MLB Lockout Thread

[Sports Guy]

How are things going to get settled when you are 80+ million apart and you only move 5M?  
 

It’s insanity.  Someone is going to have to cave on something big and it doesn’t sound like either side is close to doing that and if they aren’t close now, why should we think they are close to doing it anytime soon?  
 

I think yesterday was the single biggest indication that the season doesn’t start on time.   I haven’t seen anywhere that the 2 sides are meeting again today or anytime soon.  Yesterday was supposed to jump start daily discussions to get this knocked out and the owners changed very little it sounds like.

[Pickles]

I'll say this in defense of the owners:

Literally the only time owners "make" money off the players is during their cost controlled years.

Most organizations give tens of millions of dollars to amateur players annually who don't do anything for them.

They likewise spend millions of dollars annually developing those players.  That doesn't make them money.

We're all in agreement that almost all FAs are overpaid, and owners lose money on them.

Changing that system is radical, and likely to have consequences beyond what anyone is predicting.  Consequences that could very well be unwanted for the players.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

How are things going to get settled when you are 80+ million apart and you only move 5M?  
 

It’s insanity.  Someone is going to have to cave on something big and it doesn’t sound like either side is close to doing that and if they aren’t close now, why should we think they are close to doing it anytime soon?  
 

I think yesterday was the single biggest indication that the season doesn’t start on time.   I haven’t seen anywhere that the 2 sides are meeting again today or anytime soon.  Yesterday was supposed to jump start daily discussions to get this knocked out and the owners changed very little it sounds like.

Seems like neither side wants to be the first to make a big move.   Or, perhaps they feel they already made big concessions on other issues and so are entitled to be stubborn on these ones.   

I do think a mediator may be required at some point, but that may still be a move or two away.   It’s sucks that this is dragging on so long, but that’s life.   As an O’s fan, I’m just glad that most of their top prospects aren’t on the 40-man roster and can get their work in at minor league camp if the negotiations drag into March.
 

[OriolesMagic83]

On 2/5/2022 at 10:34 AM, Moose Milligan said:

 

They would argue (and I believe they have argued) that if there's a salary floor, there will have to be a cap.  And they certainly don't want that.

I don't know if a floor would do any good.  It might, but if there's an imposed minimum on what I'd have to have payroll as an owner, I'd rather just give that money to the young guys and meet the floor that way.  I mean, look at the Acuna contract, it was something like 10/124, signed when he was 21.  I'd rather give him 10/175 and make that dude happy through age 31 before letting him walk.  I' d rather use that extra meat to make the salary floor rather than bring on some aging mediocre guys like Eric Hosmer.  Blech.  

I'm pretty sure the players would agree to a CBA which removed all luxury taxes with no other changes.  Obviously that would make small market teams even less competitive and less willing to spend money.  Is this the year my team is going to go for it?  And by go for it, I mean try to reach .500.  Reminds me of the ridiculous goal of the O's during much of the 14 year losing streak to reach .500.

[Tony-OH]

On 2/10/2022 at 1:32 PM, jamalshw said:

It'll be interesting to see what the lotter is. Is it the last five teams, last 10, is it NBA style. Either way, at least the Orioles got their two No.1 overalls locked before this. 

This is win for the big market teams and the players. All I know is the fans of mid and small market teams are not going to be happy when this is finally over as competitiveness for all 30 teams will be diminished.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Seems like neither side wants to be the first to make a big move.   Or, perhaps they feel they already made big concessions on other issues and so are entitled to be stubborn on these ones.   

I do think a mediator may be required at some point, but that may still be a move or two away.   It’s sucks that this is dragging on so long, but that’s life.   As an O’s fan, I’m just glad that most of their top prospects aren’t on the 40-man roster and can get their work in at minor league camp if the negotiations drag into March.
 

Well unfortunately, the players aren't interested in mediation. Why would you want mediation when you can keep crying to the press and have them take your side? 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Well unfortunately, the players aren't interested in mediation. Why would you want mediation when you can keep crying to the press and have them take your side? 

They didn’t feel the time was right for mediation.   That doesn’t mean they’ll never think the timing is right.  

You are very dug in on your anti-player stance.   Most analysts I’ve seen agreed that the timing of the owners’ request for mediation was premature and that the players were right to reject it at that point.   To you, that’s because these people are “naive” or buying into the player’s “propaganda.”   To me, it’s because they’re right.   
 

[Bahama O's Fan]

The longer it continues, who hurts the most, players or owners? 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

This is win for the big market teams and the players. All I know is the fans of mid and small market teams are not going to be happy when this is finally over as competitiveness for all 30 teams will be diminished.

Why would this be a win for big market teams?

[Pickles]

15 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

The longer it continues, who hurts the most, players or owners? 

If it goes into the season, the players obviously.

Most owners have other revenue streams.

Most players don't.

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Well unfortunately, the players aren't interested in mediation. Why would you want mediation when you can keep crying to the press and have them take your side? 

I'm not sure where the press is "taking their side" unless it's someone in an op-ed piece.  Most things I've seen/read are simply stating the facts and reporting on what's happened in the negotiations.  But if the press is "taking their side" I'm assuming it's because a sportswriter knows what it's like to work hard and have a publication like ESPN/Disney to make more money while their salary stays the same.  That's a concept that many can relate to.

In terms of your concern with the public perception, it's simple.  The players are vocal, they communicate to the public about what they're doing and what they want.  The owners, for the most part, do not.  

As many have stated in this thread, it's millionaires vs. billionaires in this dispute and I don't really have a horse in this race.

You've made it very clear that you're anti-player which is puzzling to me.  Looking at this in from a very black and white perspective, it's obvious to me if I had to pick a side here, who'd I'd align with:  Would I want a guy like Cedric Mullins or Trey Mancini to get a little more money?  Or would I rather have the Angelos family get it?  

From that angle, the decision is obvious.  

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm not sure where the press is "taking their side" unless it's someone in an op-ed piece.  Most things I've seen/read are simply stating the facts and reporting on what's happened in the negotiations.  But if the press is "taking their side" I'm assuming it's because a sportswriter knows what it's like to work hard and have a publication like ESPN/Disney to make more money while their salary stays the same.  That's a concept that many can relate to.

In terms of your concern with the public perception, it's simple.  The players are vocal, they communicate to the public about what they're doing and what they want.  The owners, for the most part, do not.  

As many have stated in this thread, it's millionaires vs. billionaires in this dispute and I don't really have a horse in this race.

You've made it very clear that you're anti-player which is puzzling to me.  Looking at this in from a very black and white perspective, it's obvious to me if I had to pick a side here, who'd I'd align with:  Would I want a guy like Cedric Mullins or Trey Mancini to get a little more money?  Or would I rather have the Angelos family get it?  

From that angle, the decision is obvious.  

That is not where its at for me.  The owners do seen to care about the small market teams and are trying to hold down the luxury tax.   The union  only cares about money.

If the O's get good in a couple of years and they are in the pennant race  I don't want the Yankees, Red Sox or Jays having so much payroll room to trade for a 40m pitcher at the trade deadline.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

That is not where its at for me.  The owners do seen to care about the small market teams and are trying to hold down the luxury tax.   The union  only cares about money.

If the O's get good in a couple of years and they are in the pennant race  I don't want the Yankees, Red Sox or Jays having so much payroll room to trade for a 40m pitcher at the trade deadline.

 

How is holding down the luxury tax not caring about money?

The luxury tax isn't about competition balance.  It's about trying to limit spending by teams with owners willing to spend by making the cost more than financial.

[NCRaven]

Big market owners only use the tax as an excuse.  The could afford to exceed the limits but don’t want to spend if they have a phony excuse to hold down salaries.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Big market owners only use the tax as an excuse.  The could afford to exceed the limits but don’t want to spend if they have a phony excuse to hold down salaries.  

The Yankees are not worried about letting the Rays have a chance to compete.

If there is any sense of wanting competitive balance in baseball it is because the hyper rich owners are a minority.