|
Post by taftreign on Nov 14, 2013 21:53:28 GMT -5
Looks like it was all wishful thinking. The issue with the posting system seems to be a few of the small market clubs wanted the posting fee to be included in the cap for luxury tax purposes. However to change this the league would have to reopen the CBA and they are unwilling to do so. Teams will fall in line and this thing is going to get hammered out with a few minor changes from the existing rules. twitter.com/FeinsandNYDNMark Feinsand ?@feinsandnydn 3h The MLB/Japan posting process is not in danger of falling apart, per a source. Masahiro Tanaka will be posted this winter Mark Feinsand ?@feinsandnydn 3h The issue was small-market teams wanting posting fees to count vs luxury tax. Without a change to the CBA, that can not happen. Moot point. Mark Feinsand ?@feinsandnydn 3h Despite the hiccup at the owners meetings, a source said the owners were informed that the MLBPA will not reopen the CBA to change rules.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 14, 2013 23:48:38 GMT -5
The small market teams have been on a roll for a while. What do they want next? 50% of the gate from big market teams also?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 15, 2013 7:47:48 GMT -5
The small market teams have been on a roll for a while. What do they want next? 50% of the gate from big market teams also? Well, I think that it is pretty clear. They want a level playing field. For me, that is as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 15, 2013 9:21:49 GMT -5
I'm all for leveling the playing field but it has gotten to the point where the hens rule the hen house. Revenue sharing is on another plateau now. I like the rules as they are. I think they have leveled the playing field a lot. And it's been for the good but at what point does it stop? I think a strong case could be made that it shouldn't go any further. I'm a liberal democrat. I get it. I just don't want to go to complete socialism with baseball. We are approaching that point. If a business does well and generates above normal revenue, they should not have it taken off the top excessively. It is approaching the point where we are looking at a communistic environment. At some point financially, who cares who wins if they all get to share the pot so excessively.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 15, 2013 9:47:41 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal On dispute over posting: In everyone’s interest for matter to be resolved. MLB wants players. Players want to come. Japanese teams get fees.
?@ken_Rosenthal However, not just low-revenue teams resisting. Tanaka’s workload a concern. Teams think: Why pay $60M fee and incur greater risk of injury?
Second seems like a non-sequitur to the first. If a team doesn't like his workload, why bid? Let someone else blow their money. I do think the posting fee should count toward the luxury tax, but it doesn't soooooo…..
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 15, 2013 10:43:54 GMT -5
It is a non sequitur.
Obviously the players union would not like the posting fee to count against the luxury threshold because that takes a chunk out of their part of the pie. And the current system heavily favors the few teams that are up against the threshold already and wish to take advantage of the loophole. This could drive up the posting fee above what a non-lux-threshold team would value the talent at.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 15, 2013 11:27:50 GMT -5
I think the POV of the Japanese player needs more weight in the equation. he is on an auction trade bloc, sold to the highest bidder. There used to be another name for this. I see no harm in giving said player a CHOICE. Top 3 bidders. Player gets to choose his destination. The average of the top 3 posting prices or the original posting price (whichever is lower) is the amount owed to the Japanese team. The contract agreement between the player and his new team MUST be for a minimum of 4 years. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 15, 2013 11:47:41 GMT -5
I think the POV of the Japanese player needs more weight in the equation. he is on an auction trade bloc, sold to the highest bidder. There used to be another name for this. . You consider Japanese baseball players who choose to come to America and make millions of dollars playing a game the modern day equivalent to -- what, slaves? There are millions of actual modern day slaves, no need to strain metaphors. The amateur player from North America isn't even bid on, he's just drafted into a government sanctioned monopoly at an artificially suppressed price point.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 15, 2013 14:01:52 GMT -5
I think the POV of the Japanese player needs more weight in the equation. he is on an auction trade bloc, sold to the highest bidder. There used to be another name for this. I see no harm in giving said player a CHOICE. Top 3 bidders. Player gets to choose his destination. The average of the top 3 posting prices or the original posting price (whichever is lower) is the amount owed to the Japanese team. The contract agreement between the player and his new team MUST be for a minimum of 4 years. Fixed. Oh the HORROR. It must be horrible for these guys to sign for millions of dollars and set their families up for the rest of their lives. Tragic. In the History of the posting system the 13 players who have agreed to a first contract with an MLB team have made 180,400,000. That is just in their first contract.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 15, 2013 15:16:07 GMT -5
I'm all for leveling the playing field but it has gotten to the point where the hens rule the hen house. Revenue sharing is on another plateau now. I like the rules as they are. I think they have leveled the playing field a lot. And it's been for the good but at what point does it stop? I think a strong case could be made that it shouldn't go any further. I'm a liberal democrat. I get it. I just don't want to go to complete socialism with baseball. We are approaching that point. If a business does well and generates above normal revenue, they should not have it taken off the top excessively. It is approaching the point where we are looking at a communistic environment. At some point financially, who cares who wins if they all get to share the pot so excessively. Let teams succeed on their merit not on their relative financial might. Put in a hard cap and a universal draft.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 15, 2013 15:21:06 GMT -5
Screw that. I hate the salary cap idea. It works in the NFL without guaranteed contracts. The NBA is a joke, the cap doesn't make that league any better.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 15, 2013 16:15:31 GMT -5
I think the POV of the Japanese player needs more weight in the equation. he is on an auction trade bloc, sold to the highest bidder. There used to be another name for this. I see no harm in giving said player a CHOICE. Top 3 bidders. Player gets to choose his destination. The average of the top 3 posting prices or the original posting price (whichever is lower) is the amount owed to the Japanese team. The contract agreement between the player and his new team MUST be for a minimum of 4 years. Fixed. Oh the HORROR. It must be horrible for these guys to sign for millions of dollars and set their families up for the rest of their lives. Tragic. In the History of the posting system the 13 players who have agreed to a first contract with an MLB team have made 180,400,000. That is just in their first contract. Which brings us back to the original question, doesn't it? The bulk of that money has been paid by teams from larger markets and yes, I do count Seattle as one of those teams. They make a lot of money given the amount that's floating around that high-tech town. The small market teams see a problem with that. It constitutes a loophole you could drive a Brinks truck through, and a few of them have been. A more equitable system, one that isn't rife with hidden incentives that circumvent the stated intent of MLB to get balance in the game might be in order. I don't think Boston, or NY, or LA should be the only ones with a shot at a guy like Tanaka. He looks to be a talent. As for the players, you might want to read Curt Flood's bio, A Well-Paid Slave. Didn't your mama tell you that there are some things more important than money?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2013 16:19:45 GMT -5
A more equitable system will probably need to wait until the next CBA. This didn't sneak up on anyone.
The posting system is pretty BS, but it's hard to compare Tanaka's situation to Flood's. Tanaka can play in Japan and come back next winter as a free agent if he doesn't like the terms of his deal, or the team that wins the posting. A move like that by Flood would've gotten him blacklisted.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 15, 2013 16:21:04 GMT -5
Oh the HORROR. It must be horrible for these guys to sign for millions of dollars and set their families up for the rest of their lives. Tragic. In the History of the posting system the 13 players who have agreed to a first contract with an MLB team have made 180,400,000. That is just in their first contract. Which brings us back to the original question, doesn't it? The bulk of that money has been paid by teams from larger markets and yes, I do count Seattle as one of those teams. They make a lot of money given the amount that's floating around that high-tech town. The small market teams see a problem with that. It constitutes a loophole you could drive a Brinks truck through, and a few of them have been. A more equitable system, one that isn't rife with hidden incentives that circumvent the stated intent of MLB to get balance in the game might be in order. I don't think Boston, or NY, or LA should be the only ones with a shot at a guy like Tanaka. He looks to be a talent. As for the players, you might want to read Curt Flood's bio, A Well-Paid Slave. Didn't your mama tell you that there are some things more important than money? No one forces anyone to be a professional athlete. If you don't like the idea of being drafted by a team and playing for that team for a long while unless you are traded, leave the profession and become a businessman. Players are well compensated for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 15, 2013 16:27:27 GMT -5
You do what you're good at. If that's a business monopoly, that constitutes a significant problem in my mind. It's one that has no easy resolution. I know one thing. Allowing the biggest market teams to chew up everyone else looks a lot like the unregulated financial system that burned through $13 trillion in free money to right itself, while trashing the global economy. There's got to be a better way.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 15, 2013 16:35:51 GMT -5
