This sounds like a pretty good way to close that loophole. Deferred money is just an unnecessary factor that muddies the water and gives the appearance of impropriety.
I actually don’t mind teams spending to go all-in. I think it should be an option. It only becomes a problem when it’s the same 2-3 teams going all in every single year. It’s not sustainable from a competitive balance standpoint. So I think your proposal would be a pretty good deterrent but I might modify it to allow a team to go over the tax once every 3-5 years without any draft pick penalties, and if a team goes over the tax more than 3 years in a row, they get a veritable death penalty like loss of ALL draft picks until they get under the tax.
This is what I would do. Just make the penalties increasingly high. Everything from losing all draft picks to luxury cap tax penalties of 300% or 500% or 2000%. There's some number that will get it under control and wreck a franchise. Get to that number. To get players to buy in, take some % of luxury tax penalty money and distribute it evenly amongst ALL the MLB players. That gets you the buy in from the vast majority of players and gets the lower-end players a lot more money and equity in the system.
What if every MLB team pooled 50% of their local TV revenue and split it equally among ALL of the teams? This takes money from the rich and gives it mostly to the poor. The poor teams would have additionally money to spend on FAs. The rich teams in theory have less money but can still spend what they like (since they do not care about cap penalties).
I have no idea how revenue sharing works now, but it feels like added revenue sharing along with benefits for small market teams spending and penalties for over spending is what needs to happen. My understanding is that these things are happening but just not enough to actually help and/or deter.
Honestly, the NFL cap system seems like it should be so simple but they've made it excessively complex. With all the bonus money, contract restructurings, dead cap money, cap hits wildly varying year to year, etc, it seems like so much of NFL GMing with regards to contracts has nothing to do with actual performance or player value. And what a player signs for has very little relevance to how much they actually end up making. We forget the good things about the MLB system vs the NFL and NBA. There are no holdouts, almost no trade requests/demands, no mid-contract extensions, etc. Once you sign a contract, you play it out. You don't have a lot of malcontents/etc. There's a simplicity to it.
Honestly the best idea I've heard of and it seems pretty fair. If you're going to treat the rest of the league as your farm system then you naturally lose resources to build up your own.
Chances of a lockout that doesn't cost regular season games, probably about 85% Chances of a lockout that costs a few regular season games, probably about 40% Chances of a lockout that costs a significant amount of regular season games, probably about 15% Chances of losing a complete season, less than 5% This isn't necessarily what I want to happen, but what I think will happen 1. Expansion. Nashville and another city, probably Portland which would help with realignment. 2 teams at over 2 billion each puts a LOT of money in the owners hands 2. The overall "system" we have in place won't change, but it will undergo significant changes 3. Revenue Sharing: currently higher than most think, it's 48% right now. I don't know that it will go much higher, but I think it will be structured differently. Right now it all goes into a pot and then is equally divided among the teams with no requirements on what's done with it. I think there will be ties to how much you get vs how much your own team brings in in revenue. So if you are a low revenue team but you are getting huge money in revenue sharing, a percentage of that will have to be put back into salaries, acting as a type of salary floor without having a flat number. I could also see a system where the number of teams receiving money from revenue sharing increases, basically you are either a payer or a receiver. This would pacify some owners who spend legit money but avoid the tax to not fight to the end on a cap 4. Tax system: I believe we will see something like Nook talked about here. We may see the % you pay go up a bit, but I don't think that will be significant. The changes will be losing more picks, higher picks, international money and draft pool money. Making the Dodgers pay another 40 million in taxes per year isn't going to change their habits in any way. Putting in a system where they go multiple years in a row without a 1st round pick and loss of draft pool money would eventually have a significant impact 5. Contract deferrals: I don't think this is going to be as big of a deal as many think. In the end, the teams are putting that money out as an outlay immediately among signing the contract, and it sits in an account making interest to grow to the amount owed down the line. The only real advantage is held by teams in states with no state income tax. A player will pay taxes on that money according to where they are when they receive the money. So if you play in California (or any state with a tax) but don't plan on living there when you retire, there is a significant advantage to the player in accepting that deferred money. If you play in Texas but plan on living in a state with a tax when you retire, there is a significant advantage to getting all of that money paid while you are here in Texas. If anything we will see the total announced value of the contract count towards the tax, but I really doubt we will even see that 6. Owners: We tend to look at everything from the eyes of a fan, which is what we are. We also tend to not realize that the owners don't all think like fans. If i'm a fan in a small market, I HATE the Tucker signing. If i'm the owner of that team though, I see that additional money being put into revenue sharing from the tax and know that it's going into my pockets. There are a lot of small market owners who don't want a salary cap, which would also come with a floor that would affect them. In fact I think the teams most in favor of a cap are the mid to large markets (like us) who spend big, get into the tax at times but try to avoid it. We are the ones who's owners want to limit what the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets can spend in excess of where we can go. I don't think there will be enough owners who want a cap that will be willing to lose out on games, revenue and PR to take this into regular season games.
Fans don’t get a vote though And the owners of a lot of those teams are fine getting all those revenue sharing dollars and keeping them
Other than the mid-contract extensions and opt-out years...it's a brilliant plan, Walter, it's a Swiss watch! Pool all media money Put limits on deferred money Tax the **** out of anyone over a certain amount, amounts and penalties should vary Add punitive penalties for going over whatever those amounts are (i.e. the Dodgers/Mets/Whoever should forfeit all of their draft picks and international money) and/or Tie the contracts to picks/intl: you sign a 200M player (**** the QO, get rid of that), you lose ? picks. One? of those picks goes to the team you signed him from.
I don't think draft picks loss and international pool money loss actually hurts the Dodgers/Mets/Yankees that much. They can operate like I used to on Madden franchises without a cap. Sign everyone I want, if I don't actually need them I can ship them off to other teams for draft picks or players I do want. If you are egregiously over the penalty the team you signed the player from gets a modified rule 5 draft of your minor league team. Your top 3 prospects are protected rest are open season. I'd also like to see a system that promotes keeping your best drafted players, maybe 5-10 million per season doesn't count against your cap or that portion is paid by MLB from the overage tax.
the owners would do it in a second... its the least friendly deal for players amongst all the leagues. Yes, the best NFL players get their signing bonus and most of their guarantees... but every middle class player is one injury away from being out of a job. Then even some upper class players get too expensive, despite still being in their prime, and despite still being under contract... but they're jettisoned before anybody really wanted it.
And yet those teams have always had the ability to spend... yet they only seem to have sustained big league success when their farm system is also upper echelon (which both of their's are). Those losses would absolutely curtail behavior as a penalty. Most of the players they're signing have either 1 or 2 more really superstar prime years in them before regression... let alone age/injury risk compounding. By itself, a team full of free agents still needs a lot of luck/health/depth to consistently win... but a team with a great farm/prospects/picks can correct any deficiencies (or just promote from within) on a year to year basis.
The players and the small market owners (8-10 or so teams) would probably love keeping the current system. The biggest market teams (3-4) would also be just fine in this system, as long as their big market competitive advantages... are still an advantage. So that leaves maybe around half the team owners (including the Astros) who would be looking for significant adjustments on both sides of the spectrum to help keep costs in control and level the playing field. There's not an overwhelming favorite or path that I see coming to fruition (without major concessions)... and given the owners are not necessarily unanimous in their stances, there may just a whole lot of marginal/lateral moves, kick the can down the road another 3 years, etc.
Why do you think the small market teams love this system? If you read how the CBT revenue is split more than half of it goes to the players and the 21 teams that receive CBT payments received less than 10 million each. It's not enough money to make a difference in a roster or a significant amount for fans to be mad about owners pocketing the money. Jorge Polanco costs 20 million these days...... The problem with what many have suggested with tougher penalties for teams that go into the luxury tax is the union will see this as a defacto salary cap. It's going to be a nightmare negotiation.
