LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[buddha]

53 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I'm sure the owners don't mind missing that first month when outside of Opening Day attendance figures are usually always relatively low. Particularly in all the cold weather cities. 

baseball season is too long anyway.

they may shorten it permanently if they get more playoff games considering thats where the money is, not games in april when its freezing cold in 1/3 to 1/2 of the stadiums.

[Edman85]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

 

players' fault tho

This is purely to play Devil's advocate, but they did ask for the moon from the get go.  Arb after 2 years, extra year of free agency...

[Tiger337]

My new favorite non-Tiger:

 

 

[Tiger337]

So, it looks like they have compromised on 12 teams.  Still too many, but it feels different from 14.  

[oblong]

So it looks like a deal?

[Jim Cowan]

5 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Jobe has the face of a player that is going to be either really good or really bad.  There will be no in between.

 

Oh, that is troubling isn't it?  That's the facial expression of a guy who walked the first batter, hit the second one, gave up a 3 run homer and then a solo shot.  I wish I had not seen that, it is very unsettling.

[SoCalTiger]

it seems close ? Please.

[buddha]

sounds like theyre really close.

 

[casimir]

Close?  Like Joe West strike zone close?

[RedRamage]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

So, it looks like they have compromised on 12 teams.  Still too many, but it feels different from 14.  

Agreed totally... too many, but better than 14.  

So... 3 winners + 3 wild cards?  Or top two teams from each each division?

[casimir]

14 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Agreed totally... too many, but better than 14.  

So... 3 winners + 3 wild cards?  Or top two teams from each each division?

Alphabetically according to height.

[SoCalTiger]

AL east division + 2

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Edman85 said:

This is purely to play Devil's advocate, but they did ask for the moon from the get go.  Arb after 2 years, extra year of free agency...

Or they asked for what's fair, given how revenues have been rising and overall player comp declining. One or the other.

[HeyAbbott]

Looking at last year's standings, with a 12 team playoff Cincinnati would have made the playoffs with an 83 win season? Have I got that right?

Edited March 1, 2022 by HeyAbbott
Complete the thought

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Agreed totally... too many, but better than 14.  

So... 3 winners + 3 wild cards?  Or top two teams from each each division?

I think it's gotta be three wild cards, right? They would have a hard time explaining away a 92-win third-place team losing a wild card spot to an 80-win second-place team, as would have happened just last season. Especially if that 92-win team is either the Yankees or Red Sox.

Not only is the 12 an improvement over 14, but the bye situation should be an improvement as well. Instead of only the top record in the league with a bye and the other two division winners playing in a six-team wild card rounds, I assume they'll give byes to the top two division winners and have only the worst division winner play in a four-team wild card round.

I assume they're still going to have the rose ceremony, though. After all, it is the 21st Century.

Edited March 1, 2022 by chasfh

[Edman85]

33 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Or they asked for what's fair, given how revenues have been rising and overall player comp declining. One or the other.

Part of me does wonder... again, still in devil's advocate mode... the veracity of some of those claims. There's a ton of gray area around revenue totals, and I do feel like both sides can spin that however they want.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Part of me does wonder... again, still in devil's advocate mode... the veracity of some of those claims. There's a ton of gray area around revenue totals, and I do feel like both sides can spin that however they want.

Do you believe MLB revenue has not gone up and/or player comp has not declined?

Edited March 1, 2022 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

44 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think it's gotta be three wild cards, right? They would have a hard time explaining away a 92-win third-place team losing a wild card spot to an 80-win second-place team, as would have happened just last season. Especially if that 92-win team is either the Yankees or Red Sox.

Not only is the 12 an improvement over 14, but the bye situation should be an improvement as well. Instead of only the top record in the league with a bye and the other two division winners playing in a six-team wild card rounds, I assume they'll give byes to the top two division winners and have only the worst division winner play in a four-team wild card round.

I assume they're still going to have the rose ceremony, though. After all, it is the 21st Century.

12 teams would work most logicallly with two expansion teams and 4 * 8 team divisions.  All the division winners would get a bye and the first round would be all the wildcards.  

[buddha]

21 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Do you believe MLB revenue has not gone up and/or player revenues have not declined?

why are player revenue's declining?

[RedRamage]

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

12 teams would work most logicallly with two expansion teams and 4 * 8 team divisions.  All the division winners would get a bye and the first round would be all the wildcards.  

Hmm... that's not a terrible idea.  I mean, obviously you need a couple of expansion teams first.

12 games a year against your own division (84 games)
6 games a year against the other division (48 games)
3 games a year against a division from the other league (24 games)

156 game season.

And I dislike 12 teams a in the playoffs less if there are 32 total teams.

Let the union know you'll work to expand two teams in the next 5 years (that's 52 additional jobs)... that should make them happier.

[HeyAbbott]

47 minutes ago, buddha said:

why are player revenue's declining?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/?sh=72905ece39d7

Although the article does not have 2019 data, it does state that the player percentage 0f revenue has declined.

[buddha]

15 minutes ago, HeyAbbott said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/?sh=72905ece39d7

Although the article does not have 2019 data, it does state that the player percentage 0f revenue has declined.

yes, but why?

[HeyAbbott]

54 minutes ago, buddha said:

why are player revenue's declining?

As respect to the why, I think a number of teams have adopted some form of analytics and therefore question whether or not paying more for players make a difference. In terms of marginal revenue, a team's revenue except for local attendance isn't going to vary as much as fans think  whether they win or lose. For most MLB franchises, I think, that probably 70 to 75 percent of their revenue is from broadcast rights of some type. While more people will come out to see a good team, even if that's 1 million additional fans at $50 a head, that's only 50 million dollars. If I add 2 so so free agents I will spend more then that.

   With so much money completely divorced from attendance, I would think constant flirtation with .500 (77 to 81 games) would probably maximize revenue for a club.

Fans just need to remember that when they attend an MLB Game, they are merely paying to be an extra with his butt firmly planted in an outdoor television studio.

[buddha]

1 minute ago, HeyAbbott said:

As respect to the why, I think a number of teams have adopted some form of analytics and therefore question whether or not paying more for players make a difference. In terms of marginal revenue, a team's revenue except for local attendance isn't going to vary as much as fans think  whether they win or lose. For most MLB franchises, I think, that probably 70 to 75 percent of their revenue is from broadcast rights of some type. While more people will come out to see a good team, even if that's 1 million additional fans at $50 a head, that's only 50 million dollars. If I add 2 so so free agents I will spend more then that.

   With so much money completely divorced from attendance, I would think constant flirtation with .500 (77 to 81 games) would probably maximize revenue for a club.

Fans just need to remember that when they attend an MLB Game, they are merely paying to be an extra with his butt firmly planted in an outdoor television studio.

that's exactly right.  teams have gotten smart with their money and FINALLY started doing the things that smart fans have been telling them to do for years.

why go to arbitration with that backup catcher and end up paying $4 million ler year when you can get the same or similar production from a $600k rookie?  

use the favorable system you have to minimize your labor costs without sunstantially affecting your on field product.  we've all been yelling at them to do this for years and when they finally start doing it, we cry "but but but the players!"

i definitely see why the players want this system changed, its highly favorable to the owners.  with the caveat being the players are very well compensated for their labor.  extremely well compensated.

[RandyMarsh]

Not so much to do with the lockout but I do find it funny that the same writers that for years mocked the teams that signed free agents even though they weren't going to be contenders now complain that those same type teams won't open up the wallet and overpay for FAs. I guess they're just trying to get in the good graces of the players or something.