LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Tigermojo]

3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I'm to the point of wanting to lock Manfred, Clark and 1 lawyer from each side in a hotel room. Pipe in "music"from than dang drummer in Cleveland. No one gets out until they have an agreement

Anything but the drummer from Cleveland. Maybe a White Sox fan?

[Sports_Freak]

5 hours ago, casimir said:

So a middle infielder will just be up the middle, or will stay off of the line a bit and time themselves moving to the other in tandem with the windup so that they cross the imaginary line legally but are still in a shift type of alignment.  Seems ridiculous to govern since that extra IF is pretty close to the middle anyway.

I guess keeping all 4 IFs on the grass will be a bit different.  Those shifts have the 2B or 3B out in short RF for LHHs, but RHHs typically have all 4 IFs on the dirt.  But again, if that's what the defense wants to do, have at it.

Let teams put 7 fielders standing in a line for all I care. It's stupid to try to make rules about the shift and its also lazy player development. Wanna get teams to stop shifting? Very easy solution, teach hitters to use the whole field. Hit it where they ain't. 

[1776]

MLB has told the Players Association it expects to cancel another week of games without a deal reached tomorrow, sources tell me and @KenRosenthal.

Evan Drellich

.

[chasfh]

If higher penalties are attached to this offer, it’s DOA. Looks like a setup.

 

[KL2]

7 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Let teams put 7 fielders standing in a line for all I care. It's stupid to try to make rules about the shift and its also lazy player development. Wanna get teams to stop shifting? Very easy solution, teach hitters to use the whole field. Hit it where they ain't. 

The problem, for the 100th time, is this thinking is that a) it ain't that easy. B) it's not conducive to winning.

[KL2]

14 hours ago, Biff Mayhem said:

Its the equivalent of saying that NFL teams can only play a nickel defense.

Or telling NFL teams where players can line up at the start of a play. I think they do that.

[KL2]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I believe in the NFL the cap adjusts automatically to maintain a constant % of revenue split. It's the no drama solutions we can only dream the two sides getting to in baseball.

Problem is your revenue stream. In football, for the most part, it's one revenue. The tv contacts are all negotiated as one unit.

Baseball is different cause you have 35 tv deals all worth different amount. 

So baseball the only way you're gonna have a renvue split is if teams like LA and the Yankees give back huge portion of their tv deals. And they are never gonna do that.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Problem is your revenue stream. In football, for the most part, it's one revenue. The tv contacts are all negotiated as one unit.

Baseball is different cause you have 35 tv deals all worth different amount. 

So baseball the only way you're gonna have a renvue split is if teams like LA and the Yankees give back huge portion of their tv deals. And they are never gonna do that.

exactly, which is why I don't get why people are dumping on Ilitch for voting against the CBT increase, which is a  vote for more revenue sharing. The small market team owners seem to be the only ones who understand that the CBT number is a fantasy argument, if teams don't have the income via more revenue sharing, they can't increase payrolls to any level where the CBT would be in play. He's doing the right thing for his own fans if they want to see their team be able to compete long term.

To the teams on the coasts with big money the rest of league looks like the Senators did to the Globetrotters, basically schedule fodder, it's fine with them if midwest teams never compete. Meanwhile the top players like Scherzer, who seem to control the union, are all looking for the their big paydays from the rich teams, so they don't care about competitive balance either but they're glad to play the oppressed serf card over the CBT.

Edited March 8, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

exactly, which is why I don't get why people are dumping on Ilitch for voting against the CBT increase, which is a  vote for more revenue sharing. The small market team owners seem to be the only ones who understand that the CBT number is a fantasy argument, if teams don't have the income via more revenue sharing, they can't increase payrolls to any level where the CBT would be in play. He's doing the right thing for his own fans if they want to see their team be able to compete long term.

To the teams on the coasts with big money the rest of league looks like the Senators did to the Globetrotters, basically schedule fodder, it's fine with them if midwest teams never compete. Meanwhile the top players like Scherzer, who seem to control the union, are all looking for the their big paydays from the rich teams, so they don't care about competitive balance either but they're glad to play the oppressed serf card over the CBT.

It’s a vote for more revenue sharing only if all the teams spend the exact same amount if the CBT is 200 as they would if it’s 250. They don’t. They spend less. Why should the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets continually subsidize teams that would rather pocket money than spend on talent? CBT is widely accepted as being a de facto salary cap suppressing overall payrolls. It’s why the players want higher CBTs.

[4hzglory]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It’s a vote for more revenue sharing only if all the teams spend the exact same amount if the CBT is 200 as they would if it’s 250. They don’t. They spend less. Why should the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets continually subsidize teams that would rather pocket money than spend on talent? CBT is widely accepted as being a de facto salary cap suppressing overall payrolls. It’s why the players want higher CBTs.

I get this, but then the players using the argument that they want more competitive balance is completely contrary to this.  The higher CBT does nothing for the competitive balance and getting the lower payrolls to spend more.  If anything, it probably does the opposite as they will look for even more ways to be more "efficient" like the Rays as they are less able to compete for the higher priced players.  

[RandyMarsh]

The Dodgers get about 170 million more a year from their local TV deal than your average team.  That gives them such an unfair advantage over every other team. 

[oblong]

The owners want the players to fix the owners problems.

 

[Longgone]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

The owners want the players to fix the owners problems.

 

And the players want the owners to fix the players problems. That's why it's a negotiation.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Longgone

[Longgone]

24 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It’s a vote for more revenue sharing only if all the teams spend the exact same amount if the CBT is 200 as they would if it’s 250. They don’t. They spend less. Why should the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets continually subsidize teams that would rather pocket money than spend on talent? CBT is widely accepted as being a de facto salary cap suppressing overall payrolls. It’s why the players want higher CBTs.

This is such a tired, shallow banality. Teams will spend when they can be competitive, until then they will rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with spending on scouting, player development and infrastructure, rather than payroll.

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

I get this, but then the players using the argument that they want more competitive balance is completely contrary to this.  The higher CBT does nothing for the competitive balance and getting the lower payrolls to spend more.  If anything, it probably does the opposite as they will look for even more ways to be more "efficient" like the Rays as they are less able to compete for the higher priced players.  

Players’ competitive balance argument is not rooted in CBT, because they don’t see it as the source of the imbalance. They see the CBT as suppressing salaries for those making more than the minimum, anyone who’s due for free agency or arb paychecks.

Players see the environment that encourages flat out tanking as being the competitive problem: organizations that purposely field poor teams and yet are still profitable because of all the TV revenue, technology revenue, licensing and merchandising revenue, real estate development revenue, gambling revenue and revenue sharing. There’s no penalty for fielding bad team after bad team. The players are trying to change that through changes to the draft itself, changes to draft eligibility e.g. penalizing consecutive 90-loss season, changes in free agent compensation, and the like.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Longgone said:

CBT is widely accepted as being a de facto salary cap suppressing overall payrolls.

That sounds like one of those  -- "people are saying" args . Just because wisdom is conventional does mean it can't be wrong. The first may be right but the numbers argue that the 2nd simply does not follow. The evidence appears overwhelming that more teams spend to their revenue than to the CBT number.

Edited March 8, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Longgone said:

This is such a tired, shallow banality. Teams will spend when they can be competitive, until then they will rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with spending on scouting, player development and infrastructure, rather than payroll.

Sure, teams will spend when they are competitive. What they want with as low a CBA as possible is for the entire compensation framework to be suppressed so that when they do have to spend, it will fall within a lower range, because they want it to be cheaper to compete.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

That sounds like one of those  -- "people are saying" args . Just because wisdom is conventional does mean it can't be wrong. The first may be right but the numbers argue that the 2nd simply does not follow. The evidence appears overwhelming that more teams spend to their revenue than to the CBT number.

And just because conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong doesn’t mean that once you refer to conventional wisdom in a debate, it’s automatically wrong. 😁

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sure, teams will spend when they are competitive. What they want with as low a CBA as possible is for the entire compensation framework to be suppressed so that when they do have to spend, it will fall within a lower range, because they want it to be cheaper to compete.

Baseball is unique in that there is a large competitive disparity between the haves and the have nots. The CBT does act like a soft cap, and this is a good thing. Other leagues successfully have hard caps. The richer teams can well afford to exceed the cap and pay the penalties, thereby narrowing the gap. Small and mid market teams will likely never reach the ceiling anyway. So the CBT is really only restraining the richest clubs from dominating the free agent market.

The lower the ceiling and stiffer the penalties the narrower the resource gap, the higher the ceiling, the greater the disparity. This isn't rocket science. There just needs to be a ceiling that creates enough balance.

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And just because conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong doesn’t mean that once you refer to conventional wisdom in a debate, it’s automatically wrong. 😁

absolutely, But to analyze conventional wisdom, look for available data. Compare football or basketball to baseball. In those sports, almost all teams have payrolls at or within striking distance of their caps, but not in baseball. Doesn't that argue that there must be some other situation that constrains many baseball teams other than the existence of the cap (de facto or otherwise) that is not constraining basketball and football teams --  like that the revenue situation is so different in baseball than in other sports? Are we to believe that baseball owners are some different kind of breed than other sports owners? Why would they be? I don't see how you fix the overall revenue split to the players without working toward a more equitable revenue split. All the cap increase does is allow a few teams to pay more, while leaving competition even more screwed. That's good for a few players, I don't see how it's good for players as whole. 

I think the fair counter question is why doesn't the union see this if it's so obvious, and personally I think it's because the union is well captured by the richest players who do benefit - as a sub group - from a higher cap.

You also have the 'aspirational fallacy' at work. In the same way many lower economic group people defend the rights of the rich in politics because they think they might be rich some day, many more players than ever will probably beleive they will be stars.

Edited March 8, 2022 by gehringer_2

[RandyMarsh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

absolutely, But to analyze conventional wisdom, look for available data. Compare football or basketball to baseball. In those sports, almost all teams have payrolls at or within striking distance of their caps, but not in baseball. Doesn't that argue that there must be some other situation that constrains many baseball teams other than the existence of the cap (de facto or otherwise) that is not constraining basketball and football teams --  like that the revenue situation is so different in baseball than in other sports? Are we to believe that baseball owners are some different kind of breed than other sports owners? Why would they be? I don't see how you fix the overall revenue split to the players without working toward a more equitable revenue split. All the cap increase does is allow a few teams to pay more, while leaving competition even more screwed. That's good for a few players, I don't see how it's good for players as whole. 

I think the fair counter question is why doesn't the union see this if it's so obvious, and personally I think it's because the union is well captured by the richest players who do benefit - as a sub group - from a higher cap.

Yes, I mentioned above that the Dodgers have a 240 million a year local TV deal, where as the Tigers while still in the top 10 in that regard only have an 84 million dollar deal and some teams are below 50.  The Dodgers can carry a 200+ million dollar payroll and know that they are going to make money before the team sells a single ticket or gets any other sorta revenue. 

[RandyMarsh]

9 hours ago, KL2 said:

The problem, for the 100th time, is this thinking is that a) it ain't that easy. B) it's not conducive to winning.

Yep. 

 

[oblong]

18 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Yes, I mentioned above that the Dodgers have a 240 million a year local TV deal, where as the Tigers while still in the top 10 in that regard only have an 84 million dollar deal and some teams are below 50.  The Dodgers can carry a 200+ million dollar payroll and know that they are going to make money before the team sells a single ticket or gets any other sorta revenue. 

Why should the players accept lower salary potential because of that fact?  The owners set up that business model, deal with it like a good capitalist would. 

 

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Baseball is unique in that there is a large competitive disparity between the haves and the have nots. The CBT does act like a soft cap, and this is a good thing. Other leagues successfully have hard caps. The richer teams can well afford to exceed the cap and pay the penalties, thereby narrowing the gap. Small and mid market teams will likely never reach the ceiling anyway. So the CBT is really only restraining the richest clubs from dominating the free agent market.

The lower the ceiling and stiffer the penalties the narrower the resource gap, the higher the ceiling, the greater the disparity. This isn't rocket science. There just needs to be a ceiling that creates enough balance.

The CBT as a soft cap doesn’t address competitive disparity—only overall spend. I don’t see how it is in a fan’s interest in competitive balance to keep spending down across the board. Richer teams have overtly worked to avoid going over the cap especially in recent seasons.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that higher levels will necessarily create disparity, because that would require open-window playoff contenders to give up trying to compete with the three big spenders for talent, ceding all top talent only to them, in order to maintain payroll integrity or whatever Orwell would call it. If a team’s window opens up next year and they want to get that guy who will put them over the top, they either need to go get him and pay what the market dictates, or else risk not optimizing the window they’ve waited so long to open.

And once they spend for those guys, that creates the baseline for eh other free agents in the market and, just as importantly, the arb-eligible players, whom all 30 teams eventually have to pay. That’s what teams want to avoid: having to pay for those boats lifted by the rising tide.

[Longgone]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The CBT as a soft cap doesn’t address competitive disparity—only overall spend. 

No matter how many times you repeat this, it simply isn't true. The disparity is simple math, and the restrained spending is only on the richest clubs, and checks them from dominating the free agent market, but still allows them to easily outspend everyone else.