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 Underwater Johnson on Mar 12, 2022 11:24:28 GMT -5
Listening to SPPod 240 right now. Chris just made my point about the Players League. (Paraphrasing.) "If the top 1200 players (all 40-man rosters) went away and were replaced by the next 1200 best players, baseball would be a significantly worse product. "If the 30 owners went away and were replaced by 30 other owners, it wouldn't make a difference." To which Ian replied that the game might even be better with different owners if you got people who all want to spend.
The owners need the marriage more than the players do. If the players made a PL, the 30 owners would be over a barrel. The owners have the trademarks and the ballparks and the history, which is their main negotiating strength.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 12, 2022 11:28:37 GMT -5
Listening to SPPod 240 right now. Chris just made my point about the Players League. (Paraphrasing.) "If the top 1200 players (all 40-man rosters) went away and were replaced by the next 1200 best players, baseball would be a significantly worse product. "If the 30 owners went away and were replaced by 30 other owners, it wouldn't make a difference." To which Ian replied that the game might even be better with different owners if you got people who all want to spend. The owners need the marriage more than the players do. If the players made a PL, the 30 owners would be over a barrel. The owners have the trademarks and the ballparks and the history, which is their main negotiating strength. I dont dispute that the players are more important to the product than owners. That being said most of the 1200 best players in the world are signed to contracts and maybe I'm wrong couldn't just go start their own league without the owners suing them. And theoretically owners have way more money to spend in a lawsuit than the players. Thankfully none of my post matters as we have the MLB back for another season here.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 12, 2022 11:34:56 GMT -5
Listening to SPPod 240 right now. Chris just made my point about the Players League. (Paraphrasing.) "If the top 1200 players (all 40-man rosters) went away and were replaced by the next 1200 best players, baseball would be a significantly worse product. "If the 30 owners went away and were replaced by 30 other owners, it wouldn't make a difference." To which Ian replied that the game might even be better with different owners if you got people who all want to spend. The owners need the marriage more than the players do. If the players made a PL, the 30 owners would be over a barrel. The owners have the trademarks and the ballparks and the history, which is their main negotiating strength. I dont dispute that the players are more important to the product than owners. That being said most of the 1200 best players in the world are signed to contracts and maybe I'm wrong couldn't just go start their own league without the owners suing them. And theoretically owners have way more money to spend in a lawsuit than the players. Thankfully none of my post matters as we have the MLB back for another season here. The idea was that it starts slow, with only a handful of teams in the first year comprised of the players who are currently FAs or arb eligible. Second year they get all the FAs and arbs from that year, more than doubling the size of the PL. Given that so few players have contracts more than three years, you have a majority of the players by then.
The idea was also that just by demonstrating that the players don't need the owners, even with a small barnstorming league in the first year, it would pull the owners back to the negotiating table and force them to offer concessions.
I am also glad that it's no longer needed but if I were a MLBPA lawyer, I would explore the feasibility over the next five years.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 12, 2022 12:12:33 GMT -5
I dont dispute that the players are more important to the product than owners. That being said most of the 1200 best players in the world are signed to contracts and maybe I'm wrong couldn't just go start their own league without the owners suing them. And theoretically owners have way more money to spend in a lawsuit than the players. Thankfully none of my post matters as we have the MLB back for another season here. The idea was that it starts slow, with only a handful of teams in the first year comprised of the players who are currently FAs or arb eligible. Second year they get all the FAs and arbs from that year, more than doubling the size of the PL. Given that so few players have contracts more than three years, you have a majority of the players by then.
The idea was also that just by demonstrating that the players don't need the owners, even with a small barnstorming league in the first year, it would pull the owners back to the negotiating table and force them to offer concessions.
I am also glad that it's no longer needed but if I were a MLBPA lawyer, I would explore the feasibility over the next five years.
I think I like what you are putting down but stadiums aren't cheap, where would they play?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 12, 2022 13:36:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 12, 2022 13:46:14 GMT -5
if that makes it harder for this “small Market” owner to compete, then they should not have been able to own a team in the first place.
So sell the team !
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 12, 2022 13:54:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 12, 2022 14:02:05 GMT -5
The idea was that it starts slow, with only a handful of teams in the first year comprised of the players who are currently FAs or arb eligible. Second year they get all the FAs and arbs from that year, more than doubling the size of the PL. Given that so few players have contracts more than three years, you have a majority of the players by then.
The idea was also that just by demonstrating that the players don't need the owners, even with a small barnstorming league in the first year, it would pull the owners back to the negotiating table and force them to offer concessions.
I am also glad that it's no longer needed but if I were a MLBPA lawyer, I would explore the feasibility over the next five years.
I think I like what you are putting down but stadiums aren't cheap, where would they play? The latest idea (detailed about 10 pages back) was that they would start out as an 8-12 team league (with a televised sandlot-style draft by charismatic player-manager-captains) that barnstormed across the country, with groups of 3-4 teams playing round-robin series in each of 2-4 towns at a time, starting in the South and moving north with warmer weather.
The realignment and contraction of MiLB means that there are lots of disused ballparks around the country (e.g. Pawtucket, Lowell). They're small parks but the real revenue would come from TV/streaming rights from a maverick broadcaster looking to make a name for itself. They could attract state/county-fair types of concessionaires and amusements (that would tour along with them) to create a festive atmosphere around the ballpark for the week that they're in town.
Maybe play for couple months and the top two teams play in a best-of-7 mid-season championship series, followed by an All-Star game and then a re-draft with the captain of each team getting to keep his five best players from the first half. Obviously, there's no traditional teams, so having a re-draft helps account for the possibility that one team turns out to be way better or way worse than the others.
Again, I doubt it would get that far before the MLB owners came crawling back to the bargaining table, hats in hands. The PL would not only rob them of revenue but the value of their MLB franchises would plummet if they had to field teams of minor leaguers that they called major leaguers (and who the union would call scabs, meaning many would likely opt out).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 12, 2022 16:30:44 GMT -5
Listening to SPPod 240 right now. Chris just made my point about the Players League. (Paraphrasing.) "If the top 1200 players (all 40-man rosters) went away and were replaced by the next 1200 best players, baseball would be a significantly worse product. "If the 30 owners went away and were replaced by 30 other owners, it wouldn't make a difference." To which Ian replied that the game might even be better with different owners if you got people who all want to spend. The owners need the marriage more than the players do. If the players made a PL, the 30 owners would be over a barrel. The owners have the trademarks and the ballparks and the history, which is their main negotiating strength. Chris can certainly have his opinion, yet he gives no credit at all to the owners growing revenue. Not all owners are horrible and the group overall has done very well. You could literally make things much worse getting a bunch of Donald Sterling type owners. You'll never get 1200 to leave. Just look at what happened, the player committee was all against this deal, the majority of the team reps weren't. A player league played zero role in this, actually the exact opposite happened. The majority of players getting huge raises took a good deal for them over the one that benefits the top100 players more. I'm kinda surprised more people don't see this as a win for the players that make less. Setting up next CBA to get them over a million per year, rather than the top few getting an extra 50 to 100 million on a contract. Now imagine the few crazy rich players trying to convince 1200 players to leave when they will make way less.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 12, 2022 16:36:49 GMT -5
if that makes it harder for this “small Market” owner to compete, then they should not have been able to own a team in the first place. So sell the team ! How do you think people become Billionaires? That's like the Jimmed view, Owners should run in the Red because of a future windfall when they sell the team. Yet only certain owners, because others teams have enough revenue to actually spend and make a ton of money. Bam that's Baseball, rich people arguing because the games economic system isn't fair.
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Mar 13, 2022 7:51:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 13, 2022 12:19:50 GMT -5
I endorse this 100% but I remain convinced Henry and Bloom will stay under. I hope I am (gleefully) wrong about the latter: For the right trade or free-agent acquisition, they [The Red Sox] should have no issue blowing past the $230-million threshold.
They’d pay just a 20% tax on their first $20 million over. That money is split between player benefits and a fund that is dispersed to revenue sharing recipients in smaller markets.
