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 jimed14 on Oct 7, 2021 11:35:57 GMT -5
I mean they could keep adding arb years until they reach whatever the specified age is as a compromise. Guys like Devers, Acuna and Soto would be getting market value by that point. But the security wouldn't be there and that age is way too high.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2021 11:38:09 GMT -5
I mean they could keep adding arb years until they reach whatever the specified age is as a compromise. Guys like Devers, Acuna and Soto would be getting market value by that point. But the security wouldn't be there and that age is way too high. The way arbitration works is it's supposed to be roughly 25-50-75% of value, I think. It's not just iterative raises or something like that. Arbitration is by definition not market value. The point of arbitration isn't team control - it's team control plus manufactured suppression of salary below market value. Adding arb years won't work for either side if the point is to pay the player market value.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 7, 2021 13:25:28 GMT -5
Well this base pay scenario would likely eliminate veteran players as utility guys,backup c, and bull pen guys. Vets love those guarenteed deals. Oh I get that, you wouldn't have as many cagey veterans holding on and inflating payroll. Only the guys who could still perform relative to their pay would survive. So your Nelson Cruz's, Ortiz, Kershaws, Scherzers, etc would still be fine, and the trade off here is they would still make more money at the beginning of their career and wouldn't need the back end to bolster their value. I also think it could be further enhanced for all by some form of revenue sharing. The union gets x% a year based on the total revenue during the season for all teams, and each player (even rookies) get an even share of that revenue. Let's say a fair percentage is somewhere in the 20-25 range, and the average revenue is north of 3billion, but we'll use 3 billon as the number for roundness, that's 750 million distributed evenly throughout the rank and file on top of salaries. Which is around 600k each on top of their salary and bonus. This would pay Nelson Cruz 18mil for this season. Although an optimist might say 'great, he get's $4mil more', but the realist in me says 'he's out of work right and likely forced to retire'. This would force a lot of veteran players out of MLB while diminishing the pay of the star players. As the strongest members of the union are the stars and the vets, they would never let this happen.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 7, 2021 13:29:05 GMT -5
I believe the owners have figured it out at this point. It took them years but they're finally there. They understand that there's a big penalty to pay for signing players to large contracts after they've peaked on the aging curve. I can't imagine we'll see more of the Pujols-like money being put out there for those players - he was 32 when the Angels opened the vault. But the proposal to take the years when they are under-cutting a player's market value and extend them right to the drop off is transparently greedy. Maybe it's just an initial negotiating position, but it's a lousy look for me.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 7, 2021 13:33:54 GMT -5
I think if the players are trying to get more money early (and I'm not saying they are as this doesn't benefit the veterans who mostly make the decisions) then a 20/40/60/80 pay rate for years 3-6 would be a nice compromise. I think the NFL and NBA have had success in negotiations by taking a dollar from the stars and distributing sixty cents of it to the rank and file. Under Fehr, the union had a strong culture of resisting any move in that direction. We'll see how Tony Clark's union behaves. I don't see this happening only because it would be such a dramatic change, but I completely agree that this would be the best resolution. In the NFL you receive an extra payment spread out through each player based on pay and playing time (snaps in the NFL; could easily be PA for MLB) from a pool of 8.5mil that each team distributes. Here is an article on it for anyone who is interested: nflcommunications.com/Pages/2018-Performance-Based-Pay-Distributions-Announced.aspxAnd one other thing I would propose (If I were the owners) would be a maximum number of 'new year' that can be given to a player in free agency or an extension at 5-7. It helps save the owners from themselves and helps counter the long-term contract with multiple opt-outs. Although the players would request something in exchange for this change.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 7, 2021 13:54:31 GMT -5
I like the creative stuff you all are coming up with. It's one thing to gripe, but the positive part is just that, the ideas that could inform this.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 7, 2021 17:23:43 GMT -5
I at least wish that teams can buy completely useless players out and not count against the cap. I don't know why the players would be against that. I also don't know why the owners want to keep putting Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera out there embarrassing themselves and the team and the sport. Though the Rays and Pirates of the league would hate it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2021 22:25:49 GMT -5
