MLB Lockout Thread

[Hallas]

2 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.  

If you're okay with them getting paid what the market will bear, then why are you not okay with them negotiating for concessions on their labor contract?  You can only get paid what you fight for.  Keeping in mind that this ordeal was largely initiated by the owners, not the players, as the owners initiated the lockout.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Good.   It’s a whore move, but I don’t care if it leads to a deal.   

[Can_of_corn]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Good.   It’s a whore move, but I don’t care if it leads to a deal.   

I'd rather not have more teams but if it leads to games being played I'm down.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Good.   It’s a whore move, but I don’t care if it leads to a deal.   

Yea, I don’t really care about the extra playoff teams.  I wish it led to fewer reg season games but whatever.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, I don’t really care about the extra playoff teams.  I wish it led to fewer reg season games but whatever.  

154 with two fewer games against each division rival.

[SteveA]

3 hours 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. 

 

So that means you believe that the $562800 that Corbin Burnes earned last year, and would probably have earned the same this year if there was a full season, is "what the market dictates"?

[forphase1]

2 hours ago, Hallas said:

If you're okay with them getting paid what the market will bear, then why are you not okay with them negotiating for concessions on their labor contract?  You can only get paid what you fight for.  Keeping in mind that this ordeal was largely initiated by the owners, not the players, as the owners initiated the lockout.

As I said, I'm ok with it, up to the point where I miss games because of the greed.  And again, the owners are not blameless here, not by a long shot.  But at the end of the day it just amazes me how many cheer on the greed of the players while lambasting the greed of the owners, or talk like the poor millionaires are having to go toe to toe with the nasty scrooge like owners.  Honestly I'm probably more pro-owners just to try to balance out all the arguments as clearly most are cheering for the players, silly as it may be.

[forphase1]

4 hours 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?"

But what is 'fair'?  Where do you come up with that number?  Folks yell about players getting a 'fair share' but what is that?  And of course to say they need a 'fair share' is acting like what they currently get ISN'T fair.  I look at the money players are making a year, and I have a hard time seeing them as the poor, abused players who are being taken advantage of by the big bad owners as so many here seem to claim.  'Fairness' is VERY subjective.  Should they get 25% of over all revenue?  40%?  50%?  75%?  What number is considered 'fair'?  And do we take into account expenses, or just over all revenue?  If a club has 100M in profit, but has 50M in expenses, do they share a percentage of gross profit or just the net?  What is 'fair'?  The problem with feel good things like 'fairness' or even 'justice' is that it's largely in the eye of the beholder, and my definition of what is 'fair' can be very different that someone else.  To me, the current system certainly is NOT unfair, so if your goal is 'fairness', then work under the exact same terms as the expired/expiring CBA as I don't see that as unfair.  Others disagree of course.  

I'm a small business owner, and in no way can I compare my examples to running a MLB team.  But I've had those in my past (friends, family members, etc) have a rough idea of the money I bring in, and therefore assume that I'm flush with cash and able to give them handouts or loans.  And yeah, maybe I brought in $X, but my expenses for running the business was $Y, and taking that into account my actual income was a bunch less than they assumed.  MLB owners are making money, I'm not doubting that.  But I don't think it's NEARLY as rosy a picture as MLBPA and agents make it out to be, of course nor is it as bad as the owners/commissioner try to claim.  The truth, as usual, is likely in the middle.

[Can_of_corn]

19 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

But what is 'fair'?  Where do you come up with that number? 

 

I think most folks don't think the players share (% based) should be going down.  Revenue is outpacing compensation.

I don't think many of us would mind if the players and owners both made less and our ticket prices and streaming bills were lower.

[Pickles]

49 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think most folks don't think the players share (% based) should be going down.  Revenue is outpacing compensation.

I don't think many of us would mind if the players and owners both made less and our ticket prices and streaming bills were lower.

Bingo.

But guess where they both get their money from- and not just voluntarily?

From taxpayers.  The absurd salaries for the players are only supported by the absurd amounts of public money dumped into private profit through stadiums, arenas, etc.

It's honestly why I get bothered by looking at either side as a victim.  They are BOTH objectively OVERPAID.

 

[Camden_yardbird]

1 hour ago, forphase1 said:

But what is 'fair'?  Where do you come up with that number?  Folks yell about players getting a 'fair share' but what is that?  And of course to say they need a 'fair share' is acting like what they currently get ISN'T fair.  I look at the money players are making a year, and I have a hard time seeing them as the poor, abused players who are being taken advantage of by the big bad owners as so many here seem to claim.  'Fairness' is VERY subjective.  Should they get 25% of over all revenue?  40%?  50%?  75%?  What number is considered 'fair'?  And do we take into account expenses, or just over all revenue?  If a club has 100M in profit, but has 50M in expenses, do they share a percentage of gross profit or just the net?  What is 'fair'?  The problem with feel good things like 'fairness' or even 'justice' is that it's largely in the eye of the beholder, and my definition of what is 'fair' can be very different that someone else.  To me, the current system certainly is NOT unfair, so if your goal is 'fairness', then work under the exact same terms as the expired/expiring CBA as I don't see that as unfair.  Others disagree of course.  

I'm a small business owner, and in no way can I compare my examples to running a MLB team.  But I've had those in my past (friends, family members, etc) have a rough idea of the money I bring in, and therefore assume that I'm flush with cash and able to give them handouts or loans.  And yeah, maybe I brought in $X, but my expenses for running the business was $Y, and taking that into account my actual income was a bunch less than they assumed.  MLB owners are making money, I'm not doubting that.  But I don't think it's NEARLY as rosy a picture as MLBPA and agents make it out to be, of course nor is it as bad as the owners/commissioner try to claim.  The truth, as usual, is likely in the middle.

"Feel good feelings like 'fairness' and 'justice" are in the eye of the beholder (i.e. subjective)?

I don't think anything else I could say is going to be productive to this conversation.  Its clear from your anecdote that as an owner of a business you will always fall on the side of the owners, and never on the side of paying the employees more.

How do we know what is fair?  How about some numbers:

From 2015 to 2019 revenue increased $2.5 billion; during that same time average salaries decreased $300,000.

Fair?

Since 2000 when it peaked at 63% the players share of revenues has dropped to 47%.  Revues have doubled.

Fair?

We quite literally have a statistic (WAR) which can be defined by a monetary value.  And yet the value of $/WAR has been decreasing.

Fair?

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think most folks don't think the players share (% based) should be going down.  Revenue is outpacing compensation.

I don't think many of us would mind if the players and owners both made less and our ticket prices and streaming bills were lower.

Revenue is increasing, but are profits?  For me at least that's a much clearer picture than just raw revenue.  If my revenue increases by 25% but my expenses increases by 25%, I'm not really ahead.  I really wish that more teams other than just the Braves had open books so we could see a clearer picture of yearly gains and losses.  

I certainly agree with the 2nd part of this statement.  Certainly without trying to get political on things, but that's one reason why I generally don't support government getting into setting minimum wages.  Businesses will want to keep the same rough profit margins, so if compensation goes up then prices go up.  In reality the players getting paid more isn't going to take much money, if any, from the owners.  The increased costs will be passed on to the consumers, us, the fans.  WE are the ones who pay for both the owners AND the players greed in higher prices for tickets, parking, concessions, tv packages, etc, etc.  

[forphase1]

Just now, Camden_yardbird said:

"Feel good feelings like 'fairness' and 'justice" are in the eye of the beholder (i.e. subjective)?

I don't think anything else I could say is going to be productive to this conversation.  Its clear from your anecdote that as an owner of a business you will always fall on the side of the owners, and never on the side of paying the employees more.

How do we know what is fair?  How about some numbers:

From 2015 to 2019 revenue increased $2.5 billion; during that same time average salaries decreased $300,000.

Fair?

Since 2000 when it peaked at 63% the players share of revenues has dropped to 47%.  Revues have doubled.

Fair?

We quite literally have a statistic (WAR) which can be defined by a monetary value.  And yet the value of $/WAR has been decreasing.

Fair?

Really, I'm not always against employees making more.  My mom was a union employee for much of her life, and I live in a part of rural WV that has been dominated for years by coal interests, and I have seen their struggles to get paid a living wage while doing some very dangerous work.  But I've also seen the other side of it where the workers demanded so much year after year that eventually the businesses moved to another location with more favorable work force, or ended up having to charge more than the local community could support and ended up closing their doors, putting all out of work.  Now clearly baseball isn't in danger of moving to a location south of the border to get cheap labor, but they certainly are starting to price some families out of being able to reasonably go to a game, and our cable bills keep going up as channels demand more and more money.  I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to see my MLB.TV package increase $10 more in order to make sure that utility guy is making $625k a year instead of $600k a year.  As to the rest...

1) Revenues have increased, and that's great.  Has it outpaced expenses?  Is there really the windfall of profits that some are claim?  And some of that revenue gain is from sources that I'm not sure the players have a 'right' to claim an interest, including the outsourcing of their streaming technologies and the like.  If the players are not part of that particular product, why should they share in the revenue/profits of it?

2)  What is a fair share?  Perhaps the 63% was too high.  Maybe it should be closer to a 50/50 split.  Again, what is 'fair'?  Yes it peaked in 2000, but was that too far in favor of the players, and needed pared back a bit?  Or should it always just keep increasing until eventually players get 99% of the revenue?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd much rather get 47% of a double revenue than 63% of 1/2 the revenue.  Work the numbers, if revenue was 100M then 63% of that is 63M.  If revenue goes up to 200M, and I'm getting 47% of that, then I'm getting $94M.  Looks like a win/win there.

3) I'm ALL FOR paying player strictly based on WAR, or some other variable, regardless of age, service time, seniority, whatever.  Have it all tied to verified production, and I'm as happy as a lark.   I know that's not exactly what you are saying, but wanted to throw that out there.  As to your specific point, the value of things change.  3 years ago I couldn't give away some of my older farm equipment.  Now it's bringing prices close to what new equipment costs.  $/WAR is like any other commodity, the value of it will move, both up and down.  If suddenly WAR across the game becomes more plentiful, then it's less valuable.  If WAR becomes scarce, it's value increases.  While I'm not a $/War expert by any stretch, a quick google search shows that over the past handful of years, from 2018 to 2022, the $/WAR for 2+ projected WAR players has moved from 9.3M in '18, to 7.8M, 9.5M, 5.5M for '19-'21, with 2022 coming in at 8.5M so far.  Clearly tons of movement there, with 2022 appearing at this point to rebound nicely from a rough '21. 

Again, just as you know you aren't going to change my mind, I know I'm not going to change yours.  Like most things now, we pick our sides and usually stick to them, even when we are wrong.    In the end the players are going to get paid stupid amounts of $ to play a game, owners are going to turn a huge profit when selling teams and likely from day to day operations and the fans are going to pay, both monetarily and in games being missed.  The greed of BOTH sides has brought us to this point, owners and players alike.  I just don't want to see one side constantly getting a pass when both are hurting the fans in their lust for the all mighty $.   

[Hallas]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

Bingo.

But guess where they both get their money from- and not just voluntarily?

From taxpayers.  The absurd salaries for the players are only supported by the absurd amounts of public money dumped into private profit through stadiums, arenas, etc.

It's honestly why I get bothered by looking at either side as a victim.  They are BOTH objectively OVERPAID.

 

I think that the taxpayer subsidies are a separate issue and I would wholeheartedly support reducing taxpayer contributions to stadium projects.  That would have the effect of reducing both player salaries and owner profits.

 

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think most folks don't think the players share (% based) should be going down.  Revenue is outpacing compensation.

I don't think many of us would mind if the players and owners both made less and our ticket prices and streaming bills were lower.

I think that demand/willingness to pay drives streaming pricing more than the cost to stream.  So if MLB sold its rights for less streaming would still be the same price.  It just would mean I get a bigger bonus.  (I work on a streaming service.)

[Can_of_corn]

5 hours ago, Hallas said:

I think that the taxpayer subsidies are a separate issue and I would wholeheartedly support reducing taxpayer contributions to stadium projects.  That would have the effect of reducing both player salaries and owner profits.

 

I think that demand/willingness to pay drives streaming pricing more than the cost to stream.  So if MLB sold its rights for less streaming would still be the same price.  It just would mean I get a bigger bonus.  (I work on a streaming service.)

It was surprising to me how many folks were in favor of the MSA being allowed to raise its debt cap to over a billion to fund stadium renovations.