Jump to content

Pirates next in Union's crosshairs?


sakata_catching

Recommended Posts

The Orioles have to be among the teams being discussed. Our payroll now, compared with our payroll a few years ago, and the profits this team pulls in can't be ignored. Not to mention the division we play in.

I hope the union targets the Orioles next.

Our payroll compared to a few years ago is smaller because we've had to get rid of so many awful contracts that previous front office personnel gave out that did next to nothing for the franchise. That's not being cheap, it's called being responsible and intelligent, something that none of those front offices were. Not to mention the extensions the Orioles just gave out to Markakis and Roberts, you would expect they'll be looking to give Jones in the near future, and the other young guys in the next two to three years.

The chances of the union giving the Orioles a call regarding payroll is slim to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If revenues in this league were properly shared and schedules were balanced and there was no interleague play (i.e., if everyone started the race from the same starting line, subject to the ineptitude of ownership/management) then the Yankee$ wouldn't be pissing and moaning all the time about what other teams were doing with "our money" and the union would have no cause to worry about payroll...because everyone would have an equal chance at the brass ring and an equal incentive to try and win. Until that day comes I think Jeffrey Loria is a complete freakin' genius and that every team not named Yankee$, Red $ox, Cubs, Angels or Dodgers should be run almost exactly like the Marlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto.

The Orioles need to be forced to spend. Especially with MASN and the arrangement of owning the Nationals and Orioles broadcasting rights.

PGA shouldn't be allowed to have MASN he isn't going to use it to help the Orioles.

I agree that we should spend money just for the sake of spending money. That is a tried and true method which has worked in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be the only one on this side...but I think the union did a very stupid thing by forcing the Marlins to spend more.

Salary Cap baseball is something the Union doesn't want to have and if you have a salary floor, then a salary ceiling isn't too far away.

I would love to see a 40million/80million floor/ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be the only one on this side...but I think the union did a very stupid thing by forcing the Marlins to spend more.

Salary Cap baseball is something the Union doesn't want to have and if you have a salary floor, then a salary ceiling isn't too far away.

I would love to see a 40million/80million floor/ceiling.

I am sure the Marlins would agree with you.

Considering the revenue sharing arrangment between teams I am not convinced a floor = future ceiling. My guess is that agents and other team ownership were also unhappy with the Marlins for essentially stealing money from higher revenue teams.

As for an 80 million ceiling...it won't cause any of the prices associated with baseball to go down, it will just mean more money in the pockets of ownership. It would also have to be coordinated with a total revision of the draft and international talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure the Marlins would agree with you.

Considering the revenue sharing arrangment between teams I am not convinced a floor = future ceiling. My guess is that agents and other team ownership were also unhappy with the Marlins for essentially stealing money from higher revenue teams.

As for an 80 million ceiling...it won't cause any of the prices associated with baseball to go down, it will just mean more money in the pockets of ownership. It would also have to be coordinated with a total revision of the draft and international talent.

Sure maybe the 80 million is too low. But 50/100 million should be more than enough. The teams will find ways to spend more money. So younger prospects would be getting more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So younger prospects would be getting more money.

I am just picturing a year in which the Yankees allocate $30,000,000 to the draft and $20,000,000 to international talent. With a $100,000,000 cap the Yanks could do that and still pocket a cool $60,000,000.

If the Yankees' hands had been tied with a salary cap this offseason I highly doubt that Sano and Chapman would not have ended up in pinstripes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just picturing a year in which the Yankees allocate $30,000,000 to the draft and $20,000,000 to international talent. With a $100,000,000 cap the Yanks could do that and still pocket a cool $60,000,000.

If the Yankees' hands had been tied with a salary cap this offseason I highly doubt that Sano and Chapman would not have ended up in pinstripes.

Yea a cap with a floor would not help the parity of MLB at all, but lower the salary of top MLB players.

Owners want a Cap....but Players would dread it.

Hopefully the Union will make a better pension fund for all players so the owners are getting ridiculously richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea a cap with a floor would not help the parody of MLB at all, but lower the salary of top MLB players.

Owners want a Cap....but Players would dread it.

Hopefully the Union will make a better pension fund for all players so the owners are getting ridiculously richer.

I agree that it has been a "Mockery". I Do expect that parity, by definition, would occur with a hard ceiling/floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are we living in a dictatorship?? The Union has no right to tell a team how much they must spend PERIOD!! I guess the number of have been's is to high and that if a player is not as good as he used to be it doesn't matter that he is over priced teams still must sign them and sign them now. The biggest goof is Sheets this guy wants 10-12MM a year for 2 years and has not pitched in a year and has had injury problems his entire career, and I would be forced to sign this guy yea good luck.

And I have a question for all you people who think the ONLY way for us to win is spent tons of money on has bins to try and win how many more games??? We go through this over and over time and time again when is it going to stop. We have a plan and lets stick to it and when it required we can then spent the money and become better, but this senseless *****ing about the O's have to spent more to be a winner has got to stop.

Without being political because it is against the "rules" I would never accept being forced into anything and I would gladly stick my middle finger into the air toward anyone telling me otherwise.

Actually the Union does have the right to force teams to spend money that they are being given because of revenue sharing according to the CBA. That is the point of revenue sharing and the language in the agreement does say that teams must invest their revenue sharing money on payroll. The O's could not be a target because (to my knowledge) they have never received any revenue sharing monies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure maybe the 80 million is too low. But 50/100 million should be more than enough. The teams will find ways to spend more money. So younger prospects would be getting more money.

I would be extremely surprised if the next round of CBA negotiations resulted in a salary cap. I would be thoroughly stunned if a cap was implemented and it was anything less than $150M.

Right now suggesting an $80M cap would get you laughed out of the room, and it would only be considered if MLB was hemmoraging money and nearly bankrupt. The MLBPA would strike for years before they'd accept a cap below the current median payroll, and the owners would certainly lose $billions trying to break the union.

I'd swag the chance of any cap: 5%.

Chance of a cap that impacted anyone other than the Yanks: <1%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it this is not just the Union forcing teams to pay more, but rather this is the unions telling teams that there is a pseudo contractual agreement that forces them to spend the luxury tax money they receive on payroll.

I am not for the Union telling who has to pay either, but if the negotiations that brought about the luxury tax were held in such a way that it was understood that money was to be spent for competitive equality, then make them spend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be the only one on this side...but I think the union did a very stupid thing by forcing the Marlins to spend more.

Salary Cap baseball is something the Union doesn't want to have and if you have a salary floor, then a salary ceiling isn't too far away.

I would love to see a 40million/80million floor/ceiling.

I thought the same thing when the story first broke about the Marlins a couple weeks ago. Aside from sounding like total hypocrisy on the MLBPA's part, is there anything in the CBA that forces teams to spend a certain amount of money on payroll? And if the MLBPA can try to arbitrarily set a salary floor, why can't owners try to set a cap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the same thing when the story first broke about the Marlins a couple weeks ago. Aside from sounding like total hypocrisy on the MLBPA's part' date=' [b']is there anything in the CBA that forces teams to spend a certain amount[/b] of money on payroll? And if the MLBPA can try to arbitrarily set a salary floor, why can't owners try to set a cap?

Trinidad posted that there was, in the CBA. That's why the union has the right to institute a "floor" but mgmt can't arbitrarily institute a ceiling. It will have to be negotiated in the next CBA. When is that btw?

And Drungo's right, as always, about the 150 range. Especially that it most likely affects only the Yankees. I can see a chance that mgmt would bring it to the table. Not baseball, but the Yankees are out of control now. I could see a lot of owners pushing for it.

If management did decide to go to the mat over this... it could cause another work stoppage, which neither side wants. So it's not very likely. Now IF the union does go after another team, Pirates or whomever, all bets are off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...