SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Boras
Jan 19, 2018 8:58:01 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2018 8:58:01 GMT -5
The other big issue for the league other than restricting salaries is parity. They have to be careful about anything that tips the balance back towards the high revenue teams.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 19, 2018 9:09:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 19, 2018 9:09:10 GMT -5
The other big issue for the league other than restricting salaries is parity. They have to be careful about anything that tips the balance back towards the high revenue teams. That is a good point. You take away years of control, small market teams become even less powerless. Small market teams are just going to have to get smarter. The players are getting hammered hard in all of this, something needs to be done in their favor. Small market teams are never going to pay, so they really shouldn't be in the discussion, but I'm sure they'll make a big stink out of it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 19, 2018 9:09:24 GMT -5
The other big issue for the league other than restricting salaries is parity. They have to be careful about anything that tips the balance back towards the high revenue teams. Because of all those championships the Yankees and Dodgers won during the 2002-2015 CBAs? We're not going back to a 1990's financial model again, and we're definitely not going back a 1990's level of defeatism and incompetence among GMs. But in 2005 and 2010, a much higher percentage of revenue was going to players, and it's very hard to argue that the baseball financial model was broken then, or that it made the game non-competitive. So maybe you think that 300% growth described in the Passan article is unsustainable. That's very, very possible. But... the CBT tax threshold has gone up like 5% in the last seven years. Even if there is a revenue bubble, the owners are enjoying 95% of the windfall of that bubble. And then, if/when it bursts, owners are going to cry poverty and put in place even more restrictive measures.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 19, 2018 9:22:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 19, 2018 9:22:39 GMT -5
The other big issue for the league other than restricting salaries is parity. They have to be careful about anything that tips the balance back towards the high revenue teams. But... the CBT tax threshold has gone up like 5% in the last seven years. Even if there is a revenue bubble, the owners are enjoying 95% of the windfall of that bubble. And then, if/when it bursts, owners are going to cry poverty and put in place even more restrictive measures. The big market teams are the teams playing by the rules. This CBT issue is all a push from small markets to keep big markets from spending money. I'm sure the Yankees and Dodgers would love to spend 225 million this year knowing that it isn't going to cost them, what at least 30-50 extra million the next two years because of the tax. Raising the tax erases the parity to a large degree. It also only puts a bandaid on the problem. Players will expect even more with the raising of the tax threshold and I'm sure we are stuck in the same position 2 years from now (again).
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 19, 2018 10:08:08 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2018 10:08:08 GMT -5
The other big issue for the league other than restricting salaries is parity. They have to be careful about anything that tips the balance back towards the high revenue teams. Because of all those championships the Yankees and Dodgers won during the 2002-2015 CBAs? We're not going back to a 1990's financial model again, and we're definitely not going back a 1990's level of defeatism and incompetence among GMs. But in 2005 and 2010, a much higher percentage of revenue was going to players, and it's very hard to argue that the baseball financial model was broken then, or that it made the game non-competitive. So maybe you think that 300% growth described in the Passan article is unsustainable. That's very, very possible. But... the CBT tax threshold has gone up like 5% in the last seven years. Even if there is a revenue bubble, the owners are enjoying 95% of the windfall of that bubble. And then, if/when it bursts, owners are going to cry poverty and put in place even more restrictive measures. The players probably want the same % of revenues that they used to get. Just throwing all that money at older free agents who are in decline is pretty stupid as just about everyone can see. So the suggestions I made about paying the younger players more would hurt the smaller market teams and thus hurt parity. That is the conundrum. I don't think the Royals would have won the WS with the suggestions I made about arbitration. So something has to counter that, because they're never going to give up on parity. It's the only way to keep a huge percentage of fans interested for most of the season. We see that in all sports now.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 19, 2018 11:54:38 GMT -5
Post by James Dunne on Jan 19, 2018 11:54:38 GMT -5
The players probably want the same % of revenues that they used to get. Just throwing all that money at older free agents who are in decline is pretty stupid as just about everyone can see. Money being spread around to the players equitably > Money spread out inequitably and weighted toward older, established players > Money being pocketed by the honors so they can tear down tacky-yet-awesome home run statues.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 19, 2018 12:30:01 GMT -5
The simplest fix (albeit, one the owners would resist) would be to remove the last year of arbitration in en lieu of free agency. The second year of arbitration would increase from 60% of expected market salary to 70% as well.
This would still provide the small market teams with years of cheap service but would allow the players to hit free agency 1 year earlier. And since the current last year of arbitration is expensive for some small market teams it would not be a major hindrance.
But of course the owners would have to agree...
