MLB Players are furious over economic system! Can you believe this?

[RollieTime]

Maintain the 6 years of control, but have 4 years of arbitration instead of 3 for every player is a good start. But that could lead to more players being non-tendered though if they don’t show much improvement their first 2 or 3 years. The MLBPA probably wouldn’t like so many “vets” not getting contracts though and teams bringing up prospects hoping to save a few million instead of paying a guy a few million if he isn’t very productive.

[MrTPlush]

Peter Gammons idea is a simple one:

 

Raise The min Pre-Arby Salary to somewhere between 1-2 million, thus getting an extra 2-3 mil. Into the players hands earlier. That would also raise the players % of revenue to closer to what it was prior to the last labor deal.

 

The big fish are the ones made and that is where most of the complaints stem from. I don't think this pleases the MLBPA. MLB is going to have to do much more to avoid a strike and the ability to keep 6 years of control. 4 years of arby instead of 3 is the minimum that will happen in my opinion. Likely more on top of that.

[wntrtxn21]

So much complaining and expecting more. Minor league baseball is not a necessity to life. If you got a family to support, tough cookies...you made that decision and if it makes MiLB life hard then quit. Many people in everyday life (heck everyone) has to make tough decisions from time to time and might not do something they want to.

 

Who honestly is complaining about MiLB salaries down there? The next Mike Trout? No, it is life long career MiLB players. Leave if it isn't good enough, just like anyone in a normal job would. The supply of people to be MiLB filler greatly exceeds demand so there won't be big salary increases.

 

At least they get paid something for that opportunity. Many interns still work for free as slaves...most normal people go to college for four years, can't completely focus while there (part time job), and go $30,000+ in debt. Opportunities have costs, MiLB is an opportunity...not a job.

 

Hard to disagree. What I do have an issue with is how long it takes stellar players to get what they deserve. And yes, I understand the minimums are a generous salary to the average person, but the fact is that these aren't average people, and if the owner is able to start you on a major league squad and you smash 40 homers, then yes, I do believe he should have to pay you what is fair. And fair to me at that level is not 500k.

 

What would you suggest? Paying players for their current performance? With MLB's guaranteed contracts, would owners be able to reduce the salary of that same player if he under performs the next year? I doubt any player would write an "over performing/under performing" type contract. Some players have incentives, but that's in lieu of a lower salary. Would the players go for completely incentivized contracts? If a player is traded, do the same incentives go with him? It's a very complicated system when contracts are guaranteed.

[wntrtxn21]

Peter Gammons idea is a simple one:

 

Raise The min Pre-Arby Salary to somewhere between 1-2 million, thus getting an extra 2-3 mil. Into the players hands earlier. That would also raise the players % of revenue to closer to what it was prior to the last labor deal.

 

Did Gammons happen to say what would the owners' incentive be to quadruple the salaries of pre-arby players? That would raise the league minimum salary to $2M.

[MadScientist]

The players and ownership first need to sit down and figure out the root of baseball's problems and find some solutions. First and foremost the number of franchises following the 'terrible for a few years, great for a couple of years pattern needs to be eliminated. One down year is understandable, maybe two. But not the 5 we often see. If a team has no chance on day 1 of the season to compete, there isn't going to be a whole lot of interest.

 

So how do we get there.

1) Cap FA contracts to 3 years max.

2) Shorten pre-FA control - 5 years for players under 25, 4 for 25-30, 3 for over 30.

2b) A pre-FA player injured for a year will not have that year counted against the control limits

3) Salary cap so big markets can't buy everybody.

4) Salary floor (70 % of cap)

5) Improved revenue sharing, including auditing team owned stations so monies aren't hidden.

 

Players get:

-Much faster path to FA

-More teams bidding for FA services

-Better pay during most productive seasons

 

Owners get:

-Better cost control and budget certainty

-Fewer dead-weight contracts

-Likely better revenue

 

Fans get:

-More competitive baseball.

 

Negatives:

-Players likely to change teams much more frequently.

[Brew crew 92]

Peter Gammons idea is a simple one:

 

Raise The min Pre-Arby Salary to somewhere between 1-2 million, thus getting an extra 2-3 mil. Into the players hands earlier. That would also raise the players % of revenue to closer to what it was prior to the last labor deal.

 

Did Gammons happen to say what would the owners' incentive be to quadruple the salaries of pre-arby players? That would raise the league minimum salary to $2M.

 

I think it’s 57-43 owners, where 5 years ago it was 52-48 owners.

 

Gammons said somewhere between 1-2, so if it’s say 1.5 then it would be approximately a million a year more per player per year, for the 2-3 years. Guessing 5-10 million per team more per year.

[Thurston Fluff]

The players are full of it..... they are coming off as huge entitled pricks in a more and more tough to watch sport (more K's, longer games, more dead time, less strategy with bunts and steals) that is driving folks away already. Throw in a strike? Brutal damage to the game.

 

If they truly want more money up front to players in their first three years AND 30+ year old FA, get more revenue sharing and a salary cap/floor. Don't be so staunch against that if the players truly want meaningful change.

 

If they want all teams to compete each year to win through FA, you can't have as wide gaps between what MLB teams rake in financially each year. Like Bob Costas said in his book many years ago, a better and more simple way of revenue sharing would be to split up all money (tv, gate, online, etc.) associated with EACH game to the two teams playing. The big markets would still get a majority of the money because of big tv deals, larger gates, etc., but the gap wouldn't nearly be as wide as now.

 

It isn't the players who don't want more revenue sharing. It's the owners of the large market teams that don't. If the players had their way all revenue would be shared evenly between all the teams. That ay more teams could compete for higher end players. As it is if about five teams don't need and elite player at a specific position that player essentially has no way of getting paid what many teams would be willing to pay if they could. I think Grandal fell to us for that very reason.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Not so sure about that. A cap and revenue sharing would almost certainly mean less money for the upper echelon players. You would not see any more 10-year, $400mm deals.

 

Mid-range, and the good but not great players would benefit the most. As is what you see in the NBA. Where guys like Middleton basically get max money. Without a cap the LeBrons of the world would be making absolutely insane dollars. With the marketing tied to individuals like it is in the NBA I don't think it's a stretch that you could see a billion dollar contract in the NBA, or something close to it. And that is another problem for the players union. Making a deal that benefits a higher number of players but compromises those monster contracts.