MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

DCTribefan

All-Star
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
8,303
Reaction score
7,478
Points
113
Surprised there has not been more discussion about a work stoppage, which could occur in less than 30 days. Key points noted in this article include:

www.blessyouboys.com

Pending work stoppage could have a chilling effect on MLB free agent market

Detroit Tigers could avoid uncertainty by striking early
www.blessyouboys.com
www.blessyouboys.com


Free agent compensation payment for signing free agents is also on the table. Players want to eliminate payment of compensation, although it only applies to a select few players. Just two of ten players accepted qualifying offers last winter, and just one of seven the previous winter. If the payment of free agent compensation is eliminated, will teams be required to surrender a draft pick or two? What if they sign the player prior to the new CBA being signed?

A salary floor, which could force teams at the bottom of the payroll scale to spend more on player salaries, could be part of a new CBA. The owners proposed a floor, but only along with their ridiculous proposal for lowering the upper threshold on the competitive balance tax. Players should be pushing hard for a stiff tax on teams that fail to spend, but whether teams will have that incentive is not known.

Arbitration eligibility could also be modified in a new agreement. The eligibility requirement for arbitration has crept slowly downward, from three years, to two years and 120 to 140 days of service time. The deadline to make a qualifying offer to arbitration eligible players is also December 1st, the same day that the current CBA expires. Most likely, the 2022 arbitration class will not change, regardless of whether service time eligibility changes in the new agreement.

Free agent signings have slowed considerably in recent years, as salaries have declined and players and teams waited to see what the players at the top of the pay scale receive in free agency. If the Dodgers and Yankees are reluctant to sign Corey Seager because they don’t know the actual cost for lack of tax information, Carlos Correa and other premium shortstops may hold off until the bar has been set, just as an example.

 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
22,158
Reaction score
21,397
Points
135
Edit: I should have read the article.

Owners absolutely and 100% need to hold out for an impactful hard cap. Yes a floor is needed but this sport will not survive in it's current form if big market teams can continue to spend 5x as much as small market
 

Criznit

Let's get ready to rumble!
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
6,401
Reaction score
4,478
Points
113
Don't need a hard cap IMO - just a crushing tax that would be distributed to the lesser teams for the sole purpose of signing/paying players. Like they do now, only a harsher tax and a lot closer accounting to ensure the money is spent on players and not pocketed, which happens way too much right now IMO..

Edited to say - I agree a cap floor is an excellent idea
 
Last edited:

sportscoach

RD's Guardians PR Man!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
15,166
Reaction score
6,961
Points
113
Don't need a hard cap IMO - just a crushing tax that would be distributed to the lesser teams for the sole purpose of signing/paying players. Like they do now, only a harsher tax and a lot closer accounting to ensure the money is spent on players and not pocketed, which happens way too much right now IMO..

I'd do a hard top and minimum cap, so teams have to spend X dollars and under X dollars. If under X dollars then the money gets dispersed between all players equally as a bonus like per game... so essentially let's say minimum is 60 and the payroll is at 40, then everyone on the 26 man roster would get like 4,000 extra per game played type of deal.
 

CDAV45

I'm awesome!
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
5,986
Reaction score
3,839
Points
113
Don't want a hard cap then fine, but there has to be some language that protects those investing that money in a player. Maybe it's vesting for certain performance platforms that could give the player the maximum contract value should he achieve them. Conversely it would reduce the cost of the contract should the player underperform. It has to be fair and the current structure isn't. If the union thinks that it can maintain this capless agreement and raise the floor then that's not negotiating in good faith IMO. The owners aren't any better TBH. Both sides want the maximum dollar amount and neither seem to give a single fuck about the fans. Just my $.02.
 

CATS44

All-Star
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
11,210
Reaction score
7,903
Points
113
Cap floor with a variable incentive based on markets is incredibly popular with both the ownership group and players union.

But the fine details are what will be argued until everyone is blue in the face.
The Devil is always in the details....lol.

Negotiations are somewhat like chess. One side agrees to what appears to be a favorable concession from the other, but then finds out that there is a way around that concession that hurts even more.

***********

It's not that I am against a hard cap, which seems like a logical solution to inequities within the game. Its that the players will refuse under any and every circumstance. I truly believe that the players would give up two whole seasons, before ever considering such a thing.

And, whether you call it a luxury tax or anything else, the closer it comes to being a cap, the less likely that the players will go for it....even if it comes with a payroll floor.

No matter what the players say, they have no interest in equalizing anything. They dont care whether teams play on a level playing field. They dont care that a small group of elite players make up a majority of the total payroll. They dont care that mid level vets get squeezed out. They dont even care about the elite younger players.

The only reason they care about service time is that if younger players get paid more, the salary comparisons for arby and FA determinations go UP.

The only consideration on either side is MONEY.

Maybe the owners should simply give the players their percentage of revenues in cash...and let the players decide the compensation themselves, and handle the payrolls themselves.

That would be fair, but neither side is interested in fairness.
 

bs80

Sixth Man
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,357
Reaction score
2,373
Points
113
Cap floor with a variable incentive based on markets is incredibly popular with both the ownership group and players union.
I'm struggling to understand what a variable incentive based on markets means -- I assume it is meant to be a vehicle to level the playing field in lieu of a salary cap. Do you mind giving a very basic example of what such an incentive could look like?
 

