Competitive Balance Tax

[Prince William]

33 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

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.

You mean like in basketball where there are many veterans playing for the league minimum

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

You mean like in basketball where there are many veterans playing for the league minimum

Taurean Prince is making 13M a year. Gary Harris is making 20M.   Please....invite me to continue destroying this notion.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

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.

I think you are absolutely correct.  A floor would benefit players.  My question is why are so many fans concerned about what players make as opposed to what's good for the sport?  If you are an average wage earner, your annual income would be $3.2M if US wages would have risen at the same rate as player salaries over the last 50 years.  I think their compensation is quite adequate.  Did the salaries handed out before the lockout indicate players were abused employees?  Let's concentrate on what's good for the game.  We are in the situation we are in because the players started out with a long list of demands and some of them were bad for the game.  They did not bunch an inch.  That's stupidity.  Not giving in to demands that would hurt the game is not stupid.  Trying negotiate with very unreasonable people that won't budge is not easy and it takes much longer than what should be needed.

[Prince William]

14 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Taurean Prince is making 13M a year. Gary Harris is making 20M.   Please....invite me to continue destroying this notion.

Lamarus Aldridge, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Andre Drummond, Taj Gibson is a little bit above the minimum. Iguodola is a little above also. You can't destroy the notion. Regardless of the floor, the problem is what the cap is and how many max contracts there are. It has absolutely nothing to do with the floor in basketball as the only team near the floor or not over the cap is OKC.  

[Cap'n Piranha]

17 hours ago, Prince William said:

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

Are you saying that the Twins would not have been able to see that coming, and plan for it so as not to be forced to spend $40M on anyone with a pulse who would take the money?

[Prince William]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I think you are absolutely correct.  A floor would benefit players.  My question is why are so many fans concerned about what players make as opposed to what's good for the sport?  If you are an average wage earner, your annual income would be $3.2M if US wages would have risen at the same rate as player salaries over the last 50 years.  I think their compensation is quite adequate.  Did the salaries handed out before the lockout indicate players were abused employees?  Let's concentrate on what's good for the game.  We are in the situation we are in because the players started out with a long list of demands and some of them were bad for the game.  They did not bunch an inch.  That's stupidity.  Not giving in to demands that would hurt the game is not stupid.  Trying negotiate with very unreasonable people that won't budge is not easy and it takes much longer than what should be needed.

In basketball almost all of the teams are over the cap.  In hockey the lowest spending team is 12 million below the cap.  There is nothing out there that shows a floor benefits the players or makes any team better

[Prince William]

3 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Are you saying that the Twins would not have been able to see that coming, and plan for it so as not to be forced to spend $40M on anyone with a pulse who would take the money?

If I was saying that I would have said that. It was said that no team would have to spend 40 million at once. The Pohlads may well have kept a team near the floor. Hence when a group leaves at the end of a term, the payroll can drop and a team would have to spend a large amount at once

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

If I was saying that I would have said that. It was said that no team would have to spend 40 million at once. The Pohlads may well have kept a team near the floor. Hence when a group leaves at the end of a term, the payroll can drop and a team would have to spend a large amount at once

Umm, no.  They would have planned for that, and ensured they wouldn't get in that position.  If a team is at $103M on a $100M floor, but knows they have $40M leaving in a year or two, they will have plans in place to address that in advance, like buying out arb years, extending pre-arb players, or signing a free agent or two in advance.  No team will go into an offseason needing to spend that much, because it will put them at a huge disadvantage in negotiating.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

In basketball almost all of the teams are over the cap.  In hockey the lowest spending team is 12 million below the cap.  There is nothing out there that shows a floor benefits the players or makes any team better

29 of the 30 teams are indeed over the cap.  Which logically means that "the cap" is not actually the cap, and is in reality, the floor.  Do you think perhaps that contributes towards the 400ish NBA players splitting $3.3B, as opposed to the 800ish MLB players splitting $4B?

[Prince William]

49 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

29 of the 30 teams are indeed over the cap.  Which logically means that "the cap" is not actually the cap, and is in reality, the floor.  Do you think perhaps that contributes towards the 400ish NBA players splitting $3.3B, as opposed to the 800ish MLB players splitting $4B?

That is as twisted logic as I have seen here. A floor is a mandatory minimum. So no, spending over a cap is not a floor. Really, how the f does someone come up with that? One has nothing to do with the other

[Prince William]

50 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Umm, no.  They would have planned for that, and ensured they wouldn't get in that position.  If a team is at $103M on a $100M floor, but knows they have $40M leaving in a year or two, they will have plans in place to address that in advance, like buying out arb years, extending pre-arb players, or signing a free agent or two in advance.  No team will go into an offseason needing to spend that much, because it will put them at a huge disadvantage in negotiating.

Help my memory out. Who did the Twins sign that took up the money that was spent on Nathan, Capps, Kubel and Cuddyer?  When it comes to signing a free agent, a team has no control. The Twins were intent on signing Mark Buehrle. Didn't happen. A team is always going to be at a disadvantage regardless of how much short of a floor the team is. If someone is not interested, they are not interested.

[LastOnePicked]

On 1/27/2022 at 11:24 AM, 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.

Spot on. This is why I find it hard to be rooting for the MLBPA, despite my frustration with MLB owners as well. Raising the CBT threshold means more disparity in the game, more mid-market tanking, more multi-year rebuilds, and essentially an "elite league" of coastal teams. This dynamic is already hurting the game.

[nicksaviking]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I think you are absolutely correct.  A floor would benefit players.  My question is why are so many fans concerned about what players make as opposed to what's good for the sport?  If you are an average wage earner, your annual income would be $3.2M if US wages would have risen at the same rate as player salaries over the last 50 years.  I think their compensation is quite adequate.  Did the salaries handed out before the lockout indicate players were abused employees?  Let's concentrate on what's good for the game.  We are in the situation we are in because the players started out with a long list of demands and some of them were bad for the game.  They did not bunch an inch.  That's stupidity.  Not giving in to demands that would hurt the game is not stupid.  Trying negotiate with very unreasonable people that won't budge is not easy and it takes much longer than what should be needed.

What's good for the players tends to be tied to what's good for the game.

If the owners actually cared about what's good for the game, they long ago would have agreed to near 100% revenue sharing with salary caps and floors akin to the other pro leagues. The owners' interests would have then all been tied to keeping the game healthy and profitable instead of having 30 different and often competing agendas.

Instead they sold their souls for top dollar and Bally Sports of all entities faceplanted into the rights of the sport which is about five minutes from going up in flames.

 

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, Prince William said:

Lamarus Aldridge, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Andre Drummond, Taj Gibson is a little bit above the minimum. Iguodola is a little above also. You can't destroy the notion. Regardless of the floor, the problem is what the cap is and how many max contracts there are. It has absolutely nothing to do with the floor in basketball as the only team near the floor or not over the cap is OKC.  

So you cited a bunch of aging, ring-chasers who would be out of the league as the "middle class"?  Well, now we're just being silly. 

The NBA splits almost the same amount of money as baseball (3-4B) over half the number of players.  Part of why the league has so many teams pushing the cap (and well above it) is that basketball teams know that even letting average dudes hit free agency is a recipe for losing them without any compensation.  They'd rather exceed the cap and price-match salaries in trade than lose them.  That's why guys like Taurean Prince, Michael Beasley, and Hernangomez are making significant money in the NBA (just to name three recent Wolves).  Those guys are the middle class and they are getting PAID.  Go ahead...name three more teams not named the Thunder and I'll find hefty contracts they gave out to bench players.  Same goes for the NHL too BTW - where plenty of third liners or blue collar D-men are being paid 3-6M.  Right Victor Rask? (I admit, lumping Rask in with third liners is deeply unfair to third liners, my apologies)

And why is that?  Well, unlike baseball, teams in the NBA and NHL know they can't just let their players "test the waters" and then limp back for a deal later.  In leagues with a floor, middle class players are not low-balled or leveraged by a low number of suitors.  Floors, and the spending incentive they create and the corresponding need to retain assets, create a more competitive bidding process.  Or force trades to avoid losing players for nothing.  It may not happen instantaneously, but instead creates a culture in which everyone is expected to be competing and paying players.  That has a trickle down effect.

