New CBA - What's good for the game

[Steve71]

How is it that the NFL was able to convince large market teams to share revenue across the board, but somehow MLB teams would be unable to do so?  I recognize the national TV deals is a part of that, but guys like Jerry Jones is giving up millions.

I think the NFL has done a better job of recognizing that a rising tide raises all boats, and to allow selfish and rich franchises to outspend and poach players from smaller markets is bad business, and bad for the league as a whole.

Wake up MLB!

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Steve71 said:

How is it that the NFL was able to convince large market teams to share revenue across the board, but somehow MLB teams would be unable to do so?  I recognize the national TV deals is a part of that, but guys like Jerry Jones is giving up millions.

I think the NFL has done a better job of recognizing that a rising tide raises all boats, and to allow selfish and rich franchises to outspend and poach players from smaller markets is bad business, and bad for the league as a whole.

Wake up MLB!

The reason for the disparity is because the NFL formed and became a large sporting league well after baseball. MLB and its teams started forming many of these bad policies before a Superbowl happened.

And once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's bloody impossible to put it back in.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

You also single out one team (Oakland) and ignore that 6 of these teams have 2 or less 90 win seasons. 

Small market Cleveland and Tampa are sitting right there at the top of the list as well. Well run clubs win. Poorly run clubs (like the Orioles, Pirates and Padres) lose. The large market teams can't fill all the playoff slots every year. Once a team is in the playoffs they have nearly the same chance to win as everyone else.

Quote

You are suggesting that if we take away revenue these teams are more likely to invest more money.

No, I'm suggesting they should make money by putting people in the seats, not by fielding a Triple-A team and cashing revenue sharing checks. I'm sure the Pohlads would love to have a guaranteed profit from revenue sharing every year even if Target Field is empty. That's not a competitive baseball club, it's a hedge fund with a 1/30th share in MLB. That also gives the small market teams an incentive to just let the Dodgers win every year because the Dodgers can grow their marginal revenue faster than the small market teams can. Eventually we would see contraction as the cheapskate teams are bought out by the large market teams so they can keep more of the revenue they generated.

Quote

what did Twins fan want when the season was lost.  Did they want to see veteran players that were not part of our future or did they want prospects to get a shot?

I wanted to see prospects get a shot. Instead they kept Pineda, promoted AAAA retreads like Kyle Barraclough, Nick Vincent, Derek Law and Andrew Albers and used older non-prospects like Charlie Barnes and Griffin Jax while they kept the actual prospects in AAA so they didn't start service time clocks. That gives them at least another year before their actual young talent reaches free agency. They didn't want to promote any pitcher under age 25.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Steve71 said:

to allow rich franchises to spend is bad business

Edited that down to the clearest nugget for you. The NFL recognized that fixed player costs could make them a ton of money. and they were able to break the weaker NFL players union. The games are all sold out, win or lose and the TV money doesn't change for good or bad teams.

[Einheri]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:48 AM, tony&rodney said:

I would suggest Year 1 salaries for the first time on the 40 person roster and include these players on the minimum contract.

I like this quite a bit.  If a player is on the 40-man roster, they should be making at least minimum major-league salary, and as soon as they're placed on the 40-man, they start accruing major-league service time, even if they're still in A ball.

[ashbury]

51 minutes ago, Einheri said:

and as soon as they're placed on the 40-man, they start accruing major-league service time, even if they're still in A ball.

Salary is fine, but to me service time is a dilemma.  For some 25-year old at AAA, it's no big deal, but think back to the case of Jorge Polanco, who was added to the 40-man of necessity when he was only 20, I think, playing at high-A most of the season, and wasn't ready to face major league competition on anything but an emergency basis until he was 23 - which is reasonably rapid in terms of prospect development, but pretty harmful for a team trying to win on a budget. (Actually the whole approach MLB has toward handling youngsters from the Caribbean needs revamping IMO.)

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Small market Cleveland and Tampa are sitting right there at the top of the list as well. Well run clubs win. Poorly run clubs (like the Orioles, Pirates and Padres) lose. The large market teams can't fill all the playoff slots every year. Once a team is in the playoffs they have nearly the same chance to win as everyone else.

No, I'm suggesting they should make money by putting people in the seats, not by fielding a Triple-A team and cashing revenue sharing checks. I'm sure the Pohlads would love to have a guaranteed profit from revenue sharing every year even if Target Field is empty. That's not a competitive baseball club, it's a hedge fund with a 1/30th share in MLB. That also gives the small market teams an incentive to just let the Dodgers win every year because the Dodgers can grow their marginal revenue faster than the small market teams can. Eventually we would see contraction as the cheapskate teams are bought out by the large market teams so they can keep more of the revenue they generated.

I wanted to see prospects get a shot. Instead they kept Pineda, promoted AAAA retreads like Kyle Barraclough, Nick Vincent, Derek Law and Andrew Albers and used older non-prospects like Charlie Barnes and Griffin Jax while they kept the actual prospects in AAA so they didn't start service time clocks. That gives them at least another year before their actual young talent reaches free agency. They didn't want to promote any pitcher under age 25.

You can say they all have the same chance all you want.  The WS has been won by a team in the top portion of revenue 19 of the 22 years this century.  The three teams that have won (Royals / Marlins / Dbacks.) it got there by sucking royally for long periods.  The only two years the Royals and Marlins won 90 games this century is the year they won it all.  The advantage of the revenue disparity is so brutally obvious that failing to acknowledge it sure seems lacking in objectivity.  

Where the Twins choices are concerned.  I agree with you completely.  However, that has nothing to do with the conversation we were having about tanking.  All you did was confirm my point that we as fans want the prospects played and the teams SHOULD want to play them in order to build a contender.  Yet, you are railing on teams for playing prospects.  Apparently, it's bad simply because they are not punished financially for rebuilding.

BTW ... If the revenue disparity does not matter, and the huge advantage in signing free agents does not matter, why is anyone here concerned at all about signing top free agents?

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The WS has been won by a team in the top portion of revenue 19 of the 22 years this century.

I count 4 revenue sharing recipients: Royals, Cardinals twice, and Marlins plus World Series losses by the Rays (twice), Indians, Royals, Cardinals and Rockies. That's 10/22 years with a small market team in the World Series.

[DJL44]

Quote

Yet, you are railing on teams for playing prospects. 

No, I'm railing on them for playing AAAA players instead of prospects. The Pirates and Orioles have been content to fill the roster with other teams' detritus. They should be playing prospects but then they might have to pay those players when they are any good. 

Yes, a bigger payroll can give a smart team an advantage. No, it is not some overwhelming advantage that is impossible for a small market team to overcome.

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, DJL44 said:

No, I'm railing on them for playing AAAA players instead of prospects. The Pirates and Orioles have been content to fill the roster with other teams' detritus. They should be playing prospects but then they might have to pay those players when they are any good. 

Yes, a bigger payroll can give a smart team an advantage. No, it is not some overwhelming advantage that is impossible for a small market team to overcome.

What is the solution?  The Pirates or any other 60 win team should be required to spend $30 or $40M on free agents so that they can win an extra 4-5 wins?  Are they going to be able to find someone who is both willing to come and won't be blocking a prospect at some point?  One thing is for sure, if you take away revenue sharing their capacity to spend goes down.   

We simply have very different ways of interpreting data, practices and strategy.  More importantly, we have come to very different conclusions and solutions.  I think there is absolutely zero chance that the players current demands would not widen the level of disparity.  That level of disparity already threatens the game and punishes the fans of any team outside the top revenue teams.  Therefore, to extend that disparity would be idiotic on the owners part and a blow to fans of mid and small market teams.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

What is the solution?  The Pirates or any other 60 win team should be required to spend $30 or $40M on free agents so that they can win an extra 4-5 wins? 

No, I do not think a salary floor is a good idea but I do support a raise in the minimum salary.

Small market teams should get more revenue sharing money when they win and less when they lose. There should be a success bonus in the formula. Put 10% of the revenue sharing funds into a separate formula that pays out to teams when they win.

[diehardtwinsfan]

19 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Small market Cleveland and Tampa are sitting right there at the top of the list as well. Well run clubs win. Poorly run clubs (like the Orioles, Pirates and Padres) lose. The large market teams can't fill all the playoff slots every year. Once a team is in the playoffs they have nearly the same chance to win as everyone else.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees about your statement about well run clubs. But the rules as setup make it harder for well run clubs to win, period. I don't know if you'd call Minnesota well run or not, but it doesn't take nearly as much well running for a big market team to consistently make the playoffs. That's what I'm getting at with margins of error. The Twins do not have the same margin of error that the Yankees or Dodgers do. The Pirates don't have the same margin of error as the Twins. That leads to a lot less competitive baseball.

The dynamics of this need to shift, and my fear is that there's not nearly enough altruistic people in MLB to make it work. The sport is in trouble. Viewership data tells us that, even if revenue increases being largely driven by inflation are not. 

[Major League Ready]

33 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

No, I do not think a salary floor is a good idea but I do support a raise in the minimum salary.

Small market teams should get more revenue sharing money when they win and less when they lose. There should be a success bonus in the formula. Put 10% of the revenue sharing funds into a separate formula that pays out to teams when they win.

Your idea sounds good in theory, not so good in practical application.  If a team spends but does not lose they get nothing.  That's not going to promote spending.  How about a formula that ties a certain percentage of revenue sharing to the amount actually spent?  That way, if a team decides their best avenue to contention results in less spending those funds can be redirected to teams that do spend.  That's the best way to assure revenue sharing is spent on players.

[Major League Ready]

34 minutes ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

I don't think anyone disagrees about your statement about well run clubs. But the rules as setup make it harder for well run clubs to win, period. I don't know if you'd call Minnesota well run or not, but it doesn't take nearly as much well running for a big market team to consistently make the playoffs. That's what I'm getting at with margins of error. The Twins do not have the same margin of error that the Yankees or Dodgers do. The Pirates don't have the same margin of error as the Twins. That leads to a lot less competitive baseball.

The dynamics of this need to shift, and my fear is that there's not nearly enough altruistic people in MLB to make it work. The sport is in trouble. Viewership data tells us that, even if revenue increases being largely driven by inflation are not. 

Put another way.  If Tampa / Oakland and NY / LA are run with an equal degree of skill, LA or NY could sign Verlander / Robbie Ray / Simien / Baez / Starling Marte and have the As or Ray's budget left over.  If that's not a gigantic advantage why would anyone care about signing free agents.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

The sport is in trouble. Viewership data tells us that

Viewership is down because modern major league baseball is the most boring baseball I have ever seen. No stolen bases, fewer impressive defensive plays, no extended rallies. Just walks, strikeouts, homers and an endless parade of relief pitchers.

Viewership is also down because they've sold off their television rights to companies that don't want to actually show the games to viewers.

[ashbury]

A salary floor disincentivizes the practice of accepting very low revenue (bad attendance, reduced jersey sales and concessions, Nielsen ratings of 0, etc) while tanking.  Since I view low fan interest as bad for the game, I'm in favor of the floor.  Teams should work constantly to build their fan base, not simply "ride out" waves of apathy

W-L records may be a zero-sum game among the teams, but interest in the sport is not.  Teams today should be routinely drawing 3 million attendees a year when they're winning, and not drop off by more than a few hundred thousand when they're down.  A decades long view should be taken, to market their players and the beauty of the game, and not simply the prospect of a World Series crown during a short window of contention.

So much of the discussion here reminds me of the old saying about a miser who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

[TheLeviathan]

On 1/9/2022 at 11:14 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

The reason for the disparity is because the NFL formed and became a large sporting league well after baseball. MLB and its teams started forming many of these bad policies before a Superbowl happened.

And once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's bloody impossible to put it back in.

Also, the NFL was born out of a desire to end regionalism and become national.  Whereas baseball has religiously encouraged regionalism.

[TheLeviathan]

I feel like the discussion has become tangential to the topic at times.  What would make it better for fans and the health of the game, that's where I'm focused:

1. Salary floor - this is the only thing that limits tanking.  (It can't be eliminated)  It will drive up wages and force ownerships that have been acting nefariously to at least be semi-competent and respectful to their fan bases.

2. End regional TV deals permanently.  All broadcasts need to be run by MLB with revenues completely shared by all the organizations.  The only local money kept is in their stadiums, jersey sales, etc.  

3.  With 1 and 2 implemented....luxury taxes can go away.  Teams have a more even footing, let them see how that works out for awhile.  If disparities re-emerge....revisit.

4. Universal DH.  Watching pitchers hit is the sports equivalent of a Ric Flair eye gouge through a TV.

5. Pay minor leaguers a livable wage and force ownerships to treat those players as investments.  More than likely, it'll improve the overall product over time.  Afterall....you f#$%$#% invested in them rather than having them play daily on kraft cheese slices and uncooked ramen.

6. No more monkeying with playoffs or divisions.  Let some rivalries and traditions grow for awhile.

7. Enforce game timing rules already on the books.  Agree, together as owners and players, to be open to ways to grow the game.  Kids do not care about baseball.  Like, at all.  Put egos and profits aside from time to time to sacrifice for the game.  You can't write that into a contract beyond good will to try.

[Steve71]

Mr. Leviathan, agree with your proposals across the board.

[Major League Ready]

19 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I feel like the discussion has become tangential to the topic at times.  What would make it better for fans and the health of the game, that's where I'm focused:

1. Salary floor - this is the only thing that limits tanking.  (It can't be eliminated)  It will drive up wages and force ownerships that have been acting nefariously to at least be semi-competent and respectful to their fan bases.

2. End regional TV deals permanently.  All broadcasts need to be run by MLB with revenues completely shared by all the organizations.  The only local money kept is in their stadiums, jersey sales, etc.  

3.  With 1 and 2 implemented....luxury taxes can go away.  Teams have a more even footing, let them see how that works out for awhile.  If disparities re-emerge....revisit.

4. Universal DH.  Watching pitchers hit is the sports equivalent of a Ric Flair eye gouge through a TV.

5. Pay minor leaguers a livable wage and force ownerships to treat those players as investments.  More than likely, it'll improve the overall product over time.  Afterall....you f#$%$#% invested in them rather than having them play daily on kraft cheese slices and uncooked ramen.

6. No more monkeying with playoffs or divisions.  Let some rivalries and traditions grow for awhile.

7. Enforce game timing rules already on the books.  Agree, together as owners and players, to be open to ways to grow the game.  Kids do not care about baseball.  Like, at all.  Put egos and profits aside from time to time to sacrifice for the game.  You can't write that into a contract beyond good will to try.

Four through seven look great.

My initial reaction to a salary floor was it sounded good.  Then I started thinking about the practical implications.  Here are problems I would expect.

1)  Most of the bad clubs including the Twins were spending reasonably.  The Cubs and Nationals also were among the worst.  Even the Diamondbacks spent $100M.  The only bad teams with low salary last year were the Pirates and Rangers.  The Rangers obviously shred their salary to prepare to reload and did so in a big way.  Let’s forget 2020.  In 2019 there were 4 bad teams, the Orioles, Royals, Tigers, and Mariners.  The latter 3 have all successfully rebuilt in a modest amount of time.

2) The clubs spending very little are not markets that attract Free agents even when they are winning.  How are these teams going to attract difference makers when they are in a terrible state?  The only way is a vast overpay.  A win through free agency is already cost $8M+.  So, we are going to drive wages up and then add an over pay so a win is going to cost $10M or more.  How many wins would be added?  Four, maybe 5 wins. This is not going to make a 60 win team a different product.  

3) It’s very likely teams in this position would take on an albatross contract in exchange for prospects. Spending on a free agent is going to do very little for the team during a rebuild so why not invest the money in future talent when it could matter.  This would facilitate the high revenue teams dumping bad contracts so that they could sign productive free agents.  It won’t cost them all that much because the small market teams are forced to spend.  Once again widening the disparity. 

4)  If teams were able to sign the guys that make a difference on the field and payroll, a significant portion would turn out to be Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Johnny Cueto, Jacoby Ellsbury, Eric Hosmer, Carl Crawford, or any of the 5+ year pitchers that were terrible in their final 3 years.  Many of these acquisitions will not only be ineffective, they are going to be a major problem for the revenue disadvantaged teams when the get through their rebuild period.

5) There is a good chance the additions would be end of career guys like Simmons.  I know most of us did not want to see Simmons when we could be playing someone that at least had a chance of being part of the  future.  

A better approach would be to distribute revenue sharing to qualifying clubs based on what they spend. Reduce payments to clubs that are not spending on payments.  That way teams can spend when it makes the most sense and a greater amount is distributed to teams in the years they have a decent shot at contending. 

Something definitely needs to be done with how the product is distributed.  It’s hurting the game.  However, it’s not realistic or fair to ask the teams that have great TV contracts/revenue to take a big hit and redistribute the revenues equally.  Those teams will continue to generate far more broadcast revenue regardless of how it is distributed. MLB is not one business.  It’s an industry and while I would love more parity, asking one business to subsidize their competitor is simply not reasonable.  Would we suggest the highest paid players share their salaries with the lowest paid players?  

A salary floor has absolutely nothing to do with the relative merit of a luxury tax.  If you raise the floor and take away the soft ceiling you have done nothing. With all of the holes in 1 and 2, 3 is very likely to contribute to the overall failure of this plan.
 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Four through seven look great.

My initial reaction to a salary floor was it sounded good.  Then I started thinking about the practical implications.  Here are problems I would expect.

1)  Most of the bad clubs including the Twins were spending reasonably.  The Cubs and Nationals also were among the worst.  Even the Diamondbacks spent $100M.  The only bad teams with low salary last year were the Pirates and Rangers.  The Rangers obviously shred their salary to prepare to reload and did so in a big way.  Let’s forget 2020.  In 2019 there were 4 bad teams, the Orioles, Royals, Tigers, and Mariners.  The latter 3 have all successfully rebuilt in a modest amount of time.

2) The clubs spending very little are not markets that attract Free agents even when they are winning.  How are these teams going to attract difference makers when they are in a terrible state?  The only way is a vast overpay.  A win through free agency is already cost $8M+.  So, we are going to drive wages up and then add an over pay so a win is going to cost $10M or more.  How many wins would be added?  Four, maybe 5 wins. This is not going to make a 60 win team a different product.  

3) It’s very likely teams in this position would take on an albatross contract in exchange for prospects. Spending on a free agent is going to do very little for the team during a rebuild so why not invest the money in future talent when it could matter.  This would facilitate the high revenue teams dumping bad contracts so that they could sign productive free agents.  It won’t cost them all that much because the small market teams are forced to spend.  Once again widening the disparity. 

4)  If teams were able to sign the guys that make a difference on the field and payroll, a significant portion would turn out to be Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Johnny Cueto, Jacoby Ellsbury, Eric Hosmer, Carl Crawford, or any of the 5+ year pitchers that were terrible in their final 3 years.  Many of these acquisitions will not only be ineffective, they are going to be a major problem for the revenue disadvantaged teams when the get through their rebuild period.

5) There is a good chance the additions would be end of career guys like Simmons.  I know most of us did not want to see Simmons when we could be playing someone that at least had a chance of being part of the  future.  

A better approach would be to distribute revenue sharing to qualifying clubs based on what they spend. Reduce payments to clubs that are not spending on payments.  That way teams can spend when it makes the most sense and a greater amount is distributed to teams in the years they have a decent shot at contending. 

Something definitely needs to be done with how the product is distributed.  It’s hurting the game.  However, it’s not realistic or fair to ask the teams that have great TV contracts/revenue to take a big hit and redistribute the revenues equally.  Those teams will continue to generate far more broadcast revenue regardless of how it is distributed. MLB is not one business.  It’s an industry and while I would love more parity, asking one business to subsidize their competitor is simply not reasonable.  Would we suggest the highest paid players share their salaries with the lowest paid players?  

A salary floor has absolutely nothing to do with the relative merit of a luxury tax.  If you raise the floor and take away the soft ceiling you have done nothing. With all of the holes in 1 and 2, 3 is very likely to contribute to the overall failure of this plan.
 

I’m with you on the luxury tax, if you have a floor, you need a soft ceiling too.

I think the albatross trading like the NBA would be good for the game. To make it manageable you could augment, simplify and expand the rule 5, more picks, simpler age threshold, ways to move prospects around more so the Rays don’t just horde prospects received in trades taking on bad contracts.

[TheLeviathan]

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Four through seven look great.

My initial reaction to a salary floor was it sounded good.  Then I started thinking about the practical implications.  Here are problems I would expect.

1)  Most of the bad clubs including the Twins were spending reasonably.  The Cubs and Nationals also were among the worst.  Even the Diamondbacks spent $100M.  The only bad teams with low salary last year were the Pirates and Rangers.  The Rangers obviously shred their salary to prepare to reload and did so in a big way.  Let’s forget 2020.  In 2019 there were 4 bad teams, the Orioles, Royals, Tigers, and Mariners.  The latter 3 have all successfully rebuilt in a modest amount of time.

2) The clubs spending very little are not markets that attract Free agents even when they are winning.  How are these teams going to attract difference makers when they are in a terrible state?  The only way is a vast overpay.  A win through free agency is already cost $8M+.  So, we are going to drive wages up and then add an over pay so a win is going to cost $10M or more.  How many wins would be added?  Four, maybe 5 wins. This is not going to make a 60 win team a different product.  

3) It’s very likely teams in this position would take on an albatross contract in exchange for prospects. Spending on a free agent is going to do very little for the team during a rebuild so why not invest the money in future talent when it could matter.  This would facilitate the high revenue teams dumping bad contracts so that they could sign productive free agents.  It won’t cost them all that much because the small market teams are forced to spend.  Once again widening the disparity. 

4)  If teams were able to sign the guys that make a difference on the field and payroll, a significant portion would turn out to be Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Johnny Cueto, Jacoby Ellsbury, Eric Hosmer, Carl Crawford, or any of the 5+ year pitchers that were terrible in their final 3 years.  Many of these acquisitions will not only be ineffective, they are going to be a major problem for the revenue disadvantaged teams when the get through their rebuild period.

5) There is a good chance the additions would be end of career guys like Simmons.  I know most of us did not want to see Simmons when we could be playing someone that at least had a chance of being part of the  future.  

A better approach would be to distribute revenue sharing to qualifying clubs based on what they spend. Reduce payments to clubs that are not spending on payments.  That way teams can spend when it makes the most sense and a greater amount is distributed to teams in the years they have a decent shot at contending. 

Something definitely needs to be done with how the product is distributed.  It’s hurting the game.  However, it’s not realistic or fair to ask the teams that have great TV contracts/revenue to take a big hit and redistribute the revenues equally.  Those teams will continue to generate far more broadcast revenue regardless of how it is distributed. MLB is not one business.  It’s an industry and while I would love more parity, asking one business to subsidize their competitor is simply not reasonable.  Would we suggest the highest paid players share their salaries with the lowest paid players?  

A salary floor has absolutely nothing to do with the relative merit of a luxury tax.  If you raise the floor and take away the soft ceiling you have done nothing. With all of the holes in 1 and 2, 3 is very likely to contribute to the overall failure of this plan.
 

The only failure here was your unwillingness to remember the topic at hand and avoid your sermon for the eleventy billionth time.  The topic is what's good for the game.  Read: Not what the Yankees will find swell.  Every argument you lay out ignores the context of the other ideas and relies on completely irrelevant arguments.  

1) Misses the point.  The purpose of the floor is to ensure shared revenues are not pocketed and to help get the players on board for more money being spent instead of horded.  Not a relevant criticism.

2) Then overpay.  Why should I care?  They still get to elect how they spend their money and on whom.  Other leagues have salary floors, I assure you dogs and cats are not mating at their arenas and no one is spontaneously combusting.  Let 'em overpay.  Better than hording.  Hording hurts fans.  Overpaying does not.

3)  So we find a way for small markets to acquire assets and it's a bad thing?  Interesting.  Also, embedded in all three of these flawed arguments is that you completely ignored that revenues are being shared.  The largest factor in current disparities has already been neutered.  You removed the context to make an irrelevant argument.

4) I don't recall writing that teams with salary floors had to give out 10 year contracts.  Can you cite where I said that please?  Or, you know, acknowledge I didn't and your Chicken Little argument is a fallacious attack?

Lastly, I don't give a bleep what's fair.  This is about what's good for the game.  The Yankees or Dodgers having a half billion dollar edge in TV contracts is what's not fair and killing the game.  Let them eat cake.  They need to share and the teams they share with need to be spending that money on their baseball product.  No cap (players happy), a floor (players happy and big teams happy),  no luxury tax (big teams happy), and completely shared revenues (little times just wet themselves they're so happy).  Wins for all.  Most of all....a win for the future of baseball.  The point of this thread by way of the title.  Not what you want to make it out to be so we can hear you twist the argument back to your talking points.

And, before you make the argument, I have no delusions that this would actually pass.  Baseball's mutually assured destruction via Holy Self Interest is an unbreakable battle line.  They are killing the game and these ideas won't be accepted until it's too late, if even then.  This was a hypothetical thought experiment and treated as such.

[old nurse]

On 1/10/2022 at 11:34 AM, ashbury said:

A salary floor disincentivizes the practice of accepting very low revenue (bad attendance, reduced jersey sales and concessions, Nielsen ratings of 0, etc) while tanking.  Since I view low fan interest as bad for the game, I'm in favor of the floor.  Teams should work constantly to build their fan base, not simply "ride out" waves of apathy

W-L records may be a zero-sum game among the teams, but interest in the sport is not.  Teams today should be routinely drawing 3 million attendees a year when they're winning, and not drop off by more than a few hundred thousand when they're down.  A decades long view should be taken, to market their players and the beauty of the game, and not simply the prospect of a World Series crown during a short window of contention.

So much of the discussion here reminds me of the old saying about a miser who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

A salary floor incentives trading for bad players with bloated contracts for cash and prospects. See the NBA

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Sconnie said:

I’m with you on the luxury tax, if you have a floor, you need a soft ceiling too.

I think the albatross trading like the NBA would be good for the game. To make it manageable you could augment, simplify and expand the rule 5, more picks, simpler age threshold, ways to move prospects around more so the Rays don’t just horde prospects received in trades taking on bad contracts.

There is generally a way to put in mechanisms to support the intended result.  With bad NBA contracts they generally have to match the annual salary.  They also have a salary cap and a much smaller variance in team salaries.  I have not given this a great amount of thought I see talking on bad contracts as a way to circumvent the intent. 

As I said previously, I think the bigger problem is that even if it were not circumvented, a salary floor is not going to improve 57 or a 62 win team to matter in most cases.  Plus, most to the bad teams spend sufficiently.   Not to mention we can't force players to sign with bad teams.  The idea has severe conceptual flaws IMO.  However, redistributing revenue sharing based on payroll levels is a very similar concept that would increase revenue sharing to small and mid market teams when they were in a window of contention or fund teams willing to extend players.  What I am suggesting is virtually the same thing as a salary floor without the challenges of a straight salary floor.  Basically, give a handful of teams more financial resource to produce an actual contender instead of improving two or three 60 win teams by 4 or 5 wins.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

There is generally a way to put in mechanisms to support the intended result.  With bad NBA contracts they generally have to match the annual salary.  They also have a salary cap and a much smaller variance in team salaries.  I have not given this a great amount of thought I see talking on bad contracts as a way to circumvent the intent. 

As I said previously, I think the bigger problem is that even if it were not circumvented, a salary floor is not going to improve 57 or a 62 win team to matter in most cases.  Plus, most to the bad teams spend sufficiently.   Not to mention we can't force players to sign with bad teams.  The idea has severe conceptual flaws IMO.  However, redistributing revenue sharing based on payroll levels is a very similar concept that would increase revenue sharing to small and mid market teams when they were in a window of contention or fund teams willing to extend players.  What I am suggesting is virtually the same thing as a salary floor without the challenges of a straight salary floor.  Basically, give a handful of teams more financial resource to produce an actual contender instead of improving two or three 60 win teams by 4 or 5 wins.