I at least wish that teams can buy completely useless players out and not count against the cap. I don't know why the players would be against that. I also don't know why the owners want to keep putting Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera out there embarrassing themselves and the team and the sport. Though the Rays and Pirates of the league would hate it. Owners would be against it. They don't want to give the few owners that'd be able to take advantage of that and spend more money on other players the ability to do so. You'd basically be giving certain owners the ability to expand the CBT. Never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 8, 2021 5:00:26 GMT -5
I at least wish that teams can buy completely useless players out and not count against the cap. I don't know why the players would be against that. I also don't know why the owners want to keep putting Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera out there embarrassing themselves and the team and the sport. Though the Rays and Pirates of the league would hate it. Owners would be against it. They don't want to give the few owners that'd be able to take advantage of that and spend more money on other players the ability to do so. You'd basically be giving certain owners the ability to expand the CBT. Never going to happen. It'd be similar so probably the same thing but I've always liked the idea of the NBAs stretch provision where they spread out the cap hit over a few extra years. Maybe make it usable only every 3-4 years. Just an idea that probably never happen but would certainly help with these mega contracts that end up being dead weight.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 8, 2021 9:04:15 GMT -5
Owners would be against it. They don't want to give the few owners that'd be able to take advantage of that and spend more money on other players the ability to do so. You'd basically be giving certain owners the ability to expand the CBT. Never going to happen. It'd be similar so probably the same thing but I've always liked the idea of the NBAs stretch provision where they spread out the cap hit over a few extra years. Maybe make it usable only every 3-4 years. Just an idea that probably never happen but would certainly help with these mega contracts that end up being dead weight. I think the big difference is that in the NBA the salary cap affects almost every team (29 are over at the moment) while in MLB about 5 teams deal with being at/over the competitive balance tax each year. Having the other 25 teams agree to a rule that can help those 5 teams doesn't seem realistic at the moment. If down the line more teams reach/exceed the tax then I'm sure something like this would happen.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 8, 2021 11:35:00 GMT -5
It'd be similar so probably the same thing but I've always liked the idea of the NBAs stretch provision where they spread out the cap hit over a few extra years. Maybe make it usable only every 3-4 years. Just an idea that probably never happen but would certainly help with these mega contracts that end up being dead weight. I think the big difference is that in the NBA the salary cap affects almost every team (29 are over at the moment) while in MLB about 5 teams deal with being at/over the competitive balance tax each year. Having the other 25 teams agree to a rule that can help those 5 teams doesn't seem realistic at the moment. If down the line more teams reach/exceed the tax then I'm sure something like this would happen. Fair point and more than likely the correct way to look at it. Just thinking about it from a red sox point of view how great something like that could have been with Sandoval or Hanley and price. But yea unfortunately as stated the 25 teams or so that don't ever approach the luxury tax have no incentive to agree and help the big spenders out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 8, 2021 12:47:06 GMT -5
I remember reading an article a few years back detailing how, for most majority owners, MLB is a money tree. Basically, it came down to teams like the Jeff Lurie Rays, the Pirates, the Reds, Royals, As and several others, spending below a certain amount on salary every year (I think at the time it was $60-80 million but this more than 10 years ago). Even by doing almost nothing would invariably receive enough ticket revenue, competitive balance payments, TV money and percentages of concessions and parking to rake in between a 15 and 20% profit minimum every year. Not many investments do that. Of course, it's a billionaires club and a monopoly, so, none of us - or even not all willing billionaires (hello Mark Cuban) - are allowed in.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 9, 2021 13:32:44 GMT -5
There's only one way to fix Baseball, league wide TV deals that are spread equally among the teams. Thus creating the framework where you can set luxury tax levels that all teams can spend too or over. The NBA, NHL and NFL all have that. It allows even the poorest teams to spend to the salary cap every year.
No way you get that in the MLB given that teams own their own TV networks, which just makes the situation worse.
You want all teams to be on a somewhat equal footing. Yet if the players need to get around 50% that's literally impossible. The last CBA likely made most owners happy, it closed the spending gap, yet at the players expense. You need the big market money making teams spending more to give the players their fair share. The old CBA didn't want to have the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers basically use the luxury tax as a salary cap. They wanted them to spend big, so they could heavily tax them and give that money to the poor teams. Instead they all cut spending, enjoying more revenue knowing that gave them power for the new CBA.
I see absolutely no good way to fix the problem without a TV deal for the whole sport. You can't make the low income, medium income, high income teams and the players all happy. So you'll just get more crappy new CBA rules trying to fix a problem in a way that just can't be done. Then next CBA the party that got the raw end of the deal will cause another big CBA mess. Either work towards a universal TV deal or except that things won't ever be fair for all parties.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 22, 2021 7:25:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 23, 2021 8:47:06 GMT -5
OK, I need them to step this up and get it all resolved and signed by Nov 30. There's some free agents I want Henry and Bloom to buy me for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 25, 2021 14:29:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 25, 2021 18:30:43 GMT -5
Based on reading that I say F$#k the owners with those proposals and with the average salaries dropping. They are raking in the cash and their greed reminds me of that Cuban comment from a few years back. Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.
I wish their was a way to penalize greed. Would their be a way to let the owners know as fans that we are not on their side and actually have it mean something? Nope, but they are vain and they do have egos so it could matter in a small way. I'm just tired of billionaires getting their way.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 25, 2021 18:49:19 GMT -5
Based on reading that I say F$#k the owners with those proposals and with the average salaries dropping. They are raking in the cash and their greed reminds me of that Cuban comment from a few years back. Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. I wish their was a way to penalize greed. Would their be a way to let the owners know as fans that we are not on their side and actually have it mean something? Nope, but they are vain and they do have egos so it could matter in a small way. I'm just tired of billionaires getting their way. The best way to penalize greed in MLB is: 1) Eliminate the luxury tax and competitive balance payments. If they do that, then a salary floor becomes a legit give by the players because they know there will be no top end restriction for teams. 2) Get rid of the anti-trust waiver. The first is in MLB’s purview. They created the luxury tax to save them from themselves, ro at least from the owners who are trying to go for it. The elimination of the tax plus a legit floor of, say, $130M will get rid of the cheap owners. The second, they need to piss off congress. The latter is doubtful unless a lockout goes past April and some pols want to rattle sabers. But they always pay off the squeaky reps with campaign contributions.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Oct 25, 2021 23:09:34 GMT -5
I wish their was a way to penalize greed. Would their be a way to let the owners know as fans that we are not on their side and actually have it mean something? Nope, but they are vain and they do have egos so it could matter in a small way. I'm just tired of billionaires getting their way.
There is and FSG is well aware of it - organized outrage from fans, not just folks talking about it online. Liverpool FC have backed down on ticket price hikes and a Super League (for now, at least) because of an organized fanbase that fights an increasingly losing battle against the commodification of their interests. But at least they fight. Football doesn't belong to them and neither does baseball. We just tend to say "well they paid for it so they can do what they want I guess."
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Oct 26, 2021 0:26:33 GMT -5
Here's the thing - the whole situation is collectively bargained so don't feel bad for the players. Their lawyers are smart, they have a ton of power, and should have known what they were doing. If they got fleeced that's failed oversight by their leadership (which many have argued happened during Tony Clark's tenure).
I'll go on the record and say I'm pro players with this lockout. Since 2016 average salaries have been flat while revenues continue to grow ~4-5% per year (ignoring Covid impacts). The players deserve a piece of that growth.
With that said, the players are equally at fault here. They historically put their focus on the more tenured members and haven't cared about addressing the inequity early in career (and especially their future members, i.e. the minor leaguers). They focus on big free agent contracts rather than changing the system, content with getting paid so long as you stay in the league long enough to hit free agency.
Well the owners have gotten smarter, and have realized they can get the same or more value from younger (and cheaper) players. That's the system, I can't blame the owners for taking those actions (although feel free to blame them for the system though).
My second comment is that the players have always held firm to no revenue sharing (i.e. against capping salaries like the NFL where they guarantee getting 48% of revenues, whatever those revenues are). They felt that would restrict their earnings potential. Well that backfired on them this decade. Maybe it won't in the future but they took a risk thinking they could get more money by not agreeing to share revenues and got burned.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 26, 2021 3:22:06 GMT -5
Here's the thing - the whole situation is collectively bargained so don't feel bad for the players. Their lawyers are smart, they have a ton of power, and should have known what they were doing. If they got fleeced that's failed oversight by their leadership (which many have argued happened during Tony Clark's tenure). I'll go on the record and say I'm pro players with this lockout. Since 2016 average salaries have been flat while revenues continue to grow ~4-5% per year (ignoring Covid impacts). The players deserve a piece of that growth. With that said, the players are equally at fault here. They historically put their focus on the more tenured members and haven't cared about addressing the inequity early in career (and especially their future members, i.e. the minor leaguers). They focus on big free agent contracts rather than changing the system, content with getting paid so long as you stay in the league long enough to hit free agency. Well the owners have gotten smarter, and have realized they can get the same or more value from younger (and cheaper) players. That's the system, I can't blame the owners for taking those actions (although feel free to blame them for the system though). My second comment is that the players have always held firm to no revenue sharing (i.e. against capping salaries like the NFL where they guarantee getting 48% of revenues, whatever those revenues are). They felt that would restrict their earnings potential. Well that backfired on them this decade. Maybe it won't in the future but they took a risk thinking they could get more money by not agreeing to share revenues and got burned. Without an agreement on revenue sharing, with some type of floor and ceiling, there will be difficulties with each proceeding agreement. a 5-year floor, like the NFL has, just makes sense - with the amount being based on a percentage of the competitive balance tax and the CBT being based on a percentage of the overall revenues. Then a fund of the difference between the $$ paid and the $$ agreed upon as a percentage of the overall revenue is distributed through the players based on plate appearances/innings. Then all of the back-and-forth BS can be whittled down to '48.2% or 48.5%'.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 26, 2021 4:31:24 GMT -5
Here's the thing - the whole situation is collectively bargained so don't feel bad for the players. Their lawyers are smart, they have a ton of power, and should have known what they were doing. If they got fleeced that's failed oversight by their leadership (which many have argued happened during Tony Clark's tenure). I'll go on the record and say I'm pro players with this lockout. Since 2016 average salaries have been flat while revenues continue to grow ~4-5% per year (ignoring Covid impacts). The players deserve a piece of that growth. With that said, the players are equally at fault here. They historically put their focus on the more tenured members and haven't cared about addressing the inequity early in career (and especially their future members, i.e. the minor leaguers). They focus on big free agent contracts rather than changing the system, content with getting paid so long as you stay in the league long enough to hit free agency. Well the owners have gotten smarter, and have realized they can get the same or more value from younger (and cheaper) players. That's the system, I can't blame the owners for taking those actions (although feel free to blame them for the system though). My second comment is that the players have always held firm to no revenue sharing (i.e. against capping salaries like the NFL where they guarantee getting 48% of revenues, whatever those revenues are). They felt that would restrict their earnings potential. Well that backfired on them this decade. Maybe it won't in the future but they took a risk thinking they could get more money by not agreeing to share revenues and got burned. I understand this. My comments were born out of the current position the owners are taking and the proposals they have started with. I hope those proposals are just their way of starting out negotiations from a position that gives them room to bend, that would be normal. If there is a lockout and delay to the season based on entrenched positioning I will lay the blame at the owners feet. The current system the owners have benefited from needs to bend back in the players direction by a little bit at least. That is what worries me. The owners will want concessions from the players for any bending back in their direction as far as control and salary caps. What do the players have to actually give back? Rules to speed the game up?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 26, 2021 4:41:51 GMT -5
Here's the thing - the whole situation is collectively bargained so don't feel bad for the players. Their lawyers are smart, they have a ton of power, and should have known what they were doing. If they got fleeced that's failed oversight by their leadership (which many have argued happened during Tony Clark's tenure). I'll go on the record and say I'm pro players with this lockout. Since 2016 average salaries have been flat while revenues continue to grow ~4-5% per year (ignoring Covid impacts). The players deserve a piece of that growth. With that said, the players are equally at fault here. They historically put their focus on the more tenured members and haven't cared about addressing the inequity early in career (and especially their future members, i.e. the minor leaguers). They focus on big free agent contracts rather than changing the system, content with getting paid so long as you stay in the league long enough to hit free agency. Well the owners have gotten smarter, and have realized they can get the same or more value from younger (and cheaper) players. That's the system, I can't blame the owners for taking those actions (although feel free to blame them for the system though). My second comment is that the players have always held firm to no revenue sharing (i.e. against capping salaries like the NFL where they guarantee getting 48% of revenues, whatever those revenues are). They felt that would restrict their earnings potential. Well that backfired on them this decade. Maybe it won't in the future but they took a risk thinking they could get more money by not agreeing to share revenues and got burned. Without an agreement on revenue sharing, with some type of floor and ceiling, there will be difficulties with each proceeding agreement. a 5-year floor, like the NFL has, just makes sense - with the amount being based on a percentage of the competitive balance tax and the CBT being based on a percentage of the overall revenues. Then a fund of the difference between the $$ paid and the $$ agreed upon as a percentage of the overall revenue is distributed through the players based on plate appearances/innings. Then all of the back-and-forth BS can be whittled down to '48.2% or 48.5%'. This seems a bit simple and makes too much sense. Which means it won't happen. Kidding, maybe it is the answer. What are the road blocks keeping it from happening? It does seem to work for the other sports. Do the other sports not have teams like the Pirates that just don't really try? Teams that just take that CBT money and not raise their budgets? Would this cause ownership turnover? That might be a good thing, get owners who aren't satisfied with losing yr after yr.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Oct 26, 2021 11:16:42 GMT -5
This is certainly not my area of expertise, but I wonder if the bottom end of the payroll could be looked at similar to the top end. Currently there is not a hard cap but penalties that kick in if a team exceeds certain limits. Those penalties increase if a team continues to exceed those limits. This acts to control spending without a hard cap. Perhaps there is a similar strategy that could work on the bottom end. If a team continually operates well below certain thresholds perhaps they sacrifice a percentage of revenue sharing or fall back several draft positions, etc....something to encourage them to spend up to a certain point without being a firm bottom.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 26, 2021 11:32:41 GMT -5
This is certainly not my area of expertise, but I wonder if the bottom end of the payroll could be looked at similar to the top end. Currently there is not a hard cap but penalties that kick in if a team exceeds certain limits. Those penalties increase if a team continues to exceed those limits. This acts to control spending without a hard cap. Perhaps there is a similar strategy that could work on the bottom end. If a team continually operates well below certain thresholds perhaps they sacrifice a percentage of revenue sharing or fall back several draft positions, etc....something to encourage them to spend up to a certain point without being a firm bottom. Only issue here is that the incentive has to be one that benefits the players if the ownership of a team doesn't meet the threshold. If the owners offered penalties such as lost, or reduced, draft picks, the players wouldn't see that as a concession at all. Perhaps an argument can be made that only a percentage of the dollars beneath the established floor go to the players, but the money beneath the floor would have to go to the players for the players to agree. The NFL has a 90% floor, and in the rare situation a team approaches the floor, they find a way to use the money. (Browns bought draft picks from the Texans a few years ago for taking Brock Osweiler's contract)
|
|
|