The latest...
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/327 ... atform=amp
Long way to go...
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
WildwoodDave2
The next CBA and the future of MLB
6D686F69616B726F6675737E070 wrote: The latest...
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/327 ... atform=amp
Long way to go...
Presently, both sides seem very adamant.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/327 ... atform=amp
Long way to go...
Presently, both sides seem very adamant.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3488
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Just wondering if the Players push to getting some type of team payroll minimum,it might be a good time to approach Brian Reynolds with a long term agreement. This way the Bucs would not be signing a free agent or two just for the sake of meeting a payroll minimum. They still would have enough money to sign a pitcher, but continue to spend wisely to meet the minimum.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
6F6362393039313C3B243E090 wrote: Just wondering if the Players push to getting some type of team payroll minimum,it might be a good time to approach Brian Reynolds with a long term agreement. This way the Bucs would not be signing a free agent or two just for the sake of meeting a payroll minimum. They still would have enough money to sign a pitcher, but continue to spend wisely to meet the minimum.
If there’s a minimum all teams must spend, I still don’t see the Pirates going after any top, or even mid-tier, free agents. They’ll spend what they have to in order to reach the minimum, but that’s it in my estimation.
The club will overspend on low-level free agents few other teams want but I can’t see them doing that with the best players available. Besides, some other team will outbid the Pirates for the best players anyway because the good players will almost always sign with franchises that have shown a commitment to winning.
If there’s a minimum all teams must spend, I still don’t see the Pirates going after any top, or even mid-tier, free agents. They’ll spend what they have to in order to reach the minimum, but that’s it in my estimation.
The club will overspend on low-level free agents few other teams want but I can’t see them doing that with the best players available. Besides, some other team will outbid the Pirates for the best players anyway because the good players will almost always sign with franchises that have shown a commitment to winning.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
626E6F343D343C31362933040 wrote: Just wondering if the Players push to getting some type of team payroll minimum,it might be a good time to approach Brian Reynolds with a long term agreement. This way the Bucs would not be signing a free agent or two just for the sake of meeting a payroll minimum. They still would have enough money to sign a pitcher, but continue to spend wisely to meet the minimum.
It would be phased in, this has been discussed. They have also talked about possibly making it an average over a certain amount of time, because at some point, small market teams HAVE to reload under the current CBA. Even some teams that spent big, and have seen those players aged/untradeable and now the team is bad with a high payroll, it allows them to rebuild too.
But they can agree on that from (this appears to be the new catch word with MLB and the union) a "philosophical" standpoint, how to actually put it on paper in numbers is a different issue.
It would be phased in, this has been discussed. They have also talked about possibly making it an average over a certain amount of time, because at some point, small market teams HAVE to reload under the current CBA. Even some teams that spent big, and have seen those players aged/untradeable and now the team is bad with a high payroll, it allows them to rebuild too.
But they can agree on that from (this appears to be the new catch word with MLB and the union) a "philosophical" standpoint, how to actually put it on paper in numbers is a different issue.
-
WildwoodDave2
The next CBA and the future of MLB
133532272E2235232B400 wrote: Let me comment on point one in this post.
First, I ask how high will the salary cap go? Can you see it moving up to $300-$400 million in the coming years? I definitely agree that the amount of the tax penalty for going over the cap should be very punitive. I might suggest that each of these items can be indexed to overall revenues including revenue from regional sports networks owned by the clubs.
As far as a salary floor, where do you start? Do you start at a low $ amount, say $80 million in year one and then have it increase each year until the lower revenue teams have reached a floor of say $120 million in maybe 3 years. I think that if the team still is not at the floor going into year 3 some sort of penalty must be paid in the form of a revenue-sharing decrease until the floor is met.
As for the amount of revenue-sharing money that must be spent on player salaries why not go for 100% to begin with and negotiate to a lower level of say 75%. Of course, a team that is under the salary floor must spend 100% until they reach the salary floor.
IDK what the luxury threshold is now, but I think there would be a proposal of percentage increases to a specific level that is formulaic with revenues. It may not actually go up one year, I don't think it would ever go down, if a team really was hit hard revenue wise they could just simply trade away some of their problem.
That's actually a luxury higher revenue teams also have. If they have a real bad year, they have ways of making room simply because with so much salary, there's a good chance from year to year someone is coming off the books, or they have someone they can trade that they won't have to pay all of the salary to get rid of. Boston is a good example. The Red Sox had 32.7 million they were paying to other teams for players no longer on their team in 2019 that was coming off the books in 2020. They were able to trade David Price, and pay 16 million of his salary through 2022. With the money coming off the books, they still had another 16 million to play with anyhow.