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 20, 2018 0:51:41 GMT -5
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 20, 2018 0:51:41 GMT -5
A good long piece about this year's free agent rout, including a solid discussion of the C word, from Jeff Passan at Yahoo!, a straight-up guy. Sample quotes from both sides of the fence: Passan doesn't mince his words when it comes to the corporatization of the game and the current crop of GMs: My favorite quote about that very topic:And what would the storyline be without Jeter and his partners grabbing the poison baton passed on to them by Jeffrey Loria and David Samson? In the modern age of data mining and the analytics that follow right along, uniformity is bound to be the order of the day. This isn't a problem unique to baseball, of course. We've watched the uncontrolled flood of data twist apart the social compact all across the globe. It's not hard to imagine teams like Oakland making a killing in the bargain basement given the current environment. That seems to be the one calculation missing from these bean counters, that there may be quite a bit of very pissed off talent coalescing at a handful of locations, ready to take it out on the robots that ignored them. Passan thinks we may be headed for a real showdown in 2021 when the next CBA gets negotiated. He may be right given the bitterness that's starting to rise to the surface.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 20, 2018 8:18:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 20, 2018 8:18:26 GMT -5
www.fangraphs.com/blogs/restricted-free-agency-could-benefit-players/"In the midst of the players’ 1994-95 strike, the owners not only briefly created a salary cap but abolished arbitration, replacing it with restricted free agency. Murray Chass reported on that series of events on Nov. 27, 1994 for the New York Times. If major league clubs don’t like the selection of pitchers currently available as free agents, they need only be patient. More are on the way. When the owners, as expected, declare an impasse and implement their salary cap proposal, they will also eliminate salary arbitration, establish a salary scale for players in their first four years in the major leagues and create a new class of free agents — players who have been in the majors at least four years but fewer than six… Clubs will have the right of first refusal, meaning a club can retain a player by matching an offer from another club. With most of the best new free agents, offers from other clubs most likely only will drive up the price for their own clubs because their clubs will do what’s necessary to keep them." Man, this would of been a much better system, but this would be the trade off- "Owners, today, would probably not be in favor of a cap-and-floor system or restricted free-agent model replacing arbitration. Owners today are no longer complaining about an imbalance in the share of revenue. And teams do spend significant dollars on drafting, signing, and developing amateur talent and would fight to protect their below-market control over players who reach the major leagues. The implementation of restricted free agency, as in other major North American sports, would likely have to be complemented by stronger draft-pick compensation for teams losing significant under-30 talent. Restricted free agency could be a tough sell for small-market teams to accept, as it would reduce the incentives for young players to sign long-term contract extensions."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2018 13:27:20 GMT -5
I saw Chris retweeted this one and thought I'd post it here.
How many players who could have been good didn't work their way to the majors because of this?
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 23, 2018 16:06:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 23, 2018 16:06:11 GMT -5
But, but, but, it's just a game, and they can just get another job....
Or something.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 23, 2018 22:59:15 GMT -5
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 23, 2018 22:59:15 GMT -5
I think the below minimum wage earnings of some MILB players is horrendous considering the amount of money available, but when you go to the independent leagues, at some point I think the dream becomes more a hobby than a job.
For those who frequent the independent league games, what are your thoughts? Is there even money available to pay the players a higher wage?
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 24, 2018 1:49:44 GMT -5
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 24, 2018 1:49:44 GMT -5
I think the below minimum wage earnings of some MILB players is horrendous considering the amount of money available, but when you go to the independent leagues, at some point I think the dream becomes more a hobby than a job. For those who frequent the independent league games, what are your thoughts? Is there even money available to pay the players a higher wage? Players union has no qualms regarding bargaining away non dues paying future member MiLB players and allowing them to live at sometimes starvation levels. That blame goes entirely on the players/union for always grabbing after some tiny stipend for themselves rather than attempting to fix low pay for the minor league kids and NOT owners which too many fans always seem to blame for everything.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,821
Member is Online
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 24, 2018 9:42:09 GMT -5
I think the below minimum wage earnings of some MILB players is horrendous considering the amount of money available, but when you go to the independent leagues, at some point I think the dream becomes more a hobby than a job. For those who frequent the independent league games, what are your thoughts? Is there even money available to pay the players a higher wage? Players union has no qualms regarding bargaining away non dues paying future member MiLB players and allowing them to live at sometimes starvation levels. That blame goes entirely on the players/union for always grabbing after some tiny stipend for themselves rather than attempting to fix low pay for the minor league kids and NOT owners which too many fans always seem to blame for everything. I'm not sure providing a minimum wage to people should need to be collectively bargained. It's basic humanity, and the law, and avoiding bad publicity. The union isn't the one (not) paying the minor leaguers.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2018 10:24:10 GMT -5
The union doesn't represent minor league players - I think it's just players on 40-man rosters and with MLB experience. (This is why MLB video games have to have fake minor leaguers - the MLBPA license doesn't cover them.) The problem is that minor leaguers don't have a seat at the table, and no active minor leaguer is going to torch their chances of ever making it to the majors by organizing. That's why the Senne case is so important.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 24, 2018 15:22:22 GMT -5
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 24, 2018 15:22:22 GMT -5
