Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 162
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    The TL/DR version of my previous post. The current system and a system that only adds more revenue sharing have a fatal flaw. Both systems are set up to the point where the decision to spend and how much to spend is entirely in the owners court. A cap/floor system guarantees each side a portion of the revenue no matter what happens.

    It's possible that hurts the players, as it's possible teams will spend a higher portion of revenue on payroll than the CBA would negotiate. But given recent spending trends, with really soft markets for mid tier players and bad teams slashing payroll, it seems unlikely that would be the case, especially long term.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 11-26-2021 at 07:12 PM.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Couple things. I've never said a cap/floor without revenue sharing. Unless all markets are of similar size, it's not possible to cap/floor without revenue sharing. That's always been implied. And the logic behind the cap floor is that it's the logical next step of revenue sharing. Caps benefit owners and floors benefit players.

    The reason it's the logical next step is because revenue sharing creates a cap. No matter how you want to slice it, a cap is created. Teams will never consistently lose money to win. In the short term, teams may be okay running neutral profits or losses to compete. But no one is going to do that consistently. And when you're negotiating a CBA, the focus is always the long term implications, not the occassional, short term one offs. So whether or not the cap is a a set number or ends up being less strict doesn't matter. You're still creating a cap. And since that benefits the owners, it means you need to offset with a floor so there's a baseline spend to benefit the players.

    The tactics you've outlined to discourage being bad are also just looking for unnecessary ways to fix a problem that doesnt need fixing with a floor. Teams will be bad. Whether it's a bad GM or injuries or whatever, teams are going to be bad. So the unintended consequence is by punishing the "tankers" you also punish the genuinely bad teams. And now you've handcuffed them from improving by taking their draft resources and revenue and all of that. At the end of the day, who cares if teams have bad spells if they are spending and the layers get their share of the pie.

    Thats the end game of the whole thing in my mind. The problem with the current system as I've said multiple times is that the owners are in complete control of spending. The players, outside of striking or being able to prove collusion have zero power or course of action if owners decide not to spend. Look at 2019. Player payroll declined as revenue rose. There's literally nothing the players can do about that unless the strike.

    If tomorrow, every owner decides they want to spend between 35-40% of revenue, the players are SOL unless they can legit prove collusion. That's the core problem of baseball's financial setup. Historically, this hasn't been a problem, since owners have seemingly always been willing to spend. But the last few years, where the FA markets have been slow, especially for the mid tier type FAs, it's been pretty obvious that owners are less willing to spend. And that's been reflected in the % of revenue estimates that have been released the last few years. Covid years make the last 2 seasons tough, with limitations for attendance at some stadiums, but prior to the pandemic it was getting lower.

    Simply adding more revenue sharing doesn't solve thst problem. In fact, it's possible it makes the problem worse. Since revenue sharing is highly likely to create something close to a lead wide cap (and the recent evidence of the luxury tax line creating something similar to a cap suggests that would be the case), not putting something in place to ensure the non competitive spend could very well reduce player's total earnings.

    The NFL system is a cap floor, I've never said differently. If I did, it's a typo. It's a cap/floor but the roll cap over and you're inky penalized for not hitting the floor on a rolling basis. So it's possible to reduce spending short term, as long as you subsequently spend more longer term. And the rolling cap allows you to make "all-in" type moves when the time is right.

    Cap gymnastics aren't inherently bad or good either. If gives teams more long term flexibility, but the money is still paid out. Sure the NFL has non guaranteed deals, but when looking at someone like Josh Allen's dealing, barring major injury he's getting that money. Realistically, the MLB's system of team options with a buyout is essentially no different than the NFL's version of the non guaranteed deals.

    The whole end game of the cap/floor is to define baseball related revenue and ensure a split that both sides can agree upon. The owners no longer have all the power in how much the players earn each year. The pie is split in a way both sides agree upon. If the financials change drastically, neither side benefits or is hurt more than the other.
    This argument is disingenuous for several reasons.

    1. Even by your telling, revenue sharing is the real change and the real solution. Cap/floor is just a bureaucratic regulation, a footnote.
    2. No one ever makes threads about needing revenue sharing. You never see articles arguing the need for revenue sharing. Usually you see one of these threads after some player signs a big contract and fans come to complain about reigning in player pay in some misbegotten hope that itíll lower their cable bill or make the beer cheaper at the park.
    3. This particular thread was actually born from a proposal by the owners to add a floor in exchange for a lower upper tax threshold (cap). No revenue sharing is part of this proposal. Cap/floor is not an ďof courseĒ add on to revenue parity, itís a goal in and of itself.

