2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[John_Havok]

I like this idea honestly

 

If a draft lottery gets instituted where only the bottom X number of teams get in, and X is a small number like 5... yeah. If every non-playoff team is eligible for the lottery, then it makes 0 sense.

[Cbert]

Someone else mentioned above they were talking about awarding extra draft picks to teams that have a top 150 prospect finish top 5 in ROY voting??

 

So I guess the idea would be to award the teams that promote prospects, as opposed to punishing teams for NOT promoting prospects.

 

Yeah I wondered if that might be what it referred to. Guess this really only applies to top level prospects and the chance to get an extra pick may encourage teams to take risks to start clocks early even if it backfires.

[Spanky99]

Yeah, they know the problem because they love having it as an option. Terrible way to address it though. That's one of those things that's akin to a slap in the face.

 

"Hey guys, here's this problem that we know is a problem because we love having the ability to abuse it, so here's a completely non-sensical way to help solve the problem that we know is stupid, but we feel good because we offered to fix the problem."

 

I laughed way to hard at this. lol... I figured it'd be a sandbag offer. Kenny Ken see's it as more gloom than those other tweets above. He was just on Tim and Friends, see's it going into ST right now.

[John_Havok]

I laughed way to hard at this. lol... I figured it'd be a sandbag offer. Kenny Ken see's it as more gloom than those other tweets above. He was just on Tim and Friends, see's it going into ST right now.

 

It's like they think the union is categorically stupid and won't be able to recognize being snowballed, or they just hope it wins them points in public opinion because they're the ones that made the offer and want the union to immediately reject it (which they should). They probably just want the "Well we made the offer to fix the problem..." to resonate with the drooling masses

[Abomination]

 

Kinda wish we just had this lockout after 2016 when the Jays window was over. Vlad and Bo's years of control so far have been a 60 game 2020 season, a 2021 season where they couldn't play at home for most of the year, and now likely a shortened 2022 where I'm sure they'll be playing in an empty stadium for at least part of the season. But I'm sure there will be CBA peace in 2026.

 

They should have cancelled the CBA and done all of this last year when the pandemic was causing a mess anyway. They likely wouldn't have ticked the public off much if games were missed since they could just blamed it on the pandemic.

[Grant77]

MLB pretty much offered status quo and the PA was not pleased with the proposal. This is a downright shocking development.

[InsideThePark]

I like this idea honestly

 

I like the thought. The idea needs work. Lets say in Year 1 the bottom 3 is Teams A, B, and C. Team B wins the 1st pick. In Year 2 the bottom 3 is A, C, and D. Team D wins the first pick. In Year 3 it's A, C, and D again. Team D wins the 1st pick again. In Year 4 it's A, C, and D again. Team D is eligible to win the pick for the 3rd year in a row but Teams A and C are not because they lost in the 3 years prior?

 

Perhaps a lottery where if you win it you can't win it again for the next 5 years. Removing teams based on chances they had previously while allowing other teams who've won before in just seems wrong to me.

 

Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL it takes more than 3 years to develop most prospects, even the top picks. In year 4 teams A and C will be lucky if their pick in year 1 is in the league by then. Especially since the draft happens the following season. It's essentially less than 2 years of development(Draft in June of Year 2 to Year 4 start in April). Teams should strive to get better sure, but losing a lottery 3 times is hardly something that should be punished. The right way to build is to develop initially and then made additions as you're on your way up, which those prospects won't be there in 2 years. How many people here made fun of the Rangers for paying way too much money to try to get better when we all know that's the wrong strategy for them in their current timeline. By the time they're good those contracts will be only a burden.

[John_Havok]

MLB pretty much offered status quo and the PA was not pleased with the proposal. This is a downright shocking development.

 

I just laugh when the owners propose a deal and their own side admits they aren't optimistic it will be accepted. Well... offer something they want then? Or at least start from a place of good faith instead of basically offering nothing?

[John_Havok]

I like the thought. The idea needs work. Lets say in Year 1 the bottom 3 is Teams A, B, and C. Team B wins the 1st pick. In Year 2 the bottom 3 is A, C, and D. Team D wins the first pick. In Year 3 it's A, C, and D again. Team D wins the 1st pick again. In Year 4 it's A, C, and D again. Team D is eligible to win the pick for the 3rd year in a row but Teams A and C are not because they lost in the 3 years prior?

