New Collective Bargaining Agreement, what if the owners win?

[Nick]

Is anyone talking about the FLOOR proposed by the owners? $174M? Currently there are 15 or so major league teams with Luxury Tax Payroll below the new 'proposed' floor. I can't believe that those 15 'cheap' owners agree to that figure. How can they afford it? Or can they?

What will the Dodgers do? Projected payroll for 2027 is $363M. How can they reduce it overnight? Why would another team pay a fair value on the trade knowing that the Dodgers have to shed payroll?

I proposed this couple of years ago. Each year, the team would be allowed one exemption for one player. It would be a moving target year to year. Say for 2026 it's $25M. For the Sox, that max would have been applied to Crochet who is making $28M+. Under my proposal, the Dodgers can pay a player $120M for two years and it would only count $25M towards the max limit and not $60M.

If we win the World Series, the lockout won't hurt as much.

[moonslav59]

It will likely be a win-win by both sides.

The "Floor" clause could be supplemented by increased revenue spending, and the sharing of local TV money talked about would do just that, thereby allowing the lower budget teams to spend more without a whole lot of their own money.

The players could get higher min salaries, shorter waits for arb and less arbs before they can become FAs. Roster expansion would be a big plus for players, too, especially the 40.

If they raised the minimum salary from $780K to $1.6M and adjusted the pro-rated formula to help the little guys, that would get a large percentage of players to go for any deal- hard/soft cap or not.

I doubt they end up with any sort of hard cap, even with a floor being added.

I am not as certain as many here that a work stoppage that affects the season will occur.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Nick said:

I can't believe that those 15 'cheap' owners agree to that figure. How can they afford it? Or can they?

Just a couple of random thoughts:

• If they go to a floor, they might to 100% broadcast sharing.  It'll give poorer teams enough for a floor and incentivize to develop a better fanbase.
• I assume teams will be grandfathered in, maybe even over the 5-year CBA period.
• I also assume the players will reject a cap, no matter how lucrative.

[vegasbob]

4 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Just a couple of random thoughts:

• If they go to a floor, they might to 100% broadcast sharing.  It'll give poorer teams enough for a floor and incentivize to develop a better fanbase.
• I assume teams will be grandfathered in, maybe even over the 5-year CBA period.
• I also assume the players will reject a cap, no matter how lucrative.

Certainly agree with your 2nd/3rd points

[JoeBrady]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It will likely be a win-win by both sides.

The NFL should be their model, and I might say that about every industry.  Every time the owners make money, the players make money.  Every time the owners think of a way to enhance revenue, the union say 'sure, but here's what we need in return'.

I would add to the minimum salary, and add a lot of service time additions for the AAAA players bouncing up and down.  You add me for a day, you owe me a week's service time.  You add me for a week, you owe for a month.  If you add me for more than 81 games, you owe me a full year's salary and service time.

I don't particularly care how they chop up my BB allowance, but these 30 year old journeymen add a lot to the league and get a fraction of the gravy.

[moonslav59]

26 minutes ago, vegasbob said:

Certainly agree with your 2nd/3rd points

There is talk of sharing broadcast revenue, but 100% is not likely.

I could see them agreeing to each team shares 50%, so the big markets still get to keep more but the small markets will get a big share they currently don't get.

To me, when the Rays play at the Dodgers, they should get 50% of the TV money. There would be no game without opponents.

 

[mvp 78]

The NFL model would be worse for the Sox. We should be advocating for no cap since the Sox are a rich team. 

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The NFL model would be worse for the Sox. We should be advocating for no cap since the Sox are a rich team. 

Good for BB, which is still pretty important.  What I had in mind was to consolidate at broadcasting, at least the TV.  That should provide for better deals for BB.  Split that.  Then each team gets to keep their local revenue.  That'll incentivize each team to build their product.  And we'll still do okay.

[drewski6]

10 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

Good for BB, which is still pretty important.  What I had in mind was to consolidate at broadcasting, at least the TV.  That should provide for better deals for BB.  Split that.  Then each team gets to keep their local revenue.  That'll incentivize each team to build their product.  And we'll still do okay.

If we're following the NFL model in terms of broadcasting only, thats prob fine, or at least I dont know enough to take issue.

But following the NFL model complete is no bueno.  The NFLPA has historically been the weakest of the 4 major sports (certainly MLB and NBA), and is kind of based on trickery.  Non guaranteed contracts, big dollars flashed in front of players that theyll never get due to non guaranteed contracts. Funny money.

