MLB Lockout Thread

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

If the Mets go to 300m do you think the Yankees are going to concede the NY market or will they go to 300m also?

If the Yankees go to 300m will the Red Sox?   What about the Jays.  They contending for AL East title.  And they have a whole country behind them.   They can probably afford to go higher.

And do you think the Dodgers are going to sit and  watch or do they go to 300m also.

Sounds like opening Pandora's box and leaving the rest of the baseball to be non competitive.

First off, NO ONE is openly suggesting removing the CBT. 

Secondly, yea, I don't think you would see a huge chain reaction of teams spending 300M.  The Yankees would probably go up a bit and the Red Sox might follow.  The Jays are owned by a business, why would they increase spending that much?  Do you remember when they were told they couldn't add payroll for a playoff push last decade?  I remember.

If 14 teams are making the playoffs what's the advantage of spending 300M instead of 200?  An extra 2.3% chance of winning a world series?  If I know I can make the diluted playoffs while spending 175M why in the world would I spend 300M for a small bump in my chance to win a title?  Is that worth 125M?

[Frobby]

Some perspective: back in the day, the owners wanted a hard cap, the players wanted no cap.   They came up with a reasonable compromise, the CBT.   The question of when the tax should kick in, and how much the tax should be, is subject to negotiation.   I don’t really see it as a moral issue.   It’s about money.   It does seem reasonable to me that the CBT thresholds should be adjusted for inflation over time.   

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

First off, NO ONE is openly suggesting removing the CBT. 

Secondly, yea, I don't think you would see a huge chain reaction of teams spending 300M.  The Yankees would probably go up a bit and the Red Sox might follow.  The Jays are owned by a business, why would they increase spending that much?  Do you remember when they were told they couldn't add payroll for a playoff push last decade?  I remember.

If 14 teams are making the playoffs what's the advantage of spending 300M instead of 200?  An extra 2.3% chance of winning a world series?  If I know I can make the diluted playoffs while spending 175M why in the world would I spend 300M for a small bump in my chance to win a title?  Is that worth 125M?

I don't know why the super rich teams would be for 14-team playoffs.  If I were the Yanks I'd want 4 or 8 team playoffs.  Actually, I'd want 2-team playoffs.  In the 1920-65 era the Yanks won the league as often as not, and just went straight to the Series.  Today if you only had one seven game playoff series you could probably charge near SuperBowl rates for advertisers and still make a killing.  Especially if two years out of three it was Yanks-Dodgers.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know why the super rich teams would be for 14-team playoffs.  If I were the Yanks I'd want 4 or 8 team playoffs.  Actually, I'd want 2-team playoffs.  In the 1920-65 era the Yanks won the league as often as not, and just went straight to the Series.  Today if you only had one seven game playoff series you could probably charge near SuperBowl rates for advertisers and still make a killing.  Especially if two years out of three it was Yanks-Dodgers.

The most playoff games the more money for the owners.

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Some perspective: back in the day, the owners wanted a hard cap, the players wanted no cap.   They came up with a reasonable compromise, the CBT.   The question of when the tax should kick in, and how much the tax should be, is subject to negotiation.   I don’t really see it as a moral issue.   It’s about money.   It does seem reasonable to me that the CBT thresholds should be adjusted for inflation over time.   

Its not a moral issue.  Its a competitive issue.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The most playoff games the more money for the owners.

And that matters less for the larger markets.

Which is it, are they going to spend 300M for a better chance at the World Series or are they so worried about money they expand the playoffs?

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Its not a moral issue.  Its a competitive issue.  

It's a money issue.

[Hallas]

Just my opinion but I think the players association would be better off accepting the lower amount and demanding concessions on minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool.  If they go up to 1 million minimum salary and 100 million bonus pool it spreads the wealth out to a larger percentage of MLB players that could use the money the most.  The Scherzers of MLB don't need an extra 10 million but guys like Vlad Jr could use it.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Hallas said:

Just my opinion but I think the players association would be better off accepting the lower amount and demanding concessions on minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool.  If they go up to 1 million minimum salary and 100 million bonus pool it spreads the wealth out to a larger percentage of MLB players that could use the money the most.  The Scherzers of MLB don't need an extra 10 million but guys like Vlad Jr could use it.

I agree but who do you think has the power in the Union?

[Sports Guy]

Apparently MLB has told the players that if they can get a deal done tomorrow that there is a path back to 162 games and full pay. If not, another weeks worth of games will be canceled.

They have upped their cbt money to 228M and raising it to 238M by end of the cba.  No word on what else the league wants but presumably 14 playoff teams is what they want.

[AlbNYfan]

7 hours ago, Hallas said:

Just my opinion but I think the players association would be better off accepting the lower amount and demanding concessions on minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool.  If they go up to 1 million minimum salary and 100 million bonus pool it spreads the wealth out to a larger percentage of MLB players that could use the money the most.  The Scherzers of MLB don't need an extra 10 million but guys like Vlad Jr could use it.

You really use Vlad Jr as an example?? He signed a $3.9 million. Yes, now he only makes the minimum salary, but I'm sure the Blue Jays would pay him at least 10 times more for a long -term contract. He'll get his pay day. There are plenty of border line MLB'ers that will never get beyond the minimum salary, but Vlad Jr??

[Sports Guy]

While I doubt a deal gets done today, it is extremely important to do so.

If not, with more canceled games, getting a deal done becomes more complicated because the players are going to want a full seasons pay.  When the owners tell them to go pound and, that will introduce another set of issues to complicate this picture.

If the owners raise the CBT and the players agree to a normal 14 team playoff, hopefully everything else falls in line.

I think the players are wrong on the amount for the CBT and what the owners are offering is fair.  Get the damn deal done.

[waroriole]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

While I doubt a deal gets done today, it is extremely important to do so.

If not, with more canceled games, getting a deal done becomes more complicated because the players are going to want a full seasons pay.  When the owners tell them to go pound and, that will introduce another set of issues to complicate this picture.

If the owners raise the CBT and the players agree to a normal 14 team playoff, hopefully everything else falls in line.

I think the players are wrong on the amount for the CBT and what the owners are offering is fair.  Get the damn deal done.

I think what keeps getting lost is the owner’s calculus that they can afford to lose the first two months of games, especially if it weakens the union again. They can keep meeting and making statements about urgency, but it all seems to be a show. It doesn’t appear they are negotiating in good faith. I mean, why else wait until February to even start negotiating? Gotta think Tony Clark is gone after this agreement is signed. 

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, waroriole said:

I think what keeps getting lost is the owner’s calculus that they can afford to lose the first two months of games, especially if it weakens the union again. They can keep meeting and making statements about urgency, but it all seems to be a show. It doesn’t appear they are negotiating in good faith. I mean, why else wait until February to even start negotiating? Gotta think Tony Clark is gone after this agreement is signed. 

I think that angle is really overplayed.

First of all, the owners are losing money, especially if you go into May and it starts to become more money lost than what you are fighting to keep.

Secondly, the factor people aren’t considering is the lost TV revenue.  These teams have to pay back rebates to the RSNs if they miss more than 20ish games. Apparently, no one knows the exact number but it’s known that the number is around 20 games.

So, it’s not just revenue at the stadium.  It’s at home revenue too.  
 

And while the owners have more money than the players, they are still business men and no one in business wants to actively lose money.

Plus, as stubborn as the owners are, they know they can’t break the union.  It’s too strong.  They be able to wait them out and get the deal even more favorable to them but at what cost?

[OriolesMagic83]

17 hours ago, Hallas said:

Just my opinion but I think the players association would be better off accepting the lower amount and demanding concessions on minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool.  If they go up to 1 million minimum salary and 100 million bonus pool it spreads the wealth out to a larger percentage of MLB players that could use the money the most.  The Scherzers of MLB don't need an extra 10 million but guys like Vlad Jr could use it.

MLBPA should also demand a payroll floor of like $120 mill.  It's the owners problem to figure out how to adjust revenue sharing to pay for it.  With $10 billion+ in revenue, a $120 mill floor is easily supportable.