MLB Lockout Thread

[MGH5208]

12 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

How are things going to get settled when you are 80+ million apart and you only move 5M?  
 

It’s insanity.  Someone is going to have to cave on something big and it doesn’t sound like either side is close to doing that and if they aren’t close now, why should we think they are close to doing it anytime soon?  
 

I think yesterday was the single biggest indication that the season doesn’t start on time.   I haven’t seen anywhere that the 2 sides are meeting again today or anytime soon.  Yesterday was supposed to jump start daily discussions to get this knocked out and the owners changed very little it sounds like.

Agree, I just don't understand the $5M move on either side

Does anyone know where the money comes from?    Team or league?  or does each team have to pay their own players?

again, I'm not pro either side, but if each team put up $2M (not my money, i know) couldn't we have a $60M pool?  

I realize that may have some impact on future arb earnings, etc but teams piss away $2M or more a year on some minor league signing or bad free agent 

[Tony-OH]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

They didn’t feel the time was right for mediation.   That doesn’t mean they’ll never think the timing is right.  

You are very dug in on your anti-player stance.   Most analysts I’ve seen agreed that the timing of the owners’ request for mediation was premature and that the players were right to reject it at that point.   To you, that’s because these people are “naive” or buying into the player’s “propaganda.”   To me, it’s because they’re right.   
 

Lol... Man, i must be wrong, "most analysts" think the players were right to reject mediation. Man, I must be wrong then.. lol

[Tony-OH]

7 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm not sure where the press is "taking their side" unless it's someone in an op-ed piece.  Most things I've seen/read are simply stating the facts and reporting on what's happened in the negotiations.  But if the press is "taking their side" I'm assuming it's because a sportswriter knows what it's like to work hard and have a publication like ESPN/Disney to make more money while their salary stays the same.  That's a concept that many can relate to.

In terms of your concern with the public perception, it's simple.  The players are vocal, they communicate to the public about what they're doing and what they want.  The owners, for the most part, do not.  

As many have stated in this thread, it's millionaires vs. billionaires in this dispute and I don't really have a horse in this race.

You've made it very clear that you're anti-player which is puzzling to me.  Looking at this in from a very black and white perspective, it's obvious to me if I had to pick a side here, who'd I'd align with:  Would I want a guy like Cedric Mullins or Trey Mancini to get a little more money?  Or would I rather have the Angelos family get it?  

From that angle, the decision is obvious.  

But that "angle"  makes no sense. I'm anti MLBA and ultra rich Scherzer type player. I'm not anti-player. I've said many times I don't like either side because they're both greedy and couldn't care less about the fans of they tried.

I'm on the side of mid and small-market teams getting a system where they can compete with good management year in and year out. I get it, the fan boys love their players. Not saying you per se, but i understand why the fan boys love the players and want to side with them over the big greedy Billionaire owners. Afterall, grown men still try and get autographs from the players, but they don't from owner now do they?

I think younger productive players should get more money early on, but the MLBPA is more worried about getting Scherzer's of the world $50 million instead of $40 million a year and getting big pay day for 30 something washed up players.

So it has nothing to do with fan favorites like Mullins or Mancini getting more of the Angelos' money. I care about a competitive system and the games being played on time this year. 

The players rejected mediation which could have helped. Anytime one sides reject mediation its because they think they can "win". 

They might "win" but it going to come at the small to mid market fans' loss.

 

[wildcard]

7 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

But that "angle"  makes no sense. I'm anti MLBA and ultra rich Scherzer type player. I'm not anti-player. I've said many times I don't like either side because they're both greedy and couldn't care less about the fans of they tried.

I'm on the side of mid and small-market teams getting a system where they can compete with good management year in and year out. I get it, the fan boys love their players. Not saying you per se, but i understand why the fan boys love the players and want to side with them over the big greedy Billionaire owners. Afterall, grown men still try and get autographs from the players, but they don't from owner now do they?

I think younger productive players should get more money early on, but the MLBPA is more worried about getting Scherzer's of the world $50 million instead of $40 million a year and getting big pay day for 30 something washed up players.

So it has nothing to do with fan favorites like Mullins or Mancini getting more of the Angelos' money. I care about a competitive system and the games being played on time this year. 

