Nutting’s has zero interest in trying to compete.
Nutting has zero interest in selling.
MLB has no intention to interfere.
Could labor negotiations force Nutting to act?
Would the PA accept an indexed payroll ceiling (say $175 initially) if the owners accepts a floor (say $125M). I think that would do wonders for the game. I think Nutting would vote against the plan. But if it passed maybe he would sale!?
MLB PA v Owners
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
DemDog
MLB PA v Owners
292E38303E296E621B3C363A3237753834365B0 wrote: Nutting’s has zero interest in trying to compete.
Nutting has zero interest in selling.
MLB has no intention to interfere.
Could labor negotiations force Nutting to act?
Would the PA accept an indexed payroll ceiling (say $175 initially) if the owners accept a floor (say $125M)? I think that would do wonders for the game. I think Nutting would vote against the plan. But if it passed maybe he would sale!?
You pose some interesting thoughts. One exception to your thoughts about competing. I say Nutting does want to compete. Compete to win 78-84 games a season and stuff his coffers with profits! ;D
As for what the PA and MLB should do perhaps the indexed system with a payroll cap and payroll floor there may be some discussion.
Nutting has zero interest in selling.
MLB has no intention to interfere.
Could labor negotiations force Nutting to act?
Would the PA accept an indexed payroll ceiling (say $175 initially) if the owners accept a floor (say $125M)? I think that would do wonders for the game. I think Nutting would vote against the plan. But if it passed maybe he would sale!?
You pose some interesting thoughts. One exception to your thoughts about competing. I say Nutting does want to compete. Compete to win 78-84 games a season and stuff his coffers with profits! ;D
As for what the PA and MLB should do perhaps the indexed system with a payroll cap and payroll floor there may be some discussion.
- How do you index the payroll structure? How do you make it fair to both large and small cities? How do you distribute the broadcast revenues fairly or evenly? What keeps the big market guys from going over the indexed max salary and the small market guys from not reaching the min salary?
MLB PA v Owners
The owners have started treating the luxury tax threshold as a salary cap. Why would they agree to a floor?
-
rucker59@gmail.com
MLB PA v Owners
587F74571A0 wrote: The owners have started treating the luxury tax threshold as a salary cap. Why would they agree to a floor?
Some owners. Not all. A floor raises total salaries. The Pirates would fight a floor to the bitter in I bet. But it could be the hope we have. The FA market the past couple years could push such an idea??
Some owners. Not all. A floor raises total salaries. The Pirates would fight a floor to the bitter in I bet. But it could be the hope we have. The FA market the past couple years could push such an idea??
MLB PA v Owners
6265737B7562252950777D71797C3E737F7D100 wrote: The owners have started treating the luxury tax threshold as a salary cap. Why would they agree to a floor?
Some owners. Not all. A floor raises total salaries. The Pirates would fight a floor to the bitter in I bet. But it could be the hope we have. The FA market the past couple years could push such an idea??
I don't know if a floor is going to work but I could see players pushing for free agency earlier (which would hurt the Bucs) and a much larger pre-arbitration salaries.
A salary scale of $1 million for first year players, 1.5 for second year players and 2 or 2.5 million for third year players or something like that might be what players would go for. That would raise what the Pirates spend on payroll but I don't know if it would help as far as getting more experienced and expensive players on the team.
Some owners. Not all. A floor raises total salaries. The Pirates would fight a floor to the bitter in I bet. But it could be the hope we have. The FA market the past couple years could push such an idea??
I don't know if a floor is going to work but I could see players pushing for free agency earlier (which would hurt the Bucs) and a much larger pre-arbitration salaries.
A salary scale of $1 million for first year players, 1.5 for second year players and 2 or 2.5 million for third year players or something like that might be what players would go for. That would raise what the Pirates spend on payroll but I don't know if it would help as far as getting more experienced and expensive players on the team.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3484
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
MLB PA v Owners
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.
-
Bobster21
MLB PA v Owners
040809525B525A57504F55620 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.
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.
MLB PA v Owners
This is a great thread. I have thought for some period of time that a salary floor is desperately needed in baseball. There just has to be someway to keep carpetbaggers like Nutting out of the game. It is nice to see so many others promoting a salary floor too.
-
Bobster21
MLB PA v Owners
203B36373E323D530 wrote: This is a great thread. I have thought for some period of time that a salary floor is desperately needed in baseball. There just has to be someway to keep carpetbaggers like Nutting out of the game. It is nice to see so many others promoting a salary floor too.
The problem comes in when we expand the issue beyond the Pirates. Last year Tampa Bay had a lower payroll (52.5 mil) than the Pirates (58.3 mil). However, the Rays gave their fans a very exciting season winning 96 games and making the playoffs where they won their WC game before losing the division series 3 games to 2 to the cheating Astros. Should the Rays have been penalized for not spending enough? I don't know what the answer is. Nutting is certainly a carpetbagger. But how do you tell another team that had a great year on a small payroll that they face some sort of discipline for failing to spend enough when it appears they spent very smartly?
The problem comes in when we expand the issue beyond the Pirates. Last year Tampa Bay had a lower payroll (52.5 mil) than the Pirates (58.3 mil). However, the Rays gave their fans a very exciting season winning 96 games and making the playoffs where they won their WC game before losing the division series 3 games to 2 to the cheating Astros. Should the Rays have been penalized for not spending enough? I don't know what the answer is. Nutting is certainly a carpetbagger. But how do you tell another team that had a great year on a small payroll that they face some sort of discipline for failing to spend enough when it appears they spent very smartly?
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
MLB PA v Owners
183538292E3F28686B5A0 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.
Bobster, I've been in favor of a floor for some time now, but you bring up an excellent point about teams being forced to pay undeserving players more than they should be just to reach the floor level. That's a real problem.
I think we all agree that there has to be more equity with regard to payroll among the 30 teams. We also agree that while Nutting can spend more (like Milwaukee and Cincinnati), he's not going to be able to match the large market teams. Neither can 20 other teams.
Over the past 15 years, about 50% of major league revenues have gone toward player payroll. So how about this idea to create equity in spending: all 30 teams contribute 50% of their individual revenue into a fund which is then divided evenly among the 30 teams to be used exclusively for each team's player payroll. All teams would spend equally while all teams would get to keep half of their revenue. The total amount of money the players are paid remains the same, but the league's best players would be spread out over more teams.
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.
Bobster, I've been in favor of a floor for some time now, but you bring up an excellent point about teams being forced to pay undeserving players more than they should be just to reach the floor level. That's a real problem.
I think we all agree that there has to be more equity with regard to payroll among the 30 teams. We also agree that while Nutting can spend more (like Milwaukee and Cincinnati), he's not going to be able to match the large market teams. Neither can 20 other teams.
Over the past 15 years, about 50% of major league revenues have gone toward player payroll. So how about this idea to create equity in spending: all 30 teams contribute 50% of their individual revenue into a fund which is then divided evenly among the 30 teams to be used exclusively for each team's player payroll. All teams would spend equally while all teams would get to keep half of their revenue. The total amount of money the players are paid remains the same, but the league's best players would be spread out over more teams.