MLB gives first proposal re New Payroll Rules

[DocBauer]

Honestly, I think this is a great INITIAL presentation. I say INITIAL because the $180M "soft cap" is too low and the union will want to keep it around $200M. And from their perspective, they SHOULD want that. And the union SHOULD be ECSTATIC about a $100M floor! But I doubt a lot of owners want it. They'd be much happier with something like $80M. But we're only talking about a swing of $20M both directions and everyone SHOULD be happy and satisfied with that as the $ numbers are the same overall. 

The ONE PROBLEM I see with this is the union has shown....shall we say "little regard"...for young players previously. They have either been controlled by or solely occupied by the BIG $ of prime players to this point IMO. IF they are TRULY focused on ALL players, then they HAVE to realize a $80M floor and $200M "soft cap" actually RAISES the floor and medium $ of ALL of their members. They HAVE to be intelligent enough to see this, right? Not only does a floor work in other sports, but MLB has NEVER had anything even REMOTELY close to a payroll floor.

Second point? If there is a floor, and teams are forced to meet that floor, not only do FA and arbitration players have to be offered more to meet that floor, but there should also be a natural and progressive change in regard to minimum salaries for rookies and 2nd year, 3rdyr players, etc. 

The luxury tax "soft cap" is around $200-210M NOW. So if we take the $180/$100M proposal and just slide a few $M here and there, how does the union lose anything? They gain massive $M for their membership! And the owners maintain a measure of "soft cap" control for major market teams and attempt to find more competitive financial balance for the league as a whole, similar to the the more successful and very sturdy NFL model.

The ONLY way this doesn't work, with a few tweaks, is if the union is pushing for HUGE gains of $250M/$150M numbers which I would speculate serious damage to MLB. Forget the books for a moment, those kinds of numbers would exceed any other sport. 

This proposal WORKS with tweaks.

Third point? There is nothing wrong with the current system for drafting/signing players and your rights to them. Again, an actual FLOOR for payroll means obvious increases for per year salary. Teams can offer up more for FA, or arbitration, and/or the minimums per year can also jump another $50K per year as a starting point.

Again, some cost control for the franchises, but how does the union and it's players/members lose anything? They don't!

A 4th point? The DH will be universal going forward. Everyone wants it. It's going to happen.

A 5th point that shouldn't be dismissed? The union has never given a rat's ass about the milb system, which has always bothered me tremendously! And maybe it's just me as a fan who really understood and appreciated some of the weird dynamics of 2020 and roster construction. But one thing that came out of 2020 that seemed to make sense and WORK was the 28 man roster. Would a full time/universal DH format push the union to jump to a 27 or 28 man roster format? Again, ownership itself has proposed a financial floor. The last couple of spots on most teams would be low impact $ wise. But it COULD improve the game.

I am not pro player or ownership, I am pro BASEBALL and the health and development of the sport. And there are more problems to be addressed in regard to public opinion and viewrship than the next CBA. But for TODAY we are only talking about this latest proposal presented.

With some obvious tweaks, as presented, tell me the "bad guy" ownership hasn't offered up an olive branch proposal that makes initial sense?

[DocBauer]

7 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So.... At the trade deadline.... How does a team trade Cruz type of they are close to the floor? Or, just don't, and decrease competitiveness long term?

Not so hard. You can either adopt the NBA concept of having to trade similar $ value and then you just cut players, etc, which I really don't like.

OR, you just adopt a provision that you get a re-set before the next season.

There should be no reason you hit the $ floor to begin a season, have a poor season....use the 2021 Twins as an example....and then trade off assets for additional assets for the future. You already met the criteria initially. 

Now it's up to you NEXT YEAR to make sure your payroll hits the minimum. You can make trades, sign FA, offer up extensions, whatever.  A minimum floor seems to work for the NFL.

[prouster]

On 8/18/2021 at 8:30 PM, Mark G said:

I agree completely it isn't going to happen.  But I am old enough to have seen before and after free agency for long enough periods to be able to make a personal comparison, and I would submit that if we were only talking about what is good for the game, not the players OR the owners, it would be the former, not the latter.  And that is solely based on what is good for the fans, without whom there is no professional ball, only sandlot.   Some teams buying hired guns and the others hoping that "prospects" will pan out.......what a discrepancy in competitiveness.  How that is good for the game/fans, I am not intelligent enough to understand, I guess, so that is why I am a minority of one. 

