Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 221
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    So ignore the comment about it being 3 consecutive years as well and that 2018 was the 2nd lowest percentage of revenue in the past 10 years. Or that it was players who pointed out some of those facts.
    I would also think that some of the wage suppression can be tied to the luxury tax as teams have been vocal about actively getting under the threshold before the bigger taxes kick in.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    I would also think that some of the wage suppression can be tied to the luxury tax as teams have been vocal about actively getting under the threshold before the bigger taxes kick in.
    When talking about players salaries only the luxury tax is a 1000 times worse then the cap and floor.
    There is no guaranteed percentage of revenue.
    The luxury tax suppresses without doing anything else to offset the damages.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,896
    We can agree it is bad for players. At least it’s somewhat flexible since you can exceed it with little penalty for a while although it is just as arbitrary and unnecessary.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,186
    Saying the players need a set percentage of revenue in order to make a fair level of compensation, is doing a direct disservice to players. The thing that is killing player salaries right now is the luxury tax. This has kept the Red Sox and the Cubs, two huge market teams, completely out of free agency this year.

    When a player becomes a free agent now, half the teams can't buy them because they are rebuilding or too small of a market, and now a 1/5th of what's left on the market are being stopped from spending because of an arbitrary cap.

    Nothing hurts player salaries more than a cap. Let them have a free market. Top players will drive the market and the demand for their services. The luxury tax is hurting players at the top, which hurts the players in the middle, which hurts the players at the bottom. It's good for baseball to have the best players being compensated in a huge way.

    You can manipulate revenue sharing, which could put more teams invested into free agency, and you can maybe manipulate service time before free agency.

    A cap/floor system though just hurts the players. Let's find a way to help the players, while not also destroying the owners with a cap system. Revenue sharing and an improved service time system would/could benefit both.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Saying the players need a set percentage of revenue in order to make a fair level of compensation, is doing a direct disservice to players. The thing that is killing player salaries right now is the luxury tax. This has kept the Red Sox and the Cubs, two huge market teams, completely out of free agency this year.

    When a player becomes a free agent now, half the teams can't buy them because they are rebuilding or too small of a market, and now a 1/5th of what's left on the market are being stopped from spending because of an arbitrary cap.

    Nothing hurts player salaries more than a cap. Let them have a free market. Top players will drive the market and the demand for their services. The luxury tax is hurting players at the top, which hurts the players in the middle, which hurts the players at the bottom. It's good for baseball to have the best players being compensated in a huge way.

    You can manipulate revenue sharing, which could put more teams invested into free agency, and you can maybe manipulate service time before free agency.

    A cap/floor system though just hurts the players. Let's find a way to help the players, while not also destroying the owners with a cap system. Revenue sharing and an improved service time system would/could benefit both.
    A cap floor would not hurt the players. The free market era in baseball is over. The luxury tax has undoubtedly slowed things down but it is only responsible for a small portion of the problems. 90 percent of the teams are pretty much not affected by the luxury tax.
    Times have changed. The free market is not working like it should be. Better management and analytics etc have changed the game.
    We have agents like Boras asking for a cap so he can make more money. Who would of thought?
    Last year the MLB union were the only league to not have a raise.
    We all seem to agree that revenue sharing is important. The negatives that a cap and floor bring don’t even come close to the gains that a cap and floor brings.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    10,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Saying the players need a set percentage of revenue in order to make a fair level of compensation, is doing a direct disservice to players. The thing that is killing player salaries right now is the luxury tax. This has kept the Red Sox and the Cubs, two huge market teams, completely out of free agency this year.

    When a player becomes a free agent now, half the teams can't buy them because they are rebuilding or too small of a market, and now a 1/5th of what's left on the market are being stopped from spending because of an arbitrary cap.

    Nothing hurts player salaries more than a cap. Let them have a free market. Top players will drive the market and the demand for their services. The luxury tax is hurting players at the top, which hurts the players in the middle, which hurts the players at the bottom. It's good for baseball to have the best players being compensated in a huge way.

    You can manipulate revenue sharing, which could put more teams invested into free agency, and you can maybe manipulate service time before free agency.

    A cap/floor system though just hurts the players. Let's find a way to help the players, while not also destroying the owners with a cap system. Revenue sharing and an improved service time system would/could benefit both.
    you're not suggesting the luxury tax be abolished are you?

    If you want a totally free market, you may as well just turn the league into the equivalent of NCAA football, with 12 teams in 1A, the rest in 1AA

    What do you think would hurt players more in the long run, a salary cap? Or a complete lack of parity...
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Saying the players need a set percentage of revenue in order to make a fair level of compensation, is doing a direct disservice to players. The thing that is killing player salaries right now is the luxury tax. This has kept the Red Sox and the Cubs, two huge market teams, completely out of free agency this year.

    When a player becomes a free agent now, half the teams can't buy them because they are rebuilding or too small of a market, and now a 1/5th of what's left on the market are being stopped from spending because of an arbitrary cap.

