Tanking Might Not Be So Bad After all.

[MoneyInTheBank]

The argument is the following: If you want me to compete for $100 million players, keep it at $100 million. If you impose a floor, it doesn’t help me (or competitive balance) if that same player is now $150 million due to an unlimited top end.

A floor does no good if the big guys can respond by inflating the salary scale even more.

I don't think that's where you would see the impact. The cheapskates are still going to cheapskate. They aren't suddenly going to dive in the bidding for expensive LTCs. I think where you would see the impact is those 1 or 2 year guys. Gallo getting $15-17M on 1 year rather than $11M. Myers getting $10-12M rather than $7.5M. Just my opinion though. You could be absolutely right.

[Kc61]

I don't think that's where you would see the impact. The cheapskates are still going to cheapskate. They aren't suddenly going to dive in the bidding for expensive LTCs. I think where you would see the impact is those 1 or 2 year guys. Gallo getting $15-17M on 1 year rather than $11M. Myers getting $10-12M rather than $7.5M. Just my opinion though. You could be absolutely right.

The $100 million player was an example. It could be 1-2 year players affected. But the overall argument, by the small markets, is the same.

You can increase competition with a salary floor, but only if there is a cap. Otherwise, it doesn’t close the gap between big and small markets.

The small market owner says - it does no good to require me to spend X% more since the big guys will just spend X+10% more. My overall payroll won’t buy more if the big guys just inflate payrolls even more. You have to control on both ends.

[MoneyInTheBank]

The $100 million player was an example. It could be 1-2 year players affected. But the overall argument, by the small markets, is the same.

You can increase competition with a salary floor, but only if there is a cap. Otherwise, it doesn’t close the gap between big and small markets.

The small market owner says - it does no good to require me to spend X% more since the big guys will just spend X+10% more. My overall payroll won’t buy more if the big guys just inflate payrolls even more. You have to control on both ends.

The luxury tax has been a pretty effective deterrent. Even the massive spenders dip under it every few years.

However, if the big spenders were interested in the 1-2 year guys, they'd get them right now. The only change would be the cheapskate crowd bidding against each other for those 1-2 year contracts while the big boys are giving out 13 year deals to stars. They aren't going to suddenly dive into that pool just because there is a salary floor.

[Kc61]

The luxury tax has been a pretty effective deterrent. Even the massive spenders dip under it every few years.

However, if the big spenders were interested in the 1-2 year guys, they'd get them right now. The only change would be the cheapskate crowd bidding against each other for those 1-2 year contracts while the big boys are giving out 13 year deals to stars. They aren't going to suddenly dive into that pool just because there is a salary floor.

If you’re right, the small markets would embrace your point. If the impact of a payroll floor is bidding on 1-2 year contracts, it doesn’t impact competitive balance at all. It does nothing except throw a few bucks at stop gap type players.

As for the luxury tax, for 2023, a team can spend $232 million on payroll with no tax impact. Last year, six teams (20%) exceeded the tax threshold. I don’t deny some deterrent value, but its not much solace for the small market owner.

NBA has a modern system that’s instructive on all this - a flexible salary cap based on league-wide revenues, with required minimum payrolls, higher minimum salaries, and max (and super max) salary levels and criteria. Their system seems to resolve many of these issues.

[Bourgeois Zee]

NBA has a modern system that’s instructive on all this - a flexible salary cap based on league-wide revenues, with required minimum payrolls, higher minimum salaries, and max (and super max) salary levels and criteria. Their system seems to resolve many of these issues.

The NBA, also, has a soft cap, in that teams can spend nearly whatever they want on their own players... as long as they're willing to spend the cash and pay the tax.

That's the league with the most parity, fwiw, and the one with the best would-be small market teams. They've figured it out-- why not emulate them?

[MoneyInTheBank]

If you’re right, the small markets would embrace your point. If the impact of a payroll floor is bidding on 1-2 year contracts, it doesn’t impact competitive balance at all. It does nothing except throw a few bucks at stop gap type players.

As for the luxury tax, for 2023, a team can spend $232 million on payroll with no tax impact. Last year, six teams (20%) exceeded the tax threshold. I don’t deny some deterrent value, but its not much solace for the small market owner.

NBA has a modern system that’s instructive on all this - a flexible salary cap based on league-wide revenues, with required minimum payrolls, higher minimum salaries, and max (and super max) salary levels and criteria. Their system seems to resolve many of these issues.

Why would a greedy owner embrace a system where they have to spend twice as much and receive the same amount in revenue sharing?

I think the NBA has a lot of things right but max contracts are not one of them. Max contracts are a bad idea that consolidates stars in the most desirable cities. If their salary is capped, they will go where they can play at home, with other stars, in big cities or in states with no income tax. Having the stars go to the highest bidder will, at least, jam up the payrolls to give other teams a fighting chance.

[InsaneinthBrame]

The NBA, also, has a soft cap, in that teams can spend nearly whatever they want on their own players... as long as they're willing to spend the cash and pay the tax.

That's the league with the most parity, fwiw, and the one with the best would-be small market teams. They've figured it out-- why not emulate them?

What NBA are you watching there is no parity in the NBA you know who is going to win every year for the most part.
Also most of the NBA is small market teams. The FA in NBA still go to large markets/desirable places to live. Golden State/LA teams/Boston/Brooklyn/Dallas/Philadelphia. The one thing that helps small markets like Milwaukee and Memphis is that one player can make a huge difference like Morant and Greek freak.

For the most part the small markets are dumping grounds for bad contracts. I think that is what would happen in MLB Yankees and Dodgers will dump contracts on the Reds/Pirates of the worlds it would keep them under caps while Reds Pirates would meet floor criteria and sell fans on "Name" players. Think of Puig deal. Mets just did something like that with McCann to Orioles.
The part in the NBA that is cool is they are allowed to spend more on keeping players and capping players salary which unfortunately the MLBPA would never accept that.

[Bourgeois Zee]

What NBA are you watching there is no parity in the NBA you know who is going to win every year for the most part.

The 5 smallest markets in the NBA are:

- San Antonio (14th in the West)
- Milwaukee (2nd in the East)
- OKC (tied for 8th in the West)
- NOLA (tied for 3rd in the West)
- Memphis (2nd seed in the West)

That's four playoff teams, fwiw, and a fifth team that's rebuilding after winning five championships over a 15-year period.

[Chip R]

What NBA are you watching there is no parity in the NBA you know who is going to win every year for the most part.
Also most of the NBA is small market teams. The FA in NBA still go to large markets/desirable places to live. Golden State/LA teams/Boston/Brooklyn/Dallas/Philadelphia. The one thing that helps small markets like Milwaukee and Memphis is that one player can make a huge difference like Morant and Greek freak.

There's parity in the NBA in the sense that over half the teams make the playoffs. It's like saying college football has parity since so many teams go to a bowl game.

[Kc61]

The NBA, also, has a soft cap, in that teams can spend nearly whatever they want on their own players... as long as they're willing to spend the cash and pay the tax.

That's the league with the most parity, fwiw, and the one with the best would-be small market teams. They've figured it out-- why not emulate them?

NBA contracts are limited (I think by the CBA) mostly to five years. The largest contract in the league is Jokic of Denver at $272 million over five years. The top annual salaries are enormous, but the lengths are shorter than MLB.

There’s also an age 38 rule that disallows four year contracts (or longer) covering the age 38 season generally speaking. I don’t know all the nuances or details.

Of course, MLB could have a similar CBA changing some of these specifics. I agree that an NBA-style contract would be something MLB and the players should explore, though MLB players are firmly against any cap.