MLB Lockout Thread

[spiritof66]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:47 AM, RZNJ said:

As someone else said, no serious negotiations are going to start until there is some kind of deadline,  ie. when either side starts getting hit where it hurts, the wallet. 

The only other thing I can think of that might get MLB's attention would be if Congress would hold, or at least talk credibly about holding, hearings on changing baseball's ridiculous antitrust "exemption" if spring training doesn't start by, say, March 1. 

[Frobby]

16 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

The only other thing I can think of that might get MLB's attention would be if Congress would hold, or at least talk credibly about holding, hearings on changing baseball's ridiculous antitrust "exemption" if spring training doesn't start by, say, March 1. 

The exemption already doesn’t exist for labor issues, so Congress doesn’t have much leverage.   

[Redskins Rick]

16 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

The only other thing I can think of that might get MLB's attention would be if Congress would hold, or at least talk credibly about holding, hearings on changing baseball's ridiculous antitrust "exemption" if spring training doesn't start by, say, March 1. 

That is, if congress could even manage what they are supposed to be doing, like running the nation.

[Camden_yardbird]

22 hours ago, jarman86 said:

The only problem with this suggestion is, there really aren't many consensus #1 picks. I think to last year's draft and this year's too I think and I don't believe there is a consensus game changer type guy to want to win for. And baseball isn't like the other sports, because I think its the only one where signability at low cost for the #1 pick is/has been a consideration. 

It matters if you make picks tradeable.

[Dipper9]

23 hours ago, Philip said:

I made a suggestion that accomplishes exactly what you suggested. Give the first draft pick to the best of the worst. The last six teams, the last place team in each of the six divisions competes for the first draft pick. And the best team among those six gets the first draft pick. Yes the Orioles aren’t going to be playing any of the National League bottom dwellers, but so what.

that way every team that would normally be tanking has incentive to be better. And because you’re competing against other terrible teams the degree of improvement necessary is not unreasonable. And that means that when we play a playoff bound Blue Jays, instead of phoning it in, we are also competing against, Say, the Royals, and the Rangers and the Pirates. That way it’s more likely that we will be playing hard instead of more of this BS about not caring about the on-field product, the fans will be more engaged because the teams will be playing to win and not to lose, and the playoff teams can’t rest because they know we’re going to be trying hard because we have a goal of our own.

 

also,Because we will be scrounging around for that extra two or three wins, it makes those washed up old veterans a little bit more valuable, And will tend to make it more likely that prospects will be called up sooner.

That is such an excellent suggestion it is no surprise at all that Manfred has never thought of it.

I actually like this alot, but lets play devil's advocate.

 

The last week of the season, the Orioles are the 7th worst team in baseball, only two games better than the 6th worst team, lets just say the Pirates.  What would be the incentive for the Pirates to try to win and for the Orioles to not phone it in so that we would drop to the 6th worst team, thus the #1 pick, where as the 7th worst team gets nothing?  

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

The exemption already doesn’t exist for labor issues, so Congress doesn’t have much leverage.   

I wasn't talking about labor issues.

It seems to me -- and I'm speaking theoretically here, without respect to what Congress might actually do -- that it would be reasonable for Congress to say to MLB, "How can we justify your continued protection from the antitrust laws, making it impossible, as a practical matter, for new leagues to compete with major league baseball (as they did before 1922, and as new leagues have done with some success in other professional sports), when you are regularly unable to assure the public that MLB will be in operation? Your antitrust immunity in effect ensures that if there are no MLB games there will be no professional baseball in America's largest cities, and no baseball employment in the U.S. for the top professional ballplayers. We're not going to maintain a legal framework that helps perpetuate that result. Get spring training (or the season) going by X date, or we'll enact legislation making you subject to the antitrust laws, and we'll let the future of baseball be carved out on a competitive basis."  

That kind of thing might get things moving. Otherwise, as others have observed, the 2022 season depends on successful negotiations between parties that appear to dislike each other, that each believe they're absolutely right about everything, that have little or no regard for the long-term health of the game, and that seem to regard publicly expressing a willingness to negotiate as a sign of weakness. 

[bleed orange and Black]

With regards to tanking I agree that every team should be required to have a minimum salary cap. I also believe there should be a firm salary cap at the top. It does no good to have the cap as it is now when some teams don't care and are willing to pay the luxury tay.

  Now as far as the 1st draft picks the only way you'll truly fix that is to go back to a balanced schedule again. That way you have everyone playing on an even field. 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

I actually like this alot, but lets play devil's advocate.

 

The last week of the season, the Orioles are the 7th worst team in baseball, only two games better than the 6th worst team, lets just say the Pirates.  What would be the incentive for the Pirates to try to win and for the Orioles to not phone it in so that we would drop to the 6th worst team, thus the #1 pick, where as the 7th worst team gets nothing?  

You'll always have ways to game the system.

My preference would be to do away with the draft altogether, and make all amateurs free agents.  But each team gets a bonus pool based on market size and efficient utilization of market.  I leave it up to someone else to work out the formula, but teams in more advantaged markets get less.  Wins and losses wouldn't come into play, or at least not in the same way they do for the draft.

