1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

FA and the next CBA

Discussion in 'Houston Astros' started by Stros4me, Jan 16, 2019.

  1. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    Just doing some rough math... The total payroll of all teams in 2008 was about 1.5 billion. In 2018 the total was about 4.3 billion.

    Those poor poor players. If only everyone in America could have their wages nearly triple every 10 years.....
     
  2. astros123

    astros123 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    6,756
    Those "poor" players can switch to other sports and we lose our talent pool. As the nba/nfl as demonstrated its a players game for all franchises nowadays.

    I always find it so funny when fans point fingers at players yet dont say **** to the owners. Owners are signing record tv deals while at the same time raising concessions and ticket prices and we're all suppose to feel bad for them.
     
  3. astros123

    astros123 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    6,756
    Tv deals are getting massive because companies are desperate to get any prime time that they can get. Look at the ridiculous deal that fox gave WWE for their shitty thursday night smackdown.

    The bottom line is theres a MASSIVE drift between players and the owners at the moment. Anyone who doesnt see a stoppage is being naive
     
  4. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    The split is right around 50/50... better than the NFL and about the same as the NBA. Stop making stuff up.

    In December 2015, MLBPA executive director Tony Clark told the L.A. Times that the players’ share of revenue was “as close to 50 percent as it has been in a long time.” A year later, upon negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement that took effect in 2017, Clark said his expectation was that the split would “stay right in that general area,” remarking that the union “wouldn’t have agreed to the deal otherwise.” A 50–50 split seems to be the target that the Players Association has set for itself.



    https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/...haring-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred
     
  5. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    What could the players possibly "demand" at this point? I agree that players are now feeling the brunt of a severe market correction of a system that was previously designed to reward past performance, but this was the system THEY vouched for.

    The last strike was due to the concerns over a possible salary cap... this time around, a salary cap (with corresponding floor) would actually improve older players chances of getting deals in place (with teams with cap space).
     
  6. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    Assuming the split was 50-50 in 2017, revenues increase at the same rate payrolls increased prior to 2017, and 2019 payroll ends up around the same as 2018, split would likely end up around 46% for 2019. Players botched the last CBA.
     
  7. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    Double minimum salaries and have subsequent salaries increase at same rate as revenue.
    Make some version of WAR standard for arbitration. Arbitration salaries should increase at rate of revenue. Let arbitrator make judgement call on salary instead of having to pick either owner or player suggested salary.
    Make players and owners escrow money. If 50-50 split gets out of whack, money that was placed in escrow would be used to mitigate the difference.
     
  8. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    I think arbitration is part of the problem and should go away. Players should be given the option to sign a multi-year guaranteed deal at or around the time they would currently be arbitration eligible. If the team is unwilling to sign players for that length, they have an option to become a free agent.

    Also, the minimum salary is not the players biggest issue at the moment... its veterans career earning potential being effectively capped as teams are unwilling to offer long term deals for "older" players (although I agree that the minimums should be increased).
     
  9. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    In the end, an NBA like model makes more sense for baseball. Max salaries that increase/decrease for certain types of players, luxury tax implications for big spending teams, and 3-4 year "rookie" deals that are loaded with incentives/team options that make more financial sense for players to stick with their original teams.

    The biggest issue is not getting big market teams to spend money. Its getting smaller to mid market teams to spend money.
     
  10. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    On first part, it is unlikely for owners to grant anything that drastic.

    On second part, to make teams sign "older" players, there needs to be a reason for teams to do it. Teams aren't going to give them money unless it significantly helps them win. Young players as a group appear to have gotten better and as a group have gotten significantly cheaper relative to "older" players due to their salaries not growing with revenue. Right now, it costs too much money to significantly improve a team with free agents a lot of times versus taking a chance by playing young guys. Can't make older players better and can't make younger players worse for the most part. To give teams a financial incentive to sign more "older" players, making younger players more expensive seems the logical choice. Also, making luxury tax higher would help out a lot.
     
  11. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    Attendance was also down 4% in 2018. We don't know what impact that had on total revenues.
     
  12. DaChamp

    DaChamp Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    136
    Agree with all of this, and it's ironic that a salary cap, had one been agreed to years ago, probably would have resulted in the players being better off now if a salary floor were in place.

    If I were trying to improve the players position overall, I'd be focused on ways to allow the players to reach free agency earlier. For example, I think Keuchel probably would like/accept a 5 year/120M contract. Probably no team wants to offer a 31 year old with his tools such a contract. But they probably would bite if he were 28 or 29 years old. And there are a lot of guys in that boat, i.e., guys who become free agents at age 31, when they only have a couple more prime years of their career in front of them.

    So I'd try to slice a year off team control, and I'd also try to lower the Rule 5 draft to make teams promote a player to the 40 man roster within 2 or 3 years. Right now they can bury a guy in the minors for up to five years before having to put him on a 40 man roster and starting his clock to free agency. The problem with my proposal is that it would primarily help guys who are 18 and under, and it would take a while to help guys who are veterans. Guys who run the players union are looking out for ways to improve things for players who are currently in their late 20s/early 30s, so they are looking for quick fixes.
     
  13. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    Players are getting it from both sides. Rough estimation has the MLB payroll down about 400 million from where it should be assuming 4.8% growth since 2017 (MLB payrolls increased by about 4.8% from 2004 to 2017). Yankees and Dodgers account for at least $100 million combined under what should be expected of them if there was a motivating factor for them to spend money (i.e., why should they spend on free agents when their club controlled players are just as good in most cases). Michael Ilitch dying accounts for another 100 million. I think the rest is basically caused by lack of parity at the moment causing teams to lack motivation to spend (i.e., teams spend money to get into a playoff series).

    My understanding is that attendance is a small factor in total revenues. TV deals typically pay for players as they are known quantities.
     
  14. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    I agree with all of this.

    The solution would be to not have them be "older" when they hit free agency. Younger players getting either earlier free agency or guaranteed extensions earlier would be part of making younger players more expensive.
     
  15. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    I think teams that invest the time/$$$ to develop players in baseball (which is far different from every other league) should be rewarded with control years. But they shouldn't necessarily be "cheap" control years. As I mentioned above, once a player has declared themselves established (basically as they enter their arbitration years), there needs to be a mandatory team option kick in to extend. If the team declines, the player gets free agency.

    To your earlier point, 3-4 years ago (which Keuchel was 27), the Astros did offer him a 5 year extension. He as advised to hold off. In the end, he did make some of it back up in arbitration raises, and the Astros would have been paying more for less performance (had his injury plagued years of 2016 and 2017 duplicated themselves), but he would end up with big guaranteed money till his age 33 or 34 season (and if I had to bet, he's probably going to have to settle for a 3 years deal now).
     
  16. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    How do you get small and mid market teams buy off on less control? It is one thing to fight for a 50-50 split, it is another to fight for a 50-50 split in a way that will cripple half of the teams chance to win. It would probably be as easy to get the Yankees to agree to 100% revenue sharing as it would be for the Rays to accept only 3 years of club control.

    That is purpose of arbitration years unless you are saying the arbitration years should be the same pay as free agency. If that is the case, control means nothing as whether they extend their own player or someone else, it will be the same cost. I am for arbitration being more costly as its increases have not kept up with free agency.
     
    #36 Joe Joe, Jan 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  17. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,913
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    Right now, nobody thinks twice about a small market team letting a player go.... they've been there usually for 4-6 years, they've probably had their best years, and most fans understand some of the market forces at play (and in some fan bases.... like the Oakland market, some fans actually "prefer" not getting saddled with huge contracts... some Astros fans in here have voiced similar preferences).

    With a new system, when small market teams only choose to get 3 years of club control, they're really going to run out of excuses. My premise is that a lot of small market teams will end up paying more money for the full club control option years as it would still give them a better chance to compete and those extensions would still be cheaper than any possible free agents out there. You don't see many NBA teams refusing to re-sign their own rookie free agents. You don't see many NFL teams losing guys they really want to keep (or they franchise them). Baseball has a built-in system that locks in the players for longer than any other "rookie" wage scale. I think teams should opt to keep those years, just pay more for them.

    Yes, they should get the going free agent rate/year for arbitration years... and if a team doesn't want to pay it, they're unrestricted free agents. Arbitration is also an awkward year to year thing. I want teams to be on the hook for all the years, regardless of market size, or the player gets to be a free agent before those years ever exist. The Astros sort of did a mini-deal with Springer, buying out 2 of the 3 years. if this model existed now, they'd be forced to make a choice this off-season on Correa (extend him for what you think he's worth for the next 3 or however long you want to extend him, or he becomes a free agent now).

    I feel most teams would end up extending their homegrown player once they have a reasonable idea of their abilities. And what they "should" get paid would largely be based on the same market forces influencing free agency now, except as has been mentioned, teams will end up paying more for prime years. Thus younger players get more $$ at an earlier time, and teams/owners aren't as hesitant about giving going rate money for players in their prime.

    Also, this is where a "max" or "super max" type contract structure would end up making more sense (one that adjusts/escalates based on inflation vs. revenues).
     
    #37 Nick, Jan 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  18. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    ...and cash. Small to mid market teams aren't going to suddenly start spending more money unless they have a shot at the playoffs. Making it harder for them to win by removing half of their controlled players is counterproductive to get them to spend more. This is not the NBA where one or two good draft picks can build a team with ready to play players. This is not the NFL in which every team gets a good portion of the national TV money.

    There is no chance the owners of the Rays, Marlins, and probably 10-15 other teams would consider this without near 100% revenue sharing. Though, with that much revenue sharing, current system is fine.

    And on free agents, they provide about 30% of the value to a team and get about 75% of the money (rough estimates). Arbitration players probably provide about 35%* of the value to a team and probably get 15-20% of the payroll. Pre-arbitration players provide about 35% of the value to a team and get about 5-10% of the payroll. Free agents aren't the ones being underpaid. If the desire is to get money to those that deserve it, doubling minimum salary does more than cutting out arbitration, and doesn't hurt small market teams significantly.

    *heard several times that club controlled players contribute about 70% of the WAR and I split the difference equally.
     
  19. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    The other side of this is that forcing a choice between the two proposed numbers forces both sides to be reasonable. If the arbitrator can pick any number, there's less incentive for either side to propose something realistic.

    Have there been any major new TV deals in the last couple of years? Revenues are mostly TV and might not be increasing at the same pace anymore - 2004-2017 was a big boom in those TV deals.
     
  20. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,839
    Likes Received:
    13,895
    I'm not aware of any other arbitration that does this. If someone doesn't propose something realistic, their argument will hold little to no weight in final decision. Having the either/or arbitration gives teams an incentive not to negotiate after filing or even before in good faith. Teams have the most information (i..e., they know every number they will file as well as all other teams [allowed by CBA]) and are much more likely to win an either/or debate. The best arbitration is when a settlement is made before arbitrator decides. If the arbitrator decides, I am firmly in support of arbitrator picking a number he fills is best regardless of filings instead of picking the best of the two.
    To my knowledge, TV deals aren't flat (i.e., they increase over time, though not as much as a new deal). My numbers were also based on payrolls. I expect the true number likely fluctuates between 3-10% in a given year. If the number is 3%, nearly all of the stagnation would be caused by the Yankees, Dodgers, and Ilitch. I am not tied strongly to that number and it is just a best guess. I do doubt that Yankees and Dodgers are the only teams pocketing extra money because spending a lot in free agency does not dramatically increase a teams' World Series Odds.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now