PDA

View Full Version : Report: MLB could tax low-spending clubs



savafan
11-19-2011, 10:24 AM
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/18/report-mlb-could-tax-low-spending-clubs/


This tweet comes from Jayson Stark, who has done a great job of covering the soon-to-be-announced CBA for ESPN.com:

There have been lots of rumblings there will also be a tax on teams that spend too little on big-league payroll. Looking forward to details

There are none of those available yet, so what kind of floor is being talked about is unclear. In 2011, one team opened with a sub-$40 million payroll (Kansas City), while four more came in at under $50 million (Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, San Diego and Cleveland).

reds1869
11-19-2011, 10:41 AM
I like the spirit of the proposal, but punishing a team like the Rays that wins while spending very little seems harsh.

corkedbat
11-19-2011, 01:12 PM
I like the spirit of the proposal, but punishing a team like the Rays that wins while spending very little seems harsh.

I understand the principle of a salary floor, but there should be some sort of contengencies for a rebuilding club that trades vets for young'uns. Maybe two or three years to get back to a certain level.

KronoRed
11-19-2011, 06:50 PM
I understand the principle of a salary floor, but there should be some sort of contengencies for a rebuilding club that trades vets for young'uns. Maybe two or three years to get back to a certain level.

Exactly, forcing teams to hand out bad deals to reach some threshold is ridiculous.

REDREAD
11-19-2011, 10:35 PM
Exactly, forcing teams to hand out bad deals to reach some threshold is ridiculous.

They don't have to hand out bad deals.. They just have to pay the fine.

There's plenty of ways to get around this for a rebuilding club.
Give your draft picks ML contracts with salaries instead of signing bonuses.
They could also front load the contracts of young players they are locking up longterm (or at least make them equal payments instead of a big payoff the final year, when they are often dumped).

This change is LONG overdue.. If small market teams want revenue sharing they need to have a salary floor.

Somehow I think the smart clubs like Cleveland and Tampa will do just fine under this new rule. They won't suddenly start handing out dumb deals.

corkedbat
11-21-2011, 02:58 AM
They don't have to hand out bad deals.. They just have to pay the fine.

There's plenty of ways to get around this for a rebuilding club.
Give your draft picks ML contracts with salaries instead of signing bonuses.
They could also front load the contracts of young players they are locking up longterm (or at least make them equal payments instead of a big payoff the final year, when they are often dumped).

This change is LONG overdue.. If small market teams want revenue sharing they need to have a salary floor.

Somehow I think the smart clubs like Cleveland and Tampa will do just fine under this new rule. They won't suddenly start handing out dumb deals.

Not sure how giving salaries to picks would fly under the new system that is rumored to have some sort of slotting system. Also, wouldn't that require a major league contract, a 40-man slot and start the option clock early?

REDREAD
11-21-2011, 10:16 AM
Not sure how giving salaries to picks would fly under the new system that is rumored to have some sort of slotting system. Also, wouldn't that require a major league contract, a 40-man slot and start the option clock early?

Not saying it is the smartest thing to do.
But look at Chapman.. His salary counted as ML. I am not 100% sure if Alonso's deal counted as ML salary or not.

The bigger point is that the small market clubs are not going to be "forced to hand out bad contracts". If they are 3 million below the threshhold, for example and can't think of an intelligent way to spend that money, why not just pay the 3 million fine? That's a better option than handing out an ill advised long term deal.. Somehow though I think the smart clubs will figure out a way to spend the money efficiently.

savafan
11-21-2011, 08:27 PM
http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2011/11/mlb_labor_deal_includes_hgh_te.html


Players and owners did not agree to a tax on low-payroll teams, although they did have some discussion during negotiations.

REDREAD
11-21-2011, 10:26 PM
Well , that sucks that didn't get done.

I guess Carl is smiling in his grave though.

AtomicDumpling
11-21-2011, 11:43 PM
I think the large payroll teams are growing tired of some of the small market teams pocketing all of the money they receive from revenue sharing. Most of the small market teams are highly profitable each year. The high payroll teams generate much larger increases in franchise valuation, which the owners leverage to finance their other business and real estate interests. This is why neither the large market owners nor the small market owners are in favor of a salary cap.

The reason revenue sharing was implemented in the first place was to improve payroll parity. But payroll parity has only gotten worse since revenue sharing was implemented. It is in reality more about profit-sharing rather than equitably distributing talented players throughout the league.

dougdirt
11-22-2011, 12:55 AM
I think the large payroll teams are growing tired of some of the small market teams pocketing all of the money they receive from revenue sharing. Most of the small market teams are highly profitable each year. The high payroll teams generate much larger increases in franchise valuation, which the owners leverage to finance their other business and real estate interests. This is why neither the large market owners nor the small market owners are in favor of a salary cap.

