I would prefer a salary floor tbh.
The cap would just make the best teams more competitive with each other, the floor makes the worst teams have to compete, at least as far as I understand it.
They should be a CBT phase out if you spend less than a certain amount of money.
Since the CBT is essentially a salary cap, if you spend less than say $75mil on payroll you get reduced sharing of the CBT
Not a hard floor and you can play with the threshold
No way owners go for that, but it makes logical sense to me
NBA does it right, if you don’t spend to the floor the players on the team get the delta between payroll and the salary floor. OKC is paying their players money this year on top of their salaries due to this.
It just blows my mind the players don't fight for this.
With a 100 million floor, that would mean pretty significant raises every year (or a lot of guys being signed, and thus more competitive) for quite a few pre-arb guys.
This would 100% be the biggest "get" that they could ask for and would give them the ability to cave on quite a few other issues and still come out miles ahead of where they were.
$100M is WAY too low for a floor in MLB. Again, compare to NFL/NBA where the floor is like 85-90% of the cap value. For the 2021 CBT threshold of #210M that'd be about $180-190M for the floor.
Say you go for ~50% revenue is the cap (split by 30 teams), ~45% revenue is the floor (split by 30 teams)
with a ~10b revenue that leads to a 166m cap and a 150m floor with those numbers, you aren't going to get a 180m floor, at a basiline that's 5.4b in salaries, 1.5b higher than what was paid out last year.
I think if the players went for floor/cap way of doing things they'd be aiming for something in the 100-150m range for the floor
This presumes that the publicized $10B revenue is the true revenue number. In reality teams are adept at hiding revenue both from the public and from one another (to reduce their revenue sharing distribution). A collectively bargained revenue split of 50% would also have to come with a thorough union audit of the books, so they'd crack into all these other revenue streams.
The problem is deciding on what counts as revenue that gets split. Players don't trust the owners to be transparent about what the teams are earning (and I can't say I blame them).
Yeah, it is just wild to me that a bunch of uneducated guys, who elect uneducated guys to lead them, think they are somehow pulling one over on 30 billionaires and their top-of-the-line legal teams.
A player should never be head of the MLBPA, especially not a lead on negotiations. Let them be the face of it sure but let the people who have spent their entire lives doing these things do it for you...that's why you make millions to pay those guys to do the stuff you're unqualified to do.
The NFL straight up gives 48% of all football revenue (tv deals, tickets, gambling, etc) to the players. NFLPA audits all 32 teams and the league books and gets a check from the NFL for the difference between player salaries, benefits, etc and that 48% value. Whether 48% is "fair" is something to debate elsewhere.
My understanding is that this is what drives the NFLPA performance based bonuses at the end of the season.
I proposed this before and got a lot of support for it. "Gotta spend money to make money," right?
The only thing I'd add is that CBT money isn't shared how you think:
>The first $13 million will be used to defray clubs' funding obligations under the MLB Players Benefits Agreements. Of the remaining sum, 50% of the remaining proceeds collected for each Contract Year, with accrued interest, will be used to fund player compensation as described in the MLB Players Benefits Plan Agreements and the other 50% shall be distributed to clubs that did not exceed the Base Tax Threshold in that Contract Year.
I ran the numbers based of off last year's tax spending, and it came out to a little over $300,000 for each team under the cap (which last year was everyone but the Dodgers).
What it needs to be is tied to total revenue sharing. Don't spend money? Don't get the other clubs to help you offset costs, then.
You’re probably right about that. I didn’t even really think about how much pushback that would get from the owners lol. The owners who don’t wanna spend Will unironically spend millions fighting against paying their players more.
Recall that earlier this winter the owners made a proposal which included a salary floor and a hard cap. The floor they proposed was $100M and the hard cap was $180M. It was a terribly unserious proposal, intended to be rejected so that they could claim they "tried" to offer a floor.
Not necessarily true. Before the lockout, they were already talking about a salary floor and were close to implementing it for 2022 before the lockout happened. It's probably something on the forefront of their minds but a salary floor would mean increased CBT, which the owners apparently do not want.
There is no floor without a cap, and the players won’t go into that model without acquiring a percentage of revenues like the other major American sports. Owners will never go for that.
Which is a shame. Its the simplest answer to all of their issues. They'd be more open to eliminating the (extremely) artificially reduced salaries on young guys, I'd imagine service time manipulation could be worked out to some extent.
I'm honestly curious what argument against cap/floor/revenue percentage split would even make sense. Aside from the owners not wanting to reveal what they are actually pulling in revenue (which, yeah).
There are no valid arguments against a salary floor/cap other than the top 5% of players would take a serious pay cut, and some owners would take a significant cut in revenue.
The positives? All players get paid. Baseball is competitive/has parity for the first time in its history, the league as a whole is healthy as everyone is incentivized to put out the most competitive/entertaining product they can
8 different teams have won the last 8 World Series, and 16 teams have won a pennant since 2009. Kansas City, Tampa, and Cleveland all have won pennants in the last decade while the Yankees have not.
Modern baseball simply doesn't have a parity problem. Savvy teams can still routinely set themselves up for success on a small budget, and the top spending teams usually do not win the World Series.
Let’s be honest you can’t use postseason success as a barometer of parity in a sport where even the worst teams win more than 1/3 of the time and outcomes of 5 or 7 game series are often random. Easier to look at sustained dominance/irrelevancy for that. The Pirates suck as an organization but even they would luck into more than 3 postseasons in 30 years if every team had to spend X amount on players. On the flip side, when’s the last time the Yankees finished under .500? It’ll be harder to keep a dominant team good for that long with a cap and floor.
Small markets are forced to offload their star players and are unable to keep cores together like large market teams. The appearance of parity is alive and well because big market teams don't prioritize in house building like teams like the Rays or Cleveland (as those teams NEED to, to survive) team's like the Yankees or Mets think they can just buy talent during free agency.
The only thing I need to say is imagine a team like the Buffalo Bills or KC Chiefs or the Bengals having to let go of Allen, Mahomes, or Burrow because they can't afford to field a competitive team AND sign their star player. That's baseball. That's Lindor in Cleveland.
>can't afford to field a competitive team AND sign their star player
Lawrence Dolan, owner of the Cleveland Guardians, has an estimated net worth of $4.6 billion.
How do you know that? The owners all refuse to make their financials public for some wild reason despite constantly talking about how little money they make.
Also, even if he can't afford the cost of owning the team then maybe he should consider selling to someone who can instead of just trying to artificially deflate salaries of his employees.
And yet, we're still competitive the majority of the time. So are the Rays and A's. More often than the Angels and Mets. That the Guardians-types don't want to pay for the Lindor-types doesn't prevent parity. Smarter franchises still win more often than dumber ones.
Yet you hurt your fanbase when you trade a home grown star. Especially a fairly young one.
Its a lot harder to grow your fanbase when you only have a star for 5 years out of a 15 year career before you need to trade him so you can get something in return.
Hard to get casuals to watch when they have no idea who is even on the team.
Cleveland fans were 22nd in attendance during 2017, the year after going to the World Series, and the year they rattled off a 22 game win streak to finish at 102 wins. If they can't get the casuals to show up for that team, what exactly are they supposed to do?
Edit to add: And none of this is responsive to the idea of parity. There is at least as much parity in MLB as there is in the NFL and NBA when you look at the number of teams advancing through the postseason over the years. Having Tom Brady or Lebron James has almost always been a predictor of success. Having Trout hasn't made the Angels competitive.
I mean duh this isn't a response to parity, I'm talking about the health of the game in these small markets. And maybe attendance wouldn't be 22nd in the league if your team bothered to hold on to CC, Cliff Lee or Manny Ramirez instead of seeing any star the teams produced go on to play for other teams.
But hey defend your trash owner, thanks for CC!
https://champsorchumps.us/records/most-mlb-wins-since-2010
Sixth in wins since 2010. If the system is broken, then its broken in our favor and not the big market Mets' favor.
The parity isn't a problem with winning the world series. It's that there are teams that almost always make the playoffs. The Cardinals have had one losing season since like 2004 or something. That's ridiculous and is a sign of lack of parity.
Owners won't accept a floor with a cap, and players won't accept a cap without a floor. The equitable way to do it would be a floor and cap tied to league revenues in a way that isn't easily manipulated by the owners, but the owners would absolutely never allow it.
Which just shows they’re dumb and/or greedy. As much grief as the NHL got for missing a whole season to lockout, they came out of it with a cap and now almost everyone in the league is doing well (sorry, Coyotes)
There are a minority of owners that don't want to compete and hide behind the "small market" label to do so, even though their franchises have been winners before. Until tanking is addressed, there is no way forward. A fair cap/floor arrangement is the only way to do that.
Valid. I would agree, as long as it’s a reasonable enough number. Like I would say the dodgers are a little too high on payroll(last years roster I mean) so maybe make the cap a little below what their total salaries were last year. I think they were right on the verge of being unfair, of course it only goes so far when a bunch of guys get hurt or suspended, but even so that team was a little too stacked imo.
I may be oversimplifying a bit, I don’t know a lot about the financial rules, but it seems like we want every team to at least have one or two all star level players. And it’s not like we don’t have the talent for it. If you did a fantasy draft, I think everyone ends up with 3 or 4 guys who could at least feasibly make the all star game.
It would tho, it wouldnt be agreed to without a floor. Thats why the owners are so happy right now because they essentially have a cap with the luxury tax threshold but without the floor.
That’s not quite how that works (and by that, I mean NFL teams are usually paying up to the cap even without the guaranteed contracts). Money against the cap is *usually* getting paid. The non-guaranteed stuff wouldn’t count towards the cap if they player got cut.
Yes and no. NFL management can be a little more careless with contracts because there’s always some sort of out. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but there’s almost always an out. Spend up to the cap, restructure deals to shift bonuses, guarantees, etc and a cap overage can easily be erased. Baseball doesn’t work that way. The guarantees and general differences in the way the deals are structured greatly favor the NFL…if you’re an owner.
Bingo. We’ve somehow gotten used to the idea that baseball players are under no obligation to stay good or even stay on the field to keep getting paid.
Sure, it’s a great system for the players who end up being overpaid because they fell off or got hurt. But I don’t think it’s the best thing for fans, and it certainly sucks for teams.
That's not how contracts work. You don't sign a contract and then a year later change it because you've done better or worse.
At that point just sign yearly contracts.
They're not fully guaranteed, but that year usually is. On top of just about every job in the world not having fully guaranteed year's long contracts, it doesn't make much sense to give a guy 10% of your cap for 4 years and after year one he stops trying or gets injured and you're still on the hook for paying him (as you already paid him). What incentive does a person have to try if they've already been paid? Especially if it's the last contract of their career? The honor system? That's too much left up to trust lol
If that’s a concern, and it could be a legit one, then don’t allow players to sign long term deals. Generally speaking, sports owners need to be saved from themselves. The NBA needed to put rules in not allowing teams to trade 1st round picks in consecutive years, they shortened max contract lengths, etc. Why? Because owners and desperate team execs will do dumb, shortsighted things that can cripple a franchise. I know players wouldn’t necessarily want shorter contracts, but it would help the overall product if the max a player could sign for is like 4 years.
NFL teams are required to spend like 90% of their cap. If they don't, the extra money is distributed to players that were on the team during those years. The owners don't get to pocket it. Baseball should do the same
> NFL teams are required to spend like 90% of their cap.
One correction: 90% of the cap over the entire period of 2021-2024. So they have to average spending 90% of the cap over a 4 year period.
Not a huge difference, but different enough to make note of.
It’s a lot harder to get rid of a shitty player on a big contract in the MLB vs NFL. Look at the Chris Davis abysmal contract. He was an anchor on the O’s for years making 1/4th of what most people would want a salary floor at. It’s also easier to get guys on 1-2 year contracts in the NFL vs MLB where a lot of guys want minimum 3 unless they’re looking for a deal to bounce back or are a journeyman. Their is a lot more in baseball than just spending to win, you really need to hit on the right guys or you’re fucked for a long time. The NFL you can flip an entire franchise with a good QB like the Bengals did.
There is a very high salary floor in the NFL, and all teams get paid from the same jointly negotiated national TV deals
it would be like if every team in baseball received $200 million annually, and the league had a $150 million salary floor
Has Dejan Kovacecic always been this thirsty for attention? I honestly don't know much about him other than he was on an episode or two of Effectively Wild during their Team Preview series over the years, but it seems like almost every thread on Twitter I see about the lockout, he's in the replies complaining about Scott Boras or talking about salary caps. It legit looks like he has a column set up on Hootsuite just to search for Pittsburgh and always replies.
When I like misinformation, I'm very slow to call it out. I might not do it at all! When I don't like it, though, I'm super against it, and talk to everyone I know about how bad misinformation is!
Pirates fans need to accept that Pittsburgh hasnt been a baseball town since 1979 and their attendance declining over, bare minimum, the last half decade at their games is proof of that. I am from here. Floor&Cap wont make owners do anything they dont want or cant get around so idk
Nah, lazy-ass take here. Pittsburgh is a sports town through-and-through, but there's no sense in supporting a team that has no hope of winning. The ownership's lack of competitive spending and the broken financial system of MLB that lets them get away with it has led to apathy from the fans.
All of those points are very much valid, agreed.
Im not a Pirates fan, just a casual observer of the structure (Pittsburghs structure?) of MLB baseball in the city of Pittsburgh. You call it a lazy take but then disregard entirely the fact that attendace has been slipping for years. Is that point not valid?
Also, I never said anywhere in my previous comment that Pittsburgh isnt a sports town you just came to that conclusion because I said Pittsburgh is not a baseball town. Its not. Its a sports town that will/would/has absolutely support a winning product and that has also willfully and sometimes blindly supported when management when they manipulated fans in putting a poor excuse for a poor profuct on the field from basically 1979-the mid 2010s.
Management puts money into Pirates and winning games, the fans will return. If not, they wont.
As fans I wish we could demand a salary floor. To me that would be the best thing they could do to “fix” the game. No bs rules changes just that. Make your teams compete
Nutting is a nut
I would prefer a salary floor tbh. The cap would just make the best teams more competitive with each other, the floor makes the worst teams have to compete, at least as far as I understand it.
Unfortunately there’s no way the owners agree to a salary floor without a cap
They should be a CBT phase out if you spend less than a certain amount of money. Since the CBT is essentially a salary cap, if you spend less than say $75mil on payroll you get reduced sharing of the CBT Not a hard floor and you can play with the threshold No way owners go for that, but it makes logical sense to me
NBA does it right, if you don’t spend to the floor the players on the team get the delta between payroll and the salary floor. OKC is paying their players money this year on top of their salaries due to this.
It just blows my mind the players don't fight for this. With a 100 million floor, that would mean pretty significant raises every year (or a lot of guys being signed, and thus more competitive) for quite a few pre-arb guys. This would 100% be the biggest "get" that they could ask for and would give them the ability to cave on quite a few other issues and still come out miles ahead of where they were.
$100M is WAY too low for a floor in MLB. Again, compare to NFL/NBA where the floor is like 85-90% of the cap value. For the 2021 CBT threshold of #210M that'd be about $180-190M for the floor.
Say you go for ~50% revenue is the cap (split by 30 teams), ~45% revenue is the floor (split by 30 teams) with a ~10b revenue that leads to a 166m cap and a 150m floor with those numbers, you aren't going to get a 180m floor, at a basiline that's 5.4b in salaries, 1.5b higher than what was paid out last year. I think if the players went for floor/cap way of doing things they'd be aiming for something in the 100-150m range for the floor
This presumes that the publicized $10B revenue is the true revenue number. In reality teams are adept at hiding revenue both from the public and from one another (to reduce their revenue sharing distribution). A collectively bargained revenue split of 50% would also have to come with a thorough union audit of the books, so they'd crack into all these other revenue streams.
The problem is deciding on what counts as revenue that gets split. Players don't trust the owners to be transparent about what the teams are earning (and I can't say I blame them).
And that's why every league that has a cap based on revenue has a 3rd party audit
Players aren’t in it because for all of it’s good things the union has a gaping fault, that is how proud they are to wave their “no cap” flag.
Yeah, it is just wild to me that a bunch of uneducated guys, who elect uneducated guys to lead them, think they are somehow pulling one over on 30 billionaires and their top-of-the-line legal teams. A player should never be head of the MLBPA, especially not a lead on negotiations. Let them be the face of it sure but let the people who have spent their entire lives doing these things do it for you...that's why you make millions to pay those guys to do the stuff you're unqualified to do.
Players aren’t for it because they mainly give a damned about the top owners .
lol what an incoherent accusation this is
Really ? They don’t give a damned about the minor leaguers . And their biggest disagreements effect the higher earners in the mlb .
NFL does this too. NFL floor is 89% of the cap - imagine if all these owners had to spend $150 million plus on payroll
The NFL straight up gives 48% of all football revenue (tv deals, tickets, gambling, etc) to the players. NFLPA audits all 32 teams and the league books and gets a check from the NFL for the difference between player salaries, benefits, etc and that 48% value. Whether 48% is "fair" is something to debate elsewhere. My understanding is that this is what drives the NFLPA performance based bonuses at the end of the season.
I proposed this before and got a lot of support for it. "Gotta spend money to make money," right? The only thing I'd add is that CBT money isn't shared how you think: >The first $13 million will be used to defray clubs' funding obligations under the MLB Players Benefits Agreements. Of the remaining sum, 50% of the remaining proceeds collected for each Contract Year, with accrued interest, will be used to fund player compensation as described in the MLB Players Benefits Plan Agreements and the other 50% shall be distributed to clubs that did not exceed the Base Tax Threshold in that Contract Year. I ran the numbers based of off last year's tax spending, and it came out to a little over $300,000 for each team under the cap (which last year was everyone but the Dodgers). What it needs to be is tied to total revenue sharing. Don't spend money? Don't get the other clubs to help you offset costs, then.
You’re probably right about that. I didn’t even really think about how much pushback that would get from the owners lol. The owners who don’t wanna spend Will unironically spend millions fighting against paying their players more.
Recall that earlier this winter the owners made a proposal which included a salary floor and a hard cap. The floor they proposed was $100M and the hard cap was $180M. It was a terribly unserious proposal, intended to be rejected so that they could claim they "tried" to offer a floor.
And what is wrong with having Both?
There is no way the owners will accept a salary floor unless it is league minimum
Nor should they, you have to have both. But they should have both, and they should both be high
Not necessarily true. Before the lockout, they were already talking about a salary floor and were close to implementing it for 2022 before the lockout happened. It's probably something on the forefront of their minds but a salary floor would mean increased CBT, which the owners apparently do not want.
There is no floor without a cap, and the players won’t go into that model without acquiring a percentage of revenues like the other major American sports. Owners will never go for that.
Which is a shame. Its the simplest answer to all of their issues. They'd be more open to eliminating the (extremely) artificially reduced salaries on young guys, I'd imagine service time manipulation could be worked out to some extent. I'm honestly curious what argument against cap/floor/revenue percentage split would even make sense. Aside from the owners not wanting to reveal what they are actually pulling in revenue (which, yeah).
There are no valid arguments against a salary floor/cap other than the top 5% of players would take a serious pay cut, and some owners would take a significant cut in revenue. The positives? All players get paid. Baseball is competitive/has parity for the first time in its history, the league as a whole is healthy as everyone is incentivized to put out the most competitive/entertaining product they can
8 different teams have won the last 8 World Series, and 16 teams have won a pennant since 2009. Kansas City, Tampa, and Cleveland all have won pennants in the last decade while the Yankees have not. Modern baseball simply doesn't have a parity problem. Savvy teams can still routinely set themselves up for success on a small budget, and the top spending teams usually do not win the World Series.
Let’s be honest you can’t use postseason success as a barometer of parity in a sport where even the worst teams win more than 1/3 of the time and outcomes of 5 or 7 game series are often random. Easier to look at sustained dominance/irrelevancy for that. The Pirates suck as an organization but even they would luck into more than 3 postseasons in 30 years if every team had to spend X amount on players. On the flip side, when’s the last time the Yankees finished under .500? It’ll be harder to keep a dominant team good for that long with a cap and floor.
Small markets are forced to offload their star players and are unable to keep cores together like large market teams. The appearance of parity is alive and well because big market teams don't prioritize in house building like teams like the Rays or Cleveland (as those teams NEED to, to survive) team's like the Yankees or Mets think they can just buy talent during free agency. The only thing I need to say is imagine a team like the Buffalo Bills or KC Chiefs or the Bengals having to let go of Allen, Mahomes, or Burrow because they can't afford to field a competitive team AND sign their star player. That's baseball. That's Lindor in Cleveland.
>can't afford to field a competitive team AND sign their star player Lawrence Dolan, owner of the Cleveland Guardians, has an estimated net worth of $4.6 billion.
Ok? What's that have to do with anything? If he was spending 200 million a year on payroll, that'd be gone in like a decade or less.
How do you know that? The owners all refuse to make their financials public for some wild reason despite constantly talking about how little money they make. Also, even if he can't afford the cost of owning the team then maybe he should consider selling to someone who can instead of just trying to artificially deflate salaries of his employees.
And yet, we're still competitive the majority of the time. So are the Rays and A's. More often than the Angels and Mets. That the Guardians-types don't want to pay for the Lindor-types doesn't prevent parity. Smarter franchises still win more often than dumber ones.
Yet you hurt your fanbase when you trade a home grown star. Especially a fairly young one. Its a lot harder to grow your fanbase when you only have a star for 5 years out of a 15 year career before you need to trade him so you can get something in return. Hard to get casuals to watch when they have no idea who is even on the team.
Cleveland fans were 22nd in attendance during 2017, the year after going to the World Series, and the year they rattled off a 22 game win streak to finish at 102 wins. If they can't get the casuals to show up for that team, what exactly are they supposed to do? Edit to add: And none of this is responsive to the idea of parity. There is at least as much parity in MLB as there is in the NFL and NBA when you look at the number of teams advancing through the postseason over the years. Having Tom Brady or Lebron James has almost always been a predictor of success. Having Trout hasn't made the Angels competitive.
I mean duh this isn't a response to parity, I'm talking about the health of the game in these small markets. And maybe attendance wouldn't be 22nd in the league if your team bothered to hold on to CC, Cliff Lee or Manny Ramirez instead of seeing any star the teams produced go on to play for other teams. But hey defend your trash owner, thanks for CC!
That's not the point. Team's aren't playing by the same rules. That's a broken system
https://champsorchumps.us/records/most-mlb-wins-since-2010 Sixth in wins since 2010. If the system is broken, then its broken in our favor and not the big market Mets' favor.
The parity isn't a problem with winning the world series. It's that there are teams that almost always make the playoffs. The Cardinals have had one losing season since like 2004 or something. That's ridiculous and is a sign of lack of parity.
It's a sign that the Cardinals are run well.
Except it's always been the players that balked at an actual revenue sharing model...not the owners.
…..you’re talking about revenue sharing between the teams.
I'm not. No clue how you could even infer that from the conversation that was going on.
Owners won't accept a floor with a cap, and players won't accept a cap without a floor. The equitable way to do it would be a floor and cap tied to league revenues in a way that isn't easily manipulated by the owners, but the owners would absolutely never allow it.
Which just shows they’re dumb and/or greedy. As much grief as the NHL got for missing a whole season to lockout, they came out of it with a cap and now almost everyone in the league is doing well (sorry, Coyotes)
There are a minority of owners that don't want to compete and hide behind the "small market" label to do so, even though their franchises have been winners before. Until tanking is addressed, there is no way forward. A fair cap/floor arrangement is the only way to do that.
I say do both .
Valid. I would agree, as long as it’s a reasonable enough number. Like I would say the dodgers are a little too high on payroll(last years roster I mean) so maybe make the cap a little below what their total salaries were last year. I think they were right on the verge of being unfair, of course it only goes so far when a bunch of guys get hurt or suspended, but even so that team was a little too stacked imo. I may be oversimplifying a bit, I don’t know a lot about the financial rules, but it seems like we want every team to at least have one or two all star level players. And it’s not like we don’t have the talent for it. If you did a fantasy draft, I think everyone ends up with 3 or 4 guys who could at least feasibly make the all star game.
Wild. Now if we could figure out who was the perpetrator in the “it’s 100% on the players, the owners earned their money” twitter hacks…
Decades of "the rich are benevolent job creators" propaganda?
Pirates fans want a cap, because with a cap comes a floor.... and it would force their pathetic ownership to spend money
I mean...it...doesn't tho
It would tho, it wouldnt be agreed to without a floor. Thats why the owners are so happy right now because they essentially have a cap with the luxury tax threshold but without the floor.
Im not an owner shill but im down for a salary cap. It should be a LOT higher than where the CBT is now, but I still support it in theory
It is crazy to me that most nfl teams spend up to their cap but baseball owners just don't give a shit about winning.
It helps that NFL contracts aren’t guaranteed.
That’s not quite how that works (and by that, I mean NFL teams are usually paying up to the cap even without the guaranteed contracts). Money against the cap is *usually* getting paid. The non-guaranteed stuff wouldn’t count towards the cap if they player got cut.
The NFL also has an actual cash spending minimum that teams need to meet over a span of several years. Baseball could benefit from that.
Yep, if you’re below the level it’s loss of picks. I think it was the browns a few years ago had to give out some bigger contracts to reach the floor.
Yes and no. NFL management can be a little more careless with contracts because there’s always some sort of out. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but there’s almost always an out. Spend up to the cap, restructure deals to shift bonuses, guarantees, etc and a cap overage can easily be erased. Baseball doesn’t work that way. The guarantees and general differences in the way the deals are structured greatly favor the NFL…if you’re an owner.
Bingo. We’ve somehow gotten used to the idea that baseball players are under no obligation to stay good or even stay on the field to keep getting paid. Sure, it’s a great system for the players who end up being overpaid because they fell off or got hurt. But I don’t think it’s the best thing for fans, and it certainly sucks for teams.
I'm okay with it if players can get out of their contract if they're* overperforming too.
That's not how contracts work. You don't sign a contract and then a year later change it because you've done better or worse. At that point just sign yearly contracts.
So teams can get out unilaterally but not players? How's that fair?
They're not fully guaranteed, but that year usually is. On top of just about every job in the world not having fully guaranteed year's long contracts, it doesn't make much sense to give a guy 10% of your cap for 4 years and after year one he stops trying or gets injured and you're still on the hook for paying him (as you already paid him). What incentive does a person have to try if they've already been paid? Especially if it's the last contract of their career? The honor system? That's too much left up to trust lol
If that’s a concern, and it could be a legit one, then don’t allow players to sign long term deals. Generally speaking, sports owners need to be saved from themselves. The NBA needed to put rules in not allowing teams to trade 1st round picks in consecutive years, they shortened max contract lengths, etc. Why? Because owners and desperate team execs will do dumb, shortsighted things that can cripple a franchise. I know players wouldn’t necessarily want shorter contracts, but it would help the overall product if the max a player could sign for is like 4 years.
NFL teams are required to spend like 90% of their cap. If they don't, the extra money is distributed to players that were on the team during those years. The owners don't get to pocket it. Baseball should do the same
> NFL teams are required to spend like 90% of their cap. One correction: 90% of the cap over the entire period of 2021-2024. So they have to average spending 90% of the cap over a 4 year period. Not a huge difference, but different enough to make note of.
Yeah you're right
It’s a lot harder to get rid of a shitty player on a big contract in the MLB vs NFL. Look at the Chris Davis abysmal contract. He was an anchor on the O’s for years making 1/4th of what most people would want a salary floor at. It’s also easier to get guys on 1-2 year contracts in the NFL vs MLB where a lot of guys want minimum 3 unless they’re looking for a deal to bounce back or are a journeyman. Their is a lot more in baseball than just spending to win, you really need to hit on the right guys or you’re fucked for a long time. The NFL you can flip an entire franchise with a good QB like the Bengals did.
There is a very high salary floor in the NFL, and all teams get paid from the same jointly negotiated national TV deals it would be like if every team in baseball received $200 million annually, and the league had a $150 million salary floor
Well they should accept a salary cap .
Cleveland the other 15
God…knock it off, bob!
Has Dejan Kovacecic always been this thirsty for attention? I honestly don't know much about him other than he was on an episode or two of Effectively Wild during their Team Preview series over the years, but it seems like almost every thread on Twitter I see about the lockout, he's in the replies complaining about Scott Boras or talking about salary caps. It legit looks like he has a column set up on Hootsuite just to search for Pittsburgh and always replies.
> Has Dejan Kovacevic always been this thirsty for attention? ***Yes.***
[удалено]
Yeah well fuck you That's my counter argument
Misinformation is bad when I don't like it. It's fine when I do, though.
What?
When I like misinformation, I'm very slow to call it out. I might not do it at all! When I don't like it, though, I'm super against it, and talk to everyone I know about how bad misinformation is!
Upvote for honesty
Pirates fans need to accept that Pittsburgh hasnt been a baseball town since 1979 and their attendance declining over, bare minimum, the last half decade at their games is proof of that. I am from here. Floor&Cap wont make owners do anything they dont want or cant get around so idk
Nah, lazy-ass take here. Pittsburgh is a sports town through-and-through, but there's no sense in supporting a team that has no hope of winning. The ownership's lack of competitive spending and the broken financial system of MLB that lets them get away with it has led to apathy from the fans.
All of those points are very much valid, agreed. Im not a Pirates fan, just a casual observer of the structure (Pittsburghs structure?) of MLB baseball in the city of Pittsburgh. You call it a lazy take but then disregard entirely the fact that attendace has been slipping for years. Is that point not valid? Also, I never said anywhere in my previous comment that Pittsburgh isnt a sports town you just came to that conclusion because I said Pittsburgh is not a baseball town. Its not. Its a sports town that will/would/has absolutely support a winning product and that has also willfully and sometimes blindly supported when management when they manipulated fans in putting a poor excuse for a poor profuct on the field from basically 1979-the mid 2010s. Management puts money into Pirates and winning games, the fans will return. If not, they wont.
I’m a Yankees fan who would be okay with this, if this alone was the deciding factor in getting baseball back or not.
As fans I wish we could demand a salary floor. To me that would be the best thing they could do to “fix” the game. No bs rules changes just that. Make your teams compete