LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[CMRivdogs]

16 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Now spread some of that $$ around...

 

 

[chasfh]

 

[SoCalTiger]

The reason many teams, and it seems Detroit is included, want a low cap is because it's another revenue stream when teams go over. 

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I simply reject any notion that suggests that raising the CBT will only cause three teams to spend right up to it, while the other 27 teams cry in the beer because they can't keep up. I believe they'll keep up at least enough to maintain the current level of payroll level deviation

I know you reject it. () but if in all these years the the CBT being what it is hasn't caused teams 100 million away from it to approach it, what mechanism changes that now? Things like the streaming deal are certainly part of the answer if the revenue is more evenly distributed than overall revenue now - it's moving things in the right direction. 

Not speaking of you or anyone in particular here, but there seems to be a view that small market owners are just sitting on some big pot of money and it's their fault they don't spend more, but that just doesn't seem to square with the facts. 1st, if it were true small market teams should be fetching the highest purchase prices because they are so profitable - that certainly isn't the case. The second arg is it seems odd cheap owners only buy mid-market teams. If it's just random greed I would have thought that by now some cheapskate would have bought the Yankees or Dodgers and run them like the Pirates so he could pocket even more money, but it's never happened.

Edited March 8, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

29 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

The reason many teams, and it seems Detroit is included, want a low cap is because it's another revenue stream when teams go over. 

That might be a reason.

[chasfh]

30 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I know you reject it. () but if in all these years the the CBT being what it is hasn't caused teams 100 million away from it to approach it, what mechanism changes that now? Things like the streaming deal are certainly part of the answer if the revenue is more evenly distributed than overall revenue now - it's moving things in the right direction. 

Not speaking of you or anyone in particular here, but there seems to be a view that small market owners are just sitting on some big pot of money and it's their fault they don't spend more, but that just doesn't seem to square with the facts. 1st, if it were true small market teams should be fetching the highest purchase prices because they are so profitable - that certainly isn't the case. The second arg is it seems odd cheap owners only buy mid-market teams. If it's just random greed I would have thought that by now some cheapskate would have bought the Yankees or Dodgers and run them like the Pirates so he could pocket even more money, but it's never happened.

The goal is not to get every team spending at the max level of the CBT. Nobody expects that, nobody is asking for that. The goal is to move the whole discretionary market upward by raising the CBT. Big teams spend more on free agents, competitive teams need to keep up, market for free agents goes up, that brings up the market for arb-eligibles with it. Fairly simple concept. Teams who don't want to pay to keep up can choose to not pay by loading up on even more guys working on minimum and by trading guys due for big arb or free agent paydays in exchange for more guys on minimum or minor leaguers, but then that's their choice. I don't think there should be any guarantee that owning a winning baseball team should be easy and cheap.

[chasfh]

 

 

[oblong]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

The goal is not to get every team spending at the max level of the CBT. Nobody expects that, nobody is asking for that. The goal is to move the whole discretionary market upward by raising the CBT. Big teams spend more on free agents, competitive teams need to keep up, market for free agents goes up, that brings up the market for arb-eligibles with it. Fairly simple concept. Teams who don't want to pay to keep up can choose to not pay by loading up on even more guys working on minimum and by trading guys due for big arb or free agent paydays in exchange for more guys on minimum or minor leaguers, but then that's their choice. I don't think there should be any guarantee that owning a winning baseball team should be easy and cheap.

Tightwads like Chris Ilitch want the decision to not have to sign players made for them.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Fairly simple concept. Teams who don't want to pay to keep up can choose to not pay by loading up on even more guys working on minimum and by trading guys due for big arb or free agent paydays in exchange for more guys on minimum or minor leaguers, but then that's their choice. I

right - but when this happens you have a team of 25 players operating at low salary for 2 guys in NY making 40 million. If that is what the union wants, fine - *some* guys are getting a bigger % share of total revenue, but not the average player. The base thing is that I don't agree with the contention that top salaries drag up any other salaries. I haven't seen it. Guys are the bottom make the minimum, which is not tied anything at the top, and it seems like the cost of mid level players  - say like our example Schoop, do not seem to have gone up in proportion the top contracts being given to stars, though I could be persuaded I'm wrong if someone had the figures to make the showing.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

right - but when this happens you have a team of 25 players operating at low salary for 2 guys in NY making 40 million. If that is what the union wants, fine - *some* guys are getting a bigger % share of total revenue, but not the average player. The base thing is that I don't agree with the contention that top salaries drag up any other salaries. I haven't seen it. Guys are the bottom make the minimum, which is not tied anything at the top, and it seems like the cost of mid level players  - say like our example Schoop, do not seem to have gone up in proportion the top contracts being given to stars, though I could be persuaded I'm wrong if someone had the figures to make the showing.

I don't know why people keep implying that all the union wants is to make the rich players richer at the expense of the guys on minimum when the record clearly shows that's not true. The union has been trying to bargain for a higher CBT and a substantially higher minimum salary and a high bonus pool for pre-arb players. They also wanted to expand arb to all two-year players and had to give that one away early on when they thought owners were bargaining in good faith. That looks to me like they'd like all players to get paid.

I agree that rising free agent salaries do nothing immediately for guys on minimum, and I have said basically as much. I do believe rising free agent salaries help set the standard for other guys coming into free agency, and that it also helps set the market for arb-eligibles during their hearings.

As for the Schoop anecdote, I can't speak to the job his own agent did in negotiating that contract, and in any event I did not say that salaries at all levels would go up in such a way as to maintain the same proportion they exist at now. I simply believe that in the case of discretionary baseball salaries, a rising tide lifts all boats, and I've explained how it might work in this instance: the more top salaries go up, the more they serve as a baseline for the salary discussions that come after it for other players, both free agency and arbitration. But if you don't believe that Rising Tide is even a thing, then that's a disconnect on a basic level, and we can just agree to disagree on this point. Unless you wanted to fight to the death on it instead? 🤼‍♂️😉

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Unless you wanted to fight to the death on it instead?

LOL - Thumb war at High Noon!

[SoCalTiger]

Whatever level the agreement lands on the owners will find ways to "work the new system" so locking out for a lower number is a waste of time. MLB should concede this point and hold the line on early arbitration and minimum salary which does help the lower tier/revenues/ tight a** owners since its only arbitration and minimum wage that forces them to pay before free agency. That will make it easier to get the 24 votes needed as well. Cost certainty for those who need it or think they do and flexibility for those who don't. And the players who are negotiating, like Max, only care about the big payday anyway. Both sides are negotiating for the wrong thing. The players should want a high floor not a high ceiling and the owners the opposite.

[Longgone]

27 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But if you don't believe that Rising Tide is even a thing, then that's a disconnect on a basic level, and we can just agree to disagree on this point. Unless you wanted to fight to the death on it instead? 🤼‍♂️😉

Sure, it's a thing, but where you're wrong is claiming it's a good thing, like spiraling inflation is a good thing. Sure, the players want it, they want their cake, and eat it too. 

It's not conducive to a healthy, competitive league, which in the long run, is not good for the players, either

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Sure, it's a thing, but where you're wrong is claiming it's a good thing, like spiraling inflation is a good thing. Sure, the players want it, they want their cake, and eat it too. 

It's not conducive to a healthy, competitive league, which in the long run, is not good for the players, either

First of all, where did I claim it's a good thing? I don't recall making any value judgment about it. Can you please point out where I said this so I can address it? Thanks.

Secondly, how do you know exactly how much money should be in the game and at what level it tips from being a good thing to becoming a bad thing? How do you know that the owners' CBT figure of $220MM is a good thing, but the Players' $238MM CBT is a bad thing? What number in between is that tipping point?

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Secondly, how do you know exactly how much money should be in the game and at what level it tips from being a good thing to becoming a bad thing? How do you know that the owners' CBT figure of $220MM is a good thing, but the Players' $238MM CBT is a bad thing? What number in between is that tipping point?

of course this aspect has has been rotten since forever. I don't know if there are some owners using their teams to launder dirty money or what, but that the MLB owners have never agreed to put their team finances on a transparent enough basis to share with the players so that fundamental things like a global revenue split could be negotiated is beyond absurd and maybe the single core issue that could facilitate all others.

