MLB Lockout Thread

[DrungoHazewood]

52 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The guaranteed contracts that pays guys even when they are no longer productive is as broke as anything the players are asking for the other way.

There is nothing forcing owners to make every contract a long-term guaranteed deal.  Well, besides the willingness of other owners to do that.  Every owner could refuse to offer anything but a series of team options.  Few players would sign that because they know other teams would give them more security.  But there's nothing stopping owners from only offering up terms they like.

The Orioles are still paying Chris Davis because Peter Angelos and/or his sons offered him a guaranteed contract.  They could have offered him nothing and let him walk, but they didn't. 

[spiritof66]

33 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

.  .  .

The Orioles are still paying Chris Davis because Peter Angelos and/or his sons offered him a guaranteed contract.  They could have offered him nothing and let him walk, but they didn't. 

Davis walk? Strike out on his own would be more like it.

When I read about a CBA negotiation session and try to picture these jackasses sitting around a conference room table saying "No, no, no. We have to have _______. That's a dealbreaker. It's non-negotiable," etc., etc. , I'm reminded of a line in Look Through Any Window, the great Hollies song: "You can see the little children all around."

[Roll Tide]

46 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is nothing forcing owners to make every contract a long-term guaranteed deal.  Well, besides the willingness of other owners to do that.  Every owner could refuse to offer anything but a series of team options.  Few players would sign that because they know other teams would give them more security.  But there's nothing stopping owners from only offering up terms they like.

The Orioles are still paying Chris Davis because Peter Angelos and/or his sons offered him a guaranteed contract.  They could have offered him nothing and let him walk, but they didn't. 

The problem is that the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and a few others don’t need restraint.  They can make stupid mistakes and it doesn’t matter as they have an endless supply of money. The owners should give the players most of what they are asking in exchange for a cap that makes the playing field level.

[OriolesMagic83]

53 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is nothing forcing owners to make every contract a long-term guaranteed deal.  Well, besides the willingness of other owners to do that.  Every owner could refuse to offer anything but a series of team options.  Few players would sign that because they know other teams would give them more security.  But there's nothing stopping owners from only offering up terms they like.

The Orioles are still paying Chris Davis because Peter Angelos and/or his sons offered him a guaranteed contract.  They could have offered him nothing and let him walk, but they didn't. 

No one forces owners to hand out 10 or even 14! year deals.  These players are going to sign for the most money and longest deal whenever they can.  I will be surprised to see the O's handing out contracts over 5 years.  The Yankees can handle paying a player who doesn't produce $30 mill/yr.  The O's have no such luxury.  The only exception I can see would be a young player on a Hall of Fame track at a premium defensive position.  The O's are not likely to pay a 1B even performing at an MVP level, 30 mill/yr, imo.

Giving Davis a 5 year deal would have been just as painful, but the pain would have ended 2 years earlier.

 

[btdart20]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The problem is that the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and a few others don’t need restraint.  They can make stupid mistakes and it doesn’t matter as they have an endless supply of money. The owners should give the players most of what they are asking in exchange for a cap that makes the playing field level.

From a fans perspective:  I think there needs to be a hard cap as well.  But I don't know enough about the small/mid-market revenues.  The anecdotal eye test seems to say the small/mid-market teams have to play asymetrical games with the rules for the hope of competing.  I don't think a salary floor will genuinely impact the competitive balance.  Feels like teams will play games with that too and still punt. 

But I get the impression baseball is in for a long, turbulent, walk to the woodshed.

[OriolesMagic83]

1 minute ago, btdart20 said:

From a fans perspective:  I think there needs to be a hard cap as well.  But I don't know enough about the small/mid-market revenues.  The anecdotal eye test seems to say the small/mid-market teams have to play asymetrical games with the rules for the hope of competing.  I don't think a salary floor will genuinely impact the competitive balance.  Feels like teams will play games with that too and still punt. 

But I get the impression baseball is in for a long, turbulent, walk to the woodshed.

More like baseball fans are in for a walk to the woodshed.  It doesn't seem like the owners or players care unless it effects their pockets.

[NCRaven]

If all the owners suddenly started refusing to offer long term contracts, you have so many law suits that your head would spin.  Can you say Collusion 3.0?  Unless the CBA mandated 1 year deals, it would never happen.

[OriolesMagic83]

2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

If all the owners suddenly started refusing to offer long term contracts, you have so many law suits that your head would spin.  Can you say Collusion 3.0?  Unless the CBA mandated 1 year deals, it would never happen.

I know the NBA has max deals, which max out at $50 mill/yr or so.  But the length of the deal is only 5 years.  So no NBA player has ever signed a $300 million contract (that I know of).  I doubt the mlbpa would agree to any max, no matter how high.  Lebron's WAR in an average season, would probably be around 20 in an 162 game season, maybe more, due to how much one player can effect a basketball team.  $50 mill really sounds like a bargain for the absolute best players in the NBA. 

[Frobby]

 

 

[OriolesMagic83]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Biggest gap, IMO, is the players want 75% of 3rd year players reaching arbitration vs. owners holding fast at 22%.

[Roll Tide]

51 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

From a fans perspective:  I think there needs to be a hard cap as well.  But I don't know enough about the small/mid-market revenues.  The anecdotal eye test seems to say the small/mid-market teams have to play asymetrical games with the rules for the hope of competing.  I don't think a salary floor will genuinely impact the competitive balance.  Feels like teams will play games with that too and still punt. 

But I get the impression baseball is in for a long, turbulent, walk to the woodshed.

It would the game way more interesting in many markets and reduce a lot of the game playing that goes on.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

From a fans perspective:  I think there needs to be a hard cap as well.

I don't know that a hard cap would do all that much. Maybe it would help some, but the Yanks and Dodgers and Sox would still have two or three times the Rays' revenues (much more without revenue sharing) and they will find ways besides payroll to make an impact with that money.  The NFL has parity because revenues are relatively balanced, not necessarily because of the cap.

The example I like to use (and people like to say "no, no, no, that's totally different!") is that Alabama and the University of Akron pay their players about the same amount.  Ain't no parity in any way in college sports.

[DrungoHazewood]

43 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

It would the game way more interesting in many markets and reduce a lot of the game playing that goes on.

Wouldn't it make almost every transaction a game to see how you're going to get under the cap, or above the floor?  Oh look, the Yanks signed Jones to a 8/330 deal but had to pay $95M in bonus instead of salary, defer $100M, and pay $32M in 2029 in S&H Green Stamps but because of the way the CBA works they're under the cap!

The Orioles signed (that guy I don't remember his name) to a $7M deal a few months ago despite the fact he appeared to have no value, which looks for all the world like they're anticipating a floor they're need to get over.  That's going to be fun, signing waiver wire guys to real money to meet a floor.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Biggest gap, IMO, is the players want 75% of 3rd year players reaching arbitration vs. owners holding fast at 22%.

If one of the sides had any guts they'd go all in, and propose that there is no team control period.  When you draft someone or sign an international free agent you negotiate any contract you want.  When that's up, they're a free agent.  If you want to sign an 18-year-old to a 14-year, $55M deal, go for it.  If you want to sign another to a three-month, $12,000 deal, same thing.  It's whatever the player, his agent, and the team negotiate.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I know the NBA has max deals, which max out at $50 mill/yr or so.  But the length of the deal is only 5 years.  So no NBA player has ever signed a $300 million contract (that I know of).  I doubt the mlbpa would agree to any max, no matter how high.  Lebron's WAR in an average season, would probably be around 20 in an 162 game season, maybe more, due to how much one player can effect a basketball team.  $50 mill really sounds like a bargain for the absolute best players in the NBA. 

What you have in the NBA that you don't have in baseball is veterans willing to play for significantly less money for a contender.

That and players dictating to teams who they will play for even when under contract.