    I agree that player pay is down and that it can be fixed through changes in the CBA. I just disagree why it happened and how to fix it. Tanking is the real problem. As long as teams are incentivized to tank, fewer teams will be trying to win every year and fewer teams will be competing for players that can help them now. So how to disincentivize tanking?
    1. Give all teams equal revenue streams. No more small market teams crying poverty to their fans. This has been the main reason tanking has been tolerated.
    2. More teams in the playoffs. Fewer regular season games. You want to maximize your revenue then you need more games to collect gate and concession money. Playoffs can be a reasonable expectation for their fans and should be the goal of every team. This will reward teams for trying to be good every year.
    3. Draft lottery. Ask the Red Wings what being historically bad will get you. It got them the #6 draft spot. Hard to sell ďSucking for LuckĒ or ďTanking for TrevorĒ if those draft spots still have some randomness to them.
    4. Penalize being long term bad. Everyone could crawl out of the basement at least occasionally if they had the revenue and the desire to actually try and win. If you canít then maybe you need a new FO or maybe a new owner. Escalating loss of draft picks and revenue sharing should solve teams that truly have no interest in being competitive. Stop trying to make the Jeffrey Laurias of the world act competitively, instead stop the Jeffrey Laurias of the world from owning teams.

    The point of being a sports team is to try and win. Letting teams have vastly different revenue streams is akin to letting some teams having more roster spots or an extra outfielder. This should be the focus of any improvement in baseball. I agree that there would be potential for teams to game a system that spread revenue around more evenly. Fans should be the ones to hold teams accountable for not trying but currently we are complicit in the tanking problem. It just makes way more sense to incentivize competition not stifle it with arbitrary spending numbers that mostly encourage teams to creatively game the system.
    Last edited by GasMan; 11-28-2021 at 09:31 AM.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    36,024
    The fundamental problem plaguing MLB is the lack of competitive markets and parity.

    NFL had the same problem in the 1990s, adopted the salary cap and more or less the CBA rules we see now. The end result has been many more engaged markets and a much more successful overall product.

    I wish MLB would implement something of a hard cap and a hard floor. I also think it would benefit the game to allow younger players to hit FA earlier (like after 4 years instead of 7), but have less guaranteed contracts beyond signing bonuses.

    Anything less than those changes would likely have minimal effect on how teams conduct business.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Don't worry. He's got this.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    This argument is disingenuous for several reasons.

    1. Even by your telling, revenue sharing is the real change and the real solution. Cap/floor is just a bureaucratic regulation, a footnote.
    2. No one ever makes threads about needing revenue sharing. You never see articles arguing the need for revenue sharing. Usually you see one of these threads after some player signs a big contract and fans come to complain about reigning in player pay in some misbegotten hope that itíll lower their cable bill or make the beer cheaper at the park.
    3. This particular thread was actually born from a proposal by the owners to add a floor in exchange for a lower upper tax threshold (cap). No revenue sharing is part of this proposal. Cap/floor is not an ďof courseĒ add on to revenue parity, itís a goal in and of itself.

    I agree that player pay is down and that it can be fixed through changes in the CBA. I just disagree why it happened and how to fix it. Tanking is the real problem. As long as teams are incentivized to tank, fewer teams will be trying to win every year and fewer teams will be competing for players that can help them now. So how to disincentivize tanking?
    1. Give all teams equal revenue streams. No more small market teams crying poverty to their fans. This has been the main reason tanking has been tolerated.
    2. More teams in the playoffs. Fewer regular season games. You want to maximize your revenue then you need more games to collect gate and concession money. Playoffs can be a reasonable expectation for their fans and should be the goal of every team. This will reward teams for trying to be good every year.
    3. Draft lottery. Ask the Red Wings what being historically bad will get you. It got them the #6 draft spot. Hard to sell ďSucking for LuckĒ or ďTanking for TrevorĒ if those draft spots still have some randomness to them.
    4. Penalize being long term bad. Everyone could crawl out of the basement at least occasionally if they had the revenue and the desire to actually try and win. If you canít then maybe you need a new FO or maybe a new owner. Escalating loss of draft picks and revenue sharing should solve teams that truly have no interest in being competitive. Stop trying to make the Jeffrey Laurias of the world act competitively, instead stop the Jeffrey Laurias of the world from owning teams.

