MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[BimboColesHair]

The only reason MLBPA cares about how owners share their part of the pie is to increase the players' share of the pie. Same with service time manipulation - it's about money, not competitiveness, to both sides.

Edit to say the above is just my opinion, but it seems rather obvious to me.

I mean, yeah it's about money to a degree. That's what I meant by "guys to be better taken care of early in their career". MLBPA wants guys to be paid better for their production in the first 6 years, and I'm not fully against that.

But the MLBPA gets to see the amount shared through revenue sharing to franchises. They don't get to see full books, but they do get to see that monetary figure and they are rightfully questioning why that money isn't being reinvested into teams by the ones that see the biggest chunk of that money.

Their biggest thing they are trying to get rid of is the Pittsburgh's and the Baltimore's of the world. Non-existent payrolls leading to a non-existent product on the field and making the product as a whole worse, all while pocketing a ridiculous amount of money from revenue sharing. Every league struggles with this though, and not a single one has found a way to combat "tanking".

Why I will continue to argue that a happy medium that threads the needle is the best possible outcome of this situation.

 

[MirORich]

I mean, yeah it's about money to a degree. That's what I meant by "guys to be better taken care of early in their career". MLBPA wants guys to be paid better for their production in the first 6 years, and I'm not fully against that.

But the MLBPA gets to see the amount shared through revenue sharing to franchises. They don't get to see full books, but they do get to see that monetary figure and they are rightfully questioning why that money isn't being reinvested into teams by the ones that see the biggest chunk of that money.

Their biggest thing they are trying to get rid of is the Pittsburgh's and the Baltimore's of the world. Non-existent payrolls leading to a non-existent product on the field and making the product as a whole worse, all while pocketing a ridiculous amount of money from revenue sharing. Every league struggles with this though, and not a single one has found a way to combat "tanking".

Why I will continue to argue that a happy medium that threads the needle is the best possible outcome of this situation.

In the players version of redistributing more money to players earlier in their career(which is think is perfectly reasonable, including minor leaguers), do they see some/a lot of that money coming off the top of the Vets in the 8-16 years of service time pool have been historically making or do they just think the owners have to continue to spend the same as they are on the vets and stars, while spending more on the young guys.

In other words, are they thinking a new way too distribute the pie or do they expect the owners to simply make the pie larger(or acknowledge how large the pie actually is)

 

[CDAV45]

Am I wrong in saying that everyone involved would like to see players compensated better for their production in the first 6 yrs? Who would be against that? If they are then why? Conversely, is the MLBPA concerned with huge contracts that overvalue the production given? I agree, there has to be some give and take from both sides or it's going to get even uglier and last longer than anyone wants to see.

The universal DH will increase player salaries to a degree and it sounds like that is pretty much agreed upon. I fail to understand how increasing the luxury tax roof will help the players. If that were to happen, wouldn't that give lower payroll teams less money to spend?

 

[petes999]

Am I wrong in saying that everyone involved would like to see players compensated better for their production in the first 6 yrs? Who would be against that? If they are then why? Conversely, is the MLBPA concerned with huge contracts that overvalue the production given? I agree, there has to be some give and take from both sides or it's going to get even uglier and last longer than anyone wants to see.

The universal DH will increase player salaries to a degree and it sounds like that is pretty much agreed upon. I fail to understand how increasing the luxury tax roof will help the players. If that were to happen, wouldn't that give lower payroll teams less money to spend?

Just my 2 cents ... the issue of luxury tax is players think that it will drive salaries up for a few FAs if the 3-4 teams like Boston and Yankees and Dodgers can spend a bit more without needing to reduce their tax situation every few years. Their feeling is tanking teams will tank no matter how much money they get from teams overages. They will point to where they feel profit is being hidden by closed books.

My only feeling on pay is the give and take on draft bonuses as well. I think players gave up some higher bonuses for the new structure on draft bonus pools without getting much. But, if they want players to get paid in that 3rd year and reducing FA by 1 year, then the owners will want the draft and international pools to decrease even more as well.

They are looking at cost of player development (coaches, bonus pools, minor league salaries, ....) needs to = or be less than the benefit they get from lower cost of young players before FA hits.

You can look at a Lindor or others and say they $6 million draft bonus pales in comparison of 6 years of team control. Yet, you also have to look at all the Bensons and Aikens who got $2 million and did squat. A lot of moving parts .... will be hard to come to an agreement in my mind.

 

[BimboColesHair]

In the players version of redistributing more money to players earlier in their career(which is think is perfectly reasonable, including minor leaguers), do they see some/a lot of that money coming off the top of the Vets in the 8-16 years of service time pool have been historically making or do they just think the owners have to continue to spend the same as they are on the vets and stars, while spending more on the young guys.

In other words, are they thinking a new way too distribute the pie or do they expect the owners to simply make the pie larger(or acknowledge how large the pie actually is)

The proposal for that is out there somewhere.

Would be funded by a pool from the revenue created by the expanded playoffs and 25% tax on payrolls over a certain amount.

Owners are willing to bring the arb case process to modern times and take into account fWAR, FIP, wRC+, and awards when players go to arb. Also willing to use some of that pooled money on pre arb guys as a bonus using the same valuation stats.

 

[sportscoach]

The proposal for that is out there somewhere.

Would be funded by a pool from the revenue created by the expanded playoffs and 25% tax on payrolls over a certain amount.

Owners are willing to bring the arb case process to modern times and take into account fWAR, FIP, wRC+, and awards when players go to arb. Also willing to use some of that pooled money on pre arb guys as a bonus using the same valuation stats.

Why not just have players get bonuses based off of contributions when they are pre-arb/arb... if they make the All-Star team, top 10 in certain categories etc... small market teams need these guys to produce, so some type of incentives wouldn't be a bad idea in a sense...

 

[Gson]

Why not just have players get bonuses based off of contributions when they are pre-arb/arb... if they make the All-Star team, top 10 in certain categories etc... small market teams need these guys to produce, so some type of incentives wouldn't be a bad idea in a sense...

..short sighted proposal..

The mlbpa would shit all over this...

 

[sportscoach]

..short sighted proposal..

The mlbpa would shit all over this...

I wouldn't agree with that... why not have a base salary with incentives? That would give pre-arb players a little more money...

 

[Gson]

I wouldn't agree with that... why not have a base salary with incentives? That would give pre-arb players a little more money...

The mlbpa would need to have direct control of the lineup card for every game for every player for this "incentive" based payroll scheme to be effective.. It's just never going to happen..

 

[sportscoach]

The mlbpa would need to have direct control of the lineup card for every game for every player for this "incentive" based payroll scheme to be effective.. It's just never going to happen..

Small market teams have to play pre-arb guys... I don't think it will be as bad as you are thinking...

 

[BimboColesHair]

Why not just have players get bonuses based off of contributions when they are pre-arb/arb... if they make the All-Star team, top 10 in certain categories etc... small market teams need these guys to produce, so some type of incentives wouldn't be a bad idea in a sense...

I mean, that’s pretty much what I just said up there.

Awards and production would be taken into consideration to determine if/how much a pre-arb guy gets. And it would be tiered based on service time.

I don’t mind that one bit. Baseball’s early pay is hilarious when compared to other major sports and I’m glad they’re starting to put some feet to the flames on minor leaguers and early MLB guys pay.

 

[sportscoach]

I mean, that’s pretty much what I just said up there.

Awards and production would be taken into consideration to determine if/how much a pre-arb guy gets. And it would be tiered based on service time.

I don’t mind that one bit. Baseball’s early pay is hilarious when compared to other major sports and I’m glad they’re starting to put some feet to the flames on minor leaguers and early MLB guys pay.

My question is with all of these arrangements... is there anything that won't make it harder for smaller teams to compete?

Football has a hard cap and everyone has to spend under that and that's just something I cannot ever see baseball doing, but I always have felt if all teams have to spend between a certain amount, it would create a good competitive balance overall...

 

[BimboColesHair]

My question is with all of these arrangements... is there anything that won't make it harder for smaller teams to compete?

Football has a hard cap and everyone has to spend under that and that's just something I cannot ever see baseball doing, but I always have felt if all teams have to spend between a certain amount, it would create a good competitive balance overall...

No. We’re not talking about a dramatic increase in what pre-arb and arb guys get that they become too expensive for small markets.

Bonus money for pre-arb guys wouldn’t come out of the teams payroll anyways, not in the current proposal.

I think the between 2 amounts is what is eventually settled on, though it’ll be softly taxed and not a true hard cap.

The only way you will ever get smaller markets to spend and spend consistently is to make it a rule and incentivize it and that’s exactly what’s being proposed.

 

[Gson]

No. We’re not talking about a dramatic increase in what pre-arb and arb guys get that they become too expensive for small markets.

Bonus money for pre-arb guys wouldn’t come out of the teams payroll anyways, not in the current proposal.

I think the between 2 amounts is what is eventually settled on, though it’ll be softly taxed and not a true hard cap.

The only way you will ever get smaller markets to spend and spend consistently is to make it a rule and incentivize it and that’s exactly what’s being proposed.

..socialize revenues appropriately...

 

[BimboColesHair]

I’d rather they came up with something that says X amount of your funds received through revenue sharing are to be earmarked for reinvestment back into the team but that’s just me.