Indians Ownership Discussion

[AZ_]

I don’t think anyone is expecting the MLBPA to have any sort of boner for this proposal.

But it’s worth mentioning because as someone already mentioned, both parties know this should happen. It benefits players salaries as much as it does the league.

This isn’t what’s going to bring down any deal.

 

[Derek]

Do you think that hard salary floor will automatically go to like 100 million or go up gradually? What happens if a team is under it?

If it were anything like the NBA salary floor, the difference between the team salary and the floor would be dispersed to the players on the roster.

 

[FrontPageNews]

Do you think that hard salary floor will automatically go to like 100 million or go up gradually? What happens if a team is under it?

In the nba the remaining money gets divided up amongst the players on the roster. So probably that.

Edit: didn’t see that was already answered

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but it sure seems like less and less players are getting those mega contracts, and more teams having money would greatly increase player salaries.

MLBPA should be looking at the grand scheme of things. I think a salary cap floor has been needed for a while in baseball. What the Indians, A's and Rays have done isn't good for the game in those markets.

 

[MadThinker88]

I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but it sure seems like less and less players are getting those mega contracts, and more teams having money would greatly increase player salaries.

MLBPA should be looking at the grand scheme of things. I think a salary cap floor has been needed for a while in baseball. What the Indians, A's and Rays have done isn't good for the game in those markets.

You would think that, but their general idea is a handful mega deals one off-season leads to another handful of even bigger mega deals the next off-season and so... Doing this then gives a trickle down effect that raises everyone's salary over the long run..

 

[MikeOC33]

Do you think that hard salary floor will automatically go to like 100 million or go up gradually? What happens if a team is under it?

For teams like Pittsburg and Cleveland, it will be slowly increased from current levels to 100 million over the next 35 years.

 

[bs80]

Tough to see the players approving that proposal since that $180 million will act as a pseudo hard cap with few teams willing to go over it, down from the current $210 million tax threshold. But certainly a start in the right direction for the first publicly made proposal.

Only way to get ownership to approve a hard salary floor is if there is stingier tax on the higher spending teams that is shared more with the lower revenue teams.

But a salary floor has long been rumored as one of the things that are almost virtual locks to be in the next CBA going back a few years. Both the owners and players like the idea a lot.

Do all teams in the league have the revenues to sustain $100 million payrolls? Of course the words that come from the mouths of small market owners need to be taken with a grain of salt, but is there a legit argument to be made?

 

[sportscoach]

Do all teams in the league have the revenues to sustain $100 million payrolls? Of course the words that come from the mouths of small market owners need to be taken with a grain of salt, but is there a legit argument to be made?

I think Tampa would have a legit argument since they have never had a 100 million payroll the entire time they have been in existence, if I recall correctly.

That's why in the past, I suggested doing an increase to 100 million, so you start with less say 65-70 million and gradually increase it by like 5 million or so until it's at 100 and lower the tax cap down so teams have time to adjust a bit. It would give ownerships time to adjust the payroll. Teams like Tampa would do it in house aka give extensions sooner and then teams would spend a bit extra on mid tier free agents and less on top tier cause of the lower tax cap. (At least that's what I see in my mind).

 

[bs80]

I think Tampa would have a legit argument since they have never had a 100 million payroll the entire time they have been in existence, if I recall correctly.

That's why in the past, I suggested doing an increase to 100 million, so you start with less say 65-70 million and gradually increase it by like 5 million or so until it's at 100 and lower the tax cap down so teams have time to adjust a bit. It would give ownerships time to adjust the payroll. Teams like Tampa would do it in house aka give extensions sooner and then teams would spend a bit extra on mid tier free agents and less on top tier cause of the lower tax cap. (At least that's what I see in my mind).

Is there any form of revenue sharing outside of luxury taxes in MLB?

 

[sportscoach]

Is there any form of revenue sharing outside of luxury taxes in MLB?

I am personally not sure what the details for all the revenue sharing is.

@AZ_ do you know? Or anyone that does can pitch in here..

 

[Gson]

I am personally not sure what the details for all the revenue sharing is.

@AZ_ do you know? Or anyone that does can pitch in here..

There are four primary revenue generators for each of the Major League Franchises. Some are shared.. some aren't, but they may be qualified as:

Stadium Revenues.. this includes things like tickets, food and licensing operations for food vendors, special seating, loges and corporate suites, other in building promotions, etc. Most of these revenues are shared with the home team getting the lions share of the revenue stream.

Broadcast Revenues.. these are split into two categories.. local and national:

-Local revenues are consumed solely by the club and are usually well known for both dollar value and duration.
-National revenues are equally shared by all thirty franchises and include at least three separate streams. There is a fourth that is defined as an on-line delivery (it is shared)..but it's uncertain what it actually means from a dollars and cents perspective. The first extimates for this were in excess of $ 40,000,000.00 per team.. it was considered "light" by the MLBPA and other cynics!!..

Licensing is a shared revenue stream and includes an enormous number of products and services. Example.. you've all seen a Chief Wahoo balloon sold at Walmart for $ 3.95 for a dozen balloons. The same dozen balloons without Chief Wahoo's image ink transfered using a Tampo Printer are $ 1.99. MLB makes about 47 cents per bag. This goes into a pot that is shared by all thirty franchises. There are actually close to 7,000 items that are MLB licensed products or services. You know.. Jill's Nail Salon is the the Cleveland Indians Nail Salon !.. You'd be amazed at some of the items..

The last revenue stream is a little harder to understand how it's a revenue stream until the team changes ownership. Larry Dolan purchased the Indians for the sum of $ 323 MM 20-some years ago.. The value of the franchise now exceeds $ 1.3 Billion. This is reported as a capital gain.. The uses of cash/sources of cash become the means by which investment income is generated and added revenue streams realized.. For all intentions and purposes.. it's a massive This is a non-shared item

I purposely left the figures off.. as that just clouds/confuses the issues.. but.. make no mistake.. the growth of revenues in baseball.. is doing quite well.. quite well, indeed..

Thoughts?

 

[CATS44]

I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but it sure seems like less and less players are getting those mega contracts, and more teams having money would greatly increase player salaries.

MLBPA should be looking at the grand scheme of things. I think a salary cap floor has been needed for a while in baseball. What the Indians, A's and Rays have done isn't good for the game in those markets.

I dont see how fielding a competitive team nearly every year is not good for any market.

**************

A payroll floor sounds good on paper, but additional revenue sharing that theoretically finances it...if it comes from savings at the top end, via a lowering the tax level... is merely shuffling money around, and not increasing the players share. In the end, it probably lowers the players share.

While the players may like the idea of a payroll floor, they won't if they are paying for it.

MLB is moving towards a more socialistic structure, which is needed to keep the industry strong...or at least viable long term. On the other hand, the MLBPA has no interest in the same type of structure for player salaries. It really has no interest in benefitting younger players at all, unless it is a tool that in reality makes the veteran players richer at the expense of the owners.

If they had real interest in aiding the youngsters, the MLBPA could institute a tax similar to what ownership has done...a tax on a portion of the highest annual salaries, to be distributed among younger and lesser paid players.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen...nor am I suggesting it should. But when the PA says that it is interested in benefitting the younger players, understand what it really means.

Both sides will present proposals and couch them in altruistic terms. Just skip the self described hype, and get to the real, underlying meanings.

 

[CDAV45]

I dont see how fielding a competitive team nearly every year is not good for any market.

**************

A payroll floor sounds good on paper, but additional revenue sharing that theoretically finances it...if it comes from savings at the top end, via a lowering the tax level... is merely shuffling money around, and not increasing the players share. In the end, it probably lowers the players share.

While the players may like the idea of a payroll floor, they won't if they are paying for it.

MLB is moving towards a more socialistic structure, which is needed to keep the industry strong...or at least viable long term. On the other hand, the MLBPA has no interest in the same type of structure for player salaries. It really has no interest in benefitting younger players at all, unless it is a tool that in reality makes the veteran players richer at the expense of the owners.

If they had real interest in aiding the youngsters, the MLBPA could institute a tax similar to what ownership has done...a tax on a portion of the highest annual salaries, to be distributed among younger and lesser paid players.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen...nor am I suggesting it should. But when the PA says that it is interested in benefitting the younger players, understand what it really means.

Both sides will present proposals and couch them in altruistic terms. Just skip the self described hype, and get to the real, underlying meanings.

They players with mega contracts are the minority. Should putting a cap in place and raising the floor come to vote then I think it passes. At least I hope it does.
The players' share wouldn't change, it would be the distribution among the players. They could, for the most part, keep the revenue sharing rules in place as the large markets will still be able to sign more of the high end FA. What it theoretically may help do is keep players with their original organizations a little longer if they're "more affordable" and there is payroll floor and a luxury tax. All best guesses on my part. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Should very little or nothing change to even the market for players then clearly those with the largest sums are calling the shots, and that is likely to hurt them in the long run as fans of small market teams choose not to go to games or watch them on TV any longer.

 

[Benway]

Now what we need here is a cap exception for keeping your own players, blended with some version of Bird (or "Byrd") rights.

 

[macbdog]

Even if the owners feel that the players would never accept this, it makes one wonder if this isn't a shot across the bow to the Rays, Guardians and Pirates owners.