    The point of being a sports team is to try and win. Letting teams have vastly different revenue streams is akin to letting some teams having more roster spots or an extra outfielder. This should be the focus of any improvement in baseball. I agree that there would be potential for teams to game a system that spread revenue around more evenly. Fans should be the ones to hold teams accountable for not trying but currently we are complicit in the tanking problem. It just makes way more sense to incentivize competition not stifle it with arbitrary spending numbers that mostly encourage teams to creatively game the system.
    But as I've pointed out multiple times, equalizing revenue doesn't solve the problem. Because there's still bad teams. Theyve already added playoff teams and the amount of 100 loss teams continued to rise. With more playoff teams, all that happens is that it becomes even more of a seller's market at the deadline and the bad teams become even worse.

    And to me, especially for baseball, more playoff teams isn't a good thing. Baseball is very unique in its structure. In the NBA, barring injuries, the best few teams almost always win. In a sport like basketball, in 7 games, the better team almost always wins. Football has a few more upsets becuase of the one game thing. But even then, one of the best teams usually wins too. I dont think that's the case with baseball. So much wonky stuff happens that some bad batted ball luck one way or the other can have such a huge impact. The best teams dont really win that often. Adding mediocre teams to the playoffs isn't a good thing in my mind and cheapens the regular season. And when the bulk of your revenue comes from people watching 162 regular season games.

    Teams don't "suck for luck" in the mlb though. Outside of Bryce harper and Stephen Strasburg and maybe a few others, there's rarely 1 guy everyone wants. So all these draft punishments and thst crap solves problems that don't really exist. If teams are spending money (ie players are getting their fair share of revenue), then there's no reason to punish long term bad. Right now long term bad isn't punished because long term bad can slash payroll, and especially in smallet markets, can slash payroll and live off revenue sharing cash and still make a bunch of money while being long term bad. If they're spending the floor, there's no benefit to long term bad. And generally speaking, sports like football and stuff don't always include stuff like consession sales and some of that revenue as baseball related. So the benefit of selling out can be an increase in take home consession revenue. When there's no financial incentive to be long term bad, teams won't settle for long term bad. It will still happen, look at every sport, regardless of structure. It just happens. Bad management, bad drafting, injuries and all that stuff happens. Teams will be long term bad, but as long as they're spending money, there's no incentive financially to be bad.

    And I'm okay with teams being bad eating contracts. If you're Pittsburgh and need to hit a floor, I'm okay if they want to trade for Jacoby ellsbury and a prospect. Gives the Yankees more cap to spend to compete and helps the Pirates rebuild. I'm fine with that stuff. I dont think you are, but that's fine to me and it helps accelerate your rebuild by getting a prospect.

    Like I've said from the start, revenue sharing helps but it doesn't solve the problem. Unequal revenue streams isn't neccesarily a problem. The problem is owners getting to decide how money is spent. The players should get a guaranteed portion of revenue. The easiest way to accomplish that is share revenue and set a cap floor that teams must hit. If they don't hit, they pay their guys until they get to the floor. I'm sure there are other solutions. They could group all players salaries from an accounting perspective and then pay proportionately based on revenue if they didnt reach the minimum. But those are relatively complex. Every other sport has gone to a cap/floor with shared revenue. I dont think that's a coincidence. It's the easiest and most equitable way to ensure your market size doesn't give you a massive advantage (although physical location like nightlife, weather and state income tax still matters) and ensures that each side gets their chunk of the pie.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    But as I've pointed out multiple times, equalizing revenue doesn't solve the problem. Because there's still bad teams. Theyve already added playoff teams and the amount of 100 loss teams continued to rise. With more playoff teams, all that happens is that it becomes even more of a seller's market at the deadline and the bad teams become even worse.

    And to me, especially for baseball, more playoff teams isn't a good thing. Baseball is very unique in its structure. In the NBA, barring injuries, the best few teams almost always win. In a sport like basketball, in 7 games, the better team almost always wins. Football has a few more upsets becuase of the one game thing. But even then, one of the best teams usually wins too. I dont think that's the case with baseball. So much wonky stuff happens that some bad batted ball luck one way or the other can have such a huge impact. The best teams dont really win that often. Adding mediocre teams to the playoffs isn't a good thing in my mind and cheapens the regular season. And when the bulk of your revenue comes from people watching 162 regular season games.

