MLB Lockout Thread

[jarman86]

21 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Well, that's because you are looking at this from an ideology vs from my point of view. I absolutely am not against "workers". I'm absolutely not on the owners side or any side really other than the fan. I've said this time and time again.

What I find laughable is your opinion that some how players who are making what they are making are somehow instituted into some kind of serfdom. 

At the end of the day, they a replaying a game they for at a minimum over ten times what the common "worker" makes in America. If they become very good at what they do, they will become very, very rich. 

If they are in the beginning of their career or they have mediocre skills that can be replaced by a cheaper worker, then I don't have an issue with an employer, in this case the owners, from paying someone else to replace you.

Every player knows the business of the game. They are will payed once they make the major leagues. If they live a normal lifestyle like the American worker, they can make their money last many years past they are no longer paid by a major league franchise. 

At the end of the day, I don't care how much anyone makes unless his destroys a team's ability to be able to compete because the player no longer can compete at the level yet the team is not able to make up the difference by getting another expensive player.

Seemed to me the last offer was fair by the owners. Not perfect by any sense of the word, but fair. Saying that, the lack of negotiations or proposals for much of the offseason or since they locked them out is on them, but it did appear they are willing to give up April and May baseball to get what they want.

That tells me they don't care about the fans, which is why I'm NOT on the owners side here. 

But my main point is simple. Let's not act like the players are some guy/gal fighting for a living wage who is working in a coal mine and risking his life and health every day while the mine owners are buying their second yacht! 

So the problem with your philosophy is you say, I have no problem with a guy being replaced by cheaper labor. And in a perfect world, I don't either. The problem is when you replace Severino with Rutchman because the CBA, OF WHICH THEY ARE NEGOTIATING, allows the Orioles to pay Adley well under his market value which is what is going on. The cheaper labor is young guys that can't negotiate. These young players can't control any of their salaries until year 3 of their MLB career, which is the main sticking point in these negotiations it seems. Bumping up Adley's salary most likely won't increase Severino's any more, but it will help Adley and some of these younger guys. 

Sure, $675k is 10 times more than the common worker, but the common worker can't throw a 98 MPH fastball or hit a 98 MPH fastball 500 ft. Even as we see in Indy ball and the minors, the top 10-20% of "workers" can't. And when your boss is increasing revenue and the average salary is going down, you might want more of that share.

I think that is what you are missing in the argument folks are making for MLBPA.  As Passan said, you can't bring in the next 1200 best players in the world and not expect the product to drop, but the 30 owners can change several times over. 

[jarman86]

On 3/2/2022 at 8:43 AM, Sports Guy said:

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.

Right but $80M next year is not $80M in 10 years. Almost half the league was under $80M in 2012. And trying to negotiate raising that $80M every 5-10 years and telling a person how much they must pay to play is not going to go well.

[Big Mac]

For anyone who is itching to watch some baseball while this mess is cleared up, I'd encourage checking out some college baseball.  If you have an ESPN+ subscription, you can watch the vast majority of the games.  I've been watching a lot over the past couple of weeks and its a nice way to scratch that itch somewhat.  I follow UVA and Bama pretty closely so I'll stick to that for now...just hope the lockout is over by the end of the CWS...

[MurphDogg]

1 minute ago, Big Mac said:

For anyone who is itching to watch some baseball while this mess is cleared up, I'd encourage checking out some college baseball.  If you have an ESPN+ subscription, you can watch the vast majority of the games.  I've been watching a lot over the past couple of weeks and its a nice way to scratch that itch somewhat.  I follow UVA and Bama pretty closely so I'll stick to that for now...just hope the lockout is over by the end of the CWS...

And if you want to see a top draft prospect live, JMU has top 5 prospect OF Chase DeLauter and JMU has a single game at Maryland and a series at Towson. And we all know how the Orioles feel about drafting college outfielders with top 5 picks.

[Big Mac]

2 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

And if you want to see a top draft prospect live, JMU has top 5 prospect OF Chase DeLauter and JMU has a single game at Maryland and a series at Towson. And we all know how the Orioles feel about drafting college outfielders with top 5 picks.

Great suggestion, I watched some of the FSU series where he struggled but it seems like he has turned it on since then.

I'm in Dallas so TCU, DBU and Baylor are pretty easy drives.  I'll probably catch some games there too.

[Tony-OH]

49 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

So the problem with your philosophy is you say, I have no problem with a guy being replaced by cheaper labor. And in a perfect world, I don't either. The problem is when you replace Severino with Rutchman because the CBA, OF WHICH THEY ARE NEGOTIATING, allows the Orioles to pay Adley well under his market value which is what is going on. The cheaper labor is young guys that can't negotiate. These young players can't control any of their salaries until year 3 of their MLB career, which is the main sticking point in these negotiations it seems. Bumping up Adley's salary most likely won't increase Severino's any more, but it will help Adley and some of these younger guys. 

Sure, $675k is 10 times more than the common worker, but the common worker can't throw a 98 MPH fastball or hit a 98 MPH fastball 500 ft. Even as we see in Indy ball and the minors, the top 10-20% of "workers" can't. And when your boss is increasing revenue and the average salary is going down, you might want more of that share.

I think that is what you are missing in the argument folks are making for MLBPA.  As Passan said, you can't bring in the next 1200 best players in the world and not expect the product to drop, but the 30 owners can change several times over. 

Eh, I get it your opinion and others, but at the end of he day, this is about players trying to score a bigger pay day when some are making $40 million a season and the MLBPA is making huge money on royalties and likeness deals for players, We're talking about the first three years where a player will make at minimum over $1.8 million before arbitration kicks in and they start getting their worth.

Again, owners share a lot of the blame for this work stoppage, but when you choose gigantic hypocrites like Tony Clark and Scherzer to be your mouth pieces, you lose any credibility with me.

Plus, don't get me started with their "unique abilities." They make the money that they make because people are willing to pay to watch them "work". There are fewer brain surgeons than major league ball players.

 

[Sports Guy]

55 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Right but $80M next year is not $80M in 10 years. Almost half the league was under $80M in 2012. And trying to negotiate raising that $80M every 5-10 years and telling a person how much they must pay to play is not going to go well.

It’s not going to go any worse than anything else.

It’s all negotiable later on.   You have to see what works, what doesn’t, revenues, etc…

[jarman86]

16 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

We're talking about the first three years where a player will make at minimum over $1.8 million before arbitration kicks in and they start getting their worth.

Again, owners share a lot of the blame for this work stoppage, but when you choose gigantic hypocrites like Tony Clark and Scherzer to be your mouth pieces, you lose any credibility with me.

Plus, don't get me started with their "unique abilities." They make the money that they make because people are willing to pay to watch them "work". There are fewer brain surgeons than major league ball players.

 

1.) I think average player career in MLB is 3 years. Some guys are held down till their prime is arb/6 years up. I see less guys being offered arb than I used to.

2.) As I said, Scherzer has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. I'm cool with him being a lead negotiator as a result. Economically salaries going up for younger guys will increase for the older ones. And under new or old system, guys like Scherzer are going to get their money no matter what.

3.) I truly don't know what is more unique. Being able to play at the MLB level or brain surgeon. I was on electrical engineer track until my academic advisor told me to choose EE or rugby. I gathered I could have graduated an EE and been in an upper echelon of folks, I just would have been bottom of my class. I view same with brain surgeons. Study actually showed brain surgeons and rocket scientists aren't necessarily smarter than the average person. Cost, length, etc... of education makes less people do it than baseball, which has less cost and length. Not to mention, I don't think body size and other intangibles other than being able to hold down your food while operating effect ability.

I think everyone agrees that ballplayers make too much money just as they agree Manfred is a clown. And we will not agree on what is best for MLB. 

We can agree to disagree, just explaining the other side. 

[jarman86]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s not going to go any worse than anything else.

It’s all negotiable later on.   You have to see what works, what doesn’t, revenues, etc…

Yeah I get it, I just also see why MLBPA wouldn't have offered it up. Got enough headaches.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Yeah I get it, I just also see why MLBPA wouldn't have offered it up. Got enough headaches.

But this cures some of those headaches.

[waroriole]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/sources-four-mlb-owners-were-212831147.html

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Plus, don't get me started with their "unique abilities." They make the money that they make because people are willing to pay to watch them "work". There are fewer brain surgeons than major league ball players.

There are about 3,500 brain surgeons in the US and about 50,000 brain surgeons worldwide while there are 720 Major League ball players at any given time.

The 1,500th best brain surgeon in the US is a millionaire, the 1,500th best professional baseball player tops out at $2,000 a month in AA and enters the regular workforce in his late 20s with minimal education and marketable skills.

[osfan83]

1 hour ago, jarman86 said:

So the problem with your philosophy is you say, I have no problem with a guy being replaced by cheaper labor. And in a perfect world, I don't either. The problem is when you replace Severino with Rutchman because the CBA, OF WHICH THEY ARE NEGOTIATING, allows the Orioles to pay Adley well under his market value which is what is going on. The cheaper labor is young guys that can't negotiate. These young players can't control any of their salaries until year 3 of their MLB career, which is the main sticking point in these negotiations it seems. Bumping up Adley's salary most likely won't increase Severino's any more, but it will help Adley and some of these younger guys. 

Sure, $675k is 10 times more than the common worker, but the common worker can't throw a 98 MPH fastball or hit a 98 MPH fastball 500 ft. Even as we see in Indy ball and the minors, the top 10-20% of "workers" can't. And when your boss is increasing revenue and the average salary is going down, you might want more of that share.

I think that is what you are missing in the argument folks are making for MLBPA.  As Passan said, you can't bring in the next 1200 best players in the world and not expect the product to drop, but the 30 owners can change several times over. 

I might trade some quality of play for a more competitive product. It's very hard to be a fan of a team in the smallest 8 cities or so. With the exception of just a few, most of the smaller market teams have small windows to really compete for a title. 

Really looking forward to that 10 year run when the Yankees and Dodgers fail to make the playoffs 8 of those 10 years. When was the last time that happened? 

[Camden_yardbird]

6 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

There are no good guys in this on either side. You have awful greedy owners who could care less about baseball in April and May and you have awful greedy MLBPA who want more and more money. Anyone on either side is a hypocrite unless they have a financial stake in all of this or are a fanboy sycophant for players. 

It's all makes me want to find other interests. I've been a diehard baseball fan since I was 4. I'm not lying when I say this BS is about the final straw for me giving a crap about MLB. Does this mean I'll never watch an Orioles game again, no, doubt that, but like with the NFL, I will no longer support them financially.

Its possible the collective bargaining process isn't about the fans, or supposed to be about the fans.  The parties at the table are the players and owners, and the future health of the game.  The fact that we get to see and hear about everything going on is just a product of increased media coverage, which makes it feel like its about the fans.

Where the fans interests are represented is at the ballpark in the exchange of money for entertainment.  It is what the owners do with their half of the pie regarding fan support, managing prices, providing giveaways and unique experiences.  I think we can agree that had dimished.  I would rather go to a minor league game than a MLB game.  But we are now sadly finding out that the product of the fan appreciation at MiLB may be because the product (the players) are in most instances getting paid less than a living wage.

Where I have a problem with the collective bargaining process is that it necessarily needs to be part of the balance of a healthy game (not just parity which people seem to split on, but overall health of the game).  Yet niether side seems to be interested in that.

So in refusing to support the team going forward I think you would be taking a stand in that transactional exchange between you and the owner, but I dont think this collective bargaining process should weigh on that.  Sadly I think that relationship was flagging long ago when both sides abandoned the health of the game and some owners decided that money was worth more to them than fielding competitive teams and giving the fans an entertaining product.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Plus, don't get me started with their "unique abilities." They make the money that they make because people are willing to pay to watch them "work". There are fewer brain surgeons than major league ball players.

 

False.   There are 3,500 brain surgeons in the US, 35,000 in the world.