It’s probably not worth debating very much, since it’s a pretty far-fetched scenario. I think it would ruin the game for a few reasons. First is that it would severely limit player earnings and drain the game of high end talent. If a kid with elite athletic talent sees a baseball future of toiling in the minors for poverty wages for half a decade followed by a MLB career where he’ll make maybe $10 million total, will he pursue that or the football career where he can double his total earnings instantly with his first contract?

I also think it would ruin individual careers. Imagine if Gerrit Cole had to stay in Pittsburgh his whole career—maybe he blossoms into the pitcher he has actually become, but I wouldn’t bet on it. David Ortiz is another example. He probably wouldn’t have become Big Papi if the Twins tried to get him to slap the ball to left field his whole career. There are a few trash organizations in the league, and anyone unfortunate enough to be trapped there would basically lose any chance at a Hall of Fame career the day they’re drafted. 
 

My last point is that I think it would lead to terrible owner behavior and more overreach. What would stop them from dramatically shrinking draft pools, or doing away with them altogether? What would stop them from colluding to suppress the highest salaries in the league? What would stop them from holding the best players in the minors until they’re 25 or 26 years old, so they can guarantee they’ll get them for their entire peak? All of those things would deprive the fans of the best product on the field. It would be a moral abomination to hand over total control of working conditions to ownership in a multi billion dollar industry whose existence depends entirely on the extraordinary athletic abilities of its workers. 

[TwinsDr2021]

11 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I mean, can a computer programmer switch companies? A teacher districts? A bartender? Anyone without a contract, and stay in their profession:? Yes. I agree, MLB should be MORE like that. 

I get what you are saying, but in no way are baseball players like programmers, teachers or bar tenders and the players union doesn't want them treated that way either. Imagine letting the owners set a salary (range) based years of experience, because as a someone in the IT world that is how the system is set up.

I don't want to see MLB go the way of the NBA or the NFL. I really like the idea that smart teams can make it worth with wealth or limitations it has.

I mean look at how many different teams have been in the world series in the last 3,5, 7,10 years.

In the last 10 years teams that have made it to the world series and times LAD (3), STL(2), KC(2), SF(2), HOU (2), BOS(2), TB, WASH,  Cubs, Clev, NYM, Det, Tex and if I went to 11 yeas it adds Tex, and 12 adds the NYY and PHIL.

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Baseball desperately, desperately needs a salary cap and floor.  I can't type the word "desperately" enough for this situation.

I cannot emphasize this enough. They need revenue sharing too... at least at the amount to make sure the smaller market teams can safely operate in those ranges. MLB and MLBPA need to recognize this or baseball as we know it is done. 

 

It's been really hard to follow the last few years when you know your team has a razor thin margin of error compared to most of their competitors. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

the last 10 years teams that have made it to the world series and times LAD (3), STL(2), KC(2), SF(2), HOU (2), BOS(2), TB, WASH,  Cubs, Clev, NYM, Det, Tex and if I went to 11 yeas it adds Tex, and 12 adds the NYY and PHIL.

 

 

I think this has more to do with baseball as a sport than it does anything else. But perhaps you're right....if you are I think the place to look would be at the bottom of the league.  How often are some of the teams with the poorest financial situations, outmatched badly by their competitors, and without the resources to compete.....landing in the bottom?  I wish I had the time to research that right now (I'll try later) but my sense is that these teams that pop up for the World Series are individual anomalies that belie the fact that they were stuck in a tar pit for years prior.

Yeah, KC is in that mix, but that was after 25 years of putridness.  Tampa appears to be the exception that proves the rule: money buys less margin for error, quicker turnaround times, and better odds of sustainability.  Baseball's current financial landscape doesn't prevent you from building a winner, but it's like having a mile race with someone who gets to use a scooter on flat ground and you're hiking up a mountain with a 70 pound suitcase.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, just to throw this out there....I too agree that the MLBPA is unlikely to take this deal, but I disagree that the middle "will" be squeezed.  It's already being squeezed.  A lot of guys who are not elite, but not terrible, already struggle to find contracts compared to a decade or so ago.  And if they do get a contract with the AAV they're looking for (roughly) they are getting nowhere near the term they once did.

