MLB gives first proposal re New Payroll Rules

[Cap'n Piranha]

11 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

This proposal would decrease salaries by over 150 million this year.........

And of course arbitration reduces compensation. This is a fact so indisputable it isn't worth discussing. If a team could sign kiriloff to a free agent deal, they'd pay him way more than he'll get in arbitration. Not even close. 

Where are you getting this from?  I outlined this in a previous post that showed salaries would go up by a minimum of $330M this year.

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Where are you getting this from?  I outlined this in a previous post that showed salaries would go up by a minimum of $330M this year.

Sorry, was off by a bit.... Should be free today.

https://cupofcoffee.substack.com/p/cup-of-coffee-august-19-2021

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

First of all you haven't worn out your welcome and I don't think anyone is mad at you. We all come here for serious baseball talk so I think, even if we disagree, everyone here appreciates thoughtful discussion. 

As for your thoughts themselves, I couldn't disagree more with the idea that arbitration doesn't suppress salaries for basically every player. Beyond the idea that no players are "worth" their paychecks (that's a debate about capitalism and general economics of a free market), arbitration is absolutely suppressing salaries. If there was any world in which ticket, parking, concessions, tv package prices come down and we're all able to enjoy the game the way it used to be you could be on to something, but baseball is big business now. If I'm going to spend $50 on 1 ticket, plus $12 for 1 beer, and $8 for a hot dog I certainly want much of that money going to the people on the field I came to see, not the guys in the owner's box. And salaries don't "naturally rise in arbitration." They arbitrarily rise through arbitration.

As for being employees of MLB vs teams. MLB is the government. The teams/owners/players have agreed to oversight. They have to pay their "taxes" to the league. They have agreed to allow MLB to "police" and "punish" them if they've been found guilty of the rules they've allowed the league to put in place. The teams are separate companies that then higher players. Yes, it's a different sort of hiring process than us normal folk go through, but that's the system they've allowed themselves to be governed by.

And baseball isn't as popular now because MLB has been terrible at marketing and allowing access to it, and because it's too slow for the younger generations. It's the game itself that kids aren't interested in. Youth baseball is dying, and it's not because they don't know the guys on their MLB team. I'd argue kids these days know more about their team and every other team in the league than ever before because of the internet. But the game is too much standing around. Kids aren't interested in standing in left field for 20 minutes without getting a ball hit to them before going and sitting on the bench for 10 minutes without an AB that inning before going back to the outfield and not seeing a ball hit their way for 7 minutes then back to the bench to get 1 AB and sit down again. Society has changed and the game hasn't kept up. That's why baseball isn't as popular, not because fans don't know the guys on their team.

Agree that no one has worn out their welcome on this thread--it's an interesting trait of our current society that in some ways disagreement with a person's opinion is now seen as dislike for that person.  We'd be much better off if we could be better at divorcing people from their ideas when interacting with them.

As for the baseball stuff, I think both you and Mark are partly right on the structure of MLB vis-a-vis teams.  In some ways, MLB is the governing body that 30 corporations acknowledge.  But in other ways, the 30 teams are more like branches of the larger MLB corporation.  They have standardized processes they have to follow, but they are also free to institute their own ideas and policies.  I think the biggest argument for MLB being the corporation is that MLB is the only body that can open or close one of it's branches.  That is, I can't start my own team, and immediately start using MLB-related things for my own purposes.  I can't schedule games against MLB teams, even if those teams wanted to schedule a game against me.  I can't see my team compete in the MLB postseason, even if my team has a better record.  No government restricts new companies from competing on legally equal footing with existing companies (at no government should).  MLB absolutely restricts any baseball team from competing on legally equal footing with it's 30 branches.  As such, it's more like MLB is Amazon, and the teams are Whole Foods, imdb, Zappos, etc.

I've never understood why people say they show up to watch the players on the field, not the greedy owners, but fail to acknowledge that without the greedy owners writing literally billions of dollars in checks every year, there is no MLB.  Seriously--what do you think happens if next year all 30 current MLB owners decide it's not worth it to run an MLB team, and decide to not field teams (but still honor existing contracts by paying them) while simultaneously putting the teams up for sale.  Do you think there is a season in 2022?  If so, how many teams are there--8? 10?

