CATS, I am starting to think there are bigger issues than the minor details that are being discussed. Heck, GSon and I tried to estimate some of them and we are talking about $5 million per team if they met in the middle .... not that big of a deal to call off all negotiations this early. Heck, even MLBPA proposal to reduce $30 million in revenue sharing is only a couple mill to lower level teams which will be offset a bit due to pooling the pre-arbitration bonus pool (as their players would be entitled to a larger share there) - helps them out.
Yet, for MLB owners just giving in to the first swipe of revenue sharing will mean more later. I also pointed out that players are still wanting arbitration at 2 years. From MLB.com
"Per sources, the MLBPA remains stuck on a pair of key issues:
Super Two eligibility -- the union wants all players with two years of service time to be eligible for arbitration, not just the 22 percent with the most service time, as it currently stands -- and a reduction in revenue sharing. MLB has been steadfast from the beginning of negotiations that these two issues are non-starters for the league’s owners."
I am though wondering if there is something hidden in the MLBPA proposal of the higher luxury tax (214 vs 245 in first year doesn't seem that much as only a few teams hit it) and even the language that MLBPA wants non-tax penalties eliminated doesn't seem that much. Losing 10 spots in a draft doesn't seem like an issue to bring out an arbitrator after 2 rounds of proposals. But, the devil is always in the details. I am just wondering when MLBPA says elimination of non-tax penalties it also means the surtax (as it is technically not the original "Tax" rate in legal terms) which is 1/2 of the monetary penalties. It is in the way things are written (non-tax versus non-monetary or just draft pick penalties...). Just a thought as in my prior career I had to make sure I knew exactly how each term as written was defined (tax vs surtax are different here). As with the CAVS, some owners will go all out to win if there really isn't a cap (even if they got to pay 20/30% for that year or two before dropping back down as those are minor inconvenience like revenue sharing ... its different when you have to add that 42.5% if they go over 40 million as it applies to each $ over the luxury limit even the first $40 mill). Makes that $30 million reduction just the tip of the iceberg.
Per WIki..
Tax Rates for MLB Teams Surpassing CBT Threshold
Number of Seasons Over CBT Threshold | Tax Rate |
---|
1 season | 20% |
2 consecutive seasons | 30% |
3 or more consecutive seasons | 50% |
The luxury tax increases based on the number of consecutive seasons above the CBT threshold. If a club "dips below the luxury tax threshold for a season, the penalty level is reset."
[1] In addition to the luxury tax, "clubs that exceed the threshold by $20 million to $40 million are also subject to a 12 percent surtax. Meanwhile, those who exceed it by more than $40 million are taxed at a 42.5 percent rate the first time and a 45 percent rate if they exceed it by more than $40 million again the following year(s)."