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.
|
Post by baseball3 on Dec 1, 2021 0:10:03 GMT -5
Yeah I don't move off of that 5th year of service time (or 29.5 years old), if I'm the players. I stick to that and hold. The owners porked over the players last agreement and in 2020. Now they should pay 10 fold.
I thought they were going to go after that 6th year of service time from the beginning. Hope they don't move off of that.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 1, 2021 8:10:56 GMT -5
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,388
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 1, 2021 8:29:12 GMT -5
I'm all for a 240 mil luxury tax as it'd give the Sox another 30 million to spend this offseason and still be under. Plus I think it should go up anyway as others have pointed out it hasn't raised in correlation to the revenues the league has been generated.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 1, 2021 9:22:29 GMT -5
I think this proposal works if they install a $100M floor on player salaries, too. Unless they get rid of high draft picks for tanking and create an NBA-style lottery for the top draft picks and salary allocations going randomly to the teams that finish over .500. Humans are incentive-driven animals. The owners, being businesshumans, know this, which is why they've been artificially trying to control themselves and their spending.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 1, 2021 9:51:42 GMT -5
As I'd mentioned previously, the players basically have to give on expanded playoffs to get anything here - it's their easiest lever to give on among very few options.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 1, 2021 10:13:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 1, 2021 10:50:40 GMT -5
As I'd mentioned previously, the players basically have to give on expanded playoffs to get anything here - it's their easiest lever to give on among very few options. Seems like a salary floor is the easiest significant thing for the owners to give back. Most teams are already near or above the numbers that have been thrown around (~$100m).
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Dec 1, 2021 11:36:06 GMT -5
As I'd mentioned previously, the players basically have to give on expanded playoffs to get anything here - it's their easiest lever to give on among very few options. Seems like a salary floor is the easiest significant thing for the owners to give back. Most teams are already near or above the numbers that have been thrown around (~$100m).
That's still a lot of money they would be telling the other third of the league they'd need to spend, not sure it'd be an easy give. four of the teams would need to double their payroll from last year to hit that mark.
Wonder if they'd rather pay pre-arb players more as a concession than be forced to hit a minimum mark. It gives the players more money while not forcing the teams to pay veterans that their baseball people would not recommend they sign.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2021 11:36:29 GMT -5
Going back to 2 divisions would at least reduce the huge lopsided talent levels of having 3. Playing 76 games against a team's division is way too excessive. I also think they should change up the leagues with an emphasis on geography to reduce travel.
For the negotiations, I don't even know how there is a legitimate starting point given that teams' accounting that hide all kinds of money so that it looks like every team is bleeding money while the owners double their worth every 10 years. Owners that own both teams and the associated cable companies make that far more complicated. How do you even begin negotiating sharing revenue percentages when you can't even come close to determining the actual revenue? I'm sure the owners will be willing to sharing a higher percentage of revenue as long as a huge percentage of it is hidden.
The whole thing is a giant microcosm of what is going on in the world. It's like raising taxes on the rich, as if that is ever going to increase tax revenues...
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 1, 2021 11:37:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2021 11:42:08 GMT -5
In addition, one thing I'm going to hate is that the focus is going to be on the haves, while the minimum wage and minor league players get sacrificed. Because the only thing wrong for the players is the prevention of Max Scherzer getting $300 million for 3 years and not that the percentage of minimum wage players rises every single year or that rents have quadrupled for minor league players while their salaries have not.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 1, 2021 11:56:57 GMT -5
Going back to 2 divisions would at least reduce the huge lopsided talent levels of having 3. Playing 76 games against a team's division is way too excessive. I also think they should change up the leagues with an emphasis on geography to reduce travel. For the negotiations, I don't even know how there is a legitimate starting point given that teams' accounting that hide all kinds of money so that it looks like every team is bleeding money while the owners double their worth every 10 years. Owners that own both teams and the associated cable companies make that far more complicated. How do you even begin negotiating sharing revenue percentages when you can't even come close to determining the actual revenue? I'm sure the owners will be willing to sharing a higher percentage of revenue as long as a huge percentage of it is hidden. The whole thing is a giant microcosm of what is going on in the world. It's like raising taxes on the rich, as if that is ever going to increase tax revenues... Well it's a huge advantage for the Red Sox given the AL East. It could certainly make sense, yet I'll still miss all those Yankee games.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 1, 2021 12:06:04 GMT -5
240 million seems like a fine starting point, yet that number should rise based on revenues. You can't just come up with numbers that barely raise it over years. Revenues go up 5%, the luxury tax line has to go up 5%. Thus spending will keep up with increasing revenues.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 1, 2021 12:10:56 GMT -5
Seems like a salary floor is the easiest significant thing for the owners to give back. Most teams are already near or above the numbers that have been thrown around (~$100m).
That's still a lot of money they would be telling the other third of the league they'd need to spend, not sure it'd be an easy give. four of the teams would need to double their payroll from last year to hit that mark.
Wonder if they'd rather pay pre-arb players more as a concession than be forced to hit a minimum mark. It gives the players more money while not forcing the teams to pay veterans that their baseball people would not recommend they sign.
