LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Archie]

At least they're talking now. Both sides need to realize the damage it will cause if games are cancelled or even if ST is delayed.

[chasfh]

Nothing has happened in the past couple of days to push me off my prediction of a 162-game season starting two weeks late, although Baseball leaked that they would accept canceled games.

After having reduced the season to 60 games just two years ago, and considering the negative reaction to the shortening of the 1994 and 1995 seasons, one might expect Baseball to do everything possible to avoid any cancellations. But I do think that one big difference this time around is that a high percentage of new followers of the game are in it for the gambling and not because they love baseball, so they won't mind at all if games are canceled. They'll just go gamble on something else, like basketball or soccer or crypto or NFTs, and simply come back to baseball when games are available to bet on.

As for hardcore fans like us, we will come back to the game no matter how long the lockout lasts.

So Baseball may be thinking they can weather any blowback that comes primarily from causal fans, many of whom probably spend no money on anything baseball-related at all. If that's true, then is there any real loss?

[IdahoBert]

When something you hold dear to your heart and person is so obviously held hostage by a remote conflict akin to Olympian Gods (owners) against Greek and Trojan Kings (players), it makes you feel small and insignificant.

We are not owners or players, and we’re not even spectators; we’re outside the stadium on flip phones wondering whether we will “win” or not. It makes the illusion of the spectacle so unrewarding. Seeing the Wizard behind the curtain in Oz is a real letdown.  

When all is said and done I’m sure I’ll go back to being a complacent moron and buy back into it all over again. I sure wish they would just finish up with their struggle and allow me to return to the stupid little fantasy land I take pleasure in.

[IdahoBert]

To summarize: being nothing more than just one component among many in a revenue stream is a real boner shrinker. 

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

To summarize: being nothing more than just one component among many in a revenue stream is a real boner shrinker. 

I happen to look up Liberty Media’s 10K report yesterday morning and as far as I can tell, the Braves is less than 5% of their entire business. Formula One Racing is like 10x or 15x the size of the Braves. I can imagine that the Tigers figure similarly in Ilitch’s portfolio, the Cubs into Rickett’s portfolio, the Red Sox into John Hnery’s portfolio, and so on. So I’m thinking that several teams, maybe the majority, believe they can whether a delayed season with canceled games just fine.

[HeyAbbott]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I happen to look up Liberty Media’s 10K report yesterday morning and as far as I can tell, the Braves is less than 5% of their entire business. Formula One Racing is like 10x or 15x the size of the Braves. I can imagine that the Tigers figure similarly in Ilitch’s portfolio, the Cubs into Rickett’s portfolio, the Red Sox into John Hnery’s portfolio, and so on. So I’m thinking that several teams, maybe the majority, believe they can whether a delayed season with canceled games just fine. The players at the top of the heap have guaranteed contracts, so maybe they don't care care either unless there is a work stoppage clause in the contract.

If these parties continue to behave the way they do, their fan base will shrink to two 90 year old men in a Brooklyn retirement home arguing about Derek Jeter's career.

 

 

[Cruzer1]

 

[Tenacious D]

It’s gonna be a wild period as soon as they come to a resolution.  So many remaining free agents that need a home—gonna be Fast & Furious 10.

[JackPine]

It is now February and still feels like a ways off from a deal. Id say spring training is guaranteed to be delayed. What are the odds ST is up and running by March 1? I'm still cautiously optimistic 

[1776]

That they are not even talking on the first day of February, while all that I’ve read in the last day or so makes it clear the two sides are still very far apart, is hard to believe. 
 

Tee it up for MiLB.

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, JackPine said:

It is now February and still feels like a ways off from a deal. Id say spring training is guaranteed to be delayed. What are the odds ST is up and running by March 1? I'm still cautiously optimistic 

It seems, in labor negotiations, it never appears close until up against the perceived deadline. Baseball, both sides, have a bad habit of negotiating in the press, but you can't tell anything from that.

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, 1776 said:

That they are not even talking on the first day of February, while all that I’ve read in the last day or so makes it clear the two sides are still very far apart, is hard to believe. 
 

Tee it up for MiLB.

fwiw, Rosenthal and Passan did report that they are talking today.

[RedRamage]

MLB.com's story on MLBPA's response to MLB's latest offer. Shockingly the story seems to favor MLB.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-mlbpa-continue-negotiations?partnerId=zh-20220202-538318-mlb-1-A&qid=1026&utm_id=zh-20220202-538318-mlb-1-A&bt_ee=yNjfECJvGxkGTTxnKrPglOydemIP%2Bcz9iFljK1j%2B533wyRUyDvrGNZ380pWpM4cA&bt_ts=1643811597614

Quote

MLB Players Association countered Tuesday with minimal movement on a number of issues.

Per sources, the MLBPA offered to reduce its figure for a pre-arbitration bonus pool from $105 million to $100 million.

To their credit the story does mention that MLB's offer was a $10 million pool, but I like how they didn't phrase that as minimal movement... going from 0 to $10M.

A few other tidbits:

Quote

the league has offered to eliminate Draft-pick compensation for free agents

I like that personally.

