LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  [ 125 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?

Author Message
Online  Re: Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?
Posted: March 08, 2019, 3:05 PM Post
Posts: 207
Brew crew 92 said:
1.)DH-national league
2.)1.25 million min salary

Gets non super two players extra 2.1 mil
DH will raise ave salary
Gets players % share of revenues closer to previous CBA
Leaving service time as is,along with luxury tax should appease owners


Peter Gammons was just on MLB radio and suggested as a possible answer to the potential labor strife > raising min salary first three years to
Somewhere between 1-2 mil. Simple solution. Boy am I smart! Ha


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?
Posted: March 08, 2019, 11:31 PM Post
Posts: 1612
Brew crew 92 said:
Brew crew 92 said:
1.)DH-national league
2.)1.25 million min salary

Gets non super two players extra 2.1 mil
DH will raise ave salary
Gets players % share of revenues closer to previous CBA
Leaving service time as is,along with luxury tax should appease owners


Peter Gammons was just on MLB radio and suggested as a possible answer to the potential labor strife > raising min salary first three years to
Somewhere between 1-2 mil. Simple solution. Boy am I smart! Ha


That would add like 20 million to the payroll... I'm not sure small market teams would be in favor of this. I like the simplified ideas, though. Something similar, sure.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?
Posted: March 10, 2019, 7:09 PM Post
Posts: 12316
It was awhile ago but I thought at one time MLB player salaries were only about half of the operating costs for teams.

Fan is short for fanatic.
I blame Wang.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?
Posted: March 11, 2019, 5:09 AM Post
Posts: 80
reillymcshane said:
How about this idea:

Players are granted Free Agency:

a) At the age of 28 after serving at least four full seasons in the majors (you could tweak the age - 28 is just an idea)
or
b) At the age of 30 - no matter how many years of service
or
c) After six full seasons (so basically how it is now). This allows guys who come up early to become FAs prior to age 28.

The team will control most players for at least four full years, and it gets a lot of players to free agency earlier. Also, it gets late bloomers to free agency at a point where they still have chance to score a decent contract.

Also, teams will have no incentive to keep a 23 year old player in the minors an extra month or two since he will be a FA in six years anyhow.

It doesn't really help the guys like Machado or Harper - who came up at age 19-20 - but that's okay. Those guys will be fine. The most they will have to play under their original team will be 6 years (but less than 7).

Just an idea. Pick it apart. Show me the downsides and upsides and sideways!


Your solution would make it even more difficult for a small market team to compete. They lose their own FAs earlier and don't have the resources that the cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc... have to replace them. With the monstrous discrepancy in money in MLB, smaller market teams are already at a distinct disadvantage. Earlier FA puts them in much more dire straits. Unless there was a hard cap that smaller markets could reach, earlier FA is not the answer.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?
Posted: March 11, 2019, 7:14 AM Post
Posts: 3880
logan82 said:
It was awhile ago but I thought at one time MLB player salaries were only about half of the operating costs for teams.


That's a point I've been trying to keep in mind when all the discussion about where a team's payroll could be considering of how much money all of MLB's owners are supposedly printing with exploding league revenues. I always like to look at the Packers - essentially the only team required to show their financial books due to being "publicly owned" for comparison's sake. The Packers have the luxury of playing in a league with a well-established salary cap structure and extensive revenue sharing, huge revenues from TV/advertising contracts, a national following to maximize ticket sales and merchandise revenue, and are located in our backyard small market. They just had a record annual revenues in 2017, but also had a record level of expenses, generating a ~$35 Million dollar profit. The Packers' player payroll hit was much lower than 50% of their total operation expenses, too.

For an NFL team like the packers who operate with an established payroll structure to only have the ability of adding ~$35 Million in player salary if the salary cap were to evaporate before they weren't profitable speaks volumes - particularly when comparing them to the Brewers, who are at significant market disadvantages financially with most of their competition, don't operate in a league with established player payroll caps/limits, and still have 40 man roster + ~6 minor league affiliates and associated players/personnel to manage.

IMO, it is foolish to think MLB owners/management are colluding with one another when they essentially all play by their own financial sets of rules with player payroll and operating expenses. The advent of statistical data analysis coupled with the attempt to remove PEDs from the game that allowed good players to artificially extend their primes well into their 30s have reset a player's typical prime production years back to their mid 20's/early 30's. That just so happens to set right at the last couple years of salary arbitration plus the first couple years of FA for most players, and GMs have definitely shied away from offering prime level production to players in long term contracts that extend well beyond age 32-33 seasons. That's not collusion, that's just the market making common sense.

To fully balance things out, however, I do believe the current salary arbitration system that was essentially fortified during the steroid era's heyday needs to be slightly adjusted. I think removing 1 year of pre-arbitration from the 6 years of team control and replacing it with a restricted FA year would go a long way to shifting the % of dollars paid to players in their prime years instead of paying for past performance - I also think this strategy may help reduce teams from stockpiling MLB-ready prospects in the minors to try and shoot for contending in short windows before rebuilding. If there's a restricted free agent year, teams with a pile of good players under the same length of team control would risk losing a couple right when their window to contend would otherwise be opened the widest due to salary constraints if other organizations make offers they can't match. I think this would lead to more teams getting top prospects to the majors when they are ready instead of searching for excuses to keep them in the minors to try and get that age 28 or 29 MLB season under salary arbitration control.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  [ 125 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MrAllen, ReverendBrewmeister, topper09er, Zad Fnark and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test