MLB Lockout Thread

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

First off, they have already "won" and secondly I expect the players to move some more before the deal.

Yes they have won in reality..but if you give in to all the demands, you still “lose” and set up precedents for further negotiations.

Zero chance they just accept everything the players want as of this moment even if they win overall by accepting it.

[interloper]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

This mentality is just wrong.  The owners lose money if they don’t play.  They don’t want to lose money.  This isn’t part of any strategy.

I don't know if this is a fact. They won't be paying anyone for missed games and they've stated players won't receive that money back. The owners cried crocodile tears about the 60 game season but it was just them crying poor as an excuse to not pay guys. The owners are swimming in money and no games = less salary and less overhead. The only games they want to add are playoff games. 

[Tony-OH]

18 hours ago, SteveA said:

The owners have the advantage, I think.   They lose less money with April and May games being cancelled, because attendance is lower in this months with kids still in school and weather not being nice yet.   And of course the national TV contracts are all about the postseason.   

So if 1/3 of the season is cancelled and we play a 100 game season June-September, the players lose 1/3 of their salary but the owners lose a LOT less than 1/3 of their revenue.   The good weather games still get played, the networks still pay big $ for the postseason.   

This is the same logic we saw in 2020, where the owners wanted the shortest season possible to get to a postseason, while the players wanted more games, and the owners stalled until there was only time for a 60 game season.

So basically, if we reach the point where games are cancelled, which we are rapidly approaching, the owners have leverage and probably won't budge very much on the key issues for a LONG time.   The only way this will be settled quickly would be if the players capitulate bigtime.   If we aren't any closer to a settlement by Monday, then it's either going to be a LOT of games cancelled, or the players union wind up throwing in the towel and goes WAY more than halfway on the differences.

That's assuming they get the fans back after missing two moths of games. I think it would be suicide.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes they have won in reality..but if you give in to all the demands, you still “lose” and set up precedents for further negotiations.

Zero chance they just accept everything the players want as of this moment even if they win overall by accepting it.

You did see the part where I said the players will move further right?

[interloper]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

That's assuming they get the fans back after missing two moths of games. I think it would be suicide.

The amount of fans who would angrily give up on the sport, IMO, is so tiny compared to the amount of fans who will gladly eat up any baseball that is thrown their way. I fall in the latter camp, if you can't tell, lol. It's a small subsect of hardcore fans that would walk away from the sport. Casual fans don't care. And the other hardcore fans are starved for baseball. I just think fans will always come back. It's baseball, people know there have been strikes in the past and whatnot. I just don't think the fans they lose would make much of a dent. But I don't know, it's just my opinion. 

[wildcard]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I don't agree the raise the luxury level and the union's proposed competitive balance level are not good for mid and small revenue teams.  

[interloper]

Side note: I signed up for Milb.com which is only $10. Does anyone know if there's lockouts for the broadcasts? 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

I don't agree the raise the luxury level and the union's proposed competitive balance level are not good for mid and small revenue teams.  

So revenue is going up but the "salary cap" shouldn't reflect it?

 No increase means a decrease when inflation is considered.

[Tony-OH]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

The amount of fans who would angrily give up on the sport, IMO, is so tiny compared to the amount of fans who will gladly eat up any baseball that is thrown their way. I fall in the latter camp, if you can't tell, lol. It's a small subsect of hardcore fans that would walk away from the sport. Casual fans don't care. And the other hardcore fans are starved for baseball. I just think fans will always come back. It's baseball, people know there have been strikes in the past and whatnot. I just don't think the fans they lose would make much of a dent. But I don't know, it's just my opinion. 

I think it's the opposite, The hardcore fans will always be there, but the common fan may just not be into the sport anymore, especially with so many entertainment options. I was casual Hockey fan until the NHL went on strike what, back in 1994ish timeframe? I haven't watched a full NHL game since, minus a few Caps playoff games. Just never could get back into the game.

I think baseball is playing a very dangerous game with the fans. We should be talking about the first games coming up and here we are talking about bulls!it negotiations between Billionaires and Millionaires. 

Meanwhile the country has 7% inflation, there's a potential for a World War III situation, and there's still people walking around with masks on everywhere. 

In my opinion, it's a real bad time to start missing games. 

 

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So revenue is going up but the "salary cap" shouldn't reflect it?

 No increase means a decrease when inflation is considered.

The luxury tax level at 210m was too high to begin with.  There was talk of lowering it to 180m to make the league more competitive.    That will not happen but raising it just makes the gap between the rich clubs and the mid and small clubs greater.  

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think it's the opposite, The hardcore fans will always be there, but the common fan may just not be into the sport anymore, especially with so many entertainment options. I was casual Hockey fan until the NHL went on strike what, back in 1994ish timeframe? I haven't watched a full NHL game since, minus a few Caps playoff games. Just never could get back into the game.

I think baseball is playing a very dangerous game with the fans. We should be talking about the first games coming up and here we are talking about bulls!it negotiations between Billionaires and Millionaires. 

Meanwhile the country has 7% inflation, there's a potential for a World War III situation, and there's still people walking around with masks on everywhere. 

In my opinion, it's a real bad time to start missing games. 

 

On this last part, I absolutely agree. And it is dangerous for MLB to play chicken like this. To your point, if summer is in full swing without baseball, a lot of people probably will shrug when it finally returns. Baseball can afford some missed time in April, but after that it's really getting dicey in terms of getting back into people's summer plans. 

I have to say though, if anything, this has made me MORE likely to spend money going to games and enjoying baseball, knowing that it can just decide to disappear for an entire summer. And with everything going on in the world, I just want to absorb baseball into my brain. I'll watch the most boring 20-4 drubbing of Dean Kremer, with Scott Garceau falling asleep at the wheel, I don't even care. lol 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The luxury tax level at 210m was too high to begin with.  There was talk of lowering it to 180m to make the league more competitive.    That will not happen but raising it just makes the gap between the rich clubs and the mid and small clubs greater.  

You did see where the Braves made a huge (104M) profit right?  Did you see the Royals sell for a Billion recently?  Why do you think 210 is too high?  Just because some owners want to spend less than half that?  The greed of a few owners should be the deciding factor?

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think it's the opposite, The hardcore fans will always be there, but the common fan may just not be into the sport anymore, especially with so many entertainment options. I was casual Hockey fan until the NHL went on strike what, back in 1994ish timeframe? I haven't watched a full NHL game since, minus a few Caps playoff games. Just never could get back into the game.

I think baseball is playing a very dangerous game with the fans. We should be talking about the first games coming up and here we are talking about bulls!it negotiations between Billionaires and Millionaires. 

Meanwhile the country has 7% inflation, there's a potential for a World War III situation, and there's still people walking around with masks on everywhere. 

In my opinion, it's a real bad time to start missing games. 

 

There is also a pro worker movement going on.  

[SteveA]

17 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

That's assuming they get the fans back after missing two moths of games. I think it would be suicide.

Fans tend to come back.   They came back after a World Series got cancelled.

Sure we will be mad and emotional and say stuff.   But in the end, they probably will come back.

NHL missed an entire season.   Overall attendance didn't drop off at all.   First year they were back they had more fans than the last year prior, and continued to do about the same or better for many years.

 

[SteveA]

30 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This mentality is just wrong.  The owners lose money if they don’t play.  They don’t want to lose money.  This isn’t part of any strategy.

I don't think that's true.   I think if they played, say 150, they would make just as much money.   The national TV contracts are all geared towrds the postseason.   So they would lose revenue from 12 games (which, other than Opening Day, are the lowest attended time of the year) and maybe less than 1/10 of their local TV revenue.   But they would save on their biggest expense, which is player salaries.

I think if it means getting a better deal that will make them money in the longterm, the owners would be more than happy to have a 100 game season and it wouldn't cost them that much this year.