A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[moonslav59]

Lets think about this further. One can argue that it's exactly these long term mega deals that's killing the apatite of many owners from spending more on 'average' baseball players. In essence, players have the responsibility of preventing owners from themselves.

 

If I'm a union member, I'd tell Cole's of the world to f*** off. He has absolutely no interest in the majority of union members. Each team should select as its player rep the player that's earning the median salary for that team.

 

What's better for baseball players? One guy earning $30M versus 3 players earning $10M apiece? Who puts better product on the field? I'd argue that WINNING trumps any star power. On a winning team, a star will rise.

 

Betts who? The Dodgers won the most meaningless world series championship in history of baseball.

 

So, instead of team caps and limits, should there be a limit on what one player can make? Something like no more than 6 or 7 times the league average salary from the previous season.

 

I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's a different one.

[Bellhorn04]

Lets think about this further. One can argue that it's exactly these long term mega deals that's killing the apatite of many owners from spending more on 'average' baseball players. In essence, players have the responsibility of preventing owners from themselves.

 

If I'm a union member, I'd tell Cole's of the world to f*** off. He has absolutely no interest in the majority of union members. Each team should select as its player rep the player that's earning the median salary for that team.

 

What's better for baseball players? One guy earning $30M versus 3 players earning $10M apiece? Who puts better product on the field? I'd argue that WINNING trumps any star power. On a winning team, a star will rise.

 

Betts who? The Dodgers won the most meaningless world series championship in history of baseball.

 

Meanwhile I'm still stunned by the Rangers' fresh investment of half a billion in Seager and Semien.

 

How can the owners argue plausibly about fiscal conservatism after that?

[Bellhorn04]

So, instead of team caps and limits, should there be a limit on what one player can make? Something like no more than 6 or 7 times the league average salary from the previous season.

 

I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's a different one.

 

Isn't that "protecting the owners from themselves"?

 

Nobody put a gun to the Yankees' heads to force them to pay Cole $36 mill * 9.

[Nick]

So, instead of team caps and limits, should there be a limit on what one player can make? Something like no more than 6 or 7 times the league average salary from the previous season.

 

I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's a different one.

 

My main point was NOT having guys making $20M+ representing a team on players' side. Ultimately each team has a player payroll budget. As an example, if we sign Devers to a $30M contract, something else will have to give. In essence JD's $22M will cover that increase in Dever's contract. That means next DH will have to make much less. I more or less anticipate Sox's payroll budget to be near the luxury tax thresh hold. It's about choices in how to spend $220M-$230M.

 

Only way the Sox payroll will increase is if the team's top line, ie revenue can increase. I believe over the past several years, many franchises benefitted from bigger local TV deals. Can we expect that to continue? I'm not sure.

 

I've stated on many occasions that mlb baseball package is relatively inexpensive for me. They can double it and I will still buy it. I'd say $300 is about where I would start thinking about not subscribing. How many fans feel the same way?

 

My experience dealing with business owners is that they will CONSIDER SHARING LARGER % OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM WITH WORKERS. But they will NO WAY IN HELL TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM THEMSELVES AND PAY THE EMPLOYEES on current revenue stream.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Nick

[Nick]

Isn't that "protecting the owners from themselves"?

 

Nobody put a gun to the Yankees' heads to force them to pay Cole $36 mill * 9.

 

Of course not. But Yankees will pay someone less, at some point to make up the difference in their payroll budget. You know that. They still have Cole's obligation of 7 years at $36M and Stanton for 7 years at $25M. Aaron Judge will become FA in 2023. He's anticipated to earn $17.5M in his year 3 of arbitration. They will need to cut back. They will need to take money away from player B, C, D to pay for Judge's new contract. Just not sure if one union can represent all these players equally. Only issue for these three players is the luxury tax limit. It has to be big enough to accommodate mega contracts.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Nick

[moonslav59]

Isn't that "protecting the owners from themselves"?

 

Nobody put a gun to the Yankees' heads to force them to pay Cole $36 mill * 9.

 

I agree, but this could be a demand they make that is more palatable to the players than a team cap or severe lux taxes on team budgets. Not many players would be affected by this.