The MLBPA SHOULD view this as an acceptable starting point because the cap floor would help create more market competition for those kinds of players much like it does in the NHL.  Teams like Florida are now bidding up guys they otherwise would've been out on because they have to hit their floor.

But, once again, the MLBPA will be too short-sighted to do the right thing.  I'm no cheerleader for the owners (those greedy SOBs can pay for their own businesses and stop exploiting minor leaguers) but the MLBPA is why baseball's financials are broken and minor leaguers eat ramen three times a day.  They need to leverage their position for the betterment of the game.

[umterp23]

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

This is an offer which gives the MLBPA something it really wants. Dramatically increased competition for its players. While I think the $100MM is a bit too high, I think it's also intentional. MLB wants to force the hands of taxpayers in Oakland and Tampa to build new stadiums. The $100MM threshhold will give both of those teams a compelling argument for why they have to leave if they don't get a new stadium. I still think it's a fantastic idea and close to what I proposed in a different thread. Tanking must be stopped. Rebuilds should not result in teams which are totally and completely uncompetitive for 4 or 5 years. 

Interesting to say the least about bumping floor to $100MM but it doesn't necessarily work to force the hands of taxpayers and benefit them.  Pirates are prime example (live outside the city) and the disgust of the organization and how bad they are year in and year out.  Taxpayers built a stadium for them and then a new "sheriff" bought the team.  He runs it to solely make money as it is his business to do so.  There is no investment by him to be better than just turning a profit year over year.  They are MiLB team in MLB clothing.  The potential upside is that he may be forced to sell the team if he doesn't get to threshold or the beer prices will be $20 per 12 oz very soon.  Fans pay the price all around no matter what

[Dave The Dastardly]

13 hours ago, Mark G said:

Not sure what you mean by more like that.  Do any of those professions have an anti trust exemption?  I would submit no, which is why there are so many choices within the profession.  MLB is in a completely different category in that sense.  Other employers in the same field would be other leagues than MLB, and that has always been and always will be an option for baseball players.  But as long as they are employed by MLB.........well, I have said enough; I am already in doghouse here.   

Not sure if I totally agree with you but I think you've raise some valid points that are certainly worth being part of the discussion. No doghouses on TD. Civil discourse, yes.

[chpettit19]

13 hours ago, Mark G said:

The freedom is in the choice of the profession.  No one has ever been forced to go onto a baseball diamond since its invention; every player drafted knows the drill and 99% can't wait to turn pro.  And, no, it will not suppress salaries, as binding arbitration would be installed from the beginning and run just as it is today.  If anything, you won't find players making the minimum or just above 3 or 4 years into their career because of arbitration.  It would end, however, the 9 figure contracts, I suppose if that is what you are referring to as suppression.

In your profession, whatever it is, do you have the choice to move from plant to plant, store to store, office to office, (you get the point) regardless of where your employer wants to position you?   I don't, never have, and have never known anyone who has.  At the end of the day, the players are employed by MLB, and are assigned a starting point, just like every employee I have ever known.  The freedom players have is the same freedom you and I have; we can change employers.  In this case, they would have to go somewhere other than MLB, which is not something the players want to do for the most part.  As long as I work for the organization I work for now, I accept their assignment or I find another employer.  Not sure why that is such a hard concept.  The question I would ask in return is:  why is professional sports any different than every other profession?  Unless you want to turn players into independent contractors, which would mean they are like any other such folks; no benefits and a fee for service type of income.  Not practical, so they stay employees.  Of MLB.  And so the debate goes on.  Hope you take it for what it's worth.

Some inaccurate information and analogies in here.

1. Arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries. You think Jose Berrios was only worth 5.6M this year? On the open market he more than triples that. And the owners won't open their books to show an arbitrator the actual data to base information on. That's why the owners want luxury tax limits, not a hard cap based on league revenues.

2. The only employees of MLB work for the league office (and MLB network, etc.). We'll stick with Berrios here, but he isn't an MLB employee, he was a Twins employee and now he's a Blue Jays employee. Maybe this post is trying to say that all players should be employees of MLB, but it doesn't read that way. It reads as if you're saying they're currently employees of MLB, and they aren't. They're employed by individual teams. Each team is it's own company.