So this guys got a good splitter huh?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 15, 2013 16:38:45 GMT -5
Let's stop crying poor with the small market crap. These small market owners are more the issue then the market itself. Are some markets terrible? Surely, but a lot of these small markets aren't terribly "small". They are just mismanaged and/or owners have little incentive to invest money to make a winning product. These guys make money hand over first with a lousy product.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 15, 2013 17:35:50 GMT -5
It's true some of the owners are just greedy fools. But Pittsburgh, for one, has found it's way out of that line of work. I still think there needs to be equity given the enormous disparity in say, Cleveland versus Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 15, 2013 17:37:15 GMT -5
So this guys got a good splitter huh? Yes. He looks like the real deal. That's just one pitch in his arsenal. Check out the clips from the video a few pages back. The questions have to do with overuse, not with the stuff. That plays, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 15, 2013 17:55:13 GMT -5
I think there may have been a little "change the subject to something less intense" going on with this statement Norm! At least that's how i read it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 15, 2013 18:02:14 GMT -5
It's true some of the owners are just greedy fools. But Pittsburgh, for one, has found it's way out of that line of work. I still think there needs to be equity given the enormous disparity in say, Cleveland versus Los Angeles. I understand what you're saying, I just think you are overstating it and/or misdiagnosing what the real problem is in baseball. Of course it's just a matter of opinion regardless of which way you feel about things. I don't understand how owners who don't spend and are making money should get revenue sharing. Owners should be able to make money, but they shouldn't be given shared revenues that are greater then what they spend on payroll when they are already making a huge profit. I hate the idea of forced spending as it just results in bad contracts, but there are better ways to fix the game then salary caps. They'd ruin it in my opinion. Cleveland had some of the best attendance in baseball during the 90's with great teams. They've also had more success then the Dodgers. Sure the dodgers went into a different stratosphere then everyone but the NYY but it hasn't gotten them anything yet and I think most look at that situation as a disaster waiting to happen. You can argue StL is better off that they aren't a HUGE market because it helped them make a good decision regarding Pujols.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 15, 2013 18:04:17 GMT -5
I think there may have been a little "change the subject to something less intense" going on with this statement Norm! At least that's how i read it. Right... So the splitter is good for your arm.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 15, 2013 18:07:11 GMT -5
I think the POV of the Japanese player needs more weight in the equation. he is on an auction trade bloc, sold to the highest bidder. There used to be another name for this. I see no harm in giving said player a CHOICE. Top 3 bidders. Player gets to choose his destination. The average of the top 3 posting prices or the original posting price (whichever is lower) is the amount owed to the Japanese team. The contract agreement between the player and his new team MUST be for a minimum of 4 years. Fixed. Oh the HORROR. It must be horrible for these guys to sign for millions of dollars and set their families up for the rest of their lives. Tragic. These guys have already made millions of dollars in Japan. Their families are well provided for. Nice of you to be so concerned. In the History of the posting system the 13 players who have agreed to a first contract with an MLB team have made 180,400,000. That is just in their first contract. And not a single ONE of these players has had the choice of which team he wanted to negotiate with and play for. Try enforcing those rules on Latin American players and the politically correct police would hold a public crucification. It's not always about the money. These guys want to compete at the highest level. The Japanese team record in the WBC is not all about the money either.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 15, 2013 18:10:57 GMT -5
This has more to do with respecting the Japanese leagues and not stripping their talent then anything else. If there were top reputable Latin American leagues then it's be same there.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 15, 2013 18:15:35 GMT -5
You do what you're good at. If that's a business monopoly, that constitutes a significant problem in my mind. It's one that has no easy resolution. I know one thing. Allowing the biggest market teams to chew up everyone else looks a lot like the unregulated financial system that burned through $13 trillion in free money to right itself, while trashing the global economy. There's got to be a better way. You do what you are good at AND at what you like to do. At the level that these guys express their talents they "should" have the freedom to determine where and with whom they want to play. The concept that big money still controls the destiny of the workplace, does not prevail in the bubble that is MLB. Only in the minds of some fans.
|
|