    Teams don't "suck for luck" in the mlb though. Outside of Bryce harper and Stephen Strasburg and maybe a few others, there's rarely 1 guy everyone wants. So all these draft punishments and thst crap solves problems that don't really exist. If teams are spending money (ie players are getting their fair share of revenue), then there's no reason to punish long term bad. Right now long term bad isn't punished because long term bad can slash payroll, and especially in smallet markets, can slash payroll and live off revenue sharing cash and still make a bunch of money while being long term bad. If they're spending the floor, there's no benefit to long term bad. And generally speaking, sports like football and stuff don't always include stuff like consession sales and some of that revenue as baseball related. So the benefit of selling out can be an increase in take home consession revenue. When there's no financial incentive to be long term bad, teams won't settle for long term bad. It will still happen, look at every sport, regardless of structure. It just happens. Bad management, bad drafting, injuries and all that stuff happens. Teams will be long term bad, but as long as they're spending money, there's no incentive financially to be bad.

    And I'm okay with teams being bad eating contracts. If you're Pittsburgh and need to hit a floor, I'm okay if they want to trade for Jacoby ellsbury and a prospect. Gives the Yankees more cap to spend to compete and helps the Pirates rebuild. I'm fine with that stuff. I dont think you are, but that's fine to me and it helps accelerate your rebuild by getting a prospect.

    Like I've said from the start, revenue sharing helps but it doesn't solve the problem. Unequal revenue streams isn't neccesarily a problem. The problem is owners getting to decide how money is spent. The players should get a guaranteed portion of revenue. The easiest way to accomplish that is share revenue and set a cap floor that teams must hit. If they don't hit, they pay their guys until they get to the floor. I'm sure there are other solutions. They could group all players salaries from an accounting perspective and then pay proportionately based on revenue if they didnt reach the minimum. But those are relatively complex. Every other sport has gone to a cap/floor with shared revenue. I dont think that's a coincidence. It's the easiest and most equitable way to ensure your market size doesn't give you a massive advantage (although physical location like nightlife, weather and state income tax still matters) and ensures that each side gets their chunk of the pie.
    I can only assume that we arenít trying to fix the same problems.

    I want the economics of running the New York Yankees to be the same as the economics of running the Oakland Aís. That requires that both teams have the same general revenue stream. Full stop. A cap/floor doesnít do this. In fact, a cap/floor likely makes NYY job even easier and the Oakland job even harder. Equal revenue streams is what allows the Jets to be terrible and the Chiefs be good, a cap/floor doesnít do this.

    There have clearly been issues with teams choosing economics over competition and while I believe equal revenue streams would make that better, you think it would make them worse. Whatever, neither of us can say with 100% certainty that we would be right in this hypothetical world where revenue streams are equal and I certainly would be fine with some guardrails to ensure teams reasonably balance competition and economics.

    So youíre an owner that only cares about making money off your team and donít care about being competitive. In a cap/floor youíre just gonna hang out at the floor and your philosophy is gonna be cheap lottery tickets through the draft and short term contracts and hope you luck into a good team while ensuring you donít spend any more on salaries than necessary like the Marlins did, twice. That sucks and fans deserve more than that.

    My solution is make being consistently bad less valuable. Take away those cheap lottery tickets, eventually take away the joint revenue. Take away any cover of ďthe processĒ that teams use to sell not trying to win. My solution discourages economic-centric owners. And if you are trying to win and just suck at running a team, the fans deserve more than you. Sell to someone more competent. Bad players donít get to just keep playing, why should bad owners?

    Cap/floors would solve some of these post equal revenue issues but it comes with so many downsides that I simply donít find worth it. I hate non-guaranteed contracts, depressed contracts to get under a cap, inflated contracts to make a floor, trading injured players, trading overpaid players. And no, I donít want a system where the Yankees can just dump Ellsbury to free up cap space and Pittsburgh can pay to stay non-competitive.

