Mlb history of collusion

[KeithStone53151]

20 teams are 75 mil under the tax threshold and you guys are great with those clubs literally having the ability to sign 2 hall of fame 26 year old talents and not lose money. Any team can sign both and STILL BE UNDER

 

But sure....analytics

 

Not every team has a revenue stream to support a payroll at or near the luxury tax. That's a dreadful argument. I know a lot of teams aren't trying to win as most teams are utilizing a 60 win or 100 win mentality, but even if every team tried...half the teams in baseball could not support a luxury tax payroll without losing money.

 

I would be curious if you assign any blame to some of the players on these monster deals who started to coast once they signed. Like Pujols, who hasn't tried to even keep himself in shape since he signed the big contract. For every Scherzer, there are at least 3 Pujols or Hosmer or Russell Martin or Victor Martinez or Hanley Ramirez or Sandoval or pick your guy that signed a big contract and immediately was terrible. I get that you're in the room and you know more, but I don't need to be in the room to see how badly most of these contracts work out for the team. The days of these big contracts for guys in their 30s are over, you should probably be more interested in trying to adjust min salaries and team control rules to get players more money sooner.

[tmwiese55]

Can't follow this logic that was just said: Collusion among player doesn't happen because it's banned in the CBA. While adamant that collusion is 100% happening among owners even though it is also illegal.

 

As said, players straight up say in the media they make decisions to set the market etc. While I agree that technically might not be collusion but it's certainly in the realm of discussion and seem to be taking advice from the union on the issue. But at least moreso than people realizing that paying a 33 year old into his late 30s is a bad idea.

 

Harper and Machado are a bit surprising being that they're 26 but we also don't what kind of ridiculous demands they're making. I mean, it was reported Harper turned down 10/300 wasn't it? Wouldn't say that's nothing. That's collusion to only be offered over a quarter billion and one of the 5ish largest contracts ever? Of course we don't know what else they've turned down but I'd be surprised if they have turned down 6-7 year deals in the 180-200 area. Again, collusion because it's not 350 mil?

 

Again. Essentially, the veterans negotiated their own problem by locking in the young guys at such a low price as their competition.

 

End goal for MLB players should be like NBA, funnel more money to the middle guys rather than having these drastic huge salaries while other paid next to nothing (relatively of course). NBA artificially holds down the true true superstars like LBJ and KD which makes the 3-4 tier people like Middleton, Marcus Smart, etc more money.

[GreatNWwi]

20 teams are 75 mil under the tax threshold and you guys are great with those clubs literally having the ability to sign 2 hall of fame 26 year old talents and not lose money. Any team can sign both and STILL BE UNDER

 

But sure....analytics

 

Can you clarify this for me?

 

Are you saying that 20 teams are at least $75 mil under the tax threshold?

 

OR

 

Are you saying 20 teams are $75 mil total under the tax threshold?

 

I can't make either statement work with what I can find on 2018 salaries.

[tmwiese55]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

[jjgott]

How can you say any team under spends? Compared to what? What teams set the threshold for spending and which teams fail to meet the subjective number? Baseball already has a major problem with big tv markets compared to small markets. Making it harder for small market teams to compete would be extremely counter productive and eventually kill baseball in many markets.

 

This is the thing that baffles my mind. It seems evident to me that owners are not doing everything they can to win, and fans just seem to accept that. Whether or not Mark A triples or doubles his money is not high on my priority list as a fan of the Brewers!!!! The value of the Brewers has quadrupled since Mark bought the team, from $250 million to a Billion dollars. Would I be much more thrilled if the Brewers had won 2 World Series in the last 10 years and Mark had only doubled his money?!?!?? You better believe it!

 

You are correct that it's hard to define what "underspend" means, but I think things are out of whack when owners don't need to care about fan attendance; they are guaranteed $60+ million simply by being one of the 30 teams to divide up the national and local TV money. I guess it could get so bad that the league votes to force the sale of the team, but I don't see that happening if it hasn't already happened. What I was getting at with the draft pick compensation is that there has to be more of a reward for "winning." While we are fortunate that we have an owner in Mark A. that seems to care about winning championships, there is no disincentive for an owner to just run a team like any business ensuring a YOY profit margin, results be damned.

 

And as 3and2Fastball says, owners have made far more money in recent years with the sale of BAM and increases in TV money. No matter what ownership tells you, they can afford ANY player they want if they value what that player brings to the team more than they value annual profits.

[3and2Fastball]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

Can you elaborate on that please? We know on a factual basis that the Brewers cannot afford another $40 million in payroll? The consequences would be that the Brewers would lose money? With the value of the Brewers increasing $750 million since Mark bought the team, I would beg to differ. But I am open to the contrary point of view

[tmwiese55]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

Can you elaborate on that please? We know on a factual basis that the Brewers cannot afford another $40 million in payroll? The consequences would be that the Brewers would lose money? With the value of the Brewers increasing $750 million since Mark bought the team, I would beg to differ. But I am open to the contrary point of view

 

Rephrase as lose money on a yearly basis then might be more accurate. Value increasing is not liquid money in anyone's pocket unless ownership sells off portions of the team. moreover, value of the team can also decrease say if something crazy happened similar to the great depression. Or even smaller things such as MLB just becoming less popular which it generally is among young people so a bad sign long term, or the variable that is TV rights these days. Pro franchises are flush with money now due to the TV rights, but cable is being cut by so many so who knows what ramifications come from it.

 

So basically as general fans on the internet without access to the books it is very fair to assume that if MKE ran out a 150 mil payroll per year they'd lose money yearly (and in this comment he's suggesting going to 200mil). So the options would be to eat a yearly loss, which seems like a lot to ask of an owner consistently. Maybe in a "go for it" mode for a couple years but not over and over. Which it does seem Mark just did with the Grandal move.

 

Or the other option: in order pay one guy 40 mil they could only pay the rest of the team 80ish mil, good luck winning like that. One individual baseball player just doesn't have the impact one star NBA player does. Clear as day when looking at LBJ and Mike Trout.

 

3rd option, be way smarter with your money. That's what teams are doing.

[KeithStone53151]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

Can you elaborate on that please? We know on a factual basis that the Brewers cannot afford another $40 million in payroll? The consequences would be that the Brewers would lose money? With the value of the Brewers increasing $750 million since Mark bought the team, I would beg to differ. But I am open to the contrary point of view

 

The Brewers payroll in 2005 when Mark A bought the club was about $43 million per Cots, and Mark A bought the club for $223 million. We are looking at a $120-130 million payroll right now. So payroll has roughly tripled while the franchise value has quadrupled if the $750 million figure is accurate. Those don't necessarily have a direct correlation, but it definitely helps the argument that the Brewers payroll is roughly where it should be. The Brewers overall valuation increasing means it's highly likely the Brewers have been overall profitable, but it doesn't mean we have $750 million lying around to throw at payroll or anything like that.

[3and2Fastball]

I suppose then it is all just theory. You are correct, we don't have access to the books.

 

I think the Brewers could afford a $150 million payroll, and the issue is that Mark would profit less than he would with a $120 million payroll, not that he'd lose money. And as a fan it is something I have to accept, I understand that, but I care a heckuva lot more about the Brewers winning than I do the owner's profit margin.

[KeithStone53151]

I suppose then it is all just theory. You are correct, we don't have access to the books.

 

I think the Brewers could afford a $150 million payroll, and the issue is that Mark would profit less than he would with a $120 million payroll, not that he'd lose money. And as a fan it is something I have to accept, I understand that, but I care a heckuva lot more about the Brewers winning than I do the owner's profit margin.

 

I personally agree with your $150 million number, but again not every year. The Brewers would probably lose money if they had that payroll and won 72 games, whereas they'd probably have a bit of a profit margin if they won 98 games and made the NLCS again. Again, this is all opinion.

[tmwiese55]

I suppose then it is all just theory. You are correct, we don't have access to the books.

 

I think the Brewers could afford a $150 million payroll, and the issue is that Mark would profit less than he would with a $120 million payroll, not that he'd lose money. And as a fan it is something I have to accept, I understand that, but I care a heckuva lot more about the Brewers winning than I do the owner's profit margin.

