User Tag List

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: What Would You Do to Improve the MLB Players V. Owners Issues?

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    fish16
    has no status.

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Posts
    2,131
    Reputation
    24048

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What Would You Do to Improve the MLB Players V. Owners Issues?

    there is clearly a disconnect given the current rules between how the owners view team building and how established free agents want to be viewed. As the rules have it now, it makes much more business sense to build through mostly cost controlled/team controlled players. So what do you think should be done to fix this issue?

    A few suggestions from me, but id be interested to hear other peoples opinion:
    Change the service time rules: Teams are manipulating their players service time to purposely keep them in the organization for longer simply by keeping them in the minors for as little as a few days to start the year. How about something that says the second a player is in the majors you get 6 years of team control from that first year he's in the majors? There are obviously pros and cons to this suggestion.

    Change the years of team control to make cost controlled/team controlled guys less valuable. Maybe change it from 6 years of team control to 5? This would obviously be heavily opposed by the owners, small market owners specifically.

    Change the structure of the team control time. Whether its an extra year of arbitration (2 years of minimum salary + 4 years of arbitration eligibility) or something else, this would decrease the value of building through team controlled players and make free agents at least slightly more valuable.

    Id try a combo of everything: reduce the years of team control from 6 to 5, while also changing the salary structure in those team control years, and also make the service time rules more player friendly to avoid purposeful manipulation of service time despite the young player being able to help the team win right away. So this would mean that the second a player is in the majors, that counts as 1 year of service time and the player has 4 remaining years in the organization no matter what, while also allowing the player to get to arbitration and free agency a year sooner. This would however come with the downside of young players being ready towards the tail end of the year being held out of late season baseball so that teams dont waste a year of service time for just a month of action.

    Im obviously not an expert on the current service time rules and the different ways teams can manipulate it, so id be interested to hear other opinions on how to bridge the current gap between players and owners. Or maybe you just think the current free agents should quit overvaluing their market value and that the rules are currently fine. Id be interested to hear other opinions though.

  2. #2
    The People's Admin's Admin

    emkayseven
    loves hugg
    emkayseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winter Park, FL

    Posts
    9,716
    Reputation
    1966785

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Get rid of the luxury tax and revenue sharing. Solves almost every problem immediately.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madman81 View Post
    Most of the people in the world being dumb is not a requirement for you to be among their ranks.
    Need help? Questions? Concerns? Want to chat? PM me!

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    fish16
    has no status.

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Posts
    2,131
    Reputation
    24048

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emkayseven View Post
    Get rid of the luxury tax and revenue sharing. Solves almost every problem immediately.
    I dont think that does. I think teams are realizing that good cost controlled players (who are also generally less established) are much more valuable than good established veterans just because of money efficiency and that teams are not willing to spend money on free agents just because of the relative value of finding good cost controlled talent. Im cool with it as a small market fan, but I think the players union in the best interest of their best players should try to fight to kind of curb the value of building through cost controlled talent. We've gotten to the point where there is such a difference in the value of a good free agent signing and a good cost controlled player. I think they have to do something to limit the value of guys still under team control because as of now those kinds of players have so much more value than free agents.

    I also think players asking for ridiculously long contracts is another thing hurting their market. Maybe do what the NBA does and put a limit on contract length.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •