MLB Owners Proposing $100M Salary Floor

[RED VAN HOT]

As a Reds fan I tend to think in terms of the impact on small market teams. Limiting pre-arb to two years would make it less desirable to compete by developing talent. Further, it would limit the ability of small market teams to leverage low cost pre-arb years in executing extensions. I'd prefer raising the minimum salary instead.

To keep teams from playing around with service time, just let any part of a season before September 1 count as a full year.

Both of the above changes would hurt small market teams more than large ones. Thus, I would favor lowering the luxury tax threshold to even it out. The MLBPA may balk at this because it is usually the large market teams that offer the big, long term contracts.

The problem with the negotiations is that all teams are not equal. What is acceptable to a big market team may not be acceptable to a less well capitalized team. The Reds case is further complicated by multiple owners.

I think it is going to be a tough negotiation.

[Boston Red]

The NFL thing is just because QBs make the difference in football, and you either have one or you don't, and if you have one you keep him.

[REDREAD]

And as for tanking - rather than a pure salary floor - penalize any team with 95 losses and a sub-$100MM payroll by taking away their draft picks. Harsher punishments for repeat-offenders. Make it impossible to suck your way to a World Series. Incentivize rebuilding clubs spend some money.

If you want to punish the owners that tank, take away their revenue sharing, not their draft picks.. Owners will gladly lose draft picks, if it means their payroll can be 60 million lower.

[M2]

The NFL thing is just because QBs make the difference in football, and you either have one or you don't, and if you have one you keep him.

And the NBA title generally relies on having a 1st team All-NBA player. Yet the math is the math. Salary caps don't create a greater diversity in champions or in making the playoffs (though I don't feel like doing that math for the 20th time). Year over year, MLB is more competitive.

[Boston Red]

The math may be the math, but I just don't think they're great comparisons. Baseball is set up better for a salary cap to make more of a difference.

[M2]

The math may be the math, but I just don't think they're great comparisons. Baseball is set up better for a salary cap to make more of a difference.

What's that based on other than you wanting it to be true? Frankly, I don't think people are properly terrified of what it would mean if the Dodgers and Yankees had hundreds of millions extra that they could only spend on scouting and player development.

[RiverRat13]

How about one fewer year of team control in exchange for max contracts?

[WrongVerb]

I think MLBPA should prioritize reform to the service time/arbitration system. That’s the root cause of the lack of spending on middling free agents. The league (especially smallish markets) have figured out that it’s way cheaper to roll your own guy out there than it is to sign a FA - even if the FA provides more value. Colin Moran may be a 2 WAR player, but he costs you $6MM and no long term commitment. Signing a 3 WAR FA 3B will cost $15MM/year and significantly more long term risk.

-Raise entry-level league minimum to $1MM
-Limit pre-FA team control to five years
-Limit pre-Arb team control to two years
-Remove progressive scale in arbitration. Players should receive 80% of arbiter-determined fair market value beginning after two full years of service time - and that is maintained through the end of team control.
-Create a real punishment for teams that try to manipulate service time.
-Raise the QO to de-incentivize teams from using it - this removes another obstacle to a FA getting fair market value

No one cares about this issue. Most of the voting members of MLBPA are at a place in their career where service time concerns are no longer relevant. The plan outlined above will de-incentivize the “ballin-on-a-budget” strategy employed by teams like Tampa and Oakland.

Replace arbitration with restricted free agency, where players with 3+ years service time can solicit 1-year contracts from other teams, with the original team able to match the offer. Only original teams can offer multi-year deals, however.

[redsfan9988]

Replace arbitration with restricted free agency, where players with 3+ years service time can solicit 1-year contracts from other teams, with the original team able to match the offer. Only original teams can offer multi-year deals, however.

I’m not gonna lie, part of me likes this a lot. It would be awfully burdensome to smaller-market teams tho.

[Boston Red]

What's that based on other than you wanting it to be true?