So does the reverse, as MLB keeps demonstrating.

[Prince William]

4 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

What's good for the players tends to be tied to what's good for the game.

If the owners actually cared about what's good for the game, they long ago would have agreed to near 100% revenue sharing with salary caps and floors akin to the other pro leagues. The owners' interests would have then all been tied to keeping the game healthy and profitable instead of having 30 different and often competing agendas.

Instead they sold their souls for top dollar and Bally Sports of all entities faceplanted into the rights of the sport which is about five minutes from going up in flames.

 

No league has 100% revenue sharing, so why should baseball? The romantic notion that somehow it would even the playing field is not proveable. Look at football

[TheLeviathan]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I think you are absolutely correct.  A floor would benefit players.  My question is why are so many fans concerned about what players make as opposed to what's good for the sport?  If you are an average wage earner, your annual income would be $3.2M if US wages would have risen at the same rate as player salaries over the last 50 years.  I think their compensation is quite adequate.  Did the salaries handed out before the lockout indicate players were abused employees?  Let's concentrate on what's good for the game.  We are in the situation we are in because the players started out with a long list of demands and some of them were bad for the game.  They did not bunch an inch.  That's stupidity.  Not giving in to demands that would hurt the game is not stupid.  Trying negotiate with very unreasonable people that won't budge is not easy and it takes much longer than what should be needed.

The lack of a floor creates incentive for teams to bottom out and that's bad for the game.  I don't deny the players are a huge part of the problem.  Just like the owners.  

I've said before and I'll say again (which makes me really unpopular with both groups who take sides) - I could list a half dozen stances on both sides of negotiations are that are absurdly stupid and bad for the game.  They both suck and they're both killing the game.  But I can't feel pity for billionaires over millionaires.  They both suck but only one of them is taking my money to pay for their businesses.  So 55-45...one sucks a little more.

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Prince William said:

No league has 100% revenue sharing, so why should baseball? The romantic notion that somehow it would even the playing field is not proveable. Look at football

*Looks at football*

That looks good.  Parity and sanity.  Could use more guaranteed money for the players, but from a league structure standpoint...I like what I'm looking at.  Baseball should do that.

[Prince William]

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

So you cited a bunch of aging, ring-chasers who would be out of the league as the "middle class"?  Well, now we're just being silly. 

The NBA splits almost the same amount of money as baseball (3-4B) over half the number of players.  Part of why the league has so many teams pushing the cap (and well above it) is that basketball teams know that even letting average dudes hit free agency is a recipe for losing them without any compensation.  They'd rather exceed the cap and price-match salaries in trade than lose them.  That's why guys like Taurean Prince, Michael Beasley, and Hernangomez are making significant money in the NBA (just to name three recent Wolves).  Those guys are the middle class and they are getting PAID.  Go ahead...name three more teams not named the Thunder and I'll find hefty contracts they gave out to bench players.  Same goes for the NHL too BTW - where plenty of third liners or blue collar D-men are being paid 3-6M.  Right Victor Rask? (I admit, lumping Rask in with third liners is deeply unfair to third liners, my apologies)

And why is that?  Well, unlike baseball, teams in the NBA and NHL know they can't just let their players "test the waters" and then limp back for a deal later.  In leagues with a floor, middle class players are not low-balled or leveraged by a low number of suitors.  Floors, and the spending incentive they create and the corresponding need to retain assets, create a more competitive bidding process.  Or force trades to avoid losing players for nothing.  It may not happen instantaneously, but instead creates a culture in which everyone is expected to be competing and paying players.  That has a trickle down effect.

So does the reverse, as MLB keeps demonstrating.

The ring chasers were all deemed to be good enough to play on teams that were unable to sign anything else but minimum contract players.

[Prince William]

11 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

*Looks at football*

That looks good.  Parity and sanity.  Could use more guaranteed money for the players, but from a league structure standpoint...I like what I'm looking at.  Baseball should do that.

