seak05

Woohoo, we have baseball. I am very excited to see the orioles spend no money in free agency and watch Adley in Norfolk

Eh, I get why they're leery of potentially re-opening the CBA in 3 years, and the other two options were mediocre. I'd agree that they were ok...but I also get why they countered. Also this, that's just legitimately lame from the owners

Players came back with if they can't figure out draft by Nov of 2022, then QO/draft pick compensation goes away. MLB owners rejected it. That seemed pretty reasonable to me. The QO/draft pick compensation is a big thing for the players, the fact that they are willing to give that up shows that the international draft issue very much matters to them.

Dang I'm frustrated right now. On one hand I respect the players for listening to the Dominican players, and doing what they are advocating for non-union members...but man this stinks. The owners gave a reasonable offer, the players countered with an even more reasonable offer (do any of us really want to see this process again in 3 years)....and we end up with more cancelled games.

Yeah, something like if you have less then n days of service time, and you have to spend at least a month in the minor leagues you can report to minor league camp. The situation also hoses guys who are injured and rehabbing. I wish drs were also an exception to the lockout

MLB however has totaled some 40 billion in cash revenue in the last few years, while cutting player salaries. As a sport it doesn’t have a cash problem. If some owners are cash poor, owners could increase revenue sharing. The NBA, which like baseball has local tv deals, has an over 50% revenue sharing. But mlb owners don’t want to revenue share. The equity in the team is also an asset, and owners could borrow against it to do things like make payroll. Owners however don’t want to use their equity, and they don’t want to revenue share. So instead they’ve told the cash rich teams they’re not allowed to spend profits as they see fit. (I think allowing richer teams to spend unfettered would be terrible for the sport, but solving the issue by only addressing the top end teams is both fundamentally unfair to the players….and is also terrible for the sport. My personal choice would be an increase in revenue sharing and a spending floor)

Players aren’t just workers, they’re also the product being sold (and even if you replaced them with other players, the players are still the product). I’m going to be honest, your overall reply shows reads as very condescending towards “workers”. In true capitalism owners wouldn’t be making any profit (but rather a wage they would pay themselves). Regardless fair wage and living wage aren’t synonyms. The fact that the players receive (much) more then a living wage, has nothing to do with it being an unfair offer. Fair wage is based on revenue.

Yes, we already know you don’t really believe in workers getting a fair share of revenue. if you’re the product driving massive revenue increases, and your pay isn’t increasing at even a small percentage of the revenue increase ….it’s not a fair deal. heck the players aren’t even asking for 50%

This offer is a joke, especially the CBT part. Shows no desire to negotiate in good faith

I don’t think only 8 teams are the hold up

And in fact a floor and a cap, both tied to a percentage of revenue/media deals is probably the reasonable compromise. And would improve the overall product. But the owners already have a defacto cap that they’re refusing to significantly raise, despite increasing revenue, they don’t want a floor, and they don’t actually care about negotiating….which makes comprise difficult.

But mediocre players aren't the team. The players aren't the product because of their names, the players are the product because they are the pinnacle of the talent pool. If you replace major league players, with players who are of a lesser talent level...people stop watching major league baseball. I can guarantee you though, if you replace the owners with other rich people...it doesn't impact the level of the product one is consuming. Some people around here are just upset that players get paid a lot of money, and are therefore totally ok with richer people getting paid even more.

Except that millionaire is defined by your assets, not your salary multiplied over time. You aren’t accounting for taxes, agent fees, and a whole host of expenses. Even if you want to argue that most players are a millionaire at the end of their careers, that status is unlikely to last very long, as their employment ends. It’s true that players make a lot of money from baseball, but this idea that everyone who makes the majors suddenly has generational wealth is false. The fact of the matter is the owners wealth is multiple orders of magnitude larger then the players, and the owners will make more money off of baseball then the players will as well. I get people being frustrated at the potential loss of games, but this whole well they’re both rich so I’m going to blame both sides, is both unfair and ignores the reality that both sides aren’t actually rich.

Except most of the players aren't millionaires. The average career length is only 5.6 years, which under baseball's current system doesn't even get you to free agency. And the minimum salary in baseball is the lowest of any of the professional leagues (it's still a good salary, but it's not going to make you a millionaire, and your peak earning years are very few). And yet, you seem to want the players to capitulate to billionaire owners because the minimum wage overall in this country is to low.

Good article here, the gist: the owners really don’t give a flying eff about the fans or baseball https://t.co/3Ttfu8mU2n

That's probably a good thing. Not sure it would end well if you showed up at random middle school games and started filming

keep in mind, in the 2019 clips, he's 14 years old

I think I wish it was less dramatic...more like 15ft back and 10ft high, 30ft back and 13ft high seems like when you're car is drifting right, and then you oversteer left. The straight wall into the right angle just also looks ugly (at least from what we see now). It definitely places a premium on lf defense

Yeah, and a few nice defensive plays. In a high pressure position, he did very nicely at a high level.

Aplogies, Adam. Maybe DL too, but I'd be pretty surprised

I think the Orioles will send Hall

Henderson has greater potential defensive value then Mayo, has performed at a higher level, he's also only 6 months older. Henderson will probably be on nearly all top 100 lists this year, Mayo is a guy they'll be watching. They had a BA guy on the OTV podcast and asked about Mayo, basically what's holding him off of top100 lists is skepticism he'll stay at 3b and also his swing against better velocity. Personally I think their is a lot of bias towards where guys were ranked in the draft, and it takes a couple years for prospect lists to lose the bias & base it on pro performance. If Mayo had been a first/second round draft pick, he'd be on top 100 lists

Yeah, but this is like 7-8 in a row. That theory would hold for an occasional extra strikeout, and creating a slightly higher strikeout rate...not for this volume

It's interesting to see the same issue resurfacing at Bowie that hurt him at Aberdeen, and I don't mean the strikeouts per se...it's that so many of the strikeouts are looking

Gunnar definitely wouldn’t be up. He’d be overmatched at the major league level right now, and he’s not a plus defender. You would see Grayson up, but you wouldn’t have prior to this year, and you will next year. The only Orioles prospect who is being significantly impacted by service time manipulation is Adley. He would have been on the club this year, and conceivably last year. When doing any sort of teaching, you want to challenge people, but not to their frustration level.