New CBA - What's good for the game

[21bdp21]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:13 AM, Old fox said:

1) has mlb over saturated the totality of the market? 

I would say probably not. There are probably markets that could support a team.

However, the question is also does the talent pool support more markets. There are enough first basemen and corner outfielders, second basemen, that the caliber of the average team at those positions probably wouldn't change. However, are there enough playable short stops, CF, and starting pitchers. Or will even more teams be full of 3-5 pitchers now with the top teams still having the same amount of high caliber arms. 
To extend on this point the avg price of pitching and high demand position players would increase. So even if a market could support a team with the current costs would those same markets be able to support the new higher cost of players?

[Brock Beauchamp]

12 minutes ago, 21bdp21 said:

I would say probably not. There are probably markets that could support a team.

However, the question is also does the talent pool support more markets. There are enough first basemen and corner outfielders, second basemen, that the caliber of the average team at those positions probably wouldn't change. However, are there enough playable short stops, CF, and starting pitchers. Or will even more teams be full of 3-5 pitchers now with the top teams still having the same amount of high caliber arms. 
To extend on this point the avg price of pitching and high demand position players would increase. So even if a market could support a team with the current costs would those same markets be able to support the new higher cost of players?

The pool of eligible players only grows as MLB successful taps into Asia and the Caribbean/Central/South America. I think we could see growth continue in other parts of the world, too.

As for markets, there are several in the US that could support a team; the Carolinas, Vegas, Portland, and a few others... but I think MLB should really be targeting Canada, either Vancouver or Montreal. An entire country of 33m people follows just one team right now.

[21bdp21]

On 1/9/2022 at 8:39 AM, Steve71 said:

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

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

Wake up MLB!

 

On 1/9/2022 at 10:14 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

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

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

Also as stated before NFL teams are all but guaranteed to sell out every game they play at home. So ticket sales should be about even. Also basically every game is televised nationally so you have less worry about smaller tv markets. 

All in I would suspect NFL teams to have a much more equitable income in the first place meaning revenue sharing is less of a burden. 

[21bdp21]

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The pool of eligible players only grows as MLB successful taps into Asia and the Caribbean/Central/South America. I think we could see growth continue in other parts of the world, too.

As for markets, there are several in the US that could support a team; the Carolinas, Vegas, Portland, and a few others... but I think MLB should really be targeting Canada, either Vancouver or Montreal. An entire country of 33m people follows just one team right now.

The mariners would fight tooth and nail to prevent either a Vancouver or a Portland team.

I would add some teams in Mexico also. 


I personally am pro expansion. 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, 21bdp21 said:

The mariners would fight tooth and nail to prevent either a Vancouver or a Portland team.

I would add some teams in Mexico also.

I personally am pro expansion. 

I'm generally pro-expansion as well and yes, some existing teams will have to be paid off to squeeze new teams into some metro areas.

[21bdp21]

28 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm generally pro-expansion as well and yes, some existing teams will have to be paid off to squeeze new teams into some metro areas.

So because I could I looked up the top 50 Metro Areas in North America, ignoring any outside Canada, USA, and Mexico. I then Figured out how far away they were from the closest MLB team. Here is what I found.

 

Metropolitan area	Country	Population	Has  Team	Closet Team	Distance
Mexico City	Mexico	20892724	N	Houston	750
Guadalajara	Mexico	4887383	N	Houston	800
Monterrey	Mexico	4689601	N	Houston	420
Montreal	Canada Canada	4045877	N	Boston	250
Puebla	Mexico	2941988	N	Houston	750
Vancouver	Canada Canada	2509942	N	Seattle	120
Charlotte	United States	2426363	N	Atlanta	230
Portland	United States	2389228	N	Seattle	140
Orlando	United States	2387138	N	Tampa Bay	80
San Antonio	United States	2384075	N	Houston	190
Sacramento	United States	2274194	N	San Francisco	80
Toluca	Mexico	2202886	N	Houston	770
San Juan	Puerto Rico Puerto Rico	2196538	N	Miami	1000
Las Vegas	United States	2114801	N	Las Angeles	220
Columbus	United States	2021632	N	Cleveland/Cincinnati	100
Austin	United States	2000860	N	Houston	100
Indianapolis	United States	1988817	N	Cincinnati	150
San Jose	United States	1976836	N	San Francisco	45
Tijuana	Mexico	1840710	N	San Diego	15

Notes:
-Mexico City, Puebla, and Toluca are all really close to each other.
-The Houston Asterisks  might suffer the most here. 
-I am not sure that Ohio could support a third team.
-Same goes to the Bay area with 2 teams within 80 miles
-Orlando will not happen because of Tampa, although I could see a move if Orlando built a stadium for the Rays. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

52 minutes ago, 21bdp21 said:

So because I could I looked up the top 50 Metro Areas in North America, ignoring any outside Canada, USA, and Mexico. I then Figured out how far away they were from the closest MLB team. Here is what I found.

 

Metropolitan area	Country	Population	Has  Team	Closet Team	Distance
Mexico City	Mexico	20892724	N	Houston	750
Guadalajara	Mexico	4887383	N	Houston	800
Monterrey	Mexico	4689601	N	Houston	420
Montreal	Canada Canada	4045877	N	Boston	250
Puebla	Mexico	2941988	N	Houston	750
Vancouver	Canada Canada	2509942	N	Seattle	120
Charlotte	United States	2426363	N	Atlanta	230
Portland	United States	2389228	N	Seattle	140
Orlando	United States	2387138	N	Tampa Bay	80
San Antonio	United States	2384075	N	Houston	190
Sacramento	United States	2274194	N	San Francisco	80
Toluca	Mexico	2202886	N	Houston	770
San Juan	Puerto Rico Puerto Rico	2196538	N	Miami	1000
Las Vegas	United States	2114801	N	Las Angeles	220
Columbus	United States	2021632	N	Cleveland/Cincinnati	100
Austin	United States	2000860	N	Houston	100
Indianapolis	United States	1988817	N	Cincinnati	150
San Jose	United States	1976836	N	San Francisco	45
Tijuana	Mexico	1840710	N	San Diego	15

Notes:
-Mexico City, Puebla, and Toluca are all really close to each other.
-The Houston Asterisks  might suffer the most here. 
-I am not sure that Ohio could support a third team.
-Same goes to the Bay area with 2 teams within 80 miles
-Orlando will not happen because of Tampa, although I could see a move if Orlando built a stadium for the Rays. 

I added per person income to your table. How much income does the city have to buy tickets, shirseys, etc? Cost of living isn't here, but Orlando as a US city is more expensive than Mexico City and lower average income. San Antonio or Austin and Montreal would be candidates to me. 

Metropolitan area	Country	Population	Has  Team	Closet Team	Distance	Per Person annual income USD
Mexico City	Mexico	20892724	N	Houston	750	26,636
Guadalajara	Mexico	4887383	N	Houston	800	26,520
Monterrey	Mexico	4689601	N	Houston	420	26,232
Montreal	Canada Canada	4045877	N	Boston	250	67,461
Puebla	Mexico	2941988	N	Houston	750	26,500
Vancouver	Canada Canada	2509942	N	Seattle	120	56,000
Charlotte	United States	2426363	N	Atlanta	230	56,682
Portland	United States	2389228	N	Seattle	140	40,526
Orlando	United States	2387138	N	Tampa Bay	80	25,664
San Antonio	United States	2384075	N	Houston	190	115,000
Sacramento	United States	2274194	N	San Francisco	80	94,000
Toluca	Mexico	2202886	N	Houston	770	15,936
San Juan	Puerto Rico Puerto Rico	2196538	N	Miami	1000	20,100
Las Vegas	United States	2114801	N	Las Angeles	220	96,000
Columbus	United States	2021632	N	Cleveland/Cincinnati	100	24,721
Austin	United States	2000860	N	Houston	100	103,000
Indianapolis	United States	1988817	N	Cincinnati	150	65,678
San Jose	United States	1976836	N	San Francisco	45	107,000
Tijuana	Mexico	1840710	N	San Diego	15	26,342

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

I added per person income to your table. How much income does the city have to buy tickets, shirseys, etc? Cost of living isn't here, but Orlando as a US city is more expensive than Mexico City and lower average income. San Antonio or Austin and Montreal would be candidates to me. 

