Jump to content
  • Create Account

Trevor Bauer to Dodgers


I have come to feel the same way about the Dodgers as I do about the Yankees.

It's not good for baseball to continue with a system that gives a small handful of teams an outsize spending advantage. The current revenue sharing/luxury tax system is not effective enough. The owners don't seem to grasp that individual teams are not free-standing entities. They need to look at MLB as a whole. For MLB to succeed it's necessary for each team to have approximately the same opportunity to succeed. This means more extensive revenue sharing. If each team had approximately the same wherewithal with which to operate there would be no need for salary caps or luxury taxes. Ultimately player salaries would become more equitable as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read speculation that Baltimore is tearing it down to the studs for an eventual relocation. Their stadium lease expires after this year, and they can't compete with the Nationals for the limited eyes and money in that region. 

Pittsburgh, and especially Cleveland, don't have much of an excuse to be that low in payroll. 

The Baltimore stadium is my favorite stadium where  I have attended a baseball game . I have not attended Target Field, but went to the Metro Dome several times in 87 and 88, when Mark Davidson was on the team.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait....blame the players?!?!   They have a system in place where they get paid nothing for their training in MiLB, then, once they make the show, they are stuck with a team for 6 years before they get to actually go to a competitive market to shop their services...at which time they basically get 1 shot at a big contract....meanwhile, they are in a sport that had $10B in revenue.   EVERY single owner can afford salaries...they choose not to.

 

Yeah, this is off.  In 2020 the (normal) average MLB payroll was $158.9M, which equates out to $4.77 BILLION in player salaries, so pretty much 48%.  This means that every team would average $175M to pay for all other expenses, including taxes.  Obviously though, a number of teams aren't getting anywhere near $175M in excess revenue--they're probably not even close to $75M, and would still need to pay corporate taxes, all the coaches, all the team staff, stadium operating costs, draft picks, minor leaguers, and any investment in the organization, all before the owner even makes a dime.  The Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, and a few others have enough excess to pay the salaries at the top of the scale.  15 to 20 organizations do not (unless they want to lose money, and again, why should owners lose money on something they're spending tens, if not hundreds of millions on annually).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The real question is what are the owners willing to give up in order to implement a salary cap? I'm not sure why the players are to blame if owners are aren't willing to make an equally large concession. 

 

I would imagine in return for cost certainty, and guaranteed profitability, the owners would be more than happy to increase the pay for all minor leaguers (say $25k for DSL, $50k for Rookie and A-, $100k for A+ and AA, and $150k for AAA).  They would also, I'm sure, raise the salaries for pre-free agency major leaguers, knowing that they wouldn't have to pay more on the back end, what with team/player caps.  They would probably also get rid of the service time system, and implement somthing along the lines of free agency falling after the season in which a player turns 27.  They may even eliminate the qualifying offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused...

 

He's getting $40M, $45M, and... $17M?

 

The drop off seems strange, or at least unusual, but given he has opt outs, he has a chance to change things if he wants to.

 

I actually hope he sticks around for the $17M season rather than opting out, as that means he found some place comfortable to stay and play, and the money is less important. Or rather i hope there isn't a corresponding decline in his talent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would imagine in return for cost certainty, and guaranteed profitability, the owners would be more than happy to increase the pay for all minor leaguers (say $25k for DSL, $50k for Rookie and A-, $100k for A+ and AA, and $150k for AAA).  They would also, I'm sure, raise the salaries for pre-free agency major leaguers, knowing that they wouldn't have to pay more on the back end, what with team/player caps.  They would probably also get rid of the service time system, and implement somthing along the lines of free agency falling after the season in which a player turns 27.  They may even eliminate the qualifying offer.

This. The players calling the shots for the union have never prioritized MiLB...or young players...and have always prioritized and protected the unimpeded right of the veteran to be exposed to a free and completely unrestricted market. Hence, Trevor Bauer. A salary cap has been a non-starter for the union...forever...given nothing more than occasional diversionary lip-service. And the owners, as expected, have taken advantage everywhere else. It’s a powerful union...perhaps the most powerful in the history of this country. The needle moves when they look at their priorities differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would imagine in return for cost certainty, and guaranteed profitability, the owners would be more than happy to increase the pay for all minor leaguers (say $25k for DSL, $50k for Rookie and A-, $100k for A+ and AA, and $150k for AAA).  They would also, I'm sure, raise the salaries for pre-free agency major leaguers, knowing that they wouldn't have to pay more on the back end, what with team/player caps.  They would probably also get rid of the service time system, and implement somthing along the lines of free agency falling after the season in which a player turns 27.  They may even eliminate the qualifying offer.

A dramatic increase in MiLB salary, a bump to the league minimum, ending pre arbitration, and hitting FA earlier would be a starting point. Of course an agreed up revenue split supersedes all of this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, this is off.  In 2020 the (normal) average MLB payroll was $158.9M, which equates out to $4.77 BILLION in player salaries, so pretty much 48%.  This means that every team would average $175M to pay for all other expenses, including taxes.  Obviously though, a number of teams aren't getting anywhere near $175M in excess revenue--they're probably not even close to $75M, and would still need to pay corporate taxes, all the coaches, all the team staff, stadium operating costs, draft picks, minor leaguers, and any investment in the organization, all before the owner even makes a dime.  The Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, and a few others have enough excess to pay the salaries at the top of the scale.  15 to 20 organizations do not (unless they want to lose money, and again, why should owners lose money on something they're spending tens, if not hundreds of millions on annually).

 

Sorry, I can't jump on the players are greedy train.  Let's say the 48% is the correct number....isn't at least half the revenue going to the players a good thing?!?  I mean, that's what we are watching, right, the players?  And if it was such a tough business to run with margins so tight, you wouldn't have owners dropping $2.4B to acquire a team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...