MLB Lockout Thread

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yeah. I'm not disagreeing. Teams usually do have to crawl before they walk and run, for sure. The Marlins teams were outliers.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to time things better and have a more meteoric rise. In fact, I think that's Elias' plan and I think he thinks he can do it better with modern data than anyone before him. Still, history is history and it doesn't happen. Almost ever.

I think its his plan too...but for that plan to work, you have to sign the right players, guys have to stay healthy and they need to develop.  Its a big ask for it all to come together at once.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, UMDTerrapins said:

 

I don't think I've ever sided with management before, but when it comes to the financial aspects of the dispute, I'm sympathetic to the owners this time. Since 2012, the league saw attendance drop in seven consecutive seasons (I'm not including the last two years because of the pandemic). In those 7 seasons, attendance declined 8.4% while payrolls went up 35.5%. For a sport with consistently declining attendance and more people cutting the cord, I wouldn't want to lock into a long term CBA that assumes growth and gives me a smaller piece of the pie. Particularly because of the uncertainty about the long term attendance damage that may have been done by having several seasons deeply impacted by covid. Nobody knows when league attendance will stop being affected by future variants, and to what degree fans will return if things do return to normal. I'm all for mediating competitive/manipulation issues and improving the sport, but I'm concerned that the financial demands by the players will be the core issue that affects the start of the season. If I was an owner, the $100 million bonus pool would be completely unacceptable without offsets. 

Just my (very) macro view on the economics. I think the best option for starting the season on time is a short term CBA, or a 5 year CBA with a kickout if certain metrics are met (revenue/attendance). The worst thing for both parties is a protracted interruption, but put to the test, I think the union would cave first. 

If the owners' problem is they don't know how to project future revenues, then why not offer up a proposal that ties the players to a certain percentage of revenues?  Just come right out and say we will give the players 45%, no matter if league revenues are $15B or $7B.

You know why?  Because they want there to be a path to 35%.  Or less.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If the owners' problem is they don't know how to project future revenues, then why not offer up a proposal that ties the players to a certain percentage of revenues?  Just come right out and say we will give the players 45%, no matter if league revenues are $15B or $7B.

You know why?  Because they want there to be a path to 35%.  Or less.

They'd also have to be more transparent with their finances, which might make it harder for them to milk taxpayers for funding.

[Frobby]

48 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, mentioning what the Marlins did in a 60 game season is pretty meaningless.  

And yes, those teams did that...but it wasn't sub 60 win teams jumping up 35-40 wins in a year or 2.  I think we can all agree that the odds of that fast of a turnaround when you are that bad aren't good.  I don't really feel that needs to be a point of contention.  I do think 2 years it can be done, especially if another playoff team is added.  But my goal isn't to hopefully contend in 2024.  Its to contend in 2023 and be one of the best teams in the league in 2024.  

Could be a tall order.   Depends a lot on how this year goes for our younger guys.  Detroit went from 43 wins to 95 in three years (+29, -1, +24 wins), so it can be done even by a sub-60 win team.   

[maybenxtyr]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They'd also have to be more transparent with their finances, which might make it harder for them to milk taxpayers for funding.

That's one of the most important facts right there. 

 

Spending and sharing revenue with players is one thing, but having to actually invest real money out of pocket for venues and upgrades would destroy their cash cows. 

 

Fans still argue tooth and nail about all of the glories of taxpayer funded stadiums but they would never entertain the idea that the same stadiums would be built, taxpayers just wouldn't have to pay for it.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Could be a tall order.   Depends a lot on how this year goes for our younger guys.  Detroit went from 43 wins to 95 in three years (+29, -1, +24 wins), so it can be done even by a sub-60 win team.   

Yes..3 years. If You are happy to wait until 2025, good for you.

[rudyrooster]

What are the odds that the owners agree to end the "lockout" and play this upcoming season under the same guidelines of the current CBA? Effectively "kicking the can down the road" for one more year.

[DrungoHazewood]

42 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Could be a tall order.   Depends a lot on how this year goes for our younger guys.  Detroit went from 43 wins to 95 in three years (+29, -1, +24 wins), so it can be done even by a sub-60 win team.   

Louisville went from 27-111 (66.5 out) to 88-44 (10 games up) in one year, '89 to '90.  All it took was a player's revolt, a third league stealing half the talent in the established leagues, and a career year out of Chicken Wolf.

So, yea, I'm saying we have a chance.

[Moose Milligan]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes..3 years. If You are happy to wait until 2025, good for you.

I don't see how they're going to be contenders between now and 2025 at the earliest and I know you think they can do it by like next week but they just don't want to.  

Knowing what we know about this ownership group, I don't see how they're contenders (and that's assuming everything breaks right) before 2025.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

What are the odds that the owners agree to end the "lockout" and play this upcoming season under the same guidelines of the current CBA? Effectively "kicking the can down the road" for one more year.

Slim chance to none.  

[SteveA]

23 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

What are the odds that the owners agree to end the "lockout" and play this upcoming season under the same guidelines of the current CBA? Effectively "kicking the can down the road" for one more year.

The owners?   Probably good odds.

The players wouldn't agree to that.   They want to change the status quo.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, SteveA said:

The owners?   Probably good odds.

The players wouldn't agree to that.   They want to change the status quo.

The players would agree to it.

 

Then they would strike come August. 

[Frobby]

44 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes..3 years. If You are happy to wait until 2025, good for you.

Not talking about 2025.  2021 was the base year in my analogy, not 2022.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Not talking about 2025.  2021 was the base year in my analogy, not 2022.

Do you think this team can improve by almost 30 games?

[Sports Guy]

57 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't see how they're going to be contenders between now and 2025 at the earliest and I know you think they can do it by like next week but they just don't want to.  

Knowing what we know about this ownership group, I don't see how they're contenders (and that's assuming everything breaks right) before 2025.

If you think it will take them 3 years, that tells me you no very little faith in the prospects they have and it also tells me that you believe whatever Elias sold to ownership will end up meaning nothing and they will go back on their word to him.