Metropolitan area	Country	Population	Has  Team	Closet Team	Distance	Per Person annual income USD
Mexico City	Mexico	20892724	N	Houston	750	26,636
Guadalajara	Mexico	4887383	N	Houston	800	26,520
Monterrey	Mexico	4689601	N	Houston	420	26,232
Montreal	Canada Canada	4045877	N	Boston	250	67,461
Puebla	Mexico	2941988	N	Houston	750	26,500
Vancouver	Canada Canada	2509942	N	Seattle	120	56,000
Charlotte	United States	2426363	N	Atlanta	230	56,682
Portland	United States	2389228	N	Seattle	140	40,526
Orlando	United States	2387138	N	Tampa Bay	80	25,664
San Antonio	United States	2384075	N	Houston	190	115,000
Sacramento	United States	2274194	N	San Francisco	80	94,000
Toluca	Mexico	2202886	N	Houston	770	15,936
San Juan	Puerto Rico Puerto Rico	2196538	N	Miami	1000	20,100
Las Vegas	United States	2114801	N	Las Angeles	220	96,000
Columbus	United States	2021632	N	Cleveland/Cincinnati	100	24,721
Austin	United States	2000860	N	Houston	100	103,000
Indianapolis	United States	1988817	N	Cincinnati	150	65,678
San Jose	United States	1976836	N	San Francisco	45	107,000
Tijuana	Mexico	1840710	N	San Diego	15	26,342

I’d do three things:

1. Move the A’s to San Jose

2. Add a team in Montreal and the Carolinas

3. Change to a four division format in each league

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I’d do three things:

1. Move the A’s to San Jose

2. Add a team in Montreal and the Carolinas

3. Change to a four division format in each league

Austin/San Antonio looks like a more lucrative market than the Carolinas (especially if you can get them broadcast on TV in Mexico, play some exhibition games in Monterrey, etc) but I'm in agreement otherwise.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

9 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I’d do three things:

1. Move the A’s to San Jose

2. Add a team in Montreal and the Carolinas

3. Change to a four division format in each league

I’d move Tampa to Charlotte (instead of adding a team to the Carolinas) and add a team to San Antonio instead to draw additional Mexico fans and take advantage that San Antonio only has the Spurs

agreed on 1 & Montreal, & 3

[21bdp21]

23 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I’d do three things:

1. Move the A’s to San Jose

2. Add a team in Montreal and the Carolinas

3. Change to a four division format in each league

 

28 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

I added per person income to your table. How much income does the city have to buy tickets, shirseys, etc? Cost of living isn't here, but Orlando as a US city is more expensive than Mexico City and lower average income. San Antonio or Austin and Montreal would be candidates to me. 

I agree per person income is important. I would still put Mexico City and 1 or 2 Mexico teams as contenders because of the sheer number of people. When you have 20mil (Mexico City) you probably still have enough people who are able to buy swag and go to games to make it worth wile. 

1)Also yes move the A's to San Jose, spread the love and the $$$ 
2/3) Right now there are 30 teams. If you add 2 teams to get 4 div of 4 in each league I like the choices that were made. I think there are 3-4 really good places in the US and Canada for new expansion teams though.  If you add 6 teams there could be 3 6 team divisions per league, but that seams like alot.

[21bdp21]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Sconnie said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

 

Created a forum post for expansion talks:
https://twinsdaily.com/forums/topic/54638-mlb-expansion/

 

[Riverbrian]

Neither party is concerned about tanking. The players union would like Pittsburgh to spend money on tier 2 guys that the Dodgers won't sign due to age/talent deficiencies. And if the Pirates or Marlins don't spend money on tier 2 type guys... they have social media to call them a bunch of tankers and plenty of people willing to repeat the mantra over and over. 

