LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Motor City Sonics]

19 minutes ago, oblong said:

For me it’s not about sympathy. It’s a business discussion.  It’s a $9 Billion enterprise.  I simply don’t buy into any thought that players should just be grateful for whatever the owners throws their way. Fans don’t watch the owners.  The players are the product and the service being sold. They are not being selfish or greedy or spoiled. They want and deserve their fair share for the $9 billion enterprise. The owners didn’t build or create MLB. They were already rich and bought into it as franchise owners for the investment and prestige. Don’t act like they toiled and worked 80 hours a week to make it work. The vast majority of them, if not all of them, have other companies to run and baseball is just a hobby and tax convenience.  

But I also wonder.  How many of those wealthy players are pro-union for other people?    I doubt they are very supportive of teachers unions or auto workers unions unless it's for a photo-op.

I agree with you on owners whining when most of them didn't even pay to build the ballparks that make them profits.   All but 6 owners are billionaires, right?     A million seconds is 11 days, A billion seconds is 31 years for a frame of reference there.  

But players annoy me if they start talking about 'How can I support my family?'  So far, I haven't heard it with this lockout, but I think we will, we usually do.  Most people would love to have their Per Diem alone.  

I don't like either side.      Rookie salary is, what $570,000?.    Most Americans aren't going to have a lot of sympathy when you complain.    

Both sides alienate the fans.    Pretty dumb thing to do when there are so many other things vying for people's attention these days.     Screw this up enough and they won't come back.  

[Motor City Sonics]

Players get their money even if they are terrible and even if their team is bad.   Jordan Zimmerman got every penny for being the worst free agent the Tigers ever signed.     

But owners can't claim things are tough when a week ago a pitcher nearing 40 got a contract worth 43 million a year.  

 

[sabretooth]

Yeah it definitely rubs me the wrong way when people try to gin up personal sympathy for the revenue demands of pro athletes.   

In a perfect world everything would be fair, but in reality, whether these guys get around what they are worth or "only" get millions of $ shouldnt matter at all to anyone but the players and owners, nor could the $ sharing outcome one way or another have even the slightest impact on anyone outside of professional athletes.

In fact the only possible way in which the outcome, in terms of the sharing of dollars, can have any impact on us as fans (and its not a big impact), is if we as fans **choose** to personally invest in and give credibility to the supposed philosophical or moral importance of how much the owners get versus the players (I cant think of any good reason why any fan should care).

To me this is the flip side problem to to the tanking insanity that has a grip on some fans.   There is no way in hell that I can understand why a fan would want their team to lose on the field in order for the owner to save money on the acquisition of talent.  And yet there are numerous fans who are clearly very personally invested in this concept and cheer on huge losing seasons so that the owner can save money on the acquisition of talent through the draft.

So in both cases above we have fans who think like anti-fans, that is against the interests of fans, to see baseball on the field on a continuous basis that is reasonably competitive and free of very damaging scandals, and to see our team win.

The pursuit of both objectives (the more perfect division of spoils or tanking) as stated always works against the interest of fans.  That's why I am opposed to fans investing themselves in tanking and/or rooting for a better division of spoils for the players, or for the owners (though I dont recall seeing an actual argument from fans specifically in favor of owners getting more of a share than they currently are, nor have I seen such an argument from owners).

Edited December 3, 2021 by sabretooth

[sabretooth]

And just to clarify, I'm against rooting for a better division of spoils, because the only mechanism for achieving that outcome too easily results in the stoppage of play.

To the extent that the sides could negotiate contracts without stopping play (it has happened sometimes), I would be in favor of the process, and I would root for the better division of spoils....but as it is, I see rooting for either side as being practically antithetical to the interest of fans.

[1776]

41 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Players get their money even if they are terrible and even if their team is bad.   Jordan Zimmerman got every penny for being the worst free agent the Tigers ever signed.   

And Avila got an extension.

[1776]

Rob Manfred has made me a big fan of the players.

Edited December 3, 2021 by 1776

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

For me it’s not about sympathy. It’s a business discussion.  It’s a $9 Billion enterprise.  I simply don’t buy into any thought that players should just be grateful for whatever the owners throws their way. Fans don’t watch the owners.  The players are the product and the service being sold. They are not being selfish or greedy or spoiled. They want and deserve their fair share for the $9 billion enterprise. The owners didn’t build or create MLB. They were already rich and bought into it as franchise owners for the investment and prestige. Don’t act like they toiled and worked 80 hours a week to make it work. The vast majority of them, if not all of them, have other companies to run and baseball is just a hobby and tax convenience.  

It's definitely all about business.... the players, like anyone working any job, are trying to maximize their value. It's not that hard to figure out.

What sort of grinded my gears at times during the debate yesterday is that the job of a player is without risk.... that's just a tremendous amount of bullshit. Not every major leaguer was drafted in the first round and signs a big contract, a lot of these guys defer a lot of earning potential and live off very little (perhaps even taking on debt) to get through the minor leagues. Within that context, I'm not shocked that players are going to fight for every dollar they can in a multi-billion dollar enterprise... it's completely rational.

[Tiger337]

21 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Rob Manfred has made be a big fan of the players.

I am more anti-Manfred than pro-players in this battle.  

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Tiger337

[oblong]

36 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's definitely all about business.... the players, like anyone working any job, are trying to maximize their value. It's not that hard to figure out.

What sort of grinded my gears at times during the debate yesterday is that the job of a player is without risk.... that's just a tremendous amount of bullshit. Not every major leaguer was drafted in the first round and signs a big contract, a lot of these guys defer a lot of earning potential and live off very little (perhaps even taking on debt) to get through the minor leagues. Within that context, I'm not shocked that players are going to fight for every dollar they can in a multi-billion dollar enterprise... it's completely rational.

