Who is to blame if there is not MLB baseball in 2020?

[eddie83]

I was listening a little bit on Monday to Mad Dog on Sirius. A caller had a real good point. It seems that baseball always gets ripped over labor issues. It has been 26 years since the 1994 debacle. All the other major sports have had issues since then and even before he became commissioner Manfred played a big part in the negotiations. We are taking about a quarter of a century.

Obviously nobody wants to hear about this now considering what is going on in the world. The NBA and NHL already played 75-85% of their regular season in front on fans. Timing is everything and not only did baseball not get any regular season games in their CBA is about to expire. 

Clearly the players need to be paid more earlier in their careers. I just don’t see why they can’t come together for this year for the better of the game. The long term CBA will have much more impact than this one season will. 

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I disagree.  I think we are seeing more of groups buying teams as investments.

That's possible.  I haven't done any kind of comprehensive survey.

[Moose Milligan]

15 hours ago, Philip said:

I respect you. If I’m wrong sure let me know. If you disagree, I’d like to know your reasoning as well.

If you just miss baseball, no need to say a word.

I don't think you were wrong, it's just hard to keep talking about these two collections of selfish bastards.  

I do miss baseball, that's what it really amounts to.  

I saw MLS is coming back July 8th.  Meanwhile the players and owners have their thumbs up their asses.

[Can_of_corn]

15 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think that DeWitt is talking in the language of a large business owner, parsing his words very carefully to improve his position. 

I'm guessing that, for example, the Royals make very little reportable, taxable profit in any given year.  So their owners would be correct in saying that the industry isn't very profitable, in that sense.  But 20 years ago the Royals franchise value was something like $100M.  The team was recently sold for $1B.  If you bought an asset at $100 and sold it 20 years later for $1000 that's 12.2% a year, which beats the long-term average returns of the S&P 500.  To me that's pretty profitable.

I don't think a team's value goes up like that if ownership of the team isn't generating significant revenue for the owners.

[LTO's]

22 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think you were wrong, it's just hard to keep talking about these two collections of selfish bastards. 

You don't think there is some distinction between players who mostly have short careers that need to be maximized monetarily and owners who already have generational wealth and are sitting on a billion dollar plus asset? I mean no offense by this but I've seen this sentiment a lot recently and it's just really dumb/naive. If owners are not going to pay players a prorated salary because they won't have attendance revenue then they should be forced to pay them more money if attendance is high. But....they wouldn't do that.

[Moose Milligan]

19 minutes ago, LTO's said:

You don't think there is some distinction between players who mostly have short careers that need to be maximized monetarily and owners who already have generational wealth and are sitting on a billion dollar plus asset? I mean no offense by this but I've seen this sentiment a lot recently and it's just really dumb/naive. If owners are not going to pay players a prorated salary because they won't have attendance revenue then they should be forced to pay them more money if attendance is high. But....they wouldn't do that.

There is a distinction.  I'm just tired of it, really.  

Dumb/naive would be caring about one side or the other in an argument of millionaires vs. billionaires when there's a global pandemic and civil unrest due to the unlawful killing of a minority at the hands of the people who are in charge of keeping us safe, supposedly.  I mean, no offense.  

Try this one on for size:  between players and owners, there are no good guys.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, LTO's said:

You don't think there is some distinction between players who mostly have short careers that need to be maximized monetarily and owners who already have generational wealth and are sitting on a billion dollar plus asset? I mean no offense by this but I've seen this sentiment a lot recently and it's just really dumb/naive. If owners are not going to pay players a prorated salary because they won't have attendance revenue then they should be forced to pay them more money if attendance is high. But....they wouldn't do that.

There is a good point hidden in there: Players should make a proposal that ties salaries to revenues, in all circumstances.  If that was already in place we wouldn't have a dispute.  Owners would open up the books, and if they're bringing in 20% of normal revenues the players still get 45% of that (or whatever the number is).

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think a team's value goes up like that if ownership of the team isn't generating significant revenue for the owners.

I don't know.  I think a lot of really rich guys like the idea of owning one of 30 MLB teams.  This isn't a free market, with all the normal free market assumptions.  This is a cartel, with strictly limited supply of available teams.

It would be nice to see the books, to know for sure what owners take as profit.

[LTO's]

10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Try this one on for size:  between players and owners, there are no good guys.

Would seem exhausting to even watch the sport when you have this attitude. To each their own I guess.

[Moose Milligan]

32 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Would seem exhausting to even watch the sport when you have this attitude. To each their own I guess.

Not really.

I mean, I can separate the fact that the MLBPA is made up of a bunch of spoiled douchebags when the Orioles are playing a game.  I fell in love with baseball well before I knew what a players union was.  The MLBPA has been a bunch of spoiled douchebags forever, this isn't news.  It's not like they weren't spoiled douchebags 6 months ago and then all of a sudden became that way due to the situation they find themselves in.  They've just been given the opportunity to show their true colors now.  On a similar note, I don't mind paying a few bucks to go watch a game or two in the summer at the stadium and fattening the owner's wallet, even though they're jerks, too.  The fact that the owners and players both suck doesn't mean I don't enjoy baseball.  

Personally I think it's silly to feel that you have to back one side or the other, they both suck.  And they're both pretty close to causing a lot of damage to the game.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is a good point hidden in there: Players should make a proposal that ties salaries to revenues, in all circumstances.  If that was already in place we wouldn't have a dispute.  Owners would open up the books, and if they're bringing in 20% of normal revenues the players still get 45% of that (or whatever the number is).

"a proposal that ties salaries to revenues" is, in effect, a salary cap (and floor).   And the union has always been firmly opposed to a cap.    That is the line they don't want to cross.    They are one of the few remaining holdouts on that.   I wonder if the time has come to abandon that?

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, SteveA said:

"a proposal that ties salaries to revenues" is, in effect, a salary cap (and floor).   And the union has always been firmly opposed to a cap.    That is the line they don't want to cross.    They are one of the few remaining holdouts on that.   I wonder if the time has come to abandon that?

I would have thought they'd be open to it because salaries as a percentage of revenues are at their lowest spot in a long time.  Teams are doing a better job than ever at restraining themselves from signing over-the-hill Kevin Millars and Jamie Walkers for $8M a year.  I'd think a proposal that locked in 44-46% of revenues compared to the 42% or so today would get some interest.  Unless the players really think it's just a matter of time before the restraints come off and the owners won't be able to control themselves again.  Or if they think they can get much better compensation for younger players with no concessions from the owners.

[Moose Milligan]

13 minutes ago, SteveA said:

"a proposal that ties salaries to revenues" is, in effect, a salary cap (and floor).   And the union has always been firmly opposed to a cap.    That is the line they don't want to cross.    They are one of the few remaining holdouts on that.   I wonder if the time has come to abandon that?

They won't ever give up on not having a cap.  That'll never change.  They take pride in being the only sport that doesn't have a cap, they puff out their chests at every given opportunity and remind everyone that'll listen that there's no cap.  

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

They won't ever give up on not having a cap.  That'll never change.  They take pride in being the only sport that doesn't have a cap, they puff out their chests at every given opportunity and remind everyone that'll listen that there's no cap.  

There has been a sea change in the middle of a CBA and it ticks the Union off. Like Drungo said the Walkers and Millars of previous eras aren’t being paid anymore. I get their frustration to an extent but work on getting younger players paid because in the near future it’s never going back to the way it was. A ton of stuff needs to be addressed in this next CBA but that should not impact 2020 like it has been doing. Get thru this year and deal with the outrage over that later.   

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, eddie83 said:

There has been a sea change in the middle of a CBA and it ticks the Union off. Like Drungo said the Walkers and Millars of previous eras aren’t being paid anymore. I get their frustration to an extent but work on getting younger players paid because in the near future it’s never going back to the way it was. A ton of stuff needs to be addressed in this next CBA but that should not impact 2020 like it has been doing. Get thru this year and deal with the outrage over that later.   

Drungo is correct (as usual).  It took forever for the owners to wise up and realize that guys like Walker and Millar shouldn't get paid as much anymore and the market is starting to reflect that.  Finally, most owners are realizing where the true value lies.  

I get why the players would be pissed about it, but it's a fair, open market...and markets change.  But I don't think they'll ever give in on a cap.  That's just not going to go anywhere.