Here's the problem that the players union can't solve, it's no longer a secret, the cat is out of the bag, players making the minimum are performing on-par or better than the secondary or tertiary free agents. The front offices know this and the players are bringing home less collectively as a result. 

[Major League Ready]

45 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Neither party is concerned about tanking. The players union would like Pittsburgh to spend money on tier 2 guys that the Dodgers won't sign due to age/talent deficiencies. And if the Pirates or Marlins don't spend money on tier 2 type guys... they have social media to call them a bunch of tankers and plenty of people willing to repeat the mantra over and over. 

Here's the problem that the players union can't solve, it's no longer a secret, the cat is out of the bag, players making the minimum are performing on-par or better than the secondary or tertiary free agents. The front offices know this and the players are bringing home less collectively as a result. 

As always an insightful point of view.  I hope you participate more frequently.

The MLBPA has not represented the majority of players.  Their demands generally favor the guys already making huge money.  It appears Boras really does have this much influence and a lot of players are going along with not realizing the emphasis on demands that benefit a minority.  Increasing the amount paid to prearb players would help.  There are a lot of AAAA guys shuffled back and forth so the teams are not going to inclined to grant a huge increase in 1st year salary.  The players should push for a nice increase in the year 1 minimum and heathy increases in years 2 and 3.  That gets more money to players early in their career and helps out the lower tiers of free agents.  It also has helps a little to increase the amount spent by rebuilding teams.

[Vanimal46]

22 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Austin/San Antonio looks like a more lucrative market than the Carolinas (especially if you can get them broadcast on TV in Mexico, play some exhibition games in Monterrey, etc) but I'm in agreement otherwise.

As a recent Austin transplant back to the Twin Cities, I don’t think the city will embrace a professional baseball team. They already have a AAA team in town with the Round Rock Express. They supported the new MLS team but I think that’s just because it’s a quirky sport. Austin is predominantly a college town. It’s also full of transplants and will have the same challenges as Florida teams. 

Austin folks will not travel to San Antonio to support the team either. I-35 is a nightmare to drive on. Hell, the city as a whole is a nightmare to drive in. 

[Riverbrian]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

As always an insightful point of view.  I hope you participate more frequently.

The MLBPA has not represented the majority of players.  Their demands generally favor the guys already making huge money.  It appears Boras really does have this much influence and a lot of players are going along with not realizing the emphasis on demands that benefit a minority.  Increasing the amount paid to prearb players would help.  There are a lot of AAAA guys shuffled back and forth so the teams are not going to inclined to grant a huge increase in 1st year salary.  The players should push for a nice increase in the year 1 minimum and heathy increases in years 2 and 3.  That gets more money to players early in their career and helps out the lower tiers of free agents.  It also has helps a little to increase the amount spent by rebuilding teams.

What you are saying is pretty much what I have rolling around in my brain.

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but in my attempt to simplify a very complex situation. It occurs to me that there are two problematic large disparities at play. One of them, everybody focuses on and one of them nobody seems to focus on.

Disparity #1 that everyone focuses on is revenue and payroll. It's been discussed to death. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix that. It would take a willingness of owners to pool the differences and disperse it equally. I don't see that happening so moving on to

Disparity #2 that nobody talks about. It's the large and growing value disparity between the pre-arb players with talent and the older lower tier free agent. Hell, include the arbitration eligible players because they are also being pushed out the door for Lamonte Wade (Eddie Rosario for example). We also need to factor in options, when looking at the value disparity. Having options available on a player is a huge increase in value beyond the salary disparity. The freedom to send a struggling pre-arb player to the minors is a huge value when you compare it to a struggling free agent that you signed that you can't send down. That you have to absorb and die with. Because they can't be traded easily forcing you to cut them off the roster so you can provide opportunity for a pre-arb player who will perform as good or better.

