Collective Bargaining Agreementâ?¦ Latest: agreement announced (reply #109)

[rickh150]

I'm continually amazed that there is no talk about an extension in the CBA. Or did I miss something and they agreed on a new one when I was on vacation? Why no talk anywhere? The NFL was talking about there agreement two years before it expireed. The NBA agreement is now always in the news. Although I'm sure much talk and stuff is taking place behind the scenes, this should be a bigger story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no CBA for 2012, right?

[Ennder]

They hammered through a lot of the details during spring training this year.

 

http://sports.mobile.msn....=2&afid=49&pg1=1

 

Everything I've read about it suggests there aren't really any worries about not getting it done, just working through the details still.

[endaround]

Basically the only sticking points would be HGH testing and a tobacco ban. Everything else is getting all or nearly all owners to agree to it (wild card expansion, slotting draft picks, world wide draft, more revenue sharing). For years the bigger issues have been owner vs owner in baseball.

[1992casey]

We didn't hear much about the last CBA until it actually happened. I'd take the lack of public talk to be a good sign.

[DHonks]

there was lots of speculation it would be finalized before the World Series...so why worry?

[Invader3K]

It just goes to show what a good commissioner Bud Selig has been. Ever since the strike way back in '94, baseball has had more labor peace than any major sport, by far.

[adamb100]

Well baseball hasnt had the revenue problems the NBA is facing and super money hungry owners of the NFL. Those were the main things of concern in both leagues.

[BCZF]

Unless you don't consider the lack of a cap (hard or soft) not being a "problem" or some MLB owners "super money hungry"

[adamb100]

Unless you don't consider the lack of a cap (hard or soft) not being a "problem" or some MLB owners "super money hungry"

Selig already said there wont be a cap in the next CBA. The NFL owners were already raking in big $ but were demanding more. You dont hear much about owners in the MLB wishing they could make more $.

[kramnoj]

Unless you don't consider the lack of a cap (hard or soft) not being a "problem"

 

Baseball seems to be doing just fine without a hard salary cap.

[nate82]

Apparently everything is going smoothly except for the slotting for the draft which maybe scrapped which the alternative actually sounds better than the slotting. A tweet from Kevin Goldstein. I actually love the idea of scaled/weighted caps for teams that would be based on the teams standings/draft position as Kevin Goldstein tweeted. Article from MLB trade rumors that discusses this and can be found here.

[joepepsi]

Salary cap won't work in baseball. Team by team revenues are too disparate.

[adamb100]

I dont think baseball needs a salary cap, what baseball needs is a salary floor.

[Ennder]

I dont think baseball needs a salary cap, what baseball needs is a salary floor.

 

Salary cap is a bandaid fix anyway and one that doesn't make much sense given how baseball is set up . Baseball could probably use a salary floor and it could still use better revenue sharing especially from media income.

[kramnoj]

What would be the purpose of the salary floor, and what level would the floor be?

 

I would like better enforcement of revenue sharing going to improve the team, whether that be through major league contracts, minor league signing bonuses, foreign scouting/academies anything else that is designed to improve the talent on the field, either immediately or in the future.

 

I don't see any purpose in teams scrambling to sign Overbay to a contract for more than he is worth just to lift the team to a salary floor that won't project to make the team significantly better.

[adamb100]

What would be the purpose of the salary floor, and what level would the floor be?

 

I would like better enforcement of revenue sharing going to improve the team, whether that be through major league contracts, minor league signing bonuses, foreign scouting/academies anything else that is designed to improve the talent on the field, either immediately or in the future.

 

I don't see any purpose in teams scrambling to sign Overbay to a contract for more than he is worth just to lift the team to a salary floor that won't project to make the team significantly better.

Teams like the Pirates take all the revenue sharing and pocket it and dont put it directly into the team. A salary floor would help that money go into the team since the revenue sharing would be spent on team salaries and thus raise their payrolls.

[TooLiveBrew]

Teams like the Pirates take all the revenue sharing and pocket it and dont put it directly into the team.

 

Yes, but we don't know whether or not they're spending that money in other ways to improve their team, like the laundry list of options kramnoj laid out in his post.

