Fixing MLB

[Ulice Payne]

Howdy, folks. Don't post much anymore, but I've been around since the great migration from the ESPN message boards, back in 2001 or so. Really enjoy reading all your opinions, and it's nice to have such a great fan-sourced resource for Brewers news.

 

I've been thinking of what major changes I would make to MLB. Here's my two cents.

 

1. Owners would negotiate with the Players Union as a whole, not with individual players.

 

Owners could negotiate to pay the Union a set percentage of MLB revenue. Let's say the Players Union gets 60%. Then the Union can decide how all the players get paid. They could base it on service time, performance, popularity; whatever they want. Then a team could hire any player willing to play for them, and the player would get paid union scale. All teams could afford to try to win. All players paid what they're worth.

 

2 Expand cities; not teams.

 

MLB could set up shop in one or two current non-baseball markets. Maybe they build a stadium in Las Vegas. Then each team plays a "home" series at the new site. Baseball expands to a new market, but doesn't dilute the product. MLB could even base the schedule based on attendance, so the team with the worst attendance would have more games moved to the new site; making that team's home tickets more scarce (hopefully producing a better supply/demand for marketing those tickets to the home fans) and benefiting the low attendance team with better revenue from the new site.

 

3. Change Playoff Format

 

I think one of the reasons MLB Playoffs struggle for ratings is that no one really knows when the final game will occur. Casual fans would probably want to see the championship game, but if the series is sitting 3-1, are they going to skip what they had going on on a Thursday on the chance that it's the last game?

 

MLB could set up a double or triple elimination tournament spanning 3 weeks in October. Teams wouldn't meet in a series, but would be constantly re-seeded and seeing new opponents as teams are eliminated. Eliminate a Wild Card Team after their first loss, but give a division winner three losses before they're out. A team might not see the same opponent in consecutive games. The best part of this, is that the final game could be scheduled well in advance, possibly at a predetermined site. MLB could claim whatever day they want, say the last Sunday in October, and make it the MLB Championship Game Day. They could make their own Super Bowl.

 

Yes, these ideas area bit outlandish. Feel free to disagree. Also, what would you do to fix MLB?

[JosephC]

2 Expand cities; not teams.

 

MLB could set up shop in one or two current non-baseball markets. Maybe they build a stadium in Las Vegas.

 

Who is paying for that? Pretty unlikely it would be MLB or an owner. If the answer is me, the taxpayer, then I would say this is a terrible idea.

[JimH5]

I think the city without a designated team would struggle to draw. Part of the attraction of baseball is having your own team to cheer for. What gear would I buy if my home schedule includes the Marlins and Rays and other assorted and varied teams? How does a city develop a history, with statistical leaders and records?

[Tbadder]

 

1. Owners would negotiate with the Players Union as a whole, not with individual players.

 

Owners could negotiate to pay the Union a set percentage of MLB revenue. Let's say the Players Union gets 60%. Then the Union can decide how all the players get paid. They could base it on service time, performance, popularity; whatever they want. Then a team could hire any player willing to play for them, and the player would get paid union scale. All teams could afford to try to win. All players paid what they're worth?

 

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams.

[Fear The Chorizo]

 

1. Owners would negotiate with the Players Union as a whole, not with individual players.

 

Owners could negotiate to pay the Union a set percentage of MLB revenue. Let's say the Players Union gets 60%. Then the Union can decide how all the players get paid. They could base it on service time, performance, popularity; whatever they want. Then a team could hire any player willing to play for them, and the player would get paid union scale. All teams could afford to try to win. All players paid what they're worth?

 

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams.

 

What? You must really want baseball to miss a few seasons if that's the position you want the players to take.

