MLB Lockout Thread

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Sounds like a press release from MLBPA. You should be smarter than believing propaganda.

Tony, this is the view of the author of the article.   I am not stupid.   But you seem to be buying the owners’ point of view hook line and sinker.   Suddenly anyone who sees it differently “should be smarter.”   I suggest that the owners have their own pocketbooks in mind as basically their sole criteria just like the players do.   They’re the ones who’ve been gaming the service time rules, not the players.   They’re the ones who put forth a “solution” (FA after age 29.5) that was obviously a non-starter.   They’re the ones to have been getting an increasing percentage of the revenue pie over the last decade and yet aren’t making any real concessions.    They’re the ones who haven’t actually made a full proposal to counter the players.   They aren’t angels and I’m not going to treat them as having the moral high ground here, because they don’t.   

[Tony-OH]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Tony, this is the view of the author of the article.   I am not stupid.   But you seem to be buying the owners’ point of view hook line and sinker.   Suddenly anyone who sees it differently “should be smarter.”   I suggest that the owners have their own pocketbooks in mind as basically their sole criteria just like the players do.   They’re the ones who’ve been gaming the service time rules, not the players.   They’re the ones who put forth a “solution” (FA after age 29.5) that was obviously a non-starter.   They’re the ones to have been getting an increasing percentage of the revenue pie over the last decade and yet aren’t making any real concessions.    They’re the ones who haven’t actually made a full proposal to counter the players.   They aren’t angels and I’m not going to treat them as having the moral high ground here, because they don’t.   

All I said was that sounds like a MLBPA press release, which it did. You posted it. You didn't say anything else. You and everyone else should be smarter than to believe press releases from EITHER side. You said there were many reasons why people should not choose mediation. You've yet to come up for the reasons for the MLBPA.

No one are angels in this. Sounds like if anything, you are buying the press releases. Whether you want to agree ot not, it's not me being pro owner, it's me seeing through the bullsh@$.

[Moose Milligan]

Is this the part where someone chimes in with how they can't believe how greedy the players are, that they should be happy with whatever they get?  And then remind everyone here how they'd be happy to play for free?

[Frobby]

47 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

All I said was that sounds like a MLBPA press release, which it did. You posted it. You didn't say anything else. You and everyone else should be smarter than to believe press releases from EITHER side. You said there were many reasons why people should not choose mediation. You've yet to come up for the reasons for the MLBPA.

No one are angels in this. Sounds like if anything, you are buying the press releases. Whether you want to agree ot not, it's not me being pro owner, it's me seeing through the bullsh@$.

Fine, but it’s not a press release, it’s the opinion of someone who is closely following the negotiations.   I’m not saying his opinion is right or that you have to agree with it, but it’s not a press release or propaganda.   

I’m going to bow out of this thread for a bit.  I follow sports to have a distraction from the stuff I do all day.   This labor stuff is too much like the stuff I do all day.   
 

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Fine, but it’s not a press release, it’s the opinion of someone who is closely following the negotiations.   I’m not saying his opinion is right or that you have to agree with it, but it’s not a press release or propaganda.   

I’m going to bow out of this thread for a bit.  I follow sports to have a distraction from the stuff I do all day.   This labor stuff is too much like the stuff I do all day.   
 

I get it. This is why we NEED baseball. It's supposed to distract us from all of this BS.

[Frobby]

I think this article sums up why the players are dissatisfied with the current agreement.  
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/baseball/2021/mlb-lockout-baseball-player-salary-growth-1234648078/amp/

[wildcard]

Max Scherzer should be traded to Pittsburgh.   Here is part of his most recent statement.

“We want a system where threshold and penalties don’t function as caps" 

With this statement he proves he does not care about the players playing for small market team.  That in as system without luxury tax and revenue sharing the players on small market teams have no chance of winning.   Especially were there is no tanking to try to build a team with high draft choices.

Scherzer should have no say in any MLB/Union agreement.  His opinions are not good for baseball.

[Sports Guy]

The only topic the players care about is getting the aging, mediocre guys more money.  That’s really it.  How can we get those guys paid?

Just impose a salary floor.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

The only topic the players care about is getting the aging, mediocre guys more money.  That’s really it.  How can we get those guys paid?

Just impose a salary floor.

 

They would argue (and I believe they have argued) that if there's a salary floor, there will have to be a cap.  And they certainly don't want that.

I don't know if a floor would do any good.  It might, but if there's an imposed minimum on what I'd have to have payroll as an owner, I'd rather just give that money to the young guys and meet the floor that way.  I mean, look at the Acuna contract, it was something like 10/124, signed when he was 21.  I'd rather give him 10/175 and make that dude happy through age 31 before letting him walk.  I' d rather use that extra meat to make the salary floor rather than bring on some aging mediocre guys like Eric Hosmer.  Blech.  

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Max Scherzer should be traded to Pittsburgh.   Here is part of his most recent statement.

“We want a system where threshold and penalties don’t function as caps" 

With this statement he proves he does not care about the players playing for small market team.  That in as system without luxury tax and revenue sharing the players on small market teams have no chance of winning.   Especially were there is no tanking to try to build a team with high draft choices.

Scherzer should have no say in any MLB/Union agreement.  His opinions are not good for baseball.

I don't believe tanking with high draft picks is the only way to be successful in the MLB.  You shouldn't either.

Small market teams have to do it smarter and better than big market teams.  Do I need to remind you about your Tampa obsession?

I don't think that quote gives any insight about how he thinks for players playing for small market teams.  

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

They would argue (and I believe they have argued) that if there's a salary floor, there will have to be a cap.  And they certainly don't want that.

I don't know if a floor would do any good.  It might, but if there's an imposed minimum on what I'd have to have payroll as an owner, I'd rather just give that money to the young guys and meet the floor that way.  I mean, look at the Acuna contract, it was something like 10/124, signed when he was 21.  I'd rather give him 10/175 and make that dude happy through age 31 before letting him walk.  I' d rather use that extra meat to make the salary floor rather than bring on some aging mediocre guys like Eric Hosmer.  Blech.  

You don't have to have a cap.  The floor does more for the game than a cap does.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't make sense unless you are going to pay way more money for the early years of the deal than you have to and why would you do that?  If I can pay a guy 2M over the course of 3 years, why would I pay him 20M for those 3 years?  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

The only topic the players care about is getting the aging, mediocre guys more money.  That’s really it.  How can we get those guys paid?

Just impose a salary floor.

 

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

They would argue (and I believe they have argued) that if there's a salary floor, there will have to be a cap.  And they certainly don't want that.

I don't know if a floor would do any good.  It might, but if there's an imposed minimum on what I'd have to have payroll as an owner, I'd rather just give that money to the young guys and meet the floor that way.  I mean, look at the Acuna contract, it was something like 10/124, signed when he was 21.  I'd rather give him 10/175 and make that dude happy through age 31 before letting him walk.  I' d rather use that extra meat to make the salary floor rather than bring on some aging mediocre guys like Eric Hosmer.  Blech.  

Of course there is a floor.  It's 570,500 x 26 = $14,833,000 per team.  I'm assuming that the arguments that we need a floor are really saying that the floor needs to be five or six times higher.

One question that comes to mind is if a floor would do what fans/players seem to want, which is really good, young players get paid more.  Or would it just end up with the minimum being $3M or something so Ryan Flaherty and Chance Sisco get $3M but so does Adley Rutschman.  It wouldn't have to be pay for performance, just spreading it around.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Of course there is a floor.  It's 570,500 x 26 = $14,833,000 per team.  I'm assuming that the arguments that we need a floor are really saying that the floor needs to be five or six times higher.

One question that comes to mind is if a floor would do what fans/players seem to want, which is really good, young players get paid more.  Or would it just end up with the minimum being $3M or something so Ryan Flaherty and Chance Sisco get $3M but so does Adley Rutschman.  It wouldn't have to be pay for performance, just spreading it around.

The floor would mean multiple things:

 

1) Crappy players get paid more.  

2) Teams can't really tank

3) Those teams contributing a lot in revenue sharing would know that the money is going somewhere and not just the pockets of those owners.

I think its a no brainer.  Sure, it will cause some bad contracts but that happens anyway.  I think it increases competitive balance and because the lower teams are forced to spend, it also means the top teams aren’t the only ones signing all the players of any value.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The floor would mean multiple things:

 

1) Crappy players get paid more.  

2) Teams can't really tank

3) Those teams contributing a lot in revenue sharing would know that the money is going somewhere and not just the pockets of those owners.

I think its a no brainer.  Sure, it will cause some bad contracts but that happens anyway.  I think it increases competitive balance and it because the lower teams are forced to spend, it also means the top teams are the only ones signing all the players of any value.

I'd sign highly touted players to long term deals to use the AAV up and then flip them before the higher salary kicks in.

Bingo low payroll in standards.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd sign highly touted players to long term deals to use the AAV up and then flip them before the higher salary kicks in.

Bingo low payroll in standards.

But are you paying those guys big money in pre and early arb years?