Detroit Lions on a par with the Cowboys who are on par with the Patriots for success. Yes there is parity in football if you wish to believe it.  NFL also does not do 100 % revenue share. That is what makes some of the franchises more valuable than others.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

That is as twisted logic as I have seen here. A floor is a mandatory minimum. So no, spending over a cap is not a floor. Really, how the f does someone come up with that? One has nothing to do with the other

Your logic is even more twisted.  A cap is a mandatory maximum, so if 96% of the league is spending over the so-called cap, how can it be called a cap?  It is a number that, quite clearly, basically every team acknowledges as the minimum they can spend.  Sounds an awful lot like a floor to me, even if it is not specifically defined as such.

[TheLeviathan]

11 minutes ago, Prince William said:

The ring chasers were all deemed to be good enough to play on teams that were unable to sign anything else but minimum contract players.

Yup, so not "middle class".  I appreciate your acknowledgement that your example was irrelevant to what you were trying to argue.

[Cap'n Piranha]

33 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

What's good for the players tends to be tied to what's good for the game.

If the owners actually cared about what's good for the game, they long ago would have agreed to near 100% revenue sharing with salary caps and floors akin to the other pro leagues. The owners' interests would have then all been tied to keeping the game healthy and profitable instead of having 30 different and often competing agendas.

Instead they sold their souls for top dollar and Bally Sports of all entities faceplanted into the rights of the sport which is about five minutes from going up in flames.

 

Actually, what's good for the fans is what's good for the game.  You know what's good for the fans?  Reasonably-priced tickets, the ability to watch/listen to every game they want, games held at times they can attend, entertaining play, the realistic chance for their team to be competitive on at least a semi-regular basis, and the belief that their favorite player(s) won't leave after only a few years for greener (pun intended) pastures.  Both the owners and the players are putting forth proposals that ignore all of these in the aggregate.

I tend to side with the owners, for the simple reason that players are far more fungible, and have invested none of their own equity (sweat equity notwithstanding).  That said, if the owners broke the MLBPA, and got 100% of what they wanted, I very much doubt the result would be good for the fans.

[Major League Ready]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The lack of a floor creates incentive for teams to bottom out and that's bad for the game.  I don't deny the players are a huge part of the problem.  Just like the owners.  

I've said before and I'll say again (which makes me really unpopular with both groups who take sides) - I could list a half dozen stances on both sides of negotiations are that are absurdly stupid and bad for the game.  They both suck and they're both killing the game.  But I can't feel pity for billionaires over millionaires.  They both suck but only one of them is taking my money to pay for their businesses.  So 55-45...one sucks a little more.

Really.  Tell me exactly (not generalization) what the owners have asked for that is bad for the game.  As you know, I have listed the specifics of what the player shave asked for that is bad for the game.  Their is absolutely no spin that could support their demand for shorter control, less revenue sharing, and a significantly higher CBT threshold would escalate the problem with parity and therefore are bad for the game.

[TheLeviathan]

4 minutes ago, Prince William said:

Detroit Lions on a par with the Cowboys who are on par with the Patriots for success. Yes there is parity in football if you wish to believe it.  NFL also does not do 100 % revenue share. That is what makes some of the franchises more valuable than others.

No league can do anything in their CBA to fix a franchise that is mismanaged.  That is a separate issue from the revenue sharing that happens to allow a fair shake at competition.  

What makes some franchises more valuable is somewhat related to revenues they make through branding and the success of their team, but a very high percentage of revenue is shared in the NFL.  But franchise value has a lot to do with their management, their locations, their stadium, their history, etc which is completely unrelated to this.  

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Major League Ready said:

Really.  Tell me exactly (not generalization) what the owners have asked for that is bad for the game.  As you know, I have listed the specifics of what the player shave asked for that is bad for the game.  Their is absolutely no spin that could support their demand for shorter control, less revenue sharing, and a significantly higher CBT threshold would escalate the problem with parity and therefore are bad for the game.

