MLB Lockout Thread

[Can_of_corn]

4 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.

If it's not hard to understand can you explain it to me?

We are witnessing record profits right now, so if the cap is raised in relation to inflation what's the problem?

Of course if the gap is the problem you say it is they can fix that by putting in a floor that moves up with the cap.

 

[SteveA]

6 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. 

Salaries haven't gone up overall.   They have plateaued for several years.   The select few superstars are getting more but overall the players are not.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

[Can_of_corn]

3 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. 

How does it help the competitiveness of the teams actually willing to spend? 

Did you say you want competitiveness balance?  You can't have both. 

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If it's not hard to understand can you explain it to me?

We are witnessing record profits right now, so if the cap is raised in relation to inflation what's the problem?

Of course if the gap is the problem you say it is they can fix that by putting in a floor that moves up with the cap.

 

You can put at 120m and its still not fair to the low revenue teams.

Its really simple   120m vs 210m is not fair.

120m to 245m is even worse.  How hard can that possibly be to understand.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

You can put at 120m and its still not fair to the low revenue teams.

Its really simple   120m vs 210m is not fair.

120m to 245m is even worse.  How hard can that possibly be to understand.

If it isn't hard to understand you should be able to explain it to me and not just say how easy it is to understand.

You are NEVER going to have an even playing field.  It won't happen.  You don't have it in the NBA, you don't have it in the NFL.  Despite everything the NFL has tried to do Dallas has a more robust revenue stream than Green Bay.  The Lakers will always have an advantage over the Wizards.  That's just reality.

Every team is CAPABLE of spending enough money to be competitive if they have a solid process.  Other teams shouldn't be limited so that the Orioles' ownership can pocket more profits.  If they aren't willing to spend they don't deserve to win.

[Moshagge3]

The MLBPA has made it clear that if any games are missed, the owners don't get their precious expanded playoffs. So I don't think there's much chance of a 150 game season or anything similar. Either a deal gets done or the season gets blown up drastically.

[NCRaven]

I think SteveA and Corn have hit the nail on the head.  The Luxury Tax is about creating an excuse for owners to keep player salaries lower than a free market would dictate.  Owners spend as much as they want to spend and no more.  Some teams spend up to the threshold and then stop.  Some have even exceeded it over the years.  Others choose not to get anywhere near it.  Given inflation, the average ML player has lost income not gained.  While the owners have added significant new income sources.  MLB should absolutely raise the minimum salaries.  And, I think they should offer more players early arbitration.  They should tag the luxury tax to inflation so it goes up in a reasonable way.  Do all that and the current financial structure remains intact, without radical change.  And, the owners will still make lots of money.

[Sports Guy]

 

[jabba72]

30 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Hopefully he's there to make a deal. 

[SteveA]

8 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Hopefully he's there to make a deal. 

At least to prod the owners to think about big picture things like damage to the game, the bad PR of quibbling over money while a war is going on, etc.   If there are people on the ownership team who have been down in the weeds debating these issues daily, against people they don't particularly like, maybe it takes someone who hasn't been part of the day to day animosity to show the bigger picture.

At least that is a role I would like to see a commissioner take.  Whether this one is up to the task or not, who can say?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, SteveA said:

At least to prod the owners to think about big picture things like damage to the game, the bad PR of quibbling over money while a war is going on, etc.   If there are people on the ownership team who have been down in the weeds debating these issues daily, against people they don't particularly like, maybe it takes someone who hasn't been part of the day to day animosity to show the bigger picture.

At least that is a role I would like to see a commissioner take.  Whether this one is up to the task or not, who can say?

Owners probably just needed someone to get them coffee and danishes.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, interloper said:

And I'm not sure the owners even need games to turn a profit, at least in the short-term. 

The Braves had a $67 mm loss in 2020, despite having a 60-game season plus playoff TV money.   https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2021/02/26/atlanta-braves-lost-67-million-during-2020-season/amp/

[Sports Guy]

 

[waroriole]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I call BS. And if they want people to believe this nonsense they’ll need to open their books. 

[Sports Guy]