Will there be a 2022 season?

[Bellhorn04]

Can't forget there are other penalties besides the tax itself.

 

MLB wants to make those stiffer too.

 

They're proposing that if you go over the threshold the third time in a row, you not only pay 100% tax, you lose your first-round draft pick.

 

They want to make it so stupid to go over that no team will want to do it.

[notin]

Can't forget there are other penalties besides the tax itself.

 

MLB wants to make those stiffer too.

 

They're proposing that if you go over the threshold the third time in a row, you not only pay 100% tax, you lose your first-round draft pick.

 

They want to make it so stupid to go over that no team will want to do it.

 

 

Since most teams never approached the previous limits, these are just attempts to deter a few teams from spending crazy, which by definition of crazy, won’t work.

 

The players need to agree to this now, because it’s really not a big deal. The bigger deal is getting Pittsburgh and Miami and Tampa and Oakland to actually spend.

 

The MLBPA should be ignoring the attempts to curb the top spenders and focus on bringing up the rear. THAT is how they’re going to get more money on to rosters…

[moonslav59]

Since most teams never approached the previous limits, these are just attempts to deter a few teams from spending crazy, which by definition of crazy, won’t work.

 

The players need to agree to this now, because it’s really not a big deal. The bigger deal is getting Pittsburgh and Miami and Tampa and Oakland to actually spend.

 

The MLBPA should be ignoring the attempts to curb the top spenders and focus on bringing up the rear. THAT is how they’re going to get more money on to rosters…

 

Exactly. Let them tax through top teams all they want, but force the lower teams to spend more and raise the min wage, too.

[jad]

Exactly. Let them tax through top teams all they want, but force the lower teams to spend more and raise the min wage, too.

 

If they do that, owners will probably go full Doc Rivers and sign away all the excess, unspent cash to their sons.

[Bellhorn04]

Since most teams never approached the previous limits, these are just attempts to deter a few teams from spending crazy, which by definition of crazy, won’t work.

 

The players need to agree to this now, because it’s really not a big deal. The bigger deal is getting Pittsburgh and Miami and Tampa and Oakland to actually spend.

 

The MLBPA should be ignoring the attempts to curb the top spenders and focus on bringing up the rear. THAT is how they’re going to get more money on to rosters…

 

Exactly. Let them tax through top teams all they want, but force the lower teams to spend more and raise the min wage, too.

 

Easy for us to say, but I can see why the players are balking at having a virtual hard cap imposed.

[Bellhorn04]

The owners trying to impose a hard cap is like them saying "There was a semi-soft cap, but we're taking it away. End of story."

 

We can ask why is that a big deal to the players, but on the other hand, why is it such a big deal to the owners all of a sudden?

[mvp 78]

In any negotiation, no side goes in with their best proposal. An offer is made and then a counter offer is proposed. I don't see where the Players Association is making any counter offers. They are coming in with it's either my way or the highway. The way things are going, there will be a significant delay to the start of the season.

 

From what I read of the recent posts, the flavor is the owners are a bunch of greedy crass people and its their approach that is causing all the issues. I don't share that view and think there is blame to be levied on both sides. The result will probably be a delay of months and that will turn off the fan base, cost players, owners, workers and municipalities lots of income. Good faith bargaining is needed but isn't happening.

 

Well, the owners did lockout the players and then go a month and a half without countering MLBPA's proposal. They should get the lionshare of the blame in this.

[mvp 78]

80% of the league feels that way about much lower limits anyway. And when have the Yankees and Dodgers been deterred by a luxury tax?

 

We know the Sox have been deterred by it. They've said as much.

[notin]

We know the Sox have been deterred by it. They've said as much.

 

 

Well, the Sox are deterred by third year penalties, not the tax in general. They have exceeded it multiple times…

[Bellhorn04]

Well, the Sox are deterred by third year penalties, not the tax in general. They have exceeded it multiple times…

 

It probably deterred them in 2021.

[mvp 78]

Well, the Sox are deterred by third year penalties, not the tax in general. They have exceeded it multiple times…

 

It's still a deterrent then?

[moonslav59]

Easy for us to say, but I can see why the players are balking at having a virtual hard cap imposed.

I think the players would vote yes, if the min wage was raised and low spending teams were forced to spend more on contracts. The tax only affects a few teams.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the players would vote yes, if the min wage was raised and low spending teams were forced to spend more on contracts. The tax only affects a few teams.