 

A small market team that can develop enough talent to keep its overall MLB payroll low shouldn't be punished for that efficiency. To force the Pirates (etc.) to have to sign the Overbays (etc.) of the MLB world just to meet an arbitrary salary floor amount isn't productive. If teams (everyone's looking at you, Marlins!) aren't putting that money into anything player development-related, then I'd cry foul. But there's no leg to stand on in trying to argue that small market clubs are better served to waste money on stopgap players they don't want or need... compared with 'investing' the money in player development, scouting, foreign acadamies, etc.

 

Fwiw, I really like the idea that nate82 highlighted in his post, via the Kevin Goldstein tweet -- "scaled/weighted spending caps for teams based on standings/draft position"

[Patrick425]

Teams like the Pirates take all the revenue sharing and pocket it and dont put it directly into the team. A salary floor would help that money go into the team since the revenue sharing would be spent on team salaries and thus raise their payrolls.

I'll don't understand how people can make these claims. What proof do you have that this is the case? How do you know their current payroll would be even less without revenue sharing? Do you know what they get in revenue sharing? I'm not sure that this information is even made public. All the numbers out there seem to be educated guesses, but no one knows for sure. Look at KC. Their current payroll is around $36 million. Let's say they get an additional $30 million in revenue sharing (which I don't think it's that high..I could be wrong). Let's say they pour that all back into their payroll. That gives them a payroll of $66 million. That's still less than 1/3 of the Yankees payroll.

 

There is a problem with baseball and I think people who say there is not are just fooling themselves. People always point to how many different WS champs there have been and teams like AZ, Milwaukee, Colorado, Tampa Bay, etc that have all had recent success. The problem is that there are windows for these teams. If they don't strike during these windows of opportunity, then who knows when they will have another opportunity. Teams like Milwaukee have to trade away their farm system in order to have some success, while teams like NY, Boston, etc, can pretty much be guaranteed success every year under the current system as they can continue to buy any talent they need.

 

I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken. How can you guys rip the NFL? I don't see anyone fretting over the small market Packers ability to keep Rogers in future years. They had no problem keeping Farve for all those years. There is not this constant moving of big name players through free agency from one team to another. Seems like if a team wants to keep a player and the player wants to stay with a team it will happen, lack of money is not an issue between small and big market teams.

 

I'll never understand why people have so much problems with a team like KC spending $35 million on payroll, but seem to have no issue with NY spending $202 million. You need to have both a ceiling and a floor. I also think there needs to be complete revenue sharing. However, even if the owners were to all agree on this, the players (who have WAY too much power imho) would never agree.

[SconnieKid]

TooLiveBrew]A small market team that can develop enough talent to keep its overall MLB payroll low shouldn't be punished for that efficiency. To force the Pirates (etc.) to have to sign the Overbays (etc.) of the MLB world just to meet an arbitrary salary floor amount isn't productive. If teams (everyone's looking at you, Marlins!) aren't putting that money into anything player development-related, then I'd cry foul. But there's no leg to stand on in trying to argue that small market clubs are better served to waste money on stopgap players they don't want or need... compared with 'investing' the money in player development, scouting, foreign acadamies, etc.

Yeah but. I mean the profit sharing checks the 09 Marlins, 10 Pirates, 11 Royals get are as big as their payroll.

[kramnoj]

I'll don't understand how people can make these claims. What proof do you have that this is the case?

 

There were the leaked financial documents posted on Deadspin. It showed the Pirates owners paid themselves a dividend and the Pirates said it was to pay the taxes of the owners. But the Pirates wouldn't have had that money to give to themselves if they didn't get the revenue sharing money.

 

Do you know what they get in revenue sharing?

 

In 2008, they got $39 million.

 

That gives them a payroll of $66 million. That's still less than 1/3 of the Yankees payroll.

 

 

They don't really have to worry about the Yankees until they get to the playoffs.

 

The problem is that there are windows for these teams.

 

This is also true in the NFL. There are teams that aren't competitive every year, even with all the revenue sharing.

 

Teams like Milwaukee have to trade away their farm system in order to have some success, while teams like NY, Boston, etc, can pretty much be guaranteed success every year under the current system as they can continue to buy any talent they need.

 

The farm system exists to make the major league team better, and trading prospects for players that will improve the team is one way to build a playoff team. On the other side, Boston hasn't made the playoffs the last two years, the Mets don't make the playoffs on a regular basis, the Dodgers haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, the Cubs haven't made the playoffs the last 3 years, etc.

 

I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken.