[Tenacious D]

Yes, a bit tone deaf/stupid of MLB to announce a significant, new revenue stream amidst a negotiation, at least in the court of popular opinion.  But not sure they care.

[Longgone]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

First of all, where did I claim it's a good thing? I don't recall making any value judgment about it. Can you please point out where I said this so I can address it? Thanks.

Secondly, how do you know exactly how much money should be in the game and at what level it tips from being a good thing to becoming a bad thing? How do you know that the owners' CBT figure of $220MM is a good thing, but the Players' $238MM CBT is a bad thing? What number in between is that tipping point?

More parity=good, less parity=bad. Is there an ideal ceiling where relative parity is close enough to be acceptable, I'm sure. Would the parity be acceptable without the CBT, or some similar mechanism, absolutely not. So, I'd rather keep the CBT ceiling low and find other means to bring players salaries up to a fair level, and one of the better ways to do that is to create a level playing field so that all teams can fairly compete, when you just keep putting the richer clubs farther ahead in their ability to outspend the other teams, you are just exacerbating the problem, not solving it.

[oblong]

I’m laughing hysterically at the idea that parity is going to be destroyed because a team could sign a guy like Starling Marte. 

[Longgone]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

I’m laughing hysterically at the idea that parity is going to be destroyed because a team could sign a guy like Starling Marte. 

Can you imagine being a fan of an NBA or NFL team, and other teams can just simply, grossly outspend yours, year after year, rarely being able to sign a decent free agent or resign your draft picks? That's funny.

[casimir]

34 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Yes, a bit tone deaf/stupid of MLB to announce a significant, new revenue stream amidst a negotiation, at least in the court of popular opinion.  But not sure they care.

Seems par for the course.

[Tiger337]

33 minutes ago, Longgone said:

More parity=good, less parity=bad. Is there an ideal ceiling where relative parity is close enough to be acceptable, I'm sure. Would the parity be acceptable without the CBT, or some similar mechanism, absolutely not. So, I'd rather keep the CBT ceiling low and find other means to bring players salaries up to a fair level, and one of the better ways to do that is to create a level playing field so that all teams can fairly compete, when you just keep putting the richer clubs farther ahead in their ability to outspend the other teams, you are just exacerbating the problem, not solving it.

I think there is also a limit to how much parity is good.  I think there can be too much.  I think it's good for a league if there are some teams that are perennially successful.  It shouldn't be impossible to beat them, but dynasty type teams that everyone wants to beat is a good thing.   

[Longgone]

23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think there is also a limit to how much parity is good.  I think there can be too much.  I think it's good for a league if there are some teams that are perennially successful.  It shouldn't be impossible to beat them, but dynasty type teams that everyone wants to beat is a good thing.   

That can be based on organizational talent and skill, not simply the ability to outspend everyone else.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, Longgone said:

That can be based on organizational talent and skill, not simply the ability to outspend everyone else.

It could be.  I am just pointing out that I don't agree with the assumption that parity is always good.  

[oblong]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

Can you imagine being a fan of an NBA or NFL team, and other teams can just simply, grossly outspend yours, year after year, rarely being able to sign a decent free agent or resign your draft picks? That's funny.

You act like we are going to have 4 500 million payroll teams that will each win 115 games and win every World Series  and 26 129 million payroll teams that will just squeak by in poverty.  The differences in figures being thrown around are basically one average 6 year player per team. It’s tip money. 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

of course this aspect has has been rotten since forever. I don't know if there are some owners using their teams to launder dirty money or what, but that the MLB owners have never agreed to put their team finances on a transparent enough basis to share with the players so that fundamental things like a global revenue split could be negotiated is beyond absurd and maybe the single core issue that could facilitate all others.

Baseball evidently feels they can’t risk letting Players see whatever the reality of their financial situation is.