I understand your desire to have players you can get to know and stick around for entire careers, but that wouldn't be "for the good of the game" like you think it would be. Modern day free agency started in 1976, if I'm not mistaken. Between 1903 and 1976 there were 16 different teams that won the World Series. 16 different teams in 72 seasons. From 1976 through 2020 there have been 23 different teams that have won the World Series. Now there's been some expansion in there ('77 added the Blue Jays and Mariners, '93 Rockies and Marlins, '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) so that's a factor, but 23 teams in 44 seasons is a way better number than 16 in 72 (even assuming all 6 of those expansion teams won 1 WS before '76 that'd still just be 22 teams in 72 years). I grant my quick counting may have those numbers off slightly, but the point is the same, there's far more competitive balance now than there was before free agency. And the salaries are much higher, as they should be. The prices for our TV packages, tickets, parking, concessions, etc. aren't going down. Forced arbitration would suppress salaries for the players (owners are never opening their books, even for an arbitrator, so the salaries wouldn't be based on any real numbers) while fans pay ever increasing prices and owners make insane amounts of money. 

So, again, I get your desire to have players that stick around, but your suggestion isn't for the betterment of the game. Based on your statement that you've seen both sides of the free agency line for significant time I can only assume you're older than the average fan. There's certainly a lot of player movement these days, and that makes it really hard for people who only follow their team. But with technology these days the idea is that fans follow the sport, and league, as a whole now so having Nelson Cruz join your team isn't a completely unknown player, but someone you've known about for years and will just get to know better now as you cheer for him on your team instead of against him on another.

[bean5302]

It's worth noting the current CBA doesn't expire for 4 months and this is the first offer to the MLBPA on the luxury tax. It's a first offer in what is expected to be a tough series of negotiations, but it sure seems like a good first offer. I think it's also very important the first offer is a good offer aimed at finding a quick and happy compromise because that's how successful negotiations work. The owners would be having a champagne party if the MLBPA accepted the very first offer made with no counters.

[terrydactyls]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Some inaccurate information and analogies in here.

1. Arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries. You think Jose Berrios was only worth 5.6M this year? On the open market he more than triples that. And the owners won't open their books to show an arbitrator the actual data to base information on. That's why the owners want luxury tax limits, not a hard cap based on league revenues.

2. The only employees of MLB work for the league office (and MLB network, etc.). We'll stick with Berrios here, but he isn't an MLB employee, he was a Twins employee and now he's a Blue Jays employee. Maybe this post is trying to say that all players should be employees of MLB, but it doesn't read that way. It reads as if you're saying they're currently employees of MLB, and they aren't. They're employed by individual teams. Each team is it's own company.

I understand your desire to have players you can get to know and stick around for entire careers, but that wouldn't be "for the good of the game" like you think it would be. Modern day free agency started in 1976, if I'm not mistaken. Between 1903 and 1976 there were 16 different teams that won the World Series. 16 different teams in 72 seasons. From 1976 through 2020 there have been 23 different teams that have won the World Series. Now there's been some expansion in there ('77 added the Blue Jays and Mariners, '93 Rockies and Marlins, '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) so that's a factor, but 23 teams in 44 seasons is a way better number than 16 in 72 (even assuming all 6 of those expansion teams won 1 WS before '76 that'd still just be 22 teams in 72 years). I grant my quick counting may have those numbers off slightly, but the point is the same, there's far more competitive balance now than there was before free agency. And the salaries are much higher, as they should be. The prices for our TV packages, tickets, parking, concessions, etc. aren't going down. Forced arbitration would suppress salaries for the players (owners are never opening their books, even for an arbitrator, so the salaries wouldn't be based on any real numbers) while fans pay ever increasing prices and owners make insane amounts of money. 

So, again, I get your desire to have players that stick around, but your suggestion isn't for the betterment of the game. Based on your statement that you've seen both sides of the free agency line for significant time I can only assume you're older than the average fan. There's certainly a lot of player movement these days, and that makes it really hard for people who only follow their team. But with technology these days the idea is that fans follow the sport, and league, as a whole now so having Nelson Cruz join your team isn't a completely unknown player, but someone you've known about for years and will just get to know better now as you cheer for him on your team instead of against him on another.