That's a value that you can't quantify. The revenue difference is one thing, being able to retain the salaries of guys who aren't even playing for you that approach another teams entire payroll is kind of staggering to think about. So the Red Sox spent up to a level, and if they have a down year, they can shed a lot of salary, and find a better player/s to spend it on. They have the luxury Being able to first sign a guy to a contract paying 30 million or more a year is one thing; being able to trade him and still pay half his salary in order to retool is another.
Another advantage is what large market teams can do as far as paying guys into the future. Take a look at Mookie Betts contract. He has salary deferral from 2040-2044 that pays him 11 million a year. The Pirates only had one player at the beginning of this year making that kind of money and actually PLAYING.
So I think it's actually going to get pretty high, but incrementally. Teams have to think about these deferrals at some point I would think, but do you really think the guys who are running the Dodgers now expect to be running it 24 years from now? I also don't know how the deferrals are figured into the luxury tax calculation right now. Are they going by AAV? The stated number? IDK if signing bonus money is figured into the luxury tax. The Dodgers paid Betts a 65 million dollar signing bonus.
They were talking about a salary floor during the playoffs I think on MLB network, and talked about that very exact thing. If you make the floor 100 million, do you force teams to go there immediately? It would have to be phased in.
But no matter what any of us thinks, the first and most important issue of it all is revenue disclosure. I'm guessing the owners don't want to share a specific percentage of the profits, I think they want hard and fast numbers to play with.
So they only way around that is finding what number "sounds good" to the union. I really think that's how it's all going to boil down. I think the union is going to want to know all the numbers coming in. I think they'll be satisfied not knowing if they hear the right numbers.
I have been reading all of this and have been enlightened as to the nuts and bolts of the CBA. You have done a great job of breaking it down. In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest stumbling block in reaching an agreement
First, I ask how high will the salary cap go? Can you see it moving up to $300-$400 million in the coming years? I definitely agree that the amount of the tax penalty for going over the cap should be very punitive. I might suggest that each of these items can be indexed to overall revenues including revenue from regional sports networks owned by the clubs.
As far as a salary floor, where do you start? Do you start at a low $ amount, say $80 million in year one and then have it increase each year until the lower revenue teams have reached a floor of say $120 million in maybe 3 years. I think that if the team still is not at the floor going into year 3 some sort of penalty must be paid in the form of a revenue-sharing decrease until the floor is met.
As for the amount of revenue-sharing money that must be spent on player salaries why not go for 100% to begin with and negotiate to a lower level of say 75%. Of course, a team that is under the salary floor must spend 100% until they reach the salary floor.
IDK what the luxury threshold is now, but I think there would be a proposal of percentage increases to a specific level that is formulaic with revenues. It may not actually go up one year, I don't think it would ever go down, if a team really was hit hard revenue wise they could just simply trade away some of their problem.
That's actually a luxury higher revenue teams also have. If they have a real bad year, they have ways of making room simply because with so much salary, there's a good chance from year to year someone is coming off the books, or they have someone they can trade that they won't have to pay all of the salary to get rid of. Boston is a good example. The Red Sox had 32.7 million they were paying to other teams for players no longer on their team in 2019 that was coming off the books in 2020. They were able to trade David Price, and pay 16 million of his salary through 2022. With the money coming off the books, they still had another 16 million to play with anyhow.
That's a value that you can't quantify. The revenue difference is one thing, being able to retain the salaries of guys who aren't even playing for you that approach another teams entire payroll is kind of staggering to think about. So the Red Sox spent up to a level, and if they have a down year, they can shed a lot of salary, and find a better player/s to spend it on. They have the luxury Being able to first sign a guy to a contract paying 30 million or more a year is one thing; being able to trade him and still pay half his salary in order to retool is another.
Another advantage is what large market teams can do as far as paying guys into the future. Take a look at Mookie Betts contract. He has salary deferral from 2040-2044 that pays him 11 million a year. The Pirates only had one player at the beginning of this year making that kind of money and actually PLAYING.
So I think it's actually going to get pretty high, but incrementally. Teams have to think about these deferrals at some point I would think, but do you really think the guys who are running the Dodgers now expect to be running it 24 years from now? I also don't know how the deferrals are figured into the luxury tax calculation right now. Are they going by AAV? The stated number? IDK if signing bonus money is figured into the luxury tax. The Dodgers paid Betts a 65 million dollar signing bonus.
They were talking about a salary floor during the playoffs I think on MLB network, and talked about that very exact thing. If you make the floor 100 million, do you force teams to go there immediately? It would have to be phased in.
But no matter what any of us thinks, the first and most important issue of it all is revenue disclosure. I'm guessing the owners don't want to share a specific percentage of the profits, I think they want hard and fast numbers to play with.
So they only way around that is finding what number "sounds good" to the union. I really think that's how it's all going to boil down. I think the union is going to want to know all the numbers coming in. I think they'll be satisfied not knowing if they hear the right numbers.
