Hadn't voted on this before but after having read through the owners' latest rejections - I really think they're going to lose the entire season. Stupidity levels are off the charts.
Yup. Appears that way. A shame really as it’s still by far my favorite sport, but honestly, if they do I am not so sure I come back.Hadn't voted on this before but after having read through the owners' latest rejections - I really think they're going to lose the entire season. Stupidity levels are off the charts.
How is this possibly true? Players are asking for Super 2 to be increased from 22% to 75%-80%? That's hundreds of millions of dollars right there. That's not even including increases to luxury tax limits? What new revenues is Sheehan talking about?Hundred percent agree with this.
View: https://twitter.com/joe_sheehan/status/1496984131808514051?s=21
He probably means since the previous CBA:How is this possibly true? Players are asking for Super 2 to be increased from 22% to 75%-80%? That's hundreds of millions of dollars right there. That's not even including increases to luxury tax limits? What new revenues is Sheehan talking about?
That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that the players want multiple concessions from the owners compared to the last CBA without giving up much without the possible exception of expanded playoffs.He probably means since the previous CBA:
https://www.blessyouboys.com/platform/amp/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it
- MLB revenues have soared from $8.2 billion in 2015 to over $10.7 billion in 2019, a 30 percent increase
- Player salaries have decreased by 6.4 percent, with the average salary declining from $4.45 million to $4.17 million during the span of the current CBA.
- The median salary has fallen from $1.65 million in 2015 to $ 1.15 million in 2021, a decline of 30 percent.
I mean, yeah, because the previous CBA was quite unfair and stupidly signed by the players, whose main negotiator (Mike Weiner) died suddenly and was not properly replaced. The players played under this unfair CBA for years (they had no choice, they are not allowed to strike legally with a CBA in place) and now this is their one shot to try to fix things a bit. The average franchise value is up something like $1.5B since purchased, the owner’s intransigence on making the CBA one notch more fair to share a bit of that profit with the players is disgusting.That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that the players want multiple concessions from the owners compared to the last CBA without giving up much without the possible exception of expanded playoffs.
Again, just to be clear, I'm not pushing back on the good guys/bad guys thing; I just don't think it's very interesting. (And as an aside, if the negotiators are framing this as good guys/bad guys - not saying they are but if they are - it's not very productive). I see what's going on as a negotiation. If others want to see it as a morality play that's fine. Maybe y'all find that more interesting. Not the first time I've been in the minority.I mean, yeah, because the previous CBA was quite unfair and stupidly signed by the players, whose main negotiator (Mike Weiner) died suddenly and was not properly replaced. The players played under this unfair CBA for years (they had no choice, they are not allowed to strike legally with a CBA in place) and now this is their one shot to try to fix things a bit. The average franchise value is up something like $1.5B, the owner’s intransigence on making the CBA one notch more fair is disgusting.
You (WBCD) have pushed back a lot against this being a good guys/bad guys thing but it one hundred percent is, and that is not a talk radio-level talking point (another accusation of yours), it’s just facts. It’s sickening and it’s stupid by the owners, who could give in easily, focus on growing the game together as partners and end up with everyone as big winners, including the public desperate for a normal season of MLB. Instead, here we are.
I'm not tracking this. Even if the younger players got a $500,000 raise, that's only increasing payroll by so much. Isn't the main reason why player salary share is going down because there are some teams that have a $20M payroll? Isn't the main reason teams don't want to sign veteran, non-star free agents because increasing a team's win total from 60 games to 75 or even 80 games actually decrease a team's future chances of winning a title?Also I personally think the competitive thing is mostly a non-issue. Pay younger players closer to what they’re worth and that will somewhat disappear.
This is absolutely not true as it would involve owners opening their books and they have completely refused to do this.As I mentioned upthread, they'd be the ones proposing something like the NBA or NHL revenue sharing system and the owners would happily jump on that.
Again, opening the books is not a precursor to getting to a revenue sharing deal. The NBA owners never opened up their books.This is absolutely not true as it would involve owners opening their books and they have completely refused to do this.
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2020/05/15/players-reportedly-ask-mlb-owners-to-open-the-books/
(just the top link on google, but there are many articles along these lines)
The idea wouldn't be to increase young player salaries by half a million, it would be to pay 2nd or 3rd year players at free agent rates. There's less incentive to tank and collect young players if those young players are no longer cheap. I don't think there's a chance that would happen since the small market teams would never go for it, but it would definitely solve a lot of the problems.I'm not tracking this. Even if the younger players got a $500,000 raise, that's only increasing payroll by so much. Isn't the main reason why player salary share is going down because there are some teams that have a $20M payroll? Isn't the main reason teams don't want to sign veteran, non-star free agents because increasing a team's win total from 60 games to 75 or even 80 games actually decrease a team's future chances of winning a title?
Your handle and avatar could not possibly be more appropriate for this post.Good thing there’s a lot of great new video games coming out because we’re not getting baseball any time soon. Which is unfortunate. Baseball is my favorite sport by far, it’s sad to see the state of the game as it stands
I know the intent of this post, but change the title of red to "top line," change yellow to "wages," and this chart wouldn't draw much attention in most board rooms. I don't mean to lob a turd here, but I have imagine through the lens of a business owner, the 5.6 years the average player contributes to the company constitutes temporary labor that constantly needs replacing - essentially a high-cost commodity with in most cases very limited ROI. Where's the line for Human Resources? Recruiting, training, evaluating and retention of labor has to be a massive part of the overall budget too. I don't bring this up as an endorsement (I don't have a dog in this fight, nobody will starve), but if the owners dig their heels in, I don't think their rationale will be greed, rather part of the same business experience that got them to be in a position to own an MLB team in the first place: They probably don't know how to run a company any other way.Via Eno Sarris on Twitter:
FalseYour handle and avatar could not possibly be more appropriate for this post.
I think this approach to labor comes from an approach where labor is essentially another widget and labor can be easily replaced. This does not accurately describe baseball players, who are the very best at what they do on the planet. Replacements are going to likely be worse, diminishing the product on the field, and putting individual teams at a competitive disadvantage.I know the intent of this post, but change the title of red to "top line," change yellow to "wages," and this chart wouldn't draw much attention in most board rooms. I don't mean to lob a turd here, but I have imagine through the lens of a business owner, the 5.6 years the average player contributes to the company constitutes temporary labor that constantly needs replacing - essentially a high-cost commodity with in most cases very limited ROI. Where's the line for Human Resources? Recruiting, training, evaluating and retention of labor has to be a massive part of the overall budget too. I don't bring this up as an endorsement (I don't have a dog in this fight, nobody will starve), but if the owners dig their heels in, I don't think their rationale will be greed, rather part of the same business experience that got them to be in a position to own an MLB team in the first place: They probably don't know how to run a company any other way.
Yes - this is a case where I think it's very possible to "grow the pie." A good starting point would be to establish some trust between the two sides, and that work could start with a commissioner who wasn't just a tool for the owners. Yes, I know the commissioner is hired by the owners, but a smart commissioner could lead. Wish we had one.And the point to me is that instead of fighting over every possible detail and hurting the sport, if the players and owners could figure out a way to work together more peacefully and fairly, everyone would win. Revenues would go up, salaries would go up, team valuations would go up (even more).
Psychoanalyzing MLB owners... In practice, filling out 40 roster spots X 30 teams with replacement players/scabs presents a whole host of P.R./optics issues obviously, but in theory if the top 1200 players vanish, and all teams diminish equally, would the product on the field look that much different? The 1201st best baseball player on the planet (pick one... Triston Cassas) playing against players #1202 through #2400 would appear to be really effing good. Again, I don't think this is the best approach to labor in MLB, but I think it's the default thought process for people who own MLB franchises. Maximizing shareholder value by negotiating favorable labor agreements is in their DNA. /Gordon GekkoI think this approach to labor comes from an approach where labor is essentially another widget and labor can be easily replaced. This does not accurately describe baseball players, who are the very best at what they do on the planet. Replacements are going to likely be worse, diminishing the product on the field, and putting individual teams at a competitive disadvantage.
Definitely agree with this. That's what the NBA found out.And the point to me is that instead of fighting over every possible detail and hurting the sport, if the players and owners could figure out a way to work together more peacefully and fairly, everyone would win. Revenues would go up, salaries would go up, team valuations would go up (even more).
In other industries, where replacement labor is often readily available, this is exactly the nuclear option management has in their back pockets. It's the ultimate leverage. But MLB is different: Owners really don't have that option. And without MLB's vast infrastructure, MLBPA are just a collection of highly skilled athletes. This is why these CBAs are always so difficult to navigate for both sides: Each can't really exist without each other, both sides know it but won't admit it, and it all naturally devolves into a pissing contest as to who can survive without income the longest.Also it would not be so simple, I don't even know how to think that through. In this imaginary world, the best 1200 players disappear and the next 1200 all agree to play essentially as scabs? I doubt that would happen, but more relevantly, I feel like a competing league of 8 or 10 teams with the real players would pop up almost immediately, and it's not unthinkable that the owners would destroy their own franchise values.
Sheehan’s complaints are only mutually exclusive if current profits are your only measure of health and success. MLB is losing market share as it’s core audience of old white guys dies off, and it’s not replacing them with you fans . So instead of relinquishing a fraction of short term profits to the players (who actually drive interest in the game) and embracing the pie-growing model JA described, the owners are picking a labor fight that further reduces interest in their product.What I can't stand is the Joe Sheehans of the world who say owners are killing baseball one day, and the next day they're flush with cash and that needs to be shared with players. You can't argue both sides - which is it? We lament the 3 true outcomes, lack of appeal to younger audiences, length of games, cost of stadium beer, etc., but on the balance sheet MLB is wildly successful and (rightly or wrongly) owners are quite satisfied with this performance.
I think this is OK actually, the players made a new offer and now the owners are talking about it and presumably they’ll reconvene later today.View: https://twitter.com/MikeSilvermanBB/status/1497658180343668742
Both sides have been caucusing for most of the day. They finally came together to talk, and the owners left that meeting after roughly 10 minutes. Yeesh.
To me, the more telling part of that thread from Drellich is that the players dropped their arbitration eligibility proposal all the way from 75% to 35%. Seems to me like the players tried to take a lot off their proposals today in an effort to break through the impasse, and were still met with an obstinate response.Owners did not like it. Players pissed. We're not getting baseball anytime soon.
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1497701174773960705
Owners seem to want to kill the sportOwners did not like it. Players pissed. We're not getting baseball anytime soon.
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1497701174773960705
If there's one thing the owners won't budge on is Early Arb. The earlier proposal was a complete non-starter.To me, the more telling part of that thread from Drellich is that the players dropped their arbitration eligibility proposal all the way from 75% to 35%. Seems to me like the players tried to take a lot off their proposals today in an effort to break through the impasse, and were still met with an obstinate response.
Owners can manage a lost season much better than most of the players can.Owners seem to want to kill the sport
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffpassan/status/1497714664347779077
at this point I would just walk away if I was the MLBPA.
it’s clear as day the owners are not negotiating in good faith.
What benefit does that possibly give the owners to be making on-field changes to how the game is played with 45 days notice? They want to be able to mess with the rules in the middle of a season? Unless I'm missing something about how this would benefit owners' pockets somehow, this feels like something that's designed solely to piss of the other party and make them walk away. I'm not seeing the upside for them here.Owners seem to want to kill the sport
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffpassan/status/1497714664347779077
at this point I would just walk away if I was the MLBPA.
it’s clear as day the owners are not negotiating in good faith.
They want to break the union.What benefit does that possibly give the owners to be making on-field changes to how the game is played with 45 days notice? They want to be able to mess with the rules in the middle of a season? Unless I'm missing something about how this would benefit owners' pockets somehow, this feels like something that's designed solely to piss of the other party and make them walk away. I'm not seeing the upside for them here.
…Trying to figure out a way to do this would be a better tack than just forcing owners to spend more $, which is a non-starter for apparently a powerful bloc of owners.
If everything the owners took off the table as "complete non-starters" were to hold, there would be no meaningful changes to baseball's economics (so far, their proposals would be a step backwards). Frankly, it makes sense to add more players to the super-2 rolls as a means to combat service time manipulation, which I don't think the owners have a good proposal for (awarding themselves draft picks for doing the right thing, rather than simply making it a rule is a laughable solution).If there's one thing the owners won't budge on is Early Arb. The earlier proposal was a complete non-starter
I think we're at the point where the owners should do the Status Quo proposal (whenever they feel like it), at the point when they are ready to cancel the season when the players reject it.
… Cue the cartoon of Scrooge McDuck diving into a pile of gold coins. The Braves posted a record $568 million in revenue from baseball and development (up from $178 million in the pandemic season 2020). The 2021 revenue far exceeded the previous record of the last pre-pandemic season of $476 million in 2019. This effectively amounted to a 2021 profit of $111 million (baseball and development combined) in adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization (OIBDA, in geek-speak).
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said recently the stock market is a safer investment than owning a baseball team. He looks foolish.
Is this like when MLB decided to enforce an existing rule last season: banning/checking for sunscreen/lotion on pitchers? Or is it something else entirely? Why would something like this even matter to a player, let alone piss them off so completely as to make them leave the negotiating table? Asking in all sincerity.What benefit does that possibly give the owners to be making on-field changes to how the game is played with 45 days notice? They want to be able to mess with the rules in the middle of a season? Unless I'm missing something about how this would benefit owners' pockets somehow, this feels like something that's designed solely to piss of the other party and make them walk away. I'm not seeing the upside for them here.
Understood, and good example. If the offer was as broad as you suggest, I'd storm out of the room too. Welp. I hope these inside sources are wrong, and the sides are closer than we think. It has been odd prepping for fantasy drafts while in the back of my head thinking the season might not happen.In theory wouldn't this allow Manfred to make an end run around any collectively bargained rules changes, and be able to implement anything he wanted without having to give up anything at the bargaining table (for rules the players don't like)? Rules changes implemented this way tend to be minor, but I can see how players wouldn't want to give him unilateral control that he doesn't have now.
As disruptive as a mid-season sticky stuff crackdown was, imagine a mid-season addition of a pitch clock...