 

He's one player, and many here feel that he won't be worth whatever contract he signs. That doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

I don't see anyone fretting over the small market Packers ability to keep Rogers in future years. They had no problem keeping Farve for all those years

 

The Brewers had no problem locking up Braun for all those years. They had the ability to lock up Gallardo, Weeks, Hart for future years.

 

There is a problem with baseball and I think people who say there is not are just fooling themselves

 

If you want to say that others are fooling themselves, you should have a coherent argument.

[Patrick425]

They don't really have to worry about the Yankees until they get to the playoffs.

 

Ok the Phillies (who they have to play in their league) had a payroll of $170+ million last year. The point is, it doesn't matter what league they are in, they are at a clear disadvantage with the money they have to work with. If they are using the money to just put in their pockets, then yeah, that's an issue. If they are using the money to pay off debt or for other expenses other than payroll, I really don't have an issue with that.

 

This is also true in the NFL. There are teams that aren't competitive every year, even with all the revenue sharing.

 

That's my point. Under true revenue sharing, you are going to have less teams that are going to be competitive every single year. There will be more parity like you see in the NFL (although for some, partiy is an ugly word for some reason. Never understood that.)

 

The farm system exists to make the major league team better, and trading

prospects for players that will improve the team is one way to build a

playoff team. On the other side, Boston hasn't made the playoffs the

last two years, the Mets don't make the playoffs on a regular basis, the

Dodgers haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, the Cubs

haven't made the playoffs the last 3 years, etc.

 

Wow, Boston hasn't made the playoffs in two years! Those poor people. I can't imagine what they are going through! The Mets and Dodgers owners have some other financial issues (Madoff, Family divorces). I'm not saying that having a large payroll guarantees that you will make the playoffs. Bad decisions can still be made, no matter how much money you spend. However, if you don't see the disparity and advantages a team with a $150 million+ payroll has over a team with a $60million or $70 million payroll, I'm not sure what to say. Would you rather that the Brewers have a $90 million payroll or a $170 million payroll like the Phillies. I'll take my chances with $170 million.

 

I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken.

 

He's one player, and many here feel that he won't be worth whatever contract he signs. That doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

Not sure if you noticed, but I named 3 players there and those were just examples. Every year, there is a top tier of FAs that 2/3 of the teams in baseball have no real chance of landing. To me that is just wrong. Once in a while a team like the Nationals or Florida may land a big name, but it's a huge gamble. If that player gets injured or does not pan out that is a signing that will hurt them for next 5-10 years. Teams like the Yankees and Boston can afford to make mistakes. They will just go out at the trade line and draw from their "farm system", picking up a player that some small market team can no longer afford to pay. Yes, this sounds like a fair and competitive system.

 

The Brewers had no problem locking up Braun for all those years. They

had the ability to lock up Gallardo, Weeks, Hart for future years.

 

When is the last time the Packers were not able to keep a player that they really wanted to keep because they could not afford him. I'm talking about a real impact player. If baseball had the same type of revenue sharing system that football has, the Brewers would have a much better chance of keeping Fielder (along with all the players you mentioned).

 

If you want to say that others are fooling themselves, you should have a coherent argument.

 

I think the argument is pretty coherent. The difference between the largest payroll team and smallest payroll team is about $175 million. Even if you think these teams are using NONE of their revenue sharing money towards payroll, there would still be a $140 million difference if they did. You don't think anything of that. I do.

 

If you don't think that there is a definite and clear advantage to big market teams in baseball, then you must have just become a Brewer fan this year.

[TooLiveBrew]

I mean the profit sharing checks the 09 Marlins, 10 Pirates, 11 Royals get are as big as their payroll.

 

Imo that's not really relevant, it's how the money's being spent. If MLB can prove the money's just being pocketed by ownership, then I would agree it's a problem.

[endaround]

Remember all those baseball teams going 0-162 and 162-0? Wait no, that's the NFL and its parity.

[Funketown]

When people say "parity" when talking about the NFL, I think they're referring to how often "terrible" teams become "good" teams in just one offseason. Of course, if Major League Baseball played a 16 game schedule, I think you'd see a lot more "terrible" teams magically become "good" teams in the course of a single offseason.

[adamb100]

The thing with the NFL is success rests on luck too. With only 16 games that missed pass or whatever could be the difference between 1-15 and 0-16. That 1 win is huge. Sure luck happens in Baseball too (look at the breaks St. Louis got in the NLCS) but when you play 162 games it all evens out.