I have been reading all of this and have been enlightened as to the nuts and bolts of the CBA. You have done a great job of breaking it down. In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest stumbling block in reaching an agreement
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Somewhere I saw that each team gets 100MM per year in revenue sharing monies. No idea if that's right, but if so, wouldn't it be nice if MLB agreed, in lieu of outright payments to the owners, to pay up to 100MM per year of player salaries. If Bob wants to spend $40MM for team salaries, he gets $40MM, if $70 MM he gets $70MM. I suspect he might decide a higher payroll makes sense since it would directly affect attendance, where he would get to keep it.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
65677D7B6D080 wrote: Somewhere I saw that each team gets 100MM per year in revenue sharing monies. No idea if that's right, but if so, wouldn't it be nice if MLB agreed, in lieu of outright payments to the owners, to pay up to 100MM per year of player salaries. If Bob wants to spend $40MM for team salaries, he gets $40MM, if $70 MM he gets $70MM. I suspect he might decide a higher payroll makes sense since it would directly affect attendance, where he would get to keep it.
So, if he chose to have a $40 million payroll, that is all he would get? He wouldn't get the full $100 million that each team allegedly gets?
That would result in him losing $60 million in revenue.
I could see where that would hurt a business. He'd have to make up that $60 million somehow; either by increasing revenue or by reducing expenses somewhere other than player payroll.
To your point, better talent would help to increase the revenue, I would think. But, I don't know what the effect would be in other parts of the operating expenses.
So, if he chose to have a $40 million payroll, that is all he would get? He wouldn't get the full $100 million that each team allegedly gets?
That would result in him losing $60 million in revenue.
I could see where that would hurt a business. He'd have to make up that $60 million somehow; either by increasing revenue or by reducing expenses somewhere other than player payroll.
To your point, better talent would help to increase the revenue, I would think. But, I don't know what the effect would be in other parts of the operating expenses.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3488
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
I am one fan who would like to see some type of floor agreed upon in the upcoming CBA. From reading some tidbits, it seems the Players Association would like to implement some type of penalty regarding draft choices if a team ends up in the bottom group of the standings three years in succession. I guess they feel this would hinder teams tanking over a long period of time. It sounds like the Owners and Players may not discuss economics until after the New Year. As a fan I do miss all the hot stove rumors and player activity which normally happens during the offseason.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
A floor, in and of itself, won't guarantee that the players will be any better than any of the other 29 clubs. I think that the issue is in seeing that all 30 clubs provide reasonable quality of play/competitiveness that results in higher quality entertainment across the board. I think that is probably a never-ending proposition. Look at the three other major professional team sports. All of them have A) caps/floors and B) Drafting in reverse order.Some of them change "strengths of schedule" based on how teams do in previous seasons. Those are done to try to accomplish "a level playing field", but, even with those things in place for years, they still have teams that do historically much better than some of the others.
Drafting in reverse order and manipulating schedules practically guarantee that incompetency (or worse- failure to put forth maximum effort to win) gets rewarded.
Bad teams are rewarded with a high draft pick. But, chances are that one of the reasons they're an incompetent organization is because they aren't any good at evaluating talent.
This is just a gut feeling, but I think that one of these sports will need to add or change at least one more thing to what they do today. I've heard some interesting proposals. I don't like commenting on "ideas" because so few of them are ever implemented. I'd rather comment on most of them once it's been decided upon. I'm a guy who's not adverse to change and receptive to trying new things, but I wouldn't want much back and forth to go on. MLB tends to experiment with these kinds of changes at the minor league level, so who knows that things they'll agree upon and how long any that they would even try would get implemented at the MLB level?
Honestly, I think the true answer is the one that's been in place for years. Win, and fans will spend more money. The problem occurs when someone's happy with what they're making and isn't all that interested in making more.
Drafting in reverse order and manipulating schedules practically guarantee that incompetency (or worse- failure to put forth maximum effort to win) gets rewarded.
Bad teams are rewarded with a high draft pick. But, chances are that one of the reasons they're an incompetent organization is because they aren't any good at evaluating talent.
This is just a gut feeling, but I think that one of these sports will need to add or change at least one more thing to what they do today. I've heard some interesting proposals. I don't like commenting on "ideas" because so few of them are ever implemented. I'd rather comment on most of them once it's been decided upon. I'm a guy who's not adverse to change and receptive to trying new things, but I wouldn't want much back and forth to go on. MLB tends to experiment with these kinds of changes at the minor league level, so who knows that things they'll agree upon and how long any that they would even try would get implemented at the MLB level?
Honestly, I think the true answer is the one that's been in place for years. Win, and fans will spend more money. The problem occurs when someone's happy with what they're making and isn't all that interested in making more.