The value disparity is huge. Why would any organization including the Dodgers and Yankees willingly pay 5 million and lock into that 5 million for a .230 hitting OF when they have a .240 hitting OF at the minimum that can be sent down to clear space if they hit .200. None of us would do that if we knew better and the Ivy league GM's know better. 

So it occurs to me, like it does to you. The players union should really focus on disparity #2 more.

Pay the Pre-Arb players more because whenever you attach more money to a player or group of players, the value goes down because of the increased cost, which in turn, like a see-saw, will increase the value of the Arbitration eligible players and the 30 year old plus free agents who are struggling to find work. Pittsburgh will spend more money and Brian Dozier quite possibly still has a job. Collectively the overall compensation should raise. 

I'm not an expert but it seems to me that the players union strategy of trying to get the luxury tax threshold raised so the Red Sox can sign Correa while shaming Pittsburgh into signing Andrelton Simmons types by using this tanking mantra for public consumption straight from Madison Avenue will do nothing to improve competitive balance and is ultimately the hardest hill they could climb with the stiffest wind to get where they are going.

Make the rookies less cost effective for the GM's. Take the cheap option away. 

It's just a thought, I'm sure there is a hole in my thinking somewhere. Surely somebody would have thought of it before me. I'm not an expert. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

20 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

What you are saying is pretty much what I have rolling around in my brain.

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but in my attempt to simplify a very complex situation. It occurs to me that there are two problematic large disparities at play. One of them, everybody focuses on and one of them nobody seems to focus on.

Disparity #1 that everyone focuses on is revenue and payroll. It's been discussed to death. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix that. It would take a willingness of owners to pool the differences and disperse it equally. I don't see that happening so moving on to

Disparity #2 that nobody talks about. It's the large and growing value disparity between the pre-arb players with talent and the older lower tier free agent. Hell, include the arbitration eligible players because they are also being pushed out the door for Lamonte Wade (Eddie Rosario for example). We also need to factor in options, when looking at the value disparity. Having options available on a player is a huge increase in value beyond the salary disparity. The freedom to send a struggling pre-arb player to the minors is a huge value when you compare it to a struggling free agent that you signed that you can't send down. That you have to absorb and die with. Because they can't be traded easily forcing you to cut them off the roster so you can provide opportunity for a pre-arb player who will perform as good or better.

The value disparity is huge. Why would any organization including the Dodgers and Yankees willingly pay 5 million and lock into that 5 million for a .230 hitting OF when they have a .240 hitting OF at the minimum that can be sent down to clear space if they hit .200. None of us would do that if we knew better and the Ivy league GM's know better. 

So it occurs to me, like it does to you. The players union should really focus on disparity #2 more.

Pay the Pre-Arb players more because whenever you attach more money to a player or group of players, the value goes down because of the increased cost, which in turn, like a see-saw, will increase the value of the Arbitration eligible players and the 30 year old plus free agents who are struggling to find work. Pittsburgh will spend more money and Brian Dozier quite possibly still has a job. Collectively the overall compensation should raise. 

I'm not an expert but it seems to me that the players union strategy of trying to get the luxury tax threshold raised so the Red Sox can sign Correa while shaming Pittsburgh into signing Andrelton Simmons types by using this tanking mantra for public consumption straight from Madison Avenue will do nothing to improve competitive balance and is ultimately the hardest hill they could climb with the stiffest wind to get where they are going.

Make the rookies less cost effective for the GM's. Take the cheap option away. 

It's just a thought, I'm sure there is a hole in my thinking somewhere. Surely somebody would have thought of it before me. I'm not an expert. 

People have thought about this and on top of paying pre-arb players more, reducing control time before free agency changes the dynamic enormously. If players reached free agency in fewer years and at a younger age, a side effect of that is teams lock up players earlier and for greater dollars, which changes the value balance of younger players. It also reduces a team's ability to hoard pre-arb players at a discounted rate and forces more players, particularly mid-tier free agents, to be paid commensurate with their performance. No longer would Eddie Rosario be left in the dark over $8m in arbitration, as he would have already signed a $30-40m contract one or two years previous.

