LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think one problem is that there is limited solidarity on the players side because there is such a chasm between the large number of have not players and small number of have players - and the 'haves' seem to control the union. If I'm Eric Haase what do  uncapped contracts like Max Scherzer just got do for me? The union spends all their energy fighting a cap, a stance which benefits only the top players and in fact hurts the rest because the more they pay Max (or we pay a SS) the higher the drive to have more players on the roster be held at the minimum. Little wonder to me the union doesn't have the solidarity to make substantive progress.

I think there are two main areas that could lead to a resolution without too much disruption of the status quo. One, raise the luxury tax ceiling based on some formulation of revenue, second, find a way to get younger players paid more, without the risk of smaller markets losing control, i.e. performance bonuses or early arbitration, etc.

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Players are taking no risk..

So?  When poor people take a risk, we call them irresponsible.  Why should wealthy people get special consideration for taking a risk?  If you take a risk with your money and you screw up, that's your fault.  

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

None of this sounds unreasonable to me.

For heavens sake, it's not a matter of reasonable. Its a negotiation. It's a lot of demands from the current negotiated agreement with no concessions. What sounds "reasonable" to you is irrelevant .

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

So?  When poor people take a risk, we call them irresponsible.  Why should wealthy people get special consideration for taking a risk?  If you take a risk with your money and you screw up, that's your fault.  

Also, it's a pretty ridiculous statement to say that players take no risk.

Think about the guys on the bottom.... not the Carlos Correas of the world, but the guys who slug it out in the Minor Leagues making not much only to get to bigs. The sacrifices that these guys on the lower level are making *are* risks.... often times, people are deferring money they could be making doing normal jobs in order to pursue this line of work.

Sometimes I just think these conversations ignore how many guys in the league actually had to make sacrifices in order to get to where they are. Not every player in baseball was drafted in the first round and had it handed to them.

Edited December 2, 2021 by mtutiger

[theroundsquare]

In my experience, in any negotiation, you have to have some things to negotiate away.  If there were not some things the players could live without among their demands, there would be no negotiation.  

None of us really know all the demands, what people really want, and what they are willing to do without.  

[John_Brian_K]

17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

So?  When poor people take a risk, we call them irresponsible.  Why should wealthy people get special consideration for taking a risk?  If you take a risk with your money and you screw up, that's your fault.  

It is not usually like you to move the goal posts...the players are wealthy also....

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, Longgone said:

I think there are two main areas that could lead to a resolution without too much disruption of the status quo. One, raise the luxury tax ceiling based on some formulation of revenue, second, find a way to get younger players paid more, without the risk of smaller markets losing control, i.e. performance bonuses or early arbitration, etc.

But I don't think the owners will agree to higher minimums without a hard cap. If you made the ML minimum $3M, which I think would be a very fair number, your base roster cost would be $78M. If you are a mid market team that has revenue for a maybe a $125M payroll, you are up against the wall before you even start to build a roster with post minimum guys.

[John_Brian_K]

23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I doubt it.  

I do not.

[oblong]

Baseball owners do not run baseball teams as a primary business.  It's a toy to them, often part of a larger empire.

It's a legal monopoly where labor is the very product and service being offered.  Not really applicable to anything we do

[chasfh]

12 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Players are taking no risk...none..AND they are millionaires we would have to pay to step on their boat with also.

This is wrong on a couple of levels. The idea that players are taking no risk is laughable because, again, baseball is the only source of income for most of them. As long as the game shuts down their income stops, and however long it stretches into the season--or seasons (!)--that eats into the short window of time they have to ply their trade and make any income at all. Plus, because players are well known and in the media all the time, every day the lockout stretches on, they're the ones who get blamed for the whole thing. That's the complete opposite of the owners' situation, since they are relatively unknown because they hardly ever appear in the media, and who all have multiple sources of non-baseball income. For a local example, consider the Ilitches, who own a pizza chain, a hockey team, arenas and theaters, and a casino hotel. Whether or not baseball is even played doesn't affect any of these businesses. It appears that you've misplaced the risk on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Also, the idea that all players are millionaires. I can see why you believe this because the media, much of which is owner-controlled or at least sympathetic to them, lead you to believe that all players are millionaires. But this is true of only a small portion of major league players. Of the 1,374 players who stepped onto a major league field last year, about 30% were paid at least $1 million. That means 70% of players were not. Many of these players bounced up and down between the minors. Most of those guys scuffled for years at minor league money, which I guarantee is less than you make, before steeping into the sun for a brief moment. And many of those guys also came from impoverished circumstances from third-world countries. Unlike many of the men who own the teams, few if any players were born with the silver spoon.

But ultimately, whether some players are millionaires is not even the issue. The issue is that revenue in the game has increased substantially, the share of that revenue going to players has dropped to historic lows, and as people working in an industry that generates the money, they have some leverage to improve their circumstances to at least what it was just a few years ago. This isn't like owning a restaurant, where it's the owner's world and the fungible employees just live in it. Players are connected to the game as people by the rest of us, so they are not mere employees.

[John_Brian_K]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Also, it's a pretty ridiculous statement to say that players take no risk.

Think about the guys on the bottom.... not the Carlos Correas of the world, but the guys who slug it out in the Minor Leagues making not much only to get to bigs. The sacrifices that these guys on the lower level are making *are* risks.... often times, people are deferring money they could be making doing normal jobs in order to pursue this line of work.

Sometimes I just think these conversations ignore how many guys in the league actually had to make sacrifices in order to get to where they are. Not every player in baseball was drafted in the first round and had it handed to them.

It is not ridiculous at all.  The players are playing a game for a living and getting paid millions and yet somehow the average fan thinks they are "like me", they are not...they are elite just like the owners putting up none of the capital it takes to run a business.

You are fiddling the violin for baseball players playing a game for a living....really?  Also moving the goal posts again to include minor league players...minor leagues should continue as usual.

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

The players are wealthy also....

Here's the thing about the players: aside from the fact that most of these guys aren't making $10 million or more, they are also doing a career that has a limited lifespan as well.

Take Jose Cisnero. He had his big payday in 2021, making $970k, and will get a bump in pay in 2022, but aside from the earlier seasons in the league (with Houston) and his first couple of seasons in Detroit, wasn't drawing a ML salary between 2015 and 2019. 

Wasn't it a risk for someone like him to keep competing at lower levels in order for another chance at the big leagues after his first stint?

[davidsb623]

55 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Except Players haven't been getting smaller incremental gains. They've been going backwards. Baseball is generating more revenue and Players are being paid less. So why is it Players responsibility that Baseball locks them out and stops the game cold in its tracks for accepting less and less while Baseball makes more and more?

The minimum player salary is $570k, hardly going backwards.  Maybe as a percentage to owner profit???  Sorry, have to side with owners 100%  Players are treated like gold, never wanting for anything.  I would play for $0, with or without the MANY additional perks.  Owners risk everything, players risk nothing.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

It is not usually like you to move the goal posts...the players are wealthy also....

How did I move the goal posts?  You were talking about taking risks like it's an honorable thing.  I disagreed.  Business owners taking risks does not warrant any special consideration.  If they buy a team and they lose money, that's their fault.  How much money the players make is irrelevant to my argument.  

[Longgone]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

But I don't think the owners will agree to higher minimums without a hard cap. If you made the ML minimum $3M, which I think would be a very fair number, your base roster cost would be $78M. If you are a mid market team that has revenue for a maybe a $125M payroll, you are up against the wall before you even start to build a roster with post minimum guys.

Players will never agree to a hard cap in any form, and I'm not suggesting any type of floor or minimum.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Longgone

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

The players are playing a game for a living and getting paid millions and yet somehow the average fan thinks they are "like me", they are not...they are elite just like the owners putting up none of the capital it takes to run a business.

You realize that there are a decent amount of major league baseball players who don't make millions, right?

6 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Also moving the goal posts again to include minor league players...minor leagues should continue as usual.

I don't think you can have a conversation about the earnings of major league baseball players without discussing the fact that these guys were all once minor leaguers and, a majority of them, had to defer salary doing normal jobs and do things like living with host families in order to accommodate their pursuit of the big leagues.

Hit the "laugh" button all you want, those are risks.

Edited December 2, 2021 by mtutiger

[John_Brian_K]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

This is wrong on a couple of levels. The idea that players are taking no risk is laughable because, again, baseball is the only source of income for most of them. As long as the game shuts down their income stops, and however long it stretches into the season--or seasons (!)--that eats into the short window of time they have to ply their trade and make any income at all. Plus, because players are well known and in the media all the time, every day the lockout stretches on, they're the ones who get blamed for the whole thing. That's the complete opposite of the owners' situation, since they are relatively unknown because they hardly ever appear in the media, and who all have multiple sources of non-baseball income. For a local example, consider the Ilitches, who own a pizza chain, a hockey team, arenas and theaters, and a casino hotel. Whether or not baseball is even played doesn't affect any of these businesses. It appears that you've misplaced the risk on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Also, the idea that all players are millionaires. I can see why you believe this because the media, much of which is owner-controlled or at least sympathetic to them, lead you to believe that all players are millionaires. But this is true of only a small portion of major league players. Of the 1,374 players who stepped onto a major league field last year, about 30% were paid at least $1 million. That means 70% of players were not. Many of these players bounced up and down between the minors. Most of those guys scuffled for years at minor league money, which I guarantee is less than you make, before steeping into the sun for a brief moment. And many of those guys also came from impoverished circumstances from third-world countries. Unlike many of the men who own the teams, few if any players were born with the silver spoon.

But ultimately, whether some players are millionaires is not even the issue. The issue is that revenue in the game has increased substantially, the share of that revenue going to players has dropped to historic lows, and as people working in an industry that generates the money, they have some leverage to improve their circumstances to at least what it was just a few years ago. This isn't like owning a restaurant, where it's the owner's world and the fungible employees just live in it. Players are connected to the game as people by the rest of us, so they are not mere employees.

So because the Illitchs have other assets they are taking no risk with the baseball side of things?  Give me a break?  In what world does a business as large as an MLB team mean nothing because the owners are diversified?  Also are you really crying a river over the MLB player who makes millions a year to play a game? People on here are acting like they are in the poor house...like Lee said if they are having issues with money that is on them, not the owners.

The media has nothing to do with me knowing the players are (or SHOULD be if they are half intelligent about investing or managing money) millionaires.  70% of players were not paid at least a million, but come on with this....you know what the min is....you do not need to make a million a year to be a millionaire.

And like I said...if you own a business you should understand this...just because revenue is up does not mean profits are up.

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

It is not ridiculous at all.  The players are playing a game for a living and getting paid millions and yet somehow the average fan thinks they are "like me", they are not...they are elite just like the owners putting up none of the capital it takes to run a business.

You are fiddling the violin for baseball players playing a game for a living....really?  Also moving the goal posts again to include minor league players...minor leagues should continue as usual.

You think it's easy to be a Major League Baseball player for a living?  

Edited December 2, 2021 by Tiger337

[chasfh]

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think one problem is that there is limited solidarity on the players side because there is such a chasm between the large number of have not players and small number of have players - and the 'haves' seem to control the union. If I'm Eric Haase what do  uncapped contracts like Max Scherzer just got do for me? The union spends all their energy fighting a cap, a stance which benefits only the top players and in fact hurts the rest because the more they pay Max (or we pay a SS) the higher the drive to have more players on the roster be held at the minimum. Little wonder to me the union doesn't have the solidarity to make substantive progress.

To this end, I wonder how much of the idea behind the wild spending leading up the deadline was the owners essentially trying to "buy off" the players, softening them up for the negotiations by saying look at all the spending we were doing and you forced us to stop, so this is really your fault—that kind of thing? Two of the four players on the executive subcommittee for the players just got outsized contracts (Scherzer at 3/130, and Semien at 7/175), and Lindor (10/341) is a third player on that subcommittee.

[John_Brian_K]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Here's the thing about the players: aside from the fact that most of these guys aren't making $10 million or more, they are also doing a career that has a limited lifespan as well.

Take Jose Cisnero. He had his big payday in 2021, making $970k, and will get a bump in pay in 2022, but aside from the earlier seasons in the league (with Houston) and his first couple of seasons in Detroit, wasn't drawing a ML salary between 2015 and 2019. 

Wasn't it a risk for someone like him to keep competing at lower levels in order for another chance at the big leagues after his first stint?

It is a "risk" for any employee to start a new job or position.  You are betting on yourself to make it...you don't?  Then you have some great stories to tell about playing in a baseball league and move into the next chapter of your life.  And I never said anything about a player making 10 million.  I said they are millionaires...and if they are playing in the MLB they SHOULD be...if they are even half intelligent about managing money...and if they are not...it is their fault.

[Longgone]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

To this end, I wonder how much of the idea behind the wild spending leading up the deadline was the owners essentially trying to "buy off" the players, softening them up for the negotiations by saying look at all the spending we were doing and you forced us to stop, so this is really your fault—that kind of thing? Two of the four players on the executive subcommittee for the players just got outsized contracts (Scherzer at 3/130, and Semien at 7/175), and Lindor (10/341) is a third player on that subcommittee.

Nothingburger

[Tenacious D]

Has this been resolved yet?  I have stock in MLBTradeRumors.

[RatkoVarda]

not sure what "risk" the owners are taking? the Pirates turn a profit, and the value of the franchise has increased by more than 13 fold over 25 years

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

It is a "risk" for any employee to start a new job or position.  

I just recently started a new job.

It was even remotely as risky as the decisions that someone like Jose Cisnero likely had to make to play baseball. It just wasn't.

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

So because the Illitchs have other assets they are taking no risk with the baseball side of things?  Give me a break?  In what world does a business as large as an MLB team mean nothing because the owners are diversified?  Also are you really crying a river over the MLB player who makes millions a year to play a game? People on here are acting like they are in the poor house...like Lee said if they are having issues with money that is on them, not the owners.

The media has nothing to do with me knowing the players are (or SHOULD be if they are half intelligent about investing or managing money) millionaires.  70% of players were not paid at least a million, but come on with this....you know what the min is....you do not need to make a million a year to be a millionaire.

And like I said...if you own a business you should understand this...just because revenue is up does not mean profits are up.

Why does taking a risk deserve special consideration?  Don't we always tell regular people not too take risks with their money?