 

Maybe, yes we don't know. I'd guess the breakeven line probably hovers somewhere in the 110-120 area these days. I think a new TV deal comes in soon for MKE so maybe that can go up a bit soon. But we have seen MKE spend extra in go for it years since he's been here, and he just did it for Grandal to push the payroll above what we've seen before. Either way, this person's comment suggested everyone should just be able to go to 200 mil tax level and I think everyone can agree that' just not realistic. Especially remembering contracts for these guys require multi year commitments, say Trout was a FA right now and he was the missing piece and they offered him 50 mil to play this year for us that's way more doable than giving him a 9 year 360 mil deal.

 

As one who often uses the phrase regarding owners, "well its not my money so I don't care" I see where you're coming from but I also understand what's realistic. These rich guys didn't get to this position by willingly losing dozens of millions of dollars per year and I can't just sit here and stomp my feet and say some rich guy should just lose money to make me more entertained/happy. Otherwise, hey just give me like 500K cash then. Once in a while though, I do think it's reasonable to expect some "go for it" moves that might cost them a bit. I mean, why buy the team if you don't try to win

[clancyphile]

I suppose then it is all just theory. You are correct, we don't have access to the books.

 

I think the Brewers could afford a $150 million payroll, and the issue is that Mark would profit less than he would with a $120 million payroll, not that he'd lose money. And as a fan it is something I have to accept, I understand that, but I care a heckuva lot more about the Brewers winning than I do the owner's profit margin.

 

I personally agree with your $150 million number, but again not every year. The Brewers would probably lose money if they had that payroll and won 72 games, whereas they'd probably have a bit of a profit margin if they won 98 games and made the NLCS again. Again, this is all opinion.

 

Or that extra $30 million could be used to invest in the farm system and/or scouting - and best to do that investing when the team is relatively successful and has the revenue to spare, instead of needing to do it later.

[GreatNWwi]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

That is what I thought too. Except based on 2018 that would mean only one team is paying the lux tax. If that were the case I would have guess that he would have said something like "29 teams have room under the lux tax to add payroll."

[nate82]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

[agent39]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

Youre right about the system being the problem. Say too bad wont resolve this. Also its odd you see 30 teams operating the same way. How anyone assumes thats natural is beyond me. You cant get 30 owners to agree on anything but analytics....sure.

[agent39]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

Can you elaborate on that please? We know on a factual basis that the Brewers cannot afford another $40 million in payroll? The consequences would be that the Brewers would lose money? With the value of the Brewers increasing $750 million since Mark bought the team, I would beg to differ. But I am open to the contrary point of view

 

 

 

THIS TIMES 10 MILLION

[agent39]

I just don't see any collusion and I don't see any evidence that supports collusion either. Just because a team has money to spend doesn't mean they have to spend it. You can agree or disagree with a team spending or not spending what they have available but that doesn't mean the teams are colluding together and not spending on free agents.

 

The times have just changed where shorter termed contracts are more valuable than longer termed ones. There maybe some players who may get a long term contract but for the most part short term contracts are more desirable by teams. If anything I believe some players see the writing on the wall but some agents and players are too blind to see it and are still chasing those long term contracts at high dollar amounts.

 

The top two free agents this year have received offers for long term contracts just not at the price that they want. This does not equate to collusion at all. While all of the teams in MLB could afford a long term contract for Harper or Machado that doesn't mean every team should do this.

 

Each team is different and an independent operation. You can't compare the Yankees to the Brewers and you can't compare the Red Sox with the Royals. These are different teams with different budgets and different needs. While the Brewers could go all the way up to the luxury tax it would not be something they could sustain for a long period of time. The same could be said about the Rays, A's, Royals, Twins, and a whole bunch of other teams. The teams that believe that they can compete will invest in players. Now that doesn't mean the players get the contract that they want and the team has to bend over backwards to give in to every demand that they want.

 

The biggest problem in baseball today is not collusion it is the horrible system of team control which the players agreed to. The current system is flipped around right now with the best players being paid very little and the old veterans who are not the best players currently earning a larger share. I don't see the players union changing this and I don't see the owners budging on the cost control. I don't see a strike coming as the players union doesn't want to risk a strike and the owners don't want to risk a lockout.

 

I think some revenue sharing will be given to the players and this will appease the players union but won't really fix the problem.