    I donít get the argument against expanding the playoffs. This would do so much to stop tanking. Baseballís problem is that if you arenít a great team then the regular season is moot and you have no chance of winning it all and FO and fans know this. So FO and fans go along with the idea that you might as well be bad for 5 years if that allows you to build up enough young talent to possibly come out great on the other side. Why not reward being good, even if itís only for one best of 7 round. Maybe you get a streak of luck and make it to the second round. With an equitable revenue stream, all 30 teams can reasonably hope to at least be good. And if all 30 teams are at least trying itíll be a lot harder for those teams on the top to win 100+ games. Make the playoffs more robust with more teams and only best of 7 rounds. This will encourage more teams to compete and will attract more fans to more teams. This (along with a more reasonable TV availability) is how you grow baseball.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by GottaBelieve View Post
    The fundamental problem plaguing MLB is the lack of competitive markets and parity.

    NFL had the same problem in the 1990s, adopted the salary cap and more or less the CBA rules we see now. The end result has been many more engaged markets and a much more successful overall product.

    I wish MLB would implement something of a hard cap and a hard floor. I also think it would benefit the game to allow younger players to hit FA earlier (like after 4 years instead of 7), but have less guaranteed contracts beyond signing bonuses.

    Anything less than those changes would likely have minimal effect on how teams conduct business.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Parity isnít any more of an issue in baseball than in any of the cap/floor sports. At least when it comes to winning. Itís a little hard to see because other sports have more teams make the playoffs. The same handful of NFL teams have been great and consistently play deep into the playoffs. The NFL is just more willing to reward more average teams with a playoff berth. Baseball has had its best player of the last decade barely make the playoffs, which is a waste.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Parity isnít any more of an issue in baseball than in any of the cap/floor sports. At least when it comes to winning. Itís a little hard to see because other sports have more teams make the playoffs. The same handful of NFL teams have been great and consistently play deep into the playoffs. The NFL is just more willing to reward more average teams with a playoff berth. Baseball has had its best player of the last decade barely make the playoffs, which is a waste.
    The parity argument is pointless to me. There's too much else that's different about the sports to attribute parity or the lack of parity. In baseball, the best player in the sport has such a minor impact compared to other sports. In the NBA, you really onyl play 7 or 8 guys in the playoffs and the best player plays 40 minutes and is a huge part of both ends of the floor. In football, the best players play 50%ish of the game and when youre talking about qbs, they literally touch it every time their team has the ball. The only thing remotely comparable is an ace starting pitcher, and he only throws once every 5 games or maybe 4 in the playoffs.

    4th quarter, down a score and you have the ball, you're qb is getting the ball. And he can force the ball to your best WR if he wants. And your best lineman can be left on an island. If it's the bottom of the 9th, your best hitter may not even come to the plate and if he does, he may just get intentionally walked. There's way too much different between sports to link parity to any sort of financial structure.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    The parity argument is pointless to me. There's too much else that's different about the sports to attribute parity or the lack of parity. In baseball, the best player in the sport has such a minor impact compared to other sports. In the NBA, you really onyl play 7 or 8 guys in the playoffs and the best player plays 40 minutes and is a huge part of both ends of the floor. In football, the best players play 50%ish of the game and when youre talking about qbs, they literally touch it every time their team has the ball. The only thing remotely comparable is an ace starting pitcher, and he only throws once every 5 games or maybe 4 in the playoffs.

    4th quarter, down a score and you have the ball, you're qb is getting the ball. And he can force the ball to your best WR if he wants. And your best lineman can be left on an island. If it's the bottom of the 9th, your best hitter may not even come to the plate and if he does, he may just get intentionally walked. There's way too much different between sports to link parity to any sort of financial structure.
    Parity is one of the most common argument you hear for a cap/floor after ďplayers make too much moneyĒ. I believe in parity of opportunity. If each team is competing on the same level then win/loss is on the individual teams and not the system.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    I can only assume that we arenít trying to fix the same problems.

    I want the economics of running the New York Yankees to be the same as the economics of running the Oakland Aís. That requires that both teams have the same general revenue stream. Full stop. A cap/floor doesnít do this. In fact, a cap/floor likely makes NYY job even easier and the Oakland job even harder. Equal revenue streams is what allows the Jets to be terrible and the Chiefs be good, a cap/floor doesnít do this.

    There have clearly been issues with teams choosing economics over competition and while I believe equal revenue streams would make that better, you think it would make them worse. Whatever, neither of us can say with 100% certainty that we would be right in this hypothetical world where revenue streams are equal and I certainly would be fine with some guardrails to ensure teams reasonably balance competition and economics.

    So youíre an owner that only cares about making money off your team and donít care about being competitive. In a cap/floor youíre just gonna hang out at the floor and your philosophy is gonna be cheap lottery tickets through the draft and short term contracts and hope you luck into a good team while ensuring you donít spend any more on salaries than necessary like the Marlins did, twice. That sucks and fans deserve more than that.

    My solution is make being consistently bad less valuable. Take away those cheap lottery tickets, eventually take away the joint revenue. Take away any cover of ďthe processĒ that teams use to sell not trying to win. My solution discourages economic-centric owners. And if you are trying to win and just suck at running a team, the fans deserve more than you. Sell to someone more competent. Bad players donít get to just keep playing, why should bad owners?

    Cap/floors would solve some of these post equal revenue issues but it comes with so many downsides that I simply donít find worth it. I hate non-guaranteed contracts, depressed contracts to get under a cap, inflated contracts to make a floor, trading injured players, trading overpaid players. And no, I donít want a system where the Yankees can just dump Ellsbury to free up cap space and Pittsburgh can pay to stay non-competitive.

    I donít get the argument against expanding the playoffs. This would do so much to stop tanking. Baseballís problem is that if you arenít a great team then the regular season is moot and you have no chance of winning it all and FO and fans know this. So FO and fans go along with the idea that you might as well be bad for 5 years if that allows you to build up enough young talent to possibly come out great on the other side. Why not reward being good, even if itís only for one best of 7 round. Maybe you get a streak of luck and make it to the second round. With an equitable revenue stream, all 30 teams can reasonably hope to at least be good. And if all 30 teams are at least trying itíll be a lot harder for those teams on the top to win 100+ games. Make the playoffs more robust with more teams and only best of 7 rounds. This will encourage more teams to compete and will attract more fans to more teams. This (along with a more reasonable TV availability) is how you grow baseball.
    And well just have to agree to disagree. But a few quick points. Owners that only care about making money would be in a different boat in a cap/floor. If revenue is azot equally shared outside of stuff like concessions and some team apparel and crap like that, it's actually better to be good than bad. You have to pay for a floor anyways, so why not be good and get the extra revenue when spending to the cap is pretty minimal. Again, look around the other leagues. No team has consistently stayed near the floor for a decade.

    You're right, neither one of us knows exactly what would happen in either situation. But we can extrapolate from what we do know. First off, in the NBA and NFL, there's little to no evidence of teams consistently spending to only the floor. At times, teams like OKC and Philly will do that while they rebuild, but both teams have also shown a recent willingness to go into the tax as Philly is now and OKC was with Durant and Westbrook then Westbrook and PG. Same with the NFL, some bad teams like Cleveland and San Fran have rolled big cap numbers, but those teams have spent to catch up. So using other sports as a bell weather, I don't think teams will consistently spend at the floor.

    And the other examples we can use are the current Financials of baseball. Baltimore is a great example. They were consistently spending 90-150 million. I dont think it's crazy to say that they can support a $120+ mill payroll easily. We're now looking at a team that will be 3 straight years of well below that mark and if rumors are true thst they are even shopping guys like Mullen, I'm guessing they will be low for at least 2, if not 3-5 more years. So we have evidence of teams who should be able to spend significantly slashing payroll when they stink. Houston also cut payroll to tank too.

    And the flipside is that we've seen teams treat the luxury tax as a cap. Even if they exceed it in the short term, even the biggest markets have tried to reset their tax line number. It's not crazy to think that in an equal revenue environment, teams will eventually fall into a cap number that virtually no one exceeds for more than a year or two because there's no profit to be made.

    CBAs last multiple years. So the idea that they should just try equal revenue and see if the problems in outlining arise is incredibly risky. Because if they do arise and you've created a cap without a floor, you're screwing the players and basically ensuring a strike (assuming you get the players to sign off on that anyways). And that's the risk. We know from other sports and a basic knowledge of contracts that a cap/floor system that defines what baseball revenue is and guarantees players a portion of that revenue works to get the players their money. To accomplish it, it will almost certainly require more revenue sharing. And it's the safest way to avoid any unforseen consequences that result in even worse financial conditions for the players.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    And well just have to agree to disagree. But a few quick points. Owners that only care about making money would be in a different boat in a cap/floor. If revenue is azot equally shared outside of stuff like concessions and some team apparel and crap like that, it's actually better to be good than bad. You have to pay for a floor anyways, so why not be good and get the extra revenue when spending to the cap is pretty minimal. Again, look around the other leagues. No team has consistently stayed near the floor for a decade.

