I am all for a salary floor of $500 million over a 5 year period.  If Nutting doesn't want to spend that, then he should get out of baseball.


Salary floor or no salary floor, Nutting should absolutely get out of baseball!

I don't think players will fight for a floor. I think the battle for will be for new/shorter arb and arb eligibility rules. The Kris Bryant grievance was the first shot.