Between 1903 and 1961, there only were 16 teams in major league baseball.  So in that timeframe, every team won at least one World Series.  Your example is very misleading.

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

Between 1903 and 1961, there only were 16 teams in major league baseball.  So in that timeframe, every team won at least one World Series.  Your example is very misleading.

Well, only 13 teams won a World Series between 1903 and 1961. And the Yankees alone won 19. Giants won 5, Cards won 6. So in 57 World Series (there wasn't one in 1904) those 3 teams won over half the World Series. 19% of the teams in the league won 53% of World Series. 1 Team, 6% of teams, won 33% of the titles.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Frankly, while I'm in full support of a payroll floor, I can't really support a cap. I'm fine with luxury taxes from a competitive balance standpoint, though.

If a hard cap is imposed, all that means is owners keep more of the money. If there was a way to impose a cap and reduce fan cost of broadcasting and spectating in the process, I'm all in favor of that happening but there's a negative-zero percent chance of that happening.

Why do I want the owners to make more money? I don't care about them, they don't entertain me.

[chpettit19]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Frankly, while I'm in full support of a payroll floor, I can't really support a cap. I'm fine with luxury taxes, though.

If a hard cap is imposed, all that means is owners keep more of the money. If there was a way to impose a cap and reduce fan cost of broadcasting and spectating, I'm all in favor of that happening but there's a negative-zero percent chance of that happening.

Why do I want the owners to make more money? I don't care about them, they don't entertain me.

Caps in other leagues are determined by league revenues to ensure balance between owner and player money. That's why the players don't even want luxury tax limits. Baseball owners won't open their books and show the players what they're actually making. The numbers the owners throw out are 100% designed to allow them to take home more than the players. It's why the players should actually be fighting for a floor and cap (in my opinion) based on the actual money coming in. I believe the NFL's new deal is a 50/50 split of revenues. The players don't want the cap because they think it means the owners will spend a higher percent of the money on players, when really it just allows the teams to cry poor, spend less, and only pay the elite talent crazy amounts while building teams around elite prospects on league minimum deals without anyone ever really knowing how much money the teams are bringing in. The #1 goal of the MLBPA should be to get a deal that forces salaries to be based on actual numbers not just the owners word that this is all they can afford.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Caps in other leagues are determined by league revenues to ensure balance between owner and player money. That's why the players don't even want luxury tax limits. Baseball owners won't open their books and show the players what they're actually making. The numbers the owners throw out are 100% designed to allow them to take home more than the players. It's why the players should actually be fighting for a floor and cap (in my opinion) based on the actual money coming in. I believe the NFL's new deal is a 50/50 split of revenues. The players don't want the cap because they think it means the owners will spend a higher percent of the money on players, when really it just allows the teams to cry poor, spend less, and only pay the elite talent crazy amounts while building teams around elite prospects on league minimum deals without anyone ever really knowing how much money the teams are bringing in. The #1 goal of the MLBPA should be to get a deal that forces salaries to be based on actual numbers not just the owners word that this is all they can afford.

Oh, on that I agree fully, but I (and the players) have absolutely no faith in owners negotiating honestly, just look at the crap they pulled during Covid when they kept negotiating and then "conceding" THE SAME THING and then blaming players for not agreeing. Getting them to open the books in an honest, legitimate way may be nigh impossible.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oh, on that I agree fully, but I (and the players) have absolutely no faith in owners negotiating honestly, just look at the crap they pulled during Covid when they kept negotiating and then "conceding" THE SAME THING and then blaming players for not agreeing. Getting them to open the books in an honest, legitimate way may be nigh impossible.

I'm with you. Just saying that if they go the cap route it would likely lead to the owners keeping less of the money. I assume they have some sort of legal way of ensuring the data that would be used for such a thing is real. I'm all for floor and cap, but don't think it'll ever happen. Both sides would rather see the league collapse than give in I think. Shoot, I want the floor and cap if only to put a stop to the "cheap Pohlads" comments every year and being able to have a debate about team building that doesn't include payroll complaints.

[spanman2]

17 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The Athletic is reporting MLB gave their first proposal to the MLBPA on team spending rules. Dropping luxury tax threshold to $180M and implementing a $100M payroll floor. Obviously very early on and nothing at all is even close to set, but if this is the starting point, and something being discussed, I have hope that this new CBA will address some real competitive balance issues in the league.

