Idea.....I need pros & cons

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

LOL brainwashed.

Yep. Brainwashed (note: my phone autocorrected to "braindead", which...)

If I'm the owner I make the rules. It's my money. Don't like it? Go elsewhere.

The same owners who are fighting to keep their, as pointed out by Brad K, legal monopoly.

You have no right to someone else's money.

Here's where you can choose to see the brainwashing, or not.
It's thee *owners* who are taking the *workers'* money.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

LOL brainwashed. If I'm the owner I make the rules. It's my money. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. You have no right to someone else's money. If you want to beg, you should be on your knees. You have no grounds to demand.

They act like this is a new concept.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

They act like this is a new concept.

No. A middle age concept, that's past it's prime

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

They act like this is a new concept.

Yeah, I just thought this thread would be about how to better the current system. I didn't think it would take a turn towards revolt of the system. This thread is almost political. Me personally, I'd rather just talk about the proposal without getting into the system and greedy owners.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Yeah, I just thought this thread would be about how to better the current system. I didn't think it would take a turn towards revolt of the system. This thread is almost political. Me personally, I'd rather just talk about the proposal without getting into the system and greedy owners.

Not describing everyone, but the turn this thread took is more about some people's personal dislike of me and my past opposing opinions than it actually is about the system. That's why I use the ignore button. Because as much as some try to claim I'm intolerant of opposing opinions, it is mostly them being the intolerant ones. So they feel impelled to troll me from thread to thread as if they are getting some kind of revenge. So I put them on ignore and I don't have to engage them again.

And that is also why I like engaging with you & posters like yourself. We haven't agreed on every topic. But you have never taken it personally.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Yeah, I just thought this thread would be about how to better the current system. I didn't think it would take a turn towards revolt of the system. This thread is almost political. Me personally, I'd rather just talk about the proposal without getting into the system and greedy owners.

Yea. I apologize if my little rant derailed things. I do believe the system to be corrupt and all that but I didn't want the thread to devolve into personal attacks against CM or anyone.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Not describing everyone, but the turn this thread took is more about some people's personal dislike of me and my past opposing opinions than it actually is about the system. That's why I use the ignore button. Because as much as some try to claim I'm intolerant of opposing opinions, it is mostly them being the intolerant ones. So they feel impelled to troll me from thread to thread as if they are getting some kind of revenge. So I put them on ignore and I don't have to engage them again.

And that is also why I like engaging with you & posters like yourself. We haven't agreed on every topic. But you have never taken it personally.

Cobra Mgr is tolerant of opposing opinions and doesn't like it when posters get personal

Also Cobra Mgr

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That right there is why I can't stand the sabermetric cultists.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

Yea. I apologize if my little rant derailed things. I do believe the system to be corrupt and all that but I didn't want the thread to devolve into personal attacks against CM or anyone.

I don't entirely dislike your opinion, it just seemed out of place. What provoked the post in the first place? I know the SalCap keeps player salaries down. Then in order to help stay under the cap the NFL came up with rookie contracts, which makes it that much worse.

As far as the draft and all of these rules that seem to hold players back, what do you expect? It's an organization that sets its own rules. What ever you want to call it, they are never created with the best interest of someone else in mind.

If you want players to make the most money possible, remove the cap. Even if the NFL removed the draft and everyone was a free agent, the rookie contracts still exist. What would compel the league to do away with them?

[Ragnar]

As far as the OP goes, and like I said before, I don't see too many cons if done correctly. The one con I would see is not counting drafted players at all against the cap. The owners would never go for it. So I think at best a 25-50% cap discount. Closer to 25%. But anything like that would be an improvement.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

As far as the OP goes, and like I said before, I don't see too many cons if done correctly. The one con I would see is not counting drafted players at all against the cap. The owners would never go for it. So I think at best a 25-50% cap discount. Closer to 25%. But anything like that would be an improvement.

Then nothing would change.
The Competitive Balance Tax threshold would be adjusted to account for the "cap discount" and that fewer players would count against the CBT threshold.

The value of players that reached free agency would tank. Then their previous teams would have leverage over them to sign smaller deals.

Plus, the whole idea if trying to inventivize players to give up freedom of place of employment for cash.

This is not a good proposal for the players. They only benefit by this being a possible step in doing away with the CBT completely. But, not just go for that and skip this step

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Then nothing would change.
The Competitive Balance Tax threshold would be adjusted to account for the "cap discount" and that fewer players would count against the CBT threshold.

The value of players that reached free agency would tank. Then their previous teams would have leverage over them to sign smaller deals.

Plus, the whole idea if trying to inventivize players to give up freedom of place of employment for cash.

This is not a good proposal for the players. They only benefit by this being a possible step in doing away with the CBT completely. But, not just go for that and skip this step

Teams will resign drafted players at slightly over market value due to the cap discount. Free agents that are good enough will still be signed. Of course players go anywhere that pays them more. I don't know how you stop that.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Teams will resign drafted players at slightly over market value due to the cap discount.

Could be significant if they don't count against the cap, or only count 50% or less

Free agents that are good enough will still be signed.

Sure
At large discounts. Like we're seeing now with mid-level free agents. It'll be the same (type of) players, but with more reason to steer money away from them

Of course players go anywhere that pays them more. I don't know how you stop that.

That's the problem
The whole point is to restrict player movement by being able to pay them more

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Could be significant if they don't count against the cap, or only count 50% or less

Agreed. But not so much more than the player could get in free agency.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Sure
At large discounts. Like we're seeing now with mid-level free agents. It'll be the same (type of) players, but with more reason to steer money away from them

Free agents will take a hit. No doubt about that. The better players will be paid however. At a discount for most of them.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

That's the problem
The whole point is to restrict player movement by being able to pay them more

I really don't know what you mean by this. So what? Who cares where the player wants to be? I don't. That's how it has worked from the beginning of time. What changes would allow a player to play wherever he wants for the most amount of money? None. That's not even a realistic concept.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Agreed. But not so much more than the player could get in free agency.

Tens of millions of dollars
A team should be willing to pay them: the same amount they'd pay a comparable player+a premium for not counting against the tax+the amount the tax would have cost them+the value of any picks lost.

Free agents will take a hit. No doubt about that. The better players will be paid however. At a discount for most of them.

This is bad

I really don't know what you mean by this. So what? Who cares where the player wants to be?

People who see baseball players as humans (kind of weird' how things have shifted. It used to the the saber cultists who didn't consider the human element and thought the players were robots)
The players probably also care. Their families

This proposal creates a situation where players have to choose between taking less money or having a say in where they live
Once again, that's bad

I don't.

Ok
Weird that people who like baseball don't care about the players

That's how it has worked from the beginning of time. What changes would allow a player to play wherever he wants for the most amount of money? None. That's not even a realistic concept.

I mean, free agency
Players get to choose with fewer restrictions

[Brad K]

We have all this analysis of mostly the effect on teams over the salary cap. Most of the teams are not in this situation but analysis of the effect on them is absent. I guess this must be part of the system where the minority that has the money decides and the rest can put up or make other choices.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'd say just the opposite. Those that aren't wealthy have to go through the process put forth by those with power and money. Do you want that money? Go through their process. They have every right to set the rules when it's their money being handed out. You have two choices, dive in, or let someone else take your place.

I'm reminded of the observation that behind every great fortune is a great crime. Not the type of people likely to function as benevolent dictators. Which of course, you're not claiming. The exact opposite in fact.

[Brad K]

From the outside some of us can look at the situation and believe the small market teams get screwed, but it seems perhaps the small market teams don't care. Reality is they're in an industry where they're guaranteed a profit for breathing. How often does an MBL team lose money? And bankruptcy is nearly unheard of. It must be that as a group MLB teams management is much more competent than the management of companies in almost any other industry. What's the chance of that?

There are other industries where being an owner is a license to print money. The NFL, franchise dealers of the big auto makers, power companies... I could go on but that's enough for the example. What these have in common is some sort of anti competitive market manipulation. In the case of sports, the most visible is the cost of labor. Its much less apparent for auto dealers but the auto makers limit the number of appointed dealers per population. Each has a marketing area sufficient to support it without another dealer present. Power companies are regulated monopolies and no matter how inefficient regulators allow a "reasonable" profit.

So maybe small market MLB teams really don't care. They can make money as long as they can convince fans they're trying despite being dealt a bad hand. And actually maybe make fans feel its their fault for not supporting the team more.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Tens of millions of dollars
A team should be willing to pay them: the same amount they'd pay a comparable player+a premium for not counting against the tax+the amount the tax would have cost them+the value of any picks lost.

They would not have to do this. All they would have to do is offer them over market value. In other words, more than they could get from any other team that doesn't get a discount. If the player doesn't like that he'll be making less if he leaves. You won't have to add that discount into his pay because he won't get that elsewhere if you don't.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

This proposal creates a situation where players have to choose between taking less money or having a say in where they live
Once again, that's bad

Again, player have always done this. You want to play for 50 million here or 75 million there. Cry me a river.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Ok
Weird that people who like baseball don't care about the players

Nothing weird about it. I don't care about players, I care about the success of the team I like. I could not possibly care less if the player is happy where he lives, what he eats for breakfast, or if his kids misbehave. I don't care about their lives in the slightest.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I'm reminded of the observation that behind every great fortune is a great crime. Not the type of people likely to function as benevolent dictators. Which of course, you're not claiming. The exact opposite in fact.

Like I said in a different post. Companies, businesses, organizations, or whatever you call them, they are not created to benefit someone else. They make money, or a fortune, because what they provide benefits others to some extent. There is nothing that I can think of that would compel them to be fair that would work outside their best interest.

I'm all too familiar with this crap. I've been in unions all of my life. I'm a high school grad so I have very little leverage when it comes to commanding a higher salary. So I choose a union.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

They would not have to do this.

I did not say they would have to do this

Again, player have always done this. You want to play for 50 million here or 75 million there.

False
This is the situation that this proposal creates

Nothing weird about it.

It's so weird that it's its own psychological disorder