MLB Lockout Thread

[wildcard]

16 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.   

Yes.  But their negotiation needs to be based on the principle that the teams in the league need to be competitive.    Otherwise all they have is 4 or 5 team outspending everyone else and winning every year.  The Luxury Tax has helped that not to happen.

Moving the Luxury tax up to levels that don't keep teams from going wild spending takes all fairness out of the game.  And the fans will be smart enough to know it and not spend their money to watch lopsided games.

So yes, Negotiations.  But the players have to understand that its important to maintain competitiveness of the  teams.    So hold down the Luxury tax levels.   Otherwise the players are just trying to see how much money they can get and back to being just employees not partners.   If they are going to talk the talk they have to walk the walk.

[AlbNYfan]

Most of you make valid if not arguable points about the current labor problems in MLB. I have been involved in labor negotiations many times. I have learned that at the end of negotiations both sides should never come away totally satisfied. If one side truly "wins", there will be Hell to pay the next time negotiations come around. The hardest thing about these negotiations is listening to leaders on both sides trying to explain their rational.

The truth IMO, is that most here don't really care about who wins, they just want to watch MLB or the Orioles and argue (I mean discuss) the game.

My last points about the current issues and who I am most concerned about, that neither side seem to be concerned about.

1) The non-ardent fan..those that enjoy the game, but life goes on without it.

2) "Small" businesses that depend on the game to make their businesses profitable. This includes restaurants, souvenir shops, vendors, the cities in Florida and Arizona that support Spring Training.

3) Lastly, 24-26 year old minor league players that were on the cusp of at least a taste of the bigs 2 years ago and are now 26-28 and perhaps lost that because of COVID and now labor strife.

Millionaire players and multi-millionaire (billionaire) owners discussing labor inequities is rather bizarre. 

[eddie83]

46 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Yes.  But their negotiation needs to be based on the principle that the teams in the league need to be competitive.    Otherwise all they have is 4 or 5 team outspending everyone else and winning every year.  The Luxury Tax has helped that not to happen.

Moving the Luxury tax up to levels that don't keep teams from going wild spending takes all fairness out of the game.  And the fans will be smart enough to know it and not spend their money to watch lopsided games.

So yes, Negotiations.  But the players have to understand that its important to maintain competitiveness of the  teams.    So hold down the Luxury tax levels.   Otherwise the players are just trying to see how much money they can get and back to being just employees not partners.   If they are going to talk the talk they have to walk the walk.

You are taking about what $10-15M more per team? 
 

Comparing a team with a payroll of $80M to a team with $200M is significant but an extra 10-15 $M is going to make or break the competitive balance? 

[interloper]

I hope someone keys Manfred's car and takes a dump on his front porch. 

[Frobby]

49 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Yes.  But their negotiation needs to be based on the principle that the teams in the league need to be competitive.    Otherwise all they have is 4 or 5 team outspending everyone else and winning every year.  The Luxury Tax has helped that not to happen.

Moving the Luxury tax up to levels that don't keep teams from going wild spending takes all fairness out of the game.  And the fans will be smart enough to know it and not spend their money to watch lopsided games.

So yes, Negotiations.  But the players have to understand that its important to maintain competitiveness of the  teams.    So hold down the Luxury tax levels.   Otherwise the players are just trying to see how much money they can get and back to being just employees not partners.   If they are going to talk the talk they have to walk the walk.

Honestly, why should the players bear the majority of the burden on this issue? The rich owners want to limit the amount of revenue sharing as a means to improve competitiveness, by forcing the players to accept spending disincentives.   The players want to limit spending disincentives as a mechanism to ensure competitiveness, by forcing the owners to do more revenue sharing.   I don’t see why “the players need to be realistic.”   The lion’s share of the burden of maintaining competitiveness should be on the owners.  They’re the ones who benefit most if fan interest is high all over the league rather than only in a few big markets.  

[eddie83]

18 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

MLBPA doesn't have the media stooges that MLB does to put a shiny veneer on their lousy offers. These posts from individually players give a valuable player prospective. My guess is that these posts are vetted by MLBPA who may find it more valuable for info to come from the voice of an actual player rather than leaked to the media for the sake of authenticity. It is unfortunate that they hurt your feelings. Perhaps a safe space is in order.

You honestly think the National Baseball media isn’t pro player? 

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I hope someone keys Manfred's car and takes a dump on his front porch. 

Manfred for all his faults is a scapegoat. It’s about what the majority of owners want. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Manfred for all his faults is a scapegoat. It’s about what the majority of owners want. 

Manfred was hired by the owners to be the figurehead for their positions.  If most of them didn't like what he was saying or doing they'd replace him. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, why should the players bear the majority of the burden on this issue? The rich owners want to limit the amount of revenue sharing as a means to improve competitiveness, by forcing the players to accept spending disincentives.   The players want to limit spending disincentives as a mechanism to ensure competitiveness, by forcing the owners to do more revenue sharing.   I don’t see why “the players need to be realistic.”   The lion’s share of the burden of maintaining competitiveness should be on the owners.  They’re the ones who benefit most if fan interest is high all over the league rather than only in a few big markets.  

I was listening to Steve Phillips yesterday on the radio. He was pointing out that the owners of big market clubs paid more for those clubs. He was talking specifically about the CBT. He didn’t see what was wrong with teams wanting to spend more. 
 

That said we are all assuming that it’s the small markets driving this. Perhaps some of the big markets aren’t against a lower CBT either?

[eddie83]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

Manfred was hired by the owners to be the figurehead for their positions.  If most of them didn't like what he was saying or doing they'd replace him. 

Of course. 

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The lion’s share of the burden of maintaining competitiveness should be on the owners.  They’re the ones who benefit most if fan interest is high all over the league rather than only in a few big markets.  

But isn't it true that the biggest, richest, most successful clubs and their owners have a huge incentive to limit competitive balance?  Almost no team ever in any sport I know of has gotten less popular and financially lucrative by winning 70% of their games every year.

There are soccer leagues where the only competitive question each year is will anyone step up and be somewhat competitive with the team that wins every year.  There are NCAA football and basketball leagues just like that.  And the team that wins it every year is fabulously successful and popular and wealthy.  Fans don't get bored with that pretty much ever. Alabama fans and alumni and donors never say "Hey, there should be some limits on what Nick Saban can do because it's just not fair for Vanderbilt".

A big reason for the Yanks and Sox to accept larger playoffs is it helps limit the number of Vanderbilts to far less than a majority.  When almost everyone thinks they can make the playoffs they'll give up on their quixotic effort to get real competitive parity.

[MurphDogg]

14 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

You honestly think the National Baseball media isn’t pro player? 

The media who rely on access to the teams (or who work for conglomerates who are media partners of the league)? Not particularly, no. Not prior to this lockout anyway.

Perhaps in their heart of hearts they may be,  but that doesn't stop them from serving as stenographers for management and passing on management talking points uncritically.

It was jarring to see how aggressive Ken Rosenthal was in not toeing the company line and it cost him his job as an analyst MLB Network. He has gone even further in his columns since then.

Blaming the players and owners equally and painting the argument as millionaires vs. billionaires has been that standard operating procedure for decades by media covering sports labor movements and that is really only being challenged for the first time during this lockout. 

[Bahama O's Fan]

I know some will disagree with me, but I'm at the point where I don't care whose fault it it, who should concede to who, what terms should be agreed to, etc... I'm just upset that it got to this point and we are not having ballgames when we are supposed to. Millionaires fighting billionaires for the most part. Obviously I still care enough to keep following what's happening, but the longer it drags on, the less I will be interested. 

[eddie83]

14 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

The media who rely on access to the teams (or who work for conglomerates who are media partners of the league)? Not particularly, no. Not prior to this lockout anyway.

Perhaps in their heart of hearts they may be,  but that doesn't stop them from serving as stenographers for management and passing on management talking points uncritically.

It was jarring to see how aggressive Ken Rosenthal was in not toeing the company line and it cost him his job as an analyst MLB Network. He has gone even further in his columns since then.

Blaming the players and owners equally and painting the argument as millionaires vs. billionaires has been that standard operating procedure for decades by media covering sports labor movements and that is really only being challenged for the first time during this lockout. 

The majority of media that I follow is on the players side and always is. You always have people on the other side. MLB Network has a lot of reporters but they are outnumbered by outside media by plenty.  
 

As far as Rosenthal goes his contract has expired. It’s not like he was fired. I’m not naive and saying his opinions played no role in him leaving but many of these companies are cutting back. 

[osfan83]

2 hours 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.

If the players really want to be partners, and not employees (which I believe they are) give up guaranteed salaries. If I'm an owner, to even consider any type of revenue sharing, this guaranteed contract thing has to go.