Why MLB Needs to Implement ‘The Arte Clause’
Why am I so passionate about the MLB implementing a 16% salary cap?
Maybe it’s my passion for baseball.
Maybe it’s a personal thing. As someone who was double play partners with Mike Trout from ages 14–17, I have seen what has happened and have thought about how things could have been different. Besides his one playoff trip in 2014, and 2023 WBC he has not won a championship since we played together.
(That ‘s Mike and me)
It’s probably a mix of both.
Ultimately, I love to see good baseball and enjoy seeing the games best compete on the biggest stages. It’s been frustrating seeing owner Arte Moreno throw money at a few FAs and expect to win.
The “Arte Clause” would not allow teams to pay an individual player more than 16% of their team’s total payroll. Implementing this cap to avoid owners wasting guys’ primes and not spending to win. This rule does not change owners ability to spend on high price tag FA, it just requires them to spend on other areas to put a winning product on the field.
What the Arte Clause would do is hold owners financially accountable throughout the duration of these mega deals.
MLB is not like the NBA where 3 high price tags guys can help you win consistently. MLB requires an entire line up of 9 guys, 3–4 good starters, and 2–3 good bullpen arms to win consistently. It’s great that the Angels have a $130,965,000 salary, but it’s not great when $73,450,000 or 56% of their team’s salary is tied up between two players (Anthony Rendon $38,000,000 & Mike Trout $35,450,000). Spend $38,000,000 on FA like Rendon, but then your team’s total salary must be a minimum of $237,500,000.
Currently Rendon’s contract is 26.2% of the Angels payroll. That’s not a recipe for success in baseball. If Rendon’s contract was only 16% of the Angels payroll they could be more competitive as a team. Which either means they need to spend more or not buy players they cant afford to surround. Owners have proven they can’t do their due diligence in signing guys to >$100+Mil contracts and MLB needs to implement some guidelines.
For example, the Rangers signed Corey Seager to a $34.5 mil/yr contract and I have zero issues with it. That is because the Rangers team total payroll is $235,293,334. So Seager’s contract is only 14.66% of the team’s total payroll. This means the team has spent elsewhere to create a winning ballclub. The Rangers spent 17% on Degrom and 18.42% on Scherzer (not sure if the Mets are paying some of that), but they didn’t pan out. Under the “Arte Clause or Boz Rule”, in order to sign Degrom at $40mil, the Ranger would need to increase their total payroll from $235,293,334 to $250,000,000 in the next 30 days after signing Degrom.
Generally speaking paying over 16% of your team’s total payroll for 1 player does not work out. That’s my concern with the Bobby Witt Jr. contract. I wish MLB stepped in and said, “In order to maintain eligibility under the Boz Rule, if you sign Bobby Witt Jr. to $26,252,525 per yr the Kansas City Royals have 30 days to increase your ball clubs total payroll from $117,490,025 to $164,078,281”
-Boz Out!
Los Angeles Angels Contracts or check out this spreadsheet below
Look at the Texas Rangers contracts or check out this spreadsheet below
Kansas City Royals contracts