 

Also, in theory, the players would get something back in return for giving the owners this change- maybe a 27th roster slot or a big raise in min wage.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course not. But Yankees will pay someone less, sometime to make up the difference in their payroll budget. You know that.

 

I think they have passed on other players because of Cole's deal, sure. But it's all up to them how they divide their budget pie.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree, but this could be a demand they make that is more palatable to the players than a team cap or severe lux taxes on team budgets. Not many players would be affected by this.

 

Also, in theory, the players would get something back in return for giving the owners this change- maybe a 27th roster slot or a big raise in min wage.

 

Under that scheme, how are teams going to outbid each other for the elite free agents?

[moonslav59]

Theoretically speaking only, which top pay structure do you think the majority of MLB players would endorse?

 

The top 30 players make $40M each.

 

The top 40 players make $30M each.

 

The top 60 players make $20M each.

 

The top 80 players make $15M each.

 

The top 120 players make $10M each.

[moonslav59]

Under that scheme, how are teams going to outbid each other for the elite free agents?

 

That's the big get for owners- they don't!

 

Top players actually go to the city they want to play for not based on money, unless just one team offers them the most possible.

 

Again, I am not championing this idea, just exploring it.

[Bellhorn04]

Theoretically speaking only, which top pay structure do you think the majority of MLB players would endorse?

 

The top 30 players make $40M each.

 

The top 40 players make $30M each.

 

The top 60 players make $20M each.

 

The top 80 players make $15M each.

 

The top 120 players make $10M each.

 

None. They're not going to agree to any "standard rates" like that.

 

Free agency is all about being an auction.

 

We're talking about a capitalistic enterprise here.

[moonslav59]

The majority of the biggest/longest deals in MLB history have been between horrific and meh for the team signing them.

 

Yet, they persist.

[Bellhorn04]

Why not just go the full distance and re-allocate revenues so that every team has the same amount of money? Then everything would be nice and fair!

[moonslav59]

None. They're not going to agree to any "standard rates" like that.

 

Free agency is all about being an auction.

 

We're talking about a capitalistic enterprise here.

 

I know, that's why I said in theory.

 

Think of it this way, forget about the "structure" element of my point: which top pay outcome, even under a completely free bidding structure, would most players hope happened?

[moonslav59]

Why not just go the full distance and re-allocate revenues so that every team has the same amount of money? Then everything would be nice and fair!

 

Dude, I'm not championing this idea. Settle down!

[Bellhorn04]

The majority of the biggest/longest deals in MLB history have been between horrific and meh for the team signing them.

 

Yet, they persist.

 

And there's only one explanation.

 

Owners are still making piles of money even with all the albatross contracts.

 

And most of them try to please their fans to some degree to keep those dollars rolling in.

 

The bottom line is that the fans foot the bill for all of it!

[Bellhorn04]

Dude, I'm not championing this idea. Settle down!

 

Just having some fun, man. It's been pretty dry here lately.

 

Where in the heck is Kimmi, anyway? She must be disgusted with the lockout.

[moonslav59]

And there's only one explanation.

 

Owners are still making piles of money even with all the albatross contracts.

 

And most of them try to please their fans to some degree to keep those dollars rolling in.

 

The bottom line is that the fans foot the bill for all of it!

 

Not just the fans, but the lower paid players, too. That was kind of the point I was aiming for with this theoretical talk.

 

The lower paid players, who are the vast majority, should not automatically shoot down caps and limits, if the give back by owners raises their salaries by a significant amount.

 

Only a select few get those mega deals, yet everything seems to be geared towards allowing theose few to keep making more and more-at the expense of the fans and minimum to lower paid players.

Edited February 20, 2022 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Not just the fans, but the lower paid players, too. That was kind of the point I was aiming for with this theoretical talk.

 

The lower paid players, who are the vast majority, should not automatically shoot down caps and limits, if the give back by owners raises their salaries by a significant amount.

 

Only a select few get those mega deals, yet everything seems to be geared towards allowing theose few to keep making more and more-at the expense of the fans and minimum to lower paid players.

 

Only a select few get the mega deals, but most players have the free agency payday dream. For some that might mean a $15 million deal instead of a $10 million deal, but for them it would be a big difference.

 

By comparison bumping the minimum wage from $550 K to $750 K is not as much of a difference.

