MLB Lockout Thread

[Sports Guy]

Manfred said he believes they need at least 4 weeks for ST.  ST was set to be 6 weeks.

He said you need a few days to ratify the deal and logistically get players where they need to go.  Dan ODowd pointed out that you also need players to go through physicals as well.

So, let’s just say you need 3-4 days to do all of that stuff.  That means that they basically have 14 days to get the deal done before the start of the season gets pushed back.  Ideally, you would like ST to start around the 20th, to give everyone some extra time.

Injuries were a big issue in 2021 and some think the shortened ST and everything that happened in 2020 helped lead to that, especially the lack of a MiL season.  So, as much ST as possible would be good.  
 

Anyway, that’s essentially your timeline.  You have 2 weeks to get this done or the season starts late.

They are meeting on Saturday and Manfred said the owners will have a proposal for the players.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Perhaps, just perhaps the salaries were artificially high and the market corrected itself? Perhaps, GM's and owners have realized that there is no value in giving 30 something players 200 million guaranteed. What is the famous Chris Davis quote? Something like "in free agency, you get paid for what you've done more than what you will do. That to me speaks volume to the players perspective. They can't argue that the young player is underpaid and then argue at the same time that FA should get more than the value of their current contract. Again, I am for neither side. Anything the owners give away will be made up for by changing the fans more and then we will be back in the same boat. Players will argue that salaries have flattened and revenue is up. I don't understand the need to take sides. In the end, I decide where my time and money goes. 

Salaries in MLB were artificially high but were still a lower percentage of revenue than the NBA?

[Sports Guy]

Agreed to draft lottery too:

 

[SteveA]

28 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Perhaps, just perhaps the salaries were artificially high and the market corrected itself? Perhaps, GM's and owners have realized that there is no value in giving 30 something players 200 million guaranteed. What is the famous Chris Davis quote? Something like "in free agency, you get paid for what you've done more than what you will do. That to me speaks volume to the players perspective. They can't argue that the young player is underpaid and then argue at the same time that FA should get more than the value of their current contract. Again, I am for neither side. Anything the owners give away will be made up for by changing the fans more and then we will be back in the same boat. Players will argue that salaries have flattened and revenue is up. I don't understand the need to take sides. In the end, I decide where my time and money goes. 

No doubt, the salaries were too high for players over 30, and the market has corrected it self as GMs have gotten smarter.

However, the current system keeps salaries artificially low for pre-arm, and even for arb, players.   If you are going to say that salaries are down because the market is corrected, then you have to acknowledge that non-market factors keep salaries artificially low for guys in their first 6 years.

How much would Adley Rutschman get if he was declared a free agent today?

For years the players accepted the way-below-market for the first 6 years because there was the pot of gold awaiting in free agency, deserved or not.   Now the Scherzers and Tatis's of the world get their pot of gold, but the Adam Jones's do not anymore.

So I am all in favor of ways to legitimately pay guys, if not true market value, than closer to it, in their first 6 years.   If that makes me "on the side of the players", so be it.     The owners offer of a total $10 million fund to bump those guys was a joke, as was their extremely minimal increase in the minimum salary.   

Now some of the other player demands, such as weakening or eliminating the luxury tax, I'm not for at all.

I would be curious to see what would happen if the owners were to accept the players plan, a $100 million pool to bump up the salaries of pre-arb players based on some sort of performance metrics.   Would the players give up other demands and settle for that?   I would be  jumping ship on the players pretty quickly if that wasn't enough for them.

@SpOkane also has an interesting proposal in the MLB Lockout thread on the MLB board that cuts the players in on revenue sharing and lets them decide how to distribute their share.   Very creative. 

[SteveA]

41 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

That can only truly be the case if they actually come to a full agreement Saturday, which is the next day they are at the table together.   Because spring training is scheduled to start Tuesday.   Are the equipment trucks being loaded right now?   Because it takes a few days for them to drive down there.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

That can only truly be the case if they actually come to a full agreement Saturday, which is the next day they are at the table together.   Because spring training is scheduled to start Tuesday.   Are the equipment trucks being loaded right now?   Because it takes a few days for them to drive down there.

I think Mayflower is willing to do rush jobs.

[OriolesMagic83]

9 minutes ago, SteveA said:

That can only truly be the case if they actually come to a full agreement Saturday, which is the next day they are at the table together.   Because spring training is scheduled to start Tuesday.   Are the equipment trucks being loaded right now?   Because it takes a few days for them to drive down there.

I believe the Equipment trucks already drove to Florida a week ago.  Obviously some of the equipment would be needed for minor league spring training.  I saw posts about it on Facebook.  If spring training doesn't start on time, its not like the spring training facilities are being used for something else.

[forphase1]

7 minutes ago, SteveA said:

No doubt, the salaries were too high for players over 30, and the market has corrected it self as GMs have gotten smarter.

However, the current system keeps salaries artificially low for pre-arm, and even for arb, players.   If you are going to say that salaries are down because the market is corrected, then you have to acknowledge that non-market factors keep salaries artificially low for guys in their first 6 years.

How much would Adley Rutschman get if he was declared a free agent today?

