MLB Lockout Thread

[osfan83]

It's just a matter of time before this whole thing crashes anyway. It's unstainable to increase prices while at the same time demand is reduced. I think 20 years from now MLB will look a lot different than it does now, the reduction of minor league affiliated teams was just the first step. 

 - Maybe we see a reduction in the number of teams. Maybe MLB follows English soccer and teams like the O's fall into a second or third tier of teams that only compete with the Yankees if promoted or during tournaments.  

- Expenses will have to be further reduced. Maybe no player development (it's expensive, if younger players are no longer cost controlled it makes no sense to develop a few major leaguers out of a large pool) let colleges develop the players and only draft MLB ready guys.

The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time. 

[SteveA]

15 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?

And the players have come out against it.   Which probably means they can "give in" and let the owners do it at some future point in the negotations in exchange for some sort of concession.

[SteveA]

24 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

 

The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time. 

Is there any indication whatsoever that is going to happen, besides speculation?

Every time a team is sold it seems to be for an enormously higher amount.

I get the speculation -- aging fan base, other sports have more action, multiple other entertainment options, three-true-outcomes makes the game less interesting, small market/large market competitive imbalance.   I understand why people speculate that the game will drop in popularity to the point where franchise values will no longer be constantly rising.

But I see no evidence it is happening yet.

[Ohfan67]

54 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

It's just a matter of time before this whole thing crashes anyway. It's unstainable to increase prices while at the same time demand is reduced. I think 20 years from now MLB will look a lot different than it does now, the reduction of minor league affiliated teams was just the first step. 

 - Maybe we see a reduction in the number of teams. Maybe MLB follows English soccer and teams like the O's fall into a second or third tier of teams that only compete with the Yankees if promoted or during tournaments.  

- Expenses will have to be further reduced. Maybe no player development (it's expensive, if younger players are no longer cost controlled it makes no sense to develop a few major leaguers out of a large pool) let colleges develop the players and only draft MLB ready guys.

The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time. 

The data doesn't support this viewpoint at all. League revenue has continuously increased (in non-pandemic years). The value of teams have continuously increased. Expanded playoffs will generate even more broadcast cash. People have been making similar claims since the birth of free agency and make similar claims with MLB has expanded. And yet they keep making more money. The broadcast rights are going to be worth a fortune for the foreseeable future (a diluted entertainment market can actually make events like the baseball playoffs worth even more money since there are so few viewing events that will draw a lot of viewers).

 

I think there may be a tipping point in the future that does affect the finances, but not the tipping point you propose. I think the tipping point will occur when local and state governments refuse to pay for stadiums (similar to how USA cities have stopped making competitive bids for Olympics). That will be interesting. But that may take a long time to occur because relatively few stadiums are built per time period and cities like Las Vegas are still willing to use tourism related taxes to pay for stadiums. 

[osfan83]

8 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

The data doesn't support this viewpoint at all. League revenue has continuously increased (in non-pandemic years). The value of teams have continuously increased. Expanded playoffs will generate even more broadcast cash. People have been making similar claims since the birth of free agency and make similar claims with MLB has expanded. And yet they keep making more money. The broadcast rights are going to be worth a fortune for the foreseeable future (a diluted entertainment market can actually make events like the baseball playoffs worth even more money since there are so few viewing events that will draw a lot of viewers).

 

I think there may be a tipping point in the future that does affect the finances, but not the tipping point you propose. I think the tipping point will occur when local and state governments refuse to pay for stadiums (similar to how USA cities have stopped making competitive bids for Olympics). That will be interesting. But that may take a long time to occur because relatively few stadiums are built per time period and cities like Las Vegas are still willing to use tourism related taxes to pay for stadiums. 

Sure a lot of speculation on my part, and maybe MLB sustains longer due to emerging markets, but Gen Z (born around 2000) have little to no connection with the game. Unless something surprising happens, a USA fan base wont be able to support growth. But who knows, maybe 10 teams move to Latin America, and all remains well. 

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, osfan83 said:

It's just a matter of time before this whole thing crashes anyway. It's unstainable to increase prices while at the same time demand is reduced. I think 20 years from now MLB will look a lot different than it does now, the reduction of minor league affiliated teams was just the first step. 

 - Maybe we see a reduction in the number of teams. Maybe MLB follows English soccer and teams like the O's fall into a second or third tier of teams that only compete with the Yankees if promoted or during tournaments.  

- Expenses will have to be further reduced. Maybe no player development (it's expensive, if younger players are no longer cost controlled it makes no sense to develop a few major leaguers out of a large pool) let colleges develop the players and only draft MLB ready guys.

The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time. 