Owners want to keep the status quo of a broken game with an ever decreasing amount of relevancy.  I can't imagine a worse stance.  

Save your sermon though.  We've all heard your broken record.

[Cap'n Piranha]

9 minutes ago, Prince William said:

Detroit Lions on a par with the Cowboys who are on par with the Patriots for success. Yes there is parity in football if you wish to believe it.  NFL also does not do 100 % revenue share. That is what makes some of the franchises more valuable than others.

The Detroit Lions have been horribly run for three decades.  Prior to Belicheck and Brady, the Patriots were exactly the same, with the exception that they had made a couple of Superbowls, and lost both.  The Cowboys have not been to a Superbowl for over 25 years, and unless I'm mistaken, haven't even been to a conference championship game in that time.  The proof that there is parity in the NFL, and market is less important, is that this year's playoffs featured only one team from a "big" market--LAR.  Teams from locales like KC, Buf, Cin, GB, TB, and Ten all secured top 4 seeds, and most of those look to be set up for years of competitiveness to come.  The NFL had no one playing in LA for two decades--that's how good the parity was in the NFL; literally no team saw the second-biggest market in the country as a competitive advantage.

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, Prince William said:

No league has 100% revenue sharing, so why should baseball? The romantic notion that somehow it would even the playing field is not proveable. Look at football

I said near 100%; broadcast rights are shared in the other leagues. And what do you mean look at football? Cincinnati is one of the smallest pro markets in the country and they're in the Super Bowl this year. You can't be serious if you're suggesting the NFL hasn't leveled the paying field.

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The Detroit Lions have been horribly run for three decades.  Prior to Belicheck and Brady, the Patriots were exactly the same, with the exception that they had made a couple of Superbowls, and lost both.  The Cowboys have not been to a Superbowl for over 25 years, and unless I'm mistaken, haven't even been to a conference championship game in that time.  The proof that there is parity in the NFL, and market is less important, is that this year's playoffs featured only one team from a "big" market--LAR.  Teams from locales like KC, Buf, Cin, GB, TB, and Ten all secured top 4 seeds, and most of those look to be set up for years of competitiveness to come.  The NFL had no one playing in LA for two decades--that's how good the parity was in the NFL; literally no team saw the second-biggest market in the country as a competitive advantage.

Good lord this is a good post.  Especially the last line.

Meanwhile, if baseball could, they'd put 8 teams in NY and LA and write into the CBA that anyone who lives within 100 miles of corn can field replacement players in a box and take their 120 losses and like it.

[Major League Ready]

39 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

What's good for the players tends to be tied to what's good for the game.

If the owners actually cared about what's good for the game, they long ago would have agreed to near 100% revenue sharing with salary caps and floors akin to the other pro leagues. The owners' interests would have then all been tied to keeping the game healthy and profitable instead of having 30 different and often competing agendas.

Instead they sold their souls for top dollar and Bally Sports of all entities faceplanted into the rights of the sport which is about five minutes from going up in flames.

 

It's really easy to make a bold claim.  Tell us specifically which terms and conditions being demanded by players in this CBA are good for the game.  I would love to hear how less control is good for the game.  I guess it would be great if you root for a top revenue team.  They could sign players for small markets a year earlier.  Hurray!  How is a significantly higher CBT threshold is good for the game or less revenue sharing. Both obviously diminish parity which is already to lop-sided.

Actually, I would love to hear how player compensation matters at all.  The average salary today is twice what it was 20 years ago.  How was that raise good for baseball?  Player comp is 600% of what it was 30 years ago.  Is the game better today because players are making much more?

I would love to hear one thing the owners are asking for that is bad for the game.

[Prince William]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

No league can do anything in their CBA to fix a franchise that is mismanaged.  That is a separate issue from the revenue sharing that happens to allow a fair shake at competition.  

 

Mismanagement is mismanagement. It is why baseball has teams that are performing poorly. No revenue sharing plan is going to fix that. The  old formula for baseball put each team share of the revenue at 130 million.  These teams are bad due to mismanagement and people want these teams to spend more. It will not change with even more money