moonslav59
-
Posts
105,156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
134
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
So, how is this? Min wage goes to $850K in 2022 $900K in 2023 $950K in 2024 $1M in 2025 Initiate floor for team player salary budget (not including player benefit payment): $50M in 2023 $60M in 2024 $75M in 2025 (Teams not reaching floor get no revenue sharing from Lux Tax and possibly other penalties.) Lux Tax Line and Tax rates: 2022: Level 1 $220M (Tax: 25% 1st year/ 35% 2nd year/60% 3rd year) Level 2 $240M (Tax: 35%/50%/75%) 2023: Level 1: $225M (30%/40%/70%) Level 2: $240M (40%/60%/90%) 2024: Level 1: $230M (33%/50%/75%) Level 2: $245M (50%/75%/100%) 2025: Level 1: $235M (35%/60%/80%) Level 2: $250M (50%/75%/100%) Start ARB years one year earlier (free agency comes 1 year earlier) Rosters to 27 Players Universal DH Robo Umps Expanded Playoffs, if owners insist
-
Inflation, alone, blows the 1-2% out of the water.
-
No, it's not, but it's the nature of the beast. Why should baseball be any different from other entertainment venues that are seeing massive ticket price increases?
-
As does everything else.
-
If the business grows and profits increase, why not? If they don't, I agree.
-
Very true. The Rays have been an exception, without raising spending much for strong run years. The Astros tanked to get very good, and their stretch is still in progress, but they started spending more.
-
2 years. If they would have paid their players, maybe it could have lasted longer. 86-76 in 2013 89-73 in 2014 (lost WS) 95-67 in 2015 (Champs) 81-81 in 2016 80-82 in 2017 They did add Cueto and Zobrist in 2015, who weren't cheap, at the time.
-
I think having Lugo that high speaks to Law's diminishing cred.
-
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.
-
He might only sneak on due to an injury to Hoskins. Hoskins has been very good. He's got a career .862 OPS (126 OPS+) and averages 37 HRs, 39 2B+3B per 700 PAs. He's a career .843 hitter vs RHPs. He's not a platoon player. Bohm is a bit unproven and does not have much power for 1B (11 HRs and 26 2Bs per 608 PAs). In 417 PAs vs rHPs, he has a .677 OPS. Ockimey could be a platoon with him.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A player signing for a big contract on a team near or over the lux tax does not affect "everyone." (Remember, a player signing for $30M for a team not over the lux tax should not count in this discussion.) It does not affect pre-arb player salaries, which is a huge amount of MLB players. It does affect arb player salaries, indirectly, but not by a whole lot, IMO. It does affect other FA contracts for lower tier free agents, but that is hard to quantify. I do not think the total affect equals making the floor team player budget $125M and making players arbs last just one year. To me, that is a massive imbalance. I think even one of those two things is more than a balancing measure by the player's side.
-
I never said it did not. My point was directed at what a balancing offer on the lower end would be needed.
-
Tweaking his swing was one main reason some of us saw the wisdom in not calling Duran up early.
-
He was my "sleeper prospect" from years ago. He has nice platoonable splits.
-
While I agree with your previous post, I think the "cap" does not hurt the vast majority of players, whereas this counter would be a huge blow to the owners. Many teams are far from $125M (more than are flirting with the lux tax line.) Arbs after year 1 is way more of a jolt to the system than the so called cap. They won't get either, let alone both.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
They usually don’t go over by much when they do, so even when they go over, I think there is a deterrence
-
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.
-
Exactly. Let them tax through top teams all they want, but force the lower teams to spend more and raise the min wage, too.
-
Also, if the likelihood a ball will be hit the opposite way is slight, then why have your SS playing in that area. Yes, Devers is "out of position" in the SS slot, but the ball hardly ever gets hit there.
-
Agreed. My list might look like this: 1. Potts 2. Rosario 3. Potts Others? Plawecki Bazardo Valdez Davis Crawford
