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 greenmonster on Oct 26, 2021 11:54:51 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) If there were incentives to encourage teams to spend above the bottom threshold, that would result in larger payrolls for the players on those teams, and more money would end in the players pockets.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 2, 2021 15:57:26 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anything about MLB or the Players Union putting trading draft picks on the table for the CBA?
If MLB wants to draw any of the attention to its draft that the NFL or NBA currently possess this seems like the simplest - and least painful - way to do it. They could allow trading picks in the first 10 rounds with the requisite money. Especially now with the slotting, not sure what the hang-up would be.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2021 17:12:31 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anything about MLB or the Players Union putting trading draft picks on the table for the CBA? If MLB wants to draw any of the attention to its draft that the NFL or NBA currently possess this seems like the simplest - and least painful - way to do it. They could allow trading picks in the first 10 rounds with the requisite money. Especially now with the slotting, not sure what the hang-up would be. There is talk they might allow trading of picks for other picks. Not certain. I don't think I agree this would create much more excitement about the draft though. The issues with the MLB draft as opposed to the NBA and NFL are (1) less familiarity with the players (college basketball/football much more popular), and (2) the drafted players are, for the most part, contributing right away or close to it, as opposed to 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road. The better analogy to the MLB draft is college recruiting, I think.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2021 17:47:30 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anything about MLB or the Players Union putting trading draft picks on the table for the CBA? If MLB wants to draw any of the attention to its draft that the NFL or NBA currently possess this seems like the simplest - and least painful - way to do it. They could allow trading picks in the first 10 rounds with the requisite money. Especially now with the slotting, not sure what the hang-up would be. There is talk they might allow trading of picks for other picks. Not certain. I don't think I agree this would create much more excitement about the draft though. The issues with the MLB draft as opposed to the NBA and NFL are (1) less familiarity with the players (college basketball/football much more popular), and (2) the drafted players are, for the most part, contributing right away or close to it, as opposed to 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road. The better analogy to the MLB draft is college recruiting, I think. As you mention, MLB has an uphill battle to reach the popularity of the NFL/NBA drafts, but I think you're missing the reason why people actually watch/follow all 3 of these drafts. Impatience is certainly a factor, but quite a bit of it comes down to drama, and the trading of draft picks DURING the draft would definitely assist in that regard. If it weren't for the impatience and drama, everyone who is interested would simply check the results after it's over. You've got to put on a show if you want viewers to tune in.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 3, 2021 5:41:53 GMT -5
I haven't read through any of the thread, but the huge roadblock between the player's union and the Owners is the control of 6 years over a player.
The player's should ask for only 5 years of control and live with the low base pay through the first 3 years to keep the owners happy with their payroll structures.
Maybe there could be a restricted free agency like the NBA or something that could be worked out, but this whole CBA is about the control of a player. The owners want to keep status quo. The players know they're getting screwed. The small market teams will whine the most because they need those control years especially.
There's also things like the QO being gone or changed. DH rules. Pace of play stuff that need to be worked in or out, but the years of control is the big one that could lead to more petty from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 3, 2021 6:25:40 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anything about MLB or the Players Union putting trading draft picks on the table for the CBA? If MLB wants to draw any of the attention to its draft that the NFL or NBA currently possess this seems like the simplest - and least painful - way to do it. They could allow trading picks in the first 10 rounds with the requisite money. Especially now with the slotting, not sure what the hang-up would be. There is talk they might allow trading of picks for other picks. Not certain. I don't think I agree this would create much more excitement about the draft though. The issues with the MLB draft as opposed to the NBA and NFL are (1) less familiarity with the players (college basketball/football much more popular), and (2) the drafted players are, for the most part, contributing right away or close to it, as opposed to 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road. The better analogy to the MLB draft is college recruiting, I think. I agree that there is basically nothing baseball can do to put the draft any where near those sports in regards to interest. For the reasons Chris states it is just a different animal. The players coming into those leagues have an immediate impact and have had exposure to fans for years. The people who have an interest in college and prep baseball players is a very small demographic, basically people like us here at SP. And we aren't going to move the needle on ratings for the draft or even the media that produces all the info on available players. Baseball has a hard enough time maintaining the base they have always had let alone expanding the true junkies like us. Sure their is a market but it is small and not growing enough to think it could ever reach those stratospheres. If it wasn't for fantasy baseball MLB would have seen much greater losses in interest thru the years. And when it comes to this CBA I think they all realize a prolonged standoff would be a very bad thing, at least I hope they do. Then again the lust for greed always amazes me and the owners seem to live in their own little world of never ending bounty.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 3, 2021 21:31:20 GMT -5
