MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[Trov]

First, I am not a fan of the owners and players using the media to release what they are proposing.  They both are trying to win the fight in the public eye, and really I doubt any fans care because they are fighting over amounts of money very few fans will ever see or can even think about.  It is also the fans money that is being fought over.  Personally, I wish there was a vast reduction in player's pay and a cap on what owners can take in as revenue and let the cost of attending games drop and all other costs, but that will not happen.  All that being said, Yesterday MLBPA sent their proposal for new CBA.  

The proposal highlights are this: Doubling the minimum salary for players on 40 man rosters; Shifting revenue sharing from increase in media sharing but decrease in ballpark revenue sharing; creating a tax on low spending teams(essentially a soft salary floor); increasing the cut off of the tax so big spending teams can spend more; getting rid of the qualifying offer, but still awarding comp picks for losing players in FA, or awarding teams for signing players in FA to large contracts; making players FA at age 30 with at least 5 years service time, but allowing a qualifying offer for a 6th year, of which then would be an arbitration year if player rejected the qualifying offer; Taking away any penalties for going over the tax level, other than the financial tax, right now teams will lose draft picks; Increase in bonus for pre-arbitration players that get awards; Increasing the super 2 pool of players; 

I mainly wanted to comment on how I feel this would help create a more balanced and competitive league.  Also, I am a fan of home grown players staying with their teams for most of their careers.  Does this proposal help meet those two things? For the second part it could help that, as the "floor" would cause teams to have to spend and they may spend it all on that home grown talent.  Also, there is incentive of signing a big contract for a player. 

Keeping the competition close though does not seem to be met.  First, they would raise the tax and have the floor half of the tax.  At first look that would say sure now teams will spend more and keep their FA or go out and try to get them.  However, the problem of a couple of teams spending crazy compared to other teams would not be fixed.  This would still make the top few players get the crazy high deals across the top 6 teams or so, and the mid and low market teams would be forced to spend more on the second tier guys, similar to how it already is. 

Really all this does is increase how much money teams spend on players, but does not cap how it is spent.  The top players will still earn crazy more than the second tier and the bottom tiers will earn more, but still relative to the rest will be much less.  Being my goal is to have parity in the league and keeping home grown players, I personally think something like the NBA soft cap, with restrictions of bring in players after you cross that cap would be better.  It could not be exactly like the NBA, but without restricting the top teams from just signing the top FA every year and trading for and signing all the top guys to long term deals, because other than loss of money, there is nothing to stop them from doing it you have no risk of getting it wrong.  Mid and small market teams have much larger risk of getting a big signing wrong as it may prevent you from signing someone else because you spent your money on a different player, you have to choose more wisely.  Big markets if they get one wrong, you trade them and pay for them to play else where, DFA them, or some other options and just replace with next one. 

Personally, without a soft cap of some kind, there will never be parity in the league.  I am not pro owners and them keeping money, I am pro parity.  I am all for the players getting paid fair share, but without a way to stop big market teams from taking all the top players the parity issue will never be fixed.