The players rejected mediation which could have helped. Anytime one sides reject mediation its because they think they can "win". 

They might "win" but it going to come at the small to mid market fans' loss.

 

I second Tony.  Anything that helps the mid and small market  teams be  competitive.

[Moose Milligan]

11 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

But that "angle"  makes no sense. I'm anti MLBA and ultra rich Scherzer type player. I'm not anti-player. I've said many times I don't like either side because they're both greedy and couldn't care less about the fans of they tried.

I'm on the side of mid and small-market teams getting a system where they can compete with good management year in and year out. I get it, the fan boys love their players. Not saying you per se, but i understand why the fan boys love the players and want to side with them over the big greedy Billionaire owners. Afterall, grown men still try and get autographs from the players, but they don't from owner now do they?

I think younger productive players should get more money early on, but the MLBPA is more worried about getting Scherzer's of the world $50 million instead of $40 million a year and getting big pay day for 30 something washed up players.

So it has nothing to do with fan favorites like Mullins or Mancini getting more of the Angelos' money. I care about a competitive system and the games being played on time this year. 

The players rejected mediation which could have helped. Anytime one sides reject mediation its because they think they can "win". 

They might "win" but it going to come at the small to mid market fans' loss.

 

Well most of the players aren't Scherzer rich types.  And the Scherzer rich types want everyone to make more money.  I don't think Scherzer just wants the wealthier players to get even more wealthy without league minimum guys benefitting either.  We agree that the younger, more productive players should get more money early on but the MLBPA is worried about the older stars being able to get paid, too.  I don't think it's an argument between younger players and older players, but the MLBPA just wants everyone to earn more.  I don't really have much of an issue with it.

I wish I could say I care about games being played but I kind of don't right now.  Maybe that's just because ST hasn't started yet and I'm really not in the mood but as I said before, the relationship between us and the MLB is purely transactional.  They only care about us to the extent of which we can pay to buy tickets and tv packages and from that perspective I think everything is pretty honest.  I'm not under an illusion that the owners and players care about us past the point of which they can dip their hands into our wallets.  And that's fine, I'm happy to buy a ticket every so often, but I don't pretend to think they care about me personally or the fans as a collective group.  So to that angle, while I'd prefer to see some baseball soon, I'm happy seeing these two groups that aren't likable duke it out over millions of dollars I'll never be able to relate to.  

In regards to small and mid-market fans losing, I'm assuming you mean if these guys make more money, it'll hurt the smaller and mid-market teams from the perspective of making it difficult to retain talent.  I suppose that's true but we'd have to see exactly how true it is.  But I don't think Tampa is still going to have a hard time competing and I keep thinking of a team like Atlanta that knew what they had in Acuna and locked him up for 10/120 early in his career which looks to be a steal.  Small and mid-market teams can compete, they just need to be smart about it.  

I will agree that there's an emotional part to all of this, there's been a lot of time equity invested and that hurts.  But I would also argue that there's more of my time spent on this board and not on the Orioles themselves.  Every hour spent watching a game is probably multiplied by 3x at least in the time spent here.  It's hard to divorce the two.  That said, I'd be much more upset about this board shutting down instead of the Orioles missing games as I think this board has kept me invested more than the team actually has.

 

 

[jarman86]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:59 PM, Tony-OH said:

The average major league salary is over one million a year. Your numbers are not even close and reek of talking points by the MLBPA by  adding in players who spent partial season in the big leagues, especially a year after COVID where most teams used many more players from the minors, particularly pitchers.

Sorry, had some family medical stuff last week. So first of all, your numbers are MLB. So, take into account the Orioles had I think 65-70 players in a 162 game season. Take that, considering the majority were major league minimum. That's $600k per player. Lower than your minimum and actually closer to my number, so I think I'll go with mine. Your minimum is based off of a 25 man roster the full season. Now, maybe there is a payroll thing I don't know about, I am neither an accountant nor an MLB salary expert. The problem is owners use the younger contracts and locked in numbers, sending guys up and down to manipulate service time. 3 years of options and 3 years before arbitration aren't exactly a coincidence. 