If we follow NFL except for the non-guaranteed contracts and no hard cap, then you may have something.  Im not sure why the small market teams would want a hard cap in lieu of penalties to the big spenders that result in big checks to them.

[drewski6]

I just dont want to see non guaranteed contracts in the mold of the NFL because they are deceptive by design.  Obvs a team and a player agreeing on an incentive deal is different because its upfront and not deceptive.

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

Good for BB, which is still pretty important.  What I had in mind was to consolidate at broadcasting, at least the TV.  That should provide for better deals for BB.  Split that.  Then each team gets to keep their local revenue.  That'll incentivize each team to build their product.  And we'll still do okay.

I care about the Red Sox, not the Reds. 

[mvp 78]

15 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

If we're following the NFL model in terms of broadcasting only, thats prob fine, or at least I dont know enough to take issue.

But following the NFL model complete is no bueno.  The NFLPA has historically been the weakest of the 4 major sports (certainly MLB and NBA), and is kind of based on trickery.  Non guaranteed contracts, big dollars flashed in front of players that theyll never get due to non guaranteed contracts. Funny money.

If we follow NFL except for the non-guaranteed contracts and no hard cap, then you may have something.  Im not sure why the small market teams would want a hard cap in lieu of penalties to the big spenders that result in big checks to them.

Yeah, the NFL model doesn't work for players and only works for owners. No way should the players go for it. Would be the biggest blunder ever. 

[bobo52]

 I gotta admit that I am not well versed in what is being contemplated.  I do think that the league is healthier with some marquee teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox consistently spending more than small-revenue teams like TB and Pittsburgh.  It's OK if the Dodgers and Yankees win more often since they have a larger fan base.  But KC and Pittsburgh should have good teams occasionally. I like the idea of a floor and a cap that is designed to generate payroll growth - but in a more balanced way - as I assume the players want.  

 

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, bobo52 said:

 I gotta admit that I am not well versed in what is being contemplated.  I do think that the league is healthier with some marquee teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox consistently spending more than small-revenue teams like TB and Pittsburgh.  It's OK if the Dodgers and Yankees win more often since they have a larger fan base.  But KC and Pittsburgh should have good teams occasionally. I like the idea of a floor and a cap that is designed to generate payroll growth - but in a more balanced way - as I assume the players want.  

KC and PITT could be more competitive, the owners choose not to spend. 

[drewski6]

12 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Yeah, the NFL model doesn't work for players and only works for owners. No way should the players go for it. Would be the biggest blunder ever. 

Recent NFL negotiations work under the assumption that the owners have such huge war chests because past deals have been so player unfriendly, that the owners can simply win the game of chicken.....

And my hunch is this is giving MLB owners FOMO.

[drewski6]

13 minutes ago, bobo52 said:

 I gotta admit that I am not well versed in what is being contemplated.  I do think that the league is healthier with some marquee teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox consistently spending more than small-revenue teams like TB and Pittsburgh.  It's OK if the Dodgers and Yankees win more often since they have a larger fan base.  But KC and Pittsburgh should have good teams occasionally. I like the idea of a floor and a cap that is designed to generate payroll growth - but in a more balanced way - as I assume the players want.  

 

Make no mistake, neither side is going to make any concession due to health of the sport (including parity).  Its a deceptive talking point.  Both sides are trying to get one thing and one thing only, more for them and less for the other side.  Talking about balance and giving teams a chance and fairness is just deception.

Age of the grift.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Recent NFL negotiations work under the assumption that the owners have such huge war chests because past deals have been so player unfriendly, that the owners can simply win the game of chicken.....

And my hunch is this is giving MLB owners FOMO.

The NBA deal is a bit better, but the leagues are not comparable due to the amount of players. Also, the NBA cap is nonsense. 

[drewski6]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

The NBA deal is a bit better, but the leagues are not comparable due to the amount of players. Also, the NBA cap is nonsense. 

Agreed that NBA is more star driven, which is why you have such a focus on max contracts - where as in baseball one single player cant effect the game as much.  Also, I agree that the size of rosters makes comparison to NBA not apples-to-apples. 

There may be a few things they can steal from NBA like how you get one sign a year at 20m or under that doesnt apply to any cap/lux tax.  But thats big market friendly.

Another issue w NBA is its extremely complex.  There are salary cap, lux tax line, 1st threshold , 2nd threshold and it takes like a devoted employee to understand it all.  Even GMs get hazy on it, haha.

