MLB Lockout Thread

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I wonder why the players haven’t introduced a floor?

I mean, if the owners are saying no, we aren’t going to up the CBT as much, why not see if you can make the bottom feeders spend more?  Seems to me that would accomplish what they are trying to do.

They don't seem to have the position of strength to make headway with something like that.  It appears they have been giving more ground than the owners.

[forphase1]

3 hours ago, seak05 said:

Yes, we already know you don’t really believe in workers getting a fair share of revenue. 

Sure I do.   But what is 'fair' is very subjective.  In don't believe the players are being treated unfairly under the recently expired CBA, so I certainly don't think an improved CBA is unfair to them either.   Do they want more money?  Sure,  we all do.   But too many,  in my opinion,  act like it's immoral how they are paid or that it's some kind of quest for justice to get more money transferred from owners to the players.  It's not my money and frankly I don't care if the guy at the plate is making $1 a game, $10,000 a game or $1M a game.   I'm going to sleep fine if they are swimming in cash or one paycheck from losing their house, like many folks.   The only time it really matters to me is if it prevents the team from doing other things as they are strapped for cash or in a Davis type situation where they are grossly overpaid.  But as a small business owner, I know outsiders usually are clueless about the real revenue situation and often simply look at total income without factoring in the numerous expenses and costs of doing business.   I don't think things are nearly as good as some media,  players,  and folks here claim,  but nor do I think it's as bad as Manfred and some in MLB claim.  Like most adversarial setups, the truth is almost always in the middle between what both sides are claiming.   Believing everything the owners put out is foolish.   But believing what the players and MLBPA put out is equally foolish.   Funny how polarized we are today when even something as trivial as player compensation is something that can bring out the ugly between those of us without any real skin in the game. 

[MGH5208]

30 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I wonder why the players haven’t introduced a floor?

I mean, if the owners are saying no, we aren’t going to up the CBT as much, why not see if you can make the bottom feeders spend more?  Seems to me that would accomplish what they are trying to do.

agree.  Players are agreeing to a "cap" with the high figure.   Only a few teams spend up to that amount every year anyway (not sure how much the penalties have to do with that).   seems to me (and you) that getting 15 teams to spend a minimum would be worth more than 2 teams spending the max.     and if you truly want to accomplish the competitive balance that the CBT is supposed to be doing, have that floor be (floor+CBT$ received) - keeps owners from poketing all the CBT $.   

 

[Can_of_corn]

26 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Sure I do.   But what is 'fair' is very subjective.  In don't believe the players are being treated unfairly under the recently expired CBA, so I certainly don't think an improved CBA is unfair to them either.   Do they want more money?  Sure,  we all do.   But too many,  in my opinion,  act like it's immoral how they are paid or that it's some kind of quest for justice to get more money transferred from owners to the players.  It's not my money and frankly I don't care if the guy at the plate is making $1 a game, $10,000 a game or $1M a game.   I'm going to sleep fine if they are swimming in cash or one paycheck from losing their house, like many folks.   The only time it really matters to me is if it prevents the team from doing other things as they are strapped for cash or in a Davis type situation where they are grossly overpaid.  But as a small business owner, I know outsiders usually are clueless about the real revenue situation and often simply look at total income without factoring in the numerous expenses and costs of doing business.   I don't think things are nearly as good as some media,  players,  and folks here claim,  but nor do I think it's as bad as Manfred and some in MLB claim.  Like most adversarial setups, the truth is almost always in the middle between what both sides are claiming.   Believing everything the owners put out is foolish.   But believing what the players and MLBPA put out is equally foolish.   Funny how polarized we are today when even something as trivial as player compensation is something that can bring out the ugly between those of us without any real skin in the game. 

I look at the steep escalation in the value (as proven by franchises being sold) of franchises and have to come to the conclusion that owning a team is highly profitable. 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Under the league's desired 14 team playoff arrangement, the 82-80 Phillies would have made it in last year. 

Can't wait to see an 81-81 World Series championship team in my lifetime lol.

You saw it not long ago, kinda. Cardinals won something like 82 games. 
 

Playoffs shouldn’t reward mediocrity, IMO. But that’s what society wants these days, rewarding mediocrity. 
 

[MarCakes21]

If you want to look at good parity, go look at the NFL. I don’t think that’s a perfect structure either but it’s an example. There’s big and small markets all living under the same rules. There’s significantly more desire to remain relevant yearly. There’s 12 teams that make the playoffs, with the same total number of teams so we can’t complain about that.

Theres also a salary cap, hard and fast. You can play around with the rules in terms of bonuses but so many guys playing for league minimum. There’s no floor needed, because competition is desired by all.

Now, how does the MLB take the competitiveness (or lack there of) so all teams are spending at some desired ceiling with no floor needed.

Wont be solved this go around but that’s how the MLB should frame their stance. But then again, they’d also have to forgo guaranteed contracts while they’re at it

[MurphDogg]

Interesting article from our old friend Britt Ghiroli about how players are using social media to shift perception around the lockout.

I know at least one person that it isn't working on!

[Can_of_corn]

36 minutes ago, MarCakes21 said:

If you want to look at good parity, go look at the NFL. I don’t think that’s a perfect structure either but it’s an example. There’s big and small markets all living under the same rules. There’s significantly more desire to remain relevant yearly. There’s 12 teams that make the playoffs, with the same total number of teams so we can’t complain about that.

Theres also a salary cap, hard and fast. You can play around with the rules in terms of bonuses but so many guys playing for league minimum. There’s no floor needed, because competition is desired by all.

Now, how does the MLB take the competitiveness (or lack there of) so all teams are spending at some desired ceiling with no floor needed.

Wont be solved this go around but that’s how the MLB should frame their stance. But then again, they’d also have to forgo guaranteed contracts while they’re at it

The following teams have never won a Superbowl (We've had 52 Superbowls to date).

Arizona Cardinals

Atlanta Falcons

Buffalo Bills

 

Cincinnati Bengals

Cleveland Browns

Detroit Lions

Houston Texans

Jacksonville Jaguars

Los Angeles Chargers

Minnesota Vikings

Tennessee Titans

That's 11 teams.

 

Two teams have won six.

Two teams have won five.

That's 42% won by four teams.

 

I'm not seeing a ton of parity.

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[Camden_yardbird]

18 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You saw it not long ago, kinda. Cardinals won something like 82 games. 
 

Playoffs shouldn’t reward mediocrity, IMO. But that’s what society wants these days, rewarding mediocrity. 
 

Your thoughts on society aside (there is a fine line between fairness and rewarding mediocrity), the MLB system wants more playoff games.  The owners want it because they make more money on those games.  The players are okay with it because it means more teams have skin in the game and so salary potential goes up.  I dont think anyone gives a hoot about what the fans want outside of fan interest driving higher media deals.

If the fans want to reward mediocrity it has no effect on these negotiations.  I think a lot of fans of small market teams want a more fair system between large market teams and small market teams. In that I am somewhat dismayed to say that the owners proposals align significantly more with a fair system than the players.  I appreciate the players wanting to incent more teams to participate with things like a draft lottery, but that's a poor way to do it given the documented WAR difference between pick 1-1 and 1-10.  If they want more teams to participate establish a salary floor and move on - instead they want a higher ceiling which will just result in the few teams that can go that high to go that high - or at the very least allow them to take more FA risk on and swallow lost value.

[Camden_yardbird]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The following teams have never won a Superbowl (We've had 52 Superbowls to date).

Arizona Cardinals

Atlanta Falcons

Buffalo Bills

Buffalo Bills

Cincinnati Bengals

Cleveland Browns

Detroit Lions

Houston Texans

Jacksonville Jaguars

Los Angeles Chargers

Minnesota Vikings

Tennessee Titans

That's 12 teams.

 

Two teams have won six.

Two teams have won five.

That's 42% won by four teams.

 

I'm not seeing a ton of parity.

 

You have buffalo twice.

And every one of those teams with exception of the jags and lions has been to the playoffs in the last three years and all but I think three have WON their division within the last 4.  Thats a significant amount of parity, SB wins aside.  Championships shouldn't really be a metric for parity anyway.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

You have buffalo twice.

And every one of those teams with exception of the jags and lions has been to the playoffs in the last three years and all but I think three have WON their division within the last 4.  Thats a significant amount of parity, SB wins aside.  Championships shouldn't really be a metric for parity anyway.

Sorry yea, typo on the Bills.  I was copy/pasting because I was being lazy.

As for Championships not being a metric?

I've seen plenty of folks here (not saying you) that say that Tampa making the World Series doesn't count because a big market team beat them.

I've said it before, none of the major sports have real parity and you can't properly bake it in.  Teams like the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers will always have an advantage and when they have competent ownership will win a disproportionate amount of the time.

I think that every MLB team, if properly run, has a decent shot at making the playoffs.  Most of the struggles the Orioles have had is in the last 40 years is the result of self inflicted wounds.

[OriolesMagic83]

4 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

It's going to make the regular season meaningless, but on the other hand the O's climb to making the playoffs becomes shorter. 

I don't like it and keep the current baseball playoff format. 

Make it a 24 team playoff and I think the O's have a shot this year.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

This meme also applies to Chris Davis now too. 

 

[Moshagge3]

39 minutes ago, MarCakes21 said:

If you want to look at good parity, go look at the NFL. I don’t think that’s a perfect structure either but it’s an example. There’s big and small markets all living under the same rules. There’s significantly more desire to remain relevant yearly. There’s 12 teams that make the playoffs, with the same total number of teams so we can’t complain about that.

Theres also a salary cap, hard and fast. You can play around with the rules in terms of bonuses but so many guys playing for league minimum. There’s no floor needed, because competition is desired by all.

Now, how does the MLB take the competitiveness (or lack there of) so all teams are spending at some desired ceiling with no floor needed.

Wont be solved this go around but that’s how the MLB should frame their stance. But then again, they’d also have to forgo guaranteed contracts while they’re at it

Aside from what others have pointed out - Lions, Jaguars, Browns, etc. mired in mediocrity for decades - NFL and MLB are apples to oranges. In the NFL, one top draft pick can make you a contender immediately. That's how Cincinnati  went from a joke to the Super Bowl. That's not how it works in MLB. 

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I look at the steep escalation in the value (as proven by franchises being sold) of franchises and have to come to the conclusion that owning a team is highly profitable. 

Yes, buying and SELLING a team is highly profitable.  But running it day to day and year by year, that we don't know for sure.  Regardless, even if I make a smart investment and whatever I invest in gains significantly in value, I don't realize that gain until I sell it, and that increase isn't really an increase until I monetize it by sell it.  It does nothing to help me pay the bills, keep up payroll, expand my business, etc etc until the time I sell it.