heyeaglefn wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Only if it comes with a pretty high floor.

I am not sure how high the floor would need to be with revenue sharing and a cap. Yes guys like Harper and Trout will make less but the players making less money now would make more.

Extremely doubtful
If we get to the point where a salary cap is put in place the owners will be in such power that they won't increase salaries

I mean it works in pretty much every other sport, I don't know why it wouldn't work in baseball. Baseball isn't the only sport with powerful owners.

The salaries increasing will be tied somewhat to the revenue the sport brings in. It is just like how the salary cap increases in the NFL and NBA every year when they are making money.

heyeaglefn wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:I'm okay with a cap if there's a significant floor and increase in minimums (including 40 man roster players assigned to the minors).

A salary cap with revenue sharing would be great for the min guys as well as probably will help the competitive balance for small market teams.

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Only if it comes with a pretty high floor.

I am not sure how high the floor would need to be with revenue sharing and a cap. Yes guys like Harper and Trout will make less but the players making less money now would make more.

heyeaglefn wrote:There will be a floor but I'm not sure it needs to be super high. I guess it depends on your definition of high versus what I'm thinking but you have teams at the bottom spending a little more than 60 million so how much higher would it have to go?

MoBettle wrote:you don't have 30 owners that actually want to spend money on the baseball team they own.

Uncle Milty wrote:

mtcal wrote:maybe if they got rid of some of the ridiculous stuff like where young players get bleeped in the bleep for extended years to start their careers?

Owners don't care. MLBPA doesn't care. Minor leaguers (outside of significant signing bonuses) are screwed.

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Only if it comes with a pretty high floor.

I am not sure how high the floor would need to be with revenue sharing and a cap. Yes guys like Harper and Trout will make less but the players making less money now would make more.

Extremely doubtful
If we get to the point where a salary cap is put in place the owners will be in such power that they won't increase salaries

I mean it works in pretty much every other sport, I don't know why it wouldn't work in baseball. Baseball isn't the only sport with powerful owners.

The salaries increasing will be tied somewhat to the revenue the sport brings in. It is just like how the salary cap increases in the NFL and NBA every year when they are making money.

It wouldn't work because we are not in that environment. If the environment is that this is a reasonable proposal, the players have lost most all say in how it would be implemented and thus players would not benefit.

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Only if it comes with a pretty high floor.

I am not sure how high the floor would need to be with revenue sharing and a cap. Yes guys like Harper and Trout will make less but the players making less money now would make more.

Extremely doubtful
If we get to the point where a salary cap is put in place the owners will be in such power that they won't increase salaries

I mean it works in pretty much every other sport, I don't know why it wouldn't work in baseball. Baseball isn't the only sport with powerful owners.

The salaries increasing will be tied somewhat to the revenue the sport brings in. It is just like how the salary cap increases in the NFL and NBA every year when they are making money.

It wouldn't work because we are not in that environment. If the environment is that this is a reasonable proposal, the players have lost most all say in how it would be implemented and thus players would not benefit.

But if the players could be fairly included in the negotiation, would you be ok with it?

I don't think it helps to say, "It can never be fairly done, so I won't even try to do something that might be beneficial."

JimBowdenGM
NL East Predictions
1. #Nationals (rotation and 6g vs Orioles).
2. #Braves (Wild Card)
3. #Phillies (Girardi makes a difference)
4. Mets (Best lineup since ‘06)
5. Marlins (most difficult schedule in MLB).
Note: Any of top 4 teams can make playoffs either as division champs or WC

NL Central Predictions:
1. #Reds (rotation best in division...Egenio, Moose, Nick impact in middle...Senzel breakout...Castillo CYA candidate
2. #Cardinals (Best P&De in division...offense ?)
3. #Cubs
4. #Brewers (too many changes)
5. Pirates (Rebuilding)

NL West Predictions:
1. #Dodgers (Best team in NL)
2. #DBacks (wildcard)
3. #Padres (Ready to contend year early due to 60g schedule)
4. #Rockies (Did nothing to improve team in offseason)
5. #Giants (oldest team in league...no Posey...?rotation).

AL East Predictions:
1. #Yankees (Healthy & best team in AL)
2. #Rays - WildCard (3 Cy Young candidates....platoons at most pos)
3. #BlueJays (rotation better great nucleus of young players)
4. #RedSox (Great lineup Bad Rotation)
5. #Orioles (Predicting worst record in MLB)

AL Central Predictions:
1. #Indians (Best rotation and MGR in division)
2. #WhiteSox (Love this up and coming team ready to contend),
3. #Twins (Best power lineup in division)
4. #Royals (will they trade Merrifield at deadline?)
5. #Tigers (when will they promote prospects?)

AL West Predictions:
1. #Athletics (60g sched takes away concern of young starting P’s)
2. #Astros - Wildcard (Bullpen concerns).
3. #Rangers (new stadium better starting P than Angels)
4. #Angels (Explosive lineup; questionable SP)
5. #Mariners (Kelenic & Rodriguez hurry up)

pacino wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

pacino wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Only if it comes with a pretty high floor.

I am not sure how high the floor would need to be with revenue sharing and a cap. Yes guys like Harper and Trout will make less but the players making less money now would make more.

Extremely doubtful
If we get to the point where a salary cap is put in place the owners will be in such power that they won't increase salaries

I mean it works in pretty much every other sport, I don't know why it wouldn't work in baseball. Baseball isn't the only sport with powerful owners.

The salaries increasing will be tied somewhat to the revenue the sport brings in. It is just like how the salary cap increases in the NFL and NBA every year when they are making money.

It wouldn't work because we are not in that environment. If the environment is that this is a reasonable proposal, the players have lost most all say in how it would be implemented and thus players would not benefit.

But if the players could be fairly included in the negotiation, would you be ok with it?

I don't think it helps to say, "It can never be fairly done, so I won't even try to do something that might be beneficial."

if i were a negotiator for the players, it would be a complete non-starter. the players make the game, not the other way around. they should strike if it's proposed. If anything ,the owners should be giving up years of control.

stevelxa476 wrote:Dr Fauci will throw out the first pitch at the Nationals opener.