Jump to content

The MLB lockout is lifted!


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

You're right. I don't hope they miss the season. That's crazy. I'd rather they miss the season than go with what the owners have proposed on the luxury tax though because it's better for the long-term health of the sport. The owners are going to have to move on the luxury tax though or they might actually miss a season. 

The luxury tax only helps the Yanks/Dodgers type of team.  It doesn't make anybody spend money.  Institute a minimum and make everyone spend 75 million and you do get more money for the players and get some parity.  Everyone gets what they said they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, poppysox said:

The luxury tax only helps the Yanks/Dodgers type of team.  It doesn't make anybody spend money.  Institute a minimum and make everyone spend 75 million and you do get more money for the players and get some parity.  Everyone gets what they said they wanted.

IF they did something like this, they'd surely need to give it a year.  You can't tell teams they have to spend $75M a few weeks before the season starts.  Not sure how many are under that off hand, but at least a handful definitely are.

A floor would be nice, but its not happening.  $215M is too low for the luxury tax though.  The Sox aren't even ginormous spenders, and are going to be at or over that number assuming they sign someone like Conforto, and their problem isn't really going to get any easier next few years.  

Edited by ChiSox59
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teams that cry poor spend as little as little as they want and then want the big spenders to spend less to suppress salaries.  When a team goes over the cap the penalty goes to the smaller revenue teams. 

The smaller market / revenue teams then win with a lower ceiling as they get the penalty revenue and suppression of salaries for the middle tier players. 

They then do not need to spend any money.  Cleveland and Tampa are prime examples of spend less, rake in the revenue share, spend on younger players and live off of revenue sharing.  All small market teams are doing that and it works for them but doesn't seem to appeal to the fan base. 

The White Sox are caught in no man's land as they don't push the cap and don't reap the rewards of multiple picks and pool increases.

The players are allowing a ceiling without a floor or taking part in true revenue sharing of the sport's wealth.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

What is the cap issue exactly? Higher cap means a spending floor? Because if teams could spend more without a floor, it wouldn't really matter for the teams that already don't spend, right?. I feel like teams like the Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, etc would spend up to a bigger cap of say, that proposed $245 mill.

Whatever the threshold is, that number does nothing to ensure that low payroll teams spend more than the bare minimum.  The top end cap means more overall spending from the big market teams but means little to the teams that don't spend, and does nothing to make them spend.  But some owners both don't want to spend at all and want to keep other teams from spending too.  That's my rough understanding.  A cap w/o a floor does nothing to balance spending across the league or aid parity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This would be great. No way they get 23 votes on that though haha. 

Meh, it would have been a better owner wedge by the players. Some of these payrolls from the bottom 3 teams recently have been low even in early 2000s. Though I know post-trade deadline the team salaries of BAL, PIT, CLE weren't as bad.

If you set a threshold of $45M you lose your competitive balance intl bonus slot money and at $40M you lose your comp balance picks it does 100x more to reduce egregious tanking than the players push of lottery style system for the draft.

Those are low thresholds, it's crazy how the lowest teams are on par with the most cash strapped teams of the early 00s. No MLB team should ever below $55M nowadays.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

The teams that cry poor spend as little as little as they want and then want the big spenders to spend less to suppress salaries.  When a team goes over the cap the penalty goes to the smaller revenue teams. 

The smaller market / revenue teams then win with a lower ceiling as they get the penalty revenue and suppression of salaries for the middle tier players. 

They then do not need to spend any money.  Cleveland and Tampa are prime examples of spend less, rake in the revenue share, spend on younger players and live off of revenue sharing.  All small market teams are doing that and it works for them but doesn't seem to appeal to the fan base. 

The White Sox are caught in no man's land as they don't push the cap and don't reap the rewards of multiple picks and pool increases.

The players are allowing a ceiling without a floor or taking part in true revenue sharing of the sport's wealth.

 

Amen. I for one think it's swung too far in favor of small market teams when it comes to competing. Not just free draft picks, but top picks that give them way bigger draft budgets, big compensation for losing free agents. A million more in INTL, AND money passed from richer markets to poorer ones.

But obviously JR is not going to swing his weight around to help the sox be more competitive in these agreements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

IF they did something like this, they'd surely need to give it a year.  You can't tell teams they have to spend $75M a few weeks before the season starts.  Not sure how many are under that off hand, but at least a handful definitely are.

A floor would be nice, but its not happening.  $215M is too low for the luxury tax though.  The Sox aren't even ginormous spenders, and are going to be at or over that number assuming they sign someone like Conforto, and their problem isn't really going to get any easier next few years.  

When talking about the luxury tax it just gives spending room to a few teams that already have an advantage.  None of the teams are required to spend anything.  If they want to graduate a minimum floor up to something more reasonable it would do more in the long run for all players.  While some teams are spending $40M  and others already spending $230M...makes no sense to worry about the top end while leaving half the league to cry poor.  My big beef is that both sides claimed parity was the "big" need.  Obviously, that was just BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The owners just want a CBA that saves them from themselves. If the higher revenue teams really wanted more competition, they would divide their money up more equally. And lower revenue teams can print money with the little revenue sharing they get, crying poor, and not trying to win.

If the owners were the jerks some here think they are...the owners would agree to the players' asking number and then just not spend to it Wink/Wink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, poppysox said:

If the owners were the jerks some here think they are...the owners would agree to the players' asking number and then just not spend to it Wink/Wink.

Which is pretty close to what happened after the last CBA.  A couple of rebel owners have other wanting to reign them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don't mind capping spending. Capping spending at $215 million and taking draft picks away for going over is insane though. There's a number where it makes sense for sure. The players suggested $245 million and that seems reasonable to me. 

215 is higher than the hard cap of 208 for the NFL and the NFL brings in more revenue. I don't see that number as being out of line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

215 is higher than the hard cap of 208 for the NFL and the NFL brings in more revenue. I don't see that number as being out of line.

every team spends $200 million in the nfl. The median MLB team spent $140 million last year and the lowest team spent $40M. MLB is also more dependent on in game revenue than the NFL where it's broadcast deals cover blanket the revenue. So reducing the top spenders who are making the most is cutting a lot of potential money from going to players since the thrifty teams have shown they don't spend shit even if you give them more shared revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They haven't even acknowledged the PA's offer. It's their favorite thing in the world. They don't want to give an inch because that would set a precedent.

They could take the players' proposal and they'd still win in a landslide due to jersey patches and expanded playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

 

Out of curiosity - what is total MLB revenues.  So we basically have a $126M GAP in CB/PRe-arb Bonus and whatever the impact of the new minimum salary is (not sure how much that is - but I presume not massive in aggregate dollars) and than the 3 picks isn't a lot.  So lets just say $135M.  How much total revenue are we talking about in all of baseball cause while the overall #'s look large, I got to imagine we are talking about relatively small percentages in grand scheme of things (taking an optimistic view).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chisoxfn said:

Out of curiosity - what is total MLB revenues.  So we basically have a $126M GAP in CB/PRe-arb Bonus and whatever the impact of the new minimum salary is (not sure how much that is - but I presume not massive in aggregate dollars) and than the 3 picks isn't a lot.  So lets just say $135M.  How much total revenue are we talking about in all of baseball cause while the overall #'s look large, I got to imagine we are talking about relatively small percentages in grand scheme of things (taking an optimistic view).  

Total revenues crossed $10 billion for the first time in 2019. Obviously "out of control virus" has impacted revenues the last 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Total revenues crossed $10 billion for the first time in 2019. Obviously "out of control virus" has impacted revenues the last 2 years.

Thank you - so the equivalent of just over 1% of total revenues.  Or if I frame it from the players perspective - you have ~850 active MLB players so if I take that same $135M and assumed it was spread out - just over $150K impact per player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...