Very interesting....something to follow for certain.

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So it should go to the owners? I don't get your argument. How much they make compared to us is irrelevant. 100 percent irrelevant.

So then how much the owners make compared to us would also be irrelevant, no?  I also don't think any more money goes to the owners--there's a decent chance more money goes to the players.  The average payroll this year is $119.7M, which is pulled down by 12 teams being under the $100M threshold.  Even if we assume that no team exceeds the luxury tax by so much as a dollar (an unlikely occurrence), when you bring the three teams over $180M down to $180M, bring all teams below $100M up to $100M, and leave everyone else the same, the new average payroll is $130.6M, so almost $11M per team.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Frankly, while I'm in full support of a payroll floor, I can't really support a cap. I'm fine with luxury taxes from a competitive balance standpoint, though.

If a hard cap is imposed, all that means is owners keep more of the money. If there was a way to impose a cap and reduce fan cost of broadcasting and spectating in the process, I'm all in favor of that happening but there's a negative-zero percent chance of that happening.

Why do I want the owners to make more money? I don't care about them, they don't entertain me.

I agree with your sentiment on the owners, but the reason to support a cap is more in line with the product on the field and the health of the game.  Though, as chpettit19 said, tying the cap to league revenue will basically force the owners into a more transparent sharing relationship as the other leagues have done.  Only baseball has all this nefariousness and it's mostly due to the unregulated spending of the clubs with caps and floors.  

Beyond that though, it's bad for the product of baseball to not have caps.  There is simply nothing good for the sport in allowing one team to spend 300M while another is at 70M.  For some teams to be raking in billions in TV revenue while others are a tiny fraction of that.  Baseball is trying to operate a national game in a regional way.  That may have worked in 1960...it doesn't work now.  It's one of several key factors killing the game.

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Some inaccurate information and analogies in here.

1. Arbitration absolutely suppresses salaries. You think Jose Berrios was only worth 5.6M this year? On the open market he more than triples that. And the owners won't open their books to show an arbitrator the actual data to base information on. That's why the owners want luxury tax limits, not a hard cap based on league revenues.

2. The only employees of MLB work for the league office (and MLB network, etc.). We'll stick with Berrios here, but he isn't an MLB employee, he was a Twins employee and now he's a Blue Jays employee. Maybe this post is trying to say that all players should be employees of MLB, but it doesn't read that way. It reads as if you're saying they're currently employees of MLB, and they aren't. They're employed by individual teams. Each team is it's own company.

I understand your desire to have players you can get to know and stick around for entire careers, but that wouldn't be "for the good of the game" like you think it would be. Modern day free agency started in 1976, if I'm not mistaken. Between 1903 and 1976 there were 16 different teams that won the World Series. 16 different teams in 72 seasons. From 1976 through 2020 there have been 23 different teams that have won the World Series. Now there's been some expansion in there ('77 added the Blue Jays and Mariners, '93 Rockies and Marlins, '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) so that's a factor, but 23 teams in 44 seasons is a way better number than 16 in 72 (even assuming all 6 of those expansion teams won 1 WS before '76 that'd still just be 22 teams in 72 years). I grant my quick counting may have those numbers off slightly, but the point is the same, there's far more competitive balance now than there was before free agency. And the salaries are much higher, as they should be. The prices for our TV packages, tickets, parking, concessions, etc. aren't going down. Forced arbitration would suppress salaries for the players (owners are never opening their books, even for an arbitrator, so the salaries wouldn't be based on any real numbers) while fans pay ever increasing prices and owners make insane amounts of money. 

So, again, I get your desire to have players that stick around, but your suggestion isn't for the betterment of the game. Based on your statement that you've seen both sides of the free agency line for significant time I can only assume you're older than the average fan. There's certainly a lot of player movement these days, and that makes it really hard for people who only follow their team. But with technology these days the idea is that fans follow the sport, and league, as a whole now so having Nelson Cruz join your team isn't a completely unknown player, but someone you've known about for years and will just get to know better now as you cheer for him on your team instead of against him on another.

I love your argument, and I am more open to a lot of it than people might think. (I think I opened a real Pandora's box here, haven't I?)  But a couple of points I can't nod to:  the teams are not separate companies with their own independence; if they were, there would be no anti-trust exemption and no draft.  Teams would never have "control" over a player and they could pick the organizations they wanted to apply to anytime in their lifetimes.  MLB is an organization with multiple franchises, locations, and management teams.  They cannot change the rules of the game anytime they want, which they could if they were truly independent.  They could sign international players without league input, negotiate union contracts within their own organization and their own players, independent of the MLBPA, etc., etc., etc.  They are totally intertwined, with exact rules about everything; independent organizations are not.  So, in effect, though not in a technical sense, the players work for MLB.  They all follow the same rules and have the same benefits and limitations.  MLB can fine them, separately from their teams; can your employers competitor do that to you?  They can be traded without consent, and sent to minor league camps at managements discretion any time.  I could go on, but people are already mad at me.   

I would also submit that arbitration does not suppress salaries, except for the top stars.  Arbitration is based pretty much on the concept that if a team has kept you around long enough to qualify for arbitration, you must be of value to them and the arbitrators take that into account far more than mere stats.  Guys hitting .212 with limited power are making far more than their worth in pure statistics, and I would propose this system start immediately after their first year in the majors.  Salaries naturally rise in arbitration, just not as much as the players want.  

And when you use the term average fan, you are right; most of the fans are not you and I and the rest of the fantastic people on this site.  They are average fans who, most of the time, don't even glance at the box scores or the stat sheets.  They want to come to the ballpark a couple of times a year with friends or family and actually recognize the players they are watching from past visits.  I get that the owners are in it for the money, and I am sure that they are the only business owners in our part of the world who are.  All other business owners are only in it for the customers and the employees, not the profit.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  Of course they want more profit.  But the owners are also the only ones actually putting their own money on the line here.  The players never put a nickel into the team, they receive.  And if the game has proven one thing eternally, the players can be replaced; they are not the game.  The fans keep the game alive.  They deserve better than the system as it is currently set up.  Yes, I am older than the average fan, and yes I remember the days when a team never changed except through trades, retirement, and younger players taking the place of the older guys through sheer talent.  And it was better to most average fans than the revolving door they see today by players making far more than the game was ever designed to give them.  And, no, I do not think Berrios was worth the 5.6 mil he is making this year,  No baseball player is, And borderline players are not worth 570 thousand, but that is what they have to be paid, and it is the system of which we are debating.  Baseball was never intended to be a sport where players came and played a few years, then never worked again.  They played the game until they couldn't anymore, at least at that level, and they moved on with their lives and got a career they could stay with.  Today is not like that, I get it, but please don't try to convince me it is better today, at least for the fans.  This game used to be THE game; what is it today?  2nd?  3rd?  Depends on where you are, I guess, but it is not 1st, and it could have been.  And I have worn out my welcome, so take care.   

[bean5302]

To clarify, the argument owners are making is lowering the luxury tax to $180MM will increase revenue sharing making a $100MM spending requirement obtainable for any responsibly operated franchise. I'm sure the evidence they're using here is the fact teams routinely exceed the current luxury tax threshold.

I disagree that caps are good. It forces everybody into the same basic model and stymies player salaries. It leads to the very real version of draft picks refusing to sign for certain teams and insurmountable dynasties.

[old nurse]

It may be considered a starting point but right now 13 teams are below the floor. In 2019 it was 6. The teams at the top of spending and the bottom of spending will not go for the proposal. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

17 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So.... At the trade deadline.... How does a team trade Cruz type of they are close to the floor? Or, just don't, and decrease competitiveness long term?

I covered this in a different post--that team will simultaneously trade for less valuable players on expiring contracts.  Say this past year the Diamondbacks want to trade Escobar for prospects, but that would put them below the floor.  They could talk to the Twins about acquiring Simmons, Pineda, or Colome.to offset the salary.  It will make teams less nervous about signing FA deals, because they'll now have an enhanced ability to get out from under those deals.

[Mike Sixel]

29 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I covered this in a different post--that team will simultaneously trade for less valuable players on expiring contracts.  Say this past year the Diamondbacks want to trade Escobar for prospects, but that would put them below the floor.  They could talk to the Twins about acquiring Simmons, Pineda, or Colome.to offset the salary.  It will make teams less nervous about signing FA deals, because they'll now have an enhanced ability to get out from under those deals.

Only if they can find a deal. It is much more complicated to deal in this future. Much. 

[heresthething]

The proposal by the owners is an interesting anchor point to the negotiations.  To put out there that there is a floor and a cap signals to me that the owners are finally starting to get serious about addressing the competitive imbalance.  As stated in other comments the union needs to introduce true revenue sharing, that would be fun to watch how the owners respond. 

I would also like to see the players add in updating fan access to watch games from this goofy and irrelevant blackout scheme they have today.  It will only draw more fan interest and help market the players.  Why should the players do this?  Because the owners surely won't.  Unfortunately it appears there is enough of them with big interests to keep it as it is.

[Mike Sixel]

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

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

[kenbuddha]

With a salary floor I believe top salaries will probably just get that much larger. Yes, the lower numbers will go up, but the higher numbers will outpace them by quite a bit. I have no actual numbers to back that up, but I suspect if you look at the NBA right now it would be a good indicator. The top salaries are extraordinary.

I don't mind extraordinary salaries (I'd love to be in their position) but I doubt a salary floor would benefit anyone except the top tier.

... and a lower salary cap? Never going to happen.

[Mike Sixel]

The only way pay goes up is if players have the right to move teams. Otherwise, why would you pay more? This literally just puts more money in the owner's pockets, as an easy calculation shows. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Mark G said:

I love your argument, and I am more open to a lot of it than people might think. (I think I opened a real Pandora's box here, haven't I?)  But a couple of points I can't nod to:  the teams are not separate companies with their own independence; if they were, there would be no anti-trust exemption and no draft.  Teams would never have "control" over a player and they could pick the organizations they wanted to apply to anytime in their lifetimes.  MLB is an organization with multiple franchises, locations, and management teams.  They cannot change the rules of the game anytime they want, which they could if they were truly independent.  They could sign international players without league input, negotiate union contracts within their own organization and their own players, independent of the MLBPA, etc., etc., etc.  They are totally intertwined, with exact rules about everything; independent organizations are not.  So, in effect, though not in a technical sense, the players work for MLB.  They all follow the same rules and have the same benefits and limitations.  MLB can fine them, separately from their teams; can your employers competitor do that to you?  They can be traded without consent, and sent to minor league camps at managements discretion any time.  I could go on, but people are already mad at me.   

I would also submit that arbitration does not suppress salaries, except for the top stars.  Arbitration is based pretty much on the concept that if a team has kept you around long enough to qualify for arbitration, you must be of value to them and the arbitrators take that into account far more than mere stats.  Guys hitting .212 with limited power are making far more than their worth in pure statistics, and I would propose this system start immediately after their first year in the majors.  Salaries naturally rise in arbitration, just not as much as the players want.  

And when you use the term average fan, you are right; most of the fans are not you and I and the rest of the fantastic people on this site.  They are average fans who, most of the time, don't even glance at the box scores or the stat sheets.  They want to come to the ballpark a couple of times a year with friends or family and actually recognize the players they are watching from past visits.  I get that the owners are in it for the money, and I am sure that they are the only business owners in our part of the world who are.  All other business owners are only in it for the customers and the employees, not the profit.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  Of course they want more profit.  But the owners are also the only ones actually putting their own money on the line here.  The players never put a nickel into the team, they receive.  And if the game has proven one thing eternally, the players can be replaced; they are not the game.  The fans keep the game alive.  They deserve better than the system as it is currently set up.  Yes, I am older than the average fan, and yes I remember the days when a team never changed except through trades, retirement, and younger players taking the place of the older guys through sheer talent.  And it was better to most average fans than the revolving door they see today by players making far more than the game was ever designed to give them.  And, no, I do not think Berrios was worth the 5.6 mil he is making this year,  No baseball player is, And borderline players are not worth 570 thousand, but that is what they have to be paid, and it is the system of which we are debating.  Baseball was never intended to be a sport where players came and played a few years, then never worked again.  They played the game until they couldn't anymore, at least at that level, and they moved on with their lives and got a career they could stay with.  Today is not like that, I get it, but please don't try to convince me it is better today, at least for the fans.  This game used to be THE game; what is it today?  2nd?  3rd?  Depends on where you are, I guess, but it is not 1st, and it could have been.  And I have worn out my welcome, so take care.   

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

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

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

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