Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Competitive Balance Tax


How do you feel about the proposed increase in the competitive balance tax?  The current demand is to raise the CBT by $35M.  This would not impact many teams as only a handful have been willing to spend to that level currently.  However, it does increase the already high level or competitive disparity between top and bottom revenue teams.  As a fan of a mid-market team, how much should we be willing to increase the Yankees / Red Sox competitive advantage?  This increase basically allows them to sign another elite free agent or extend another elite player or sign a couple Michael Taylors without consequence.  I don’t know about you but I think parity needs to increased not expanded.

Should we support the league’s version that would raise the CBT slightly and imposed draft penalties for exceeding the limit for a prolonged period or should be just accept increasing competitive disparity for the top handful of teams so that we can start the season on time?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

The MLBPA's insistence on raising the CBT threshold is so short-sighted--the more you allow the coastal teams to spend, the more you keep small market teams in rebuilds, depressing wages there.  I get that the MLBPA wants to eliminate as many barriers to signing FAs as possible, but reducing overall competitiveness is definitely not the way to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving the CBT as it is and adding a floor of $100mil would result in more net money being handed out to more mid-level players.

Raising the CBT, with no floor, means great disparity, not just between teams, but between pay for players at the top and the middle as well. 

This might just be my perception and a narrative rather than the reality: I've really been disappointed with the insistence by the MLBPA to be pushing harder in this negotiation to get guys who will make $100mil+ in their careers more money, but seem to be putting much less effort into getting more money for the guys that are currently making a few million in their career. Those guys gotta make that last a lifetime and once you take out the annual taxed portion and all the costs and splits of other parties who get their cut, that is not much to live off for the rest of their life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verified Member

What annoys me the most about the demanded increase by the players is they claim it will help the league be more competitive.  How do they even justify that claim?  In no way would it help balance the league out.  They also want to take away revenue sharing, with the same argument.  So the players think it will be good to take shared money from small market teams and give back to large markets that already spend over 100 mil more than the average team and allow those large markets to spend even more, in a way to make it more competitive.  That makes no sense.

I do agree with players that the shared money should have to go to signing players though or at least a large percent.  However, to get back to the question, no raising the tax is not good for game.  Only a couple of teams are even close to it right now blocking them from signing anyone.  Some teams may be blocked from signing a mega contract because they are within like say 30 mil, but that is very few teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Minny505 said:

Leaving the CBT as it is and adding a floor of $100mil would result in more net money being handed out to more mid-level players.

Raising the CBT, with no floor, means great disparity, not just between teams, but between pay for players at the top and the middle as well. 

This might just be my perception and a narrative rather than the reality: I've really been disappointed with the insistence by the MLBPA to be pushing harder in this negotiation to get guys who will make $100mil+ in their careers more money, but seem to be putting much less effort into getting more money for the guys that are currently making a few million in their career. Those guys gotta make that last a lifetime and once you take out the annual taxed portion and all the costs and splits of other parties who get their cut, that is not much to live off for the rest of their life. 

A floor does literally nothing to change the capacity / ability to spend for the bottom 20-25 teams.  Therefore, it would not change the disparity in the context of how relative revenue impacts ability to compete.  Forcing the teams to add veteran talent would make them slightly better but it would not change their capacity to compete.  There is also a good possibility one of those contracts they are forced to add turns into a bad contract which later detracts from their ability to put together a contender coming out of a rebuild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trov said:

What annoys me the most about the demanded increase by the players is they claim it will help the league be more competitive.  How do they even justify that claim?

It doesn't balance the league out at all. What it increases is the ability of teams to compete for players' services.

I'm a bit torn on this issue. Obviously it's not good for the sport for large-market teams' advantage to increase, but the players are absolutely right to resent a system that prevents them being paid what unrestricted supply and demand would pay them. If I were a free agent, I'd really hate waiting until just before spring training to accept a lowball offer when the large-market teams would be happy to make me a better one if not for the luxury tax. 

I wish there were some way to ensure that players get paid the absolute most that any team is willing to pay them without allowing big-spending teams to hoard free agents. Maybe a salary floor is the closest we can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

It doesn't balance the league out at all. What it increases is the ability of teams to compete for players' services.

I'm a bit torn on this issue. Obviously it's not good for the sport for large-market teams' advantage to increase, but the players are absolutely right to resent a system that prevents them being paid what unrestricted supply and demand would pay them. If I were a free agent, I'd really hate waiting until just before spring training to accept a lowball offer when the large-market teams would be happy to make me a better one if not for the luxury tax. 

I wish there were some way to ensure that players get paid the absolute most that any team is willing to pay them without allowing big-spending teams to hoard free agents. Maybe a salary floor is the closest we can get.

How would we prevent teams from getting creative and working around the system?  If I were a GM in that situation I would sign a big name free agent to an offer they could not refuse.  Then, I would trade them for some great prospects while retaining that player's salary.  Can you imagine what you could get from a team up against the CBT threshold for Max Scherzer at $100K year?  Of course, they could also take on bad contracts from large markets.  That would allow them to sign a different player that hopefully is productive which would in effect increase the gap in parity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The MLBPA's insistence on raising the CBT threshold is so short-sighted--the more you allow the coastal teams to spend, the more you keep small market teams in rebuilds, depressing wages there.  I get that the MLBPA wants to eliminate as many barriers to signing FAs as possible, but reducing overall competitiveness is definitely not the way to do that.

I am guessing demanding the bottom 11 teams (Milwaukee was at 99 million last year) to spend more will do less for the overall players then allowing the top 18 teams to spend more. (that was by 2021 salaries)

In 2019 only 6 teams were below 100 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am guessing demanding the bottom 11 teams (Milwaukee was at 99 million last year) to spend more will do less for the overall players then allowing the top 18 teams to spend more. (that was by 2021 salaries)

In 2019 only 6 teams were below 100 million

Since 2003 eight different teams have exceeded the CBT threshold.  However, it's generally been 2-3 year.  Only the Dodgers and Padres exceeded it in 2021 and the Padres only paid and extra 1.29M as a result.  The Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs were above in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

A floor does literally nothing to change the capacity / ability to spend for the bottom 20-25 teams.  Therefore, it would not change the disparity in the context of how relative revenue impacts ability to compete.  Forcing the teams to add veteran talent would make them slightly better but it would not change their capacity to compete. 

The purpose of the floor for MLB is to do exactly what you say, "make them slightly better", with "them" meaning the rebuilding teams. That's it. It's not to make them playoff contenders, it's to simply compress the distribution of wins from the top team to the bottom team.

So it sounds like we agree on that, correct?

If we do agree, then a floor adds parity. It makes the teams at the bottom slightly more competitive, but not playoff contenders.

Regarding the ability to spend, a floor has nothing to do with that. It's an issue of willingness. A floor forces teams that are often receiving profit sharing to spend it on the field rather than pocket it for ownership profit.

The likely effect for players is that players at the bottom of the pay distribution see their earnings rise as teams perhaps overpay them to meet the $100mil obligation.

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

There is also a good possibility one of those contracts they are forced to add turns into a bad contract which later detracts from their ability to put together a contender coming out of a rebuild. 

No, there's not. "There is no such thing as a bad one year contract" is a MLB axiom for a reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am guessing demanding the bottom 11 teams (Milwaukee was at 99 million last year) to spend more will do less for the overall players then allowing the top 18 teams to spend more. (that was by 2021 salaries)

In 2019 only 6 teams were below 100 million

I would completely disagree. Most of those top 19 teams are not limiting their spend because of the CBT. Most are not within $20mil of the first CBT limit. Most of those teams' payroll is an ownership decision based on revenue.

A $100mil floor would transfer roughly $150mil from owner bank accounts to player banker accounts. It is doubtful a higher CBT has that kind of impact. Here's why.

According to Cot's, only 5 teams are up against or over the CBT for 2022. It is speculated that of that group, only the Yankees would spend more in 2022 and only about $20mil. (The Dodgers and Mets spending more is likely independent of the CBT already). Maybe the Red Sox spend more, but that is truly the only other team that would be expected to take the CBT into account regarding spending more on pauroll.

Being generous, and including the Red Sox and saying they increase payroll by $20mil as well, that means a $100mil floor still has a net gain for the players of about $100mil over raising the CBT*.

*This is based on the assumption that the CBT would stay at its current level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Minny505 said:

The purpose of the floor for MLB is to do exactly what you say, "make them slightly better", with "them" meaning the rebuilding teams. That's it. It's not to make them playoff contenders, it's to simply compress the distribution of wins from the top team to the bottom team.

So it sounds like we agree on that, correct?

If we do agree, then a floor adds parity. It makes the teams at the bottom slightly more competitive, but not playoff contenders.

Regarding the ability to spend, a floor has nothing to do with that. It's an issue of willingness. A floor forces teams that are often receiving profit sharing to spend it on the field rather than pocket it for ownership profit.

The likely effect for players is that players at the bottom of the pay distribution see their earnings rise as teams perhaps overpay them to meet the $100mil obligation.

No, there's not. "There is no such thing as a bad one year contract" is a MLB axiom for a reason. 

What you are saying is perfectly reasonable and I would not disagree this is a form of parity.  Here is where we don’t necessarily disagree but differ in terms of what we desire to get out of parity.  I find more value in policy that promotes a more equal chance to put a playoff or contending team on the field.  That should be the goal IMO instead of a very modest impact in the form of slightly reducing the gap in number of victories top to bottom.   Is this really something we should value as fans …. Our team in need of a rebuild eking out 70 wins instead of 65.  Should we feel better about such a plan.  Based on the unrest here when the Twins were playing veterans last year instead of prospects, I don't see this as great for the team or their fans.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would prefer to distribute revenue sharing based on a 3 year running average of payroll.  In other words, instead of distributing X dollars to 10 teams or whatever number receive revenue sharing, distribute 2x to the teams that are spending.  This practice would elevate the impact of revenue sharing for low revenue teams that were actually making a run at contention.  Same impact without the inherent potential abuse as a salary floor.  IE  signing a player and trading them while retaining the salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what universe does a baseball team vote for a proposal that is going to cost them money and lead them to signing mediocre players? Signing the mid level players is not going to make any of the  low budget teams that are sitting with rosters that totaled less than 20 fwar into anything but a losing team. Just look at the Baltimore Orioles.  2020 MLB Baseball Free Agent Tracker - Major League Baseball - ESPN  look through the list and spend 40 more million and tell me how that team improves 30 games,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fine with raising the ceiling 30 million give or take.  but they should make the penalties steeper when someone passes it.  Also if we are doing this so the players get a greater percentage of revenue then there should be a floor for any team that receives revenue sharing.  I think 80-90 million is more fair in that regards.  

Using Minnesota as an example we have one of the worst tv contracts in the game.  no one wanted to go for the cable channel and the TV stations or radio stations wouldn't up their offers either.  so that affects our revenue.  plus we have all 4 major sports teams here which affects our revenues too.  so the Twins need to look for ways to increase revenue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with ownership on a slight and gradual increase. The financial disparity is real in MLB and doesn't have to be increased.

There should also be a greater and more even revenue sharing amongst the lower revenue teams for greater competitive balance. That's good for the growth of the game. The problem is the owners have to clean up their own dysfunctional, collective house and force those teams to actually spend that revenue share money. And that's where some sort of floor, or floating floor based on revenues or a 2-3 window for a rebuilding team, etc, can be put in to affect.

I completely object said floor FORCES teams to add players and salaries just to meet said threshold. Teams wouldn't be FORCED to sign player 'X' just to meet that floor unless they were just bad at doing their jobs. (But that's also why a floating floor might be in place for a team wanting to rebuild). It allows those lower market teams to add an arm in the rotationnor pen, or even a good bench player or two, to just put a better product on the field, even while in a rebuild cycle waiting for prospects. Further, it gives them more flexibility to retain their own players vs having to trade them or let them walk.

If you are a lower market team who has money handed to you for your payroll to add and keep and be more competitive and you can't figure out what to do with those extra millions, then your problem is how your organization is run. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I am with ownership on a slight and gradual increase. The financial disparity is real in MLB and doesn't have to be increased.

There should also be a greater and more even revenue sharing amongst the lower revenue teams for greater competitive balance. That's good for the growth of the game. The problem is the owners have to clean up their own dysfunctional, collective house and force those teams to actually spend that revenue share money. And that's where some sort of floor, or floating floor based on revenues or a 2-3 window for a rebuilding team, etc, can be put in to affect.

I completely object said floor FORCES teams to add players and salaries just to meet said threshold. Teams wouldn't be FORCED to sign player 'X' just to meet that floor unless they were just bad at doing their jobs. (But that's also why a floating floor might be in place for a team wanting to rebuild). It allows those lower market teams to add an arm in the rotationnor pen, or even a good bench player or two, to just put a better product on the field, even while in a rebuild cycle waiting for prospects. Further, it gives them more flexibility to retain their own players vs having to trade them or let them walk.

If you are a lower market team who has money handed to you for your payroll to add and keep and be more competitive and you can't figure out what to do with those extra millions, then your problem is how your organization is run. 

 

Doc, I appreciate that you are at least examining the issues.  I literally could not get several posters here to even acknowledge the issues when I asked repeatedly if raising the CBT, lowering revenue sharing, and reducing years of control would reduce parity and hurt the game long-term.  I got condescending answers and absolute refusal (literally) to actually address the issues.  These issues are the primary reason we are where we are.  

I happened to be in the car on Monday when “High Heat” (Christopher Russo) was on the radio.  Of course, this was just ahead of the player’s proposal.  He opened the show by addressing these terms.  He said in no uncertain terms that this CBA process was not and should not go anywhere until the players come of these issues which “fundamentally change the game” in an adverse way.  He spent 5 minutes on this point.  Why is anyone surprised negotiations have gone nowhere.  Perhaps more importantly, why should we want them to go anywhere under these terms?  Make no mistake, this impasse is a product of the player’s insisting on terms that are bad for the game.  I will once again invite anyone to dispute these terms are bad for the game and therefore the owners holding out is good for us as fans.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I wish the MLBPA would push harder for a salary floor and stop fixating on raising the CBT. I don't have numbers to back this up and I very well could be wrong but it seems to me that more of their membership would gain from raising the floor.

Here it is @Brock Beauchamp and you are not incorrect.

Based on Cot's payroll numbers for 2022, a $100mil floor would transfer roughly $150mil from owner bank accounts to player banker accounts. It is doubtful a higher CBT has that kind of impact. Here's why.

Only 5 teams are up against or over the CBT for 2022. It is speculated that of that group, only the Yankees would spend more in 2022 and only about $20mil. (The Dodgers and Mets spending more is likely independent of the CBT already). Maybe the Red Sox spend more, but that is truly the only other team that would be expected to take the CBT into account regarding spending more on payroll.

Being generous, and including the Red Sox and saying they increase payroll by $20mil as well, that means a $100mil floor still has a net gain for the players of about $100mil over raising the CBT by $25mil*.

*This is based on the assumption that the CBT would stay at its current level with a $100mil floor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initial luxury tax of 20% has not been a significant impactor on team spending for 1-2 consecutive years, in my opinion. It's the 3rd year or the ability to constantly run well above the luxury tax ceiling which is maybe a tiny bit prohibitive for a few teams.

According to Spotrac, 

  • 2019 - Red Sox (2.1MM or 0.9%), Cubs (7.4MM or 3.1%) and Yankees (6.4MM or 2.7%) exceeded the luxury tax and the amount their tax was in relation to payroll.
  • 2021 - Dodgers (21MM or 8.0%), Phillies (0.9MM or 0.4%).

In general only 3-5 teams are even within $10MM of the luxury tax ceiling right now, meaning the luxury tax doesn't seem to have any obvious impact on 25 of 30 MLB teams in any given season. In practice, the MLBPA's proposal is to eliminate the luxury tax entirely in every way shape and form. Only 1 team has ever exceeded $245MM (Dodgers in 2015 and 2021), and only a couple other times has a team been within $10MM of the $245MM proposed ceiling. $245MM is simply more than any team in baseball (other than the Dodgers) are willing to spend on payroll with or without the luxury tax.

The MLBPA is utterly, and ludicrously, focused on the concept of a potential salary limiter of any type even an irrational one. It's tunnel vision to the nth degree and it's making them look like idiots. Guys like Max Scherzer BS all day about how the MLBPA is interested in making sure the young guys get theirs. It's clear the MLBPA's (and Max Scherzer's self-interest) focus is maximizing the veteran compensation at any cost. Btw, I can't blame Scherzer for looking out for #1, but I can call him hypocritical and a liar.

I think the last owner's proposal is very good for an offer. In 2019, the full arbitration salary predictions from MLB Trade Rumors was $843MM. The owners are proposing (right now), a $1 billion dollar pool which would be a 19% increase from $843MM. It's based on the idea arbitration players have to earn their money with an independent statistic (fWAR), though I could see MLB later buying Fangraphs...

If the MLBPA were to come back, agree with the luxury tax at a lower amount with all super 2s (arbitration after 2 years, 4 years of total arbitration), we'd have a deal. With the $100MM floor, the arbitration increases are absorbed by the lower payroll teams increased required spending and since the arbitration pool is capped, MLB doesn't care if there are more or less people in the pool.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2022 at 11:25 AM, Major League Ready said:

How would we prevent teams from getting creative and working around the system?  If I were a GM in that situation I would sign a big name free agent to an offer they could not refuse.  Then, I would trade them for some great prospects while retaining that player's salary.  Can you imagine what you could get from a team up against the CBT threshold for Max Scherzer at $100K year?  Of course, they could also take on bad contracts from large markets.  That would allow them to sign a different player that hopefully is productive which would in effect increase the gap in parity.

It could be something like all FA contracts come with a 12 month no trade clause.  Or any team that trades a player on a multi-year deal before 50% of the total years has passed cannot sign any multiyear deals in the next offseason.  So for example, when the Twins signed Josh Donaldson prior to the 2020 season, they would have to wait until after 81 games into the 2023 season (since his contract was technically for 5 years when you include the option) to trade him.  They could trade him  last year, but then they would be barred from signing any deals this offseason (meaning they would not have been able to extend Buxton).

Also, the teams hard up against the cap, to the extent that they would be willing to trade a boatload of great prospects for cheap control of a star player, generally don't have enough top level prospects to pull that off.  If I'm going to be on the hook for $25M+ and not get the MVP/CY Young level production of a player, I need at least 4-5 Top 100 prospects; there's just not that many teams that can do that, even if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

It could be something like all FA contracts come with a 12 month no trade clause.  Or any team that trades a player on a multi-year deal before 50% of the total years has passed cannot sign any multiyear deals in the next offseason.  So for example, when the Twins signed Josh Donaldson prior to the 2020 season, they would have to wait until after 81 games into the 2023 season (since his contract was technically for 5 years when you include the option) to trade him.  They could trade him  last year, but then they would be barred from signing any deals this offseason (meaning they would not have been able to extend Buxton).

Also, the teams hard up against the cap, to the extent that they would be willing to trade a boatload of great prospects for cheap control of a star player, generally don't have enough top level prospects to pull that off.  If I'm going to be on the hook for $25M+ and not get the MVP/CY Young level production of a player, I need at least 4-5 Top 100 prospects; there's just not that many teams that can do that, even if they wanted to.

It would not make any difference if those teams were barred from signing multi year deals.  If they trade away a $40M.yr guy and retain most of his salary for a year of two, they definitely would not have the budget or the need.  That type of arrangement would satisfy their floor for a couple years if that's how they chose to arrange it.  Perhaps more to the point is that the owners would NEVER accept terms that put teams in this position.  It would just never happen.   The benefit is meager at best for fans.  It's a detriment to teams.  This who competitive integrity thing was a great sound bite on the players behalf but their primary demands directly conflict any desire for competitive integrity.

If your alternative is to spend $40M for 5 wins when you suck, would you have to have that type of haul to make it worthwhile?  I think the answer is a resounding no.  You take the best you can get.  I would take 2 top 100 prospects and couple guys with a chance to MLB players in a heartbeat in that situation.

The concept of a floor is ripe with flaws.  There is a much better way to assure revenue sharing goes to teams that spend it on players.  I think fans love the idea of making teams spend in spite of the fact it's a badly flawed concept.  The irony is that we have seen quite clearly that fans don't want veterans taking innings that could be invested in players with a chance to contribute to winning long-term.  There was quite a bit of bitching about this last year and right so. Am I wrong. were people not upset that Simmons was playing?  Yet, the idea of a floor gets fan support.  Does not make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

It would not make any difference if those teams were barred from signing multi year deals.  If they trade away a $40M.yr guy the most and retain most of his salary for a year of two, they definitely would not have the budget or the need.  That type of arrangement would satisfy their floor for a couple years if that's how they chose to arrange it.  Perhaps more to the point is that the owners would NEVER accept terms that put teams in this position.  It would just never happen.   The benefit is meager at best for fans.  It's a detriment to teams.  This who competitive integrity thing was a great sound bite on the players behalf but their primary demands directly conflict any desire for competitive integrity.

If your alternative is to spend $40M for 5 wins when you suck, would you have to have that type of haul to make it worthwhile?  I think the answer is a resounding no.  You take the best you can get.  I would take 2 top 100 prospects and couple guys with a chance to MLB players in a heartbeat in that situation.

The concept of a floor is ripe with flaws.  There is a much better way to assure revenue sharing goes to teams that spend it on players.  I think fans love the idea of making teams spend in spite of the fact it's a badly flawed concept.  The irony is that we have seen quite clearly that fans don't want veterans taking innings that could be invested in players with a chance to contribute to winning long-term.  There was quite a bit of bitching about this last year and right so. Am I wrong. were people not upset that Simmons was playing?  Yet, the idea of a floor gets fan support.  Does not make sense to me.

No team will ever need to spend $40M in one offseason to hit a floor.  If a floor is implemented, teams will be given time to come up to that.  It's also not going to be teams signing veterans they're not interested in just to hit a floor; it will be more like teams being more open to signing their pre-arb players to multiyear deals.  A team that is $20M below the floor is probably far more likely to just give their 5 most MLB-ready prospects/5 lowest paid projected starters each a 3 year, $15M contract (or if they are highly thought of, 5/6 year contracts for $25M/$30M).

It also would make a difference to bar them from signing deals, if a little tweak is made--make the rule that instead of the next offseason, you're barred through the offseason AFTER the contract in question would have ended.  If that's the rule, had the Twins traded Donaldson as in my scenario, the Twins would have had to sit out this year, next year, the year after that, AND the year after that (no multiyear deals until the 2025 MLB season starts).  Or perhaps instead of barring them from multiyear deals, say they're barred from acquiring any player who is not placed on their 40 man roster immediately for one calendar year after the deal (and said player must also remain on the 40 man, even if injured).  Essentially, the team would lose all their draft picks, would not be able to participate in the international market, and could not bolster their farm system in any way.  Or say that all multiyear contracts automatically carry a full no trade clause.  You'll see FAs signing shorter deals, which will give them more bites at the apple, while MLB teams will protect themselves against the megacontracts.

It's not hard to stop these kind of theoretical shenanigans, you just have to take a minute to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bean5302 said:

No trade agreements seem to be largely forgotten here. This circumvention of the system could already happen but never does.

 

There were 4 teams under $60M last year.  Cleveland was under $50M with a pretty decent team.  Pittsburg was at $45M.  Even Houston’s went under $50M when they rebuilt.  If it were the case that we are only talking $20M, what’s the point?  On average we are talking about 2.5 wins. I mean really, what is the point?  Would 62 wins make any more difference to you than 60 wins?  

Taking away the ability to trade adds another layer of disadvantage to these teams.  You would be taking away the strategies Tampa / Oakland / and Cleveland have used to obtain talent.
 
The driving force of a floor is that people hate the fact a team gets revenue sharing and does not spend it on players.  Why not distribute revenue sharing based on player payroll.  This absolutely ensures the money is spent on players without any potential pitfalls associated with a floor.  Make your case for the benefit of a floor vs distribution based on payroll.  Owner still probably would not accept this because business owners don't take kindly to being told how to invest in their business.  However, this approach has a lot better chance of getting accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

There were 4 teams under $60M last year.  Cleveland was under $50M with a pretty decent team.  Pittsburg was at $45M.  Even Houston’s went under $50M when they rebuilt.  If it were the case that we are only talking $20M, what’s the point?  On average we are talking about 2.5 wins. I mean really, what is the point?  Would 62 wins make any more difference to you than 60 wins?  

Taking away the ability to trade adds another layer of disadvantage to these teams.  You would be taking away the strategies Tampa / Oakland / and Cleveland have used to obtain talent.
 
The driving force of a floor is that people hate the fact a team gets revenue sharing and does not spend it on players.  Why not distribute revenue sharing based on player payroll.  This absolutely ensures the money is spent on players without any potential pitfalls associated with a floor.  Make your case for the benefit of a floor vs distribution based on payroll.  Owner still probably would not accept this because business owners don't take kindly to being told how to invest in their business.  However, this approach has a lot better chance of getting accepted.

I'm not saying take anything away. I'm saying the potential for manipulating the system designed to improve competition already exists, but it's not actually a factor. Right now, there's nothing stopping Pittsburgh from grabbing Miguel Caberera from the Tigers if the Tigers throw in a couple top prospects... except the no trade agreement. The players aren't stupid and there's a reason they've been asking for no trade agreements. That kinda makes concerns about salary cap/floor manipulation moot.

Tampa Bay would still have every ability to trade away their top players for assets, they'd just have to find veterans to give 1-2 year contracts to fill out the team. It's not about 2 wins. It's about Tampa Bay not forcing the New York Yankees to pay the mortgage and light bill at the Trop. It's about requiring Pittsburgh to actually try to win a little bit. Tampa Bay has been exceptional, but no other team in baseball has been able to come close to what they've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I'm not saying take anything away. I'm saying the potential for manipulating the system designed to improve competition already exists, but it's not actually a factor. Right now, there's nothing stopping Pittsburgh from grabbing Miguel Caberera from the Tigers if the Tigers throw in a couple top prospects... except the no trade agreement. The players aren't stupid and there's a reason they've been asking for no trade agreements. That kinda makes concerns about salary cap/floor manipulation moot.

Tampa Bay would still have every ability to trade away their top players for assets, they'd just have to find veterans to give 1-2 year contracts to fill out the team. It's not about 2 wins. It's about Tampa Bay not forcing the New York Yankees to pay the mortgage and light bill at the Trop. It's about requiring Pittsburgh to actually try to win a little bit. Tampa Bay has been exceptional, but no other team in baseball has been able to come close to what they've done.

I don't understand why you are comparing today to a future state scenario.  In a future state where a team was required to spend to a floor the dynamics would be completely different.  If you force teams to spend money, would they choose to win a couple extra games which would be absolutely meaningless or would they elect to spend that money on basically buying some prospects.

Regardless, it does not matter.  The entire premise has little or no value and there are a number of problems with it.  Would you care if your team won 65 games instead of 62.  This is in no way a solution to enabling lower revenue teams to put a contending team on the field.  Also, as best I can tell fans (at least the ones here) don't want mediocre veterans taking playing time from prospects during a rebuild.  The owners are never going to go for a floor for good reason.  They will address it with a draft lottery. 

You also ignored the case for a floor vs distribution of revenue sharing based on payroll.  I don't know the owners would go for that either but it provides greater benefit than a floor if the goal is to provide low revenue teams with a better chance at contending.  If the goal is to turn 62 win teams into 65 win teams, a floor would be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 7:00 PM, bean5302 said:

No trade agreements seem to be largely forgotten here. This circumvention of the system could already happen but never does.

 

Not every player has a no trade agreement. Currently teams have traded to get their break from  the tax. The Betts trade did net Boston a fine player while giving up nothing, LA Dodger dumped salary after the 2017 season. They gave up nothing to do so. There is nothing to incentivize taking on contracts besides the cash that came along with the player.  That cash pays for the player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 9:00 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I wish the MLBPA would push harder for a salary floor and stop fixating on raising the CBT. I don't have numbers to back this up and I very well could be wrong but it seems to me that more of their membership would gain from raising the floor.

That's certainly how it works in other sports.  The middle class of FA benefit from the floor.

I do not understand why the MLBPA is dying on the luxury tax hill.  Then again, these two sides are in a slap fight with stupidity as their primary weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 6:55 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

No team will ever need to spend $40M in one offseason to hit a floor.  If a floor is implemented, teams will be given time to come up to that.  It's also not going to be teams signing veterans they're not interested in just to hit a floor; it will be more like teams being more open to signing their pre-arb players to multiyear deals.  A team that is $20M below the floor is probably far more likely to just give their 5 most MLB-ready prospects/5 lowest paid projected starters each a 3 year, $15M contract (or if they are highly thought of, 5/6 year contracts for $25M/$30M).

It also would make a difference to bar them from signing deals, if a little tweak is made--make the rule that instead of the next offseason, you're barred through the offseason AFTER the contract in question would have ended.  If that's the rule, had the Twins traded Donaldson as in my scenario, the Twins would have had to sit out this year, next year, the year after that, AND the year after that (no multiyear deals until the 2025 MLB season starts).  Or perhaps instead of barring them from multiyear deals, say they're barred from acquiring any player who is not placed on their 40 man roster immediately for one calendar year after the deal (and said player must also remain on the 40 man, even if injured).  Essentially, the team would lose all their draft picks, would not be able to participate in the international market, and could not bolster their farm system in any way.  Or say that all multiyear contracts automatically carry a full no trade clause.  You'll see FAs signing shorter deals, which will give them more bites at the apple, while MLB teams will protect themselves against the megacontracts.

It's not hard to stop these kind of theoretical shenanigans, you just have to take a minute to think about it.

When Nathan, Cuddyer, Kubel and Capps left, in todays market that would leave a 40 million dollar hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to have parity with floors and ceilings is to have a hard ceiling, hard floor at the start of the year, contracts that are limited to 1 year and the team with a departing free agent gets a chance to match a contract with perhaps a small expense attached that also goes to the player. It would also get players paid for what they do. It would give everybody a chance at players, It prevents the equivalent of a Kevin Durant kind of situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...