MLB Lockout Thread

[interloper]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

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.

 

This is kind of where I'm at. I agree MLB is really risking something here, but I also tend to think fans come back. Some, like me, may even be invigorated or dialed in even more after all this. I think it's also a team-by-team basis. The Orioles are poised to be exciting so I think a lot of O's fans are going nuts right now. In fact I think the O's organization is in a unique position to weather this better than most. They have a great ballpark with a new feature, cheap tickets, and some nationally-known prospects debuting this summer. Even if they miss some games, I can't see it affecting their bottom line much. 

[Sports Guy]

 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

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.

It’s not going to be just 12 games lost if they don’t get a deal done by Monday.

[wildcard]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You did see where the Braves made a huge 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?

 

I am for increasing the minimum salary.  I am for the bonus of pre-arb players to 50-60m.  That is about paying players.   Raising the luxury tax is about making the MLB less competitive.   I am not for that.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

This is kind of where I'm at. I agree MLB is really risking something here, but I also tend to think fans come back. Some, like me, may even be invigorated or dialed in even more after all this. I think it's also a team-by-team basis. The Orioles are poised to be exciting so I think a lot of O's fans are going nuts right now. In fact I think the O's organization is in a unique position to weather this better than most. They have a great ballpark with a new feature, cheap tickets, and some nationally-known prospects debuting this summer. Even if they miss some games, I can't see it affecting their bottom line much. 

And I also think the longterm issues of the fan base aging, young people not being as interested, etc... still exist whether they play 100 or 162 this year.  THAT is a serious issue that could hurt the game longterm but I don't think it is really on the radar of the owners or the players in this negotiation.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Well they do a very bad job of letting the media know anything. And it's just hard to believe that billionaires are hurting from a season or two of not being "cash positive". The owner can just infuse more cash. None of these guys are running a baseball team as their only business venture. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

I am for increasing the minimum salary.  I am for the bonus of pre-arb players to 50-60m.  That is about paying players.   Raising the luxury tax is about making the MLB less competitive.   I am not for that.

No it isn't.

It's about letting owners get away with spending less and keeping more.

No one involved is actually worried about competitive balance. 

The owners just want an excuse to spend less.

If Baltimore cared about "competitive balance" why wouldn't they be for a balanced schedule?  That would help balance competition.  They aren't for it because it would mean less home games against the Red Sox and Yankees and less seats sold for premium prices.

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

Well they do a very bad job of letting the media know anything. And it's just hard to believe that billionaires are hurting from a season or two of not being "cash positive". The owner can just infuse more cash. None of these guys are running a baseball team as their only business venture. 

The O's might be.  Only successful one at least.  (MASN is in a bit of a bad spot if they don't have the money put aside)

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

The O's might be.  Only successful one at least.  (MASN is in a bit of a bad spot if they don't have the money put aside)

Well now they're in the concert business.  (Which is fine, but please don't have a press conference about it, read the room John...)

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I am for increasing the minimum salary.  I am for the bonus of pre-arb players to 50-60m.  That is about paying players.   Raising the luxury tax is about making the MLB less competitive.   I am not for that.

Salaries are going up.  It makes sense that the luxury tax would as well.  It won’t really change anything because it’s all relative.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

Well now they're in the concert business.  (Which is fine, but please don't have a press conference about it, read the room John...)

I still don't get why the Mayor was there?

[wildcard]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No it isn't.

It's about letting owners get away with spending less and keeping more.

No one involved is actually worried about competitive balance. 

The owners just want an excuse to spend less.

If Baltimore cared about "competitive balance" why wouldn't they be for a balanced schedule?  That would help balance competition.  They aren't for it because it would mean less home games against the Red Sox and Yankees and less seats sold for premium prices.

 

 

I can't talk about the owners motives in keeping the luxury tax where it is. You may be right.  But its not hard to understand that a wider gap between the spending levels of the rich team and the teams with lower revenue teams is not good for the sport.

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Salaries are going up.  It makes sense that the luxury tax would as well.  It won’t really change anything because it’s all relative.

I agree salaries are going up.  Just look at the deals the players have gotten this off season.  Incredible.   So other than raising salaries for 0-3 year players what to the players have to be upset about.   

Keeping the luxury tax where it is helps the competitiveness of all teams. 

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I can't talk about the owners motives in keeping the luxury tax where it is. You may be right.  But its not hard to understand that a wider gap between the spending levels of the rich team and the teams with lower revenue teams is not good for the sport.

The motive is obvious.   To add a restraint to their spending so they can field teams for less $$$.   Just like those things they put on Nascar cars so they can't go as fast as they otherwise would.

Every proposal the owners have has the root motive of keeping salary costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible.

Every proposal the players have has the root motive of increasing salaries.

Anything else from either side, such as lip service about caring about competitiveness, non-tanking, or fairness, is just PR.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I agree salaries are going up.  Just look at the deals the players have gotten this off season.  Incredible.   So other than raising salaries for 0-3 year players what to the players have to be upset about.   

Keeping the luxury tax where it is helps the competitiveness of all teams. 

Your competitiveness is in your hands.