OnlyBucs

As it stands today if the ball team does not add or subtract anyone they will open the season with a 68M salary!

4F667A6F626D67323A373B030 wrote: As it stands today if the ball team does not add or subtract anyone they will open the season with a 68M salary!




if that is right Cervelli is making about 15% of the payroll.

They're going to wait it out and shop in the bargain basement for a couple players, but nothing significant. I really thought they would make a splash due to TV contract but the Nut is staying true to form.

In all probability, management will wait up to and probably into spring training to then due their version of bargain basement shopping in order to fill out the 2019 roster. But, if they do not add to the current roster, Nutting will lose even more fans in regard to attendance. I personally feel that the players are feeling the pressure and may, when the current contract expires, look into a salary cap. But, will the owners agree?

I don't know about the salary cap issue - the agents (presumably on behalf of the players) - seem really opposed to that idea. That might change as there are a lot more mid-range players being squeezed now than ever before, but I'm not sure. If there is a real limit, the elite talents still get most of that money. The salary cap only limits what's left for the rest. Note that the soft cap of the tax is blamed for owners not bidding anymore on older players and offering shorter terms for everyone. I suspect the players will want something on the front end - maybe less arb salary restriction, shorter time limits before free agency, or something of that sort. They also might want to eliminate the luxury tax--it only harms them as we have seen in the last few years. But I don't see them wanting a cap - that only gives owners another excuse.

4143595F492C0 wrote: I don't know about the salary cap issue - the agents (presumably on behalf of the players) - seem really opposed to that idea. That might change as there are a lot more mid-range players being squeezed now than ever before, but I'm not sure. If there is a real limit, the elite talents still get most of that money. The salary cap only limits what's left for the rest. Note that the soft cap of the tax is blamed for owners not bidding anymore on older players and offering shorter terms for everyone. I suspect the players will want something on the front end - maybe less arb salary restriction, shorter time limits before free agency, or something of that sort. They also might want to eliminate the luxury tax--it only harms them as we have seen in the last few years. But I don't see them wanting a cap - that only gives owners another excuse.


At this stage I'm not sure that many owners want a cap. None talk about it in public. As a group they are making a lot of money. If making money is primary objective of most owners (with a run at a pennant now and then) why would they care about a cap? There is such a disparity between teams now I think that there won't be a major change in system until there is a crisis that threatens the money pot. The owners aren't interested in competitive balance and neither are the players.

6F78776F7E6A737E6B731F0 wrote: They're going to wait it out and shop in the bargain basement for a couple players, but nothing significant. I really thought they would make a splash due to TV contract but the Nut is staying true to form.


They could also do what they did last year and skip the rest of free agency and rely on their "internal options".

5F7873501D0 wrote: They're going to wait it out and shop in the bargain basement for a couple players, but nothing significant. I really thought they would make a splash due to TV contract but the Nut is staying true to form.


They could also do what they did last year and skip the rest of free agency and rely on their "internal options".
Oh make no mistake this is the objective. If there are any moves at all it will be an extremely insignificant one.

They seem to be looking at shortstops. Whether that person gets pencilled in as a starter or protection backup remains to be seen, but I would expect them to sign someone (with modest salary demands and likely a one-year shelf life).

6B4D4C5B4D5D2E0 wrote: I don't know about the salary cap issue - the agents (presumably on behalf of the players) - seem really opposed to that idea. That might change as there are a lot more mid-range players being squeezed now than ever before, but I'm not sure. If there is a real limit, the elite talents still get most of that money. The salary cap only limits what's left for the rest. Note that the soft cap of the tax is blamed for owners not bidding anymore on older players and offering shorter terms for everyone. I suspect the players will want something on the front end - maybe less arb salary restriction, shorter time limits before free agency, or something of that sort. They also might want to eliminate the luxury tax--it only harms them as we have seen in the last few years. But I don't see them wanting a cap - that only gives owners another excuse.


At this stage I'm not sure that many owners want a cap.  None talk about it in public.  As a group they are making a lot of money.  If making money is primary objective of most owners (with a run at a pennant now and then) why would they care about a cap?  There is such a disparity between teams now I think that there won't be a major change in system until there is a crisis that threatens the money pot.  The owners aren't interested in competitive balance and neither are the players.


It probably would never go though; but instead of a team cap, I wonder if the sides would go for a max individual salary coupled with a (much) higher minimum for entry level guys. If the union is interested in helping the rank-and-file guys it might fly. You'd think it would help these middle free agents that seems to be getting squeezed too, if their estimated salaries aren't that much different than new guys.