On 2/9/2022 at 9:59 PM, Tony-OH said:

The players have no interest in creating a more completive sport where all 30 teams have a chance with good management, but a system where it will force owners to pay mediocre players more money.

Neither do the owners... Competitive will be in their bottom line which right now is protected and backed by revenue sharing and mega tv deals.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:59 PM, Tony-OH said:

The MLPBA is run by idiotic, money hungry men with no sense of care for the fans. The Owners are led by a world class douchebag who should be running a Bojangles in rural Alabama. There are no good guys in this situation, but the players have come out as the bad guys with their obvious distain for small and mid market teams and their fans.

Most accurate thing you've said.

On 2/9/2022 at 9:59 PM, Tony-OH said:

So spare me the poor players routine because that doesn't fly when their main spokesman is a guy making over $40 million a year to make 34 starts a year. If Scherzer was a good guy, and he's really just an out of touch ultra rich elitist with distain for the common fan, he could take ten million of his contract every year and make all those "poor" up and down guys make the major league minimum of over $600K a year. 

As I've said many times, I'm disgusted with this entire situation but the players have complete and totally turned my off by the total and utter distain for the fan in these negaotiations.

Again, when the overall profit has been increasing and increasing dramatically and the money for players hasn't been going up much, where do you think the money is going? To the owners!! Not us, not front office staff, not players. Owners. I'm not saying Scherzer is a poor player, but when an average career is less than 6 and before arbitration, you have guys who make well below the poverty line to maybe getting $300k? Maybe? Yeah I'm for the players. Do I think players are worth $500M contracts, no, but where else is the money going? 

Edited February 14, 2022 by jarman86

[jarman86]

Also should add, take away Davis' estimated salary of $20M, drops average salary to $307K 

[Hallas]

14 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

But that "angle"  makes no sense. I'm anti MLBA and ultra rich Scherzer type player. I'm not anti-player. I've said many times I don't like either side because they're both greedy and couldn't care less about the fans of they tried.

I'm on the side of mid and small-market teams getting a system where they can compete with good management year in and year out. I get it, the fan boys love their players. Not saying you per se, but i understand why the fan boys love the players and want to side with them over the big greedy Billionaire owners. Afterall, grown men still try and get autographs from the players, but they don't from owner now do they?

I think younger productive players should get more money early on, but the MLBPA is more worried about getting Scherzer's of the world $50 million instead of $40 million a year and getting big pay day for 30 something washed up players.

So it has nothing to do with fan favorites like Mullins or Mancini getting more of the Angelos' money. I care about a competitive system and the games being played on time this year. 

The players rejected mediation which could have helped. Anytime one sides reject mediation its because they think they can "win". 

They might "win" but it going to come at the small to mid market fans' loss.

 

 

Having read the proposals from the players association, I think that a lot of the things they're proposing are things to help elite younger players get closer to market rate (removing 1 year of tender contracts, removing an arb year) and prevent small market teams from being incentivized to tank and abuse the pre-arb salary structure (salary floors, fixing revenue sharing so that small-market teams don't automatically receive payments even though they suck and have no fans.)  I think those are generally healthy goals for the game.  You can discuss whether they are greedy in terms of motive (they probably are) but I think that's separate from whether the things they want are good for baseball as a whole.  As much as we're going to whine about players being greedy, it's completely unconscionable that small market teams can receive revenue-sharing payments that exceed the cost of their MLB salaries.  It's a terrible competitive environment and it drives away a lot of fans, especially those in small market regions.

[jarman86]

Well and I keep hearing crying about Max Scherzer....Max signed his most likely last deal under the old agreement. Quite frankly, Max could give two flying craps about the negotiations because he more likely than not will not be signing a contract, or a lucrative one, under the new deal. He will be 40 when his Mets contract is up. Anything Max is doing is not for him anymore.  Yes Brady has obviously defied age, but I'm willing to bet, Scherzer doesn't get another multi-year deal in his career. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by jarman86

[Can_of_corn]

So we have this.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33291388/mlb-seeks-ability-reduce-size-domestic-reserve-list-latest-labor-offer-players-union-sources-say

Quote

Major League Baseball asked for the ability to eliminate hundreds of minor league playing jobs in its latest labor offer to the MLB Players Association, sources familiar with the proposal told ESPN.

Currently, the Domestic Reserve List -- which governs the number of minor league players a team can roster at any time -- is at 180. The league proposed keeping the number at 180 for 2022 but allowing the commissioner's office to reduce the maximum number of players "below 150" over the rest of the collective bargaining agreement, sources said. The proposal says the league could adjust the reserve list's size "up or down."

Because attacking minor leaguers helps the owners how?

[jarman86]

17 hours ago, Hallas said:

As much as we're going to whine about players being greedy, it's completely unconscionable that small market teams can receive revenue-sharing payments that exceed the cost of their MLB salaries.  It's a terrible competitive environment and it drives away a lot of fans, especially those in small market regions.

This. I dang near spit out my drink when Manfred scoffed at proposal to reduce revenue sharing, "it is asking owners to take a pay cut." Like, my guy, the pay is for doing nothing. Having a pulse and owning a team. And with revenues going up, they've been getting more money for doing nothing and they haven't been spending it on their team, so where does the money go?

Sorry, but there need to be measures to essentially force team sale or something. If you are a billionaire and can't put forth a competitive team without handouts, you shouldn't own an MLB team. Small market team has become an old and tired excuse IMO.

And with team values increasing by like crazy amounts over the past decade because there are only 30 MLB teams and 120 big 4 teams (roughly), there is no excuse to not sell a team. Some billionaire will hop in and buy it from you. This idea that socialism is only way to solve competitiveness is ridiculous. Rich folks are buying minor league and indy league teams that don't exactly churn profits and are dying to own an MLB team in Oakland, for example. 

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

So we have this.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33291388/mlb-seeks-ability-reduce-size-domestic-reserve-list-latest-labor-offer-players-union-sources-say

Because attacking minor leaguers helps the owners how?

While I would feel bad for the minor leaguers who lose their jobs, I’ve always wondered why minor league rosters are so big.   All that will happen here is a bunch of guys who had no chance at the majors will have to get on with their lives a little sooner, instead of making a piddling MiL salary.   Of course, the fact that MiL wages have been raised in the last year or two may be why the owners want to cut back on the number of players they’re paying.   

[Too Tall]

Over the years, more than a few on here have said that magor league baseball needs a cap like the other major sports. Why, to keep teams like the Sanks or Sux from just outspending and putting pretty much whoever they wanted on their roster. The "luxury tax threshold" and resulting revenue sharing is the closest they ever got to a cap. And it has only worked to a point.

OK, so let's just eliminate any constraints and see where that takes us. No floor(which I think is a concept that wouldn't lead to intended results) - no ceiling of any kind -  no revenue sharing - no "socialism."  I am sure we can find 30 billionaires to spend whatever it takes regardless of market. Being a billionaire and stupid with your money are congruent - arn't they?

[George Zuverink]

21 hours ago, jarman86 said:

Also should add, take away Davis' estimated salary of $20M, drops average salary to $307K 

Are players who bounce back and forth between the minors and the majors paid two different per game rates? If so, that would certainly skew our average well below the minimum.

[MCO'sFan]

Reading these posts arguing each side's talking points is interesting to me. Some posters are really strong in their support of players. They "deserve their share" and "revenue is up and payroll is down."  I say who cares!! MLB is not the US government and it doesn't print money when they need more. They raise prices, they raise advertising fees, they get more in TV and radio agreements. Every dime they get comes from the fan in the form of ticket sales, fees, parking, concessions, merchandise, higher prices of goods due to higher advertising expenses etc... I've said this before... the owners will always get THEIR money. Arguing that the players should get a larger share of revenue is simply arguing for the fans to pay more. I don't understand the time and energy invested by fans arguing about the money. It is a waste of time. I personally don't care if a guy only makes $575,000 to play a game. That is not based in reality. That is a lot of money period. The average salary is $1.1M. That's a ton of money. I don't understand why fans care if owners are making more money or players are making more money. I could care less. I just don't want to pay anymore to go to a game and enjoy myself. It is already too expensive. I just want to enjoy the game for what it is.