So the Orioles, Pirates, Royals and Rays get to spend, say, $25M a year on amateur signings, the Yankees and Dodgers $5M. Something like that.  The Cardinals will love this since St. Louis is roughly the same size as Baltimore but they draw huge crowds and win all the time.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

I wasn't talking about labor issues.

It seems to me -- and I'm speaking theoretically here, without respect to what Congress might actually do -- that it would be reasonable for Congress to say to MLB, "How can we justify your continued protection from the antitrust laws, making it impossible, as a practical matter, for new leagues to compete with major league baseball (as they did before 1922, and as new leagues have done with some success in other professional sports), when you are regularly unable to assure the public that MLB will be in operation? Your antitrust immunity in effect ensures that if there are no MLB games there will be no professional baseball in America's largest cities, and no baseball employment in the U.S. for the top professional ballplayers. We're not going to maintain a legal framework that helps perpetuate that result. Get spring training (or the season) going by X date, or we'll enact legislation making you subject to the antitrust laws, and we'll let the future of baseball be carved out on a competitive basis."  

That kind of thing might get things moving. Otherwise, as others have observed, the 2022 season depends on successful negotiations between parties that appear to dislike each other, that each believe they're absolutely right about everything, that have little or no regard for the long-term health of the game, and that seem to regard publicly expressing a willingness to negotiate as a sign of weakness. 

The other sports don't have antitrust exemptions at all, and there hasn't been a major competing league since, what... the ABA 50 years ago?

The impediments to a new league are primarily:

1. MLB already employs 95% of the professional baseball players in the US.  The XFL wasn't really competition to the NFL, but it could exist because AAA-quality NFL players are all free agents, instead of being under contract to the NFL.

2. Governments have already purchased billion dollar stadiums for MLB teams, but won't for an upstart league

3. It takes decades for new teams to be on the same footing as existing teams

[NCRaven]

Unless national security is an issue, I absolutely hate the idea of the Federal government becoming involved in an industry's labor disputes.  This isn't like dock workers striking in the middle of WW II.  It will work itself out and the feds should absolutely stay the hell out of it.

[SteveA]

8 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Unless national security is an issue, I absolutely hate the idea of the Federal government becoming involved in an industry's labor disputes.  This isn't like dock workers striking in the middle of WW II.  It will work itself out and the feds should absolutely stay the hell out of it.

But aren't they already sort of in it based on the fact that MLB has been granted an anti-trust exemption that other sports leagues have not?

[NCRaven]

43 minutes ago, SteveA said:

But aren't they already sort of in it based on the fact that MLB has been granted an anti-trust exemption that other sports leagues have not?

The federal government is involved in almost every aspect of our lives - what we eat, the air we breath, the cars we drive, etc..  But, it doesn't generally insert itself into labor disputes.  If Amazon workers go on strike, it will probably have a much greater impact on most people's lives than a baseball strike, but I doubt that the Departments of Commerce or Labor will intervene.  We just love baseball and don't want the game stopped by a strike, especially after losing most of a season to COVID.  But I wouldn't invite the feds to get more involved in this issue just because it's something I care about.

[Philip]

5 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

I actually like this alot, but lets play devil's advocate.

 

The last week of the season, the Orioles are the 7th worst team in baseball, only two games better than the 6th worst team, lets just say the Pirates.  What would be the incentive for the Pirates to try to win and for the Orioles to not phone it in so that we would drop to the 6th worst team, thus the #1 pick, where as the 7th worst team gets nothing?  

I agree that at some point in the sequence there would be one or two teams who would have to determine whether it’s better to lose or win. And I don’t think you’re ever going to eliminate that.

Under this system, you’ve got 10 teams making the playoffs, six teams in the first round pick “division” that leaves 14 teams Who are closer to one group or another group.

The only thing that will help prevent outright tanking is the knowledge that that seventh worst team is closer to contention than it is to the cellar And to blatantly throw the number of games necessary to get all the way to the seller would be unfeasible given the overall quality of the team. Also, the seventh worst team Will still be getting the seventh pick, and the self destructive effort required might not be seen as worth it.

So in conclusion I agree that there will always be a team or two that has to deal with that question but I suggest that it is going to be true in any circumstance and this is perhaps the best of the available bad choices.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, NCRaven said:

The federal government is involved in almost every aspect of our lives - what we eat, the air we breath, the cars we drive, etc..  But, it doesn't generally insert itself into labor disputes.  If Amazon workers go on strike, it will probably have a much greater impact on most people's lives than a baseball strike, but I doubt that the Departments of Commerce or Labor will intervene.  We just love baseball and don't want the game stopped by a strike, especially after losing most of a season to COVID.  But I wouldn't invite the feds to get more involved in this issue just because it's something I care about.

Put it this way: legislation to remove baseball’s antitrust exemption might be a good idea, but it shouldn’t be used for leverage in a labor dispute.  

[Ohfan67]

The competitive balance angle that many posters seem to be focusing on is interesting. There's a lot of evidence that the modern, post free agency game is more competitively balanced than before free agency. There are a lot of published studies analyzing competitive balance (here's an oldie but a goodie: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41798745?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents). This study notes that factors such as allowing ML teams to move from weak ML host cities to better markets has a bigger impact on competitive balance than free agency/breaking of the reserve clause. Interesting topic, for sure.