• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

MLB General Discussion (Official Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
DZ83CK said:
$100M MLB salary floor, funded by the highest spending teams? Sounds good in theory.

Click to expand...


Fits with what I have been saying. Salary cap alone isn't enough. Too many teams at the bottom not even trying to be competitive, let alone win.

I'd put contraction back on the table in fantasy land even though I know they'd never do it. 100MM floor might cause it though.

If TB (for instance) can't generate enough interest/revenue to turn a profit with $100MM salary floor they may just fold it up.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
Fits with what I have been saying. Salary cap alone isn't enough. Too many teams at the bottom not even trying to be competitive, let alone win.

I'd put contraction back on the table in fantasy land even though I know they'd never do it. 100MM floor might cause it though.

If TB (for instance) can't generate enough interest/revenue to turn a profit with $100MM salary floor they may just fold it up.
Click to expand...
They're not losing money in reality. You see franchise values going anywhere but way up whenever they sell? These owners that claim to lose are using tricky accounting - including such hits as counting their players as assets and amortizing them as they age, and it is effectively as if the value of their players is always a huge declining asset - to claim they lose on paper when they make money in reality. Wealthy people love sports franchises because they're tax shelters that actually turn profits. I don't buy that a single MLB franchise actually loses money, and surely no owner wants to get out of the game, so there won't be any contraction.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
They're not losing money in reality. You see franchise values going anywhere but way up whenever they sell? These owners that claim to lose are using tricky accounting - including such hits as counting their players as assets and amortizing them as they age, and it is effectively as if the value of their players is always a huge declining asset - to claim they lose on paper when they make money in reality. Wealthy people love sports franchises because they're tax shelters that actually turn profits. I don't buy that a single MLB franchise actually loses money, and surely no owner wants to get out of the game, so there won't be any contraction.
Click to expand...

In short, yes. I get all that but my thinking is they still, often, spend less than 100MM on payroll. So, if they have that forced expense maybe it trickles through and makes it a less attractive shield?

It's not a simple solution I know but it's a start (I think)
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
In short, yes. I get all that but my thinking is they still, often, spend less than 100MM on payroll. So, if they have that forced expense maybe it trickles through and makes it a less attractive shield?

It's not a simple solution I know but it's a start (I think)
Click to expand...
If your tax shelter "loses" more money by virtue of a higher payroll, its not all bad. I think some big market teams are probably going to be against this plan as it would bring pressure to make them spend smarter and not help fund their competitors.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
If your tax shelter "loses" more money by virtue of a higher payroll, its not all bad. I think some big market teams are probably going to be against this plan as it would bring pressure to make them spend smarter and not help fund their competitors.
Click to expand...

Most of the big market guys actually try to stay under the cap now as I understand it and yes, I said the forced expense part wrong. I meant to say that it might hurt enough at a cash flow level. I understand it's just more tax shelter on the P/L. I'm reaching but maybe some are so fucking cheap they don't want to even move the money around?

Basic point being, if it didn't hurt at all to spend money, they might do it. As is, they don't like to spend money so making them spend money has to be a step in the right direction (I hope).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top