I haven't read through any of the thread, but the huge roadblock between the player's union and the Owners is the control of 6 years over a player. The player's should ask for only 5 years of control and live with the low base pay through the first 3 years to keep the owners happy with their payroll structures. Maybe there could be a restricted free agency like the NBA or something that could be worked out, but this whole CBA is about the control of a player. The owners want to keep status quo. The players know they're getting screwed. The small market teams will whine the most because they need those control years especially. There's also things like the QO being gone or changed. DH rules. Pace of play stuff that need to be worked in or out, but the years of control is the big one that could lead to more petty from both sides. Or else leave it at 6 but make it any part of 6 years. That would eliminate all the manipulation of service time. Rookies could actually break camp with their teams.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 3, 2021 21:53:32 GMT -5
If there's a hard end date then there's always going to be manipulation. if it's 5 years plus 1 day then they'll plan accordingly. Probably the best method would be to use a system like the current Super 2, where something like 75% of the players with over five years of service become free agents, and the date is fluid from year to year (whether it's 5 years + 40 days in 2022 and then maybe 5 years + 48 days in 2023). Manipulation becomes harder to plan, and the consequences of a contending team leaving a prospect who can help in the minor in July/August is going to be an even harder sell than the first two weeks of April.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 3, 2021 22:07:33 GMT -5
If there's a hard end date then there's always going to be manipulation. if it's 5 years plus 1 day then they'll plan accordingly. Probably the best method would be to use a system like the current Super 2, where something like 75% of the players with over five years of service become free agents, and the date is fluid from year to year (whether it's 5 years + 40 days in 2022 and then maybe 5 years + 48 days in 2023). Manipulation becomes harder to plan, and the consequences of a contending team leaving a prospect who can help in the minor in July/August is going to be an even harder sell than the first two weeks of April. Not if it's any part of a year, a year being a calendar year. If a player appears in one game a year for 6 years, he's free. In reality, eliminating the manipulation gives the vast majority of players a year's less control. Super two would also be eliminated under that plan.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 3, 2021 22:19:59 GMT -5
Something should also be done to eliminate players with options from losing money to be accomodating to their clubs. I don't remember the exact number but Houck lost something like $50,000 solely for club convenience. That shouldn't have come out of Houck's pocket. It's especially egregious for startup players.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 4, 2021 7:56:11 GMT -5
This piece on the CBA today in The Wall Street Journal does not sound optimistic. Subscription-only, but Jared Diamond, who is usually quite good writes: With four weeks remaining until the deadline, the two sides aren’t close to finding common ground on the key economic issues in what has long been expected to be a contentious negotiation. One of the primary issues for the players revolves around the game’s competitive integrity and their growing concern that teams don’t have enough financial incentive to pursue winning, cooling the demand for free agents.Another excerpt: Management, helmed by commissioner Rob Manfred and deputy commissioner Dan Halem, has objectives of its own. These include an expanded postseason format that could result in hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually in television revenue...Perhaps most importantly, the owners would like to protect an economic system that seems to have been in their favor since the last CBA was signed before the 2017 campaign.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 4, 2021 8:19:51 GMT -5
This piece on the CBA today in The Wall Street Journal does not sound optimistic. Subscription-only, but Jared Diamond, who is usually quite good writes: With four weeks remaining until the deadline, the two sides aren’t close to finding common ground on the key economic issues in what has long been expected to be a contentious negotiation. One of the primary issues for the players revolves around the game’s competitive integrity and their growing concern that teams don’t have enough financial incentive to pursue winning, cooling the demand for free agents.Another excerpt: Management, helmed by commissioner Rob Manfred and deputy commissioner Dan Halem, has objectives of its own. These include an expanded postseason format that could result in hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually in television revenue...Perhaps most importantly, the owners would like to protect an economic system that seems to have been in their favor since the last CBA was signed before the 2017 campaign.They want to expand the post season again? Ugh, guess I'll wait to reserve judgement but don't love the sound of that. I would be okay if they wanted to turn the wildcard game into a 3 game series though.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Nov 4, 2021 8:50:49 GMT -5
The good news is that minor leaguers aren't part of the MLBPA so we will still have minor league baseball next spring.
