OnlyBucs

Pitchers and Catchers will report to Spring Training facilities in about 6 weeks. As of today there are approximately 200 free agent players still on the market. I am sure the Players Association is very concerned as to the slow pace of players signing and also the short term of years players who have signed are getting. A player like Cutch has done good with his 3 year agreement with the Phillies. Harper and Machado will soon sign lucrative contracts, but the middle of the road type of players are not getting the money that they once received. My guess is that the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement after the 2021 season will involve some very tough negotiations. The players are going to want owners to share more of their revenue, and I expect the Union will push for a salary floor. Teams like the Pirates will have to spend a certain amount of payroll each year. Teams will no longer be able to tank like the Astros and Cubs did a few seasons ago. Maybe for the future of baseball a salary floor is what it needs.

The rationale always given on the players behalf for no salary floor is that it's one small step from a salary cap, which they dread. It does seem that teams are embracing stat driven analysis and saying they won't pay for historic performance in declining years, so the guys over 30 are in a bind from the start. One former player on mlb network tonight was noting that players need to start grabbing the one and two year deals. This, of course, disregards concerns about injuries and how they affect future years if there's no contract for those future years. But apparently (or he was suggesting) players are looking for longer deals while owners want shorter ones, even if for more money. If I were to guess, I would expect the six years of control to go away or be cut back in some fashion. If owners don't want to pay for performance in declining years, they shouldn't get a discount in the productive years.

I really don't understand why the players wouldn't go for it if there's a stipulation that x% of revenues have to go to player salaries. I mean, obviously I'm wrong about that because they keep putting their foot down. But if I'm a UNION I'd be OK with crimping the richest of my members a bit if it means everyone else (the entry level players, etc.) prospers a little more.

70424E4E5A684B424F4A4542230 wrote: I really don't understand why the players wouldn't go for it if there's a stipulation that x% of revenues have to go to player salaries.  I mean, obviously I'm wrong about that because they keep putting their foot down.  But if I'm a UNION I'd be OK with crimping the richest of my members a bit if it means everyone else (the entry level players, etc.) prospers a little more. 


I think it is too late in that any type of floor and cap would not help a team like the Pirates.



The floor would most likely be close to 100 million and the ceiling might be 200 with some sort of automatic increase in both.



Other leagues with salary caps don't have such wide disparities.



the big kicker in baseball is the difference in revenues of the teams which fuels their ability to pay salaries.

1F39382F39295A0 wrote: I really don't understand why the players wouldn't go for it if there's a stipulation that x% of revenues have to go to player salaries.  I mean, obviously I'm wrong about that because they keep putting their foot down.  But if I'm a UNION I'd be OK with crimping the richest of my members a bit if it means everyone else (the entry level players, etc.) prospers a little more. 


I think it is too late in that any type of floor and cap would not help a team like the Pirates.



The floor would most likely be close to 100 million and the ceiling might be 200 with some sort of automatic increase in both. 



Other leagues with salary caps don't have such wide disparities.



the big kicker in baseball is the difference in revenues of the teams which fuels their ability to pay salaries.


Agreed that the difference in revenues is the big issue.

MLB could help level the playing field if they wanted.

The big market teams could still keep their local revenue that is generated by their market size(local tv, radio, marketing deals).



However since there is such a disparity in what a major market team can get as opposed to a small market team in those local deals; MLB could/should reallocate the national broadcasting revenues(ESPN, FOX, MLB Network etc) disproportionately.

In other words instead of dividing the monies equally among all teams; there should be a tier system whereby the smaller markets get a bigger share of the national money. This would help close the gap.

The question then is, would there be a requirement to use the funds on the team? And how would they monitor that?

47455F594F2A0 wrote: The question then is, would there be a requirement to use the funds on the team? And how would they monitor that?


IN the NHL there's a rule that says like 60% of the revenue (I'm making that number up) has to go to the payroll.  Now of course without expanding revenue sharing that's not much help.  I also think that baseball probably has a lot more expenses that aren't the major league roster, so yeah it might be tough.

1B2925253103202924212E29480 wrote: The question then is, would there be a requirement to use the funds on the team? And how would they monitor that?


IN the NHL there's a rule that says like 60% of the revenue (I'm making that number up) has to go to the payroll.  Now of course without expanding revenue sharing that's not much help.  I also think that baseball probably has a lot more expenses that aren't the major league roster, so yeah it might be tough.


Currently all four leagues, MLB included, player compensation amounts to around 48 to 52 percent of revenue.

Here is an interesting article from Jonah Keri at CBS Sports



MLB GMs Make Sense of the Bryce Harper and Manny Machado Market and the Changing Dynamics of Free Agency



Good read. Tell me what you all think.

Interesting. I do think that teams are paying more attention to advanced metrics and the value a player brings. There also fewer ego driven owners around. Owners aren't as willing to overpay because the teams somehow reflects them. In the end, though, it's supply and demand. There are something over two hundred players yet to sign. There just isn't room for all of them, so owners wait for panic to set in, and make low offers. That would be cured, for a year or so anyway, by expansion, but would result in further dilution of the product.