The obvious downside, and it's a big one, is that it allows large market teams to snatch up the best players at an even younger age. Any reduction in service time control needs to come alongside some pretty significant revenue sharing changes and a salary floor.

But the reduction of service time control and increase of early-career pay schedules will likely happen over the collective dead bodies of MLB ownership.

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

People have thought about this and on top of paying pre-arb players more, reducing control time before free agency changes the dynamic enormously. If players reached free agency in fewer years and at a younger age, a side effect of that is teams lock up players earlier and for greater dollars, which changes the value balance of younger players. It also reduces a team's ability to hoard pre-arb players at a discounted rate and forces more players, particularly mid-tier free agents, to be paid commensurate with their performance. No longer would Eddie Rosario be left in the dark over $8m in arbitration, as he would have already signed a $30-40m contract one or two years previous.

The obvious downside, and it's a big one, is that it allows large market teams to snatch up the best players at an even younger age. Any reduction in service time control needs to come alongside some pretty significant revenue sharing changes and a salary floor.

But the reduction of service time control and increase of early-career pay schedules will likely happen over the collective dead bodies of MLB ownership.

Agreed. 

I think a hard specific age for free agency could work. Player turns 29... He's a Free Agent. 

If Juan Soto is called up at age 20... Great... the Nats get 9 years with him. If Juan Soto is called up at age 26... The Nats get 3. It would eliminate the Kris Bryant manipulation and even encourage teams to call up there best talent quicker. 

I'm sure this would cause additional complications but for simplicity sake... Free Agency by Age could cure some of the games ills. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Agreed. 

I think a hard specific age for free agency could work. Player turns 29... He's a Free Agent. 

If Juan Soto is called up at age 20... Great... the Nats get 9 years with him. If Juan Soto is called up at age 26... The Nats get 3. It would eliminate the Kris Bryant manipulation and even encourage teams to call up there best talent quicker. 

I'm sure this would cause additional complications but for simplicity sake... Free Agency by Age could cure some of the games ills. 

Age-based free agency is the best solution IMO but I'm skeptical the two sides will ever agree to an age. I think the only way owners agree to reduced control time is if they still have the ability to play with service time to some extent.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Agreed. 

I think a hard specific age for free agency could work. Player turns 29... He's a Free Agent. 

If Juan Soto is called up at age 20... Great... the Nats get 9 years with him. If Juan Soto is called up at age 26... The Nats get 3. It would eliminate the Kris Bryant manipulation and even encourage teams to call up there best talent quicker. 

I'm sure this would cause additional complications but for simplicity sake... Free Agency by Age could cure some of the games ills. 

The offer the league made was more than I thought they would do.  Being fans of a mid market team we are all well aware of the current level of advantage held by the top revenue teams.  I am surprised they were willing to budge at all and even more perplexed by fans that lobby to elevate that advantage.  Even the advantaged teams would not go along with increasing the disparity.  It's already to the point where it is eroding fan interest.   My guess is that we end up with something very similar to what they have proposed.  

What I find interesting is that the players believe this is going to have a significant impact on spending.  I seriously doubt that's the case.  Part of the reason for evaluations / team value being so high is that it's relatively easy to team's to control cost and adjust costs.  Are the all the sudden going to ignore profitability?  Any change would be quite modest.  The only thing shortening control will do is put the best free agents in top markets a year earlier.  

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The offer the league made was more than I thought they would do.  Being fans of a mid market team we are all well aware of the current level of advantage held by the top revenue teams.  I am surprised they were willing to budge at all and even more perplexed by fans that lobby to elevate that advantage.  Even the advantaged teams would not go along with increasing the disparity.  It's already to the point where it is eroding fan interest.   My guess is that we end up with something very similar to what they have proposed.  

What I find interesting is that the players believe this is going to have a significant impact on spending.  I seriously doubt that's the case.  Part of the reason for evaluations / team value being so high is that it's relatively easy to team's to control cost and adjust costs.  Are the all the sudden going to ignore profitability?  Any change would be quite modest.  The only thing shortening control will do is put the best free agents in top markets a year earlier.  

Interesting new proposal.

Draft pick incentive to encourage teams to not manipulate service time is kinda like the bank offering a free toaster to themselves. ? 

We might be here awhile.  

[Major League Ready]

19 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Interesting new proposal.

Draft pick incentive to encourage teams to not manipulate service time is kinda like the bank offering a free toaster to themselves. ? 

We might be here awhile.  

They have plenty to work with if the parties are reasonable.  I would think the players could get a substantial increase in perarb salary if they emphasized it.  They already have been offered what IMO is a very good offer for service time.  If you listen to any of the national shows most of them thought there was any chance service time would change because of the competitive disparity already present.  

While I agree with you neither side is concerned with tanking, I do believe this CBA is an opportunity to distribute more of the revenue sharing pie to teams that spend more on payroll.  I have no problem with the current rebuilding practices.  However, the premise of revenue sharing is to provide low revenue teams with the ability to close the gap a bit on spending for free agents or keeping players.  If they don't utilize the money for players, give it to teams who are spending.  You can't elevate Pittsburgh to a reasonable level of contention by spending an extra $30M or $40M free agents.  However, if Milwaukee were to get more revenue sharing if they spent, you have to believe they would spend more.  Now you have put a lower revenue team in a better position to compete.  Of course, more money is spent on players.

Expanded playoffs would provide another pay raise.  Obviously, those teams share in the gate.  That's not the major gain.  Teams spend 85-90% of the revenue they generate.  Most of that playoff revenue is a net gain for the players.

Higher minimum / age based FA / Redistribution of revenue sharing and expanded playoffs.  That's a lot of gains for a group that's already the best compensated group of humans on the planet.  So, why don't we have an agreement?

[Mark G]

I only have one thought on the CBA:  I wouldn't spend another dime on current major league players.  I would give every dime of whatever increases are coming from increased revenue to the minor league players and make that part of the game much more equitable.  The question was what is good for the game, was it not?  The game is more than the major leagues; it is the game.  Future major league players are coming from the minors and some of them may not be able to stay in the game if they don't make enough to make a go of it.  Major league players are more than fairly compensated across the board.  Give the money to the minor leaguers; they are the future of the game.  

[Riverbrian]

On 1/14/2022 at 7:45 AM, Major League Ready said:

You can't elevate Pittsburgh to a reasonable level of contention by spending an extra $30M or $40M free agents.  However, if Milwaukee were to get more revenue sharing if they spent, you have to believe they would spend more.  Now you have put a lower revenue team in a better position to compete.  Of course, more money is spent on players.

 

This makes perfect sense to me. Revenue sharing tied to Utilization.

If don't spend, no Revenue sharing. 

[DJL44]

On 1/14/2022 at 10:04 AM, Mark G said:

I only have one thought on the CBA:  I wouldn't spend another dime on current major league players.  I would give every dime of whatever increases are coming from increased revenue to the minor league players and make that part of the game much more equitable.  The question was what is good for the game, was it not?  The game is more than the major leagues; it is the game.  Future major league players are coming from the minors and some of them may not be able to stay in the game if they don't make enough to make a go of it.  Major league players are more than fairly compensated across the board.  Give the money to the minor leaguers; they are the future of the game.  

Most of the minor leaguers have no future in pro baseball. Your solution is to take the money people pay to see major league baseball players do their job and pay it to people who aren't major league baseball players? That seems odd. Would you like it if your boss took your paycheck and gave it to someone who doesn't work there but might someday?

I don't see any problem with an age based free agency deadline. Age 30 is 8 to 14 years past amateur signing for almost every player. I have also never understood how a player could be released as a minor leaguer, make the big leagues and have to grind out 6 more years at the big league level before he's a free agent again. If a minor leaguer is released from his first contract he should get automatic major league free agency.

