LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[1776]

10 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They are going to have sponsorship patches on uniforms.  That sounds like another thing I won't like.  Hopefully, they will be small.   

I will hate this. The current Nike logo is already too big compared to the letter D on the chest. 

[oblong]

Maybe Chris Ilitch can afford to fix some of their shitty properties that have been rotting since they bought them in the 2000's.  They have a history of holding up progress for their own self interests.

 

[oblong]

34 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

They locked them out because the players were rightfully prepared to strike.  The owner's would have been happy to play on the previous deal.  There are very few of these changes that are improvements to the owner's.  

I go by what happened, not what might have happened.

 

[Tiger337]

38 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

They locked them out because the players were rightfully prepared to strike.  The owner's would have been happy to play on the previous deal.  There are very few of these changes that are improvements to the owner's.  

There are quite a few changes being made from which the owners will benefit such as expanded playoffs and pitch clocks and the ability to make other rule changes quickly.  

[4hzglory]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

There are quite a few changes being made from which the owners will benefit such as expanded playoffs and pitch clocks and the ability to make other rule changes quickly.  

You are definitely right on the expanded playoffs.  Some of the others can be debated if they are better for the owners or the overall good of the game

[Motor City Sonics]

I'll watch the games on TV, but I am not paying a cent for tickets this year.   I'll miss it, but fuck them.   They can't have my money, little as it is.     The fans need to stay home this year.  

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I honestly don't care about the CBT or any of that financial stuff.  The difference between what the two sides want is not going to affect me as a fan.  I want to hear about the playoffs, the pitch clock and the shift.

After hearing about the details of the MLB pitch clock proposal being 14 and 19 seconds, which pitchers definitely don't want, I was wondering whether MLB was leaking that as something to give away at the end to get the players to agree to lower than midpoint on CBT to seal the deal.

[Tiger337]

Just now, 4hzglory said:

You are definitely right on the expanded playoffs.  Some of the others can be debated if they are better for the owners or the overall good of the game

I think the pitch clock should be good for the game, but it's something owners wanted and not the players.  The owners don't do things for the "good of the game".  They do things to make money which may or may not end up being good for the game.  

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

You are definitely right on the expanded playoffs.  Some of the others can be debated if they are better for the owners or the overall good of the game

Interesting how you established "better for the owners" and "better for the overall good of the game" as being opposites.

[4hzglory]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think the pitch clock should be good for the game, but it's something owners wanted and not the players.  The owners don't do things for the "good of the game".  They do things to make money which may or may not end up being good for the game.  

Agree

[4hzglory]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Interesting how you established "better for the owners" and "better for the overall good of the game" as being opposites.

I could also say the same of some of the gains made by the players.  I was responding specifically to Lee's post.  

[Tigeraholic1]

 

 

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I go by what happened, not what might have happened.

 

I don't get why people whine about the lockout. Sometimes labor strikes, sometimes owners lock out. Both are legal strategies available to them, and both have one purpose, to put pressure on to get a negotiated agreement. 

Do you think these two sides would ever come to an agreement without the deadline pressure created by the lockout?

Saying they could have just played this year under the old agreement is silly, you'd just be postponing the pain down the road.

[RedRamage]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:32 PM, buddha said:

i dont know how you address it in baseball because the revenues between teams are so different because of the media deals.  

the only way to really address it and make all teams pay salary money is to have a real cap and floor, but the players will never accept that.  then have more revenue sharing and a guaranteed amount of revenue going to the players every year, but the owners wont accept that.

I think the media deals are where you attack this, along with a floor and ceiling.  I totally get that a minimum payroll doesn't always make the most sense for a team rebuilding (better to use assets towards development/ scouting/ coaches/ facilities/ etc) but a floor would make a ceiling more palatable for the players.  If you can attack the problem by saying: "Yeah, a salary cap will means players, as a whole will lose x-amount of dollars, but the floor means that players will gain y-amount of dollars and y > x, therefore net gains" it might be able to get passed.

Along with this, I would argue that media deals should be shared.  In a perfect world I'd say all media gets polled together and divided out... the logic I'd use is that no one is paying to watch the Yankee's go out and "practice" for 9 innings. They are going out to watch them play against another team. Without the other team the Yankees sell no tickets, get no eye-balls on TVs, etc.  That said I think a 100% sharing won't pass with the big market owners, so I'd say do a 50/50 split.  The team gets 50% of any local media deal, the other 50% goes into a pool.  The pool is split evenly among all teams.

That's still going to be a big blow to the big market owners, but I'd try to soften it by saying a hard cap will reduce your spending and prevent "arms races" between big market teams so even though you'll get less media money your spending will hopefully be lower.  Additionally the long term hope here is that the floor plus more media money for small market teams will help them get more competitive and, which means better media deals for them in the future, which means a bigger media cash pool which benefits all teams.

[4hzglory]

12 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I think the media deals are where you attack this, along with a floor and ceiling.  I totally get that a minimum payroll doesn't always make the most sense for a team rebuilding (better to use assets towards development/ scouting/ coaches/ facilities/ etc) but a floor would make a ceiling more palatable for the players.  If you can attack the problem by saying: "Yeah, a salary cap will means players, as a whole will lose x-amount of dollars, but the floor means that players will gain y-amount of dollars and y > x, therefore net gains" it might be able to get passed.

Along with this, I would argue that media deals should be shared.  In a perfect world I'd say all media gets polled together and divided out... the logic I'd use is that no one is paying to watch the Yankee's go out and "practice" for 9 innings. They are going out to watch them play against another team. Without the other team the Yankees sell no tickets, get no eye-balls on TVs, etc.  That said I think a 100% sharing won't pass with the big market owners, so I'd say do a 50/50 split.  The team gets 50% of any local media deal, the other 50% goes into a pool.  The pool is split evenly among all teams.

That's still going to be a big blow to the big market owners, but I'd try to soften it by saying a hard cap will reduce your spending and prevent "arms races" between big market teams so even though you'll get less media money your spending will hopefully be lower.  Additionally the long term hope here is that the floor plus more media money for small market teams will help them get more competitive and, which means better media deals for them in the future, which means a bigger media cash pool which benefits all teams.

Like the revenue sharing and floor, hate the hard cap.  I'd rather see a lower soft cap with only financial penalties so an owner can choose to go over if they want and that tax gets spread to the other teams.  I really dislike the draft pick/international pool penalties.

[RedRamage]

On 3/7/2022 at 11:51 PM, KL2 said:

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

Yes and no.  There are rules about where some players have to line up, but only some. I'm not sure what the roots of the rule are but I suspect part of it for recognition... so that the defense knows what players are eligible receivers and which aren't. And the rule is that only 7 offensive players must be on the line, not all 11.  And that's only in terms of "vertical" placement... they can be anywhere on the line left or right.  No rules on the defense.

There's also rules in the MLB about offensive placement... batter's must be in the batter box, runners have to follow the base path...  So both Football and Baseball somewhat limit offensive placement but don't (currently) limit defensive placement.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

There are quite a few changes being made from which the owners will benefit such as expanded playoffs and pitch clocks and the ability to make other rule changes quickly.  

why are pitch clocks something that favor the owners, unless you just mean something that improves the sport overall should make the sport more profitable - in which case it should benefit the players as well? No?

[RedRamage]

2 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

Like the revenue sharing and floor, hate the hard cap.  I'd rather see a lower soft cap with only financial penalties so an owner can choose to go over if they want and that tax gets spread to the other teams.  I really dislike the draft pick/international pool penalties.

I guess I wouldn't be opposed to soft cap depending on the penalties... I'd want them pretty stiff personally.  But then I'd also be pretty stiff with the rules for that money as well: I would spread the tax to the other teams... maybe on a graduated basis... and that money would need to be used on salary AND that money would not count towards the floor (or maybe only count half of it towards the floor).

If we're spreading out money (and I think we should) to make a more even/competitive league, we have to ensure that money is being spent to making teams more competitive and a salary floor is the easiest way to police that AND it benefits players collectively, making the ceiling more palatable. 

[gehringer_2]

35 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

so the argument is that it's the bonuses that drive participation in Latin American youth baseball? I could believe that might be true but I'd want more than one player's opinion in the way of analysis.

[Tigeraholic1]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

so the argument is that it's the bonuses that drive participation in Latin American youth baseball? I could believe that might be true but I'd want more than one player's opinion in the way of analysis.

 

 

[Longgone]

33 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

Not sure I understand this issue. Buscones will train a lot of kids at their own expense, cut deals with clubs, and often take large cuts of the bonus to offset expenses. Do they fear this training will no longer happen with a draft?

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

why are pitch clocks something that favor the owners, unless you just mean something that improves the sport overall should make the sport more profitable - in which case it should benefit the players as well? No?

The players don't want it though.  It's something which they think will make their job harder.  

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The players don't want it though.  It's something which they think will make their job harder.  

LOL - most people would think their jobs just got easier if you cut their work hours by 20-30%. 

[buddha]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

so the argument is that it's the bonuses that drive participation in Latin American youth baseball? I could believe that might be true but I'd want more than one player's opinion in the way of analysis.

you'll still get paid and still get a bonus if you get drafted.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

you'll still get paid and still get a bonus if you get drafted.

Are the draft bonuses more limited?  I am not sure how it works.