The reason revenue sharing was implemented in the first place was to improve payroll parity. But payroll parity has only gotten worse since revenue sharing was implemented. It is in reality more about profit-sharing rather than equitably distributing talented players throughout the league.

Yeah.... the idea for revenue sharing was good in thought, but the application of the idea isn't going as planned.

RedFanAlways1966
11-22-2011, 07:13 AM
Well , that sucks that didn't get done.

I guess Carl is smiling in his grave though.

Perhaps you can tell us where the REDS stood amongst all MLB teams during Carl Lindner's ownership in spending?

Perhaps you can explain to us why Carl Lindner should spend his own money to make someone like you happy?

Perhaps you can explain to us why everything is Carl Lindener's fault and has nothing to do with the broken system for salary fairness that is called MLB?

Perhaps you need to let it go now that the man has passed?

bucksfan2
11-22-2011, 09:21 AM
I think the large payroll teams are growing tired of some of the small market teams pocketing all of the money they receive from revenue sharing. Most of the small market teams are highly profitable each year. The high payroll teams generate much larger increases in franchise valuation, which the owners leverage to finance their other business and real estate interests. This is why neither the large market owners nor the small market owners are in favor of a salary cap.

The reason revenue sharing was implemented in the first place was to improve payroll parity. But payroll parity has only gotten worse since revenue sharing was implemented. It is in reality more about profit-sharing rather than equitably distributing talented players throughout the league.

Its a shame the Yankees, Red Sox, Angles, Phillies, and Cubs need other teams to play. Just think they could make a super league and not have any revenue sharing.

Payroll parity makes sense in that both the Yankees and Pirates have equal shots at free agents. Revenue sharing makes sense in that Yankees have an advantage just have to pay over 100% for their free agents. All the revenue sharing in the world isn't going to allow the Pirates to pay CJ Wilson $18M/year for 4 years.

I like the idea of a salary floor if implemented correctly. But I trust Selig about 0% to do the correct thing.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 09:28 AM
I don't like looking at it as a tax on the low spending clubs. It should be described as their revenue sharing checks will be adjusted downward. The idea is that revenue sharing should at least in part be tied to player payroll

reds1869
11-22-2011, 09:34 AM
I don't like looking at it as a tax on the low spending clubs. It should be described as their revenue sharing checks will be adjusted downward. The idea is that revenue sharing should at least in part be tied to player payroll

That is a very good point.

TRF
11-22-2011, 09:38 AM
Perhaps you can tell us where the REDS stood amongst all MLB teams during Carl Lindner's ownership in spending?

Perhaps you can explain to us why Carl Lindner should spend his own money to make someone like you happy?

Perhaps you can explain to us why everything is Carl Lindener's fault and has nothing to do with the broken system for salary fairness that is called MLB?

Perhaps you need to let it go now that the man has passed?

rep times 1 million.

REDREAD
11-22-2011, 09:42 AM
Perhaps you can tell us where the REDS stood amongst all MLB teams during Carl Lindner's ownership in spending?

Perhaps you can explain to us why Carl Lindner should spend his own money to make someone like you happy?

Perhaps you can explain to us why everything is Carl Lindener's fault and has nothing to do with the broken system for salary fairness that is called MLB?

Perhaps you need to let it go now that the man has passed?

Perhaps the Reds could've spent the revenue sharing money they recieved from 2000-2002 on the CLUB instead of their contribution to stadium expenses? George Steinbrenner said as much.
Then when the park opened and most of the tickets were sold in the preseason, Allen/Lindner couldn't wait to dump everyone making over the minimum salary. (Bowden said he was ordered to dump Sullivan and White before the season started, but refused).

No one ever said that Carl should dump non-Reds money into the franchise.
We were just asking him to not syphon out all the Reds revenue for his own purposes. He used the Reds' revenue for lobbying congress (among other things), so he could legitimately deduct that as an "expense".. So yes, legally the team might have been close to breaking even, but not morally.

Carl and Allen told Jr that if he took a below market deal and deferred a lot of salary, they'd build a team around him. Obviously, that was a lie. The plan all along was to have Jr and a team of scrubs.

Carl Lindner was one of the biggest con men that walked the earth.
It's incredible that people like you are still defending him.
Carl and Allen destroyed a generation of fans. We're still experiencing the fallout from the lost decade. People wonder why we only got an approximate 10% bump in attendence this year.. well, Carl and Allen made the Reds so irrelevant in the area for so long.. people have forgotten about the Reds.

MattyHo4Life
11-22-2011, 10:30 AM
Carl and Allen destroyed a generation of fans. We're still experiencing the fallout from the lost decade. People wonder why we only got an approximate 10% bump in attendence this year.. well, Carl and Allen made the Reds so irrelevant in the area for so long.. people have forgotten about the Reds.

rep times 1 trillion :beerme: