Baseball Is Broken (off the field/labor relations etc.)
- Thread starter jon abbey
- Start date
How many fans would there be anyway?
Even with a vaccine this winter/spring, I think seating will be limited all next season.
Even with a vaccine this winter/spring, I think seating will be limited all next season.
Elias has been through this before. It's not like fans boycotted HOU when they started winning.
This thread just seems to keep coming back. I've been thinking about this again with the Lindor trade. I agree that it (and the Mookie trade) are bad for baseball, even if they are the right move for their teams. I have been thinking about a suite of changes that might help address this without completely blowing up the current system - I doubt there's any reasonable way to put this in place, but I'm curious what people think the impact of changes like these might be. I think this changes the economics of the situation a ton without actually changing the system itself all that much. (I also think these are good things for the players, and it might help with tanking, competitive balance, and so forth)
1) Reduce the length of control of young players to 4 or 5 years. This makes prospects less valuable compared to FAs, so the economics of the veteran for prospect trade shifts a bit, and it makes tanking a bit less profitable (I think), as does the next one.
2) Raise the MLB minimum salary a LOT - from $570k to $2M or something like that. Maybe $3M - I mean a lot. The goal here is to reduce the mismatch between salaries of prearb/arb players and FAs. I think this would do that in both directions - it brings the lowest salaries up, but I think it also reduces salaries of FAs some because teams won't have as much to spend there. This is fine with me, since the average lifetime earnings of the players can still increase. I figure the arb system could remain in place for players in years 3-5 (for example), but adjust the actual arb salaries to match this new distribution.
3) Institute a soft salary floor, and maybe raise the soft cap a bit. The floor can operate a lot like the luxury tax cap. I don't think it needs to be a hard floor, my strategy here is mostly to mess with the incentive structure. This should be notably above the minimum salary: so if that goes to $2M/player on the 25 man, the lowest you can have for the team is $50M - in which case the floor should be something like $70M. I think you also have to raise the cap then, which seems fine with me (although the incentives in point 5 below might mean you can de facto increase the cap without actually changing it much). You may have to increase minor league salaries too, to prevent some weird roster-shuffling loophole I am not clever enough to think of.
4) Make revenue sharing payments come in the form of payroll subsidies. Instead of just cutting a check, calculate "payroll AAV - 100M (whatever the floor is)", and subsidize that payroll above minimum (PAM) by an amount that scales with revenue. For example, the lowest revenue team gets 50% subsidy on PAM, and that decreases as you go up the ladder of team revenues. I think you probably need to increase overall revenue sharing too. (I suppose this doesn't rule out that you ALSO just cut a check, and/or give a revenue sharing bonus based on winning percentage).
5) Incentivize signing players you have. For example, say that contracts with players who have been on your team for at least 5 years of service time (or 4 years depending on what you do in point 1) are counted differently in various calculations (maybe also include players that made their debut on your team - or have incentives for both longevity and debut). So, for example, in players that qualify here, maybe that 50% revenue sharing subsidy can become 75% to help low revenue teams keep players. On the other end, say qualifying player salaries only count at 80% towards the salary cap. That gets both low and high revenue teams, which might leave mid-market teams behind, but I think that can be figured out. Note that this puts pressure that increases FA salaries, working against point 2 - but that's why I think the raise in minimum salary needs to be huge. (I also wonder about the fact that this means, for example, the back half of a 10 year contract is subsidized - maybe that's fine, or maybe you put a 5 year limit on any contract? I don't know).
The actual numbers are made up, they can be anything, and I was purposefully a bit aggressive. As I say, I like this as mostly retaining the current system, and I also prefer it to nonguaranteed contracts. I also think a system like this would have benefits of being not all that complicated, in the grand scheme (the details may be complicated, but the idea that homegrown players are subsidized is more intuitive than trade exemptions, or calculations of cap hits from players no longer on the team based on what percentage was guaranteed or not, like in NBA/NFL).
Edit: Actually, the MLB minimum salary only applies to the 25 man, not the 40 man roster, so adjusted the numbers in point 3 accordingly.
1) Reduce the length of control of young players to 4 or 5 years. This makes prospects less valuable compared to FAs, so the economics of the veteran for prospect trade shifts a bit, and it makes tanking a bit less profitable (I think), as does the next one.
2) Raise the MLB minimum salary a LOT - from $570k to $2M or something like that. Maybe $3M - I mean a lot. The goal here is to reduce the mismatch between salaries of prearb/arb players and FAs. I think this would do that in both directions - it brings the lowest salaries up, but I think it also reduces salaries of FAs some because teams won't have as much to spend there. This is fine with me, since the average lifetime earnings of the players can still increase. I figure the arb system could remain in place for players in years 3-5 (for example), but adjust the actual arb salaries to match this new distribution.
3) Institute a soft salary floor, and maybe raise the soft cap a bit. The floor can operate a lot like the luxury tax cap. I don't think it needs to be a hard floor, my strategy here is mostly to mess with the incentive structure. This should be notably above the minimum salary: so if that goes to $2M/player on the 25 man, the lowest you can have for the team is $50M - in which case the floor should be something like $70M. I think you also have to raise the cap then, which seems fine with me (although the incentives in point 5 below might mean you can de facto increase the cap without actually changing it much). You may have to increase minor league salaries too, to prevent some weird roster-shuffling loophole I am not clever enough to think of.
4) Make revenue sharing payments come in the form of payroll subsidies. Instead of just cutting a check, calculate "payroll AAV - 100M (whatever the floor is)", and subsidize that payroll above minimum (PAM) by an amount that scales with revenue. For example, the lowest revenue team gets 50% subsidy on PAM, and that decreases as you go up the ladder of team revenues. I think you probably need to increase overall revenue sharing too. (I suppose this doesn't rule out that you ALSO just cut a check, and/or give a revenue sharing bonus based on winning percentage).
5) Incentivize signing players you have. For example, say that contracts with players who have been on your team for at least 5 years of service time (or 4 years depending on what you do in point 1) are counted differently in various calculations (maybe also include players that made their debut on your team - or have incentives for both longevity and debut). So, for example, in players that qualify here, maybe that 50% revenue sharing subsidy can become 75% to help low revenue teams keep players. On the other end, say qualifying player salaries only count at 80% towards the salary cap. That gets both low and high revenue teams, which might leave mid-market teams behind, but I think that can be figured out. Note that this puts pressure that increases FA salaries, working against point 2 - but that's why I think the raise in minimum salary needs to be huge. (I also wonder about the fact that this means, for example, the back half of a 10 year contract is subsidized - maybe that's fine, or maybe you put a 5 year limit on any contract? I don't know).
The actual numbers are made up, they can be anything, and I was purposefully a bit aggressive. As I say, I like this as mostly retaining the current system, and I also prefer it to nonguaranteed contracts. I also think a system like this would have benefits of being not all that complicated, in the grand scheme (the details may be complicated, but the idea that homegrown players are subsidized is more intuitive than trade exemptions, or calculations of cap hits from players no longer on the team based on what percentage was guaranteed or not, like in NBA/NFL).
Edit: Actually, the MLB minimum salary only applies to the 25 man, not the 40 man roster, so adjusted the numbers in point 3 accordingly.
Last edited:
Here's a big focus of the next CBA:
View: https://twitter.com/cdgoldstein/status/1353771940385861632
Another solid video from Foolish Baseball, with a lot of the suggestions from this thread put in there
View: https://youtu.be/uh_F8WtrDCo
I think the idea to reduce the ticket cost, to very low, or free, is actually a good one. Keeps more people in the stands and also keeps many other people employed throughout the stadium
View: https://youtu.be/uh_F8WtrDCo
I think the idea to reduce the ticket cost, to very low, or free, is actually a good one. Keeps more people in the stands and also keeps many other people employed throughout the stadium
View: https://twitter.com/alexshultz/status/1417212806047412224
Honestly seems like for any high school player drafted after like the 6th round, it makes more financial sense to just go to college. Their signing bonuses would be taxed as income in the year they get them right? If they spend 5/6 years in the minors and never hit the majors, that signing bonus is long gone by the time the dream dies. Especially with new NCAA rules, at larger universities with good baseball programs, you could probably get some booster to throw you enough cash to at least eat food that isn't pasta/rice/McDonalds.
Honestly seems like for any high school player drafted after like the 6th round, it makes more financial sense to just go to college. Their signing bonuses would be taxed as income in the year they get them right? If they spend 5/6 years in the minors and never hit the majors, that signing bonus is long gone by the time the dream dies. Especially with new NCAA rules, at larger universities with good baseball programs, you could probably get some booster to throw you enough cash to at least eat food that isn't pasta/rice/McDonalds.
Scholarships pay for board. Most schools have pretty good dining options for students. Although IIRC, baseball ranks pretty low on percentage of athletes that have scholarships, compared to other sports. But if you're good enough to potentially have a future MLB career, you're probably good enough to get a scholarship.
Full scholarships are rare in college baseball -- you only get 11.7 for the entire team, so they're usually split into partials.
This is a real quote from the new ROCKIES GM.
View: https://twitter.com/d_allentuck/status/1444430565667528706
View: https://twitter.com/d_allentuck/status/1444430565667528706
Unless it's commentary on how stupid the current crop of owners are for a lot of teams, thus breaking baseball.
Having owners who don't care about the onfield product and the best interests of their fanbase is as old as the game itself.
Now that the CBA is settled and MLB/MLBPA contemplate rule changes in between CBAs, one change that I think would make sense all around is to allow teams to protect 5 younger players in addition to their 40 man roster.
Nothing would change for these players except they couldn't be taken in the rule 5 draft, rewarding the teams for investing money and time and energy into developing players and keeping the players in a system they're already comfortable with and where the team obviously believes in them to an extent (by placing them on this list). The rule could maybe be that this group is selected every November and cannot be added to the actual 40 man/used in MLB games until the following November. Under the current system, international players often have to be protected years before they are actually ready to contribute. This rule change would theoretically prompt every team to invest more in signing and developing their own prospects, it seems to me like it would be good for both players and management.
Nothing would change for these players except they couldn't be taken in the rule 5 draft, rewarding the teams for investing money and time and energy into developing players and keeping the players in a system they're already comfortable with and where the team obviously believes in them to an extent (by placing them on this list). The rule could maybe be that this group is selected every November and cannot be added to the actual 40 man/used in MLB games until the following November. Under the current system, international players often have to be protected years before they are actually ready to contribute. This rule change would theoretically prompt every team to invest more in signing and developing their own prospects, it seems to me like it would be good for both players and management.
Are you going to pay those 5 guys MLB minimum to be put on a restricted list for a year? Because this seems like a much worse deal for the players than when some hit the rule 5 lottery and pull a MLB salary for an entire year as the 26th guy on the roster.
Interesting idea but I guess I'm not seeing how this would help players. The Rule 5 draft ostensibly exists to prevent teams from stashing players in the minor leagues or to give minor leaguers whose organizational path to the major leagues is blocked a chance to catch on with some other team and hopefully make it to the majors.
Why would your proposed change help this?
As a side note, I had no idea that Roberto Clemente was a Rule 5 draft pick. https://www.mlb.com/news/complete-history-of-the-mlb-rule-5-draft-c210225288
Nope, same salary. I would argue that the scenario you describe ends up hurting as many players (Luis Torrens comes to mind) as it does helps them, but more importantly it's hard to change a rule without hurting anyone. If some guys who never should have been on MLB teams anyway on pure merit don't end up making it, it's hard for me to be too upset. To me it's similar to the catchers who will end up getting hurt once automated strike zones are eventually adopted and pitch framing is no longer a 'skill', it's a glitch in the system that shouldn't be there.
Right, but what it ends up being now is mostly guys forced into MLB jobs before they're ready. There would still be a rule 5 draft, but it wouldn't be younger guys over their heads, it would be guys like Matt Krook who genuinely are blocked and are already 27. Maybe there could be an age ceiling on the 5 man list, 22 or 23?
OK, I see, thanks for explaining. I can see an age minimum on the Rule 5 draft that might address your issue.
edit: deleted something that didn't make sense.
For instance, a player like Jeisson Rosario should still be on the Red Sox (or maybe even the Padres) and the only reason he isn't is because of the 40 man rules. Yoan Aybar has been released twice in the past 10 days and picked up both times, and it's not because the new team thinks he is ready for MLB or wants to give him a chance, it's because they think maybe they have room to stash him at the back of their 40 man. That isn't good for the player's development IMO.
Teams will always play games at the fringes of their roster, but my proposal would free up 40 man spots from guys who are solely being protected because of their eventual potential a few years down the road.
Teams will always play games at the fringes of their roster, but my proposal would free up 40 man spots from guys who are solely being protected because of their eventual potential a few years down the road.
I agree that the Rule 5 qualifications at least need some adjustments. I'm greatly annoyed Cleveland had to add Jose Tena and Jhonkensy Noel to the 40-man roster last fall not because of development arc at all, but only for the sake of protecting them from the Rule 5 draft, which would almost certainly stunt the development of two young kids who are still multiple years away from being MLB ready, but have exciting potential – and then it turned out to be unnecessary since the draft was canceled anyway.
MLB should learn from the past and how the bonus baby system of the 1950/60s ruined a number of careers. These aren't players being held back or blocked in a system in any way, which is (or was) the purpose of the Rule 5 draft. They're 20-year-olds playing Hi-A ball (Tena was promoted to AA for the playoffs, Noel only reached Hi-A the last month of the season). Starting the clock on prospects at that age and level really isn't benefiting them and takes away the opportunity for them to bounce back if they have a year where they struggle to develop. I'm just glad they didn't also end up losing a year of development to a lockout.
MLB should learn from the past and how the bonus baby system of the 1950/60s ruined a number of careers. These aren't players being held back or blocked in a system in any way, which is (or was) the purpose of the Rule 5 draft. They're 20-year-olds playing Hi-A ball (Tena was promoted to AA for the playoffs, Noel only reached Hi-A the last month of the season). Starting the clock on prospects at that age and level really isn't benefiting them and takes away the opportunity for them to bounce back if they have a year where they struggle to develop. I'm just glad they didn't also end up losing a year of development to a lockout.
Home Run Derby X
This will bring the kids back!! 4 teams, including a "Red Sox" team led by "Legend" Jonny Gomes (better than the Cubs "legend" Geovany Soto) will play some modified version of HR Derby with additional things like target, streaks, and "ballpark culture and music".
It might actually be interesting to watch, I used to love the old b&w HR derby shows.
This will bring the kids back!! 4 teams, including a "Red Sox" team led by "Legend" Jonny Gomes (better than the Cubs "legend" Geovany Soto) will play some modified version of HR Derby with additional things like target, streaks, and "ballpark culture and music".
It might actually be interesting to watch, I used to love the old b&w HR derby shows.
To be fair, Soto's season high in homers (23) beats Gomes' season high (21). And Gomes only hit 19 in a season + with Boston. How many Red Sox "non-legends" would you put ahead of Gomes in the "Legend" spot for this contest? Probably the real question is how many have something better to do than this contest? Looking at the 2013 roster I may choose Saltalamacchia ahead of Gomes but would take Gomes just ahead of Middlebrooks.
Is this satire?
Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/opinion/baseball-nationalize.html?referringSource=articleShare
Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/opinion/baseball-nationalize.html?referringSource=articleShare
If I were czar of MLB, I would extend the MLB EI free preview time period through to when the last team has its home opener.
I can’t be the only one more interested in today’s games than yesterday’s
Would be a good hook for more people. wouldn’t work on me, but would work on a lot of people.
I can’t be the only one more interested in today’s games than yesterday’s
Would be a good hook for more people. wouldn’t work on me, but would work on a lot of people.
The obvious problem with MLB TV is that it carries all the games except the one most people most want to watch: their home-market team.
View: https://twitter.com/AP_Sports/status/1524097036194394112
BREAKING: Minor league players and Major League Baseball have reached a settlement in a lawsuit alleging teams violated minimum wage laws.
BREAKING: Minor league players and Major League Baseball have reached a settlement in a lawsuit alleging teams violated minimum wage laws.
ESPN wants you to know Rob Manfred doesn't hate baseball, he wants to save it.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34130915/hate-baseball-wants-save-it
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34130915/hate-baseball-wants-save-it
This should probably go in the on the field discussion, but there's a big part in that story about rule changes.
It looks like the pitch clock is definitely coming next season and the automated strike zone in 2024. Manfred has Raul Ibanez coming with him to meet with the players to sell them on the rule changes. Many still hate it, but at least they're giving reasons for the pitch clock in person before making the change. Maybe it will cut down on the whining when it happens.
I've posted so many times about it that I think at this point I'm just redundant, but the pitch clock is awesome. I really, really hope they get it implemented next year.
Experienced it at a minor league game. It is AWESOME.
I don't give a shit, at all, about what the players say about it.
FWIW, the Portland Seadogs send an email after you attend with a survey about the pitch clock. I am hopeful this is at the request of MLB, and also hoping the results are extremely positive in favor of the clock. I gave highest grade on every question.
In our stadium there are two clocks, one behind the hitter and one on the outfield wall. The batter has to be in the box with 9 seconds left and the pitcher needs to be in his windup before 0 (there's a little bit of NFL play clock, but it's honestly probably a little more strict. It's been in place long enough now that I don't think anyone needs warnings anymore.
I’m guessing that they will mutually push the deadline to agree on that back a few weeks, the draft is tomorrow-Tues and then the trading deadline is Aug 2, seems like an Aug 15 deadline makes more sense if both sides actually want an agreement (dunno this).
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1549457792242659328
Uh........... Im not going to state my actual thoughts on this comment from manfred (it would be NSFW)
Uh........... Im not going to state my actual thoughts on this comment from manfred (it would be NSFW)
TL;DR from this article: the owners are beginning to prepare to argue for a salary cap in the next CBA, after Steve Cohen made the small market owners "go fucking crazy".
https://theathletic.com/4226341/2023/02/19/mlb-economic-reform-committee-mets-bally/?source=user_shared_article
https://theathletic.com/4226341/2023/02/19/mlb-economic-reform-committee-mets-bally/?source=user_shared_article