January 23, 2019 at 4:27 pm #80557
I could see the cap being in the range that CC predicted but I don’t think the floor would be that high. Some of the tankers would have to double or triple their payroll. I don’t see that happening.January 23, 2019 at 5:22 pm #80560jj-cf-stlParticipantFree
I agree, a 160 to 180mil floor is our player budget, and i believe we were 10th?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the current floor 25 times the minimum?
160mil is at least 10 times that.January 23, 2019 at 5:31 pm #80561BlackHillsCardParticipantFree
I don’t see a spending floor that high. A spending floor of $100-$120 million would be more likely. I’m tired of seeing teams like Miami, Tampa Bay and a few others of having $30-40 million dollar payrolls. That’s ridiculous when you have a 25-man roster.January 23, 2019 at 6:57 pm #80570BlackHillsCardParticipantFreeJanuary 23, 2019 at 7:31 pm #80572
Bulcholz is a guy who I’ve heard almost nothing about this Winter. Sucked in 2017 but was a 3 WAR pitcher in just 98 innings with a 215 Era+ in 2018. I’d love to have him if he would agree to work out of the pen if that is where he is needed.
January 23, 2019 at 7:35 pm #80574
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by CariocaCardinal.
I agree that my floor estimate was too high. It could end up based as a % of revenues while the top end would most likely be a stated number.January 24, 2019 at 3:45 pm #80614January 24, 2019 at 3:54 pm #80616jj-cf-stlParticipantFree
A % of revenues would help allow for the difference in attendances.January 24, 2019 at 5:35 pm #80621
The problem I have with changing the DL and option time rules is the timing. If I am a gm I am considering those things when I structure my team depth. It affects who I might sign. Rule 5 picks and exposure, who I offer arbitration to. I would want to know at the end of the previous season.January 25, 2019 at 11:13 am #80647January 25, 2019 at 12:42 pm #80658
Wow that is a coup for the MLBPA!January 27, 2019 at 1:06 pm #80756January 28, 2019 at 8:36 am #80807
Rather than just complaining about cheap owners, I suggest reading this Tom Verducci article on the “gig economy” in baseball. The shift to younger, more versatile players means older players are having a harder time in free agency. A lot of data is presented to emphasize the point.
To me, this would suggest a strategy for the players union of either earlier free agency or an acceleration of the arbitration process or both. Allow the more valuable players to earn more money sooner.
The more I think about this, the more I like it – even more than a spending floor, which could force teams to sign suboptimal veteran players. Instead, let teams sign who they want, but ensure the desired players get more money. And perhaps giving younger players more money would make some of the older players look like a better deal as free agents.
Baseball is increasingly becoming a gig economy: Talent is young, inexpensive and versatile. That means veteran players must adapt or die (by Tom Verducci) https://t.co/nWNzX41znh
— SI MLB (@si_mlb) January 28, 2019January 28, 2019 at 8:49 am #80808
To me, this would suggest a strategy for the players union of either earlier free agency or an acceleration of the arbitration process or both.
Yes this is exactly what the players need to be moving towards and I’m sure it will be heavily debated in the next CBA. But the owners can’t have it both ways. On the one hand they are now saying “we can’t pay you big money after age 30 because the analytics say that you are no longer worth it” but then say ” well we also can’t pay you big money from ages 20-26 because you haven’t proven yourself yet and we want to maintain team control.”
So basically that means the only chance a player has for a big contract is ages 27-29. That doesn’t seem fair to me considering the amount of revenue flowing through the game. Sure the big names like Harper, Machado, Trout, Betts, etc… are going to get paid but they only represent a small percentage of players.January 28, 2019 at 9:03 am #80810
The owners will keep the upper hand as long as the union lets them. The union needs to set a strategy, communicate it externally to get fan buy-in and use the two or three years before the next agreement to pound the owners into negotiating on their terms.
Instead, this random general grumbling with a lack of focus or plan going on now is ineffective and frankly, kind of irritating to me. Stop whining and get to work on how to fix the fundamental problems.
Shaming is not an effective strategy. Fans who think they are going to get action by calling owners cheap and threatening to boycott the team are wasting their time and efforts, IMO. That isn’t how change occurs.January 28, 2019 at 9:07 am #80811
Maybe the hiring of Jerry Crasnick is a good first step in the communication process to the public.January 28, 2019 at 9:08 am #80812
Early arb or free agency only rearanges the deck chairs of who gets paid how much. It does nothing to incentivize owners to increase overall payroll dollars and will possibly have negative affects on player development.January 28, 2019 at 11:34 am #80833
It is relative CC. Player salaries as a % of revenue may never again be what it was a few years ago but at this point the players are just trying to stop the bleeding. Having earlier arb and free agency at least compels the owners to spend more on the front end of a player’s career than they do now since spending towards the end of a player’s career seems to be gone forever. What the players don’t want is to get squeezed on both ends, which is what is happening now.
January 28, 2019 at 11:39 am #80835
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by gscottar.
Which brings me right back to my point from earlier – what DO the players want (other than generic more money)? We can guess their priorities, but they had better be forming their game plan now.
While I remain sympathetic to the players’ plight, in recent agreements they have been their own worst enemy.January 29, 2019 at 2:52 pm #80896January 29, 2019 at 3:26 pm #80899NJ315Participant
The owners like most business owners will stay millionaires/billionaires no matter what. The players have much more to lose so they better get someone on board that speaks billionaire language and can actually negotiate for them. I see very clearly where the players are coming from the numbers don’t lie but anger or outrage won’t help them. A sound argument backup by real numbers and a plan on how to make it a better system will.January 29, 2019 at 7:18 pm #809061964cardsParticipantPaid - Annual
A couple of thoughts to consider:
– The investment required to buy a major league team has increased dramatically over the past 40 years
– This increased investment requirement has changed who owns teams – more investors or groups of investors – owners who expect a return on their investment (very few Gussie Busch’s now days)
– Focus of ownership has changed as to how rosters are constructed … the George Steinbrenner days are gone … Data shows that signing older players to long-term deals does not always work (e.g. Pujols) and signing younger players to long-term deals does not always work
– I am convinced that a significant reason for the delay in signings the past two off seasons can be attributed to the negotiation tactics of Scott Boras. Other players and agents hold out to see what Boras clients sign for.
Not sure what the answer is for the MLBPA.January 29, 2019 at 7:44 pm #80907mudvilleParticipantPaid - Annual
Ny, all of the players who are millionaires will stay millionaires unless they throw their guaranteed money away. Those are the ones who are complaining, not younger players who are enjoying were they are and what they’re getting.January 29, 2019 at 8:03 pm #80909NJ315Participant
The owners are making more money than ever and yet ticket prices go up and payrolls down. I have no sympathy for millionaires fighting billionaires over our money but blaming the “greedy” players as the main reason for the higher costs of attending games is not correct.January 29, 2019 at 9:11 pm #80911bicyclemikeModeratorPaid - Annual
Part of the problem the players have is that there is not a lot of incentive to get a bigger slice of the pie. During the first 30 years or so of the Marvin Miller led union, there were huge gains to be made. Players went from having no rights, to making unheard of salaries.
Now the manner of being set for life is no longer an issue. It’s just numbers now. Do you want to be super rich, or even richer than that?
The thing that sets professional sports apart from other industries, is that it can generate huge revenues despite having very few employees. Everyone gets rich, so it becomes a matter of how to split the spoils among relatively few participants.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.