[Mark G]

9 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Most of the minor leaguers have no future in pro baseball. Your solution is to take the money people pay to see major league baseball players do their job and pay it to people who aren't major league baseball players? That seems odd. Would you like it if your boss took your paycheck and gave it to someone who doesn't work there but might someday?

I don't see any problem with an age based free agency deadline. Age 30 is 8 to 14 years past amateur signing for almost every player. I have also never understood how a player could be released as a minor leaguer, make the big leagues and have to grind out 6 more years at the big league level before he's a free agent again. If a minor leaguer is released from his first contract he should get automatic major league free agency.

Actually, that is what unions do every day; they negotiate wages and benefits for future workers, never knowing who those workers may be.  My boss isn't giving my paycheck to future employees, he would only be taking my raise and putting it toward recruiting future employees instead of giving it to me and having fewer future employees.  I may not like that, but it just might be a good investment on his part.  Again, the question was what is good for the game.  And I am simply saying the game is much more than the major leagues.  It is every minor league team in towns where that is all they have.  And if players can't make a go of it, they don't stay in the game and that is unfortunate for them and everyone who watches them play.  Current major league players are doing just fine; it is the players that fill out the organization that aren't, and they are just as much a part of the overall game as the major league players.  Part of the money we pay to see current major league players play has always gone to the player development of minor league players.  I am only advocating for a slightly higher percentage going there instead of to players who may or may not be here even as soon as the trade deadline.  Bottom line;  the game is, and always has been, far more than current major league players.  The entire game needs an infusion of investment.  The major leagues don't.  Just my extremely humble opinion. 

[Major League Ready]

11 hours ago, Mark G said:

Actually, that is what unions do every day; they negotiate wages and benefits for future workers, never knowing who those workers may be.  My boss isn't giving my paycheck to future employees, he would only be taking my raise and putting it toward recruiting future employees instead of giving it to me and having fewer future employees.  I may not like that, but it just might be a good investment on his part.  Again, the question was what is good for the game.  And I am simply saying the game is much more than the major leagues.  It is every minor league team in towns where that is all they have.  And if players can't make a go of it, they don't stay in the game and that is unfortunate for them and everyone who watches them play.  Current major league players are doing just fine; it is the players that fill out the organization that aren't, and they are just as much a part of the overall game as the major league players.  Part of the money we pay to see current major league players play has always gone to the player development of minor league players.  I am only advocating for a slightly higher percentage going there instead of to players who may or may not be here even as soon as the trade deadline.  Bottom line;  the game is, and always has been, far more than current major league players.  The entire game needs an infusion of investment.  The major leagues don't.  Just my extremely humble opinion. 

The problem is straight forward.  If we were to pay Milb players an extra $30K/year that would cost each team about $4M.  Players are acutely aware that means there will be $4M less available to pay MLB players.  They are not going to advocate higher wages for Milb players.  This is why I came up with the idea to reduce draft bonuses and pay everyone instead of a select few.   The majority of players receiving huge bonuses never earn them.  Those select few who live up to the hype that currently results in a huge bonus are going to make huge money in the end.  The problem is not the amount being paid out but how it's being distributed.  How does it make sense that Degrom get's a $95K draft bonus and Appel gets $6M? 

[jorgenswest]

I am all for age based free agency/rule 5/options.

Teams get control through age 28. Players need to be on the 40 by age 25 or subject to rule 5. I would eliminate options but you if you are on the 40 at all during season you get major league minimum for the season or portion once on 40.

There will need to be some sort of arbitration or performance scaling for those exceptional players that hit the majors at young ages.

I want small market teams to be competitive for their own free agents particularly now that it hits at a younger age for most. Part of the revenue sharing or payroll tax funds would be used to help smaller market teams keep their own free agents. It might look like the league reimbursing a percentage of the contract or extension into free agent years. That percent can be scaled depending on market with maybe a ceiling of 20%.