    Nothing hurts player salaries more than a cap. Let them have a free market. Top players will drive the market and the demand for their services. The luxury tax is hurting players at the top, which hurts the players in the middle, which hurts the players at the bottom. It's good for baseball to have the best players being compensated in a huge way.

    You can manipulate revenue sharing, which could put more teams invested into free agency, and you can maybe manipulate service time before free agency.

    A cap/floor system though just hurts the players. Let's find a way to help the players, while not also destroying the owners with a cap system. Revenue sharing and an improved service time system would/could benefit both.
    In a pipe dream this works. In actuality, what you've explained by equalizing or close to equalizing revenue sharing is a system that still has an arbitrary cap since teams will not consistently operate in the red. But what this doesn't solve is teams claiming "rebuild" and pocketing huge sums of money that they may or may not invest in the future.

    So when pitching this to owners and players, the only way to quell those concerns that the market has virtually been capped without a minimum spending is to implement a floor or at least a % of revenue to players. So if you've virtually capped teams and now need a floor the logical step is to lock in all the percentages with a cap, floor and guaranteed percentage of revenue.

    The luxury tax isn't forcing teams not to spend. The luxury tax is a convenient excuse for teams to cut salary and not have to spend. Like you said, teams are citing the luxury tax as a reason they either can't take on contracts or a reason why they need to dump contracts. Keep in mind, both teams you mentioned, the cubs and red sox both have recently won world series, so they should be in their competitive window and they're still finding reasons not to spend. So what makes you think these teams will magically overspend when revenue sharing is more equal?

    Given what we've seen from the luxury tax, I don't think that even in a relatively even revenue sharing environment, we can confidently say teams will spend more money without a cap/floor. I think we've seen most teams love playing martyr and acting like they can't stretch the payroll at all and that rebuilding teams love to pitch the young, high upside guys because they can justify super low salaries for a few years. Perhaps some of those teams will then pay that forward and roll the savings into future salaries, but I doubt it. I just don't see many realistic scenarios where a flat revenue sharing system with no cap floor actually helps the players make more money unless you're just super optimistic and think owners aren't greedy money hoarders when given the chance to be.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,896
    You’re wrong, revenue sharing wouldn’t create an arbitrary cap but it might create an effective cap because that’s the way markets work. This wouldn’t stop teams from choosing to go in the red when they have a core group they want to keep together for a WS push or horde cash while all their talent is in the minors but it would give teams the resources and flexibility to try and be as competitive as they can.

    And a floor is not the only way to keep teams from just pocketing the revenue sharing. The owners could agree that teams need to be competitive by winning a certain number of games over a 6 year rolling period. If they fail to reach that number they can be forced to sell their team to new ownership. If teams can be competitive on the cheap, good for them. If another owner would rather spend beyond what the revenue sharing brings in, good for them.

    And even if the owners decide to add a floor to keep some teams from just keeping the money, that doesn’t mean you need a cap. And while a floor would get no objections from the union, a cap would be dead on arrival, because it is literally a cap on salaries.

    You’re also failing to give credit to what a strong revenue sharing would do to the team narratives around the league. No one would be able to claim they’re a poor small market team that can’t afford to go after big names or sign their home grown talent. We let immensely wealthy people off the hook for not being willing to spend on their teams because they can point to the rich Yankees and Dodgers who can spend a ton of money and turn a profit. With similar revenue streams no team would have a spending advantage or a spending excuse.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,186
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    A cap floor would not hurt the players. The free market era in baseball is over. The luxury tax has undoubtedly slowed things down but it is only responsible for a small portion of the problems. 90 percent of the teams are pretty much not affected by the luxury tax.
    Times have changed. The free market is not working like it should be. Better management and analytics etc have changed the game.
    We have agents like Boras asking for a cap so he can make more money. Who would of thought?
    Last year the MLB union were the only league to not have a raise.
    We all seem to agree that revenue sharing is important. The negatives that a cap and floor bring don’t even come close to the gains that a cap and floor brings.
    Please share the link and quote where he ever said anything remotely close to this.

    The union has directly opposed a cap for decades, it's the owners that want it. Not the players or their representatives.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,186
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    you're not suggesting the luxury tax be abolished are you?

    If you want a totally free market, you may as well just turn the league into the equivalent of NCAA football, with 12 teams in 1A, the rest in 1AA

    What do you think would hurt players more in the long run, a salary cap? Or a complete lack of parity...
    I am. But with a modified version of revenue sharing. You don't need taxes and caps to raise parity.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,186
    If I had unilateral control over the MLB and it's future.