 

I think you're missing the real point about this. The players think the tax curtails spending on free agents. And they're right.

[moonslav59]

Well, the Sox are deterred by third year penalties, not the tax in general. They have exceeded it multiple times…

 

They usually don’t go over by much when they do, so even when they go over, I think there is a deterrence

[moonslav59]

I think you're missing the real point about this. The players think the tax curtails spending on free agents. And they're right.

 

I get that, but since most players are not signing for $20M on teams facing a tax, they might give in on the lux tax raise, if the min wage was raised significantly and low spending teams were forced to spend more.

 

If you set the levels correctly, players would make more- just not the top guys.

[Bellhorn04]

I get that, but since most players are not signing for $20M on teams facing a tax, they might give in on the lux tax raise, if the min wage was raised significantly and low spending teams were forced to spend more.

 

If you set the levels correctly, players would make more- just not the top guys.

 

But like I say, why do the owners all of a sudden think such a huge change needs to be made in the tax rates and penalties?

 

They're not making enough money?

 

I don't get it.

[mvp 78]

I think you're missing the real point about this. The players think the tax curtails spending on free agents. And they're right.

 

Yup.

[moonslav59]

But like I say, why do the owners all of a sudden think such a huge change needs to be made in the tax rates and penalties?

 

They're not making enough money?

 

I don't get it.

 

It seems obvious. The teams not going over the lux tax want to make more money.

 

There are way more teams significantly under the limit than over it.

 

[moonslav59]

I think you're missing the real point about this. The players think the tax curtails spending on free agents. And they're right.

 

In some ways the top paid players set the cost for the next tiers, and of course a type of harsh limit or soft cap would work against players’ interests, but if the offset can be larger, and the vast majority of players would or could make more money by raising the min wage by a lot and by setting a floor budget for team spending that would deny cheap spenders any of the lux tax money, more players could get significant raises even with a harsh lux tax.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the bottom line is the owners are trying to shove something down the players throats.

 

It doesn't bode well for a full season.

[notin]

It's still a deterrent then?

 

Hard to say, but the spending of the Sox and a few others really isn’t the issue to either side.

 

Not sure why the owners think imposing more stringent penalties on themselves is the issue, especially on the teams already voluntarily playing around the limits.

 

And the players should be less concerned with the spending of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, etc. Even if you argue it will limit/prohibit/prevent those teams from exceeding the limits, they’re still the top spenders and are only going to impact 78 players. The primary concern of the MLBPA needs to be creating more spenders at that level, not limiting the teams already doing what they want anyway…

[Bellhorn04]

Hard to say, but the spending of the Sox and a few others really isn’t the issue to either side.

 

Not sure why the owners think imposing more stringent penalties on themselves is the issue, especially on the teams already voluntarily playing around the limits.

 

And the players should be less concerned with the spending of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, etc. Even if you argue it will limit/prohibit/prevent those teams from exceeding the limits, they’re still the top spenders and are only going to impact 78 players. The primary concern of the MLBPA needs to be creating more spenders at that level, not limiting the teams already doing what they want anyway…

 

The players are concerned that if those rich teams are subject to a virtual hard cap, it's going to limit the spending on free agents in general.

 

The system is set up so that free agency is where the real payoff is for the players. They work cheap a few years and then they hit the open market. They don't like the idea of that market being clamped down on.

[notin]

I think you're missing the real point about this. The players think the tax curtails spending on free agents. And they're right.

 

Yes and no.

 

It limits the spending of the top spenders, but not having a tax might impact other teams.

 

We’ve all seen dozens of teams sell off players and go into “rebuilding mode” because they felt they were unable to compete today. And despite the colossal failure rate of this strategy with regards to building competing teams, it still happens.

 

Maybe if the bigger spenders actually were capped, it increases the opportunities for other teams to stay competitive rather than just burying season after season with cheap rosters, going through the motions, and selling the fan base that, in the words of Jim Croce, “tomorrow’s gonna be a brighter day.”

 

Well when does tomorrow get to Pittsburgh? Or Cincinnati? Or Kansas City? Or Baltimore?

[mvp 78]

The players are concerned that if those rich teams are subject to a virtual hard cap, it's going to limit the spending on free agents in general.

 

The system is set up so that free agency is where the real payoff is for the players. They work cheap a few years and then they hit the open market. They don't like the idea of that market being clamped down on.