Quote

MLB’s most recent proposals included some related to the players’ desire to incentivize competition: an NBA-style Draft lottery, the expansion of the postseason and the addition of a universal designated hitter.

I hate the draft lottery myself, but I do understand a need to prevent tanking. I'm just not sure it really works. Plus MLB's proposal of only three teams in the lottery means if you tank as worst you're picking 3rd.  That's not much of an incentive to not tank.  I do like one aspect of MLB's proposal here: "teams [will be] ineligible to receive lottery selections in three consecutive years."

I hate the expansion of the postseason. I'm sure it's gonna happen because $$$$$, but I hate it.  I think it cheapens the regular season when more and more and more teams get in the post season.

I like the universal DH. I'm sure some will hate it and I understand why, but in the game today pitchers are treated differently and there's no going back.  With IL a thing now teams in both leagues should be playing on equal terms.

[chasfh]

I’ve seen the lottery described two different ways. In one version Baseball wants to limit it to three teams in the first round while Players want eight teams. In another version every non-playoff team makes the lottery (which makes sense to me), but Players want the lottery picks to go eight rounds while Baseball wants to limit it to three rounds. I seen both enough where I’m not clear which one is right. 

[Tiger337]

I am in favor of a draft lottery with every non-playoff teams or eight teams is OK too.  A three team lottery is silly.  I don't think there is any need for a lottery after the first round as it beomes a crap shoot after that anway.  

[Tiger337]

Expanding post-season is the worst idea ever...Well, other than putting a runner at second base in extra innings.  It cheapens the regular season and makes the post-season even less meaningful than it already is.  I hate that they are trying to mold baseball into a generic sports no different than any other.  

Edited February 3, 2022 by Tiger337

[Longgone]

14 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am in favor of a draft lottery with every non-playoff teams or eight teams is OK too.  A three team lottery is silly.  I don't think there is any need for a lottery after the first round as it beomes a crap shoot after that anway.  

Lotteries stink. They don't work and somebody always gets screwed.

[Dan Gilmore]

After seeing the NHL lottery reward mediocre teams with the top pick many years, while truly talent starved teams picked much later- don’t do that. Even if the weighting of chances is done in a progressive manner, it has too often led to unintended results. I would expand it beyond three teams, but much fewer than all non-playoff teams. Five? 8?

[Tiger337]

Somebody gets unlucky and somebody else gets lucky in a lottery.  Nobody gets screwed because no team deserves the number one pick.  I don't like seeing a team get rewarded for finishing last.  An eight team lottery seems fair to me.  

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Somebody gets unlucky and somebody else gets lucky in a lottery.  Nobody gets screwed because no team deserves the number one pick.  I don't like seeing a team get rewarded for finishing last.  An eight team lottery seems fair to me.  

I believe it's a fallacy that teams are incentivized by draft picks. Teams do get in situations where they need to rebuild, and so they trade veteran talent for future assets. This causes them to lose games, which as a byproduct, gives them higher draft picks, which leads to better players and winning games. You can bemoan this cycle, but it is a part of sports, and really isn't a problem. I love watching a team gather young talent and rebuild, even if they struggle for a while. 

A greater threat, to me, would be the loss of revenue sharing and the competitive balance tax and penalties. Without those you're back to the Yankees and Dodgers being able to buy all the top talent and create a competitive imbalance. 

Giving weaker teams the opportunity to rebuild and preventing too much of an economic disparity among teams regarding access to talent are two key issues. I'm all for getting younger players more money, however, without shortening free agency.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Longgone

[Tiger337]

I don't think a team should fail to put a competitive team on the field for five years, collect draft picks and do little else to improve the team.  It's OK for a team to have a down year or two, but being crappy for five years is a failure.  I think that happens because owners want to save money during down years and they try to convince everyone it's a good thing.  

 

[Longgone]

47 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't think a team should fail to put a competitive team on the field for five years, collect draft picks and do little else to improve the team.  It's OK for a team to have a down year or two, but being crappy for five years is a failure.  I think that happens because owners want to save money during down years and they try to convince everyone it's a good thing.  

 

And you believe a lottery will have a positive effect on this?

[CMRivdogs]

I would almost prefer to see a reverse type draft of bottom teams. Reward teams that try to be competitive but fall short. Playoff teams would then draft in the usual fashion.

[Longgone]

9 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I would almost prefer to see a reverse type draft of bottom teams. Reward teams that try to be competitive but fall short. Playoff teams would then draft in the usual fashion.

Again, it's a faulty assumption that a) rebuilding is bad and everyone should strive to be mediocre while rebuilding, and b) a lottery is somehow going to change perceived behavior.

If I were rebuilding, and I acquired an asset that made me more competitive, I'd flip him for future assets that fit more with a projected core.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Longgone

[Longgone]

24 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I would almost prefer to see a reverse type draft of bottom teams. Reward teams that try to be competitive but fall short. Playoff teams would then draft in the usual fashion.

The whole purpose of a draft is to allow the worst teams an opportunity to improve. Why convolute that principle when it likely won't impact perceived behavior?