Even if they spent $250 million, the Sox would pay an extra $4 million in taxes. What’s $4 million to a franchise worth nearly $4 billion?www.bostonherald.com/2022/03/12/with-two-first-round-byes-on-the-line-red-sox-have-incentive-to-be-aggressive-in-2022/
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 13, 2022 12:21:12 GMT -5
Small Market = Billionaires. Also, that market gets real big if they start winning.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 13, 2022 12:38:15 GMT -5
I endorse this 100% but I remain convinced Henry and Bloom will stay under. I hope I am (gleefully) wrong about the latter: For the right trade or free-agent acquisition, they [The Red Sox] should have no issue blowing past the $230-million threshold.
They’d pay just a 20% tax on their first $20 million over. That money is split between player benefits and a fund that is dispersed to revenue sharing recipients in smaller markets.
Even if they spent $250 million, the Sox would pay an extra $4 million in taxes. What’s $4 million to a franchise worth nearly $4 billion?www.bostonherald.com/2022/03/12/with-two-first-round-byes-on-the-line-red-sox-have-incentive-to-be-aggressive-in-2022/The one year penalties are pretty modest, but getting stuck in the repeater penalty track is more worrisome.
The issue this year is that they'll be in a strong spot for a wild card if they spent just under the limit, and nothing they can do will give them good odds of winning the division.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 13, 2022 17:58:28 GMT -5
This is another one of the mysteries of the new CBA to me. It sounds like a lot more travel for the players. I'm surprised they'd go for this and surprised the owners would insist on it. How did it make it into the final agreement?
|
|
|
Post by vmoss on Mar 13, 2022 17:59:17 GMT -5
Few questions:
Can all picks now be traded? (Cin just got a 1st)?
Heard something also 4th tax level (what are now the penalties)?
Thanks.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 13, 2022 18:55:07 GMT -5
I endorse this 100% but I remain convinced Henry and Bloom will stay under. I hope I am (gleefully) wrong about the latter: For the right trade or free-agent acquisition, they [The Red Sox] should have no issue blowing past the $230-million threshold.
They’d pay just a 20% tax on their first $20 million over. That money is split between player benefits and a fund that is dispersed to revenue sharing recipients in smaller markets.
Even if they spent $250 million, the Sox would pay an extra $4 million in taxes. What’s $4 million to a franchise worth nearly $4 billion?www.bostonherald.com/2022/03/12/with-two-first-round-byes-on-the-line-red-sox-have-incentive-to-be-aggressive-in-2022/The one year penalties are pretty modest, but getting stuck in the repeater penalty track is more worrisome.
The issue this year is that they'll be in a strong spot for a wild card if they spent just under the limit, and nothing they can do will give them good odds of winning the division.
I'm still catching up on the details of the new CBA and found a useful breakdown in BA: www.baseballamerica.com/stories/guide-to-the-new-cba-draft-lottery-expanded-playoffs-and-more/ It aligns well with what the Herald reported on the tax thresholds and penalties. My takeaway is that the first-time penalty for going over the first threshold is surprisingly modest. Given that the RS have a lot of money coming off the books after this season, they can go well over the $230M in 2022 and easily reset in 2023. Put it all together and it seems to me that there is absolutely no harm in going north of $240M this year. The only red line for me is $270M. That causes your first-round pick to be pushed back 10 spots. That's what happened in 2018 when D-Dom's calculator broke. He went over by a few bucks and cost us our 2019 first-rounder. I've always thought that may have been one of the screwups that got him fired.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 13, 2022 19:19:57 GMT -5
My takeaway is that the first-time penalty for going over the first threshold is surprisingly modest. Given that the RS have a lot of money coming off the books after this season, they can go well over the $230M in 2022 and easily reset in 2023. Put it all together and it seems to me that there is absolutely no harm in going north of $240M this year The Red Sox have Bogaerts, Martinez, Eovaldi, Hernandez, Vazquez, Plawecki, Bradley, Wacha, Strahm and Hill set to come off the books. Their combined 2022 projection is 17.5 WAR by my count, on $100 million salary. $100 million gets you about 12 wins at free agent market prices. I think if 2023 is a CBT reset year, then they're likely to enter spring training with a team projected to be under that mid-high 80s win floor that gives you excellent wild card odds.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on May 9, 2023 14:36:15 GMT -5
|
|
|