February 12, 20224 yr 33 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Both sides claim to want competitive balance. I am glad to see the owners hold the line on the CBT. Create a minimum amount a team needs to spend...say 75 M. They should give the minimum salary a healthy boost and do what they can to foster a more even playing field. A higher CBT only helps the big market teams while putting more and more distance between the haves and have nots.
February 12, 20224 yr 6 minutes ago, poppysox said: Both sides claim to want competitive balance. I am glad to see the owners hold the line on the CBT. Create a minimum amount a team needs to spend...say 75 M. They should give the minimum salary a healthy boost and do what they can to foster a more even playing field. A higher CBT only helps the big market teams while putting more and more distance between the haves and have nots. This X 100.
February 12, 20224 yr If the owners refused to counter, met, and rallied together to make a big offer that would lead to the players also offering concessions and this was the best they could do, we may be in for a very long work stoppage. It would be hard to consider this anything other than incremental at best. I was hoping this would be a game changer, I am very disappointed. As far as the CBT is concerned, why should the players of every team suffer because certain markets aren’t viable (e.g. Tampa) or certain owners are wealthy beyond imagination but philosophically opposed to healthy payrolls (e.g. Oakland)? I fear that the owners are going to have a hard time negotiating with each other to make the kind of offer that will tempt the players to settle.
February 12, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, Timmy U said: If the owners refused to counter, met, and rallied together to make a big offer that would lead to the players also offering concessions and this was the best they could do, we may be in for a very long work stoppage. It would be hard to consider this anything other than incremental at best. I was hoping this would be a game changer, I am very disappointed. As far as the CBT is concerned, why should the players of every team suffer because certain markets aren’t viable (e.g. Tampa) or certain owners are wealthy beyond imagination but philosophically opposed to healthy payrolls (e.g. Oakland)? I fear that the owners are going to have a hard time negotiating with each other to make the kind of offer that will tempt the players to settle. I wasn't even hoping for a game changer - just a legit step to show that they want to find a good faith agreement. All of Manfred's talk the other day was just more hot air.
February 12, 20224 yr If the owners aren't budging much on the luxury tax ceiling, maybe the players could counter with an $80M floor. That would probably do more for the players as a whole than raising the luxury tax threshold. Stars will still get theirs, regardless. Can't have a soft cap without a floor to go with it.
February 12, 20224 yr 19 minutes ago, Timmy U said: If the owners refused to counter, met, and rallied together to make a big offer that would lead to the players also offering concessions and this was the best they could do, we may be in for a very long work stoppage. It would be hard to consider this anything other than incremental at best. I was hoping this would be a game changer, I am very disappointed. As far as the CBT is concerned, why should the players of every team suffer because certain markets aren’t viable (e.g. Tampa) or certain owners are wealthy beyond imagination but philosophically opposed to healthy payrolls (e.g. Oakland)? I fear that the owners are going to have a hard time negotiating with each other to make the kind of offer that will tempt the players to settle. Both players and owners said their biggest concern is parity. Can't have teams tanking and not even trying to win. If every team had to spend a minimum of 75M that would create tons of extra good-paying jobs compared to now. Raising the CBT helps teams like the Yanks further outbid the smaller market teams. Hard to find a way to sell this to a group of small-market owners, however.
February 12, 20224 yr Just now, Jack Parkman said: If the owners aren't budging much on the luxury tax ceiling, maybe the players could counter with an $80M floor. That would probably do more for the players as a whole than raising the luxury tax threshold. Stars will still get theirs, regardless. Can't have a soft cap without a floor to go with it. I agree especially since parity was the original big need for both sides.
February 12, 20224 yr 2 minutes ago, poppysox said: I agree especially since parity was the original big need for both sides. I think the floor should be $100M personally, but I don't think the small market teams would go for that. Having a floor would also help small market teams retain their top players. It would incentivize them to spend on the best they can get for the money. Also, it would help contending teams as contract dumps to reach the floor would become a thing. Edited February 12, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman
February 12, 20224 yr 24 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: I think the floor should be $100M personally, but I don't think the small market teams would go for that. Having a floor would also help small market teams retain their top players. It would incentivize them to spend on the best they can get for the money. Also, it would help contending teams as contract dumps to reach the floor would become a thing. I would love $100M personally but I don't think you could get $75.
February 12, 20224 yr 3 hours ago, Dick Allen said: When you are that far apart there is nothing to negotiate. The thresholds tell you all you need to know. The owners don’t care if they blow up the sport. It’s their way or the Highway. It’s pretty sad. The NFL has more revenue than the MLB. The NFL hard salary cap is 208. The penalty for the MLB starting at 214 isn't unreasonable. That is a higher percentage of the revenue than the NFL and it's split with many more players in the NFL with 63 players for each team.
February 12, 20224 yr Author 15 minutes ago, ptatc said: The NFL has more revenue than the MLB. The NFL hard salary cap is 208. The penalty for the MLB starting at 214 isn't unreasonable. That is a higher percentage of the revenue than the NFL and it's split with many more players in the NFL with 63 players for each team. MLB players are currently getting 47% of revenues.
February 12, 20224 yr 18 minutes ago, ptatc said: The NFL has more revenue than the MLB. The NFL hard salary cap is 208. The penalty for the MLB starting at 214 isn't unreasonable. That is a higher percentage of the revenue than the NFL and it's split with many more players in the NFL with 63 players for each team. Had not looked at it that way. MLB also has to spend money on the minor leagues while NFL doesn't thanks to college football.
February 12, 20224 yr 19 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: MLB players are currently getting 47% of revenues. It must be much lower in the NFL then. Edit: I guess that not necessarily true as the MLB teams could be further from the cap. However the point still stands the number of the cap makes sense as it's higher than the NFL. This isn't an issue Edited February 12, 20224 yr by ptatc
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.