[Mark G]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

First of all you haven't worn out your welcome and I don't think anyone is mad at you. We all come here for serious baseball talk so I think, even if we disagree, everyone here appreciates thoughtful discussion. 

As for your thoughts themselves, I couldn't disagree more with the idea that arbitration doesn't suppress salaries for basically every player. Beyond the idea that no players are "worth" their paychecks (that's a debate about capitalism and general economics of a free market), arbitration is absolutely suppressing salaries. If there was any world in which ticket, parking, concessions, tv package prices come down and we're all able to enjoy the game the way it used to be you could be on to something, but baseball is big business now. If I'm going to spend $50 on 1 ticket, plus $12 for 1 beer, and $8 for a hot dog I certainly want much of that money going to the people on the field I came to see, not the guys in the owner's box. And salaries don't "naturally rise in arbitration." They arbitrarily rise through arbitration.

As for being employees of MLB vs teams. MLB is the government. The teams/owners/players have agreed to oversight. They have to pay their "taxes" to the league. They have agreed to allow MLB to "police" and "punish" them if they've been found guilty of the rules they've allowed the league to put in place. The teams are separate companies that then higher players. Yes, it's a different sort of hiring process than us normal folk go through, but that's the system they've allowed themselves to be governed by.

And baseball isn't as popular now because MLB has been terrible at marketing and allowing access to it, and because it's too slow for the younger generations. It's the game itself that kids aren't interested in. Youth baseball is dying, and it's not because they don't know the guys on their MLB team. I'd argue kids these days know more about their team and every other team in the league than ever before because of the internet. But the game is too much standing around. Kids aren't interested in standing in left field for 20 minutes without getting a ball hit to them before going and sitting on the bench for 10 minutes without an AB that inning before going back to the outfield and not seeing a ball hit their way for 7 minutes then back to the bench to get 1 AB and sit down again. Society has changed and the game hasn't kept up. That's why baseball isn't as popular, not because fans don't know the guys on their team.

Thanks very much for the discourse; I had a little time on my hands today and it has been fun.

I grew up in the '60's and fell in love with the game.  In the '70's I went to a dozen or so games a year and checked the box scores literally every day.  My son grew up in the 2000's and also loves the game, but he would be the first to tell you that it is far from just being too slow, etc., that is the reason none of his circle follows baseball.  The internet, for example, is basically the newspaper on your phone in this area.  The articles, the box scores, the writers are all there (and then some), just as the paper was there for me.  And when you look at the info, whether it be on line or in print, you want to recognize who you are looking at and reading about.  And as much as that generation sits on the net continuously, they don't follow the players movement any more than my friends did in the '70's.  I will just agree to disagree on that point, I guess.  

Now, rising in arbitration and arbitrarily rising through arbitration strikes me as a definition without distinction; either way the salaries are rising.  They simply rise through an arbitration system that uses league wide agreed upon variables.  When an arbitrator has to decide on which offer to go with, the players or the teams, they base it on the basis of what that player is worth around the league ( I hope I am explaining this the way I want it to come out).  With Berrios, for example, he has been in the league what, 6 years?  And he is considered to be our borderline #1 or solid #2 starter.  What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time?  His stats are secondary to that; he gets awarded salary based on length of time in the position and what the rest of the league considers the value of that position (on average).  The longer you are in the league, the higher your salary.  How that is suppression is for brighter minds than mine to decipher, I guess.  The true suppression, and I admit that this part is real, is the long term guaranteed contracts the stars get which rises the "average salaries" of MLB.  They go by the wayside and players get paid year to year, not well into the future.  If that is bad, then I guess my proposal is bad.  

And the government analogy would be perfect, if the actual government hadn't given MLB an anti-trust exemption to allow them to set up the system as it is.  MLB, in effect, is the board of directors and the commissioner is the CEO.  They oversee the entire operation and all of its teams.  Anyway, the teams being separate companies goes back to my previous post.  Separate companies can do as they wish; teams can't, and we must just see it differently, I guess.

The part about society changing and the economics of the game is impossible to argue with, so I tip my hat and wish you well.  I love the ability to exchange the ideas, and just because I am right, doesn't mean I don't listen to others..   Please don't take that seriously.

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Agree that no one has worn out their welcome on this thread--it's an interesting trait of our current society that in some ways disagreement with a person's opinion is now seen as dislike for that person.  We'd be much better off if we could be better at divorcing people from their ideas when interacting with them.

