2018 MLB Teams and the Luxury Tax

[rog]

According to Spotrac.com, only the Red Sox are presently over the Luxury Tax threshold, and only they and the Giants are significantly closer to the threshold than $20 million.

That could change with the signing of more free agents, of course, but it is known that teams are trying hard to stay under the threshold.  I didn't think of it in my argument about how baseball's salary system goes against the vast majority of the players, but the Luxury Tax is another artificial manner of limiting player salaries.

Many reasons have been discussed, but one of the primary reasons I see for the extreme slowdown in free agency signing this winter is:

.  On the one side, the free agents' desire to be paid similarly to previous free agent crops.

.  And on the other side, the owners' desire to stay under the Luxury Tax threshold.


The high-spending teams have a hard time paying previous free agent salaries and still remaining under the de facto salary cap.

[klaiggeb]

And because the owners are staying under the Luxury tax, the players are ticked, and at least one agent wants them to boycott ST.

Yeah.

That makes sense.

I guess it just doesn't pay to run a business anymore because the employees now run the show.

Would someone please stop the planet and let me get off

[rog]

Could we possibly be accurate with what we say here?

Here is what the agent said:

Brodie Van Wagenen, the lead baseball agent at Creative Artists Agency, accused MLB’s owners of conspiring to suppress the free agent market and warned that players might be willing to boycott spring training in solidarity if the market does not loosen.

The agents said the players MIGHT be WILLING to boycott spring training. Where did the agent say that he WANTS them to boycott spring training?

Looking further at the article:

Brodie Van Wagenen, the lead baseball agent at Creative Artists Agency, accused MLB’s owners of conspiring to suppress the free agent market and warned that players might be willing to boycott spring training in solidarity if the market does not loosen.

The article goes on to add: Such a boycott would run afoul of federal labor laws, with the National Labor Relations Board likely issuing an immediate injunction. MLB is governed by the most recent collective bargaining agreement, ratified in December 2016 and running through 2021.

Translation: The players are highly unlikely to boycott spring training.

Here is what the Players Association said:

2:05pm: The union has issued a statement regarding a potential spring boycott, saying (via Rosenthal): “Recent press reports have erroneously suggested that the Players Association has threatened a ‘boycott’ of spring training. Those reports are false. No such threat has been made, nor has the union recommended such a course of action.”

So perhaps we should get off our high horses. Or at least quote people correctly, rather than as we interpret them to be saying.

Again, here is what we agree on:

. The best players make more money than they will ever need in their own lifetimes.

. The owners don't appear to be colluding (at least to me they don't).

But there are tons of things we don't agree on, some of which conflict with the facts.

[klaiggeb]

Are you serious, Rog?

That's your response?

I paraphrased.

You see "might," and I see the first seeds being sown FOR a strike.

You see "might," and I see an agent trying to leverage his ridiculous position.


You can color in your book anyway you'd like, Roger, but when I color in mine, what I see is greed.

[rog]

What I see is simply what the guy said, and he didn't say that he wants the players to boycott spring training, which is what you reported him as saying. Are you trying to make fake news?

Did you ignore what was right below it? "The article goes on to add: Such a boycott would run afoul of federal labor laws, with the National Labor Relations Board likely issuing an immediate injunction. MLB is governed by the most recent collective bargaining agreement, ratified in December 2016 and running through 2021."

It appears a boycott would be illegal, just as the owners' collusion three decades was illegal. The owners wound up paying many millions in damages. Doesn't that make it seem that the players aren't likely to boycott?

As we keep saying with regard to everything from this to how the Giants' winter activity would wind up, doesn't it make sense to see what actually happens?

As for paraphrasing, since little changes in the English language can greatly change meaning, why not quote or cut and paste what was actually said?

We agree on a lot of things here, Boly, but you seem to be allowing your own biases to color the situation.

When talking about how I color things, you seem to have ignored when I said we agreed that "The best players make more money than they will ever need in their own lifetimes."

We agree the players are greedy (as are the owners, by the way). But you'll have to explain how the players are holding the owners up for ransom. Does it make sense to say something that sharp without providing backup for the opinion?

A question: I believe you're a Republican (as am I through registration). Don't Republicans stand for free enterprise? Aren't you attempting to convince us free enterprise should be eliminated between the players and the owners?

[klaiggeb]

A question: I believe you're a Republican (as am I through registration). Don't Republicans stand for free enterprise? Aren't you attempting to convince us free enterprise should be eliminated between the players and the owners?

***boly says***I am so far to the right, I have to turn right three times to make a left hand turn.

But you are confusing 'free enterprise,' with two things:

1-Manipulation of the system

2-Greed for selfish interests


All I did was respond to what I read.

I'm not disagreeing that the article had other things to say.


That is not my point.

My point, was, is, and continues to be, why in the world would the players even CONSIDER a boycott, and/or strike when their pay has gone up 3.3% and the average salary is 3.3 million per year?

That is greed, and for an agent to suggest that is absolutely inappropriate.

THAT, IMHO, is an agent trying to manipulate the system to fill HIS pockets.

[rog]

But you are confusing 'free enterprise,' with two things:

1-Manipulation of the system

2-Greed for selfish interests


Rog -- You haven't shown proof of manipulation of the system. The greed I'll agree with. But remember that for the most part the owners are as greedy as the players.

You are responding to what you have read without attempting to clarify the issue. And your paraphrasing indicated you didn't truly understand what was being said.

Again, I think the point is to keep an open mind and show a little patience to see what actually happens, not our interpretations of what we THINK someone said. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to interpret, but rather it probably isn't good to be highly critical when we're not entirely sure what we're criticizing.

I see greed here, but I see no manipulation. For starters, I think we need to understand a system before we speak of manipulation of it.

How are the players manipulating the system, which whether we agree with it or not, has been negotiated between MLB and the MLB Players Association?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4294/2018-mlb-teams-luxury-tax#ixzz56XwTYPaA

[rog]

My point, was, is, and continues to be, why in the world would the players even CONSIDER a boycott, and/or strike when their pay has gone up 3.3% and the average salary is 3.3 million per year?


Rog -- Do you have two sources for the 3.3% and the $3.3 million? A lot of three's in there for this to be a coincidence.

And again, how can we know how much salaries have gone up when free agency and arbitration are still going on? In other words, before we know the facts, how can we form proper conclusions?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4294/2018-mlb-teams-luxury-tax?page=1#ixzz56XxzhKMh

[rog]

My point, was, is, and continues to be, why in the world would the players even CONSIDER a boycott, and/or strike when their pay has gone up 3.3% and the average salary is 3.3 million per year?

That is greed, and for an agent to suggest that is absolutely inappropriate.

THAT, IMHO, is an agent trying to manipulate the system to fill HIS pockets.


Rog -- Aren't we failing to recognize that an agent's job is to get as much money for his client as he can (although other factors may be involved)? The better he does his job, the more he makes.

You do a great job of teaching, Boly. Wouldn't you like to get paid so that the better you do, the more you make? You'd be a rich man!


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4294/2018-mlb-teams-luxury-tax?page=1#ixzz56XylHLKY

[rog]

The thread began with an article that said that the big spenders had thus far spent less money. Then we saw a statement of a 3.3% increase. Do those two things fit together?

Does anything indicate that all the facts are in to make the calculation?