Collusion

[Jocephus]

There’s a new development in the battle that’s been brewing between the MLB Players Association and team owners: The players union has filed a grievance against four teams for not spending enough of their revenue-sharing money.

The Tampa Bay Rays, Pittsburgh Pirates, Miami Marlins and Oakland Athletics are the teams, identified by Marc Topkin at the Tampa Bay Times and confirmed by Yahoo Sports on Tuesday. That would jibe with a story from our own Jeff Passan in January that said the MLBPA was considering grievances against the Pirates and Marlins after their offseason cost-shedding moves.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-players-un ... 34979.html

[Momo]

That's kind of rich by the MLBPA.

At least a reason they're not signing any FAs is that doing so can result in them losing a draft pick and international bonus pool money.

Maybe if the MLBPA wanted more teams spending on them, they shouldn't have priced themselves out of the market by allowing/making amateurs be so underpaid.

Make amateurs and international stars paid better/more expensive, and demand a salary floor. Whee, problems largely solved.

But nope, can't do that. Gotta have their cake and eat it too.

[MrCrowesGarden]

That's kind of rich by the MLBPA.

At least a reason they're not signing any FAs is that doing so can result in them losing a draft pick and international bonus pool money.

Maybe if the MLBPA wanted more teams spending on them, they shouldn't have priced themselves out of the market by allowing/making amateurs be so underpaid.

Make amateurs and international stars paid better/more expensive, and demand a salary floor. Whee, problems largely solved.

But nope, can't do that. Gotta have their cake and eat it too.

This is the dumbest phrase.

[vinsanity]

That's kind of rich by the MLBPA.

At least a reason they're not signing any FAs is that doing so can result in them losing a draft pick and international bonus pool money.

Maybe if the MLBPA wanted more teams spending on them, they shouldn't have priced themselves out of the market by allowing/making amateurs be so underpaid.

Make amateurs and international stars paid better/more expensive, and demand a salary floor. Whee, problems largely solved.

But nope, can't do that. Gotta have their cake and eat it too.

This is the dumbest phrase.

When trying to fully understand it I came across "You can't have a full bottle and a drunk wife". I chuckled and liked it.

[Popeye_Card]

Here's my proposed radical, and slightly communist solution.

Instead of having an open free agent market, there are four set salaries for players across the league. Top, middle, lower, and entry. The salaries each of these levels pay is negotiated by CBA every 5 years, with an automatic renegotiation triggered if league revenues rise by more than 15% since the previous negotiation.

So let's say the salary levels go something like...
Top: $25MM
Middle: $15MM
Lower: $7MM
Entry: $1MM

Instead of hard salary caps and floors, teams now get allotted a set number of each salary class.
Top: up to 5 per team
Middle: up to 10 per team
Lower: max of 30 minus top and middle players slots used up.
Entry: Not to exceed 5 on the active 25 man roster.

Every player is a free agent after each season. When teams draft a player, they hold their rights for 3 seasons in the minors. Once called up or after 3 years, a team can hold onto the player by matching any offer from another team (so say after one season the Yankees offer a Mike Trout a Top salary, the Angels could choose to match or let him go). A player is free to choose whichever team's offer.

There would have to be some sort of correction for long-term injuries, like Tommy John (that is, who pays for their salary and retains their rights while they are injured?).

In addition to this, in order to level the revenue disparity a bit better, MLB teams now share all TV/media revenue. They get to keep ticket, merchandise, concession, and in-stadium ad revenue. That helps level the drastic differences in TV market sizes, while encouraging creating exciting rosters that fans will pay to see.

[cardsfansince82]

I would be good with most of that, but I think free agents after every year is a little extreme. Something like a five year cap on the length of contracts (coinciding with each new CBA, even) would be a good balance.

[lukethedrifter]

Yankees and Dodgers with $325mil+ payrolls? Who else maxes out? Sawx?

[Famous Mortimer]

Whether you think it's the MLBPA's fault for not negotiating properly, the fact remains that teams like the A's are spending less on their payroll than they're receiving solely in terms of kickbacks from the league. Even if the players left the door open, no-one's forcing the owners to "collude". Okay, I'm not wildly excited about the Cardinals lineup, but can you imagine being an A's fan and not even having to wonder at the contempt you're held in by the team's owners?

[salukifan2]

The stuff with the A's I agree is absurd. Nearly 9 million people in the greater bay area and, oh yeah, they are also th wealthiest Americans. That the A's org gets to cry poor is an absolute sham

[Momo]

That's kind of rich by the MLBPA.

At least a reason they're not signing any FAs is that doing so can result in them losing a draft pick and international bonus pool money.

Maybe if the MLBPA wanted more teams spending on them, they shouldn't have priced themselves out of the market by allowing/making amateurs be so underpaid.

Make amateurs and international stars paid better/more expensive, and demand a salary floor. Whee, problems largely solved.

But nope, can't do that. Gotta have their cake and eat it too.

This is the dumbest phrase.

A quick way to know if someone’s thoughts are worth hearing are if they’re so dense that they claim the phrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” is dumb or illogical.