Jump to content

The MLB lockout is lifted!


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Exactly right.  I would be totally in favor of having a minimum payroll requirement.  That would actually have a chance of making weak teams compete a bit.  I thought parity was everyone's big need.  

And in the original offer from the MLB last August, they offered a floor of $100 mill. They showed their hand. We know those low salary teams can definitely spend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The benefits are definitely better, as is the pension plan, but it really doesn't matter if they're guaranteed or not if the total distribution of revenue is significantly lower.

You should ask the players whether they will offer non-guaranteed contracts on the table in exchange for higher share of revenue since it doesn't matter.

  • Like 1
  • Fire 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

And in the original offer from the MLB last August, they offered a floor of $100 mill. They showed their hand. We know those low salary teams can definitely spend.

I don't remember the MLB offering a $100 million floor.  Why didn't the players take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

And in the original offer from the MLB last August, they offered a floor of $100 mill. They showed their hand. We know those low salary teams can definitely spend.

I mean, each team gets $60M+ in national TV money plus at least $40M in local TV money.  Yes, there are other expenses than just player salary, but throw in revenue sharing and any level of gate receipts, concessions, merchandise, etc. and every single franchise can support a $100M+ payroll no questions asked.  Now that spending is constrained in the draft and international amateur free agency, there is zero reason not to have a salary floor other than to allow low revenue clubs looking to pocket boatloads of cash. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I mean, each team gets $60M+ in national TV money plus at least $40M in local TV money.  Yes, there are other expenses than just player salary, but throw in revenue sharing and any level of gate receipts, concessions, merchandise, etc. and every single franchise can support a $100M+ payroll no questions asked.  Now that spending is constrained in the draft and international amateur free agency, there is zero reason not to have a salary floor other than to allow low revenue clubs looking to pocket boatloads of cash. 

How much are you thinking their MiLB payroll is? Front office staff?  Coaching staffs at each level? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Texsox said:

How much are you thinking their MiLB payroll is? Front office staff?  Coaching staffs at each level? 

$100M max which I’d wager is offset by non TV revenue and revenue sharing.  And just for context, the lowest revenue teams are gaining $50M to $60M from revenue sharing on top of the $100M money from TV revenue.  And gate receipts in a regular length season should be close to $40M for even the weakest teams and that doesn’t account for concession, merchandise, parking, etc.  I’m very confident a $100M floor is achievable.

Edited by Chicago White Sox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

I don't remember the MLB offering a $100 million floor.  Why didn't the players take it?

It had a $180 million hard cap attached that would result in a significant cut from current payrolls. Plus, the players have made it totally clear that they will take less money overall to avoid a hard cap.

The White Sox are more than $15 million over that number right now. They’d have been over the cap without Leury and Gravemann and would have had to cut payroll substantially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

$100M max which I’d wager is offset by non TV revenue and revenue sharing.  And just for context, the lowest revenue teams are gaining $50M to $60M from revenue sharing on top of the $100M money from TV revenue.  And gate receipts in a regular length season should be close to $40M for even the weakest teams and that doesn’t account for concession, merchandise, parking, etc.  I’m very confident a $100M floor is achievable.

While I totally agree that it would bankrupt zero teams, it would impact more than half the league at some point (including the White Sox go basically printed money for 2 years with payrolls below that) so if it only takes 8 votes by owners to torpedo a proposal, a legitimate minimum salary  has a gigantic uphill climb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The "weak" NFLPA is getting its players between 47 and 48.5 percent of the leaguewide revenues. The "strong" MLBPA is struggling to get MLB owners to give up 40 percent of the revenues.

I thought someone posted a source earlier stating MLB players get 47% of revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All winter, every player was repeating the mantra:  "We want a league where everyone is competitive".  They got their raise for pre-arb players.  They got a strong bump to the "floor".   But when push came to shove all that mattered was the CBT.   

Boras knows the money is in the top line.  

Fire both camps into the Glendale sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I thought someone posted a source earlier stating MLB players get 47% of revenues.

48% is the amount of local revenues that currently goes to the shared revenue pool among teams. It is not the players’ share of total revenue.

 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-three-reasons-why-the-players-union-wants-to-alter-baseballs-revenue-sharing-system/amp/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It had a $180 million hard cap attached that would result in a significant cut from current payrolls. Plus, the players have made it totally clear that they will take less money overall to avoid a hard cap.

The White Sox are more than $15 million over that number right now. They’d have been over the cap without Leury and Gravemann and would have had to cut payroll substantially.

Like everything else in this negotiation...it put the subject on the table.  If the owners/players would have excepted the $220 CBT with a $60M minimum that would surely be a win for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

Like everything else in this negotiation...it put the subject on the table.  If the owners/players would have excepted the $220 CBT with a $60M minimum that would surely be a win for everyone.

I have wondered if that would be a way to get around the current tax level impasse, but I think at even $60 million you suddenly get more teams voting against it (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). They would tolerate that for a hard cap, but not for a luxury tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

48% is the amount of local revenues that currently goes to the shared revenue pool among teams. It is not the players’ share of total revenue.

 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-three-reasons-why-the-players-union-wants-to-alter-baseballs-revenue-sharing-system/amp/ 

Got it. I knew someone posted something about that number somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I have wondered if that would be a way to get around the current tax level impasse, but I think at even $60 million you suddenly get more teams voting against it (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). They would tolerate that for a hard cap, but not for a luxury tax.

These NO votes on both sides need to sober up.  Compromise is going to happen eventually...why not now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...