 

According to Fangraphs, Mookie provided the Sox with $100M in production over the years he was being paid the minimum salary. Unfair to subject players like this to cap concerns once they hit FA even if it's only a few teams.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes and no.

 

It limits the spending of the top spenders, but not having a tax might impact other teams.

 

We’ve all seen dozens of teams sell off players and go into “rebuilding mode” because they felt they were unable to compete today. And despite the colossal failure rate of this strategy with regards to building competing teams, it still happens.

 

Maybe if the bigger spenders actually were capped, it increases the opportunities for other teams to stay competitive rather than just burying season after season with cheap rosters, going through the motions, and selling the fan base that, in the words of Jim Croce, “tomorrow’s gonna be a brighter day.”

 

Well when does tomorrow get to Pittsburgh? Or Cincinnati? Or Kansas City? Or Baltimore?

 

They've had revenue sharing provisions for years, and some of that money comes from the luxury tax.

 

The Rays have proven that you can succeed at lower payroll levels if you're, you know, smart.

 

But is it the Red Sox fault that their revenue is so much higher than most?

[mvp 78]

Well when does tomorrow get to Pittsburgh? Or Cincinnati? Or Kansas City? Or Baltimore?

 

When the Pirates are sold to a good owner.

 

Due to Nutting's perceived tendency to put profits ahead of a competitive product on the field, he is often ranked in both the local press and nationally as one of the worst owners in sports,[4][5] earning the nickname "Bottom-Line Bob".[6][7] Despite being the 10th richest owner in MLB,[6] the Pirates have constantly been in the bottom third of payroll under his direct ownership and that of his predecessor and former business partner Kevin McClatchy when Nutting was a minority partner.[8][9]

 

When the Orioles are sold to a good owner.

 

Angelos’s riches remain, but the goodwill and righteous huzzahs are long gone. He’s despised locally and irrelevant nationally. On his watch the Orioles have gone from the team of Cal Ripken Jr. to the team of Chris Davis. Too much meddling and too much losing transformed the former hometown hero into a punching bag and a punchline. If Angelos’s name comes up these days, most likely it’s at or near the bottom of some sort of baseball owners ranking.

 

When the Reds are sold to a good owner.

 

Reds owner Bob Castellini ranks dead-last among MLB owners in net worth

 

The Royals just got a new owner. We'll see how that works out.

[notin]

When the Pirates are sold to a good owner.

 

Due to Nutting's perceived tendency to put profits ahead of a competitive product on the field, he is often ranked in both the local press and nationally as one of the worst owners in sports,[4][5] earning the nickname "Bottom-Line Bob".[6][7] Despite being the 10th richest owner in MLB,[6] the Pirates have constantly been in the bottom third of payroll under his direct ownership and that of his predecessor and former business partner Kevin McClatchy when Nutting was a minority partner.[8][9]

 

When the Orioles are sold to a good owner.

 

Angelos’s riches remain, but the goodwill and righteous huzzahs are long gone. He’s despised locally and irrelevant nationally. On his watch the Orioles have gone from the team of Cal Ripken Jr. to the team of Chris Davis. Too much meddling and too much losing transformed the former hometown hero into a punching bag and a punchline. If Angelos’s name comes up these days, most likely it’s at or near the bottom of some sort of baseball owners ranking.

 

When the Reds are sold to a good owner.

 

Reds owner Bob Castellini ranks dead-last among MLB owners in net worth

 

The Royals just got a new owner. We'll see how that works out.

 

Exactly.

 

The MLBPA should focus on those guys. The penalties on the upper tier spenders are an easy concession for them here…

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly.

 

The MLBPA should focus on those guys. The penalties on the upper tier spenders are an easy concession for them here…

 

Not when the penalties are the equivalent of a hard cap. That's a major change.

[mvp 78]

Exactly.

 

The MLBPA should focus on those guys. The penalties on the upper tier spenders are an easy concession for them here…

 

Nope.

 

You can't underpay players for 6 years and then say "well, the largest teams aren't allowed to spend anymore. Sorry."

 

Hard caps artificially deflate contracts. That'd be a no go for me if I was in the union.

[mvp 78]

Not when the penalties are the equivalent of a hard cap. That's a major change.

 

To accept a cap, the players would need a floor of 125M and arbitration years to start year 1.