MLB Lockout Thread

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

This is great information.  Since you've clearly seen the end CBA and know how everything will be calculated and determined, when is the season going to start?  Oh you can't?  Maybe because things haven't yet been decided and making assumptions about how things will be calculated going forward,  like AAV and how it applies to any floor is just that,  an assumption.  Maybe AAV will be used.   Maybe actual expenditures and budget for the actual year will be used.   We just don't know at this point. 

Any reason to think they won't continue to use AAV?

 

I'm sure that even if for some reason they don't teams still won't give Lyles 45 million.  As a premise it is badly flawed.

[MGH5208]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Any reason to think they won't continue to use AAV?

 

I'm sure that even if for some reason they don't teams still won't give Lyles 45 million.  As a premise it is badly flawed.

Keep in mind, I said "absurd" in my original post.     

Let me dumb it down for you: assuming the floor is $75M and the rest of the roster is making $30M.  would giving Lyles $45 satisfy that i hit the 75M floor (hint: 30 + 45 = 75).

No snarky reply needed, just a simple yes or no

[forphase1]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Any reason to think they won't continue to use AAV?

I dunno.  Just not sure with all the changes being proposed and suggested that it's safe to assume that AAV would be used as it currently is calculated determine a floor.  We will see of course.  As to the rest we will agree to disagree about the crazy contracts that could result from a floor, however it ends up being calculated. 

[OriolesMagic83]

I don't know that any crazy contracts like the one proposed for Lyle would happen, but it could make underwater contracts, like the Davis one desirable.  Teams in the NBA trade for overpaid players with expiring contracts all the time.  Of course, the NBA has much more severe penalties for exceeding the luxury cap.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've been over this before.  This is really pretty simple.

All you have to do is sign some guys, like Mancini, to some back loaded long term deals.  Salary cap projections are done by AAV.  Then you trade the players once they start to get more expensive if you don't want to pay them.  Might you have to eat some of the money?  Sure.  But you will have had your "tank" team that fits within the spending restrictions but doesn't actually cost you much money while you are tanking.

 

There is no reason to think a salary floor is going to suddenly cause teams to give insane contracts to terrible players just so they can still lose 100 games.

First of all, I agree with the final paragraph.   I don’t believe any team is purposely going to waste the money they are forced to spend in order to ensure the team is bad.  

But your proposal seems ineffective to me, because it will leave the team with higher salary obligations from the backloaded contracts just when the team is starting to improve and needs to spend its cash to acquire good complementary players.   And make no mistake, if they are overpaying players on the back end of contracts, they’re going to have to eat those payments in order to trade them.  

I might actually propose the opposite: frontload the contacts to meet the salary floor, and then when the team is good those players are cheap and can be kept or traded for good prospects because they’re not expensive.   

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

First of all, I agree with the final paragraph.   I don’t believe any team is purposely going to waste the money they are forced to spend in order to ensure the team is bad.  

But your proposal seems ineffective to me, because it will leave the team with higher salary obligations from the backloaded contracts just when the team is starting to improve and needs to spend its cash to acquire good complementary players.   And make no mistake, if they are overpaying players on the back end of contracts, they’re going to have to eat those payments in order to trade them.  

I might actually propose the opposite: frontload the contacts to meet the salary floor, and then when the team is good those players are cheap and can be kept or traded for good prospects because they’re not expensive.   

 

I'm not really advocating overpaying.  I'm not saying sign Mountcastle to a deal like Tatis has.

I'm saying that instead of paying marginal older players above value contracts extend young players.

I'm not saying this is the best play at all times by any stretch of the imagination, just when you are trying to tank a season and have a payroll that you need to fluff up.

Ideally the players play well enough that they earn their contracts.

[Sports Guy]

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've been over this before.  This is really pretty simple.

All you have to do is sign some guys, like Mancini, to some back loaded long term deals.  Salary cap projections are done by AAV.  Then you trade the players once they start to get more expensive if you don't want to pay them.  Might you have to eat some of the money?  Sure.  But you will have had your "tank" team that fits within the spending restrictions but doesn't actually cost you much money while you are tanking.

 

There is no reason to think a salary floor is going to suddenly cause teams to give insane contracts to terrible players just so they can still lose 100 games.

How does a back loaded contract help get the floor of that year?

If the floor is set in 2023 at 85M, signing someone to back loaded deal isn’t getting you to 85M in 2023.

[Frobby]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

How does a back loaded contract help get the floor of that year?

If the floor is set in 2023 at 85M, signing someone to back loaded deal isn’t getting you to 85M in 2023.

Sure it does, if as C_o_c explained, the floor is calculated using the AAV of contracts, not the current year.  

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Sure it does, if as C_o_c explained, the floor is calculated using the AAV of contracts, not the current year.  

Oh ok.  I don’t know why they would do that though?  How does that help get teams to spend year in and year out?

The whole purpose is to get teams to spend more and not tank.  Kicking the can down the road isn’t helpful.  Plus, it potentially becomes a real issue if the player sucks and you can’t get rid of the deal.

[forphase1]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Oh ok.  I don’t know why they would do that though?  How does that help get teams to spend year in and year out?

The whole purpose is to get teams to spend more and not tank.  Kicking the can down the road isn’t helpful.  Plus, it potentially becomes a real issue if the player sucks and you can’t get rid of the deal.

Yup.  Which is why I am skeptical that AAV would be used when calculating if the floor had been hit.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Yup.  Which is why I am skeptical that AAV would be used when calculating if the floor had been hit.

Yea I don’t get why that thought would even be on the table.  That’s why I asked CoC before if he was going to pay more in the pre arb years. 
 

 

[spiritof66]

If there were a salary floor, I don't know how the Orioles or any other team would spend the additional money. But I do think you have to look at how teams might react from a wider perspective than the 2022 season that's supposed to start soon. With a floor in place over the next few years, the Orioles might, among other things, sign a couple of premium free agents or sign one or two or more of their younger players to long-term contracts that cover seasons they'd be eligible for free agency. 

It's hard to predict, but I think a floor would be good for baseball and for the Orioles and their fans. It would be bad for the Angeloses, especially if you don't believe -- and I don't -- that the money they're not spending now on MLB payroll will become available for player salaries in future years. 

I don't understand why imposing a salary floor on teams means there would also be a salary cap. (I think a salary cap of some kind would be beneficial, but that's a different issue.)

By the way, I believe some of the proposals being discussed, and the focus on the Orioles as the prime example of a "tanking" team, make it increasingly unlikely that the Angeloses will be able to afford owning and operating, or will be approved by MLB to own and operate, the Orioles after the current owner's death. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea I don’t get why that thought would even be on the table.  That’s why I asked CoC before if he was going to pay more in the pre arb years. 
 

 

Because that is the current standard.   More likely it wouldn't change.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because that is the current standard.   More likely it wouldn't change.

There is no current standard for a salary floor because one doesn't exist.

[LookinUp]

Looking for breakout seasons in 2022...