DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 481854--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: craig
Date: November 1, 2023, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I mention that because I'm not sure the 3-peat penalty is so
severe that Hoyer needs to be prohibitively afraid of over-lux
now.
I realize my perception may be faulty, and the objective
evidence from the season past argues against it. Hoyer
certainly functioned as if completely boundaried by the lux-line
this past season, both in assembling his original roster, and
then again when tweaking it at the trade deadline. So, the
future lux penalties obviously are at least part of his
equation. But it's not the only or primary part of the
equation, and I think as P2 has articulated, it makes better
timing sense to jump lux now that it did last winter.
#Post#: 481855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: Deeg
Date: November 1, 2023, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: craig link ---
>
> I mention that because I'm not sure the 3-peat penalty is so
severe that Hoyer needs to be prohibitively afraid of over-lux
now.
>
> I realize my perception may be faulty, and the objective
evidence from the season past argues against it. Hoyer
certainly functioned as if completely boundaried by the lux-line
this past season, both in assembling his original roster, and
then again when tweaking it at the trade deadline. So, the
future lux penalties obviously are at least part of his
equation. But it's not the only or primary part of the
equation, and I think as P2 has articulated, it makes better
timing sense to jump lux now that it did last winter.
>
--- End Quote ---
Current CBT rules:
HTML https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax
#Post#: 481858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: davep
Date: November 1, 2023, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that there might be one other way that exceeding the
Luxury Tax limit can affect at team. If I remember correctly,
if a team signs a free agent that has received a QA, they lose
500,000 in IFA money and also forfit their second pick in the
next draft. But if the team that signs that QA free agent paid
Luxury tax the previous year, they forfit not only their second
pick in the next draft, but also their sixth round pick. And
lose one million dollars in IFA money.
The above may have been eliminated by the last agreement, but I
can not verify that.
#Post#: 481861--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: Deeg
Date: November 1, 2023, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing on the mlb.com CBT page about IFA penalties
under the new CBA. They may exist but they aren’t noted there
and I can’t find any links in a cursory search. Apart from
financial penalties the only other clause mentioned is the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall
have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back
10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case,
the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10
places instead.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 481862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: Ron
Date: November 1, 2023, 6:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Reb link ---
>
> Anybody who thinks they have a handle on Cubs 2026/2027
payroll needs should immediately apply for a high-paying job in
MLB. You are prescient and should be in high demand.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think you may mean anyone who actually does have a handle on
Cubs 2026/2027 payroll ...
#Post#: 481863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: Reb
Date: November 1, 2023, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ron link ---
>
> I think you may mean anyone who actually does have a handle on
Cubs 2026/2027 payroll ...
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, you’re right.
Should read if you think you have a handle, you’re delusional.
If you actually have a handle—that would be nobody—your
prescient.
#Post#: 481864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: craig
Date: November 1, 2023, 7:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Deeg link ---
>
> There’s nothing on the mlb.com CBT page about IFA penalties
under the new CBA. They may exist but they aren’t noted there
and I can’t find any links in a cursory search. Apart from
financial penalties the only other clause mentioned is the
following:
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Deeg link ---
>
>
> Current CBT rules:
>
>
HTML https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax
>
--- End Quote ---
Deeg, if you look on the right panel from the link you posted,
there is a bunch of "More from Transactions" links. INcluding
the following:
HTML https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/international-amateur-free-agency-bonus-pool-money
Basically the old-CBA rules continue, since the union did not
agree to the international draft.
"MLB and the MLB Players Association have until July 25, 2022,
to agree to the implementation of an annual International Draft,
which would be held for the first time in 2024. If the
International Draft is not agreed to, the remaining
international signing periods of the 2022-26 Collective
Bargaining Agreement would continue to operate on a Jan. 15 to
Dec. 15 schedule, under the previous system established in the
2017-21 CBA."
"Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the
luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that
has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their
international signing pool in the following signing period. A
team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000
of its signing pool in the subsequent period."
So, we lose $500K for signing Swanson, since we stayed under
lux. If we got over lux and sign a qualifying-offer FA, then
we'd get $1M cut from international pool.
Draft pick compensation rules page:
HTML https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer
-We'll get a comp-pick in front of the 3rd round if we lose
Bellinger. Had we gone over, the comp pick would have preceded
5th round.
-If we sign somebody, we'll lose our 2nd round pick, because we
were sub-lux. Had we gone over, the price involves losing both
2nd and 5th round picks.
-If we go ≥$40 over, then our first pick gets pushed back
10 spots.
#Post#: 481865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: craig
Date: November 1, 2023, 7:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't imagine Hoyer has any intention of going $40 over, so
maybe he'll sign somebody good at cost of a 2nd-rounder.
Obviously a Japanese signing has no such penalty. Sign
Bellinger and Yamamoto, and get all your picks! :):):)
#Post#: 481886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: CUBluejays
Date: November 2, 2023, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ron link ---
>
> I think you may mean anyone who actually does have a handle on
Cubs 2026/2027 payroll ...
>
--- End Quote ---
I mean Cots contracts has the Cubs payrolls out until 2028.
They are currently $130 million below the luxury tax with 5
players signed in 2026. I don't think MLB teams are that hard
up for people that can add and subtract or run a spread sheet.
That might be a tough skill for Reb, I don't know.
--- Quote from: craig link ---
>
> I think you mean "unwilling", not "willing"? Otherwise I'm
very confused.
>
--- End Quote ---
Unwilling. The penalty that teams used to want to avoid was a
refund on the amount of money that was paid into revenue
sharing. If they went over for three years, they lost it. It
was always bigger than tax that they actually paid. Oakland
lost the ability to get it back and that was a big reason that
they wanted to move to Vegas.
I have no idea it that is still in the CBA.
#Post#: 481891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘24
DIR By: Reb
Date: November 2, 2023, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CUBluejays link ---
>
>
> ..They are currently $130 million below the luxury tax with 5
players signed in 2026. I don't think MLB teams are that hard
up for people that can add and subtract or run a spread sheet.
That might be a tough skill for Reb, I don't know…
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Five players signed for 2026 (and only one for 2027) means there
are 21 unknowns for a 26-man roster. At least that’s what my
spread sheet says about this complex mathematical question.
To say the least, that leaves a host of unknowns about the 2026
payroll (and 2027) and the CBT picture for the Cubs, as I see
it.
Perhaps CBJ’s spreadsheet says something different about this
2026 payroll math (26 minus 5) and the CBT—what with New Math
and all—that explains his certainty about Cubs 2026-2027 payroll
situation.
*****************************************************
Page 27 of 300
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page