 

 

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence

[agent39]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

That is what I thought too. Except based on 2018 that would mean only one team is paying the lux tax. If that were the case I would have guess that he would have said something like "29 teams have room under the lux tax to add payroll."

 

 

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

[agent39]

Mlb history of collusion

#1

 

Posted: February 02, 2019, 10:28 AM Post

 

 

Would love to discuss here. Basic primer

I do not need message board validation to know im correct.

So what did you come here for?

 

 

Young baseball players should make more. It's just not realistic to underpay them 8-10 years and then overcompensate them later.

The 8-10 years aren't equivalent though:

 

Minor Leagues (3-6 years) = Definitely Underpaid

Minimum MLB (3 years) = Underpaid for Some

Arbitration (3 years) = Paid Market

 

The fairest would be to increase Minor League pay so that it actually is consistent with a Traineeship. I made $8000 the first year I was a trainee and $14,000 the last year. Current trainees in my field make ~$25,000. There's plenty of money if you take a fraction of the increase from the bonus money pool and INT FA pool money and a the remainder from the owners pockets. Spread it around so that players in the minors can lead a "normal" life. The other issue is the number of Minimum MLB wage years. Reduce to 2, but make the 2nd year significantly higher *say 3X year 1). The third year converts to arbitration (4 years of arbitration) where players are much closer to making a salary realistic to performance, however, I would remove the clause on reducing the pay by only a fixed percentage - if players way underperform they should get a cut that is proportional. I would even put a clause in where a team has until the end of the first arbitration year to tender a multiyear contract to the player (minimums for the contract could be based on performance of the player through year 2.5 compared to positional average - top third, middle third, bottom third) that covers the arby years or the player is a free agent after 3 arby years.

 

 

 

 

Income here to talk w fans just as I did before I had my job. Your validation doesnt matter to me. Im hoping to educate fans on something many have been fast to blame the players over. If everyone just did a basic collusion wiki wed all be better

[agent39]

Mlb history of collusion

#1

 

Posted: February 02, 2019, 10:28 AM Post

 

 

Would love to discuss here. Basic primer

I do not need message board validation to know im correct.

So what did you come here for?

 

 

Young baseball players should make more. It's just not realistic to underpay them 8-10 years and then overcompensate them later.

The 8-10 years aren't equivalent though:

 

Minor Leagues (3-6 years) = Definitely Underpaid

Minimum MLB (3 years) = Underpaid for Some

Arbitration (3 years) = Paid Market

 

The fairest would be to increase Minor League pay so that it actually is consistent with a Traineeship. I made $8000 the first year I was a trainee and $14,000 the last year. Current trainees in my field make ~$25,000. There's plenty of money if you take a fraction of the increase from the bonus money pool and INT FA pool money and a the remainder from the owners pockets. Spread it around so that players in the minors can lead a "normal" life. The other issue is the number of Minimum MLB wage years. Reduce to 2, but make the 2nd year significantly higher *say 3X year 1). The third year converts to arbitration (4 years of arbitration) where players are much closer to making a salary realistic to performance, however, I would remove the clause on reducing the pay by only a fixed percentage - if players way underperform they should get a cut that is proportional. I would even put a clause in where a team has until the end of the first arbitration year to tender a multiyear contract to the player (minimums for the contract could be based on performance of the player through year 2.5 compared to positional average - top third, middle third, bottom third) that covers the arby years or the player is a free agent after 3 arby years.

 

 

 

 

Income here to talk w fans just as I did before I had my job. Your validation doesnt matter to me. Im hoping to educate fans on something many have been fast to blame the players over. If everyone just did a basic collusion wiki wed all be better

If you can't post without cussing you will get banned. We don't care who you are.

 

 

Thr royal we? Also are you one of those guys that like posting stuff like that on a forum instead of maybe sending a private message to me to handle it? I bet you love alot of free speech just not some. Dont talk to me and ill abide. And no one cares about what I say 99 percent of the time especially feb of 2019 but maybe november of 2021? Thanks

[pacopete4]

Agent39, I think it is pretty ridiculous the way this thread has went towards you. Thanks for coming here to post as you live in a different world than most which gives us a different point of view. Do you think it would be smart for a team like the Brewers to hand out a 8-10 year contract to one of those two players? It’s hard for me to wrap my head around that because of what those contracts usually look like the last half. And if they do go south for a team like the Brewers, where do they turn to cover themselves to still try to be competitive. That is where you lose me when you talk about how 27 teams haven’t given them an offer. I do agree that it is awfully strange that more of the large markets aren’t in on these two guys.

[KeithStone53151]

Income here to talk w fans just as I did before I had my job. Your validation doesnt matter to me. Im hoping to educate fans on something many have been fast to blame the players over. If everyone just did a basic collusion wiki wed all be better

 

There is a TON of middle ground between blaming the players and owner collusion. It's completely possible and likely that many will blame the owners, but at the same time not think they are colluding. What many here think including myself, is an unfortunate set of circumstances is leading to players losing a percentage of the total revenue. This is not ok and needs to be fixed, but the solution that makes sense is not to go back to handing out 5-6 year, 9 figure deals to above average players in their early 30s.

[tmwiese55]

I think he means that if the tax is at 205 mil or whatever it is, that 20 teams have payrolls at 130 mil or less. which seems about right without looking things up. But it ignores that the Brewers would be one of those teams and obviously they're not in a position to just drop another 40 mil locked in for 8 years and still think they can make a profit and field a good team around that contract due to their financial constraints.

 

That is what I thought too. Except based on 2018 that would mean only one team is paying the lux tax. If that were the case I would have guess that he would have said something like "29 teams have room under the lux tax to add payroll."

 

 

I singled out the most eggregious

But yeah 28 teams are under. 20 are wayyyyyyy the hell under. Why arent fans mad?

 

Because almost all fans see that it would be a bad move for their team to be on the hook for this kind of mega contract as aside from the handful of mega markets it would hamstring them from building a winning team around such players/contracts without expecting their owners to take a loss. Basically the fans are smart enough to see the money is better spread out among many players rather than 1 because 1 in MLB doesn't have near the impact one does in NBA. Plus throw in teams not really in a competitive window where it makes no sense and you don't have many left who can pay. Presumably if the years they're demanding came down many more teams would get involved though.

 

I would agree that if I was a fan of a mega market team I'd be a bit annoyed they won't spend the money since they're the only ones who can. But then you think about free market a bit and if those teams realize how few teams can afford this they then realize the demand isn't there and can try to negotiate better than they have in the past with the Pujols and Canos etc. Although that makes me think how dumb was it for the Mets to take on all that Cano salary and trade players for him when they could've just signed Machado? I also would be mad if I was a LAD fan and gave that Pollack contract out instead of paying Harper. But again is it collusion when an injured 31 year still gets a 5ish 60is mil deal or whatever it was. Still, if I know my team is rich I'd rather pay Harper. But on the other hand 60 mil is like 20% of the commitment Harper would be.

 

For actual collusion, yea it wouldn't surprise me if some analytics firm or something of that nature made a presentation at some conference or maybe to a bunch of teams they were hired by to consult and that firm pretty much explained how stupid these contracts are. Maybe that qualifies as collusion IDK but I doubt there's teams calling each other on this stuff or have a specific deal in place. These guys are still getting really large contract offers they're not accepting and a guy like Hosmer got what he did somehow.

 

Also, why is it being treated or presented here in this talk as if the tax threshold is some number all teams can afford to pay and still make a profit? I'd say it's fairly obvious that most teams can't anywhere near that price. Pretty much all the mega markets do have huge payrolls and ones that don't like the White Sox and Phils are right in the middle of this all and trying to sign them.

 

I also feel like you're acting like most of us here are anti players in this discussion so I'd just like to point out that basically everyone in this discussion is acknowledging the players are being screwed in this and that the system should be changed to help them. We're merely pointing out that the current system makes the way they're being treated as clearly the best business and team building paths for teams. Union needs to make a big fuss soon and get it fixed as much as I know it will hurt MKE

[pacopete4]

Brewers better do their damage and win one before the new deal gets put in place. If they can’t rely on cheap contracts, they’re in trouble.

[Fear The Chorizo]

My guess is by the end of this thread, there won't be any more people who are either pro players or pro owners...but there probably will be alot more people who are anti agents