BimboColesHair

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
20,143
Reaction score
44,842
Points
148
I'm struggling to understand what a variable incentive based on markets means -- I assume it is meant to be a vehicle to level the playing field in lieu of a salary cap. Do you mind giving a very basic example of what such an incentive could look like?

The variable hinging on the market size is a simple one, if there is a league wide salary floor that teams are given incentive to meet and exceed and the Yankees are spending over that amount they shouldn't be compensated the same as a franchise like the Royals (if they also spend above the floor) because the Yankees make so much more year over year off merch, TV rights, etc. than the Royals already.

Then the variable for how much is shared with franchises that meet the floor hinges on where the funds for the incentive come from. And that itself could be a $ amount that varies from year to year.

The finer details, what will be debated about, is where do you generate the funds for the incentive. The popular idea is a lower tax threshold and harsher penalty paid by franchises that spend over a certain amount on their player salaries, with those funds getting kicked back to other organizations. There already is a tax threshold and penalty in the MLB, but it is pretty tame.

Now, the hang-up on that is it's viewed as a double edged sword for the players union. It's good that franchises league-wide will spend more to meet the floor, but there will also be incentive league wide to keep players salaries down so that harsher penalty isn't reached consistently by the big spenders around the league that typically set the market for player salary. The PU feels like that kind of system essentially creates a hard cap.
 
Last edited:

jup

Sixth Man
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
1,358
Points
113
Any disguise the owners can use to get the players to agree to a free agent "salary cap" they will. It is the last thing to cap, as they have already (for all practical purposes) capped the incoming talent (drafts) while still keeping player control for multiple years.

The players union was dumb enough to not see it coming when they agreed to slotting for the amateur draft. They better be smart enough this time to see a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 

sportscoach

RD's Guardians PR Man!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
15,166
Reaction score
6,961
Points
113
Any disguise the owners can use to get the players to agree to a free agent "salary cap" they will. It is the last thing to cap, as they have already (for all practical purposes) capped the incoming talent (drafts) while still keeping player control for multiple years.

The players union was dumb enough to not see it coming when they agreed to slotting for the amateur draft. They better be smart enough this time to see a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Honestly for the fans sake we do need to get some type of cap on player contracts since if teams keep going up and up, so will the tickets... you need a cable subscription to watch local teams, then cause the MLB cannot decide to keep player contracts reasonable the prices at games will go up and up. Baseball needs to make sure majority can watch games at reasonable prices otherwise you will keep losing fan bases...
 

Gson

NBA Starter
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
6,143
Reaction score
2,978
Points
113
Honestly for the fans sake we do need to get some type of cap on player contracts since if teams keep going up and up, so will the tickets... you need a cable subscription to watch local teams, then cause the MLB cannot decide to keep player contracts reasonable the prices at games will go up and up. Baseball needs to make sure majority can watch games at reasonable prices otherwise you will keep losing fan bases...
In person viewing at the outrageously priced and government purchased venues continues to dwindle, albeit, slowly.. Like most of the players contracts, the change is lazily moving, but, at a rate that is more than manageable and just a shade slower than the in person attendance is dwindling... At most.. a couple three / four percent annually in both directions in a twelve plus BILLION dollar business.. The mass media outlets contribute more than any other revenue stream while online streaming ventures are growing faster than ANYTHING. So.. when someone whines about the lack of fannies in the seats (equated to not enough money to spend on players) or you're one of the hundreds reading whatever Paul Hoynes wants to post in an article on attendance..I'm pretty certain Mr. Dolan will happily have each edition framed for Hoynesie's office..

The cap is tied to the revenue.. just as @jup pointed out..

Think about this.. the Dodgers' affiliations with their local revenue streams generate three times as much as ALL the players on their teams, ( minors included), the management group, the on field, instructional, scouting, R & D, etc, ad infinitum are paid for with the profits of the club.. and that's before a single ticket is purchased.. It's not a mystery to see why the players are adversarial.. They don't know how much for sure.. but it's a helluva lot more than even half of what they're getting.. and there isn't a golden goose without the players...

The only area of cost that is out of control is the free agent players.. they continue onward and upward with an unfettered rise in salary. This is serious enough to kill this golden goose.. that is the issue.. Francisco Lindor at $ 34.1 MM/year.. up from $ 20.. and that's after a DOWN season.. a 70% increase !. for what?. Trevor Bauer.. $ 42 MM and a player opt in @ $ 32 MM.. outrageous.. The good news on these kinds of deals.. there are so few of them.. An accounting projection stated (i don't recall or have the source for this, but, I will look for it) that the Owners crush it at fully burdened player costs at 53 % of total revenues.. and do pretty well at 58 % of total revenues.. Right now..the Players are getting about 43 %. This number might be high..

If baseball (players and owners) is to survive its fiscal insanity.. owners need to reign in the "splash" spending.. and get a model that represents a cooperative understanding and system that the players can live with.. Right now..it's just nuts !... btw.. that's what this CBA is about.. We'll see...

@ 180 MM per team w/ 30 teams.. that's % 5.4 billion.. where did the other 6.6 Billion go?..
 

Early Season Donation Drive

Total amount
$1,964.00
Goal
$3,000.00
Donation ends:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast

Episode 2:5 "Love Lost"

RCF Podcast Network: Simply Vanished

Episode 1:8 The Disappearance of Josh Guimond "20 Years"
Top