Totally.  Even a guy that comes up and makes a million for a year or two. Throw in all the taxes they pay on that, agent fees, etc. maybe they buy a decent car. Take care of their parents. Siblings. For a 28 year old who has only played baseball since the age of 16 he’s not got that much money left over.  I’m Facebook friends with Andy Dirks.  He’s selling houses.  Sure he looks like he’s ok but he’s not someone i would call wealthy.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

I’m Facebook friends with Andy Dirks.  He’s selling houses.  Sure he looks like he’s ok but he’s not someone i would call wealthy.

G2 actually touched on this yesterday, but yeah, the question of skillset that ballplayers have is an important one and whether they have translatable skills for post-retirement. Especially the ones with just a high school education. Like, once they retire, what kind of employment can they attain? I'm assuming most, despite making a dramatically higher annual salary compared to the average person during their careers, are not going to be wealthy enough to just not work a day for the rest of their lives.

Just logically, that reality I think magnifies the need to maximize value.

[oblong]

Adding to that comments like Lou made in the strike year we’re not far off. He showed up in a limo to negotiations.  But that was his car.  He owned a record company. They used that for clients. Yes they make a lot but the life of a player has more costs associated to it. Often two homes. They pay to train. Nutrition. 

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, oblong said:

Andy Dirks

I felt really bad about Dirks. What I couldn't figure out was that last time he went to Toledo after having back trouble, he got hurt again stealing a base. WTF was he doing stealing bases rehabbing a bad back? IIRC, it was shortly after that he was done. I always wondered if he had done that on his own, of if the manager had called it, which if true, would have been a pretty shitty thing to be doing.

Edited December 3, 2021 by gehringer_2

[HeyAbbott]

17 hours ago, romad1 said:

I mean, that's fraud. 

If I were any player injured for any kind of play related to the juiced balls, I would get a lawyer and sue Manfred's ass.

Given that MLB has gotten cozy with the big gambling corporations, If someone bet on those games and lost big, they might have an actionable suit that would promise a good financial reward.

[Archie]

 I voted for "on time" but that's optimistic that both sides realize they are shooting themselves in the foot if it doesn't.  They need to lock themselves in a room and not come out without a deal.  I think the life of the sport depends on it.  Fans won't take it well if the season doesn't start on time and they won't all come back when it does.

[1776]

4 minutes ago, Archie said:

 I voted for "on time" but that's optimistic that both sides realize they are shooting themselves in the foot if it doesn't.  They need to lock themselves in a room and not come out without a deal.  I think the life of the sport depends on it.  

Objection Your Honor

Baseball will survive these self serving pigs in one form or another. Manfred & Company are very poor stewards of this game. Things need to change.

Que: James Earl Jones

[John_Brian_K]

How soon does an agreement need to be made before it interferes with the season?  I mean they cannot go until opening day, then just say "ok we have a deal, play ball!"

I am assuming they would have to have a deal done at least a month or 2 before the season starts...probably longer...is there a date?

[chasfh]

19 minutes ago, HeyAbbott said:

Given that MLB has gotten cozy with the big gambling corporations, If someone bet on those games and lost big, they might have an actionable suit that would promise a good financial reward.

Oh god would I ever love to see this. Probably it wouldnt matter, but then again, maybe something like this would help put a damper on legalized gambling before it rose to the level of public and social health crisis. 

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

How soon does an agreement need to be made before it interferes with the season?  I mean they cannot go until opening day, then just say "ok we have a deal, play ball!"

I am assuming they would have to have a deal done at least a month or 2 before the season starts...probably longer...is there a date?

I've seen 3 weeks given as the minimum ST for the pitchers  - so 1st week in March?

[John_Brian_K]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

I've seen 3 weeks given as the minimum ST for the pitchers  - so 1st week in March?

Thanks I was wondering if there was an actual date that has been thrown out, but that will work.  I am sure it messes with people plans about spring training...I know every other year or so we talk about going down and plan it all out a few months before.  Hard to do that now.

[1776]

I would think an agreement around first week in February would be good. For this reason, I don’t expect anything but BS from either side for awhile.

[romad1]

34 minutes ago, HeyAbbott said:

Given that MLB has gotten cozy with the big gambling corporations, If someone bet on those games and lost big, they might have an actionable suit that would promise a good financial reward.

Manipulate the competitive balance:  check

Invite gambling into the sport on a massive scale: check

Manfred:  I see no reason why gamblers should see opportunities to control outcomes

[1776]

14 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Thanks I was wondering if there was an actual date that has been thrown out, but that will work.  I am sure it messes with people plans about spring training...I know every other year or so we talk about going down and plan it all out a few months before.  Hard to do that now.

Pitchers and catchers generally report during the second week of February. If they miss that date I think everything starts getting pushed out.

ST tickets always go on sale at 10:00 AM on the 2nd Saturday of January.

[romad1]

Manfred's links to organized crime?  Has he had lunch with anyone who dips a sugar cube on the end of a toothpick into his tea?  

[HeyAbbott]

30 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Manipulate the competitive balance:  check

Invite gambling into the sport on a massive scale: check

Manfred:  I see no reason why gamblers should see opportunities to control outcomes

The suit by  a conned gambler ploy is what originally got the Black Sox case to trial. The scenario is perhaps unlikely, but possible.

[romad1]

The human trafficking that goes on with players from Cuba is also a huge problem