 

Perhaps a lottery where if you win it you can't win it again for the next 5 years. Removing teams based on chances they had previously while allowing other teams who've won before in just seems wrong to me.

 

Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL it takes more than 3 years to develop most prospects, even the top picks. In year 4 teams A and C will be lucky if their pick in year 1 is in the league by then. Especially since the draft happens the following season. It's essentially less than 2 years of development(Draft in June of Year 2 to Year 4 start in April). Teams should strive to get better sure, but losing a lottery 3 times is hardly something that should be punished. The right way to build is to develop initially and then made additions as you're on your way up, which those prospects won't be there in 2 years. How many people here made fun of the Rangers for paying way too much money to try to get better when we all know that's the wrong strategy for them in their current timeline. By the time they're good those contracts will be only a burden.

 

The thing with the lottery in baseball is that it's still not that big of a deal to get the #1 pick, aside from the boost in bonus money, which they may or may not even use to try and get the best player at #1.

 

I don't think teams tank in baseball to try and get that #1 guy or more money to allocate to a draft. They tank because the owners don't want to spend money in a season where they know they aren't gonna win. The extra pool money is more of a bonus.

 

While a draft lottery of some sort probably should be implemented, a salary floor would be far more effective against the way MLB teams "tank"

[Abomination]

I'd like to see a complete reworking of the draft. Maybe something like:

 

Each pick gets $2M in the first 2 rounds, $1M in the next 8 rounds, and $500K in all other rounds. No draft pools (since amounts are predetermined), and the prospects sign a contract when they declare for the draft (the rights are simply transferred over to the team who pays the appropriate bonus to the player). The league would perform physicals on the players prior to the draft. International players, with the exception of posted players, are included, and draft picks are tradable.

 

Each player in the minors gets salaries of $25K / year for short season ball, 50K for A ball, 75K for AA ball, and 100K for AAA ball. That would add some money into the development system where it is very critically needed, make the draft more interesting, pay players fairly, and incentivize teams to take the best player available.

[John_Havok]

I'd like to see a complete reworking of the draft. Maybe something like:

 

Each pick gets $2M in the first 2 rounds, $1M in the next 8 rounds, and $500K in all other rounds. No draft pools (since amounts are predetermined), and the prospects sign a contract when they declare for the draft (the rights are simply transferred over to the team who pays the appropriate bonus to the player). The league would perform physicals on the players prior to the draft. International players, with the exception of posted players, are included, and draft picks are tradable.

 

Each player in the minors gets salaries of $25K / year for short season ball, 50K for A ball, 75K for AA ball, and 100K for AAA ball. That would add some money into the development system where it is very critically needed, make the draft more interesting, pay players fairly, and incentivize teams to take the best player available.

 

2 million per draft pick for the first 2 rounds seems pretty high dont ya think? LIke, player 64 drafted gets the same bonus as #1?

 

I like the minimum salary targets for MILB but, that's a pipe dream. Last year the AAA minimum salary increased to a shockingly high 700$ per week.

[Abomination]

2 million per draft pick for the first 2 rounds seems pretty high dont ya think? LIke, player 64 drafted gets the same bonus as #1?

 

I like the minimum salary targets for MILB but, that's a pipe dream. Last year the AAA minimum salary increased to a shockingly high 700$ per week.

 

I don't think it's all that bad. it probably drops the cost of the first two rounds actually. It definitely increases it for the other rounds a lot though. The amount for rounds 10+ might be a little high.

[John_Havok]

I don't think it's all that bad. it probably drops the cost of the first two rounds actually. It definitely increases it for the other rounds a lot though. The amount for rounds 10+ might be a little high.

 

Yeah you’re right, round 1 at 2 million per would be drastically lower than current, 2 million each pick for round 2 would be higher but not significantly so.

[Grant77]

The thing with the lottery in baseball is that it's still not that big of a deal to get the #1 pick, aside from the boost in bonus money, which they may or may not even use to try and get the best player at #1.

 

I don't think teams tank in baseball to try and get that #1 guy or more money to allocate to a draft. They tank because the owners don't want to spend money in a season where they know they aren't gonna win. The extra pool money is more of a bonus.

 

While a draft lottery of some sort probably should be implemented, a salary floor would be far more effective against the way MLB teams "tank"

 

I agree. A salary floor is a reasonable ask from the players and would be the most effective deterrent to tanking. They shouldn't leave the bargaining table without one.

 

The way some of these teams operate is such a horrible look and makes the league hemhorrage fans. They don't even spend the money from their TV contract on payroll, let alone revenue sharing and gate revenue. Teams build consistent contenders with a helping hand from free agency all of the time. It doesn't have to be the Pirates and Orioles model.

[The Cats Ass]

So if a top 150 prospect finishes top 5 in a major award, his team gets another cost controlled player via the draft and the player gets nothing? Are the owners trolling?

 

*Sigh* I guess we'll call up this guy who helps us win games. But we better get another employee out of this.

 

I see this having more negative effects than positive. You'd see less top prospects making midseason promotions, teams would hold off until the beginning of next season so they have a chance at a pick. And less breakout prospects get called up; guys ranked 173rd this year, but he's demolishing AA/AAA, why wouldn't they just hold him down until next season when he's inside the top 150. It also gives the award voters way too much power.

[The_DH]

I agree. A salary floor is a reasonable ask from the players and would be the most effective deterrent to tanking. They shouldn't leave the bargaining table without one.

 

The way some of these teams operate is such a horrible look and makes the league hemhorrage fans. They don't even spend the money from their TV contract on payroll, let alone revenue sharing and gate revenue. Teams build consistent contenders with a helping hand from free agency all of the time. It doesn't have to be the Pirates and Orioles model.

 

the "floor" could work the same way as the "cap" in that teams below a certain level have to pay a tax, forfeit draft choices, etc.

[The Cats Ass]

the "floor" could work the same way as the "cap" in that teams below a certain level have to pay a tax, forfeit draft choices, etc.

 

For every dollar a team is under the cap they lose $2 in revenue sharing.

 

To get a rough idea on what teams currently get through revenue sharing... https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing

 

"In Major League Baseball, 48% of local revenues are subject to revenue sharing and are distributed equally among all 30 teams, with each team receiving 3.3% of the total sum generated. As a result, in 2018, each team received $118 million from this pot. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, which were estimated to be $91 million per team, also in 2018."

[BTS]

I see this having more negative effects than positive. You'd see less top prospects making midseason promotions, teams would hold off until the beginning of next season so they have a chance at a pick. And less breakout prospects get called up; guys ranked 173rd this year, but he's demolishing AA/AAA, why wouldn't they just hold him down until next season when he's inside the top 150. It also gives the award voters way too much power.

 

The idea is the kind of ham-fisted solution that would be suggested and then quickly shot down in a fantasy league. That it actually came from the MLB owners is absurd.

[Stangstag]

I see this having more negative effects than positive. You'd see less top prospects making midseason promotions, teams would hold off until the beginning of next season so they have a chance at a pick. And less breakout prospects get called up; guys ranked 173rd this year, but he's demolishing AA/AAA, why wouldn't they just hold him down until next season when he's inside the top 150. It also gives the award voters way too much power.

 

Good points yeah, this system likely wouldn’t do anything to fix the problem. And im not really sure there IS a way to fix the problem

[Brownie19]

I agree. A salary floor is a reasonable ask from the players and would be the most effective deterrent to tanking. They shouldn't leave the bargaining table without one.

 

The way some of these teams operate is such a horrible look and makes the league hemhorrage fans. They don't even spend the money from their TV contract on payroll, let alone revenue sharing and gate revenue. Teams build consistent contenders with a helping hand from free agency all of the time. It doesn't have to be the Pirates and Orioles model.

 

They do? I mean obviously there are some great organizations out there that do build consistent contenders, but most do it by either A) spending a s*** ton of money on players, which isn't something all Owners can do (NYY, BOS, LA, etc.); or they manipulate the system, trade stars before they become too expensive and draft/trade/develop great (TB, OAK).

 

The Cardinals might be the only real example that fits your suggestion. They are often around the 10th highest payroll (although it's gone up to about 5 a few times) and often retain their good players.

[Grant77]

They do? I mean obviously there are some great organizations out there that do build consistent contenders, but most do it by either A) spending a s*** ton of money on players, which isn't something all Owners can do (NYY, BOS, LA, etc.); or they manipulate the system, trade stars before they become too expensive and draft/trade/develop great (TB, OAK).

 

The Cardinals might be the only real example that fits your suggestion. They are often around the 10th highest payroll (although it's gone up to about 5 a few times) and often retain their good players.

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant a little bit. By consistent contender I don't mean that a team makes the playoffs every year. I mean they don't go into these massive cycles of losing driven by low payrolls and return to respectability in short order after a bad season. I also said a helping hand in free agency, but you construed that as a team built with free agency. Young players are still very important.

 

Let's use the Blue Jays as an example. We were a playoff calibre team when Anthopoulos left, but primed for a rebuild in the coming years. That's going to happen to every time in the league, obviously.

 

We developed our young players and farm system and had a couple of rough seasons, but continued to spend a respectable amount on payroll throughout and used money to supplement our prospect core through trade. Arguably, before all prospects were ready, we preempted contention with big signings like Ryu and Springer.

 

I want to see other teams use that model. It was just pointed out that teams are making over 200 million before accounting for gate revenue and countless other streams. Let's see the Pirates sign Carlos Rodon and the Orioles sign Seiya Suzuki. They should be forced into putting in an honest effort and there's little doubt that it would accelerate their return to respectability.

[glory]

Yeah, the "draft pick for not manipulating service time" thing is ridiculous. Not only will teams still find a way to abuse it (as already mentioned), but most teams would likely prefer the extra year of control rather than a draft pick, so it's really not much of an incentive. There's also the ridiculousness of rewarding teams for not doing something in bad faith while there's no punishment for teams who do.

 

The only way I can think of where teams might stop manipulating service time is if a player's service clock started when they are put on the 40 man roster. So for example, 2021 would have been Moreno's 1st year of service. If he spent all of it in the minors, then the team loses a year, but if that system were in place, then maybe the team calls Moreno up some time in 2021. It also helps players reach free agency earlier without having to take away the 6 years of control that owners want to keep. Not sure owners would agree to the 40 man roster thing, but I don't see another way to avoid the manipulation.

[John_Havok]

They do? I mean obviously there are some great organizations out there that do build consistent contenders, but most do it by either A) spending a s*** ton of money on players, which isn't something all Owners can do (NYY, BOS, LA, etc.); or they manipulate the system, trade stars before they become too expensive and draft/trade/develop great (TB, OAK).

 

The Cardinals might be the only real example that fits your suggestion. They are often around the 10th highest payroll (although it's gone up to about 5 a few times) and often retain their good players.

 

THat's because St Louis also benefits from the small market competitive picks every year, intended to go to small market teams that can't really afford to go free agent shopping at the top end of the pool. St Louis has the best of both worlds.

[John_Havok]

It's not a good look for the PA to not have announced when their counter offer will be proposed. I mean, they should have known the first offer from the owners would be nothing but s***, so have something ready-ish that can be tweaked and counter-proposed within a day or two.

 

I know I'm firmly in the players camp for hoping they win this round of negotiations, but they still need to accept some responsibility for the process being dragged out.

[Brownie19]

I think you misunderstood what I meant a little bit. By consistent contender I don't mean that a team makes the playoffs every year. I mean they don't go into these massive cycles of losing driven by low payrolls and return to respectability in short order after a bad season. I also said a helping hand in free agency, but you construed that as a team built with free agency. Young players are still very important.

 

Let's use the Blue Jays as an example. We were a playoff calibre team when Anthopoulos left, but primed for a rebuild in the coming years. That's going to happen to every time in the league, obviously.

 

We developed our young players and farm system and had a couple of rough seasons, but continued to spend a respectable amount on payroll throughout and used money to supplement our prospect core through trade. Arguably, before all prospects were ready, we preempted contention with big signings like Ryu and Springer.

 

I want to see other teams use that model. It was just pointed out that teams are making over 200 million before accounting for gate revenue and countless other streams. Let's see the Pirates sign Carlos Rodon and the Orioles sign Seiya Suzuki. They should be forced into putting in an honest effort and there's little doubt that it would accelerate their return to respectability.

 

This may be hard to explain, but I think you have to implement something that will change the business models for teams. In the example you provided, I suspect the Jays looked at it and said - even though we are 'retooling' and don't expect to win, we're willing to spend more money now to stay somewhat competitive between 2017-2019 because we're riding the coat tails of the 2015-2016 teams/playoff appearances. I fully suspect their modelling indicated the projected return was worth the investment.

 

You can't apply that model across the board and expect similar results. If Pittsburgh signs Rodon and the O's sign Suzuki - the team will still suck balls and won't be anywhere near the playoffs. Will that investment generate more revenue and profit? I suspect the answer is no - no it won't. So while that sucks for baseball, only moronic owners are going to ignore that. That's why we see teams like the Cubs (who can spend) go through a full rebuild, slash spending and save up their money and spend it when they hit the right portion of the win curve.

 

Until you change those dynamics - I doubt much will change. Until finishing with between 70 and 80 wins consistently nets you more revenue and profit than finishing with 60-70 wins - teams will continue to manipulate their assets (ie prospects) and spending accordingly.

 

As much as I don't like it, increasing the # of teams that make the playoffs may be part of the solution as I have to think that making the playoffs has a tangible impact on revenue and profit. Making it easier to make the playoffs will change the business models. I wonder if you could implement something where a larger portion of the profit sharing or TV deal money is given to teams with more than 70 wins (or whatever number makes sense).

 

If we do implement a salary 'floor' - I do wonder if teams will use the money they have to spend to actually get better. I suspect some will use it to rebuild. They'll 'take' s***** contracts back in exchange for better prospects and those s***** contracts will allow them to get up to the floor without the team actually improving. I think they'll keep doing that if there's no financial benefit to being a 75 win team instead of a 65 win team....they'll manipulate the system to try and land enough good talent to finally break through the 75 win threshold and move up into the optimal location on the win curve where they'll be real contender - because that will have a tangible impact on their revenue/profit.

[John_Havok]

"If we do implement a salary 'floor' - I do wonder if teams will use the money they have to spend to actually get better. I suspect some will use it to rebuild. They'll 'take' s***** contracts back in exchange for better prospects and those s***** contracts will allow them to get up to the floor without the team actually improving."

 

THat's not entirely bad though, from a player's salary point of view. Because those teams unloading bad contracts will still have to maintain their floor.

 

IT all depends on the lens you look at the proposals through. the PA wants more money spent on player's salaries, because that's their job. There's plenty of teams out there that make money regardless of whether they are contenders or not, because of revenue sharing. Of course, we don't ever get to look at the books of these teams because they're all privately owned (exception being the Jays and Braves) to see exactly what teams revenues and profits are... but I don't think it's all that much of a secret to think that the vast majority of teams are in the black every year, to varying degrees. Some may barely get in the black, some are raking in cash hand over fist. There's also a bunch of revenue the owners of these teams generate that's not directly the result of owing the team, but they do generate it because of their association with the team.

 

This is why you see entire revitalization and large area proposals that don't just include stadiums now. Owners are using the infrastructure and business all around the stadiums to make money year round off their team, without it being considered revenue from the team. And while the MLBPA cannot expect those kinds of revenues to be shared or ever see them in the form of player salaries, when they see team valuations going up up up every year and player salaries going down like they did last season, it's enough to make them take a fairly hard stance.

[Grant77]

This may be hard to explain, but I think you have to implement something that will change the business models for teams. In the example you provided, I suspect the Jays looked at it and said - even though we are 'retooling' and don't expect to win, we're willing to spend more money now to stay somewhat competitive between 2017-2019 because we're riding the coat tails of the 2015-2016 teams/playoff appearances. I fully suspect their modelling indicated the projected return was worth the investment.

 

You can't apply that model across the board and expect similar results. If Pittsburgh signs Rodon and the O's sign Suzuki - the team will still suck balls and won't be anywhere near the playoffs. Will that investment generate more revenue and profit? I suspect the answer is no - no it won't. So while that sucks for baseball, only moronic owners are going to ignore that. That's why we see teams like the Cubs (who can spend) go through a full rebuild, slash spending and save up their money and spend it when they hit the right portion of the win curve.

 

Until you change those dynamics - I doubt much will change. Until finishing with between 70 and 80 wins consistently nets you more revenue and profit than finishing with 60-70 wins - teams will continue to manipulate their assets (ie prospects) and spending accordingly.

 

As much as I don't like it, increasing the # of teams that make the playoffs may be part of the solution as I have to think that making the playoffs has a tangible impact on revenue and profit. Making it easier to make the playoffs will change the business models. I wonder if you could implement something where a larger portion of the profit sharing or TV deal money is given to teams with more than 70 wins (or whatever number makes sense).

 

If we do implement a salary 'floor' - I do wonder if teams will use the money they have to spend to actually get better. I suspect some will use it to rebuild. They'll 'take' s***** contracts back in exchange for better prospects and those s***** contracts will allow them to get up to the floor without the team actually improving. I think they'll keep doing that if there's no financial benefit to being a 75 win team instead of a 65 win team....they'll manipulate the system to try and land enough good talent to finally break through the 75 win threshold and move up into the optimal location on the win curve where they'll be real contender - because that will have a tangible impact on their revenue/profit.

 

I actually agree with a lot of that. Teams don't want to spend if it won't increase their revenue. That's exactly why you have to force them to do so. It doesn't matter if it's economically viable. It matters that it reduces the time it takes to rebuild and makes teams more competitive.

 

Let's stick with the Rodon example. The Pirates sign him for 1 year and he's really quite good. They get a few prospects in return at the deadline. They take Randal Grichuk for a couple of prospects as well. They win more games and their existing prospects develop better because of it. All ot the sudden maybe they're a year closer to contention and a year closer to actually wanting to spend.

 

I like your idea of basing some of the revenue sharing on winning games. That's a very novel approach that could work.

[Brownie19]

I actually agree with a lot of that. Teams don't want to spend if it won't increase their revenue. That's exactly why you have to force them to do so. It doesn't matter if it's economically viable. It matters that it reduces the time it takes to rebuild and makes teams more competitive.

 

Let's stick with the Rodon example. The Pirates sign him for 1 year and he's really quite good. They get a few prospects in return at the deadline. They take Randal Grichuk for a couple of prospects as well. They win more games and their existing prospects develop better because of it. All ot the sudden maybe they're a year closer to contention and a year closer to actually wanting to spend.

 

I like your idea of basing some of the revenue sharing on winning games. That's a very novel approach that could work.

 

Brownie for Union President?

[Brownie19]

"If we do implement a salary 'floor' - I do wonder if teams will use the money they have to spend to actually get better. I suspect some will use it to rebuild. They'll 'take' s***** contracts back in exchange for better prospects and those s***** contracts will allow them to get up to the floor without the team actually improving."

 

THat's not entirely bad though, from a player's salary point of view. Because those teams unloading bad contracts will still have to maintain their floor.

 

IT all depends on the lens you look at the proposals through. the PA wants more money spent on player's salaries, because that's their job. There's plenty of teams out there that make money regardless of whether they are contenders or not, because of revenue sharing. Of course, we don't ever get to look at the books of these teams because they're all privately owned (exception being the Jays and Braves) to see exactly what teams revenues and profits are... but I don't think it's all that much of a secret to think that the vast majority of teams are in the black every year, to varying degrees. Some may barely get in the black, some are raking in cash hand over fist. There's also a bunch of revenue the owners of these teams generate that's not directly the result of owing the team, but they do generate it because of their association with the team.

 

This is why you see entire revitalization and large area proposals that don't just include stadiums now. Owners are using the infrastructure and business all around the stadiums to make money year round off their team, without it being considered revenue from the team. And while the MLBPA cannot expect those kinds of revenues to be shared or ever see them in the form of player salaries, when they see team valuations going up up up every year and player salaries going down like they did last season, it's enough to make them take a fairly hard stance.

 

I don't disagree. I mean by all means if their goal is to increase spending in general, then implement a salary floor. I'm just saying I'm not sure that will necessarily result in more competition across the league. It probably will to some extent, but there will still be lots of teams who aren't 'trying to win' even though they are spending more.

[John_Havok]

I don't disagree. I mean by all means if their goal is to increase spending in general, then implement a salary floor. I'm just saying I'm not sure that will necessarily result in more competition across the league. It probably will to some extent, but there will still be lots of teams who aren't 'trying to win' even though they are spending more.

 

That's just it, some teams... it really doesnt matter if they are winning or not, their revenues don't move all that much because of their s***** local situations. Owners in that scenario would likely just defer to making as much money as they can while maintaining the illusion of trying to be competitive. Which is why you have to force them to spend money on player salaries... or they won't.