|
How much does the luxury tax threshold change every year? Maybe this is some kind of perfect storm that's pitting a bad free agency class along with rising demands for salaries against a disproportionate rise in the luxury tax threshold, and as a result teams are choosing this year to get under the tax to "reset" their tax burden. Doesn't help that teams like the Marlins are publicly dumping salary which puts the free agent salary burden on fewer teams.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Timby posted:Only nine position players have signed contracts and there are 136 free agents still available with pitchers and catchers reporting in 40 days; if you don't think the luxury tax is acting as a soft cap I don't know what to tell you. Explosionface posted:He's just saying if the owners wanted to, they could exceed the cap. As it is, they want the money, so they let the tax dictate their actions a la proper salary cap. This  I'm just saying that regardless of the mechanism - barring a hard cap on team spending - the ultimate issue holding back player salary is penny pinching ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Poque posted:How much does the luxury tax threshold change every year? 2018 $197,000,000 2019 $206,000,000 2020 $208,000,000 2021 $210,000,000 Sydin posted:the ultimate issue holding back player salary is penny pinching ownership. Well, sure, that's been the case ever since Miller negotiated the first Uniform Player Contract and Basic Agreement: Ownership has always tried to get labor to save them (owners) from themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Timby posted:Only nine position players have signed contracts and there are 136 free agents still available with pitchers and catchers reporting in 40 days; if you don't think the luxury tax is acting as a soft cap I don't know what to tell you. The luxury tax is only part of the problem. Now more than ever (since the commissioner of baseball straight up said it) tanking is the best way get a better team. The way you win is with home grown talent, the way you get that talent is the draft. Signing big free agents makes you spend money, lose draft picks (based on the QO system) and will make you win meaningless games that gets you worse draft spots which gets you worse talent and a smaller bonus pool to work with. If half the teams in baseball aren't looking to compete next year, then you could basically eliminate them from free agent predictions. The Phillies aren't remotely close to the cap and usually have a huge payroll but they aren't spending because they aren't going to compete next year, same with a bunch of other teams. The Giants are the only team near the luxury cap that aren't (or shouldn't be) competing this year. I don't think they'd swing their season around if they signed all of the remaining free agents. Plus the only free agent I wouldn't be furious with my team spending $100M on is Darvish. If Hosmer really had a 7/147 offer he should take it. I'm glad the Angels signed Cozart because I was terrified they were going to sign Moustakas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Let's not forget Darvish was caught SMOKING (underage) and GAMBLING (also underage) in a pachinko bar, while having a cool haircut and a leather jacket. Who knows if he's learned his lesson or not after the Fighters put him on probation 12 years ago. Bad dude. Real bad egg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Poque posted:How much does the luxury tax threshold change every year? Maybe this is some kind of perfect storm that's pitting a bad free agency class along with rising demands for salaries against a disproportionate rise in the luxury tax threshold, and as a result teams are choosing this year to get under the tax to "reset" their tax burden. Doesn't help that teams like the Marlins are publicly dumping salary which puts the free agent salary burden on fewer teams. I have nothing to support this theory but my guess is that player expenses are finally starting to really catch up to revenues and so teams are having to dial back salary for the very simple reason that the money isn't there and or ownership doesn't want to spend it. TV revenue in particular grew pretty dramatically in every major sport over the last 20 years or so and it is now leveling off in every major sport, so deals and calculations made under the assumption that particular trend would continue are now looking a lot squisher. See: Monday Night Football, or just about everything related to the Premier League for examples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I have nothing to support this theory but my guess is that player expenses are finally starting to really catch up to revenues and so teams are having to dial back salary for the very simple reason that the money isn't there and or ownership doesn't want to spend it.  It's 3 years old, but I doubt the trend has changed much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Timby posted:2018 $197,000,000 lol that's below the rate of inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Popete posted:lol that's below the rate of inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Popete posted:lol that's below the rate of inflation. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Popete posted:lol that's below the rate of inflation. I've had a surprising amount of success requesting the yearly inflation rate added to my raise % each year once I explain that the figure they quoted was effectively treading water. What I'm saying is make me MLBPA president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Popete posted:lol that's below the rate of inflation. I also don't understand the 9m jump between 2018 and 2019, then the return to just a 2m step-up after that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
The Braves designated a guy so Braves fans are on pins and needles waiting for a trade announcement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Is part of it potentially that teams don't want to sign these players for 7-10 years? Looking around the league there are almost zero contracts in that range that have paid off well for the club. If I didn't know better, I'd say GM's are learning to stay away from long costly contacts. I know it isn't in their best interest and the players should absolutely ask for long contracts, but if Arrieta and Hosmer were looking for 20-25 mil AAV over 3-4 years they'd probably already be signed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
humpthewind posted:Is part of it potentially that teams don't want to sign these players for 7-10 years? Looking around the league there are almost zero contracts in that range that have paid off well for the club. If I didn't know better, I'd say GM's are learning to stay away from long costly contacts. I don't really understand why players don't ask for shorter deals with the same AAV when teams balk at long-term contracts. The benefits you get through the MLBPA like health insurance and stuff applies even if you're not playing, and the money is still guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:I don't really understand why players don't ask for shorter deals with the same AAV when teams balk at long-term contracts. The benefits you get through the MLBPA like health insurance and stuff applies even if you're not playing, and the money is still guaranteed. Dudes at that stage of their life probably have families and kids in school that they don't want to uproot or live away from for a large majority of the year. A lot can be said for stability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
tadashi posted:The Braves designated a guy so Braves fans are on pins and needles waiting for a trade announcement. so I'm guessing they forgot the braves needed a slot for preston tucker?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
humpthewind posted:Dudes at that stage of their life probably have families and kids in school that they don't want to uproot or live away from for a large majority of the year. A lot can be said for stability. I guess. It seems like a lot of guys don't move to where the team is full-time until later in their careers anyway, though. It seems like everybody flies south as soon as the season ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:It's more that apparently labor relations don't matter if you're one of the 700ish guys that manages to be a MLB player each year, because it stops mattering once you're arbitrarily rich. It's that it doesn't actually matter because it's a red herring. Fans don't actually care about labor relations. It's because rich team's fans want to purchase the All-Star team and it provides a seemingly non-evil reason to remove the perceived restriction on buying literally every good player.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Timby posted:The Yankees are always in "the World Series is our divine right of kings" mode. As they should be. Because it is their divine right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Look nobody could possibly have a legitimate belief in the idea the labor has a right to the value it creates. That's insane. Its much more likely that a group of fans from a variety of teams are merely pretending to believe in labor rights in order to justify the creation of a Yankee super team. This definitely makes a lot of sense is not at all a totally bizarre and nonsensical thing to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
humpthewind posted:Is part of it potentially that teams don't want to sign these players for 7-10 years? Looking around the league there are almost zero contracts in that range that have paid off well for the club. If I didn't know better, I'd say GM's are learning to stay away from long costly contacts. It’s actually because there are more position players available than starting jobs where free agents would be a substantial upgrade and because pitchers are considered insanely risky to give big free agent deals to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I do think its working as a soft cap but I also think its only really working so effectively so because this year's Free Agent class is so relatively unspectacular, especially compared to next year's and who clubs might be wanting to save money for. I'll get concerned about the bigger picture if next year's monster class has the same problems. Lol what
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Fans don't actually care about labor relations. Fans (in the general sense) may not, but the owners sure as poo poo do. And since they're the independently-wealthy individuals who sign the checks at the end of the day, how they construct their budgets matters to them and the 29 other ownership groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
I mean it's easy to lay out the reasons why these players aren't signed without resorting to a conspiracy theory about collusion (which incidentally could be applied to any form of compensation that exists). Eric Hosmer isn't getting signed because he's posted a WAR of 1 or less twice in the last two years and plays a position that's easily filled by almost anyone and has obviously over-rated defensive capabilities. He's STILL going to get like $140,000,000.00. The fact he won't get $200,000,000 is hardly evidence of a conspiracy to rob him of all of his RIGHTFUL MONEY that owners are obligated to pay him. Yu Darvish isn't getting signed because he's 31, had Tommy John surgery within the last 3 years and performed horribly in the last two, humongous starts he had. Player contracts are guaranteed, the elbow reinjury rate to pitchers who have had a first Tommy John surgery is several times higher than those who have never had it, and 45% of players who have a second TJS are unable to ever return to baseball. Pitcher contracts are risky. Jake Arrieta is also 31 and has a track record which relies heavily on 2 statistically aberrant seasons considering his track record otherwise. Again, teams aren't looking to give out contracts that pay progressively more each season for seasons that aren't in a player's prime. JD Martinez plays poo poo defense, is 30, has a significant injury history and the kind of contract he's looking for is going to cover a bunch of years out of his prime and he's the wrong kind of player to have locked up to a huge deal when he's not in his prime. This is why teams are bidding so high on Hosmer when you wouldn't think they would be. A 7-year deal doesn't actually cover a bunch of years out of his prime. None of the non-signings reek of an evil Manfred conspiracy. Machado and Harper are going to get paid insane amounts of money because the risk management factors are way different on generational talent in their mid 20s. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
You don't baseball players earning money, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:You don't baseball players earning money, do you? Don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Something something child's game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
I think the luxury tax is a pretty good compromise between a hard cap and a billion dollar Yankees payroll. The players' share of the pie is shrinking, but there are better ways to rectify that: - Salary floor. No more hard tanks like the Padres or Astros did. Jeter doesn't give Stanton away if there was a floor of like $100 million. - Increase pre-arb salaries. Like, players make 500k their first year, $1M in year two, $2.5M in year three. Young guys would then make more in arbitration since they'd start from a higher baseline. - Throw the qualifying offer system in the dumpster where it belongs. - Also trash the international bonus pools. I'm OK with some limits on signing bonuses; giving $30M to a teenager like Moncada who's years away from the big leagues is nuts. How about a per-player limit, like you can only give an international prospect up to $5M, but sign as many as you want? A competent union would've asked for this stuff in return for the luxury tax, but, alas,
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
a salary floor doesn't really deter teams from dumping all the salary, most floors have the stipulation that the difference between payroll and the floor gets paid out to the players the luxury tax would have worked if it was based on league profits like it does in the NBA. that would probably put the tax threshold way higher than the current one. the union should also be regularly auditing the books of each team but that would be too much competence; I would absolutely not be surprised if the league begins to make NFL style moves to depress salaries (hard cap is next, and some kind of franchise tag after that) Carlosologist fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not against the Luxury Tax per se, but the way it's been implemented and the new punishments are terrible. Pretty much I agree with all of this except the signing limits on international players. If a team wants to gamble $30m on a prospect years away from the bigs, let them.The Pussy Boss posted:I think the luxury tax is a pretty good compromise between a hard cap and a billion dollar Yankees payroll. The players' share of the pie is shrinking, but there are better ways to rectify that:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I mean it's easy to lay out the reasons why these players aren't signed without resorting to a conspiracy theory about collusion (which incidentally could be applied to any form of compensation that exists). Lorenzo Cain is clearly worth $100,000,000 and the Giants would be tripping over themselves to pay him if it weren't for that drat luxury tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:You don't baseball players earning money, do you? He would play for free if they'd let him Tom Gorman posted:Let's not forget Darvish was caught SMOKING (underage) and GAMBLING (also underage) in a pachinko bar, while having a cool haircut and a leather jacket. Who knows if he's learned his lesson or not after the Fighters put him on probation 12 years ago. Also he selfishly strikes a bunch of dudes out instead of inducing weak contact
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Good Dog posted:Lorenzo Cain is clearly worth $100,000,000 and the Giants would be tripping over themselves to pay him if it weren't for that drat luxury tax. It's the draft picks, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:I think the luxury tax is a pretty good compromise between a hard cap and a billion dollar Yankees payroll. The players' share of the pie is shrinking, but there are better ways to rectify that: You forgot eliminating the draft entirely in your master plan to make your favored rich team able to sign every single good player. The salary floor idea is dumb anyways because if you put a gun to Peter Seidler's head and told the Padres to buy players until they got to $110,000,000 they wouldn't just get good and it's a totally artificial way of wasting team resources on player development. There's also the fact that the union doesn't support a salary floor because owners would never accept one with out a hard salary cap. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I mean it's easy to lay out the reasons why these players aren't signed without resorting to a conspiracy theory about collusion (which incidentally could be applied to any form of compensation that exists). Part of the reason that this is such a weak free agency class is that teams now aggressively try to lock up any guy who shows any talent to an early extension that usually winds up being below market. Mike Trout is a perfect example. If he hadn't signed his extension he would have free agency this year and teams would be trying to sign him to $500+ million contracts. Instead the best player of this generation and someone who is probably an all time great is on an extremely team friendly deal. Why did Trout sign a deal that is likely hundreds of millions of dollars below his market value? Because he was a kid being paid league minimum and hey its still a lot of money. I can't really blame him, I probably would have done the same thing. But ultimately this suppresses the overall value of players. But what about a player who was never interested in signing an extension like Harper? He was paid league minimum until he qualified for arbitration and even after arbitration he is still paid significantly below his value as a player on the open market. Even if he leaves after this season, the Nationals have gotten a tremendous value from him. These players are both extreme examples but they show why free agency has become a bad value for teams. If you can draft or otherwise acquire a good young player who is team controllable and paid significantly below market value why wouldn't you? Why pay the 9 million per WAR or whatever it is the market is valuing it at these days when you can have Harper put up 9 WAR while making 2 million? And eventually this sort of small scale young guys manipulation bleeds over into the rest of the market, leading to crap free agent markets like this one where guys who would have been signed to big rear end deals early in the offseason a few years ago are now going to have to wind up settling for smaller deals in spring. Over time this stuff effects the value of every player. This is by design of ownership and the league, and it all works together with the way they have implemented the luxury tax as a soft cap. They aren't colluding in a dark keep cackling like evil necromancers, they learned their lesson from when that blew up in their faces before. They are subtly leveraging their power to suppress the value of players anyway they can, and they are doing a pretty drat good job of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Putting up arguably the two best position players in baseball as an example of a typical situation isn't exactly good faith e: There's definitely something to be said for competitive balance. You don't want 26 fanbases just checking out every year. Having wide interest in the league raises revenue for the league as a whole which in turn pushes up player salaries. Or not, I don't know I'm no expert I kind of like the NBA system where you don't have a de facto salary floor, but instead the difference between the team salary and the floor is distributed to the roster rather than forcing bad contracts Intruder fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/949062071794184192
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Isn't every team "working" on a trade at any given moment? Gimme the deets
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:You forgot eliminating the draft entirely in your master plan to make your favored rich team able to sign every single good player. The salary floor idea is dumb anyways because if you put a gun to Peter Seidler's head and told the Padres to buy players until they got to $110,000,000 they wouldn't just get good and it's a totally artificial way of wasting team resources on player development. There's also the fact that the union doesn't support a salary floor because owners would never accept one with out a hard salary cap. And every player at every level in each team's minor league system ought to make at least $40k/yr. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:57
|
|