I’m not seeing a lot of deal breakers here. 

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So basically the owners want to implement a Steve Cohen tier tax which makes total sense.  If the players reject this offer because of this specific element then the players are being selfish and truly don’t care about the competitive balance of the game.

It's a salary cap. Of course they're going to reject it. If the MLBPA rejects this though, I could see the owners going scorched earth and asking for a hard cap. 

I've always been of the opinion that the MLBPA only cares about the stars and doesn't realize what a cap and floor would do for their average players.

I'm miffed about how the MLBPA doesn't fight for the average vet. 

Edited March 9, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So basically the owners want to implement a Steve Cohen tier tax which makes total sense.  If the players reject this offer because of this specific element then the players are being selfish and truly don’t care about the competitive balance of the game.

Hard to disagree there.  A new tier really only effects the ultra spenders.  Everything else looks pretty fair from where both sides started. 

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It probably would be. MLBPA will view it as a salary cap(as they should) and will consider it a non-starter. 

There’s still ways to make that work. The last CBA has bigger penalties for teams that were above the tax multiple years - if the repeater penalties are gone that could balance it out.

6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So basically the owners want to implement a Steve Cohen tier tax which makes total sense.  If the players reject this offer because of this specific element then the players are being selfish and truly don’t care about the competitive balance of the game.

Why did they allow him to become an owner in the first place if they already have to create a rule to thwart Cohen?

Remember, they rejected Cuban for seemingly less.

 

 

Just now, Tnetennba said:

 

Ooh I like that, that hammers tanking for picks. Detroit would have been hit by that. White Sox would have been hit by that.

 

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

Why did they allow him to become an owner in the first place if they already have to create a rule to thwart Cohen?

Remember, they rejected Cuban for seemingly less.

There's a reason Reinsdorf tried blocking Cohen from buying the Mets.  He knew what was coming when I guess enough of them did not.

Billionaires living in fear of Steve Cohen actually wanting to win is pretty sad.

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

There’s still ways to make that work. The last CBA has bigger penalties for teams that were above the tax multiple years - if the repeater penalties are gone that could balance it out.

If they make the big tier the only one that loses draft picks for multiple overages I think it's doable. 

A few anti tanking measures and a few incentives to promote prospects over manipulating service time.  All seem sensible. 

Just now, maxjusttyped said:

There's a reason Reinsdorf tried blocking Cohen from buying the Mets.  He knew what was coming when I guess enough of them did not.

Billionaires living in fear of Steve Cohen actually wanting to win is pretty sad.

^^^^^^

So what are their definitions of what a small market team is versus large market team?

This seems like a good offer but I think MLB is low on the pre-arb pool. 

Other than that, I think this has the potential to get done. If they could meet in the middle on the pre-arb pool I think we might have something. 

3 minutes ago, HahnsKiddieTable said:

So what are their definitions of what a small market team is versus large market team?

Sox will be considered a large market team. That's all that matters. JR should be fighting that because the Cubs have at least 60% of the Chicago baseball market, and that's probably conservative. 

I did some math on twitter follows and there was about a 70/30 split. I really don't know where else to get data but that's about right IMO. 

Edited March 9, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman

1 minute ago, HahnsKiddieTable said:

So what are their definitions of what a small market team is versus large market team?

City/metro size/media market size?  Sox usually get boned by these definitions. 

1 minute ago, HahnsKiddieTable said:

So what are their definitions of what a small market team is versus large market team?

St. Louis and even Milwaukee under Selig were closer to large market...but not according to MLB.  Then you have Miami, Tampa/St. Pete, Oak/Bay area, Arizona, Baltimore and even Denver that act small market but are in larger media markets.

 

8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's a salary cap. Of course they're going to reject it. If the MLBPA rejects this though, I could see the owners going scorched earth and asking for a hard cap. 

I've always been of the opinion that the MLBPA only cares about the stars and doesn't realize what a cap and floor would do for their average players.

I'm miffed about how the MLBPA doesn't fight for the average vet. 

The first tier of the CBT is already a defacto salary cap for most teams.  Tell me this Jack, how many instances have teams exceeded the third tier / second surcharge?  I’m not sure it’s ever happened, so this proposal affects one single team.  And given that small market owners already are resistance to raising the first tier of the CBT, this seems like a great compromise for all parties.

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

This seems like a good offer but I think MLB is low on the pre-arb pool. 

Other than that, I think this has the potential to get done. If they could meet in the middle on the pre-arb pool I think we might have something. 

Honestly, I’ll be upset if the players see that as a sticking point.  I despise how the owners have played this the whole time but this looks like a legit offer with real concessions from where they were a week ago.  I hope the players recognise that and don’t risk this falling apart - assuming that there isn’t some boogeyman in the fine print. 

 

2 minutes ago, Heads22 said:

 

That seems really fair and only hurts the mega spenders.  Or am I reading that wrong?

10 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Why did they allow him to become an owner in the first place if they already have to create a rule to thwart Cohen?

Remember, they rejected Cuban for seemingly less.

Good question.  I know Jerry voted against him, but not sure about the others.  Either way, curbing Cohen makes sense.  We don’t need a team with a $400M payroll.