For years the players accepted the way-below-market for the first 6 years because there was the pot of gold awaiting in free agency, deserved or not.   Now the Scherzers and Tatis's of the world get their pot of gold, but the Adam Jones's do not anymore.

So I am all in favor of ways to legitimately pay guys, if not true market value, than closer to it, in their first 6 years.   If that makes me "on the side of the players", so be it.     The owners offer of a total $10 million fund to bump those guys was a joke, as was their extremely minimal increase in the minimum salary.   

Now some of the other player demands, such as weakening or eliminating the luxury tax, I'm not for at all.

I would be curious to see what would happen if the owners were to accept the players plan, a $100 million pool to bump up the salaries of pre-arb players based on some sort of performance metrics.   Would the players give up other demands and settle for that?   I would be  jumping ship on the players pretty quickly if that wasn't enough for them.

@SpOkane also has an interesting proposal in the MLB Lockout thread on the MLB board that cuts the players in on revenue sharing and lets them decide how to distribute their share.   Very creative. 

Great post.  No doubt that many of the older players have been way over paid, yet many of the young stars have been underpaid.  As I said earlier in this thread, I'd love to see all players be actually paid on their production.  One thing I love about the players proposal is that the top young players will get paid out of this pool of bonus money.  That's as it should be, in my opinion, those that produce well should be paid well.  One thing I like about the arbitration process is that it helps performance to get paid, though sometimes it misses the mark terribly, and awards raises to those that didn't really deserve them, but at the same time others didn't get as much as they probably should have gotten.  

I know I sound like I'm against the players, and yeah if you asked me to chose a side I'm more pro-team and ownership than I am the players.  But at the end of the day I want good players to get paid what they are worth, and bad players to also only get paid what they are worth.  Often neither is really happening.  

As to AR, that's an interesting question.  I'm really not sure what he'd get in the open market, as it's all still just 'potential' until he makes it to MLB and starts putting up some numbers.  Hopefully we will start seeing this year if he can live up to all the hype.  

[Moose Milligan]

Draft lottery?!?!??!  No more tanking?!?!?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!11

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Draft lottery?!?!??!  No more tanking?!?!?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!11

Elias is going to have to tear up the plans for the next five years!

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, waroriole said:

Just because someone is annoyed by the negotiating tactics (if you can even call it negotiating) of the owners doesn’t mean they think the players are above reproach. Both sides suck but owners suck a little worse. It’s hard to argue against the player’s perspective when salaries have gone down while revenues increased. 

Honestly, at this point, they both suck. Who sucks more is really based on how your read into the stuff being released. 

[Brooks The Great]

Owners agree to universal DH and getting rid of draft pick compensation for free agent signings (if I am understanding correctly). Love the universal DH. I'm optimistic about a deal getting done fairly soon, those were pretty significant concessions and show that at least progress is being made.

[jamalshw]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Agreed to draft lottery too:

 

It'll be interesting to see what the lotter is. Is it the last five teams, last 10, is it NBA style. Either way, at least the Orioles got their two No.1 overalls locked before this. 

[Frobby]

59 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Great post.  No doubt that many of the older players have been way over paid, yet many of the young stars have been underpaid.  

And by the way, the cheap prices of the young players affect the market for the older players.   Right now, why pay an older player what he’s worth when you can get 75% of that performance for 20% of the price, and use the savings for something else you need.   The higher the minimum is set (or any bonus), the less tempting it is to jettison some veteran for a younger player.    

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, waroriole said:

It’s hard to argue against the player’s perspective when salaries have gone down while revenues increased. 

Revenues are up because 2020 was not open to the public for the most part.  Owners don't make long term commitments on short-term data.  I'm not sure what the long-term data trends are, but anecdotally, less and less of my friends (and their kids) are into baseball these days.

Salaries - Here's the list of >$10m/year contracts:  Bauer (LAD), Bradley Jr. (MIL), Brantley (HOU), Cruz (MIN), Gausman (SF), Gregorius (PHI), Hand (WAS), Hendriks (CHW), Kluber NYY), LeMahieu (NYY), McCann (NYM), Morton (ATL), Ozuna (ATL), Realmuto (PHI), Richards (BOS), Rosenthal (OAK), Schwarber (WAS), Semien (TOR), Simmons (MIN), Smyly (ATL), Springer (TOR), Stroman (NYM), and Turner (LAD). 

In short, the FA class was sketchy at best.   5-6 of these signed on what they did years ago.  In today's CBA, only the big market teams (or those who are close to competing) are willing to sit at the table for the big named talent.  Without a hard salary cap, there is no parity.  Without parity, there is no hope for competing unless you're in a developmental "window".  Less seats at the table, means less bidding on your services.  

The next tier is Molina ($9m), Wong, Minor, Treinen, Santana, Paxton, Happ, Ray, Wainwright, Rosario, Quintana, Odorizzi, May, Taijuan, Kike Hernandes, Pederson, Yuli Gurriel, Profar, Eaton, and Kim ($7m).  Most of those either resigned with their teams (for PR as much as talent) or went to a contender/quasi-contender.  Similar supply/demand issues apply here if only contenders and their own teams are bidding on your services.