As for the baseball stuff, I think both you and Mark are partly right on the structure of MLB vis-a-vis teams.  In some ways, MLB is the governing body that 30 corporations acknowledge.  But in other ways, the 30 teams are more like branches of the larger MLB corporation.  They have standardized processes they have to follow, but they are also free to institute their own ideas and policies.  I think the biggest argument for MLB being the corporation is that MLB is the only body that can open or close one of it's branches.  That is, I can't start my own team, and immediately start using MLB-related things for my own purposes.  I can't schedule games against MLB teams, even if those teams wanted to schedule a game against me.  I can't see my team compete in the MLB postseason, even if my team has a better record.  No government restricts new companies from competing on legally equal footing with existing companies (at no government should).  MLB absolutely restricts any baseball team from competing on legally equal footing with it's 30 branches.  As such, it's more like MLB is Amazon, and the teams are Whole Foods, imdb, Zappos, etc.

I've never understood why people say they show up to watch the players on the field, not the greedy owners, but fail to acknowledge that without the greedy owners writing literally billions of dollars in checks every year, there is no MLB.  Seriously--what do you think happens if next year all 30 current MLB owners decide it's not worth it to run an MLB team, and decide to not field teams (but still honor existing contracts by paying them) while simultaneously putting the teams up for sale.  Do you think there is a season in 2022?  If so, how many teams are there--8? 10?

They sell them for massive profit, like every other sale. 

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Agree that no one has worn out their welcome on this thread--it's an interesting trait of our current society that in some ways disagreement with a person's opinion is now seen as dislike for that person.  We'd be much better off if we could be better at divorcing people from their ideas when interacting with them.

As for the baseball stuff, I think both you and Mark are partly right on the structure of MLB vis-a-vis teams.  In some ways, MLB is the governing body that 30 corporations acknowledge.  But in other ways, the 30 teams are more like branches of the larger MLB corporation.  They have standardized processes they have to follow, but they are also free to institute their own ideas and policies.  I think the biggest argument for MLB being the corporation is that MLB is the only body that can open or close one of it's branches.  That is, I can't start my own team, and immediately start using MLB-related things for my own purposes.  I can't schedule games against MLB teams, even if those teams wanted to schedule a game against me.  I can't see my team compete in the MLB postseason, even if my team has a better record.  No government restricts new companies from competing on legally equal footing with existing companies (at no government should).  MLB absolutely restricts any baseball team from competing on legally equal footing with it's 30 branches.  As such, it's more like MLB is Amazon, and the teams are Whole Foods, imdb, Zappos, etc.

I've never understood why people say they show up to watch the players on the field, not the greedy owners, but fail to acknowledge that without the greedy owners writing literally billions of dollars in checks every year, there is no MLB.  Seriously--what do you think happens if next year all 30 current MLB owners decide it's not worth it to run an MLB team, and decide to not field teams (but still honor existing contracts by paying them) while simultaneously putting the teams up for sale.  Do you think there is a season in 2022?  If so, how many teams are there--8? 10?

You need a business license from the United States government to compete against Amazon. Obviously MLB isn't actually a government, but that's how they act. They get to approve new teams just like the government in this, and every (I assume), country gets to approve new companies. I mean there's kids running lemonade stands in this country that have government officials (police usually) harass them about business licenses.

Not sure the point of the last paragraph. Are you asking me to put a disclaimer on my post that says I recognize that the owners play a vital role in MLB games taking place? I didn't say I want them to get no money or lose money or anything, I said if I'm going to a game and paying those prices I want "much of that money going to the players." It goes the same way when saying I need to acknowledge the owners role, you need a disclaimer that without the players the owners aren't making any money to write those billions of dollars in checks every year. They need each other and fans need both.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Thanks very much for the discourse; I had a little time on my hands today and it has been fun.

I grew up in the '60's and fell in love with the game.  In the '70's I went to a dozen or so games a year and checked the box scores literally every day.  My son grew up in the 2000's and also loves the game, but he would be the first to tell you that it is far from just being too slow, etc., that is the reason none of his circle follows baseball.  The internet, for example, is basically the newspaper on your phone in this area.  The articles, the box scores, the writers are all there (and then some), just as the paper was there for me.  And when you look at the info, whether it be on line or in print, you want to recognize who you are looking at and reading about.  And as much as that generation sits on the net continuously, they don't follow the players movement any more than my friends did in the '70's.  I will just agree to disagree on that point, I guess.  