It won’t improve a 60 win team, it does eliminate the incentive to tank.

shedding salary down to nothing improves COGS. If you are limited in reduction of COGS the value in tanking is almost nil as the number 1 or 2 draft pick is just barely more likely than 10 to be a viable star ball player.

tanking sucks, it’s awful to watch, and I’m terrified Falvey and Levine are going to do it, and we’ll get stuck watching crappy ball

[TheLeviathan]

11 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

It won’t improve a 60 win team, it does eliminate the incentive to tank.

shedding salary down to nothing improves COGS. If you are limited in reduction of COGS the value in tanking is almost nil as the number 1 or 2 draft pick is just barely more likely than 10 to be a viable star ball player.

tanking sucks, it’s awful to watch, and I’m terrified Falvey and Levine are going to do it, and we’ll get stuck watching crappy ball

Correct.  A payroll linked salary floor is a red carpet to tank.  It does nothing to end false ownership narratives that horde money.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Sconnie said:

It won’t improve a 60 win team, it does eliminate the incentive to tank.

shedding salary down to nothing improves COGS. If you are limited in reduction of COGS the value in tanking is almost nil as the number 1 or 2 draft pick is just barely more likely than 10 to be a viable star ball player.

tanking sucks, it’s awful to watch, and I’m terrified Falvey and Levine are going to do it, and we’ll get stuck watching crappy ball

I agree completely.  That's why I suggested an alternative.  Distributing revenue sharing based on team salary level takes away the financial incentive to tank.  There personnel decision would be driven purely by what's best for the organization.  It also provides more financial resource to low revenue teams.  This is a much better way to improve competition or at least the opportunity to add players in a window of contention.  It also eliminates the opportunity to circumvent the system by trading for bad contracts.

The problem at hand is teams not investing revenue sharing in players.  This plan is really just a flexible salary floor just like we have a flexible salary cap.  The flexibility assures revenue sharing dollars are spent on players and it distributes those funds to the teams in the best position to utilize those funds to build a competitive team.  It not only takes that revenue sharing away from teams that don't hit a certain floor, it increases revenue sharing to other low revenue teams that are in a better position to actually contend.  

I think people are in love with the idea of making teams spend that the flaws in such a plan are overlooked.  Just think of how much angst there is here over spending regardless of if it makes sense in a given year.  Do you think bias might influence how people see the value of a salary floor and how it's implemented? 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

10 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I agree completely.  That's why I suggested an alternative.  Distributing revenue sharing based on team salary level takes away the financial incentive to tank.  There personnel decision would be driven purely by what's best for the organization.  It also provides more financial resource to low revenue teams.  This is a much better way to improve competition or at least the opportunity to add players in a window of contention.  It also eliminates the opportunity to circumvent the system by trading for bad contracts.

The problem at hand is teams not investing revenue sharing in players.  This plan is really just a flexible salary floor just like we have a flexible salary cap.  The flexibility assures revenue sharing dollars are spent on players and it distributes those funds to the teams in the best position to utilize those funds to build a competitive team.  It not only takes that revenue sharing away from teams that don't hit a certain floor, it increases revenue sharing to other low revenue teams that are in a better position to actually contend.  

I think people are in love with the idea of making teams spend that the flaws in such a plan are overlooked.  Just think of how much angst there is here over spending regardless of if it makes sense in a given year.  Do you think bias might influence how people see the value of a salary floor and how it's implemented? 

Stratifying revenue by payroll already happens. Every team that tanks knows ticket sales are tanking with the salaries and yet the tanking continues…

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

Stratifying revenue by payroll already happens. Every team that tanks knows ticket sales are tanking with the salaries and yet the tanking continues…

Now you are just refusing to acknowledge the problems associated with a straight salary floor.  As I said, some folks just love the idea of forcing teams to spend so much that they are willing to overlook the obvious flaws in such a plan.  I'm out.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 hours ago, Sconnie said:

I’m with you on the luxury tax, if you have a floor, you need a soft ceiling too.

I think the albatross trading like the NBA would be good for the game. To make it manageable you could augment, simplify and expand the rule 5, more picks, simpler age threshold, ways to move prospects around more so the Rays don’t just horde prospects received in trades taking on bad contracts.

I agree that in a sport with as much inequity as baseball, albatross trading could be a good thing. It adds protection for teams like the Twins where if they sign a Donaldson and he’s injured constantly and/or bad, they can move that contract to the Pirates along with prospect capital and re-invest that Donaldson money to another free agent. In turn, this speeds up the downcycle of contention for teams like the Pirates because if they're forced to spend the money, they can spend it by taking on bad contracts and basically "buying prospects" from teams with bad contracts on the books.

(not picking on Josh, his contract is mostly fine, he’s just an example)