    1. There would be an international draft

    2. You would control the rights over a player for 8 years, automatically, after you sign them after the draft. Players can be drafted in their age 18 season or age 21 season, and any year after their age 21 season. Their pay would be based on where they were drafted, and what level they are playing at in the minor leagues or major leagues. But service time starts when they are drafted (i.e. when they become free agents)

    The last three years are arbitration based like it is today. Regardless if they are in the minors or majors. But pay is tiered at each level (if you are drafted in the first round and are in A ball in your first season, then you get one rate of pay. If you are in year 2, another rate of pay, and again, based on the level

    All minor leaguers would be protected by the union

    It would work something like this for a first rounder
    1st year - A ball - $90K
    2nd year - AA ball - $150K
    3rd year - AAA ball - $180K
    4th year - MLB - $600K
    5th year - MLB - $750K
    6th year - MLB - arbitration eligible
    7th year - MLB - arbitration eligible
    8th year - MLB - arbitration eligible

    No way this player signs a long term contract that delays free agency.

    3. Most revenue would be shared. All tv dollars would be shared (including teams that own their own networks). Concession contracts, merch, etc. The only thing that wouldn't be shared would be ticket revenue and parking gate revenue.


    Top high school players would become free agents at 26. They would be at the beginning of their peaks, and would get huge deals. And even college aged players would still be under 30.

    Players would be less incentivized to sign mega deals early in their careers because the rate of pay would be higher for them as they progressed, allowing more players to reach free agency. And teams would have an easier job of retaining their own young players.


    I realize the host of reasons this would never happen, but it's how I wish it was structured.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    10,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I am. But with a modified version of revenue sharing. You don't need taxes and caps to raise parity.
    Would you agree or disagree with a statement saying the NFL has consistently had more parity over the past couple decades than other pro leagues? How was it they did that?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,896
    Disagree. This is a tough question though because how do you define parity? Championships? Championship appearances? Playoff wins? Playoff appearances? Winning seasons? And how do you compare a league that allows 8 teams into the playoffs and a league where half the teams make the playoffs? How do you compare a league where 1 player can take you from mediocre to very good to a league where a player who may be the best to ever play the game doesn’t even play in the playoffs?

    What I do know is that it’s been good to be a Patriot, Steeler, Packer, Seahawk, 49’er, Saint, Raven, Giant fan. Not so much a Brown, Lion, Cardinal, Dolphin, Jet, Bear fan.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,354
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    You’re wrong, revenue sharing wouldn’t create an arbitrary cap but it might create an effective cap because that’s the way markets work. This wouldn’t stop teams from choosing to go in the red when they have a core group they want to keep together for a WS push or horde cash while all their talent is in the minors but it would give teams the resources and flexibility to try and be as competitive as they can.

    And a floor is not the only way to keep teams from just pocketing the revenue sharing. The owners could agree that teams need to be competitive by winning a certain number of games over a 6 year rolling period. If they fail to reach that number they can be forced to sell their team to new ownership. If teams can be competitive on the cheap, good for them. If another owner would rather spend beyond what the revenue sharing brings in, good for them.

    And even if the owners decide to add a floor to keep some teams from just keeping the money, that doesn’t mean you need a cap. And while a floor would get no objections from the union, a cap would be dead on arrival, because it is literally a cap on salaries.

    You’re also failing to give credit to what a strong revenue sharing would do to the team narratives around the league. No one would be able to claim they’re a poor small market team that can’t afford to go after big names or sign their home grown talent. We let immensely wealthy people off the hook for not being willing to spend on their teams because they can point to the rich Yankees and Dodgers who can spend a ton of money and turn a profit. With similar revenue streams no team would have a spending advantage or a spending excuse.
    This could never work. Unless that number is like 400 wins.

    If a team is willing to spend 150 million a year, and they still don't get enough wins, they should be forced to sell? It's very unlikely, but you understand what I'm trying to say.

    Because of RSN's, I think it's very difficult to have full revenue sharing, like the NFL does. Not every team contributes the same amount, but every team gets an equal cut back. Maybe teams that don't spend an established amount of revenue on payroll, lose a portion or all of their revenue sharing. Something should be done to stop the pocketing of money by small market teams that other teams give them to help with expenses.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Disagree. This is a tough question though because how do you define parity? Championships? Championship appearances? Playoff wins? Playoff appearances? Winning seasons? And how do you compare a league that allows 8 teams into the playoffs and a league where half the teams make the playoffs? How do you compare a league where 1 player can take you from mediocre to very good to a league where a player who may be the best to ever play the game doesn’t even play in the playoffs?

    What I do know is that it’s been good to be a Patriot, Steeler, Packer, Seahawk, 49’er, Saint, Raven, Giant fan. Not so much a Brown, Lion, Cardinal, Dolphin, Jet, Bear fan.
    Well the browns were predicted to win their division this year. The bears actually did win their division last year. The lion have made the playoffs multiple times recently.
    You are right that it is a difficult question and hard to define parity.
    Off the top of my head I would say there are about 20 nfl teams that believe they can win the Super Bowl next year. MLB not so much IMO.

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •