GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently January 22 19, 1:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 10:01 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26539
Fat Strat wrote:
If the union wanted to close this gap between payroll and income, they would fight to get more money for younger players rather than fighting to secure it for long time veterans. I've long thought that a club benefited too much from the pre-arb and early arb years. In years 1-4 or so, a great player at the height of his performance will make less total than a typical 30 year old backup infielder will make in one season. In pre-arb years, a full-time starter with multiple All Star appearances will be paid just as much as the 25th man or a Rule 5 guy.

This would sound backward to the already backward players union, but if they wanted to guarantee money for veteran players, then they need to fight to increase salaries for the young players. Then, the gap between paying Lance Lynn (or whoever) and just rolling with Jon Gant (or whoever) won't seem so attractive.


Agree 100%. MLB is obviously different in regards to how long it takes to develop a player, but they lag far behind the other major sports in regards to veteran:newbie pay ratio.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 10:06 am 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 35674
Location: Huis Clos
Fat Strat wrote:
If the union wanted to close this gap between payroll and income, they would fight to get more money for younger players rather than fighting to secure it for long time veterans. I've long thought that a club benefited too much from the pre-arb and early arb years. In years 1-4 or so, a great player at the height of his performance will make less total than a typical 30 year old backup infielder will make in one season. In pre-arb years, a full-time starter with multiple All Star appearances will be paid just as much as the 25th man or a Rule 5 guy.

This would sound backward to the already backward players union, but if they wanted to guarantee money for veteran players, then they need to fight to increase salaries for the young players. Then, the gap between paying Lance Lynn (or whoever) and just rolling with Jon Gant (or whoever) won't seem so attractive.


It’s a good point. And the right thing to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 10:34 am 
Online
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: October 8 14, 11:41 am
Posts: 3960
Popeye_Card wrote:
Fat Strat wrote:
If the union wanted to close this gap between payroll and income, they would fight to get more money for younger players rather than fighting to secure it for long time veterans. I've long thought that a club benefited too much from the pre-arb and early arb years. In years 1-4 or so, a great player at the height of his performance will make less total than a typical 30 year old backup infielder will make in one season. In pre-arb years, a full-time starter with multiple All Star appearances will be paid just as much as the 25th man or a Rule 5 guy.

This would sound backward to the already backward players union, but if they wanted to guarantee money for veteran players, then they need to fight to increase salaries for the young players. Then, the gap between paying Lance Lynn (or whoever) and just rolling with Jon Gant (or whoever) won't seem so attractive.


Agree 100%. MLB is obviously different in regards to how long it takes to develop a player, but they lag far behind the other major sports in regards to veteran:newbie pay ratio.

I agree 100% as well. I still staunchly defend the argument that a decline in spending is less a consequence of collusion and more a result of tanking and stacking pre-arbitration all stars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 10:53 am 
Offline
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie

Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Posts: 26765
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List
Hoot45 wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
Fat Strat wrote:
If the union wanted to close this gap between payroll and income, they would fight to get more money for younger players rather than fighting to secure it for long time veterans. I've long thought that a club benefited too much from the pre-arb and early arb years. In years 1-4 or so, a great player at the height of his performance will make less total than a typical 30 year old backup infielder will make in one season. In pre-arb years, a full-time starter with multiple All Star appearances will be paid just as much as the 25th man or a Rule 5 guy.

This would sound backward to the already backward players union, but if they wanted to guarantee money for veteran players, then they need to fight to increase salaries for the young players. Then, the gap between paying Lance Lynn (or whoever) and just rolling with Jon Gant (or whoever) won't seem so attractive.


Agree 100%. MLB is obviously different in regards to how long it takes to develop a player, but they lag far behind the other major sports in regards to veteran:newbie pay ratio.

I agree 100% as well. I still staunchly defend the argument that a decline in spending is less a consequence of collusion and more a result of tanking and stacking pre-arbitration all stars.


In some ways it is sort of an indirect collusion. The luxury tax has forced a payroll pile-up where teams are essentially unwilling not only to go above that total but to get too near it that they don't have flexibility. The penalties are too high. Consider the Dodgers:

Quote:
Under the projections prepared for potential investors, the Dodgers would spend $185 million in 2019 and 2020, $191 million in 2021 and $196 million in 2022.


They are intentionally staying far enough from the cap to retain flexibility. The rewards for staying at the top of that payroll cap also aren't there because it's essential to draft and develop players just to have a chance to field a competitive team while staying at non-taxed payroll levels. The Cards are a great example of this -- the king of it, really. We are sitting at a spot where one huge (30M+) or two smaller FA signings ($30M+ total) would push them uncomfortably close to the edge of the cap. Opening day 25 man payrolls have been in the $145-160M range. 40-man payrolls, however, have been between $175-182. I don't know how the luxury tax math works, but the luxury tax number is probably going to be somewhere between $155-$185 last year and probably higher next year. Not far behind the Dodgers. Then, consider the # of players that both the Dodgers and Cardinals have developed and are paying arb or pre-arb salaries.

It's a draft and development league now. (And I'm not even talking about the obvious tanking in this post).

The Cards and Dodgers (and that's just two examples) aren't directly colluding to keep prices down. At the same time, it does seem like owners have seen the benefits of draft and develop. They are allowing themselves to be ruled by the massive penalties of the luxury tax threshold. And, so, they are rather intentionally though indirectly avoiding free agent signings until the cost becomes too good to pass up. It's not collusion. But, it's an environment that does intentionally suppress free agents.


Last edited by Fat Strat on December 18 18, 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 10:56 am 
Offline
'Burb Boy
User avatar

Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Posts: 19312
Location: Out of the Loop
Teams manipulate service time which is certainly a form of suppression, then they claim FAs are old. Well, because you held them down a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 11:01 am 
Offline
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie

Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Posts: 26765
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
Teams manipulate service time which is certainly a form of suppression, then they claim FAs are old. Well, because you held them down a year.


Yeah, that's another example of intentional suppression.

Personally, I would love to see clubs have to go to arbitration with players immediately upon their arrival in the majors. Turn some of those 500k All-Stars into $5M players -- still a huge discount -- and payrolls are going to climb, or a bunch of quality players in their mid 20's are going to hit the FA market (non-tender) and further help competitive balance.

I'm going to go ahead and file that under things the union and owners would never agree on...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 11:18 am 
Online
Perennial All-Star

Joined: November 6 10, 10:58 am
Posts: 6662
I'd just get rid of arbitration all together...after your first 3 seasons, you're a FA.

Would get all these young guys a shot at FA in their prime, and the teams would have a decision to make...try and lock them up to a team friendly deal after only a year or 2 (like we've done with Wong, Craig, DeJong, etc), or let them test FA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 11:22 am 
Online
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: October 8 14, 11:41 am
Posts: 3960
Fat Strat wrote:
It's not collusion. But, it's an environment that does intentionally suppress free agents.

collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

To your point, it certainly isn't collusion. There is not a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy. Owners are playing by the rules they helped set. And in my opinion they are for the most part acting rationally. But, they have managed to set up a system where they have mechanisms to successfully reverse player salaries now on both ends of the spectrum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 11:28 am 
Online
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 3651
Time (clap) to (clap) pay (clap) minor (clap) leaguers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MLB Payroll Spending
PostPosted: December 18 18, 3:17 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am
Posts: 9611
There should be a way for players in years 1-6 to increase their pay faster based on their performance. Because the stars are making their teams money. There's no need for John Gant to be making more money right away. That'll just get him cut.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big Amoco Sign, cardsfantx, Cronos, Jimmy, NDark, stlouie_lipp and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group