Now, rising in arbitration and arbitrarily rising through arbitration strikes me as a definition without distinction; either way the salaries are rising.  They simply rise through an arbitration system that uses league wide agreed upon variables.  When an arbitrator has to decide on which offer to go with, the players or the teams, they base it on the basis of what that player is worth around the league ( I hope I am explaining this the way I want it to come out).  With Berrios, for example, he has been in the league what, 6 years?  And he is considered to be our borderline #1 or solid #2 starter.  What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time?  His stats are secondary to that; he gets awarded salary based on length of time in the position and what the rest of the league considers the value of that position (on average).  The longer you are in the league, the higher your salary.  How that is suppression is for brighter minds than mine to decipher, I guess.  The true suppression, and I admit that this part is real, is the long term guaranteed contracts the stars get which rises the "average salaries" of MLB.  They go by the wayside and players get paid year to year, not well into the future.  If that is bad, then I guess my proposal is bad.  

And the government analogy would be perfect, if the actual government hadn't given MLB an anti-trust exemption to allow them to set up the system as it is.  MLB, in effect, is the board of directors and the commissioner is the CEO.  They oversee the entire operation and all of its teams.  Anyway, the teams being separate companies goes back to my previous post.  Separate companies can do as they wish; teams can't, and we must just see it differently, I guess.

The part about society changing and the economics of the game is impossible to argue with, so I tip my hat and wish you well.  I love the ability to exchange the ideas, and just because I am right, doesn't mean I don't listen to others..   Please don't take that seriously.

Yeah, think we have to agree to disagree with fan engagement stuff.

"What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time?" is a nice way for arbitration to work if it were based on current free market data. It isn't. It's based on data from when the system started. His years of service would mean absolutely nothing on a totally free market where teams didn't have control of the player. A player with his track record would be worth 20+ a year on the open market. Him making 5.6 isn't good just because he only made 4 something (guess, didn't look up his actual salary last year) last year. His "worth" is 20+.

The government analogy is just an analogy. They're obviously not an actual government so the real government giving them an anti-trust exemption doesn't play into the analogy. They are a governing body that is put in place by their constituents that then agree to play under the rules they set forth in concert with the MLBPA. Separate teams can absolutely do what they wish under the rules provided by the governing body they've allowed to be in place. They can choose how much to spend, how to make hiring decisions, how many employees to hire, etc. It just all has to be done under the rules handed down by their governing body. MLB and MLBPA are 2 branches (or maybe parties is a better analogy?) of a government that was put in place by those they govern.

I love that second to last sentence. Even though you're wrong, I appreciate the smack talk.

[Cap'n Piranha]

39 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Sorry, was off by a bit.... Should be free today.

https://cupofcoffee.substack.com/p/cup-of-coffee-august-19-2021

 

Interesting.  The author here quotes Cot's, and says 7 teams under by $145M.  I used the site below (which appeared higher in google's ranking than Cot's, for what that's worth, if anything), which shows 12 teams under $100M for a total of $393M.  It also shows only 3 teams over $180M, one of which is by a mere $270k, another by ~$11M, and the third by ~$50M.

http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

They sell them for massive profit, like every other sale. 

Not if the game is actually dying, and young people aren't interested in it anymore.  Not if all 30 try to sell their teams at the same time.  What do you think happens to the value of Amazon stock if the 30 people holding the most shares all announce at the same time they are liquidating their holdings?  Baseball teams have value for only 2 reasons; either one, they have a perceived value that can't be quantified in dollars, or two, they are a vehicle for making money.  A business that does not turn a profit can survive for a time on anticipation of future profitability.  But if that doe not materialize, the business will lose value, so the owners are always going to ensure their business is profitable (unless they only want to own the team as a status symbol, or outlet for their competitive ego).  Expecting them not to is just foolish, so if the side making billions in pure profit (the players) think it's somehow not ok for the other side to make hundreds of millions in pure profit, then they will be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Not if the game is actually dying, and young people aren't interested in it anymore.  Not if all 30 try to sell their teams at the same time.  What do you think happens to the value of Amazon stock if the 30 people holding the most shares all announce at the same time they are liquidating their holdings?  Baseball teams have value for only 2 reasons; either one, they have a perceived value that can't be quantified in dollars, or two, they are a vehicle for making money.  A business that does not turn a profit can survive for a time on anticipation of future profitability.  But if that doe not materialize, the business will lose value, so the owners are always going to ensure their business is profitable (unless they only want to own the team as a status symbol, or outlet for their competitive ego).  Expecting them not to is just foolish, so if the side making billions in pure profit (the players) think it's somehow not ok for the other side to make hundreds of millions in pure profit, then they will be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The Mets were just sold for a massive profit. People keep saying it will stop, but it doesn't.