I think we will see MLB expand by two teams within 5 years.  That will actually boost attendance.  Oakland will get a new ball park and the Rays lease is up in 2027.   They will know where they are moving to by 2025.

[Hallas]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

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. 

I get what you're saying, and I agree with parts of it.  That said: I think that we want teams to be rewarded for at least trying to put their best teams forward, rather than putting out teams with 22 out of 25 guys on their pre-arb years that win 70 games while they get a handout from large-market teams.  The league needs all 30 teams to at least be competitive some of the time.

 

I also don't really agree that teams are free to raise prices as they see fit.  They can raise prices a lot, because MLB intentionally suppresses supply by preventing new teams from joining the league.  But that doesn't mean that their capacity for price increases is infinite.  There are other forms of entertainment that compete with MLB for its market share.   Furthermore, the perception that 20 out of 30 teams in MLB can't compete for a championship has ruinous effects on fan engagement IMO, which affects MLB's potential revenue as a whole.

[jarman86]

2 hours ago, George Zuverink said:

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.

So if you spend a day in the Majors, you would get roughly 1/162 of minimum. If you are one of the salary folks, you would get your guaranteed money.

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

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. 

My guy, your argument is so simplistic and in a perfect world I could agree with you.

But, 1.) saying the players shouldn't get more when the players are the product is ignorant. MLB is not MLB because it fields mediocre teams. Its because it is viewed as the best players in the world. MLB gets away with a lot of stuff, but the revenue is not just because its baseball, if it was, folks in Japan and Korea would be satisfied tuning into the Nippon League and KBO. They wouldn't be clamoring for a Yanks/Mariners game or whoever played in Tokyo. We all see how taking away a Kershaw player and replacing with....5th of the rotation guy from the Orioles makes a huge difference. People watch less Orioles games than they do Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, etc...

2.) Average salary is based off a 26 man roster on current salary pools. So what is average player? On our team last year, Chris Davis gets hurt, we call up minimum salary guy, the average goes down because you know have the hypothetical 26 man, plus the one guy on payroll. MLB has the average you and Tony use, MLBPA apparently has the average I used. I'd say the real average based on constituting MLB player, whether its one MLB service day, 20, etc... is probably the MLB average of $575k, which would make sense as to how they derived that value.

3.) The fact that people think ticket prices, parking, concessions, etc... will stay constant with or without increased player salaries or large profits is kind of humorous. I wish I lived in a world where my can of soda from a vending machine still cost a quarter. While aluminum prices, shipping, etc... have gone up, the profits have also increased on it.

4.) Speaking from my standpoint, I don't care who makes what money because that is not within my control, whether I never watch another MLB game again in person or on TV. I just know that no matter what its not coming back to the fans. It hasn't come back to the fans in the old system, and its not happening now and nothing I see has it happening in the future whether MLBPA agrees that $20 is a good pay day for a game or $20M. Ticket prices and everything will continue to go up as long as MLB continues to produce a quality product, which requires the players or they are nothing.

BLUF: MLB can't exist without MLBPA, and MLBPA can't really exist without MLB as there is no other league in the US without MLB's hands in it, and international leagues have limitations on foreigners, etc... 

[jarman86]

1 hour ago, osfan83 said:

It's just a matter of time before this whole thing crashes anyway. It's unstainable to increase prices while at the same time demand is reduced. I think 20 years from now MLB will look a lot different than it does now, the reduction of minor league affiliated teams was just the first step. 

 - Maybe we see a reduction in the number of teams. Maybe MLB follows English soccer and teams like the O's fall into a second or third tier of teams that only compete with the Yankees if promoted or during tournaments.  

- Expenses will have to be further reduced. Maybe no player development (it's expensive, if younger players are no longer cost controlled it makes no sense to develop a few major leaguers out of a large pool) let colleges develop the players and only draft MLB ready guys.

The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time. 

Reading this and the other commentary. The tipping point will be when market research shows advertising during live sporting events is no longer effective. With online betting become legalized in almost every state, I don't see that happening any time soon. Passan, who appears to be pro player, showed how much the Braves made in one year as one of teams with more public revenue information, roughly $132M. Rob Manfred says he's optimistic, and it could be 'disastrous' for MLB if he's wrong (espn.com)

I do see MLB minimizing player development and placing the emphasis on other entities like college baseball, Indy ball, and foreign leagues, which I think will be good for those organizations and we saw latest proposal is to cut paying MiLB jobs and reduce draft rounds, which trends in that direction.

I don't see a promotion/relegation system happening, in my lifetime anyways, in MLB. I think it would be good, but if owners are unwilling to reduce revenue sharing for competitiveness, something that would push them to put a better quality product on the field, I don't see it happening.

[jarman86]

17 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

But, 1.) saying the players shouldn't get more when the players are the product is ignorant. MLB is not MLB because it fields mediocre teams. Its because it is viewed as the best players in the world. MLB gets away with a lot of stuff, but the revenue is not just because its baseball, if it was, folks in Japan and Korea would be satisfied tuning into the Nippon League and KBO. They wouldn't be clamoring for a Yanks/Mariners game or whoever played in Tokyo. We all see how taking away a Kershaw player and replacing with....5th of the rotation guy from the Orioles makes a huge difference. People watch less Orioles games than they do Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, etc...

Also meant to add I appreciate the irony that owners should be able to make as much as they want, and we should coddle those owners when they don't want to pay to put forth a competitive team by supporting measures that continues to allow them to do so...I have no sympathy for a billionaire who allegedly wants a competitive team but is not interested in putting any money into it, and being handed a low cost one, "for the sake of competitiveness." Just sell the dang team if you aren't making money as you claim.

[Can_of_corn]

21 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Also meant to add I appreciate the irony that owners should be able to make as much as they want, and we should coddle those owners when they don't want to pay to put forth a competitive team by supporting measures that continues to allow them to do so...I have no sympathy for a billionaire who allegedly wants a competitive team but is not interested in putting any money into it, and being handed a low cost one, "for the sake of competitiveness." Just sell the dang team if you aren't making money as you claim.

Let's tax the fans to build new/improve existing stadiums!

[jarman86]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Let's tax the fans to build new/improve existing stadiums!

Oh wait....they do lol. Also, the other thing that got me is, "the owners can do what they want with their money".....in some cases ITS NOT THEIR MONEY lol. Its the Dodgers or Yankees or whoevers money that is given to the other owners for those owners to either have better chances of beating them or....being an exhibition game in some points. There is literally a tax for, not being too good, but spending too much of THEIR MONEY lol.  If the Yankees want to spend 100M a year for Matt Harvey to eat innings for them.....it is their money, but they can't cause they'd be spending too much money, even though we know spending money doesn't mean wins....for example THE YANKEES.

[jarman86]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

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.   

They are big to develop the prospects. Can't bring in a high school/foreign player pitcher/batter and put him in AAA or AA....I mean you can, but could mess with the player's psyche or development. Not to mention levels of minor leagues helps stash away guys for their 6 year development contract. 

MLB has been working towards implementing the complex idea for awhile now, my guess is that is where they will go from here on out. Curious to see how it will affect the international players as I think there will be more college aged players drafted who will be more advanced than the 17-18 y/o internationals. High schoolers will at least have option to go to college. 

Also, odds of having 180 players at low cost increases chances of finding value vs having 100 players at a higher cost.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

They are big to develop the prospects. Can't bring in a high school/foreign player pitcher/batter and put him in AAA or AA....I mean you can, but could mess with the player's psyche or development. Not to mention levels of minor leagues helps stash away guys for their 6 year development contract. 

MLB has been working towards implementing the complex idea for awhile now, my guess is that is where they will go from here on out. Curious to see how it will affect the international players as I think there will be more college aged players drafted who will be more advanced than the 17-18 y/o internationals. High schoolers will at least have option to go to college. 

Also, odds of having 180 players at low cost increases chances of finding value vs having 100 players at a higher cost.

I didn’t mean the number of levels in the minors, I meant the number of players per MiL team.   But actually, it’s not as many as I thought.  It’s 28 for AAA and AA, 30 for hi and lo A, 35 for short season teams.   Those sizes for full-season teams were increased from 25 in 2021.   Now it looks like MLB wants to reverse that.   Here’s an article about last year’s increase.   https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/minor-league-roster-limits-expanded-for-full-season-levels-in-2021/?amphtml

[SteveA]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I didn’t mean the number of levels in the minors, I meant the number of players per MiL team.   But actually, it’s not as many as I thought.  It’s 28 for AAA and AA, 30 for hi and lo A, 35 for short season teams.   Those sizes for full-season teams were increased from 25 in 2021.   Now it looks like MLB wants to reverse that.   Here’s an article about last year’s increase.   https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/minor-league-roster-limits-expanded-for-full-season-levels-in-2021/?amphtml

It's a minor distinction but it's not necessarily minor league team roster sizes that they want to reduce, but the total # of minor league players you can have under control during the season.   This isn't just the sum of the minor league rosters because there are guys on IL, guys in extended spring training that aren't assigned to a specific team, etc.

So while they may or may not roll back last year's roster size increases once Covid is over, that isn't what this particular discussion is really about.  It's about the # of players you can keep under control during the season.