MLB Lockout Thread

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

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.

They also want the ability to keep lowering without the Union being consulted.

[Frobby]

Found this interesting tidbit about the owners’ proposal:

“On MLB Network’s morning show yesterday, some examples were provided of what some young players that are not yet arbitration-eligible could earn in 2022 under these proposals.

“Reigning National League Cy Young Winner Corbin Burnes of Milwaukee would get a bonus of just over $2 million bringing his total salary for the 2022 season to $2,626,000. Vladimir Guerrero Jr. of Toronto, who posted an OPS of 1.002, would earn $2,099,400. San Diego’s Fernando Tatis Jr., a third-place MVP finisher, would be playing for $2,890,286 next season. The 2021 AL Rookie of the Year, Tampa Bay’s Randy Arozarena, would earn a salary of $581,200 with a bonus of $729,000 for a total of $1,310,200.”

https://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2022/02/on-os-farm-managers-and-players-are-moving-up.html

 

[Can_of_corn]

28 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Found this interesting tidbit about the owners’ proposal:

“On MLB Network’s morning show yesterday, some examples were provided of what some young players that are not yet arbitration-eligible could earn in 2022 under these proposals.

“Reigning National League Cy Young Winner Corbin Burnes of Milwaukee would get a bonus of just over $2 million bringing his total salary for the 2022 season to $2,626,000. Vladimir Guerrero Jr. of Toronto, who posted an OPS of 1.002, would earn $2,099,400. San Diego’s Fernando Tatis Jr., a third-place MVP finisher, would be playing for $2,890,286 next season. The 2021 AL Rookie of the Year, Tampa Bay’s Randy Arozarena, would earn a salary of $581,200 with a bonus of $729,000 for a total of $1,310,200.”

https://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2022/02/on-os-farm-managers-and-players-are-moving-up.html

 

I'm guessing, given the size of the pool this is drawing from, that the bonus money drops off precipitously.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm guessing, given the size of the pool this is drawing from, that the bonus money drops off precipitously.

Well, I think only 30 players get a share, which seems ridiculous to me.   

[jarman86]

Their proposal  is to decrease from 180 guys to 150 I think. I guess the reserve list was actually something all along...still don't understand it as MiLB.com shows some guys who haven't played in like 3 years on the reserve list. Either way, the way those guys get treated, they are better off. Can't believe in court last week MLB tried to argue essentially minor leaguers should be paying them in Spring Training to justify not paying minor leaguers. Give me a break...

[jarman86]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, I think only 30 players get a share, which seems ridiculous to me.   

Got to keep things competitive. (huge eye roll). 

[Dipper9]

Its looking more and more likely that I can keep my vacation day that I was going to schedule for March 31.

[MCO'sFan]

17 hours ago, Hallas said:

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.

I don't think most teams "tank" just to avoid spending money. I think that teams like the Astros, Tigers, Cubs, Orioles, etc. don't see a need to spend at the major league level when they are pursuing a "proven" (not the only) model of a successful rebuild. Especially when the organization is in desperate need of a complete change from top to bottom. That IMHO is their right as it is a right of their fans to walk away. How many posts are on this site from the 14 seasons of losing were critical of the O's for signing middling and over the hill free agents as band-aids? That's a rhetorical question btw, probably 100's. While I agree that there is some sort of theoretical "end of the income streams" at this point that is all I see ... a theory. I think the steps taken over the years have provided some measure of competitive balance and as a fan of a team that benefits from it, I am happy that they are in place. I personally don't care about if 20 of 30 teams can't compete for a championship every year. I actually don't believe that its that high but even if it is... I only care about one team (O's) being able to compete for a championship. I think the path they are on is the best chance at doing that IMHO. I am more excited about watching the prospects develop and the potential they show than I would be about watching another 100m payroll team struggle to be . .500. And, I certainly don't want a CBA that mandates that. 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I don't think teams "tank" just to avoid spending money

I think for the most part it is an added inducement.

I would point at the 1998 Marlins as a team that tanked just to avoid spending money.

[MCO'sFan]

17 hours ago, jarman86 said:

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.

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... 

I am not sure how to respond (and if I even want to) to the ignorant part of your comment. So I guess I will just say that was probably a little harsh and let it go. Yes MLB is the best league in the world and it's because the best players want to play here because its already the place that they can make the most money and fame. People in Japan want to see MLB because they rarely get the chance. But, I would venture to say that they follow their favorite local team more so than any MLB team. Ironically, MLB popularity was built when there was a reserve clause. It was also the only real pro sports league. 

I never said that prices wouldn't go up. That would be a stupid thing to say... I also would say that it is ignorant (meant in jest) to believe that salaries don't play a large part of prices in sports. So, (in theory) if salaries hadn't escalated to the degree they have neither would have prices. I completely agree that there is not going to be any reduction in prices which was my point in saying that I thought the back and forth about who should make what is a waste of time. See we agree. I appreciate the compliment. I tried to live a simple life!

[MCO'sFan]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think for the most part it is an added inducement.

I would point at the 1998 Marlins as a team that tanked just to avoid spending money.

I amend my previous statement. You are 100% correct. 

[MCO'sFan]

17 hours 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.

Not sure if this was in response to my post or not but I will respond anyway. I never said the owners should make what ever they want. My point was that I don't care how much either makes. I made the true statement (IMO) that the owners will ALWAYS make their money. I never said they had a right to. 

[Hallas]

8 hours ago, MCO'sFan said:

I don't think most teams "tank" just to avoid spending money. I think that teams like the Astros, Tigers, Cubs, Orioles, etc. don't see a need to spend at the major league level when they are pursuing a "proven" (not the only) model of a successful rebuild. Especially when the organization is in desperate need of a complete change from top to bottom. That IMHO is their right as it is a right of their fans to walk away. How many posts are on this site from the 14 seasons of losing were critical of the O's for signing middling and over the hill free agents as band-aids? That's a rhetorical question btw, probably 100's. While I agree that there is some sort of theoretical "end of the income streams" at this point that is all I see ... a theory. I think the steps taken over the years have provided some measure of competitive balance and as a fan of a team that benefits from it, I am happy that they are in place. I personally don't care about if 20 of 30 teams can't compete for a championship every year. I actually don't believe that its that high but even if it is... I only care about one team (O's) being able to compete for a championship. I think the path they are on is the best chance at doing that IMHO. I am more excited about watching the prospects develop and the potential they show than I would be about watching another 100m payroll team struggle to be . .500. And, I certainly don't want a CBA that mandates that. 

I actually hard disagree here - I think teams are given the means to ensure financial balance and stability, but said measures do not come with a guarantee of competitive balance.  And the players' association is right that the more guarantees that small-market teams are given with regard to revenue sharing payments, the less incentivized they are to pay to field a competitive team.  They might end up with a competitive team through luck, good scouting, and good player development, but they won't pay for one unless they're one player away from a championship run.

 

So the expanded playoff format has done a lot to give teams the illusion of being competitive, but even so, in 2021 there were 18 teams that were more than 5 games out of the last wild card spot.  In 2019 it was 17 teams,  So only 2-3 teams are within striking distance of a wild card.  I compared this with NBA and NHL, counting the number of teams that are more than a certain threshold outside the 5th-place spot in their league/conference, or in baseball's case more than the threshold out of the wild card. This is what I came up with:

[DrungoHazewood]

18 hours ago, Hallas said:

I actually hard disagree here - I think teams are given the means to ensure financial balance and stability, but said measures do not come with a guarantee of competitive balance.  And the players' association is right that the more guarantees that small-market teams are given with regard to revenue sharing payments, the less incentivized they are to pay to field a competitive team.  They might end up with a competitive team through luck, good scouting, and good player development, but they won't pay for one unless they're one player away from a championship run.

The Orioles have been the worst team in baseball for five years, and have been uncompetitive for something like 20 of the last 25 seasons.  But if the Angelos family sold the team tomorrow it would absolutely go for over $1B dollars.  Because MLB has a monopoly on high-level baseball and large media contracts even a shell of a team, an expansion franchise with no history or infrastructure or fanbase, would go for $1B or more.

In that context why spend to win?  You're at a $300M or more annual disadvantage to teams like the Dodgers, Yanks, and Sox.  So why not spend $40M on payroll and watch as your investment grows every year no matter what?

That's baseball's biggest problem.

[Sports Guy]

F both sides.  GD children!