MLB proposes a $100 million cap floor, lowering luxury tax threshold to $180 and increasing tax %

[mmc]

 

[jsnpritchett]

The Rays have the best record in the AL with a payroll a little shy of $60M.  Why should a team like that be forced to spend an extra $40M if they can win without doing so?

[Ender]

Manfred and STUPID ideas. A floor should never be implemented. A cap .... MAYBE.

[Inside Pitch]

LOL -- so, reduce the tax cap to 180 mil -- increase the penalties for going over...  And that money will go towards helping the other teams reach 100 mil...

The current tax system includes three spending tiers, the first of which is $210 million. Today, a team that goes over that amount pays a tax of at least 20 percent. In the new system proposed by MLB, the three tiers would still exist, and the new tax would be introduced below them — making for what would function as a four-tier system. Taxation would begin at 25 percent for the teams above $180 million, and the rates would climb from there.

Long story short..   How can I help the owners keep salaries down while making it look like they players are getting something.

 

 

[mmc]

28 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The Rays have the best record in the AL with a payroll a little shy of $60M.  Why should a team like that be forced to spend an extra $40M if they can win without doing so?

Because most teams who spend this little don't.  

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, mmc said:

Because most teams who spend this little don't.  

I understand that--but the Rays show that it IS possible.  And if a team decides that a rebuild is the best thing for their franchise, again, why should they be forced to stock their roster with more expensive players--even if some of that money is coming from a tax on other teams?  I'm honestly baffled by this whole idea.

[mmc]

6 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I understand that--but the Rays show that it IS possible.  And if a team decides that a rebuild is the best thing for their franchise, again, why should they be forced to stock their roster with more expensive players--even if some of that money is coming from a tax on other teams?  I'm honestly baffled by this whole idea.

Teams can help their rebuilds by taking on bad contracts for prospects (and hopefully picks as I support draft pick trading being added to next CBA), and then either buying them out or just not playing them if they don't want to.  Teams will probably be more incentivized to want to dump these guys due to the lowered ceiling

[stormngt]

28 minutes ago, Ender said:

Manfred and STUPID ideas. A floor should never be implemented. A cap .... MAYBE.

If you have a cap then you have to have a floor.  A cap minimizes salaries.   That helps only the owners.  The floor increase the salaries for the bottom guys who do not have long enough careers for the big payday

[stormngt]

40 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The Rays have the best record in the AL with a payroll a little shy of $60M.  Why should a team like that be forced to spend an extra $40M if they can win without doing so?

Because a lot of players are underpaid would get increases.

The cap would limit the nega contract deals.

[Second Base]

I love the idea of a salary floor and cap, I just really disagree with the arbitrary numbers being 100 million and 180 million. 

I think it may get confusing but setting alternative budgets, one counting toward homegrown and developed players and one for free agents. Why penalize the Rays into spending more in free agency when they could be rewarded by using those additional funds and spending freedom on extending their valuable homegrown assets?

[totdprods]

36 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I understand that--but the Rays show that it IS possible.  And if a team decides that a rebuild is the best thing for their franchise, again, why should they be forced to stock their roster with more expensive players--even if some of that money is coming from a tax on other teams?  I'm honestly baffled by this whole idea.

It would allow/force them to sign their players and keep them though, instead of having to treat it like a revolving door. They could actually keep Glasnow while he's out recovering from TJS instead of considering trades/non-tender (not in this case) this winter to make most of their money.

Maybe that helps build their identity and customer loyalty, increases attendance, helps the team, helps baseball, helps with ballparks, helps with broadcast rights, etc.

(I don't disagree with you though. As we've seen, it's not necessarily a good thing to spend on even your own guys, so being 'forced' to isn't a good thing when not necessary.)

Edited August 18, 2021 by totdprods

[failos]

This guy goes out of his way to ruin the game

[Junkballer]

52 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I love the idea of a salary floor and cap, I just really disagree with the arbitrary numbers being 100 million and 180 million. 

I think it may get confusing but setting alternative budgets, one counting toward homegrown and developed players and one for free agents. Why penalize the Rays into spending more in free agency when they could be rewarded by using those additional funds and spending freedom on extending their valuable homegrown assets?

My understanding is that the tax and floor are free-agent neutral.  While many teams will get to the floor via FAs there is nothing stopping a team from backing up the payroll truck to extend controlled players early.  Imagine if the Angels had a payroll similar to the Rays (needing to spend 30m to make the floor).  They would no doubt offer Ohtani, and possibly Adell, or Walsh, extensions that capture their arb and some FA years that would significantly increase the AAV of their contracts which would get them close to the floor. 

[ukyah]

i'm not arguing for the owner's system, but i'm definitely in favor of a floor and a cap. i'd also be in favor of having an exemption for a contract in order to facilitate a team being able to keep one of it's aging superstars on the team. something that might help players play their entire career with one team.

[T.G.]

Meanwhile in the minor leagues…

[ten ocho recon scout]

Sign ohtani to 1 mill a year, with a 29 million bonus if he plays 2 games.

Bing bong boom, no taxes

[stormngt]

6 hours ago, Second Base said:

I love the idea of a salary floor and cap, I just really disagree with the arbitrary numbers being 100 million and 180 million. 

I think it may get confusing but setting alternative budgets, one counting toward homegrown and developed players and one for free agents. Why penalize the Rays into spending more in free agency when they could be rewarded by using those additional funds and spending freedom on extending their valuable homegrown assets?

They don't have to spend on expensive free agents.  They could extend their home grown players.  They could pay the controlled more money.

[HanfordGuy]

“No taxation without playoff representation!!!”

[Revad]

33 minutes ago, HanfordGuy said:

“No taxation without playoff representation!!!”

If a team spent less than whatever floor, the would be taxed like a team going over the limit?  What if the tax was forgiven if a team made the playoffs?  Or even if the were .500.

[Stradling]

How bout a floor, who cares what number, those numbers will all be arbitrary regardless.  If a team that receives revenue sharing doesn’t reach the floor they get ZERO dollars in revenue sharing.  Also maybe look into annual salary creating the tax threshold versus average for the length of the contract.  

I love the idea of a tax exempt veteran salary.  I also would allow a team to amnesty a contract, but only one at a time. So if the Angels amnesty Upton’s contract they could amnesty another contract until Upton’s original contract would have expired.  

If you really want to make things interesting you get the players union to get insurance policies on players.  If a player is out for a majority of the season then their salary is split between the owner and the players union insurance policy.  
 

I’d also be fine with a structure where homegrown players are free from the luxury tax if those players make up x% of your total teams payroll.  So the Dodgers would pay tax on Betts, Price, Scherzer and the Turners, but not on Bellinger, Buehler, Kershaw and Jansen.  Maybe make exceptions for waiver wire guys like Justin Turner and Max Muncy. Maybe if you’ve ever paid the player league minimum then you don’t later get taxed on their big contracts if you’ve developed them to a point where they became big money players. 

[angelsnationtalk]

I like the idea of a floor but not a ceiling. 

Also, get rid of Qualifying Offers. I can't stand that rule. 

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

I like the idea of a floor but not a ceiling. 

Also, get rid of Qualifying Offers. I can't stand that rule. 

Or if you offer a QO then you get a supplemental pick after the 1st or 2nd round, but the team signing doesn’t lose a pick 

[angelsnationtalk]

1 minute ago, Hells Rainbow said:

Or if you offer a QO then you get a supplemental pick after the 1st or 2nd round, but the team signing doesn’t lose a pick 

Yeah I could settle with that, but ultimately, I don't like the rule. 

If you can't sign the player then you shouldn't be granted a pick. And if it's mandatory that you get a pick then let it be after the 3rd round. 

[Blarg]

16 hours ago, stormngt said:

Because a lot of players are underpaid would get increases.

The cap would limit the nega contract deals.

There are no underpaid major leagues players. The median income for an individual in America is $31k. For households its close to $70k. The major league minimum is $570k, that is nearly 20 times what the average American worker makes. 

Manfred is attacking the wrong problem. 

[Stradling]

30 minutes ago, Blarg said:

There are no underpaid major leagues players. The median income for an individual in America is $31k. For households its close to $70k. The major league minimum is $570k, that is nearly 20 times what the average American worker makes. 

Manfred is attacking the wrong problem. 

Well the CBA is expiring so this is the issue that will need to be addressed.