Because his value to the Astros likely is much higher than it is to other teams. I also think he has a no trade clause.
His value is negative to any team as his contract is structured. There are teams out there that do not mind overpaying for players.
He was on pace for over 4 WAR during his time with the Astros last year. I don’t know why people keep crying about his contract. He’s a bargain for what we are paying him.
They would almost certainly have to implement a floor for the players to agree to it. Likely will also include changes to the current years of control.
Have the players actually won anything since the early 90's strike that raised the minimum salary a bit? The owners win by not losing. Of course, so do the players. Here's a good list of all of the work stoppages, google particular ones for in-depth info. Sorry for the Dodger-centric link, it was the best list I could find. eta: forgot the link: https://dodgerblue.com/complete-history-of-mlb-lockouts-and-strikes/2021/12/10/
Didn't have the link. But I know MLB hasn't really changed since the late 70's when FA was granted. It's also the only sport of the big 3 that doesn't have a salary cap and after next years lockout I dont expect much to change.
Both sides have gained and lost various points in every new CBA over the past 40 years. Gaining free agency was the main time the union won big. Outside of that both sides have benefited from the prosperity. Median franchise valuations have increased more than the median player salary, so from that perspective the owners have benefitted more, but we don’t know what % of revenue the players have been getting over time and that would be the metric I’d use. In fact if I’m the union I would be fine with a salary cap so long as it was tied to a guarantee that total players salaries as a % of total revenue never went down.
THIS......I don't question Kyle`s skills, but I do question his passion and desire to play the game..................maybe he is just a low-key guy, but IMO he doesn't care about who he plays for, if he is on a winning team or anything that would put the team first. He is a hired assassin who may or may not show up in key situations, spend the FA $$ on SP
The luxury tax serves as a defacto cap for most mid market teams…. And the repeat violation escalators did influence the Yankees/Dodgers over the past decade (but only on a very transient basis). The bigger issue is the revenue sharing structure did make it basically fruitless for the small market teams to even try. There are more small market teams spending below what they should be vs. big market teams outspending everybody…thus a floor would be better for the health of the game, and I’m sure they can add more draft penalties/tax implications for teams who can afford to outspend everybody. And the RSN bubble bursting, MLB now having even more streaming contracts both local and national, and the overall consumption of all things live sports (more platforms, more social media ties) will always keep sports finances solvent and franchise values high.
With MLB team having rights to prospects for several years in the minors, and 6 years of service before a player reaches FA, it is hard for me to say the owners haven't won even though the MLBPA has prevented a salary cap at the expense of selling out prospects and players with less than 6 years of service. Maybe more small markets are spending less than they should than the number of big market teams is spending more than they should. The amount the big market teams spend over what the small market teams should spend is easily much more than the total the small market teams are spending less than they should. A spending floor is not going to help parity. If the goal is to get players more money, the big markets are where the money is. I'm for parity of opportunity (how well a team is run should matter more than the amount a team spends). Typically, that means my self-interests generally align with small market owners.
Agreed, they need a floor and a cap to level the playing field. Will this happen it hasn't happened in the last 50 years and I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
This isn't about owners winning or losing though. Many of the top owners don't want a cap because it takes away their competitive advantage. Many of smallest owners don't want a floor either because they have a cash cow right now. Owners talk a big game about a salary cap, but it's largely a PR thing because they can count on players to kill it and the owners can claim it as a concession on their part. If they ultimately do enact a cap, it's likely to be NBA style where there are so many loopholes and workarounds that wealthy owners can still spend way above it.
I would rather Paredes play LF even if he is terrible out there. Sanchez isn't good defensively anyway, and I really don't want to ever have to watch him strike out and walk back to the dugout with a huge smile on his face again
The ugly truth is that the sport profits more when the biggest markets have some competitive advantage. But it has to be tempered to maintain some parity. I think the current system is working fairly well in that regard. I’d like to see some more severe penalties for the 2-3 teams that run away from the pack in terms of payroll. But it’s probabiy more important to install a floor. Over the past half decade, the handful of teams spending near zero have hurt the game far more than the 2-3 teams outspending everyone, just my opinion.