The bad news is that the game the other night might have been the last MLB game we've seen for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 4, 2021 9:11:24 GMT -5
This piece on the CBA today in The Wall Street Journal does not sound optimistic. Subscription-only, but Jared Diamond, who is usually quite good writes: With four weeks remaining until the deadline, the two sides aren’t close to finding common ground on the key economic issues in what has long been expected to be a contentious negotiation. One of the primary issues for the players revolves around the game’s competitive integrity and their growing concern that teams don’t have enough financial incentive to pursue winning, cooling the demand for free agents.Another excerpt: Management, helmed by commissioner Rob Manfred and deputy commissioner Dan Halem, has objectives of its own. These include an expanded postseason format that could result in hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually in television revenue...Perhaps most importantly, the owners would like to protect an economic system that seems to have been in their favor since the last CBA was signed before the 2017 campaign.They want to expand the post season again? Ugh, guess I'll wait to reserve judgement but don't love the sound of that. I would be okay if they wanted to turn the wildcard game into a 3 game series though. "Turn MLB into Hockey" is Manfred's goal. Maybe they can sell this to players if they go back to a 154 game season, but owners milking the "competitive balance" payments will never go for losing 8 games of revenues, even if it means hundreds of millions of dollars more TV/streaming money for MLB. Pigs at the trough.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 4, 2021 12:12:18 GMT -5
They want to expand the post season again? Ugh, guess I'll wait to reserve judgement but don't love the sound of that. I would be okay if they wanted to turn the wildcard game into a 3 game series though. "Turn MLB into Hockey" is Manfred's goal. Maybe they can sell this to players if they go back to a 154 game season, but owners milking the "competitive balance" payments will never go for losing 8 games of revenues, even if it means hundreds of millions of dollars more TV/streaming money for MLB. Pigs at the trough. Yeah, exactly. It's getting to the point that there are too many teams making the playoffs. I liked the dual wild card game which puts pressure on teams to win the division or otherwise risk a coin toss game. I'd be ok with turning the the division series into a best of 7. I'd prefer the wild card game to remain a 1 game playoff. But I think Manfred wants to turn the post-season into a NBA or NHL tournament where virtually everybody at .500 (or even some below) makes the playoffs and everything gets watered down. I'd hate to see that happen. I have a feeling that this upcoming season will not be starting on time. I even worry that it might not start at all. I doubt there will be much common ground to be found. I really wished they had a commissioner who actually likes (would prefer loves) baseball.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 4, 2021 14:44:45 GMT -5
I coudld be wrong in how it happened but its in the ballpark. At one point in the past the NFLunder Taligbue spelling. Made sure every team got a good stadium built. They invested there own money even in helping a couple of teams out. Thats why pretty much one reason they all do good. Also the tevelvision contracts. But this was a long time ago.
This is an issue still with teams in Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 10, 2021 14:47:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 10, 2021 15:10:10 GMT -5
Scott Boras is a goofball when hyping up his clients and sometimes a real pain when you're negotiating with him, but he is consistently the good guy when he's talking about collective bargaining issues.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 11, 2021 17:52:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 11, 2021 17:56:48 GMT -5
two things..
I dont think Fangraphs wants to be responsible for this....
what happens if you get negative WAR? do you need to pay your team?
honestly this is a troll like offer from the owners
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,754
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 11, 2021 17:58:27 GMT -5
Its wrong but is it any more wrong than the current system? It kind of shows they MIGHT be open to thinking creatively.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Nov 11, 2021 19:00:11 GMT -5
Would the owners commit to a NBA style salary structure? Higher salaries. There would be a maximum. But, less term. Max 5 years.Allow more money for home grown players.
I think this would encourage smaller market teams to spend more, contracts would be much easier to move if not working out.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 11, 2021 19:07:44 GMT -5
I would be surprised if they seriously proposed using the actual Fangraphs website. The Statcast guys have been talking about introducing their own Statcast WAR. They employ the same guy that was the architect of Fangraphs WAR.
I don't see why using WAR would be worse than whatever 1980s voodoo salary arbitration currently uses.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Nov 11, 2021 19:22:28 GMT -5
I would be surprised if they seriously proposed using the actual Fangraphs website. The Statcast guys have been talking about introducing their own Statcast WAR. They employ the same guy that was the architect of Fangraphs WAR. I don't see why using WAR would be worse than whatever 1980s voodoo salary arbitration currently uses. Reaganomics😉
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 11, 2021 22:42:02 GMT -5
I would be surprised if they seriously proposed using the actual Fangraphs website. The Statcast guys have been talking about introducing their own Statcast WAR. They employ the same guy that was the architect of Fangraphs WAR. I don't see why using WAR would be worse than whatever 1980s voodoo salary arbitration currently uses. Yeah. It's a hell of a lot better than basing it on saves and RBI or whatever. WAR ain't perfect but it's a hell of a lot closer to how teams actually value players than how it's currently done.
|
|
|