MLB Lockout Thread

[waroriole]

20 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Pre-arb bonus pool for the top 30 based on fWAR, I'm assuming?  That's what the owners proposed in some earlier test idea they floated.  Really would hate to be in that 25-35 range.  Just to get kind of an idea of what this will look like I ran a list of the top WAR totals for non-pitchers in 2021 for everyone 26 or younger.  The 25th is Luis Robert at 3.6, 35th is Austin Hayes at 3.1.  So a tenth of a win or less will separate those getting a bonus from those not getting one. 

I'm a WAR advocate, but in no way would I definitively state that a glove-first shortstop with 3.1 WAR is better than a pitcher with 3.0.  Fangraphs and bb-ref WAR for pitchers sometimes varies by a win or more because of the philosophical underpinnings of each model (which is a feature, not a bug).  If anyone tells you that a half a win difference between any two players is definitive you should be very skeptical.  This model is using that kind of difference to hand out potentially tens of $millions.

Wander Franco was a 3.5 win player in just 70 games because the Rays didn't want to start his clock, so JP Crawford and his 3.8 WAR in 160 games get more of a bonus.

And what happens when Statcast or BIS or someone retroactively gets better data and in 2025 the formerly 32nd-ranked player by fWAR is now 27th?

What happens when your manager uses you in relief and it would take an epic season to break into the top 30 in 60 innings, while your similarly-talented teammate starts and breaks into the top 30 and gets a bonus?

What if you're in 32nd place on September 22nd and your team decides your slightly sore hammy is a good reason to shut you down for the year?

Just a bad idea to tie money to specific metrics.  There's a reason they won't let contract say something like "$100k bonus for 100 RBI".

Yeah that’s a good point. It’s probably creating future problems by tying pay to any performance metric. But I haven’t seen any indication from either side that they’re concerned about what problems they’re creating for the future of the game.

I would assume it’s less subject to team manipulation if it’s a pool of money managed by MLB. 

[waroriole]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree with you, Drungo.  Well said.   But what else can you do if you have a bonus pool that’s supposed to be allocated by performance?   I guess they could do what many law firms do and just have some committee use their discretion.   That would be hilarious.  

All MLB pre-arb team. As voted on by the same writers who are about to induct Ortiz into the Hall of Fame and leave out Bonds and Clemens. 

[jarman86]

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I guess the fact that they are meeting and conceding some issues is good for the possibility of a compromise being reached, but I hate the fact that the players are solely focused on making more money for their constituents. that don't care about fairness or competitiveness, just making more money for themselves.

No one is looking out for what's good for baseball or the fans.

I mean, by definition, they should be looking out for themselves and the money.

The money is going to the owners or players either way. FO folks aren't getting anymore(I don't mean GM and coaches).  I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd love for both sides to say, you know what? we make too much money, let's give it back to fans by lowering ticket and concession prices. 

As to fairness and competitiveness, I don't know what you mean? They want to raise luxury tax and get players to FA sooner. To me, that should increase competitiveness.

Fairness? Its a business. You can't own a team and put forth a competitive team? Sell it! Stop mooching off the system with revenue sharing and low cost labor. I don't think teams should get the number one picks because they suck IMO. Quite frankly, the draft isn't exactly fair at all to the players.

[Sports Guy]

That 10M offer is a joke.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That 10M offer is a joke.

It just gives them a starting point.  I'm guessing they end up at around 60.

[SteveA]

In the pre-arbitration bonus pool that is being discussed, do the players get paid that bonus by their own team, or is some sort of actual pool created by all major league teams and the players are paid out of that?

So for example if Adley & Grayson come up and immediately do great and qualify for this, does that bump up the Orioles' payroll significantly or do those guys get their extra $$$ from some sort of pool that all teams contributed too?

Also... haven't heard much talk of salary floors for teams in January, while that seemed to be at least mentioned back in December.   Did that get taken off the table?

I admit the entire lockout situation has me pissed off so I have somewhat tuned out baseball and haven't even been visiting OH on a daily or near-daily basis for the first time in a couple decades.   So I may have missed some of the nuances of what has been going on.

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It just gives them a starting point.  I'm guessing they end up at around 60.

I’d be interested to know what the total amount currently paid to pre-Arb players is.   Then you’d have a sense of proportion of what these numbers mean.

Without knowing that, even $105 mm strikes me as a pretty small number, and allocating it all to the top 30 guys strikes me as possibly too restrictive.   
 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

In the pre-arbitration bonus pool that is being discussed, do the players get paid that bonus by their own team, or is some sort of actual pool created by all major league teams and the players are paid out of that?

So for example if Adley & Grayson come up and immediately do great and qualify for this, does that bump up the Orioles' payroll significantly or do those guys get their extra $$$ from some sort of pool that all teams contributed too?

Also... haven't heard much talk of salary floors for teams in January, while that seemed to be at least mentioned back in December.   Did that get taken off the table?

I admit the entire lockout situation has me pissed off so I have somewhat tuned out baseball and haven't even been visiting OH on a daily or near-daily basis for the first time in a couple decades.   So I may have missed some of the nuances of what has been going on.

I would guess that it would be a communal fund.  Could be an even split or larger market teams might put more into it.

I'm fine with the lockout until Spring Training games start being delayed.  This isn't much different than the free agent market of the last few years anyway.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would guess that it would be a communal fund.  Could be an even split or larger market teams might put more into it.

I'm fine with the lockout until Spring Training games start being delayed.  This isn't much different than the free agent market of the last few years anyway.

I think it would have to be a communal fund.  Otherwise there would be all kinds of inequities and manipulation.    

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I’d be interested to know what the total amount currently paid to pre-Arb players is.   Then you’d have a sense of proportion of what these numbers mean.

Without knowing that, even $105 mm strikes me as a pretty small number, and allocating it all to the top 30 guys strikes me as possibly too restrictive.   
 

I don't think the Union is that interested in making things that much better for the guys with just a bit of service time and the guys that might end up fringe players.  They want to work for the guys that are likely to be landing the big contracts when they hit free agency.

I'm more curious what level of player makes the top 30.  Did Cole Sulser make the cut in 2021?

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think the Union is that interested in making things that much better for the guys with just a bit of service time and the guys that might end up fringe players.  They want to work for the guys that are likely to be landing the big contracts when they hit free agency.

I'm more curious what level of player makes the top 30.  Did Cole Sulser make the cut in 2021?

I agree the bonus pool should be for guys who play a substantial amount.  Think of it this way: every player who has debuted since 2019 has 3 years of device time or less.   In 2019, 261 players debuted; 198 of those got into a game in 2021.   In 2020, 212 players debuted; 176  played in 2021.   In 2021, 265 players debuted.   So, that’s at least 629 players with 3 years of service or less who played in 2021.   And you know it’s more than that because of guys who debuted earlier but have been up and down players.   

How many of those were substantial contributors in 2021?   That’s not easy to dissect.   Let’s draw the line at 400 PA for a full season, 150 PA for 2020.  From the three debut classes, I count 15 batters with 950 PA since 2019; 7 with 550 PA since 2020; 3 with 400 PA in 2021.   That’s 25 hitters who played at least that much.  

Pitchers are trickier since you have starters and relievers.   So I’d call it 20 starts or 40 appearances in a full season; 8 starts or 15 appearances in 2020.  I see 6 starters and 8 relievers who made 48 starts or had 95 appearances since 2019; 12 starters and 11 relievers who had 28 starts or 55 appearances since 2020; 4 starters and 10 relievers who made 20 starts or had 40 appearances in 2021.    That’s 51 pitchers who pitched at least that much.

I don’t know exactly how I’d draw the line, but in term of how many players should share in the bonus pool, personally I’d say at least 60, and arguably 90.   Those are all going to be guys who played a lot.    


 

[Can_of_corn]

I hope you get some pleasure out of doing that sort of research. 

I do appreciate the work you do running the numbers and doing the math.

[OriolesMagic83]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

That 10M offer is a joke.

This is a big concession from the MLBPA,  They have never supported any sort of pay for performance program before.  They have always supported the "if you're breathing, you deserve to be paid".  It sounds fair to pay top performers vs. top service time players, imo.

[OriolesMagic83]

Is it going to be just the players in their last season before arbitration or all pre arbitration players, even rookies?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

This is a big concession from the MLBPA,  They have never supported any sort of pay for performance program before.  They have always supported the "if you're breathing, you deserve to be paid".  It sounds fair to pay top performers vs. top service time players, imo.

This is extra money for players.  Why would the MLBPA be against it?