1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. ROCKETS GAMEDAY
    Join us as Clutch and BimaThug will go live after the Rockets vs Timberwolves matchup Friday night to discuss the game!

    LIVE! ClutchFans on YouTube

Ideas to avoid a work stoppage in 2027.

Discussion in 'Houston Astros' started by IdStrosfan, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:54 AM.

  1. Snake Diggit

    Snake Diggit Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,642
    Likes Received:
    28,935
    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.
     
  2. Snake Diggit

    Snake Diggit Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,642
    Likes Received:
    28,935
    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.
     
    Nook and tellitlikeitis like this.
  3. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    42,025
    Likes Received:
    16,848
    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.
     
    Nook likes this.
  4. No Worries

    No Worries Wensleydale Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    33,875
    Likes Received:
    22,050
    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).
     
    IdStrosfan likes this.
  5. IdStrosfan

    IdStrosfan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2021
    Messages:
    9,510
    Likes Received:
    12,192
    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.
     
    No Worries likes this.
  6. htownrox1

    htownrox1 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    8,531
    Likes Received:
    6,847
    Honestly the NFL has the best system in place IMO. MLB would be smart to copy their blueprint.
     
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    42,025
    Likes Received:
    16,848
    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.
     
  8. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    53,850
    Likes Received:
    48,002
    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.
     
    #28 JayGoogle, Jan 16, 2026 at 12:05 PM
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2026 at 12:25 PM
    tellitlikeitis and Nook like this.
  9. The Beard

    The Beard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    11,822
    Likes Received:
    7,871
    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.
     
  10. No Worries

    No Worries Wensleydale Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    33,875
    Likes Received:
    22,050
    [​IMG]
     
    Buck Turgidson likes this.
  11. Amshirvani

    Amshirvani Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Salary cap and salary floor. Done.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now