    You're right, neither one of us knows exactly what would happen in either situation. But we can extrapolate from what we do know. First off, in the NBA and NFL, there's little to no evidence of teams consistently spending to only the floor. At times, teams like OKC and Philly will do that while they rebuild, but both teams have also shown a recent willingness to go into the tax as Philly is now and OKC was with Durant and Westbrook then Westbrook and PG. Same with the NFL, some bad teams like Cleveland and San Fran have rolled big cap numbers, but those teams have spent to catch up. So using other sports as a bell weather, I don't think teams will consistently spend at the floor.

    And the other examples we can use are the current Financials of baseball. Baltimore is a great example. They were consistently spending 90-150 million. I dont think it's crazy to say that they can support a $120+ mill payroll easily. We're now looking at a team that will be 3 straight years of well below that mark and if rumors are true thst they are even shopping guys like Mullen, I'm guessing they will be low for at least 2, if not 3-5 more years. So we have evidence of teams who should be able to spend significantly slashing payroll when they stink. Houston also cut payroll to tank too.

    And the flipside is that we've seen teams treat the luxury tax as a cap. Even if they exceed it in the short term, even the biggest markets have tried to reset their tax line number. It's not crazy to think that in an equal revenue environment, teams will eventually fall into a cap number that virtually no one exceeds for more than a year or two because there's no profit to be made.

    CBAs last multiple years. So the idea that they should just try equal revenue and see if the problems in outlining arise is incredibly risky. Because if they do arise and you've created a cap without a floor, you're screwing the players and basically ensuring a strike (assuming you get the players to sign off on that anyways). And that's the risk. We know from other sports and a basic knowledge of contracts that a cap/floor system that defines what baseball revenue is and guarantees players a portion of that revenue works to get the players their money. To accomplish it, it will almost certainly require more revenue sharing. And it's the safest way to avoid any unforseen consequences that result in even worse financial conditions for the players.
    So I take it you donít want parity at the FO level. As long as teams have to construct their rosters with very different resources available to them, some teams will always have an inherent advantage that spending restrictions will exacerbate not fix.

    As to the rest of your post, weíve gone over this ground plenty and itís hard to debate specific effects of a cap/floor without specifics about how itís implemented but the one thing Iím certain of is that owners will act in their own self interest. If they wanted to act in the best interest of the fans, MLB would stop making their league always competitive for some and occasionally competitive for others. Poor teams are gonna play this card and ride the floor because thatís how they ensure they can make money. Players know this and thatís why they adamantly reject cap/floor proposals and are actively advocating for better revenue sharing. Iím guessing they care about maximizing their piece of the pie and have plenty of people smarter than us that vehemently disagree with your assessment. The league should stop catering to a few markets and share the pie so they can all focus on growing the sport with a less restrictive TV policy and more robust playoffs.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    Can you point me to articles that indicate players want complete revenue sharing? All the articles Ive read highlighting the players proposal for about a month now have basically said the players full proposal hasn't been leaked and there's only peices known. From what folks have surmised, amongst those discussions, there is a revenue sharing aspect, but it's never stated what that revenue sharing aspect is. And quite frankly, I dont think we can say with any confidence that it's more revenue sharing or especially complete revenue sharing. One point that has leaked is that the players want a higher tax line, mainly because teams have used that as a cap.

    If they're proposing raising the tax line, I think it's highly unlikely they would also be proposing significant revenue sharing. Raising the tax line so the rich can spend more and then handcuffing the rich to share more of their money doesnt seem to me like a smart proposal.

    I have a feeling Scott Boras is going to be highly influential in these negotiations. He represents a bunch of influential players and he has a reputation of getting his dudes the max value. He's said multiple times that he doesn't like revenue sharing. And it makes sense. Letting the big markets spend all day is great for the players. And if Miami, Tampa, Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee ect all have to fold because they cant make enough money to stay competitive and move to larger markets, then it just likely means more money for the players. I dont want that by any means, I'm a Brewers fan and WI native. But from a purely financial standpoint, thar actually would be in the player's best interest if they can find the right markets.