[NHNative]

I have become quite cynical over the years. I gave up on the NBA years ago and it's getting to be close to that way for the NFL. I just hope baseball can remain about baseball and something the kids can be proud of and learn from--ethics, sportsmanship and examples for good behavior.

Like Costner said in "For Love of the Game"...Its a great game.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

If we're following the NFL model in terms of broadcasting only, thats prob fine, or at least I dont know enough to take issue.

But following the NFL model complete is no bueno.  The NFLPA has historically been the weakest of the 4 major sports (certainly MLB and NBA), and is kind of based on trickery.  Non guaranteed contracts, big dollars flashed in front of players that theyll never get due to non guaranteed contracts. Funny money.

If we follow NFL except for the non-guaranteed contracts and no hard cap, then you may have something.  Im not sure why the small market teams would want a hard cap in lieu of penalties to the big spenders that result in big checks to them.

I couldn't care less about guaranteed money.  As long as 50% goes to the players, then they'll get their $6B whether it goes to voided contracts, rookies, options, etc.  And the players know exactly how much they should expect to receive.  They work out that portion via guarantees and bonuses.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

the NFL model doesn't work for players and only works for owners.

Have you seen the latest salary caps?  They are up close to 50% over the past 4 years.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Make no mistake, neither side is going to make any concession due to health of the sport (including parity).  Its a deceptive talking point.  Both sides are trying to get one thing and one thing only, more for them and less for the other side.  Talking about balance and giving teams a chance and fairness is just deception.

Age of the grift.

I always appreciate when fans come to the realization that it is just about the money.  But I wouldn't call it a grift.  They have $12B+ coming in.  I have no problem with both sides fighting over their piece of my pie.  My guess it that both sides will be pounding on the table, with owners going bankrupt and players unable to put food on the table.  And two hours before the season starts, "okay, so you will up our meal allowance by another $5 a day?", and everyone goes home happy.

[JimEd]

1 hour ago, NHNative said:

I have become quite cynical over the years. I gave up on the NBA years ago and it's getting to be close to that way for the NFL. I just hope baseball can remain about baseball and something the kids can be proud of and learn from--ethics, sportsmanship and examples for good behavior.

Like Costner said in "For Love of the Game"...Its a great game.

i gave up on the NBA the day Patrick Ewing said he couldn't survive on $20 million a year. f*** him and f*** the NBA.

[mvp 78]

26 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I couldn't care less about guaranteed money.  As long as 50% goes to the players, then they'll get their $6B whether it goes to voided contracts, rookies, options, etc.  And the players know exactly how much they should expect to receive.  They work out that portion via guarantees and bonuses.

Except that the 50% calc is a joke. It's never Revenue/2. It's (Revenue-Nonsense)/2. And why should owners get a full 50% anyway???

[notin]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

KC and PITT could be more competitive, the owners choose not to spend. 

And those are the problem teams. I do want every team to play like their on equal financial footing and MLB isn’t just about who has more money, but the small market owners have treated revenue sharing like another revenue stream and avenue towards profitability rather than an opportunity to give their fanbase a better product.  These guys literally cry poverty while pocketing the very checks that were implemented to ameliorate those same financial shortfalls…

 

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i gave up on the NBA the day Patrick Ewing said he couldn't survive on $20 million a year. f*** him and f*** the NBA.

He's an idiot.  I found it funnier when Hampton threw his career away by signing the Rockies, and couldn't figure out a better excuse than 'It is all about the schools'.  Because, you know, Manhattan, Scarsdale, etc., don't have the best schools in the world.

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Except that the 50% calc is a joke. It's never Revenue/2. It's (Revenue-Nonsense)/2. And why should owners get a full 50% anyway???

Since 50% doesn't yet exist, you can make 50% include anything you want.  And I don't see any philosophical reason for the owners, or the players, to not get 50%.

[mvp 78]

Just now, JoeBrady said:

Since 50% doesn't yet exist, you can make 50% include anything you want.  And I don't see any philosophical reason for the owners, or the players, to not get 50%.

Because the owners won't really give up 50%. 

[drewski6]

49 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Because the owners won't really give up 50%. 

Right , its intent is 50% gross, teams will skirt it and find a way to apply deductions and it will be 50% of a funny money number which guarantees zilch.

If they do 50% gross and allow auditors in maybe.

[JoeBrady]

25 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Because the owners won't really give up 50%. 

We don't know that.  I believe they once offered as high as 54%, but like you said, a lot of that depends on the definition of 'revenue'.  I believe that, currently, players salaries (also a vague term) is less than 50% of total broadcasting revenue.