Will there be a 2022 season?

[mvp 78]

I don't disagree. I'm just wondering if a floor has even been discussed. If not, I can't see them introducing it at this late stage. But who knows.

 

Owners presented a floor at one point. Not sure where it stands currently.

[moonslav59]

A cap potentially affects every single free agent, even the cheap ones, by potentially taking richer teams with cap issues out of the bidding.

 

Yes, but not "everyone-" only free agents, and some not by all that much. Certainly, not by enough to give all arb eligible players free agency after just 1 year, and to create a floor on all low spending teams on $125M.

 

That was my point.

 

I also do not think a player making $30M creates a situation where a scub gets a $3M deal instead of $2M. Maybe $3M vs $2.7- maybe. This is just my opinion.

[moonslav59]

Owners presented a floor at one point. Not sure where it stands currently.

 

I've said all along, initiating a sizable floor would help most players by a lot more than making the lux tax much harsher.

 

I get your point about teams facing tax issues not signing even lower level free agents, and I agree, it does affect their eventual deals, but it's hard to say by how much.

 

Raising the floor to even $90M would add a lot of capital to the free agent and extensions market. According to Spotrac, 10 MLB teams spent under $76M, last season- 4 under $56M.

 

If you raised it to $125M, teams like these would have to add this much from 2021:

 

$96M CLE & BAL

$91M PIT

$70M MIA

$59M AX

$54M SEA. OAK & MN

$53M KC

$50M TBR

$35M COL

$33M WSH

$27M Cubs

5 other teams between $22M and 11M.

 

That's a lot of money- most likely going towards lower tier FAs not the high end one, which IMO, are more in number. This might increase the arb figures more than some few guys making $30M.

[sk7326]

The first line is me. I stand by it. I think the majority of players who are negatively affected fall into a category where the negative effect they feel turns into a counterbalancing positive effect for another player…

 

The cap keeps salaries down ... NOW, the way the cap has been implemented in other sports has been better for the players than the current deal is for major league players.

 

First, there is a salary floor. The NBA basically has a 48-52% cut of (whatever the agreed upon pool of money is) the pie. It usually amounts to 52%. Escrow payments withheld from player checks are collected, used to settle the books at the end of the season. The players get refunded whatever money is not used.

 

So, if player contracts result in 54% of the pie went to player salaries ... 5.4% of the pie was collected in escrow during the season (48.6% players, 5.4% escrow, 46% owners). 2% is paid to make the owners whole and the remaining 3.4% gets refunded.

 

Teams that are below the floor have to prorate up the players salaries up to the floor.

 

Second, there are numerous mechanisms to soften the cap. The NBA has the various and sundry exceptions that allow teams over the cap to operate ... the NFL allows you to amortize bonuses, so a $10M cash payment can be have the cap hit spread over the life of the contract.

 

Third, the NBA and NHL have individual salary maximums based on service time - so the superstars are taking a haircut to fund the middle class.

 

The big thing though is that the salary cap can give both players and owners equal incentives for the industry to thrive.

 

Right now, with the luxury tax limits, the players are getting all the bad parts of salary cap life and none of the perks.

 

With the current dispute - I think if the players focused on the bottom of the ladder ... get drastic minimum salary increases and make it much harder for owners to manipulate service time. (idea: any player promoted to the bigs gets a minimum of 2 months of major league salary regardless of how long he stays up). If the union can build up the starting points - then all of those other areas (arb, FA) will go up over time.

[moonslav59]

The cap keeps salaries down ... NOW, the way the cap has been implemented in other sports has been better for the players than the current deal is for major league players.

 

First, there is a salary floor. The NBA basically has a 48-52% cut of (whatever the agreed upon pool of money is) the pie. It usually amounts to 52%. Escrow payments withheld from player checks are collected, used to settle the books at the end of the season. The players get refunded whatever money is not used.

 

So, if player contracts result in 54% of the pie went to player salaries ... 5.4% of the pie was collected in escrow during the season (48.6% players, 5.4% escrow, 46% owners). 2% is paid to make the owners whole and the remaining 3.4% gets refunded.

 

Teams that are below the floor have to prorate up the players salaries up to the floor.

 

Second, there are numerous mechanisms to soften the cap. The NBA has the various and sundry exceptions that allow teams over the cap to operate ... the NFL allows you to amortize bonuses, so a $10M cash payment can be have the cap hit spread over the life of the contract.

 

Third, the NBA and NHL have individual salary maximums based on service time - so the superstars are taking a haircut to fund the middle class.

 

The big thing though is that the salary cap can give both players and owners equal incentives for the industry to thrive.

 

Right now, with the luxury tax limits, the players are getting all the bad parts of salary cap life and none of the perks.

 

With the current dispute - I think if the players focused on the bottom of the ladder ... get drastic minimum salary increases and make it much harder for owners to manipulate service time. (idea: any player promoted to the bigs gets a minimum of 2 months of major league salary regardless of how long he stays up). If the union can build up the starting points - then all of those other areas (arb, FA) will go up over time.

 

Well said, sk.

 

I think any hard cap would include exceptions and or grandfather clauses.

 

I do think the players would except harsher lux taxes, if the lower tier players were helped out significantly.

 

All they need to do, in theory, is to significantly improve the pay for the lower 51-60% of players.

[notin]

Strictly a guess, but I think he made the right call. Became one of the best closers in the game, won a ring, made plenty of dough.

 

Now if the Red Sox should have converted anyone to starting pitcher, it should have been Scott Cooper. The dude was subpar with the bat, wasn’t really that great in the field. But he probably threw harder than any human being ever…

[mvp 78]

Now if the Red Sox should have converted anyone to starting pitcher, it should have been Scott Cooper. The dude was subpar with the bat, wasn’t really that great in the field. But he probably threw harder than any human being ever…

 

He had two pitching appearances for Greensboro. He was drafted straight out of HS, so there aren't any college stats to fall back on.

[vegasbob]

Question for those w/ experience in labor negotiations: my understanding is that when a side is negotiating in good faith, it does not suddenly throw in wild proposals (in its favor of course) out of the blue. So what's up with MLB's recent proposal to eliminate the number of minor leaguers? Wouldn't this be like the Union coming in and suddenly proposing, oh, a 100-game season with two weeks vacation in July and 40 acres for each player?

 

Or is this just one of the annoying tactics that is ordinarily used during negotiations?

 

While this unproductive tactic may have been used in some instaqnces , it is a sure sign that the party is not interested in a resolution of the negotiation but in getting their name/face in the Media. The other side would normally then walk away from the table and wait for the other to get realistic . Some labor-management/ownership disputes go on for a long time. The MLB-MLBPA headbutting after over 20 years of "peace" is senseless in terms of alienating fan bases (who will overlook it , once play resumes) but these issues discussed in this forum could have been settled one piece at a time, a year or a decade ago. A pox on both of them for not acting accordingly .

[Old Red]

Well said, sk.

 

I think any hard cap would include exceptions and or grandfather clauses.

 

I do think the players would except harsher lux taxes, if the lower tier players were helped out significantly.

 

All they need to do, in theory, is to significantly improve the pay for the lower 51-60% of players.

 

I wonder what Jeter thinks about all of this since he’s gone from player to ownership. Neither owners, or players deserve to get anymore money.

[moonslav59]

I wonder what Jeter thinks about all of this since he’s gone from player to ownership. Neither owners, or players deserve to get anymore money.

 

If the business grows and profits increase, why not?

 

If they don't, I agree.

[Old Red]

If the business grows and profits increase, why not?

 

If they don't, I agree.

 

And ticket prices will continue to rise no matter what the outcome.

[sk7326]

Well said, sk.

 

I think any hard cap would include exceptions and or grandfather clauses.

 

I do think the players would except harsher lux taxes, if the lower tier players were helped out significantly.

 

All they need to do, in theory, is to significantly improve the pay for the lower 51-60% of players.

 

Now, I do think there has been progress. The players are okay with expanding the playoffs. The owners are receptive to the idea of a Pre Arb bonus general fund. Now, owners have been VERY slow in negotiating with the players - but starting at your phone during a negotiating session is not negotiating in bad faith by NLRB lingo - not having the meetings at all is.

 

Deadlines that cost people money will drive progress. It's a matter of how much ownership is willing to give - after all, they are the ones who precipitated the stoppage. The players are correct that increasing the competitive balance task as the industry is getting an influx of cash from the media partners is not bueno.

 

If I were the union (I clearly am not) - a $1M annual minimum salary (pegged to industry revenue), a 2 month minimum salary for any player called up, universal DH and adding two teams would probably be worth expanding the playoffs to 12 teams and increasing the competitive balance tax (though the tiers should also be pegged to revenue).

[sk7326]

And ticket prices will continue to rise no matter what the outcome.

 

They are separate business decisions.

[Old Red]

They are separate business decisions.

 

I’m very well aware of that, but that’s why I said both sides don’t deserve anymore money.

[sk7326]

I’m very well aware of that, but that’s why I said both sides don’t deserve anymore money.

 

I dunno - TV money is going up ... fans still show up, though a bit more regionally

[Old Red]

I dunno - TV money is going up ... fans still show up, though a bit more regionally

 

On one hand I say the players are the game, but on the other hand I say if the players don’t like what they get paid let them find another job if they think they can do better. Either way I have no sympathy for either side.

[sk7326]

On one hand I say the players are the game, but on the other hand I say if the players don’t like what they get paid let them find another job if they think they can do better. Either way I have no sympathy for either side.

 

I do feel you there - it is worth noting that it's the owners who precipitated this ... I generally sympathize with the players on multiple levels - particularly that they are the ones who like baseball. (more than even I do)

[moonslav59]

And ticket prices will continue to rise no matter what the outcome.

 

As does everything else.

[Old Red]

As does everything else.

 

Yes, but this is not a necessity.

[Bellhorn04]

FWIW Jim Bowden of The Athletic thinks the owners have made considerably more concessions to the players than vice versa.

[sk7326]

FWIW Jim Bowden of The Athletic thinks the owners have made considerably more concessions to the players than vice versa.

 

One thing worth noting is that the majority of the writers are going to be mouthpieces for ownership here. Bowden, John Heyman the worst. Remember, the owners are the ones who pulled the plug on things.

[Bellhorn04]

One thing worth noting is that the majority of the writers are going to be mouthpieces for ownership here. Bowden, John Heyman the worst. Remember, the owners are the ones who pulled the plug on things.

 

Yeah, I wish I could link the article but it's pay-walled, of course.

[sk7326]

This was interesting ... Freedman is a labor lawyer, and has been writing about the situation.

[sk7326]

Yeah, I wish I could link the article but it's pay-walled, of course.

 

I'm a subscriber so go ahead

[Bellhorn04]

I'm a subscriber so go ahead

 

https://theathletic.com/3128010/2022/02/14/bowden-its-time-for-mlb-players-to-make-the-owners-an-overwhelming-offer/

[Bellhorn04]

I think Bowden has a great proposal on the luxury tax - say yes to the stiffer penalties, but bump the threshold up to 240 million. As notin might say, even Dombrowski should be able to put together a good team for 239 million.

[Bellhorn04]

Bowden also suggests the players feel like they lost the last 2 negotiations and determined to win this one. Which does sound credible...

[Elktonnick]

I dunno - TV money is going up ... fans still show up, though a bit more regionally

The TV landscape is about to change dramatically as more and people cut the cord. How this is going to affect baseball revenue is anyone's guess. Since I don't live in the Boston area I can only catch Red Sox games on streaming services. Are Red Sox games available on a broadcast station? The regional sports networks long-term future is not bright unless they all become streaming services. How that affects the bottom line is yet to be determined.

[sk7326]

I think Bowden has a great proposal on the luxury tax - say yes to the stiffer penalties, but bump the threshold up to 240 million. As notin might say, even Dombrowski should be able to put together a good team for 239 million.

 

They should pretty clearly peg the threshhold to some sort of revenue percentage ... but that would demand the players can verify what is coming in.

[sk7326]

Bowden also suggests the players feel like they lost the last 2 negotiations and determined to win this one. Which does sound credible...

 

I think they want to recoup some of the losses. But there is a LOT of water carrying for the owners here - in particular, where he opines that the MLB players have the best CBA in pro sports when their CBA is also the only one where the players do not get a guaranteed share of the pie.