Zero people are saying the owners shouldn't make money. Some are saying they'd like players to make more, not less. Total payroll as a percent of revenue has dropped for several years now.....

The players make pure profit? Is that how you view your wages? Wow. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

You need a business license from the United States government to compete against Amazon. Obviously MLB isn't actually a government, but that's how they act. They get to approve new teams just like the government in this, and every (I assume), country gets to approve new companies. I mean there's kids running lemonade stands in this country that have government officials (police usually) harass them about business licenses.

Not sure the point of the last paragraph. Are you asking me to put a disclaimer on my post that says I recognize that the owners play a vital role in MLB games taking place? I didn't say I want them to get no money or lose money or anything, I said if I'm going to a game and paying those prices I want "much of that money going to the players." It goes the same way when saying I need to acknowledge the owners role, you need a disclaimer that without the players the owners aren't making any money to write those billions of dollars in checks every year. They need each other and fans need both.

Putting aside whether a government should be able to tell someone whether they can or cannot operate a business (I tend to think that so long as you are following all applicable laws, it is none of the government's business what you choose to do with your time), I think MLB is both a governing body, and a corporate parent.  It has aspects of both, and there are ways in which players can be seen as employees of MLB (who pays the players who appear in the all-star game?  Is it the player's team?  The game's host team?  MLB?), as well as of their individual teams.  That said, even if we look at the 30 teams as separate corporations, there are all kinds of parallels in other industries to inability to move to another organization in a certain field, non-compete clauses being a primary one.

If baseball truly operated in a way where any individual was free to play for any team they wanted, for whatever amount they could negotiate, and leave without penalty at any time, do you truly think that would make for a better experience?  Who's going to play for Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Detroit, or Colorado, or any number of teams that can't compete financially?  You'll end up with something like the EPL, where the majority of the league are simply glorified minor league teams, developing players that then get swallowed up for more money by the handful of behemoths.  In the last 29 years, the EPL has had 7 different champions--is that really what we want for MLB?

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Putting aside whether a government should be able to tell someone whether they can or cannot operate a business (I tend to think that so long as you are following all applicable laws, it is none of the government's business what you choose to do with your time), I think MLB is both a governing body, and a corporate parent.  It has aspects of both, and there are ways in which players can be seen as employees of MLB (who pays the players who appear in the all-star game?  Is it the player's team?  The game's host team?  MLB?), as well as of their individual teams.  That said, even if we look at the 30 teams as separate corporations, there are all kinds of parallels in other industries to inability to move to another organization in a certain field, non-compete clauses being a primary one.

If baseball truly operated in a way where any individual was free to play for any team they wanted, for whatever amount they could negotiate, and leave without penalty at any time, do you truly think that would make for a better experience?  Who's going to play for Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Detroit, or Colorado, or any number of teams that can't compete financially?  You'll end up with something like the EPL, where the majority of the league are simply glorified minor league teams, developing players that then get swallowed up for more money by the handful of behemoths.  In the last 29 years, the EPL has had 7 different champions--is that really what we want for MLB?

No one is suggesting free agency from day one. 

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Yeah, think we have to agree to disagree with fan engagement stuff.

"What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time?" is a nice way for arbitration to work if it were based on current free market data. It isn't. It's based on data from when the system started. His years of service would mean absolutely nothing on a totally free market where teams didn't have control of the player. A player with his track record would be worth 20+ a year on the open market. Him making 5.6 isn't good just because he only made 4 something (guess, didn't look up his actual salary last year) last year. His "worth" is 20+.

The government analogy is just an analogy. They're obviously not an actual government so the real government giving them an anti-trust exemption doesn't play into the analogy. They are a governing body that is put in place by their constituents that then agree to play under the rules they set forth in concert with the MLBPA. Separate teams can absolutely do what they wish under the rules provided by the governing body they've allowed to be in place. They can choose how much to spend, how to make hiring decisions, how many employees to hire, etc. It just all has to be done under the rules handed down by their governing body. MLB and MLBPA are 2 branches (or maybe parties is a better analogy?) of a government that was put in place by those they govern.

I love that second to last sentence. Even though you're wrong, I appreciate the smack talk.

Wrong is.......such a strong word.    Actually, I have been wrong before, I admit it; as a matter of fact, I can still remember the time I was.   

Just a couple of things, and I will rest my fingers.  In an open market, I couldn't be traded to another market without my knowledge or consent.  Or when that trade occurred, my contract with that team ends and a contract with a new team begins.  But it doesn't.  And a truly open market would have a competitor to MLB.  Saying the anti-trust exemption does not play into things, (I hope I am not misunderstanding) is not apropos either, because it is that very anti-trust exemption that allows no competition, hence no open market.  So the player is worth what this market, being there is no open market, says they are worth, and that is how arbitration plays out in MLB. 

When an organization, say MLB, can control the number of franchises, the number of players each franchise can have on the roster, fine players, managers coaches, and even owners, that is as close to one body as business gets in my experience.  And arbitration was approved by the players union just as much as it was by the owners, or it wouldn't be there.  There must be advantages to the players on some level.  I am just raising the level.      My nickel in the meter is up, so I wish you all well.

[Cap'n Piranha]

31 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The Mets were just sold for a massive profit. People keep saying it will stop, but it doesn't.

Zero people are saying the owners shouldn't make money. Some are saying they'd like players to make more, not less. Total payroll as a percent of revenue has dropped for several years now.....

The players make pure profit? Is that how you view your wages? Wow. 

Sears and Roebuck is the biggest retailer in the US.  People keep saying it will stop, but it doesn't.  The idea that just because the value of MLB teams has been going up means they will always go up is foolish.

The owners last year offered the players a 50/50 revenue split.  The players said no.  Also, if the MLB owners won't open their books, how can you possibly say payroll as a percent of revenue has gone down?  We can guess, but can't possibly know, but I would hazard a guess that at least in the past two years, payroll as a percent of revenue is very much up--it certainly was in 2020.

I do view my wages as pure profit, because that's what it is.  Profit is revenue earned after expenses.  As the players have no expenses related to being a player (other than the standard ones, like transportation, luggage, etc. that anyone who travels regularly for their job would have), they are free to spend 50% to 60% of their wages (depending on the tax laws of the locality they play their games in) on whatever they like.  That's anywhere from $1.5B to $2B.  There's no way the owners have that much in post-tax earnings.  Not a chance.

[Cap'n Piranha]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

No one is suggesting free agency from day one. 

So you agree that MLB should not be a free market, as concerns a player's ability to choose their direct employer?

[TheLeviathan]

I think the assessment is correct that total player salaries would go down in this proposal, but I think it is a starting point.

The biggest problem is that until media revenues are shared by all the teams.....all solutions will be garbage.  This is a massive *#%^*ing problem.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So you agree that MLB should not be a free market, as concerns a player's ability to choose their direct employer?

Yes, with limits. Less years than now, but not zero. Seriously. No one said that. Can we at least do this in good faith?

[nicksaviking]

I agree that the players won't accept that 180M luxury tax starting point, but I presume MLB wants to lower it with the idea that there will be plenty of teams going over the luxury tax and that tax is what will float the bottom teams to get above the 100M threshold. 

The A's and Rays likely can't logistically get over 100M without the big teams being forced into greater revenue sharing. If all the top teams are dodging the luxury tax, then there would be no pool to get the bottom teams up to the minimum cap number. The big teams would then be forced to revenue share anyway to meet the agreement; might as well just field the better team and pay the luxury tax.

[bean5302]

Arbitration is not a significant issue in player salaries, but it's critical to small market teams being able to compete. Right now, teams have anywhere between 5-6 years of team control. If players are graduating from the minors over a 3 year period, the window of contention is extremely narrow. Teams need arbitration to control enormous and unexpected increses in player salary... otherwise, again, teams wouldn't be able to afford to agree to arbitration values and the team would effectively lose it's team control anyway.

I believe arbitration doesn't need to be as long as it is or maybe, even better, arbitration is 5 years and starts after the first year of MLB service time. Teams absolutely need control over players to build a competitive window and teams absolutely need a steady payroll and an ability to predict what's going to happen in regard to their players under team control.

[chpettit19]

16 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Putting aside whether a government should be able to tell someone whether they can or cannot operate a business (I tend to think that so long as you are following all applicable laws, it is none of the government's business what you choose to do with your time), I think MLB is both a governing body, and a corporate parent.  It has aspects of both, and there are ways in which players can be seen as employees of MLB (who pays the players who appear in the all-star game?  Is it the player's team?  The game's host team?  MLB?), as well as of their individual teams.  That said, even if we look at the 30 teams as separate corporations, there are all kinds of parallels in other industries to inability to move to another organization in a certain field, non-compete clauses being a primary one.

If baseball truly operated in a way where any individual was free to play for any team they wanted, for whatever amount they could negotiate, and leave without penalty at any time, do you truly think that would make for a better experience?  Who's going to play for Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Detroit, or Colorado, or any number of teams that can't compete financially?  You'll end up with something like the EPL, where the majority of the league are simply glorified minor league teams, developing players that then get swallowed up for more money by the handful of behemoths.  In the last 29 years, the EPL has had 7 different champions--is that really what we want for MLB?

I'm all for less government oversight, but that's not the argument here, the argument is that MLB operates like a government overseeing companies (the teams) and not like a company with different branches. Who pays for unemployment, child tax credits, etc.? Same argument. The entities under MLB's governance pay taxes to MLB who then kicks some back and uses the rest to pay their employees and maintain infrastructure. It's not a perfect analogy, but MLB is much more a government overseeing the teams than it is a company with branches, but yes, it does also have company-like traits. 

I don't know what the second paragraph is arguing against in terms of what I've been saying. I've never suggested a totally free market with no rules. I've said that arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries and argued that a salary floor and cap based on actual league revenues is what I'd like to say. So beyond that I don't have a response to that paragraph as it has nothing to do with anything I've suggested.

[Mark G]

23 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So you agree that MLB should not be a free market, as concerns a player's ability to choose their direct employer?

I know I am headed right back to where I came in here, but I would respectfully submit that they have chosen their direct employer.......MLB.  MLB then assigns them to a franchise, where they can choose to accept this assignment, or move on to another employer outside of MLB.  From the day, long before any of us were born, that Congress blessed MLB with an anti trust clause for their operation it ceased to be a free market, so it doesn't really matter if you or I agree if it should be; it is what it is, and the players know it when they sign their first contract.  They know they are signing a MLB contract, and are being assigned to a team in MLB.  Just as you and i can leave our employer if we don't like our assignment, so can baseball players leave their employer, MLB, if they don't.  As long as professional sports are granted these monopoly exemptions each one of can believe what we choose about how it should be, but that debate is moot.  I have laid out how I think it should operate, and that opinion and 7 bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  Just because I am right, doesn't mean anyone will listen.   

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Yes, with limits. Less years than now, but not zero. Seriously. No one said that. Can we at least do this in good faith?

I'm completely doing this in good faith.  I'm verifying what you're saying against previous comments you made, about people being able to choose their employer within their field.

I'm curious to know what you think the appropriate way to grant free agency is--is it based on years in an organization?  Age?  A combination of both?

[kenbuddha]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

No one is suggesting free agency from day one. 

Charlie Finley suggested it.

Finley came right out and said allow every player to be a free agent after every season

Plenty of Finley in The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar which is a terrific book about MLB and the owner/player (and owner/owner) conflicts. I can't recommend it enough.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I'm completely doing this in good faith.  I'm verifying what you're saying against previous comments you made, about people being able to choose their employer within their field.

I'm curious to know what you think the appropriate way to grant free agency is--is it based on years in an organization?  Age?  A combination of both?

Combination. I think age should 100% play a part. 

The issue with laying out an exact number/age combo is that it needs to move while A LOT of other things move too. Arbitration. Minimum salaries. Possibly a floor and ceiling. Possibly more revenue sharing.