|
|
Post by atsather on Mar 19, 2014 9:48:21 GMT -5
Would it make sense to adjust the minimum salary upwards? I think that this would help with growing salary demands (Im looking at you Miggy!). The more money that teams pay to minimum salary guys, the less there is available for the higher earners, which should lower their demands. Obviously budget space has a lot to do with that too, but I think doing this would help to some degree.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walsher3 on Mar 19, 2014 10:01:00 GMT -5
No. Peeps already be complaining that they are spending too much money (note: GMs make the decision to pay a player, not the other way around!).
I do not think we should change the min. salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyfrancis on Mar 19, 2014 12:44:00 GMT -5
I agree with Andrew on this one. This is a major reason people have enough to offer for Miguel Cabrera to demand this much. If every league minimum went up, the amount available for FA goes down, the offers become less, the expectations of the players become less. No one complains about paying too much for minimum contracts, but they do complain about paying too high in the FA pool.
(and I should note that making the change I am suggesting would severely hurt me because all I have is minimum contracts lol)
|
|
|
|
Post by JayArr47 on Mar 19, 2014 14:35:34 GMT -5
This is a great way to solve the available amount of FA money, which will depress the high end FA contracts. Also, the minimum salary will rise in real life too.
|
|
|
|
Post by EchoesIE on Mar 19, 2014 14:55:07 GMT -5
Whats the proof that 'high end' salary goes down? People wouldn't have 'as much' money to spend, sure, but it still works today -- a player is only worth what someone is willing to pay them. If someone crazy enough is willing to pay $30 mil for Player X, then let them. If people are more responsible and only want to pay that player $25 mil, then let them and the same exact goal is accomplished.
Is spending an extra $5 mil in minimum player salary going to keep GMs from spending stupid amounts of money on Free Agents? I'd be willing to say no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland A's GM on Mar 19, 2014 17:35:17 GMT -5
I agree with mariners and do not think it is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walsher3 on Mar 27, 2014 0:36:37 GMT -5
Instinctively I was against this proposal based on the inflation rate this would cause to rookies and replacement-level players, and that I don't really think this will curtail FA spending. But then I looked at the numbers and don't really think this will make a huge difference one way or the other on inflation or team budgets, and I still don't think it will impact FA free agent spending.
Let's for example look at raising the min. from 490k to 600k.
In a random sample of a few teams from both AL/NL, I found the avg. # of min. salaried guys is 14. 14 x $110,000 = $1,540,000 difference in annual salary per team. Even lower budget teams can handle that for 14 guys. Higher budget teams like NYA or LAD, this isn't a blip on the map.
So while I don't think this will impact FA spending at all, I do think it's probably in line with the trend of MLB in RL and with more TV money coming in every year, maybe it does make sense to do.
If I can change, and you can change, then we can change!
|
|
|
|
Post by walters38 on Mar 27, 2014 5:57:05 GMT -5
Instinctively I was against this proposal based on the inflation rate this would cause to rookies and replacement-level players, and that I don't really think this will curtail FA spending. But then I looked at the numbers and don't really think this will make a huge difference one way or the other on inflation or team budgets, and I still don't think it will impact FA free agent spending. Let's for example look at raising the min. from 490k to 600k.In a random sample of a few teams from both AL/NL, I found the avg. # of min. salaried guys is 14. 14 x $110,000 = $1,540,000 difference in annual salary per team. Even lower budget teams can handle that for 14 guys. Higher budget teams like NYA or LAD, this isn't a blip on the map. So while I don't think this will impact FA spending at all, I do think it's probably in line with the trend of MLB in RL and with more TV money coming in every year, maybe it does make sense to do. If I can change, and you can change, then we can change! I think we should change it to 600k |
|
|
|
Post by Walsher3 on Mar 27, 2014 16:12:16 GMT -5
Using the current RL MLB CBA as a guideline, we have decided that going forward, the minimum salary in LBLB will increase at a rate 3%, or about the average of living cost increase per year. In the latest RL CBA, a provision to increase the minimum league salary each year is included. Source: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=172253% is the rough average of increases between 2007 and 2012, excluding negociated increases of 16%. We feel a consistent rise over time, rather than fluctuations, will provide a more stable economic impact to the rising minimum salary level. We plan to institute this plan to begin in the fiscal 2017 season. Calculating back from 2013 to the new 2017 level, and a consistent 3% inflation rate, the new minimum salary in 2017 will be $568,000. We will increase the min. rate by 3% each year for the duration of the next CBA, and re-evaluate during the next open proposal time. |
|
