Riffing off the idea of paying players for performance, I'd like to pay players for _wins_. And not just pre-arbitration players. This already happens, it's a post season share. Teams get more money the deeper they go in the playoffs (wins). The players then vote to distribute those shares, they're in control of distribution (actually I would love a story about the details of this).
I would expand this idea to the regular season. Now this money has to come from somewhere, so maybe the revenue sharing money could be allocated this way? That would prevent the owners from just hoarding it.
This would also incentivize something I care about as a fan, players playing to win, not just playing to get paid. This could really help get rid of the three true outcomes baseball which is partly driven because players get paid first for hitting home runs and second for walking a lot (on base percentage).
If I was commissioner for a day, that's the deal I'd propose.
It'd be great to pay players for actually winning, but (and maybe this is me being super cynical) all I can see is a Major League scenario where a Rachel Phelps makes the team even worse because she doesn't want to pay for wins. Obviously they ended up overcoming the owner, but the biggest overriding issue is that owners don't want to pay to make their teams better because there isn't incentive. Well if you're paying for each win over, say, 70, that makes it even less enticing to put a better team on the field.
Sadly, you'd almost have to go the other way and charge owners for each loss above whatever number you choose. Which honestly isn't a terrible idea. Of course, as I wrote, you can't limit things to a single season because things happen and sometimes teams built to be fine are horrible, but you certainly give owners a reason to spend a bit more to try to build a better team.
Everyone is making more money, so nobody cares. But it is really frustrating to be a baseball fan. Even this “lockout”, while not really disrupting anything yet, is just terrible headlines. I’m not trying to be an old man yelling get off my lawn here…..but this happens with baseball so much more than other sports. It is no surprise to anyone that baseball is falling in viewership. The NFL, NBA, and heck even soccer, have done so much better of a job here in the states than MLB. Yes, the sports are different with different dynamics…..but figure it out already without the terrible headlines of a meaningless lockout. Grrrrrrrrr. Lol
I mean, yeah, it's meaningless, but every other sport has these issues. The NHL lost an entire season. The NBA had a 50-game season from it. The last time baseball has lost games was 27 years ago. That's some seriously insane work to go that long.
That’s true…but nobody cares about hockey. Lol, that’s just a joke….a joke. What’s interesting to me….is that my boys don’t know any MLB players really beside some Royals only because I watch. They know Curry and Lebron, Mahomes and Rodgers…..but wouldnt be able to point out Trout or Harper really. I know the other sports are different but I can see where the viewership keeps going. Baseball isn’t going away by any means…..but they never seem to help themselves either.
My question is why does the NFL "seem?" to work so much better? It is a much more popular (viewing wise) sport and (I apologize, I am not getting less forgetful as I age) I am not aware of as many player compensation/disruption issues. And maybe sprinkle in a little NBA (which I know or care much less about), to the extent that they allow the teams to pay more to retain their own players than other teams are allowed to pay to lure them away. Why not eliminate MLB gaming by saying that if a player is on the major league roster for even one day of the year, it counts as a full year of service time? I like the idea of fair compensation from the get go (rather than 2-3 years of artificially low salaries (and am hoping that the arb years are pretty fair?). I would hope there is a way to encourage that minimum amounts be spent (though if a team like the Royals have good reasons to use younger/better/higher upside players), the requirement would be that the minimum amount would be "banked" and have to be spent over a reasonable time frame (i.e., as those players progress through arb/extensions), or the money would be given to charity. Create some way not to have to overpay middle career free agency people, but instead have it used for the Acuna like big/early extensions as an option.
It seems to work better because the negotiations when they have issues aren't leaked directly to the media like they are by the MLB owners. That's my opinion anyway. Also, they already have a better split between players and owners revenue-wise. I think a big issue is that so much of the NFL is centralized while MLB is so local that there are some discrepancies that almost can't happen in football.
There aren’t any individual tv deals or anything. Games are all nationally broadcast. Baseball is just a much more local sport in terms of how they’re funded. Plus, the lack of a cap and even revenue sharing makes the finances far more difficult in baseball.
Doesn't the NFL have a compensation system where players can receive more money than their contract? I seem to remember seeing guys getting bonuses. I don't know what it is based upon but might be worth checking out.
I like your ideas and hope the owners and players come together soon so our season stays in tact.
We are pretty much where I thought we would be at this point. To me, there has been a gradual change in ownership over the last two decades. Single owners who owned the teams are giving way to "Ownership Groups" as team values have skyrocketed. Where single owners were mostly happy to run the teams with minimal profits, now they are being replaced by money men who expect large payoffs for their investment. They come with attorney's. For several years I have noticed this change manifest itself in the way the league deals with the players. Lots of talking at them instead of to them or working with them on the rules of the game. Even trying to get the season going during covid was a battle. I still expect games to be lost. Until both sides stop posturing in the press and get to really working on a contract, I don't see much hope for the season starting on time.
Riffing off the idea of paying players for performance, I'd like to pay players for _wins_. And not just pre-arbitration players. This already happens, it's a post season share. Teams get more money the deeper they go in the playoffs (wins). The players then vote to distribute those shares, they're in control of distribution (actually I would love a story about the details of this).
I would expand this idea to the regular season. Now this money has to come from somewhere, so maybe the revenue sharing money could be allocated this way? That would prevent the owners from just hoarding it.
This would also incentivize something I care about as a fan, players playing to win, not just playing to get paid. This could really help get rid of the three true outcomes baseball which is partly driven because players get paid first for hitting home runs and second for walking a lot (on base percentage).
If I was commissioner for a day, that's the deal I'd propose.
It'd be great to pay players for actually winning, but (and maybe this is me being super cynical) all I can see is a Major League scenario where a Rachel Phelps makes the team even worse because she doesn't want to pay for wins. Obviously they ended up overcoming the owner, but the biggest overriding issue is that owners don't want to pay to make their teams better because there isn't incentive. Well if you're paying for each win over, say, 70, that makes it even less enticing to put a better team on the field.
Sadly, you'd almost have to go the other way and charge owners for each loss above whatever number you choose. Which honestly isn't a terrible idea. Of course, as I wrote, you can't limit things to a single season because things happen and sometimes teams built to be fine are horrible, but you certainly give owners a reason to spend a bit more to try to build a better team.
Everyone is making more money, so nobody cares. But it is really frustrating to be a baseball fan. Even this “lockout”, while not really disrupting anything yet, is just terrible headlines. I’m not trying to be an old man yelling get off my lawn here…..but this happens with baseball so much more than other sports. It is no surprise to anyone that baseball is falling in viewership. The NFL, NBA, and heck even soccer, have done so much better of a job here in the states than MLB. Yes, the sports are different with different dynamics…..but figure it out already without the terrible headlines of a meaningless lockout. Grrrrrrrrr. Lol
I mean, yeah, it's meaningless, but every other sport has these issues. The NHL lost an entire season. The NBA had a 50-game season from it. The last time baseball has lost games was 27 years ago. That's some seriously insane work to go that long.
That’s true…but nobody cares about hockey. Lol, that’s just a joke….a joke. What’s interesting to me….is that my boys don’t know any MLB players really beside some Royals only because I watch. They know Curry and Lebron, Mahomes and Rodgers…..but wouldnt be able to point out Trout or Harper really. I know the other sports are different but I can see where the viewership keeps going. Baseball isn’t going away by any means…..but they never seem to help themselves either.
Oh they’re hyper-local and the league does a terrible job of pushing the stars. That’s for sure.
My question is why does the NFL "seem?" to work so much better? It is a much more popular (viewing wise) sport and (I apologize, I am not getting less forgetful as I age) I am not aware of as many player compensation/disruption issues. And maybe sprinkle in a little NBA (which I know or care much less about), to the extent that they allow the teams to pay more to retain their own players than other teams are allowed to pay to lure them away. Why not eliminate MLB gaming by saying that if a player is on the major league roster for even one day of the year, it counts as a full year of service time? I like the idea of fair compensation from the get go (rather than 2-3 years of artificially low salaries (and am hoping that the arb years are pretty fair?). I would hope there is a way to encourage that minimum amounts be spent (though if a team like the Royals have good reasons to use younger/better/higher upside players), the requirement would be that the minimum amount would be "banked" and have to be spent over a reasonable time frame (i.e., as those players progress through arb/extensions), or the money would be given to charity. Create some way not to have to overpay middle career free agency people, but instead have it used for the Acuna like big/early extensions as an option.
It seems to work better because the negotiations when they have issues aren't leaked directly to the media like they are by the MLB owners. That's my opinion anyway. Also, they already have a better split between players and owners revenue-wise. I think a big issue is that so much of the NFL is centralized while MLB is so local that there are some discrepancies that almost can't happen in football.
Thank you. One question - how is it that NFL is more centralized when it mostly seems to be teams in both leagues in the same cities?
There aren’t any individual tv deals or anything. Games are all nationally broadcast. Baseball is just a much more local sport in terms of how they’re funded. Plus, the lack of a cap and even revenue sharing makes the finances far more difficult in baseball.
Doesn't the NFL have a compensation system where players can receive more money than their contract? I seem to remember seeing guys getting bonuses. I don't know what it is based upon but might be worth checking out.
I like your ideas and hope the owners and players come together soon so our season stays in tact.
They might. I think it’s far more common written in NFL contracts because they aren’t guaranteed.
We are pretty much where I thought we would be at this point. To me, there has been a gradual change in ownership over the last two decades. Single owners who owned the teams are giving way to "Ownership Groups" as team values have skyrocketed. Where single owners were mostly happy to run the teams with minimal profits, now they are being replaced by money men who expect large payoffs for their investment. They come with attorney's. For several years I have noticed this change manifest itself in the way the league deals with the players. Lots of talking at them instead of to them or working with them on the rules of the game. Even trying to get the season going during covid was a battle. I still expect games to be lost. Until both sides stop posturing in the press and get to really working on a contract, I don't see much hope for the season starting on time.