They could phase it in over the course of the CBA, maybe going up $10m each year.
I'm pretty confident that every owner knows how much every other team is making in revenue (not to mention revenue sharing) and it's easy to compare that with their payroll. The bigger payroll teams are not going to care much about the owners who don't want to put more of their profits back into their teams.
I'm not 100% sure but I think on the ownership side, most big decisions are made based on a two-thirds majority vote. Two-thirds of the teams are already there.
Hey CLE/KC/PIT owners, you'd rather pocket all your profits instead of spending some on trying to win? How about sell the team to someone who actually cares about winning and you go invest in something else?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 1, 2021 14:32:04 GMT -5
Here would be my final proposal (at the deadline) from the players for a new CBA: 1. $240mil CBT. This would also be tied to league revenue for future seasons (a 3rd party would provide the league revenue numbers) so if revenue goes up 5% in 2022 then the 2023 CBT would be $252mil. 2. Minimum Salary Increase to $700,000. This would be a 23% increase, but would still fall 50k short of the NHL, retaining the title of lowest minimum salary within the big 4 sports. It 'should' be higher, but as the MLBPA gives limited care to their young players, it's best to keep this reasonably low. 3. Year 3 Arbitration. Instead of the typical 3min/3arb system, they would switch to a 2min/4arb system with a 20/40/60/80 estimate for arbitration awards. This helps the younger stars while not upheaving the system. 4. Salary Floor of one-third of the CBT - over a 5 year window. If you're looking at this and asking, who would this actually affect? The answer is the Pirates and possibly nobody else (Guardians/Marlins/Orioles are all close) - but it needs to be low in order for the owners to approve; this would be the biggest long-term win as it will come up in each proceeding bargaining agreement. The 5-year window (NFL does this as well) will begin taxing teams in 2025, and continue each year from there-on out. Any amount that a team goes under will be awarded to the MLBPA (or a charity, it doesn't really matter, nobody will go under as you can buy bad contracts). Manfred is on-record saying that teams need 5 year rebuilding windows, so this would account for that need. 5. 12-team Postseason. This gives the owners 'something', and if it comes down to it, they go to 14 because 'money'. I'd hate baseball having 14 teams make the playoffs and will likely watch fewer games in the regular season, but that may just be me.
Things to table for the next CBA: - Free Agency at 29.5. I agree that something should be done for the older players, but this won't provide the results which its proponents believe it will provide because teams adapt. It's commonly believed that 'Ryan Brasier would actually get a decent salary' if this rule was implemented, but ask yourself, why would an MLB team give a 31yo journeyman a second shot if he was going to be a free agent at the end of the year? There's money to be saved from scouting these types of players and if there isn't anything in it for the team, it's not worth it.
The Second issue is that players at 23.5 years old will essentially have their clock started. Right now there are plenty of 23.5 yo prospects in AA and AAA who might be as good as that 35 year old veteran looking for 1 last contract. As of now, the team typically goes with the veteran as it potentially saves them more long term (due to service time manipulation), it gives the young prospect more time to improve their game and provides additional depth in the team's system in case of injury. On the surface this could help the MLBPA by reducing the instances of service time manipulation, but if given the choice of screwing over the young player or the veteran, they're pretty consistent.
My solution for this would be to provide a bi-annual reduction in arbitration years based on age starting at 26 and running through age 30. So at 26 the player would have 2min/3arb, at 28 he would have 2min/2arb, and at 30 he would have 3min/1arb. This would create a nice balance of providing some surplus value to the team while allowing a 33yo Ryan Brasier to have a shot at free agency. Let's face it, if a team doesn't think a player is worth promoting by 26 then they don't care much about the potential lost years.
- Arbitration Based on fWAR. This could create a much more fair system for payment of arbitration eligible players within baseball but it's also dependent on a 3rd party (Fangraphs) and would create visibility within the system which has never existed before. In theory visibility is good, but this would make arbitration manipulation by the team easier, or would create the perception of this happening. Imagine if a team that's out of the playoffs moves their arbitration eligible 3rd-baseman to 1st-base/DH for the last month of the season? That would tank his fWAR and will create problems.
Additionally, as much as I love using fWAR, it's still broken given it's position weighting system. So this isn't the perfect solution, but there's a solution out there (maybe Baseball Savant will figure it out) along these lines and it will take time to figure it out.
- Additional Payments to Overachieving Players on Minimum Salaries. the NFL has a salary pool which is distributed throughout the lower-paid players based on playing time. This could easily be done (I say easily, but games vs PA vs innings will have to be worked out) but it's tough to fit it within the current dynamic of baseball (no salary cap and minimal revenue sharing) and it would require a concession on the part of the owners which I don't think they're prepared to make. Additionally it would mostly benefit the young players, to whom again, the MLBPA gives limited care.
- Universal DH. I'm not sure if the owners are currently looking at this as a revenue increase (more interest due to not having to watch pitchers hit) or a salary cost (higher wages for a DH vs a pinch-hitter). If it's the latter, then may be best to skip until the next CBA.
Sorry for the long read. Generally I think the players union will win this CBA, and I think the owners are willing to give the MLBPA the win, but the questions is 'how much of a win'. Hopefully they figure it all out.
One other thing to consider - although we generally think of the MLBPA as having more limited funds for a strike/lock-out than the owners, I wonder how much the 2020 season changes that. Yes, the owners could stall for years, but owners have investors and investors like to make money. Losing money 2 out of 3 years isn't going to make the investors happy.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Dec 1, 2021 14:44:27 GMT -5
This meeting lasted 7 minutes. See you in February.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 1, 2021 15:12:38 GMT -5
This meeting lasted 7 minutes. See you in February. February 2023
|
|
|
Post by prospectlove on Dec 1, 2021 15:17:31 GMT -5
I've read a lot on this site from various posters about how owners are cheap and it's there fault. I believe the last agreement was horrible for players. I also believe they fight everything and anything that they don't want. Meaning a salary floor (which I believe would up $$$ being spent). BOTH sides are going to have to give here, or they are going to kill their own golden goose. I'm not saying baseball won't have revenues, just that they are going to lose fans!! If this fight lasts 2-3 months that's not a bid deal. I sadly have a feeling this COULD drag out till June or July though. That's where owners and players will both cost themselves. Baseball is run by Television now. If fans are cutting and losing track of baseball, and therefor less fans are watching.....revenue will significantly decrease.
The way the system is set up, it makes very little sense to sign free agents if you don't have to. They are older and for the contracts they are getting probably won't perform to the LONG contract values they are being given. Yet players want to do very little to increase payroll on the bottom end, which might make free agents more valuable relative to what they are being paid. For instance, if $750 or $800k is your low salary...and IF players got a minimum of $30k in the minors per season....now that young player becomes a LOT more expensive. Now a $5-$6 million veteran is easier to swallow.
Increase playoffs. Add DH to NL Add $10-$15 million to tax floor Try to get arbitration reduced by 1/2 a year Figure something out with players being stashed in minors for time period (years service) Add salary to minor leaguers Add trading to draft picks and international draft (increase draft pick payout) Make a lottery system present and maybe add a draft pick level (5 picks) for teams who have a .500 winning percentage over last 5 years (this would be chosen via lottery)
Set up a signing freeze in off season (for 2-3 weeks)...and then before camp breaks (encourages signings generating more interest and "clicks" about the sport in off season)
But I have a feeling players are willing to burn it down....gambling owners will cave because they have massive investments.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 1, 2021 15:30:13 GMT -5
Add salary to minor leaguers Add trading to draft picks and international draft (increase draft pick payout) Make a lottery system present and maybe add a draft pick level (5 picks) for teams who have a .500 winning percentage over last 5 years (this would be chosen via lottery) Hey prospectlove - I hope you're wrong and that the players and owners figure it all out. But regarding the above, it should be noted that the MLBPA doesn't represent the minor league players and they've shown a reluctance to help as they believe the owners would consider this a concession and want something in return (they would of course) so unfortunately the minor leaguer's salary in a unilateral decision which comes from the owners. On the upside, there has been progress made over the last two years (due mostly to outside pressures), so there's hope! For rules regarding the trading of draft picks, this doesn't directly affect the players and the owners can unilaterally implement these changes if they choose. If you're implying that team should receive draft picks for performing well, this is again an owner's decision. But it's unlikely they would ever do this as the success of professional sports within North America has been due greatly to the competitive balance of the teams, and this would run contrary to the competitive balance (i.e. helping the weaker teams improve) Let's all hope that baseball is back come March!
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Dec 1, 2021 15:40:04 GMT -5
It's hard to have a good feeling about where this is going. Both sides are remarkably unlikeable and out of touch with the views of the public and the potential damage to the game. It's like trying to figure out whether to root for poison ivy or athlete's foot.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,801
|
Post by mobaz on Dec 1, 2021 15:51:27 GMT -5
Of the major sports, baseball players sign at the youngest ages (as young as 16-18), have the longest time as apprentices in minor leagues, and still have the longest period before unrestricted free agency (6+ years). I know baseball was at the forefront of the labor movement in pro sports (I still can't believe free agency didn't start in the NFL until 1993) but it's still a little staggering how little movement power players have. They obviously get by far the largest/longest guaranteed contracts in US sports, but at what cost?
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Dec 1, 2021 15:51:59 GMT -5
Seems to me the MLBPA is still working inside the box provided to them by the owners. “We want the same system, but better terms.” That recipe is doomed to fail IMO, because it still undervalues pre-FA players and neglects the bottom 90% who aren’t getting huge FA contracts, while giving nothing of value back to the owners. If they want more equitable compensation, they need to think outside the box.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 1, 2021 17:23:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 1, 2021 17:25:27 GMT -5
That new draft proposal is a sure fire way to turn this board against the players lol
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 1, 2021 18:06:46 GMT -5
See everyone in 2024
|
|
|