MLB Salary Floor

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

Wouldn't the players union jump all over something like this?

It would theoretically mean that players would be making more money, even the more mediocre ones.  Teams may feel obligated to pay certain bit players more money just to make sure they get over whatever threshold (in this case 100M) that they need to.  

Feel like it may even be a bargaining chip for players like Bryant to hold out for more money.  

It looks like the owners want to lower the soft cap.

[waroriole]

With a floor tied to a cap, I think we might be in for a long negotiation. 

[Frobby]

Offhand, I think this might work well for the O’s.   It probably will have a phase-in, and it comes along at a time when the O’s should be starting to ramp up their payroll anyway.   If a good bit of their increase is being subsidized by the high-spending teams, that works well for them.   So, the devil is in the details but this might be good for us.   

[Moose Milligan]

This is stupid.  It doesn't mean the money will be spent wisely and they'll be driving up the price of average players.  

I get it if you want to punish and tax the rich teams but I shudder to think what the Orioles would do if they had to spend 100 million.

[foxfield]

27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing that sucks about the floor is it is forced spending in a market that is wasteful to spend money in…the free agency market.

This is potentially true but not necessarily. Because there is a minimum major league salary in place now, technically there is a floor in existence already.

If this floor is inserted but at a level above where the minimum salary is located, then what you say above is true.

IF I were MLB I would advocate for higher minimum salaries in the Minor Leagues and Majors.  This would do the same thing as the proposed floor, but it would not force the case you identify which is force $ to be spent in FA.

[eddie83]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing that sucks about the floor is it is forced spending in a market that is wasteful to spend money in…the free agency market.

That’s my whole point. 

 

23 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, this does encourage teams to spend on their own, which is great.  Of course the players have to be willing to sign those deals and many of those deals don’t start getting expensive right away, so you will have to supplement the roster with expensive FA.

I do think if you do this, you have to put something in place that encourages players to stay with their teams..IE they get paid more if they re-sign or something like that..similar to the NBA.

But yes, I think the good outweighs the bad and I agree that there is no perfect system.

 

And when teams sign their own players to long term deals they aren’t available in FA to other teams. You also have to find players worthwhile to keep. 

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, waroriole said:

With a floor tied to a cap, I think we might be in for a long negotiation. 

This is all public relations. I wouldn’t read too much into any of it. 

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, waroriole said:

With a floor tied to a cap, I think we might be in for a long negotiation. 

I think we are in a better position now then we were yesterday.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think we are in a better position now then we were yesterday.

We the Orioles, or we the fans who don’t want a work stoppage?

[wildcard]

I'd like to know where MLB gets the money to implement such a plan.   The plan seems to be to take the Luxury Tax money from the teams that go over the Luxury Tax threshold and give it to the teams paying less then 100m in payroll to supplement their payrolls.  That in itself does not seem to add up to enough money to make the system work.

In 2019 only one team went over the Luxury Tax threshold of 208M.  The Yankees who pay about 10m in Luxury Tax.  That would not go very far in supplementing all the teams with payrolls under 100m.

If MLB lower the Luxury Tax threshold to 180m most teams would just lower their payrolls to stay under the threshold.   Maybe not the Yankees or Dodgers but most teams would adjust to the new rules.

I am interested to see how MLB gets the money to the pay the lower payroll teams to  raise their payrolls.

[MurphDogg]

It is a garbage proposal leaked by MLB to their stoolies in the media to make it look like they care about tanking when in fact it would simply lower the soft cap that 95 percent of teams treat as a hard cap from $210 million to $180 million.

The teams with an opening day payroll below $100 million were below it by a combined $146 million and the teams that were over $180 million were over by a combined $259 million. Hence it would effectively shift $110 million + from the players to the owners.

It is not a serious proposal. If the owners wanted to create a salary floor with no strings attached MLBPA would welcome it, but not at the cost of $110 million + going in the owners direction.

[bpilktree67]

8 hours ago, SteveA said:

I imagine since some teams including the Orioles are so far below the #, there would probably have to be a phase in period of more than one year to allow those teams to ramp up.  Otherwise they would almost be forced to sign one of the top priced free agents to make it right away.  While I wouldn't be opposed to Trevor Story or Carlos Correa wearing the O's uniform next year, I doubt they would make us make that leap in this off-season, even if the CBA is somehow agreed to before November.

that what NBA did it went right up to the number that is why the year it happened you had scrub players getting large contracts.  Tyler Johnson had like 70 career starts and just 10 the year he hit free agency and he got a 2 year 40 million contract because the Suns had to spend money to get to that floor.   

[Absltgreek]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, this does encourage teams to spend on their own, which is great.  Of course the players have to be willing to sign those deals and many of those deals don’t start getting expensive right away, so you will have to supplement the roster with expensive FA.

I do think if you do this, you have to put something in place that encourages players to stay with their teams..IE they get paid more if they re-sign or something like that..similar to the NBA.

But yes, I think the good outweighs the bad and I agree that there is no perfect system.

 

Maybe something like if you extend/re-sign with home team only 80% of the deal counts against the salary floor/cap?

I like it.

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

It is a garbage proposal leaked by MLB to their stoolies in the media to make it look like they care about tanking when in fact it would simply lower the soft cap that 95 percent of teams treat as a hard cap from $210 million to $180 million.

The teams with an opening day payroll below $100 million were below it by a combined $146 million and the teams that were over $180 million were over by a combined $259 million. Hence it would effectively shift $110 million + from the players to the owners.

It is not a serious proposal. If the owners wanted to create a salary floor with no strings attached MLBPA would welcome it, but not at the cost of $110 million + going in the owners direction.

You are assuming teams would stay well over 180M with a luxury tax at that level now.

And these are just the starting numbers.  If this is where they start, you know they are willing to raise that 180 number higher.

[Can_of_corn]

48 minutes ago, Frobby said:

We the Orioles, or we the fans who don’t want a work stoppage?

The latter.