MLB Salary Floor

[Can_of_corn]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

Something can be both a garbage proposal and a starting off point.

[MurphDogg]

29 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

They leaked an obviously unreasonable  proposal because they think it will make them look better to the fans.

If they were serious they wouldn't leak it to friendly media.

Any proposal that is fed to league friendly media isn't intended as a negotiation but as public relations and should be treated as such. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

Back of the napkin... there are seven teams over $180M in payroll.  They total about $147M over.

There are 12 teams under $100M, by a total of about $297M.  Quibble with my numbers if you want, source was first thing Google came up with.

So in theory this would raise MLB payrolls by about $150M.  But would it also be a drag on the high payrolls and those teams would be likely to cut costs, making the $150M less than that?  Probably.

They would have to phase this in, it would be nearly impossible for a team like the Orioles to increase payroll by $48M in one offseason without doing monumentally stupid things like signing free agents to 2-3 times their prior market value.

Also, extremely unlikely this is going to happen because the MLBPA seems to be sticking to their long-held positions that they'd rather blow up the entire sport and risk the entire MLB system before they'd accept a cap.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

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.

I don't know what mechanism they'd use, but in 2019 MLB teams were just over 40% of revenues going to payroll, while most other major sports leagues were at 50% or even higher.  So the money should be there.

[wildcard]

Currently only 1 team is over the Luxury Tax threshold of 208m.  The Dodgers.  Even the Yankees have adjusted to 207.6m.  They even traded a good reliever (Ottavino) to the Red Sox to stay under the 208m threshold.

[MurphDogg]

14 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Back of the napkin... there are seven teams over $180M in payroll.  They total about $147M over.

There are 12 teams under $100M, by a total of about $297M.  Quibble with my numbers if you want, source was first thing Google came up with.

So in theory this would raise MLB payrolls by about $150M.  But would it also be a drag on the high payrolls and those teams would be likely to cut costs, making the $150M less than that?  Probably.

Those numbers are incorrect. The CBT payroll is based on the 40-man roster. See the numbers from my previous post for more accurate numbers or check out Cot's. This "proposal" would lower payrolls by $110 million, not raise them by $150 million.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Those numbers are incorrect. The CBT payroll is based on the 40-man roster. See the numbers from my previous post for more accurate numbers or check out Cot's. This "proposal" would lower payrolls by $110 million, not raise them by $150 million.

Ah, okay.  I said quibble with my numbers and you took me up on the offer.

[MurphDogg]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Ah, okay.  I said quibble with my numbers and you took me up on the offer.

To be fair, $260 million difference and a completely misstated conclusion as to who the proposal benefits required a quibbling!

[DrungoHazewood]

So why don't they propose a sliding scale?  Wherein you can have any payroll you want as long as you win.  But if you have a $90M payroll but only win 75 games, you get a $10M fine.  If you have a $60M payroll and win 65 you get a, I don't know, $60M fine.

Hard to tell the Rays and A's that they need to spend more cash when they're already playing in October.  Guys, c'mon... we need you to be way more inefficient.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

To be fair, $260 million difference and a completely misstated conclusion as to who the proposal benefits required a quibbling!

It's the internet. If you're not off by 500% then you're not exaggerating enough to get anyone to pay attention.

[NCRaven]

So, the Orioles trade Tanner Scott to the Padres for Hosmer and a top prospect.  Our payroll goes up.  We suck even worse.  But we add to our minor league talent.  I could see these types of trades happening more with a system like this.

[GuidoSarducci]

Impeccable timing, I'm wondering if this has anything to do with the Orioles tanking is all but guaranteeing Tampa will win the AL East ...