MLB Lockout Thread

[MarCakes21]

56 minutes ago, 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. 

I'm a bit confused in general by this concept, mainly because its the MLB and not a typical fortune 500.  But shouldn't the Commissioner, while hired by the owners (ie the Board), be there to represent both the players and the owners? 

[NCRaven]

1 minute ago, MarCakes21 said:

I'm a bit confused in general by this concept, mainly because its the MLB and not a typical fortune 500.  But shouldn't the Commissioner, while hired by the owners (ie the Board), be there to represent both the players and the owners? 

Not in years.  The Commissioner represents the owners.  Any pretense otherwise is false.

[Sports Guy]

Heard today that players salaries throughout the league are about 20M a day(they may have met per game but whatever)  So, they have lost 120-140m already.

While arguing over a few million here and there, they stand to lose a ton more.

[NCRaven]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Heard today that players salaries throughout the league are about 20M a day(they may have met per game but whatever)  So, they have lost 120-140m already.

While arguing over a few million here and there, they stand to lose a ton more.

Both sides seem willing to kill the game to save the game - from their own points of view.  If the owners refuse to play a full 162 game season, the players will refuse to give them the additional post season revenues that the owners crave.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, NCRaven said:

Both sides seem willing to kill the game to save the game - from their own points of view.  If the owners refuse to play a full 162 game season, the players will refuse to give then the additional post season revenues that the owners crave.

Yea I think the negotiations are actually going to be worse now.  

[Camden_yardbird]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Heard today that players salaries throughout the league are about 20M a day(they may have met per game but whatever)  So, they have lost 120-140m already.

While arguing over a few million here and there, they stand to lose a ton more.

MLB doesn't want to miss game either.  I would think March 15 is the real deadline on the cancellation of games.

Also that number is actually higher.  The owners had already agreed to higher minimum salaries.

[SteveA]

On 2/24/2022 at 6:12 PM, SteveA said:

The owners have the advantage, I think.   They lose less money with April and May games being cancelled, because attendance is lower in this months with kids still in school and weather not being nice yet.   And of course the national TV contracts are all about the postseason.   

So if 1/3 of the season is cancelled and we play a 100 game season June-September, the players lose 1/3 of their salary but the owners lose a LOT less than 1/3 of their revenue.   The good weather games still get played, the networks still pay big $ for the postseason.   

This is the same logic we saw in 2020, where the owners wanted the shortest season possible to get to a postseason, while the players wanted more games, and the owners stalled until there was only time for a 60 game season.

So basically, if we reach the point where games are cancelled, which we are rapidly approaching, the owners have leverage and probably won't budge very much on the key issues for a LONG time.   The only way this will be settled quickly would be if the players capitulate bigtime.   If we aren't any closer to a settlement by Monday, then it's either going to be a LOT of games cancelled, or the players union wind up throwing in the towel and goes WAY more than halfway on the differences.

Pretty much what I said heading into the weekend.   Either the players would cave (they didn't), or we were probably in for a long work stoppage.   The owners hoped they could use the leverage of cancelling games to make the players go way more than halfway.   It didn't work.   Now the owners have time on their side.   They are more than happy with a 100 or even 80 game season as long as there is postseason on TV.   They'll probably resort to the 43-days-without-a-new-proposal strategy now and wait for the players to come to them with terms they want.

[SteveA]

3 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

MLB doesn't want to miss game either.  I would think March 15 is the real deadline on the cancellation of games.

Also that number is actually higher.  The owners had already agreed to higher minimum salaries.

I don't think that's true.   Players make the same amount for summer games as for spring games.   But owners get less revenue in springwhen the crowds are smaller.   Any April/May games missed may hurt the owners a little but the players more.   And the big money comes in the postseason, which is what ESPN & Fox & TBS pay to televise (yes, those networks telecast regular season games but they get scant viewership and basically just fill air time and let them have broadcast teams and production crews in place for the postseason).

If there was a 90 game season with a full postseason, the players would lose 45% of their salaries.   The owners would lose some revenue, but it would be FAR less than 45%.   They would lose 45% of their local TV revenue (except in cases like MASN/Orioles  and Yankees/YES when they are basically just paying themselves, so it's a paper transaction that means nothing).   They would lose maybe 30% of their attendance related revenues because 70% of the attendance comes in June/July/August/Sept.   And they would lose 0% of their national TV revenues because the networks all pay for the postseason.   So all in all, it would probably average out that the owners might lose 20% of their revenue at most, while the players take a 45% hit, which means a 45% in payroll expenses for MLB.

So there is no reason to think that "MLB doesn't want to miss games either".   Unless you believe that they care about the game and they don't want to lose more fans due to the work stoppage, haha.   But I don't think they are that visionary.   I don't see much reason for the owners to negotiate for a month or two, I really don't think it hurts their wallet, which is all they care about, to lose some April and May games.   But it does hurt the players' wallet.

[Bahama O's Fan]

23 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Both sides seem willing to kill the game to save the game - from their own points of view.  If the owners refuse to play a full 162 game season, the players will refuse to give them the additional post season revenues that the owners crave.

And that's what I'm bothered by. I don't want to see the game killed because I don't know how easily it will revive. There is no Ripken streak or McGwire/Sosa HR chase to rely on. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

30 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

And that's what I'm bothered by. I don't want to see the game killed because I don't know how easily it will revive. There is no Ripken streak or McGwire/Sosa HR chase to rely on. 

At this rate Adley Rutschman will be eligible for AARP membership when he wins ROY. 

[osfan83]

34 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't think that's true.   Players make the same amount for summer games as for spring games.   But owners get less revenue in springwhen the crowds are smaller.   Any April/May games missed may hurt the owners a little but the players more.   And the big money comes in the postseason, which is what ESPN & Fox & TBS pay to televise (yes, those networks telecast regular season games but they get scant viewership and basically just fill air time and let them have broadcast teams and production crews in place for the postseason).

If there was a 90 game season with a full postseason, the players would lose 45% of their salaries.   The owners would lose some revenue, but it would be FAR less than 45%.   They would lose 45% of their local TV revenue (except in cases like MASN/Orioles  and Yankees/YES when they are basically just paying themselves, so it's a paper transaction that means nothing).   They would lose maybe 30% of their attendance related revenues because 70% of the attendance comes in June/July/August/Sept.   And they would lose 0% of their national TV revenues because the networks all pay for the postseason.   So all in all, it would probably average out that the owners might lose 20% of their revenue at most, while the players take a 45% hit, which means a 45% in payroll expenses for MLB.

So there is no reason to think that "MLB doesn't want to miss games either".   Unless you believe that they care about the game and they don't want to lose more fans due to the work stoppage, haha.   But I don't think they are that visionary.   I don't see much reason for the owners to negotiate for a month or two, I really don't think it hurts their wallet, which is all they care about, to lose some April and May games.   But it does hurt the players' wallet.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past when games were missed the players received back pay, most if not all of it. There is no way the players will agree to a deal without a certain % of the 45% you mention above being paid out to them. 

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

But correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past when games were missed the players received back pay, most if not all of it. There is no way the players will agree to a deal without a certain % of the 45% you mention above being paid out to them. 

Nope, don't think so.

Players got paid 60/162 of their salary in the covid-shortened 2020 season.   

Obviously everything is negotiable but I would expect that if there is a significant work stoppage that players would only get a pro-rated portion of their salary.

[osfan83]

Just now, SteveA said:

Nope, don't think so.

Players got paid 60/162 of their salary in the covid-shortened 2020 season.   

Obviously everything is negotiable but I would expect that if there is a significant work stoppage that players would only get a pro-rated portion of their salary.

That was Covid.....I'm talking about strike/lock out shortened seasons. 

[SteveA]

5 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

That was Covid.....I'm talking about strike/lock out shortened seasons. 

I don't know, like I said everything is negotiable but the owners would certainly demand some other concession if the players ask to be paid for games that weren't played.

I'd say they definitely weren't paid in the past strike situations (1981, 1994).   A lockout COULD be a different animal, but I kind of doubt it.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

  They'll probably resort to the 43-days-without-a-new-proposal strategy now and wait for the players to come to them with terms they want.

I can't remember who the player was that said "We were prepared for this," or something along those lines.  Made it sound like they knew they were going to be far apart and there'd be a work stoppage.  I am sure guys who are making good money have been preparing and budgeting going without salaries for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure how flexible the MLBPA is for some of the players who earn less but I am wondering if they'll allow league minimum guys access to pensions early or something.  Or use their pension fund as some sort of a draw.  I dunno.

The players have the strongest union in all of sports, they're not about to break for anyone.  Some of you guys laughed at me, but prepare to miss a whole season.