MLB Lockout Thread

[forphase1]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

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.    

Sure, and the dynamic between the players at different points in their careers is almost as fascinating as the dynamic between the union and the owners.  One advantage the owners typically have is they are often more united in what they want, while the bigger umbrella of the union, so to speak. has more voices and more competing desires.  The same deal that is best for Max Scherzer may not be the best deal for AR, for example.  Very different places in this stage of their careers.

Anyway, this is one reason why I wish someone smarter than me could make things be more based on actual production, and not just name or seniority.  Someone that produces more SHOULD get paid more, just as a salesman who generates more business at his job should get paid more than Joe Blow next to him who is only barely turning a profit.  I have no problem with the younger players who are producing getting paid closer to what they would be worth on the open market.  And I have no problem with vets getting paid when they produce.  What I hate seeing is these washed up players still banking huge contracts (Chris Davis, David Price, Pujols, our new favorite player Odor, etc).

Really, baseball has changed.  The Adam Jones who 15 years ago may still be in MLB on a bloated contract aren't getting that money any more, thus overall salaries have dropped as the mid level vets can't keep jobs, while the top tier ones are still getting paid incredible money.  More of that money SHOULD go to the younger players who have largely replaced them.  But at the same time baseball is in an interesting position.  Yes, TV revenue has gone up, but tickets and game day revenues have dropped a great deal.  With the books being hidden, we can just speculate on what the end result has been.  And yes, many will point toward the increasing value of franchises, and that's very true.  But that's also a gain that the owners really only see when they sell the team, it isn't something that really helps them balance the budget year by year.  I'm not sure all the teams are swimming in cash as some claim, but nor am I sure they are one step from applying for public assistance to put food on the table.  

Really there are no good guys in this, and there really aren't any bad guys, Manfred being excepted of course!    We all tend to pick our sides, and then parrot the talking points of that side, but really both sides are wrong and both sides are right.  At the end of the day it's two businesses, each trying to negotiate a deal the benefits their side the most, and us, as fans, are just unfortunately stuck in the middle, begging for the season to start on time, to give us the game we love.  When we see AR take his first MLB at bat, are any of us really going to care if he's making $570,500 or $775,000, or somewhere in the middle?  Probably not.  

[Can_of_corn]

I don't think the owners are particularly unified.

They are better at keeping their mouths shut.

[forphase1]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think the owners are particularly unified.

They are better at keeping their mouths shut.

That's certainly possible too.  Manfred did say that there was some serious disagreement about the DH but they ended up coming together.  I do think the 30 owner are more typically united than the 1,200 member MLBPA, and that's one reason they have been more successful in the last few labor negotiations.  Or maybe it is just better PR and them keeping their mouths shut better that makes it appear that way.

[24fps]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think Mayflower is willing to do rush jobs.

Well done.  I get this even if nobody else does.

[Aristotelian]

Did I hear him say no draft pick compensation? Is that referring to comp picks for Qualifying Offers? 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Did I hear him say no draft pick compensation? Is that referring to comp picks for Qualifying Offers? 

That is what I assumed.

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, 24fps said:

Well done.  I get this even if nobody else does.

Oh, I certainly get it.   I still feel a wellspring of anger when I see one of their trucks on the road, 38 years later.

[MCO'sFan]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

I think it is hard to compare leagues. Too many variables that don't crossover. 

[MCO'sFan]

2 hours 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. 

I would say that you are correct that salaries are artifically low (for some, maybe most) pre-arb and even into arbitration. But the way the system is now the owners are paying premiums for high draft picks whith the hope that they make MLB let alone provide value while they are cheap. I don't think you can look at it that player X provided this much value during years 1-3 so he should have made Y dollars. How about players A-W who never make it and who the owners have paid for the last four or five years including the draft bonus and they have a negative value even if they make to the bigs. It is way more complicated that simple player value in isolation. IMHO

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I think it is hard to compare leagues. Too many variables that don't crossover. 

I think that in a lot of ways it is hard to compare leagues.

I think when it comes to how they divide up income, it's fair.

[forphase1]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that in a lot of ways it is hard to compare leagues.

I think when it comes to how they divide up income, it's fair.

To a point.  Unless I'm missing something, MLB teams have a ton of expenses outside of MLB players that cuts into the profits, like minor league salaries, draft bonuses for kids who won't be on the team for 4 years, operations overseas, etc.  The NBA has little to none of that, though that has changed a bit in the past few years.  Not sure saying that because the NBA splits revenue equally that MLB should necessarily be held to the same standard.   I would think that MLB SHOULD be lower percentage wise than the NBA due to those extra expenses that the owners have in comparison.  Same with NFL who has no minor leagues or overseas facilities to build, staff and maintain.  Not really apples to apples IMO.

[MCO'sFan]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that in a lot of ways it is hard to compare leagues.

I think when it comes to how they divide up income, it's fair.

I think you have to also look at their expenses. There are many more expenses in baseball than basketball. 

[MCO'sFan]

5 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

To a point.  Unless I'm missing something, MLB teams have a ton of expenses outside of MLB players that cuts into the profits, like minor league salaries, draft bonuses for kids who won't be on the team for 4 years, operations overseas, etc.  The NBA has little to none of that, though that has changed a bit in the past few years.  Not sure saying that because the NBA splits revenue equally that MLB should necessarily be held to the same standard.   I would think that MLB SHOULD be lower percentage wise than the NBA due to those extra expenses that the owners have in comparison.  Same with NFL who has no minor leagues or overseas facilities to build, staff and maintain.  Not really apples to apples IMO.

This is the type of things  was referring to. forphase1 did a good job of listing them. 

[NCRaven]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think Mayflower is willing to do rush jobs.

I was 24 when that happened.  Im 61 now.  It's still not funny.  Grumble...grumble...

[DrungoHazewood]

On 2/9/2022 at 12:51 PM, Tony-OH said:

The only things that's important about any of this is that is there used to be a guy named Chicken Wolf in the major leagues. Now that's a guy you can root for!

Real name William Van Winkle Wolf, but if that was me I might go by Chicken, too.