The coming MLB CBA challenge thread

[ZBTMP]

Don’t want to sidetrack the Jacob Degrom thread but here is an article that touches on why raising the league minimum has a negative impact on competitive balance as well as the other challenges presented in the upcoming CBA fight.

 

This is the same issue the league would likely raise if the players asked for a higher league minimum salary. A significant increase in the minimum salary would act as a regressive tax, increasing the marginal costs for the lowest-spending teams more than the teams in large markets with plenty of disposable income. While the minimum salary is likely to increase in a significant way, using a league-wide increase in the baseline salary of all players would make it more difficult for the league to sustain the current level of competitive balance; the Dodgers and Yankees can absorb an extra $10 or $15 million in mandatory spending a lot easier than the A’s or Rays can.

 

MLB players are going to be looking for their salaries to better keep up with the growth in league revenue. Unfortunately, the growth in revenue has been much greater with high revenue clubs who can leverage the mega TV contracts. Yet large market clubs do not want to further subsidize small market payrolls. The method to distribute the growth in revenue to players without taking steps back in competitive balance will be a major upcoming challenge.

[MadScientist]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

[jerichoholicninja]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

 

I imagine this is what happened when the NHL went to a salary cap 10 or so years ago and when the NFL did the same 20ish years ago.

[logan82]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

Maybe, maybe not. It might allow some of the smaller markets to hold onto a player or two that they wouldn't be able to because of money.

 

I really don't have much issue with the current salary structure if they are not going to do anything with the revenue sharing. The minor league wages should really be addressed though. The wages those guys are paid is terrible. They should at least be paid enough so they can eat properly.

[MadScientist]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

 

I imagine this is what happened when the NHL went to a salary cap 10 or so years ago and when the NFL did the same 20ish years ago.

 

I don't know about the NHL situation, but the NFL had full TV revenue sharing from the early days of TV contracts. That dynamic made owners a more unified block against the players, leading to various strikes in the 80's and the lockout in 2011. In this case, will the small-market owners stand with the large-market owners against the players, or will the player be able to get an improved deal by playing one group of owners against the other?

[MadScientist]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

Maybe, maybe not. It might allow some of the smaller markets to hold onto a player or two that they wouldn't be able to because of money.

 

I really don't have much issue with the current salary structure if they are not going to do anything with the revenue sharing. The minor league wages should really be addressed though. The wages those guys are paid is terrible. They should at least be paid enough so they can eat properly.

 

Yes smaller market teams will be able to keep some players they otherwise wouldn't, but with greater revenue sharing, the rich teams won't have as deep pockets. This means those really big, really long contracts will likely be a thing of the past. Dead money when a team has a bad contract will really hurt. With greater sharing, Price might still get $30M per year, but not for 7 years.

[logan82]

If all you did was raise the minimum, then yes the small market clubs would get screwed. Improved revenue sharing of local media contracts is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets in the game. However, that would likely put a damper on some of the highest salaries, so there has to be some give back to the players, like with higher minimums.

 

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

Maybe, maybe not. It might allow some of the smaller markets to hold onto a player or two that they wouldn't be able to because of money.

 

I really don't have much issue with the current salary structure if they are not going to do anything with the revenue sharing. The minor league wages should really be addressed though. The wages those guys are paid is terrible. They should at least be paid enough so they can eat properly.

 

Yes smaller market teams will be able to keep some players they otherwise wouldn't, but with greater revenue sharing, the rich teams won't have as deep pockets. This means those really big, really long contracts will likely be a thing of the past. Dead money when a team has a bad contract will really hurt. With greater sharing, Price might still get $30M per year, but not for 7 years.

The smaller teams would be able to hand out the big contracts to a player or two instead of the big teams handing them out to 4-5 they would only be able to hand them out to 2-3.

[DHonks]

Since someone mentioned the NHL, NBA, and NFL, one thing to mention that is great in MLB is that it's the only effective free agent market. They need to get rid of the compensation picks tied to Qualifying Offers and award compensation like the NFL (extra picks from league based on net free agents lost).

[jerichoholicninja]

Since someone mentioned the NHL, NBA, and NFL, one thing to mention that is great in MLB is that it's the only effective free agent market. They need to get rid of the compensation picks tied to Qualifying Offers and award compensation like the NFL (extra picks from league based on net free agents lost).

 

I've been reading a lot of NFL Trade Rumors lately and I totally agree that the NFL's free agent compensation system is great. I even like their tender system or whatever you call it where the draft pick you get is determined by how much you offer a player.

 

This is a little off topic but does anyone know how exactly NFL team revenue is divided up? I understand that they have gobs of TV money that gets split but what about all the money the Packers are going to be making from their new development? Do they get to keep all of that or does that get split too? And if they do keep it, what can they spend it on?

[danzig6767]

NFL's free agent compensation system is great. I even like their tender system or whatever you call it where the draft pick you get is determined by how much you offer a player.

 

This is a little off topic but does anyone know how exactly NFL team revenue is divided up? I understand that they have gobs of TV money that gets split but what about all the money the Packers are going to be making from their new development? Do they get to keep all of that or does that get split too? And if they do keep it, what can they spend it on?

Ticket revenue on game day is split between the two teams playing, not exactly sure is it's a clean 50/50 split.

 

Where teams can make extra money though is via their stadiums. Take the Packers. They get to keep every penny from say all of the tours of the stadium, their Hall of Fame, parking, and wide array of other events which draws Packer fans to Lambeau Field. Same with any new development owned by the team. Jerry Jones in Dallas makes a ton of money hosting a bunch of college games and other events in his massive new stadium.

 

That said, the extra money doesn't gain much of an advantage on the field because the NFL has a fairly hard cap. There are various accounting tricks which teams can use for a year or two to spend above the cap, but eventually that team will have to cut multiple high priced players and could lose promising young players who reached free agency because of many millions in dead cap space obligations.

[1992casey]

One thing is clear, the negotiations will be difficult. It has the makings of a three-corner fight - small market, large market, and players. I don't know if we've seen something like this in sports before.

The three-corner situation was actually a factor during every work stoppage since free agency started. Larger markets were much more willing to acquiesce to player demands. One thing that Bud Selig was able to accomplish as commissioner was to build consensus and get all of owners to be basically on the same page.

[DHonks]

jerichoholicninja, I'm saying I don't like compensation being tied to salary offers. There's nothing about NFL or NBA free agency I like. They are not free markets. I also don't like teams giving up draft picks. I'd like a system where additions and subtractions are weighed, and teams are then rewarded compensation picks between rounds based on their losses....perhaps from after rounds 1 through 5. I really hate that a team like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, or Cubs could let a bunch of players walk in free agency, sign other guys just as good, and STILL get compensation picks after the first round.

[QuevedosTongue]

One thing the NFL does that would help MLB with regards to players outperforming their contracts early in their careers is pay out players who are young who play a lot and at a high level. Something like that would alleviate some of the issues with players like deGrom. Of course, the union would have to agree and I don't know that I see the old guys forgoing cash for the young guys.

[torts]

I am really excited for the cba negotiations coming!!

[jerichoholicninja]

Right now the players the CBA hurts are the not-great players who get QO, pre-arby superstars, and guys who aren't even members yet (the next wave of pre-arby superstars.) That's such a small minority I can't really see many changes. The QO will probably be tinkered with but I can't see any changes to pre-arby and arby players. The majority of union members are mediocre to average players. By voting to give more money to young guys they're taking future money out of their own pockets.