There's a MAJOR issue with Minor League pay. The problem is that one, they're not represented by anyone, and two, there hasn't been any sort of realistic proposal that would be financially viable across the board
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2018 15:34:33 GMT -5
Players union has no qualms regarding bargaining away non dues paying future member MiLB players and allowing them to live at sometimes starvation levels. That blame goes entirely on the players/union for always grabbing after some tiny stipend for themselves rather than attempting to fix low pay for the minor league kids and NOT owners which too many fans always seem to blame for everything. I'm not sure providing a minimum wage to people should need to be collectively bargained. It's basic humanity, and the law, and avoiding bad publicity. The union isn't the one (not) paying the minor leaguers. It's even in the teams' best interest to give these players the best opportunity to develop by not forcing them to live in filth with 5 other guys in 2 rooms while eating fast food for every meal. I mean nutrition is the most underrated aspect of sports. Sleep is another one, which I'm sure also suffers with so many roommates.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 24, 2018 17:00:21 GMT -5
p23w likes this
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2018 17:00:21 GMT -5
Moved my post about the Passan article to this thread since it's more on point here... Bill James more or less predicted a re-balancing of the power in MLB, maybe ten years ago? He felt it was out of whack back then and he was right. But much of that had to do with the insanely stupid contracts teams were putting their names to. The players aren't responsible for the foolishness of this or this or this or... ( fill in your own favorite here). The gradual introduction of a cap which has hardened substantially over time seems to have concentrated the attention of GMs and may be keeping them from wearing stupid shoes when they're signing talent. That's a problem for the union but there's a bigger one in my opinion. MLBAM has given owners a feel for creating separate revenue streams - the financialization of MLB if you like. Given what's happened to the rest of society, that would be disastrous for the game. There's lots of room for lawyering here. It was the initiative of MLB that led to the roll-out of that best-of-class broadband delivery system. But the content, all those games that gave the developers a test bed for those 60 million concurrent streams, that's what the players bring to the table. That should be part of the discussion I think. But it's going to take a cool, hard head at the bargaining table, and solidarity on the part of the players. This could get very ugly.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 25, 2018 14:35:04 GMT -5
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 25, 2018 14:35:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 25, 2018 15:49:17 GMT -5
It comes across as whining to me. Small market teams which aren't ready to win would be dumb as hell to trade all their prospects and sign expensive free agents. It's not 1995. And the same goes for large market teams. You cannot win through free agency anymore no matter how much Boras misses it.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 25, 2018 16:25:46 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 25, 2018 16:25:46 GMT -5
Seems to me that Boras is taking it on the chin finally.
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 25, 2018 16:44:25 GMT -5
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 25, 2018 16:44:25 GMT -5
Boras' argument that equates the Black Sox intentionally throwing games with team's not providing enough talent but everyone on the field still trying is absurd to me.
Sure, if he wants to argue that all teams should be spending X because they're all getting Y in revenue but are instead barely spending so that they get better draft picks and $ pools, fine, institute a salary floor, though I'm not convinced that this would have much affect on high end players, and more likely just extend a player's career a bit and increase the contract values of the minimum salary players.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 25, 2018 16:51:20 GMT -5
How dare teams follow the Royals, Cubs, and Astros models of losing until they got top talent to compete?
It's not like these 3 teams have won the world series the last 3 years....
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 25, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -5
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 25, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -5
Boras' argument that equates the Black Sox intentionally throwing games with team's not providing enough talent but everyone on the field still trying is absurd to me. Sure, if he wants to argue that all teams should be spending X because they're all getting Y in revenue but are instead barely spending so that they get better draft picks and $ pools, fine, institute a salary floor, though I'm not convinced that this would have much affect on high end players, and more likely just extend a player's career a bit and increase the contract values of the minimum salary players. This is interesting in one of the comments who claim this does work for the NFL contracts: "Get rid of guaranteed contracts. If player x is paid $20mil for 40 hr and 300+ ba and 100+ rbi and fails to deliver in year 3 of deal and player talent is dwindling, teams should be able to cut bait with player and not pay him for the next 3 years of mediocrity at superstar rates" If the players and their high powered agents want these huge contracts fine but this guy actually makes sense if Boras gets his way then his comment would work too!
|
|
|
Boras
Jan 26, 2018 2:24:19 GMT -5
p23w likes this
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 26, 2018 2:24:19 GMT -5
The union doesn't represent minor league players - I think it's just players on 40-man rosters and with MLB experience. (This is why MLB video games have to have fake minor leaguers - the MLBPA license doesn't cover them.) The problem is that minor leaguers don't have a seat at the table, and no active minor leaguer is going to torch their chances of ever making it to the majors by organizing. That's why the Senne case is so important. In theory they are not supposed to I 100% agree. That's how the rules are and same with all Unions as i understand it, then someone please explain to me how the Union (for example) had the power to trade away drafting rights (which they didn't of course) for IFA players who are not union paying players. Everything has to be give and take after so many hard times each side has given each other the last 40y. if the owners went ahead and FINALLY paid the kids what they deserve? anyone actually think the players union would give back anything later on during negotiations and do any of those players, which believe the average salary now is 4m actually HELP any of those starving kids now that they are getting 100+ bucks a day meal money on top of that? Unfortunately, it's all give and take now and it just stinks, like politics in general. Throw out the union and the lawyers from the owners side and work it all out.
|
|
|