 

I'm all for the players to fight for getting younger players paid more earlier in their careers - figure out a system where guys are making the most money during their primes, not after them. That helps both owners and players overall. One way is to reduce years of team control...another way may be to replace 1-2 arbitration years with players becoming restricted free agents prior to becoming unrestricted ones - similar to how the NFL operates with transitioning rookie deals to free agency. There might be rules with how teams could structure restricted fa offers (for instance, limiting the # of years to 5 or 6, including a player opt out clause after three years in case a player wants to test the market, perhaps the parent club could retain the player by either matching the offer or paying the player 10% more than the offer's AAV for the next year instead of playing the arbitration game, etc). This could get players a better chance at a life altering contract, while giving their parent club the opportunity to keep them

[SRB]

Regarding #1, wouldn't that destroy competitive parity in MLB and create a handful of super teams in cities where players want to go like LA and New York? I think your proposal is interesting, but would probably have to be accompanied by a structured salary system like in other sports so any one team could only afford to keep so many max value players.

[sveumrules]

Increase revenue sharing. (As rich teams have gotten smarter their financial advantage has become more pronounced, need to level the field somewhat for smaller markets.)

 

Salary cap/floor based on a fixed % of league wide revenues. (Luxury Tax is already essentially acting as a cap, institute a floor to increase spending on the low end of payroll spectrum.)

 

Raise minimum salary. One million year one, two million year two, etc., plus bonuses for awards, All Star nods, etc. (If young players aren't so cheap teams might be more inclined to pay veterans.)

 

Eliminate Arbys, reduce team control to four years at which point players become restricted free agents with their original team able to match any offers. (Allows players to get paid sooner while still giving the original team the option to control the player for a longer period.)

 

& pay the minor leaguers a living wage.

[Jenkins5]

Seen the union thing twice now in last few days & have disliked it both times. Baseball is a business & should be allowed to operate as such. You make low ball, they make high ball number & you work to find middle ground. That is point of free market & competition. Experience doesn’t equal production. Advanced metrics make it extremely hard to put value on performance plus performance is volitale. Popularity.... how do you put value on that? Fan vote? Plus player union is for players. Giving them 100% of power is just as dangerous as 100% of power to owners. Their whole job is to maximize player earning potential. Plus think of issues inside union when they tell player that they only deserve this when they are suppose to help you.

 

Moreover, why not just install salary cap with max contracts? Teams forced to pay a capped max contract for primium talent. 40 man roster counts towards cap. Move it two years minimum, 3rd, 4th, 5th year arby, year 6 RFA. Moves up payday earlier and opens up big day year earlier if earned. If you perform, arby will get you fair contract. Salary caps even competitive balance unless NBA issues occur with players playing for much less to stack teams.

 

Baseball is traditional & lives in past. Proof is they still haven’t got ride of no DH in NL. Salary cap is something that would be fought by both sides. Large market team couldn’t try to buy championships & players max contracts cap earning potential. These two issues two issues mixed with baseball’s its been done like this forever mentality cause big issues

[wntrtxn21]

Increase revenue sharing. (As rich teams have gotten smarter their financial advantage has become more pronounced, need to level the field somewhat for smaller markets.)

 

Salary cap/floor based on a fixed % of league wide revenues. (Luxury Tax is already essentially acting as a cap, institute a floor to increase spending on the low end of payroll spectrum.)

 

Raise minimum salary. One million year one, two million year two, etc., plus bonuses for awards, All Star nods, etc. (If young players aren't so cheap teams might be more inclined to pay veterans.)

 

Eliminate Arbys, reduce team control to four years at which point players become restricted free agents with their original team able to match any offers. (Allows players to get paid sooner while still giving the original team the option to control the player for a longer period.)

 

& pay the minor leaguers a living wage.

 

Your "fix" would kill baseball forever. Small market teams would lose players to huge spending teams even faster. Larger salaries would further handicap teams w/o monster tv contracts. Restricted free agency is worthless to smaller markets because big spenders can offer so much more knowing the player's team can't afford to match the offer. The fix is to put in a salary cap that is reasonable for smaller markets too. The player's union would once again strike if the owners tried it, but that would at least give some parity to baseball.

[Nader Raider Tim]

I like outside the box ideas. I don't think I totally get this idea though, there must be something I'm not getting. In this scenario what prevents from every big name player from deciding they are going to join a Yankee super team, a Dodger super team or a Boston super team. After that players would just funnel to mini super teams in other larger markets. Teams like Milwaukee wouldn't have a shot at ever retaining a player.

[Nader Raider Tim]

Okay how about this, MLB and the players union agree to put a percentage of yearly revenue in a pool. For sake of argument here lets just call it 10%. That 10% of money would then be divided up to players who exceeded their current contracts, mostly going to players in pre-arbitration or arbitration. However, breakout players would get a chunk too, a guy like Wade Miley would have likely gotten a bonus from this pool.

 

What I like about this idea is that it helps out to equalize pay out for young players while not radically altering the current system. This doesn't do anything to get owners to open up their purse strings any more.

 

Here's one more idea that gets talked about all the time, but I don't know if it gets talked about for these reasons. Institute a minimum payroll, along with expanded penalties for going over the luxury tax) something around $85-100 million. A team like the Marlins now who are rebuilding wouldn't be obligated to spend foolishly on free agents with this system there would be incentive for a team like Boston to trade huge contract or two along with some prospects to the Marlins. The benefit is multifaceted, the Red Sox free up money to improve the team, the players union gets more money available to the free agent market and the Marlins get prospects along with a big money player who may or may not rebound.

 

Due to the fact that this system makes it easier to shed payroll for teams close to the luxury tax then penalties for exceeding the luxury tax could be massively expanded. I'd love to see it where teams could possibly lose all international budget or lose the 1st 5 rounds of draft picks for exceeding a set payroll amount.

[Patrick425]

If the players are getting 55% of the revenue, I can't believe that they are complaining.

[jerichoholicninja]

The problem is that fans want to "fix" things so that the league is competitive and has parity. However, the owners and players only want to argue with each other over who gets more money. We, the fans, don't even have the same concerns as the people who are actually involved in the process. So, whatever agreement they come will almost certainly not address any of the problems we want to see addressed.

 

As for the #1 proposal, I laughed it off as incredibly stupid when I first read it. After thinking about it, I don't think it at all plausible but could at least be fun to think about with some tweaking. League revenue gets split 50/50 every year, half to MLB and half to the MLBPA. MLB and the owners can figure out how they divide it amongst themselves. The players union can figure out how much they want to pay each player. Which, quite frankly, would probably lead to the union splitting up because this would be a disaster of epic proportions. Just imagine if, at your own job, your boss just gave the employees one gigantic lump sum of money and said split it between yourselves however you see fit. Factions will be formed, lawsuits will probably filed, just absolute union armageddon would happen. Bit I digress. The players get paid by the union and each year all players are placed in a pool and drafted by teams. This would totally eliminate any issues with market size or payroll and should, in theory, lead to having 30 competitive teams every year to start the season at least.

 

In no way would either side ever agree to that but maybe it's at least fun to think about.

[sveumrules]

Your "fix" would kill baseball forever. Small market teams would lose players to huge spending teams even faster. Larger salaries would further handicap teams w/o monster tv contracts. Restricted free agency is worthless to smaller markets because big spenders can offer so much more knowing the player's team can't afford to match the offer. The fix is to put in a salary cap that is reasonable for smaller markets too. The player's union would once again strike if the owners tried it, but that would at least give some parity to baseball.

 

Huge spending teams wouldn't be able to just buy up all the best players because they would no longer have as large of a financial advantage with increased revenue sharing & there would be a set limit as to how much they could spend with a cap.

[jjgott]

 

Eliminate Arbys

 

[sarcasm]I'll give up my Beef n' Cheddar when you pry it from my cold dead hands.[/sarcasm]

[NievesNoNO]

Howdy, folks. Don't post much anymore, but I've been around since the great migration from the ESPN message boards, back in 2001 or so. Really enjoy reading all your opinions, and it's nice to have such a great fan-sourced resource for Brewers news.

 

I've been thinking of what major changes I would make to MLB. Here's my two cents.

 

1. Owners would negotiate with the Players Union as a whole, not with individual players.

 

Owners could negotiate to pay the Union a set percentage of MLB revenue. Let's say the Players Union gets 60%. Then the Union can decide how all the players get paid. They could base it on service time, performance, popularity; whatever they want. Then a team could hire any player willing to play for them, and the player would get paid union scale. All teams could afford to try to win. All players paid what they're worth.

 

So just so I understand this: you're advocating for a system that essentially makes every player a free agent every season and pays them based on a predetermined ranking system? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, I don't see how that changes teams deciding that a particular player isn't worth whatever that scale says he's worth and just declines to hire him.

 

I do think it's an interesting thought; I just don't think that's in the best interest of any of the parties involved. Though, a new fantasy type draft every season might be entertaining

 

I'd change:

 

- drop the schedule to 150 games to provide for additional playoff games/teams or starting the playoffs sooner

 

- maybe you could talk me into a salary floor. Overall, the financial aspects of the game seem ok to me. I feel like it maximizes the potential pay for the individual players and allows teams to "rebuild".

 

- I already don't like the added replay and challenges. Get rid of challenges in favor of a (near) real time video umpire. There's no good reason that can't happen in any professional sport.

[Tbadder]

The players union can figure out how much they want to pay each player. Which, quite frankly, would probably lead to the union splitting up because this would be a disaster of epic proportions. Just imagine if, at your own job, your boss just gave the employees one gigantic lump sum of money and said split it between yourselves however you see fit. Factions will be formed, lawsuits will probably filed, just absolute union armageddon would happen. Bit I digress. The players get paid by the union and each year all players are placed in a pool and drafted by teams. This would totally eliminate any issues with market size or payroll and should, in theory, lead to having 30 competitive teams every year to start the season at least.

 

In no way would either side ever agree to that but maybe it's at least fun to think about.

 

This is exactly what I’d like to see and of course it would never happen. Players right now are only responsible for grabbing as much as they can in the hopes of vaguely helping some players with the same numbers in the future. Well then make them truly responsible for each other. Let them overpay for Harper. Let them rip each other apart. Let them feel the pain of valuing each other knowing full well that a lot of their own members are going to get screwed. Let them fill up big markets with all the stud players and alienate half the fans. It would be glorious to see contraction as fans start to abandon the game and force wages to spiral downward. The NFL will always be king because it has parity and MLB will eventually self destruct because they simply fail to understand that all major revenues need to be shared equally so true competitiveness can take place.

[Tbadder]

 

1. Owners would negotiate with the Players Union as a whole, not with individual players.

 

Owners could negotiate to pay the Union a set percentage of MLB revenue. Let's say the Players Union gets 60%. Then the Union can decide how all the players get paid. They could base it on service time, performance, popularity; whatever they want. Then a team could hire any player willing to play for them, and the player would get paid union scale. All teams could afford to try to win. All players paid what they're worth?

 

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams.

 

What? You must really want baseball to miss a few seasons if that's the position you want the players to take.

 

I'm all for the players to fight for getting younger players paid more earlier in their careers - figure out a system where guys are making the most money during their primes, not after them. That helps both owners and players overall. One way is to reduce years of team control...another way may be to replace 1-2 arbitration years with players becoming restricted free agents prior to becoming unrestricted ones - similar to how the NFL operates with transitioning rookie deals to free agency. There might be rules with how teams could structure restricted fa offers (for instance, limiting the # of years to 5 or 6, including a player opt out clause after three years in case a player wants to test the market, perhaps the parent club could retain the player by either matching the offer or paying the player 10% more than the offer's AAV for the next year instead of playing the arbitration game, etc). This could get players a better chance at a life altering contract, while giving their parent club the opportunity to keep them

 

Your way is workable and incremental and makes sense compared to my radical idea. But the upshot of you changes is that big markets get even more control over the market place as they can overpay the best players earlier and earlier. Small market teams will lose their cornerstone pieces sooner and find it even more difficult to compete. That makes me angry as a fan, but I also acknowledge that your proposal is the future.

[NievesNoNO]

This is exactly what I’d like to see and of course it would never happen. Players right now are only responsible for grabbing as much as they can in the hopes of vaguely helping some players with the same numbers in the future. Well then make them truly responsible for each other. Let them overpay for Harper. Let them rip each other apart. Let them feel the pain of valuing each other knowing full well that a lot of their own members are going to get screwed. Let them fill up big markets with all the stud players and alienate half the fans. It would be glorious to see contraction as fans start to abandon the game and force wages to spiral downward. The NFL will always be king because it has parity and MLB will eventually self destruct because they simply fail to understand that all major revenues need to be shared equally so true competitiveness can take place.

 

The NFL's product is a joke. It only exists in it's current form because of the popularity of fantasy football. Take away fantasy football and the NFL would've already collapsed like the NHL did. Shared revenues haven't really helped the likes of the Browns, Lions, Redskins, Raiders, Jaguars, Jets or Bengals in the last decade.

[Tbadder]

I disagree. Those franchises you point out are incompetent because of management decisions, not the victim of uneven revenues.

[NievesNoNO]

I disagree. Those franchises you point out are incompetent because of management decisions, not the victim of uneven revenues.

 

Agreed on the incompetent management decisions

[Ennder]

1. This won't change anything at all. It just puts the valuation on a different party that is out of the players control.

 

2. This really makes no sense at all.

 

3. While I agree with you that this is an issue for baseball playoffs as well as some other sports like baseketball, I absolutely hate the format you suggest.

[TURBO]

This is exactly what I’d like to see and of course it would never happen. Players right now are only responsible for grabbing as much as they can in the hopes of vaguely helping some players with the same numbers in the future. Well then make them truly responsible for each other. Let them overpay for Harper. Let them rip each other apart. Let them feel the pain of valuing each other knowing full well that a lot of their own members are going to get screwed. Let them fill up big markets with all the stud players and alienate half the fans. It would be glorious to see contraction as fans start to abandon the game and force wages to spiral downward. The NFL will always be king because it has parity and MLB will eventually self destruct because they simply fail to understand that all major revenues need to be shared equally so true competitiveness can take place.

 

The NFL's product is a joke. It only exists in it's current form because of the popularity of fantasy football. Take away fantasy football and the NFL would've already collapsed like the NHL did. Shared revenues haven't really helped the likes of the Browns, Lions, Redskins, Raiders, Jaguars, Jets or Bengals in the last decade.

 

Strange that you mention that... I was a HUGE NFL fan a few years ago and had been my entire life. Once I stopped playing fantasy football, I just no longer cared much for any of it. Still watched, but didn't designate my all my time to see every game. Slowly, I lost all interest, to the point that I didn't watch one game, one half, or one quarter this entire season. (The way the NFL handled the Kapernick and kneeling during the anthem mess didn't help, but I won't bring politics into it, that however, was the final nail in the coffin) Another reason I could no longer stomach it was the constant commercials and interruptions. After watching for 3 hours, and enduring an hour and a half of commercials, it just seemed a ridiculous way to waste time.

 

I don't miss it in the slightest, and enjoy all the free time I now have during football season.

 

Baseball is my passion, and that will never change. Still have 4 fantasy teams that I follow religiously, but if I stopped those, the game would still hold my interest.

[phnxcrew]

Increase revenue sharing. (As rich teams have gotten smarter their financial advantage has become more pronounced, need to level the field somewhat for smaller markets.)

 

Salary cap/floor based on a fixed % of league wide revenues. (Luxury Tax is already essentially acting as a cap, institute a floor to increase spending on the low end of payroll spectrum.)

 

Raise minimum salary. One million year one, two million year two, etc., plus bonuses for awards, All Star nods, etc. (If young players aren't so cheap teams might be more inclined to pay veterans.)

 

Eliminate Arbys, reduce team control to four years at which point players become restricted free agents with their original team able to match any offers. (Allows players to get paid sooner while still giving the original team the option to control the player for a longer period.)

 

& pay the minor leaguers a living wage.

 

I would love to eliminate Arby’s. They’re terrible. Just like pants. Can we burn our pants too?

[SomewhereInTime]

Hard No on all three.