MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[sportscoach]

That is already somewhat required.

By August 15th of each league year teams have to submit receipts of where every dollar of their revenue sharing profits were spent and a performance related plan on how they intend to use their funds gained through revenue sharing to improve their competitiveness to the league office, otherwise they can lose a good chunk of their revenue sharing profits. And any money gained through revenue sharing has to be spent "in an effort to improve its performance on the field".

The MLBPA believes not everyone is meeting that requirement and the league office is looking the other way.

I guess what I was meaning was the money for revenue sharing has to be spent only on player salary/making the minimum cap the revenue sharing forcing teams to spend that much on payroll. Players get extra bonus pay if the teams salary is below that that threshold.

 

[BimboColesHair]

I guess what I was meaning was the money for revenue sharing has to be spent only on player salary/making the minimum cap the revenue sharing forcing teams to spend that much on payroll. Players get extra bonus pay if the teams salary is below that that threshold.

I don't like tying revenue sharing to payroll for the foreseeable future. And I am sure the PA doesn't like that idea either, and why an outright cut of revenue sharing funds is on the table from them and not a change in revenue sharing rules.

Like I said, the collapse of RSN's and what that will do to where MLB teams TV revenue comes from and how that is shared is a huge issue looming on the league.

If you are going to a system where you are forcing teams to spend x money or pay players on the roster y dollars you might as well just go to a cap floor, which is why the 2 parties are discussing that as opposed to tying anything to revenue sharing.

 

[sportscoach]

I don't like tying revenue sharing to payroll for the foreseeable future. And I am sure the PA doesn't like that idea either, and why an outright cut of revenue sharing funds is on the table from them and not a change in revenue sharing rules.

Like I said, the collapse of RSN's and what that will do to where MLB teams TV revenue comes from and how that is shared is a huge issue looming on the league.

If you are going to a system where you are forcing teams to spend x money or pay players on the roster y dollars you might as well just go to a cap floor, which is why the 2 parties are discussing that as opposed to tying anything to revenue sharing.

I think a cap floor would be a smart idea at the end of the day. Problem is what level to put it at? I feel like it needs to be equal to the revenue sharing in a sense at bare minimum.

Now also I am kind of thinking MLB needs to get more incentives to players in a way. You get an award and you get bonuses... players would like more pay at the end of the day (we all do) so maybe incentives paid by MLB would help some of it...

Now for something I don't think I have seen either... would moving up the Rule 5 draft up one season, cause prospects to hit the bigs sooner?

 

[BimboColesHair]

I think a cap floor would be a smart idea at the end of the day. Problem is what level to put it at? I feel like it needs to be equal to the revenue sharing in a sense at bare minimum.

Now also I am kind of thinking MLB needs to get more incentives to players in a way. You get an award and you get bonuses... players would like more pay at the end of the day (we all do) so maybe incentives paid by MLB would help some of it...

Now for something I don't think I have seen either... would moving up the Rule 5 draft up one season, cause prospects to hit the bigs sooner?

I absolutely despise this idea.

Why in the world would MLB players want the press to have that much power over their potential payment?

The current proposal is tied to WAR for player bonuses, which I am a big fan of.

 

[sportscoach]

I absolutely despise this idea.

Why in the world would MLB players want the press to have that much power over their potential payment?

The current proposal is tied to WAR for player bonuses, which I am a big fan of.

Tied to WAR I think is fair overall. Will it be a bonus per 1 WAR type of thing? Or over a certain WAR to get a bonus?

 

[BimboColesHair]

Tied to WAR I think is fair overall. Will it be a bonus per 1 WAR type of thing? Or over a certain WAR to get a bonus?

Proposal today was the top 30 pre-arb players in WAR would receive a bonus from a pool of money.

 

[CDAV45]

I like that idea in general. Is that pool money going from expensive contracts that don't provide the WAR they're being paid for?

 

[Gson]

Its a wonder.

Some teams receive revenue sharing every year, but their payrolls never go up. Thats a lot of annual spending on player development, etc.

Esp when you consider that some teams...Pittsburgh comes to mind...never seem to develop players.

Perhaps, teams should be required to spend a percentage of their revenue sharing directly on increased payroll for the MLB team. What doesn't get spent goes back in the pot for the other smaller market teams....or just fine a non spender enough money to really hurt, which would eliminate the shenanigans.

Using fake numbers, a team receives $40 mil in revenue sharing. It is required to spend $25 mil additionally on its MLB roster. (If the payroll was $60 mil, it has to jump to $85 mil.) If not, the team loses its entire $40 mil....or make it even higher. Make it so high that no owner will be willing to pay it.

Not one honest owner acting by the letter of the law would oppose such a suggestion. The ones lining their own pockets would.

Which is why such a suggestion has little chance of becoming a reality.

Spending requirements and cynicism doesn't make a deal.. less than little chance..

 

[CATS44]

Spending requirements and cynicism doesn't make a deal.. less than little chance..

I agree on this.

But the PAs focus is...as it should be....mostly on benefits accrued for the players. Revenue sharing in theory was in part meant to level the playing field so that all teams could compete for players in the market. Instead, the PA has watched multiple teams receive revenue sharing without even trying to compete for players in the market.

The players being represented by the PA have received very little of the revenue sharing money....so it has been of little benefit to them. Consider this....if the PA thought that revenue sharing was benefitting its members, it would want revenue sharing INCREASED, not cut by 70%.

But what they have now is a defacto soft cap, a lot of money being shuffled from wealthy to poorer teams...but nothing filtering down.

Instead of cutting the amount of monies 70%, wouldn't it be better for the players if the 30% be earmarked for them as a minimum increase that must be spent on player salaries?

In essence the owners are saying that they want to duscourage big market teams from paying players more, and at the same time encouraging smaller market teams to not spend more.

If I'm a PA negotiator, I'm looking at payroll tax/revenue sharing as a loser for my membership on both ends. While they are technically two separate issues, they are joined at the hip.

 

[petes999]

For those who are interested in the mlb take of their proposal yesterday

Significant progress made in CBA meeting

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association met for a second straight day on Tuesday, with the league making a significant move to create a path to a deal. One day after the MLBPA rejected the league’s proposals that included significant increases in pay for players with two-plus years

www.mlb.com

Still see arbitration years as the biggest stumbling block as I am sure PA wants more money given than just a $60 million pre-arb pool (if meet in middle $10 vs $105 million). Thats $2 million per team as it will be paid from central pool...not the deal breaker. This helps Guardians and others who rely on younger players ($ not really coming directly from their pockets).

Even if 10 players per team get $100,000 more in minimum salaries, thats $1 million per team (so yr 1 will be $710,000 vs $610,000 in proposal).

The big $$$s they need to fight over now is if Arb salaries are shifted 1 yr ealier (after 2 yrs vs 3 years) with Arb 4 being a windfall closer to FA $$$.

Sure they can find a happy compromise on payroll tax level, draft lottery and # of playoff teams.

 

[33Y0]

 

[Criznit]

Not surprising... But still discouraging.

Probably have another 2 weeks before things get really dicey... Lets hope they start really going for it.

 

[daddywags]

I will be shocked if the season opens on time.

 

[33Y0]

I will be shocked if the season opens on time.

Who wants to sit in the cold and snow in Cleveland that early anyway?

 

[LL3]

Who wants to sit in the cold and snow in Cleveland that early anyway?

Still, I’d go.