OK, the numbers that have been floated around is that revenue sharing is about $50 million per small market team. Additionally, there is $50 million per team for the MLB.TV baseball contract.
Not even counting merchandise and licensing fees.
So, if you believe those numbers, each team would have $100 million to spend off the top. This, presumably, would be used for salaries.
So why wouldn't it work to make teams spend that money on player salaries? That is, create a salary floor but without the idea of a salary cap.
Truthfully, I don't know.
But I do know these things:
a) There are not enough good players out there to have every team have to have a salary floor of $100 million.
b) Teams like the Guardians, who are functioning, and winning, with young players, would be penalized by having to bring in mediocre players and pay them inflated salaries.
So, what is the answer?
1) Raise the minimum salary to $1 million a player per year.
2) Ceate a 'soft' salary floor. That is, a team's total salary is what they are ACTUALLY paying out in salaries PLUS a percentage (e.g., 75% of what is offered or less if the offer is below what that player would likely earn in arbitration or free agency) of what they offered to their own players in terms of extensions that the player turned down. So, let's say, for example, Bieber was scheduled to make $12 million this year and maybe $14 million next year in arbitration. If we offer his $16 million a year for 3 years and he turned it down, we would get to add an additional $3 million to our actual payroll this year because we offered Bieber money above the salary he will make in arbitration. Let's say we do this with all of our better players: So, we offer the following players the following extensions:
Gimenez - $25 million over 3 years
McKenzie - $40 million over 4 years
Kwan - $23 million over 4 years
Gonzalez - $10 million over 4 years
Hentges - $9 million over 3 years
and so on
If our guys accept these extensions we break through the $100 million salary floor. However, if these guys do not accept the extensions we still make a lot of ground up moving towards our $100 million salary floor . By my estimate, looking at the numbers above and estimating what other extensions might look like, just offering these guys this money we could easily make up, at that 75% rate, $30 million towards our $100 salary floor without paying these players any more this coming season than the scale they would earn as young players or in aribtration if they are arbitration eligible.
The $100 million floor is based on the average salary during the season so a team could start out under that floor but make it up by a trading deadline move for an expensive veteran. Teams that fall below that floor would have to split up the money between all the players who played during the season, based on their active days on the roster that year.
The beauty of this system for the small market teams is that they use this money to extend their own players. The Guardians actually did this a number of years ago to buy out free agent years from their young players. Those players bit because of the financial guarantees vs betting on staying healty and productive. The only difference between what is being done now and what I am suggesting is that you create a salary floor and you cut the small market teams slack by rewarding them for offering their own players extensions to keep them here.
Now, admittedly, Cleveland is in a good place in the system I am concocting here as they have young players they want to extend. But each team has to decide how it is going to allocate their dollars. Overpay for a free agent or overpay for their own young talent. From a Guardians; fan perspective, the latter looks pretty good right now. Even if it was the Indians of the 80s and early 90s, spending money on our own players would be better than bringing in mediocre veterans.
Hey, the MLBPA will not like this plan because they want these mediocre veterans to be overpaid AND they don't want small market teams keeping their own star players because those players could likely make more money in free agency. I get it. Imagine Bryan Shaw having to play for $1 million this year after the career he has had and how his body would get beat up. It's unfair, to be sure. But, again, that is still $1 million. Imagne Triston McKenzie being tied to the Guardians through his age 30 season instead of hitting the open market after his age 28 season? The Yankees, Dodgers and teams like that would not like not being able to possibly get Triston for two more years.
In summary, with a salary floor, someone is going to be overpaid. But my system will help get the younger players paid by their own team, incentivize those teams to extend their own talent and keep teams from sitting on their money.
There are probably myriad other systems that would work. This is just mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment