|
mcmagic posted:I understand that but they were coming off the books for the dodgers too and the braves end up paying a ton in 18 for no production. This just really helps the dodgers reset the luxury tax for 18. It’s because the Dodgers enjoyed the irony of paying the Padres several million dollars to offset Matt Kemp’s contract while also actually paying Matt Kemp’s contract, which is a thing that is happening. It’s not like the luxury tax matters. It’s the optics of not resetting the luxury tax; pretending to care makes it so people don’t bring up the specter of the salary cap. Both teams have around half a billion in revenue and could spend even more if they felt like it. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Dec 17, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
It also opens up a spot for Acuna.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
the luxury tax absolutely matters in the new CBA, it is a basically a soft cap. Not only are teams taxed to gently caress if they exceed the limit three times (50% for every dollar after 197M, 45% for every dollar above 237M), they also have their draft picks dropped if they're above the 237M limit. Combined with international hard cap, these new policies are designed to rein in spending and the people who suffer are the players, both MLB and amateurs. New York and LA dropping 98M in salary is a joke
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:the luxury tax absolutely matters in the new CBA, it is a basically a soft cap. Not only are teams taxed to gently caress if they exceed the limit three times (50% for every dollar after 197M, 45% for every dollar above 237M), they also have their draft picks dropped if they're above the 237M limit. Combined with international hard cap, these new policies are designed to rein in spending and the people who suffer are the players, both MLB and amateurs. Also, if they exceed the $197M and someone signs away one of their free agents, their compensation goes from a sandwich pick between the 2nd and 3rd round, to a sandwich pick between the 4th and 5th rounds. If they exceed the $197M and they sign someone else's free agent, they lose their 2nd and 5th round picks and $1 million in IFA signing allowance (and 3rd and 6th round picks for any additional free agent signed). If they don't exceed the $197M, they’d only lose their 2nd round pick and $500,000. So the difference by going over is $500,000 in IFA money and a 5th round pick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Other reasons the Braves did this: Kemp was blocking Acuna, Kazmir and McCarthy give them some filler pitching while they wait for their prospects to be ready, McCarthy could be flipped at the deadline if he’s pitching well, and overall they saved several million dollars on the swap. It’s a weird trade but it clearly is good for both teams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Other reasons the Braves did this: Kemp was blocking Acuna, Kazmir and McCarthy give them some filler pitching while they wait for their prospects to be ready, McCarthy could be flipped at the deadline if he’s pitching well, and overall they saved several million dollars on the swap. I thought I read that they sent money to make it even? Still it's a good deal that clears money for next year when they want to start making their push Edit: other way around Dodgers sent money to make it even https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2017/12/16/braves-dodgers-trade-2018-free-agents-class/958399001/
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Yeah it's definitely a good deal for both teams, even if it is annoying that the Dodgers got an out for a ton of their lovely contracts. mcmagic posted:I understand that but they were coming off the books for the dodgers too and the braves end up paying a ton in 18 for no production. This just really helps the dodgers reset the luxury tax for 18. bawfuls covered most of the points I was going to make. Beyond freeing up room for Acuna, the Braves get warm bodies to fill the rotation and a genuine deadline flip candidate in McCarthy provided he can stay healthy and effective this year. Culberson isn't great but he's a perfectly serviceable bench bat/utility IF guy who's still pre-arb. Also the Braves aren't ready to compete yet but are clearly gearing up to make a huge run at next year's FA market and spin it into a competitive 2019, so it makes sense to eat more dollars this year when it doesn't matter to free up money next year that can be spent on getting competitive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
How is the soft cap defined? Is it a percentage of something ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How is the soft cap defined? Is it a percentage of something ? $197m as calculated by the AAVs of your roster, then above that the penalties start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
No I mean how did they come up with 197.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
It wasn’t calculated it was just bargained. Also it goes up slightly each of the next 3 or 4 years
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:$197m as calculated by the AAVs of your roster, then above that the penalties start. That AAV part can’t be right 🤨
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Let's all feel sad for the Yankees and Dodgers that they can't buy literally every good player in baseball
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
This CBA sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Let's all feel sad for the Yankees and Dodgers that they can't buy literally every good player in baseball It’s not an actual debate in an era where you don’t find the next superstar playing unscouted at a local sandlot. Fans of the richest teams don’t like the idea of their teams not being able to buy all the best players. The argument that salaries are independent of competitive balance is wholly disingenuous and always has been.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Let's all feel sad for the Yankees and Dodgers that they can't buy literally every good player in baseball Maybe the billionaire who owns your team should stop being a cheap gently caress! Also gently caress salary caps. https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/942447960536870912
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Implying that the Dodgers haven’t won the World Series in 30 years while having a competent FO and tons of money during that time is....an interesting take
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Salary cap + floor would kick rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Spring Break My Heart posted:Salary cap + floor would kick rear end Any instrument to artificially restrict salary is a bad thing. Der Meister posted:This CBA sucks. Tony Clark proved with this new CBA that he was going to behave in the exact same way as Weiner: "Oh, let's just all get along, and yes sir yes sir, please let us have a few table scraps."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
MLB definitely needs a floor. Tired of the Marlins pulling this crap. The Pirates and Royals used to be bad for it too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Let's all feel sad for the Yankees and Dodgers that they can't buy literally every good player in baseball
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Der Meister posted:This CBA sucks. Agreed, the players union is pretty loving stupid but is representative overall of unions in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:MLB definitely needs a floor. Tired of the Marlins pulling this crap. The Pirates and Royals used to be bad for it too. A floor would be great, and if Tony Clark had balls he would push for something like that. Instead he rolled over for a soft cap so there wouldn't be an international draft, and that's something Marvin Miller and Don Fehr both would have gone to the mats for. But after them, the MLBPA has been led by first an attorney specializing in economic law who was all too open to "playing nice," and now a former player who learned everything about union leadership from that spineless lawyer. The Game, by Jon Pessah (which is a pretty good companion piece to The Lords of the Realm, even if Pessah's Yankee fandom comes through far too often), even illustrates Fehr as being not entirely comfortable with Weiner taking over, because his qualifications were "can write contracts and has been in the same room as me for several labor negotiations," but Fehr simply refused to go through another round of negotiations with Selig, whom he absolutely detested. That Fehr stepped down from the MLBPA only to go to war with Gary loving Bettman as the head of the NHLPA like two days later should tell you everything you need to know about how absolutely done he was with baseball.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Yeah the poor players how will they eat
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Yeah the poor players how will they eat You can't be serious with this. You're siding with literal billionaires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
They'll eat lizards as a minor leaguer to pay their union dues
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Players please elect Scott Boras head of the union thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
players' union president alex "a. rod" rodriguez
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Let's all feel sad for the Yankees and Dodgers that they can't buy literally every good player in baseball You know who has a salary cap? The NBA. You know who has "all the best players went to two teams" as a problem? The NBA. That said, I'm also not one of these "abolish the luxury tax" types crying about big cities reducing payroll for a single year. I don't think the answer is to cry for the union to demand $400m payrolls, 70% of which go to men over 30. All of this is a song and dance around the true elephant in the room: Players don't make good salary during the years of their career where they contribute the most on the field, comparatively they make much more warming benches. The pro-union arguments comes down to encouraging dead money for exhausted veterans, but that's the only avenue players make money in the way things are currently structured. The whole drat book needs to be blown up. Inspector_666 posted:[tweet] Except there is a lot of balance in who is going to playoffs right now. I think there is competitive balance already and it's doing it's job. Saying "well the Yankees have only won once this decade so I don't see the need for competitive balance" is like, rear end-backwards. No, we don't need MORE competitive balance than we have now, but what we have now is a hell of a lot more than the days of the 90s Braves. R.D. Mangles posted:players' union president alex "a. rod" rodriguez A-Rod 2020. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You know who has a salary cap? The NBA. You know who has "all the best players went to two teams" as a problem? The NBA. I mean nobody specifically cares about billionaires vs. millionaires on a conceptual level even though people pay lip service to that. It’s that they’re just fans of teams that they believe would actually have $400m payrolls if there weren’t any restrictions and they want their team to be able to buy every player so that they’ll be even more likely to win all the time. The fact that it doesn’t play out with the Yankees literally winning every World Series that is because you have to play games and players rarely perform exactly to expectations but it’s just being disingenuous to argue the Yankees aren’t at a fundamental advantage as it is over say, the Royals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You know who has a salary cap? The NBA. You know who has "all the best players went to two teams" as a problem? The NBA. So let me ask this - does the Charles Finley model make the most sense? Because it honestly sounds like the best option - the best players get the most money based on performance during peak years, teams can afford to spend more year to year because there's no fear of dead money long term, and you won't have crap like Mike Trout making near league minimum after winning an MVP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I mean nobody specifically cares about billionaires vs. millionaires on a conceptual level even though people pay lip service to that. It’s that they’re just fans of teams that they believe would actually have $400m payrolls if there weren’t any restrictions and they want their team to be able to buy every player so that they’ll be even more likely to win all the time. lmao, I specifically care about Labor vs Management when it comes to p much any industry. I don't give a gently caress that it's in sports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
GPTribefan posted:So let me ask this - does the Charles Finley model make the most sense? Because it honestly sounds like the best option - the best players get the most money based on performance during peak years, teams can afford to spend more year to year because there's no fear of dead money long term, and you won't have crap like Mike Trout making near league minimum after winning an MVP. I don't know what you're talking about specifically, but the way you lay it out makes sense. The way things are currently structured is a sort of attempt at an "everybody wins" scenario: The big-market teams 'win' because they can spend as much as they like for a period, and it's really more about their ability to stomach wasted money on league-issued penalties than anything. The players 'win' is that they have guaranteed contracts and enough incentive for big spenders to spend that they actually do so. In this regard, the small market 'win', the competitive balance, basically hinges on how many active players you can have on a roster at once. The system's punitive measures come in the form of old used-up veterans who refuse to give up their spots, won't be traded, etc. It's where the Yankees were five years ago, and it's where the Giants are going today. If you had lots and lots of mans on an active roster that could play in every game, teams with gargantuan payrolls would have room for these "burdens" as well as cheaper young players, and you'd have the teams that scout and develop well AND have a lot of money winning all the time. Look at it this way: The guy over there in my avatar hitting the dinger? Half the reason Giants fans love him so much is because of how affordable he is. Some of that is on him and his agent (there was a point where he could have negotiated a harder bargain and didn't, and from all reports he wasn't unhappy about it) but the fact of the matter is that my favorite team is basically exploiting the labor of it's rotation ace because he's much more valuable than his salary suggests relative to his peers. In this system, it's practical for a fan to desire to exploit under-valued players ("we need more cheap young players"). It's also practical for a fan to desire that when the fastball slows and the injuries pile on that some other team might be stuck with the negative equity. That said, ethically, I think the former is more wrong than the latter. The Giants problem isn't that the luxury tax exists, it's that the answer to the luxury tax is having more positions filled by underpaid labor, and the labor on their farm isn't competitive enough to be sufficiently exploitative. It's only natural to wish people who have lost the ability to compete at the top level not continue to drag their MLB careers beyond it's freshness date on for guaranteed money. The ideal is a young person shows up, is established, gets paid, and retires healthy when no longer competitive. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't know what you're talking about specifically, but the way you lay it out makes sense. Long story short - in 1974, as free agency was about to be out on the table for the first time, A's owner Charlie Finley said gently caress Marvin Miller and what he wants, let's make every player a free agent every year. The owners laughed him out of the room, fearing it would lead to high salaries. They ratified Miller's proposal, and suddenly salaries skyrocketed and Finley sat back and shook his head because they all shot themselves in the foot. His idea would essentially have made the most sense for everyone. Top players would get paid big bucks - there's no fear of being married to a guy for more than 1 season, so they can pay more without fear of having a dead contract. The player gets paid based on performance and gets the most money in their peak years. Bench guys and lesser players get paid less, but have more suitors for their services. Teams are encouraged to spend more because it only takes 1 year to year it all down, so tanking and 5 year rebuilds aren't the norm. Draft picks and international guys go to the bottom of the pecking order, meaning there's less pressure on absolutely HAVING to get the draft right. Overall, you'd theoretically see an INCREASE in average salary - guys like Trout, Harper, and Bryant would get insane amounts and not have to worry about underpaying themselves. The only downside is a lack of long term security for the player, which is honestly the way it should be. Guys like Pujols wouldn't be getting 25 million a year in his useless years, he instead would have gotten 30 million a year in his primes years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
As a fan I don't like seeing rosters turn over every year, so I'm not big on Finley's plan, even though I see the upshot. Hard caps lead to the same churning though, so f that poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:As a fan I don't like seeing rosters turn over every year, so I'm not big on Finley's plan, even though I see the upshot. Maybe make an amendment where you can limit years, like 4 years so people are less likely to be married to atrocious deals but still have to exercise caution
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Maybe make an amendment where you can limit years, like 4 years so people are less likely to be married to atrocious deals but still have to exercise caution The only reason the atrocious deals really matter is the luxury tax, though. Maybe make released players not count towards the calculation? Player still gets paid, team gets to write the salary off, everybody wins? Maybe I'm naive, but I think if the Angels and Yankees could get rid of Pujols and Ellsbury without still having to factor their salaries in, they would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Have the front offices go to free agency every year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
New Concept Hole posted:Have the front offices go to free agency every year. noooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
No Brain Trusts, No Dynasties. Only Chaos 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 02:07
|
|