Why do you think I want it to be true? A single superstar is just clearly more important in football and basketball, and a salary cap can't change that.

I honestly have no idea, but does hockey have a salary cap? If so, does it have more competitive balance? I don't know hockey well enough to know if this is right, but it feels to me like that is a sport that is a better comparison to baseball where a deeper roster is a necessity. Maybe a great goalie makes that comparison a bad one?

[DocRed]

Baseball really needs a "hard" or "soft" cap just like all other major sports in America has. Make it higher than the luxury tax threshold but it needs a cap. I like the NBA model for a cap that allows a team to go above to hold onto a player.

[Kinsm]

I think MLBPA should prioritize reform to the service time/arbitration system. That’s the root cause of the lack of spending on middling free agents. The league (especially smallish markets) have figured out that it’s way cheaper to roll your own guy out there than it is to sign a FA - even if the FA provides more value. Colin Moran may be a 2 WAR player, but he costs you $6MM and no long term commitment. Signing a 3 WAR FA 3B will cost $15MM/year and significantly more long term risk.

-Raise entry-level league minimum to $1MM
-Limit pre-FA team control to five years
-Limit pre-Arb team control to two years
-Remove progressive scale in arbitration. Players should receive 80% of arbiter-determined fair market value beginning after two full years of service time - and that is maintained through the end of team control.
-Create a real punishment for teams that try to manipulate service time.
-Raise the QO to de-incentivize teams from using it - this removes another obstacle to a FA getting fair market value

No one cares about this issue. Most of the voting members of MLBPA are at a place in their career where service time concerns are no longer relevant. The plan outlined above will de-incentivize the “ballin-on-a-budget” strategy employed by teams like Tampa and Oakland.

All of these are wins for the players, what do you give the owners to approve of them?

[redsfan9988]

All of these are wins for the players, what do you give the owners to approve of them?

Expanded playoffs for one. I mean… I’m open to a salary cap. Or reform of the luxury tax system that provides some relief for owners.

For the record, I do not support a hard cap. I know it comes off as pro-labor. That’s not by design.

I really don’t know what the owners want.

[Kinsm]

The owners want more tv revenues that come from more playoffs (milk that cow as long and as hard as possible) and a hard cap. Any kind of cap, wherever they can get it, they want it.

Now, if those caps result in small market teams winning more often, then you might see friction - owners of LAD, BOS, NYY, etc. no longer wanting the cap. Similar to when a draft was first enacted.

Additionally, non cba, owners want a few more publicly financed stadiums for the A’s, the Rays, and at least two expansion teams (that will result in huge entrance fees paid out to the current 30 owners).

[redsfan9988]

The owners want more tv revenues that come from more playoffs (milk that cow as long and as hard as possible) and a hard cap. Any kind of cap, wherever they can get it, they want it.

Now, if those caps result in small market teams winning more often, then you might see friction - owners of LAD, BOS, NYY, etc. no longer wanting the cap. Similar to when a draft was first enacted.

Additionally, non cba, owners want a few more publicly financed stadiums for the A’s, the Rays, and at least two expansion teams (that will result in huge entrance fees paid out to the current 30 owners).

Specifically on the last point - what power does MLB have to get stadiums built in Oakland and Tampa? I’m pretty ignorant of the on-the-ground situation, by my guess is that public money will be hard to come by in these cities. Would the owners advocate for spending money from MLB coffers to build new stadiums? Do they have that ability?

And as for expansion, I’m all for it, but you have to find homes for OAK and TB (and maybe MIA - although less pressing with new stadium) first. You have Montreal, San Antonio/Austin, Vegas, Charlotte. Baseball already failed in Montreal. The Rangers and Astros will drag their feet on Central Texas (and that may require realignment - especially if the A’s relocate there), and it’s anybody’s guess whether Vegas and/or NC can support a team.

Isn’t the luxury tax effectively a soft cap? Can’t you just penalize LA and NY teams more for overspending? You have them outvoted, no? Any hard cap would have to be in the $200MM range.