MLB Lockout Thread

[jarman86]

10 hours 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.

Playoffs have expanded to 14 teams in the past 2 years. Also, of those teams, only recently have they been competitive. We shouldn't have to wait 10-20 years for a team to make the playoffs. 

For the parity argument, I think it was an article in ESPN a couple years ago that proved statistically MLB had more parity than the NFL. NBA and NHL I think were included in terms of winning the whole thing, but when half your league goes to the playoffs, you increase parity regardless of competitiveness. 

[orioles119]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’ve been reading up on the positions of the two sides, and I remain optimistic they’ll reach a deal pretty soon.   It’s a real shame MLB didn’t push these negotiations sooner.   But missing a material amount of games (say, more than 10-15) over the remaining differences doesn’t seem rational for anyone.   

I agree here.  There will probably be a deal in about a week.  All the tweeters need to step away from the computer and stop puffing their chest about cancelling MLB.tv and being mad over a week's worth of games.  They'll be back when it returns - don't deny it.

I figure if they are playing by the time the NHL playoffs are done, then I'll be good with that.

[jarman86]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’ve been reading up on the positions of the two sides, and I remain optimistic they’ll reach a deal pretty soon.   It’s a real shame MLB didn’t push these negotiations sooner.   But missing a material amount of games (say, more than 10-15) over the remaining differences doesn’t seem rational for anyone.   

My understanding is that was a tactic to get public perception against the players. Unfortunately it didn't work as it did in 94/95. Guess that is what happens when you have 65+ year old owners who hire a guy to run the league who doesn't know what social media is...

I'm here for the optimism, cause I am a pessimist.

[orioles119]

4 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

My understanding is that was a tactic to get public perception against the players. Unfortunately it didn't work as it did in 94/95. Guess that is what happens when you have 65+ year old owners who hire a guy to run the league who doesn't know what social media is...

I'm here for the optimism, cause I am a pessimist.

I will say that the owners played the media like a fiddle.  They used them very well throughout Monday.  It's funny noone heard from the MLBPA too.

[wildcard]

I watched the  players press conference with Tony Clark, Andrew Miller and Max Scherzer.  The thing that came across the strongest was that they felt DISREPECTED.     They don't want to be treated like employees.   They want to have a say in everything.

They think the lockout is disrespect. They think the delays in negotiating are disrespect.  And of course they think the money offered is disrespect.

But if they truly want to partners with the owners as they say they can't be all about getting as much money as they can if it hurts the competitiveness of the league.   Max says the the luxury tax is a salary cap.   And in a way it is a soft salary cap.   Teams can go over it if they are willing to pay the tax.

But the luxury tax is there for a reason.   To try to make the vast difference in the revenue of rich teams vs lower revenue teams.   If the players want to be respected more they have to look out for the fairness  and competitiveness of the game instead of just how much money they can get.

 

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Because in next bargaining agreement, or even introducing it, you have the problem of negotiating the floor. Owners will always want to keep it as low as possible, regardless of increasing CBT, salaries, and profits. We already see the headache with the ceiling.

That’s not a reason not to ask for it.  You have to negotiate everything every CBA.

And the floor doesn’t even have to keep rising.  Keep it in the 80m area and that’s fine.  
 

It doesn’t effect a lot of teams but last year it would have effected 5 teams, 4 very heavily.  Even if those teams vote no, that isn’t enough votes by ownership to overturn that.

[Camden_yardbird]

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

Properly run.  Let's talk about that.

First, let me start by my definition of parity, well at least part of it.  Parity means that risk is shared equally among all teams.

In the NFL this happens because of the hard caps.  Sign the wrong guy to a $20 million deal and it matters.

MLB doesn't have it.  At all.  Take the 2017 Yankees for instance. 

In 2017 the Yankees paid jacoby ellsbury $22 million dollars, got a little over 100 games from him (a high point in the course of the contract) and 7 HRs, 39 RBI, and 65 runs.

That same year thry paid A-rod $28 million...for nothing.

Matt Holliday $13 million for a .231/.316 

Tyler Clippard $6 million for a -0.2 WAR

Thats $70 million for a combined 1.5 WAR.  In fact one player Aaron Judge was nearly 15% of the teams total WAR.  And yet despite this they made it to the AL Championship series and lost to a team that was cheating.

Meanwhile, most of us would recognize that the current Orioles plight is due largely to one bad contract, and a failure to properly develop a farm system that they had to shift resources away from in competitive years. 

My point is this.  Risk is not shared across teams.  The MLB system is set up so that some teams can take risks that other teams just can't.  I dont think that is a refutable to anyone as educated as this board is, we all recognize it.  And in that way, I would say the threshold for "properly run" is very different for the Orioles than it is the Yankees, or Dodgers, or any of many other teams that bat away their failed risky contracts with enormous resources.

[waroriole]

12 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I watched the  players press conference with Tony Clark, Andrew Miller and Max Scherzer.  The thing that came across the strongest was that they felt DISREPECTED.     They don't want to be treated like employees.   They want to have a say in everything.

They think the lockout is disrespect. They think the delays in negotiating are disrespect.  And of course they think the money offered is disrespect.

But if they truly want to partners with the owners as they say they can't be all about getting as much money as they can if it hurts the competitiveness of the league.   Max says the the luxury tax is a salary cap.   And in a way it is a soft salary cap.   Teams can go over it if they are willing to pay the tax.

But the luxury tax is there for a reason.   To try to make the vast difference in the revenue of rich teams vs lower revenue teams.   If the players want to be respected more they have to look out for the fairness  and competitiveness of the game instead of just how much money they can get.

 

If they want to make up for the vast differences in revenue between the NYY/LAD and the OAK/TB then increase revenue sharing. Luxury tax is a type of salary cap and a way to limit player salaries. 

[Moose Milligan]

19 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I watched the  players press conference with Tony Clark, Andrew Miller and Max Scherzer.  The thing that came across the strongest was that they felt DISREPECTED.     They don't want to be treated like employees.   They want to have a say in everything.

They think the lockout is disrespect. They think the delays in negotiating are disrespect.  And of course they think the money offered is disrespect.

 

 

Well...yeah.  

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, waroriole said:

If they want to make up for the vast differences in revenue between the NYY/LAD and the OAK/TB then increase revenue sharing. Luxury tax is a type of salary cap and a way to limit player salaries. 

I agree with this in a perfect world.   But how much the rich owners contribute to the revenue sharing is not something that the players can control.   Its not something the lower revenue teams can control.   Its in the rich owners control.  And the luxury tax is  a means of trying to control the rich owners and out of control owners.   If the players want to be partners they have to recognize the environment that exists and work within the system to improve it.

Its one thing to say I want all the money I can get and its another thing to  say I want to be partner.

[Daddy-O's]

12 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Properly run.  Let's talk about that.

First, let me start by my definition of parity, well at least part of it.  Parity means that risk is shared equally among all teams.

In the NFL this happens because of the hard caps.  Sign the wrong guy to a $20 million deal and it matters.

MLB doesn't have it.  At all.  Take the 2017 Yankees for instance. 

In 2017 the Yankees paid jacoby ellsbury $22 million dollars, got a little over 100 games from him (a high point in the course of the contract) and 7 HRs, 39 RBI, and 65 runs.

That same year thry paid A-rod $28 million...for nothing.

Matt Holliday $13 million for a .231/.316 

Tyler Clippard $6 million for a -0.2 WAR

Thats $70 million for a combined 1.5 WAR.  In fact one player Aaron Judge was nearly 15% of the teams total WAR.  And yet despite this they made it to the AL Championship series and lost to a team that was cheating.

Meanwhile, most of us would recognize that the current Orioles plight is due largely to one bad contract, and a failure to properly develop a farm system that they had to shift resources away from in competitive years. 

My point is this.  Risk is not shared across teams.  The MLB system is set up so that some teams can take risks that other teams just can't.  I dont think that is a refutable to anyone as educated as this board is, we all recognize it.  And in that way, I would say the threshold for "properly run" is very different for the Orioles than it is the Yankees, or Dodgers, or any of many other teams that bat away their failed risky contracts with enormous resources.

Sign the wrong guy to a 20 million dollar deal in the NFL and he probably won't get the entire 20 million.  Do you Think Chris Davis would have collected his entire contract if it were an NFL contract?

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, orioles119 said:

I agree here.  There will probably be a deal in about a week.  All the tweeters need to step away from the computer and stop puffing their chest about cancelling MLB.tv and being mad over a week's worth of games.  They'll be back when it returns - don't deny it.

I will leave it to each individual how they react to games being missed.   Personally, I’ve lived through numerous work stoppages, including 1981 and 1994-95 and also a couple of minor ones where a handful of games were missed.   I’m hoping this will be the latter type.    But none of them have stopped me from watching once play resumed.   If others choose to stop watching, that’s up to them.   

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I agree with this in a perfect world.   But how much the rich owners contribute to the revenue sharing is not something that the players can control.   Its not something the lower revenue teams can control.   Its in the rich owners control.  And the luxury tax is  a means of trying to control the rich owners and out of control owners.   If the players want to be partners they have to recognize the environment that exists and work within the system to improve it.

Its one thing to say I want all the money I can get and its another thing to  say I want to be partner.

The players made the big concession years ago when they agreed to the whole luxury tax concept.   Where the thresholds get set and how high the taxes are is a matter of negotiation, not principle.   

[MurphDogg]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The players made the big concession years ago when they agreed to the whole luxury tax concept.   Where the thresholds get set and how high the taxes are is a matter of negotiation, not principle.   

As a technical point, the CBT sunset with the end of the CBA, so agreeing to a new CBT with a new CBA is a concession by the players, it could not be imposed unilaterally by management if they were to end the lockout and play under the terms of the previous CBA. This is part of the reason for the lockout (along with the threat of a strike). 

[Camden_yardbird]

43 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

Sign the wrong guy to a 20 million dollar deal in the NFL and he probably won't get the entire 20 million.  Do you Think Chris Davis would have collected his entire contract if it were an NFL contract?

Do you think the Orioles would have been more competitive over the last two season if they could have cut Davis with minimal financial pain?

Do you think they would be in a better position next year, or overall in the rebuild?

What if they just didn't care.  What if their resources were so vast that a $20 million contract you got nothing from was just written into the books as standard losses every year?  Risk taken with no gain.