    Unless you can point me to some articles I'm missing, I don't think your last point that no player wants the cap floor but a bunch want complete revenue sharing is true. And the owners proposal is garbage for a cap floor. It's not a fair cap/floor and the players should not agree to it. There's is garbage becuase it does seemingly use arbitrary floor and tax line calculations. That's not at all what I'm proposing. They should negotiate a share of a predefined revenue stream for each side and the cap/floor is set to reflect that stream.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Can you point me to articles that indicate players want complete revenue sharing? All the articles Ive read highlighting the players proposal for about a month now have basically said the players full proposal hasn't been leaked and there's only peices known. From what folks have surmised, amongst those discussions, there is a revenue sharing aspect, but it's never stated what that revenue sharing aspect is. And quite frankly, I dont think we can say with any confidence that it's more revenue sharing or especially complete revenue sharing. One point that has leaked is that the players want a higher tax line, mainly because teams have used that as a cap.

    If they're proposing raising the tax line, I think it's highly unlikely they would also be proposing significant revenue sharing. Raising the tax line so the rich can spend more and then handcuffing the rich to share more of their money doesnt seem to me like a smart proposal.

    I have a feeling Scott Boras is going to be highly influential in these negotiations. He represents a bunch of influential players and he has a reputation of getting his dudes the max value. He's said multiple times that he doesn't like revenue sharing. And it makes sense. Letting the big markets spend all day is great for the players. And if Miami, Tampa, Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee ect all have to fold because they cant make enough money to stay competitive and move to larger markets, then it just likely means more money for the players. I dont want that by any means, I'm a Brewers fan and WI native. But from a purely financial standpoint, thar actually would be in the player's best interest if they can find the right markets.

    Unless you can point me to some articles I'm missing, I don't think your last point that no player wants the cap floor but a bunch want complete revenue sharing is true. And the owners proposal is garbage for a cap floor. It's not a fair cap/floor and the players should not agree to it. There's is garbage becuase it does seemingly use arbitrary floor and tax line calculations. That's not at all what I'm proposing. They should negotiate a share of a predefined revenue stream for each side and the cap/floor is set to reflect that stream.
    So thatís a no on FO parity for you?

    I donít know the specific level of revenue sharing that the union is interested in, but I have read multiple reports that increased revenue sharing is part of what they are proposing. I also donít know that no player wants a cap/floor, in fact Iíd be shocked if there wasnít at least one player that thought it was a good idea. I apologize if I overstated my point, Iím simply saying increased revenue sharing is something the Union is advocating for and a cap/floor is something they have adamantly fought against in every negotiation.

    Of course theyíre advocating raising the tax line, it caps their pay. I bet they would advocate abolishing the tax entirely but they know thatís probably a non-started for the owners. But the idea that they would rather have a few rich teams and a bunch of poor teams rather than 30 teams all with equal ability to compete for their services is ludicrous. The rich teams can only sign so many SSís and pitchers, they need every team lining up at the FA trough to maximize their pay. And the fact that Oakland and Milwaukee canít just move to more profitable markets is the entire point of why real revenue sharing is not only necessary but ultimately fair. The Yankees will never let Oakland move their team to Brooklyn and the Aís have NO recourse. The Giants have kept the Aís out of San Jose for years because they donít want to share their lucrative market. So this isnít capitalism where teams can follow demand. Small market teams are at an inherent disadvantage and because teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are keeping this disadvantage in place, the league should fix this problem by equalizing revenues. That would make success and failure about the team and not the city.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    33,860
    https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/sta...ak167-NSw&s=19

    This makes no sense to me...

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,103
    ď But the areas where MLB has taken hardline stances thus far ó in discussions of getting to free agency and arbitration earlier, in revenue sharing and in service time ó might become the most important. How much the players are willing to continue to push for changes in those areas, and how firmly the owners will continue to resist those changes, have the potential to become the key to the expected lockout.Ē

    From that Athletic article

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,498
    Who knows what info is true but according to Manfred's released statement, the players proposal included less revenue sharing. The mlb estimates that the revenue sharing plan outlined by the players would decrease revenue sharing by about $100 mill.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 12-02-2021 at 11:12 AM.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •