MLB Lockout Thread

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oh sorry, misunderstood you.

I figured when Drungo said "non-payroll operating expenses out of that. " he meant player payroll only.

 

Yes.

And even here he was wrong. As he excluded MiLB player payroll...and non-player payroll...  both of which are quite significant.

I expounded from there... based on your incorrect assertion.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

Part of the reason I am taking the players side here is because while I would prefer to see baseball being played, it's pretty clear that some teams (Orioles) are abusing the current rules and are fielding substandard teams that I have no interest in watching.   I want to see baseball being played, but I want to see competitive baseball, not the AAA Orioles getting curbstomped by the Yankees 20 times a year, and I feel like the rules proposed by the PA would help in this regard.

Remember though, the "AAA Orioles" were a means to end so that they can be competitive again in the near future. I would be in 100% agreement with you if I thought the Orioles did not want to put a competitive team on the market and it was not part of a plan. Whether you agree with this is route or not, it's obviously what the Orioles decided to do.

 

[Tony-OH]

19 hours ago, forphase1 said:

It is to me.  A utility guy who washes out at the age of 27-30 still has 40+ years ahead of him.  I'm not sure why we think they should be entitled to earn enough money during that brief period of getting MLB salaries to never work again, or even for 10-15 years.  If they are good enough, then they will earn a good living.  If they are barely able to stay in the league, then they also will be paid accordingly, and even that is a stupid amount of money, in my opinion.  Making 500k+ a year to play baseball?  Heck yeah, sign me up.  Now clearly they have the talent and should earn what the market will bear.  I'm really not against them earning a great living, up to and including millions and millions of dollars a year.  But when the greed to get more means my baseball fix can't be satisfied because both sides are greedy and fighting over billions of dollars, then I care.

And the 'forsaken a traditional career' stuff is silly.  Millions of workers across the USA change jobs/careers each year, or go back to school to do so.  Why we think that a player who has spent 5-6 years earning 500k+ a year can't then figure out how to transition into another line of work is beyond me.   'Normal' folks do it all the time.  Athletes shouldn't be an exception or get an easy way out just because they chose to play sports, and for 99% of the kids in high school or college playing sports today they will NEVER make any money doing so.  The players all chose to be athletes, and part of that choice is the consequences of having to learn something else to do when your playing days are over, whether you made $50k or $50M.  Granted the $50M guy has way more options, but still!

Someone else brought up other entertainers who make tons of money, and they aren't wrong.  I've long thought ALL entertainers, from athletes to musicians to movie stars make WAY more than is reasonable.  I don't blame them really, as all of us would like to make more money.  But when their demands mean I don't get a sequel for a movie I love, or their music is impossible to find, or sporting events get cancelled, then I care.  It just really amazes sometimes how the 'average joe' fan so buys into the 'poor, pitiful players', doesn't matter if we are talking pro-sports or the poor college athletes who until recently were only able to legally get a $100K+ valued scholarship.  They are prime athletes, who are often given every single advantage from the time they can swing a bat or shoot a basketball or run fast on the football field until the time they retire, be it in primary school, high school, college or professional sports.  But woe until them, as the 'man' is making money of their blood sweat and tears!  Give me a break.  

We see eye to eye on this for sure.

The fact that people are concerned over a guy who makes ten times the amount of the average worker is beyond me. No one is really supposed to be able to retire for life at 30 years old. Most professional players, and even a lot of middle of the road major league players know they will eventually have to work again. 

But then again, that's the way it's supposed to be. 
 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Big Mac said:

I'm not sure the current status to be eligible for a pension, but at least in 2011 you only needed 43 days of service to be fully vested in the pension which started at $34k/year.

Here is an article from the law firm Bryan Cave from 2011 that goes into this:

https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/insights/blogs/benefits-bclp/major-league-baseball-pension-and-healthcare-benefits.html#:~:text=Arguably%2C Major League Baseball (",a player for lifetime healthcare.

 

That's good info.  I think the other day I was looking at something that was outdated, something like you needed 5 years of service time.  But maybe I was looking at the wrong info.  

 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

If Tyler Wilson is an example of a guy getting screwed by the labor practices of MLB, let us all be screwed in such a way.

I mean, once again...comparing MLB (or most professional athletes) and their payscales to the average Joe isn't really an honest comparison.   

And no one said he's getting screwed, either.  I don't believe anyone has made that argument anywhere.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

He'll probably be okay unless he blew that 1.64M on cars and booze and lottery tickets and stuff.

You say he blew it, I would say he had a lot of fun.

His wife is a broadcaster at ESPN, I'm sure they're doing fine.  

[Camden_yardbird]

1 hour ago, forphase1 said:

It is to me.  A utility guy who washes out at the age of 27-30 still has 40+ years ahead of him.  I'm not sure why we think they should be entitled to earn enough money during that brief period of getting MLB salaries to never work again, or even for 10-15 years.  If they are good enough, then they will earn a good living.  If they are barely able to stay in the league, then they also will be paid accordingly, and even that is a stupid amount of money, in my opinion.  Making 500k+ a year to play baseball?  Heck yeah, sign me up.  Now clearly they have the talent and should earn what the market will bear.  I'm really not against them earning a great living, up to and including millions and millions of dollars a year.  But when the greed to get more means my baseball fix can't be satisfied because both sides are greedy and fighting over billions of dollars, then I care.

And the 'forsaken a traditional career' stuff is silly.  Millions of workers across the USA change jobs/careers each year, or go back to school to do so.  Why we think that a player who has spent 5-6 years earning 500k+ a year can't then figure out how to transition into another line of work is beyond me.   'Normal' folks do it all the time.  Athletes shouldn't be an exception or get an easy way out just because they chose to play sports, and for 99% of the kids in high school or college playing sports today they will NEVER make any money doing so.  The players all chose to be athletes, and part of that choice is the consequences of having to learn something else to do when your playing days are over, whether you made $50k or $50M.  Granted the $50M guy has way more options, but still!

Someone else brought up other entertainers who make tons of money, and they aren't wrong.  I've long thought ALL entertainers, from athletes to musicians to movie stars make WAY more than is reasonable.  I don't blame them really, as all of us would like to make more money.  But when their demands mean I don't get a sequel for a movie I love, or their music is impossible to find, or sporting events get cancelled, then I care.  It just really amazes sometimes how the 'average joe' fan so buys into the 'poor, pitiful players', doesn't matter if we are talking pro-sports or the poor college athletes who until recently were only able to legally get a $100K+ valued scholarship.  They are prime athletes, who are often given every single advantage from the time they can swing a bat or shoot a basketball or run fast on the football field until the time they retire, be it in primary school, high school, college or professional sports.  But woe until them, as the 'man' is making money of their blood sweat and tears!  Give me a break.  

This completely disregards the value of the industry.

If baseball (MLB) makes $12 billion a year what should a player make at a minimum?  What percentage of that $12 billion dollar pie should the players be entitled to.

Arguing whether a player should be "set for life" completely ignores this part of the equation - "are they getting their fair share?"

[Sports Guy]

 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

So that's 15M a year from ESPN plus whatever additional revenue they can squeeze out of two more teams.  How much of that is going to funnel over to the players? 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So that's 15M a year from ESPN plus whatever additional revenue they can squeeze out of two more teams.  How much of that is going to funnel over to the players? 

Even if the number is 0, if they get closer to getting everything else they want, that may be enough.

[osfan83]

3 hours ago, Hallas said:

Is this controversial?  Making it to MLB is hard, and these players have forsaken a traditional career.  So I think at the very least they need to earn enough so that they can forego working after they wash out for a fairly long period while they figure out alternative career prospects.  Especially considering that all athletes have a far higher injury rate than a typical worker. Maybe not for the rest of their lives but at least for the 10-15 years following their exit from the league.  I don't know if a utility guy making the league minimum for parts of 6 seasons really meets this bar.

Forsaken a traditional career? Well maybe they made a poor life decision. Maybe these guys should just stay in college or learn a trade, clearly playing MLB for a few years hinders their ability to really make a living. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Even if the number is 0, if they get closer to getting everything else they want, that may be enough.

The things they want cost the owners money.

My question is how much of that 15m+ that the owners will be getting for the extra two teams will be going towards the player's demands?

(Yes I understand that an increase in the CBT threshold isn't a straight cost)

[osfan83]

1 hour ago, Camden_yardbird said:

This completely disregards the value of the industry.

If baseball (MLB) makes $12 billion a year what should a player make at a minimum?  What percentage of that $12 billion dollar pie should the players be entitled to.

Arguing whether a player should be "set for life" completely ignores this part of the equation - "are they getting their fair share?"

Why do some think that worker comp should be tied directly to total earnings o the company? I believe worker comp should be tied to what the market dictates. If some one can play ball at 90% of the level of a current player, but will do it willingly for half the cost, why wouldn't you want that player? If very few with the athletic talent want o play baseball, salaries will have to rise to attract the best athletes, If lots of people with superior athletic skill want to play baseball salaries should drop due to the increased supply of athletes. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

Why do some think that worker comp should be tied directly to total earnings o the company? I believe worker comp should be tied to what the market dictates. If some one can play ball at 90% of the level of a current player, but will do it willingly for half the cost, why wouldn't you want that player? If very few with the athletic talent want o play baseball, salaries will have to rise to attract the best athletes, If lots of people with superior athletic skill want to play baseball salaries should drop due to the increased supply of athletes. 

 

Because due to baseball's anti-trust exemption players don't have a viable secondary market to ply their trade.

[Hallas]

37 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

Forsaken a traditional career? Well maybe they made a poor life decision. Maybe these guys should just stay in college or learn a trade, clearly playing MLB for a few years hinders their ability to really make a living. 

If it's a poor life decision then that will deter talented people from taking up baseball, pinching the talent pool at a time when young people's attention is already being diverted to other sports.