[Nick]

Watched Moneyball for millionth time.

 

John Henry says to Billy Yankees just spent $1.4M per win and the A's $275K (?) per win.

 

Maybe the owners are watching Moneyball. They all dream of winning a championship with $100M payroll.

[Bellhorn04]

Watched Moneyball for millionth time.

 

John Henry says to Billy Yankees just spent $1.4M per win and the A's $275K (?) per win.

 

Maybe the owners are watching Moneyball. They all dream of winning a championship with $100M payroll.

 

I don't think the richer owners have changed their ways all that much.

 

The Red Sox went into tax purgatory in 2018-2019.

 

And the 2021 Dodgers went ballistic!

[dgalehouse]

Watched Moneyball for millionth time.

 

John Henry says to Billy Yankees just spent $1.4M per win and the A's $275K (?) per win.

 

Maybe the owners are watching Moneyball. They all dream of winning a championship with $100M payroll.

 

Nick , Billy Beane is still a maiden , championships wise.

[dgalehouse]

And there's only one explanation.

 

Owners are still making piles of money even with all the albatross contracts.

 

And most of them try to please their fans to some degree to keep those dollars rolling in.

 

The bottom line is that the fans foot the bill for all of it!

 

The owners have to weigh the risks against the rewards. Since we don't have access to their books, we really don't know the results . Folks overpay for things everyday on e-bay if they really want the item. I would guess that some are satisfied and some regret it.

[moonslav59]

Only a select few get the mega deals, but most players have the free agency payday dream. For some that might mean a $15 million deal instead of a $10 million deal, but for them it would be a big difference.

 

By comparison bumping the minimum wage from $550 K to $750 K is not as much of a difference.

 

It's a huge difference, because of the amount of players it affects, and I was thinking more like min wage gets bumped up to $800K in 2022, $900 K in 2023 and $1M in 2024. That would be an enormous gain for many players- more noticeable, too.

[Bellhorn04]

It's a huge difference, because of the amount of players it affects, and I was thinking more like min wage gets bumped up to $800K in 2022, $900 K in 2023 and $1M in 2024. That would be an enormous gain for many players- more noticeable, too.

 

OK, that would be a gain of about $1 million per player. It's a lot of money for the ones who never make it to arbitration years and go on to sell insurance or whatever.

 

But no, I'm not sold that in the big picture that it's the giant difference maker you're suggesting.

[notin]

Only a select few get the mega deals, but most players have the free agency payday dream. For some that might mean a $15 million deal instead of a $10 million deal, but for them it would be a big difference.

 

By comparison bumping the minimum wage from $550 K to $750 K is not as much of a difference.

 

A $200K raise might just be pocket change to Max Scherzer, but the Jonathan Arauz's of the world will certainly appreciate it...

[Bellhorn04]

A $200K raise might just be pocket change to Max Scherzer, but the Jonathan Arauz's of the world will certainly appreciate it...

 

No argument.

 

The owners' proposal does actually contain some respectable increases to minimum salaries. Much more so than in previous CBA's.

[Nick]

How about expansion? Isn't it the best way to increase pay for current fringe players?

 

30 to 36 teams, essentially a 5 team divisions.

 

6 x 26 = 156 additional players. Can we find 6 expansion teams? Expand into Mexico?

[notin]

How about expansion? Isn't it the best way to increase pay for current fringe players?

 

30 to 36 teams, essentially a 5 team divisions.

 

6 x 26 = 156 additional players. Can we find 6 expansion teams? Expand into Mexico?

 

MLB has not expanded since 1977 without the owners losing a collusion lawsuit. I hope they don't decide to dilute the talent base even further...

[moonslav59]

OK, that would be a gain of about $1 million per player. It's a lot of money for the ones who never make it to arbitration years and go on to sell insurance or whatever.

 

But no, I'm not sold that in the big picture that it's the giant difference maker you're suggesting.

 

A lot of players never make it to arb or when they do, make not much more than $1M a year.

 

My idea also included lessening the arb years by 1, which further helps the lower paid players.

 

BTW, someone make $550K x 3 years is $1.65M. My plan, they make $$2.7M. That's a $2M gain and over a 100% raise.