• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
CDAV45 said:
AZ is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't take a genius to know he would never advocate against any union while naturally despising owners and/or CEO's. My problem with the MLBPA is that it doesn't behave like a union should. The elites like Lindor will demand that owners give up more to provide for the lower paid players and prospects, just don't dip into his ridiculous earnings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its really shocking that fellow players aren't taking less of a smaller pie to satisfy the owners who refuse to pay more.




Effectively, you're asking the players to keep the total compensation the same (where they earn less % of league revenues than NFL or NBA players), then split that lower percentage more amongst themselves than have MLB ownership (whose revenues have sharply risen) to not pay a dime more.

This logic of yours is so intensely broken, and I think its pretty well obvious to anyone that its not the players to divide a smaller pie amongst themselves.

Anyone buying this tripe doesn't belong in the conversation, much less throwing around condescending pot shots about a negotiation that they clearly don't seem to understand.
 
CDAV45 said:
AZ is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't take a genius to know he would never advocate against any union while naturally despising owners and/or CEO's. My problem with the MLBPA is that it doesn't behave like a union should. The elites like Lindor will demand that owners give up more to provide for the lower paid players and prospects, just don't dip into his ridiculous earnings. Funny that we never heard Lindor say anything like "this number of millions a season is enough for me and my family and I'd like to see any excess costs kept low so that more money can be given to entry level players". At the same time I don't recall any owner or GM saying this is the limit we're prepared to give this FA because we would like to improve those that are on the lower end of the spectrum. There is no good guy in this bullshit. The system is fucked up and those that can take advantage of it are doing so. I wonder how different things would be if the highest paid players weren't representing the MLBPA?

If anybody listens to the media spin from either side then they are fools.
Click to expand...
Only 1 of the reps is extremely well paid.. hell one of them is an FA.

My guess is most the players want Scherzer as a rep.
 
Huber. said:
Seems like the issue is guys like Lindor eating all the players pie until they're over the baseball hill and struggling to hit over the Mendoza.
Click to expand...
Fair.

But specifically related to the CBA and this negotiation, I will never understand how a fan could look at what a pro athlete makes relative to themselves, and rationalize that seems like plenty.

In reality, the revenue of the game is growing every year. This will not change as long as fans are watching. This will not change as long as sponsors are paying for advertising. This will not change regardless of what you think someone deserves to make for playing a game.

Our options are to hope for an equal or better piece of that pie for the players that we watch and love, or give it to the already rich ownership groups, most of which are trust-fund babies who see the teams as a business, rather than a hobby like their fathers did. You wouldn't pay to watch the owners play 162 pick-up games.

Nobody, I mean nobody, would buy the 'shut up and play' bait or fall for the 'players are overpaid brats' narrative if it wasn't for the owners pushing weight in the media. They've been doing it for so long that it's pretty much embedded now.
 
Last edited:
Huber. said:
Baseballs biggest money issue is guys like Lindor eating all the players pie until they're over the baseball hill and struggling to hit over the Mendoza. Seems like the owners should be demanding every contract be non guarantee past a certain point in exchange for giving up more pie
Click to expand...

The MLBPA is proposing a pre-arbitration bonus pool to specifically ensure the opposite of this happens. They're also negotiating for higher minimum salaries and moving away from owners/teams manipulating service time.

MLB is unwilling to commit $3M per team to make the bonus pool happen, barely moved on minimums and retained some service time manipulation.


So perhaps someone can explain to me how they're:
1. Not fighting for lesser paid players, given this.
2. At fault for pressing ownership to effectively do exactly what you're suggesting they should
 
kriegs said:
In reality, the revenue of the game is growing every year. This will not change as long as fans are watching. This will not change as long as sponsors are paying for advertising. This will not change regardless of what you think someone deserves to make for playing a game.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all sure that is true. If fewer fans watch, or if sponsors aren't willing to pay as much, revenues will not increase. I think it is a pretty dangerous mistake for either side in this to assume they are guaranteed higher real revenues indefinitely.
 
Criznit said:
To reiterate. Revenue increased 80% since the last CBA. Player salaries have increased 12%...
Click to expand...

To bad MLB cannot give bonuses to players at the end of the season based off of revenues in a sense. Each player gets X dollars per game they played in where X is a certain percent of revenue. This would be different year to year since revenue isnt the same from year to year.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I'm not at all sure that is true. If fewer fans watch, or if sponsors aren't willing to pay as much, revenues will not increase. I think it is a pretty dangerous mistake for either side in this to assume they are guaranteed higher real revenues indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Can't see the forest for the trees.

If revenue goes down, a % still goes to players, and a % still goes to owners.

Does the fact that positive revenues are not guaranteed, persuade you into thinking owners deserve a bigger cut?
 
Huber. said:
Baseballs biggest money issue is guys like Lindor eating all the players pie until they're over the baseball hill and struggling to hit over the Mendoza. Seems like the owners should be demanding every contract be non guarantee past a certain point in exchange for giving up more pie
Click to expand...

This is a common/inevitable issue in a lot of union contracts where there is inherent tension between employees in different classifications. See it all the time when the debate is about whether you should put more money into increasing starting wages, or increasing step, etc., increases for more senior employees. The union will always say "do both", but that ignores the fact that choices have to be made at some point about how much is allocated to each group of employees.
 
Last edited:
kriegs said:
Does the fact that positive revenues are not guaranteed, persuade you into thinking owners deserve a bigger cut?
Click to expand...

No - I didn't express an opinion on that. I simply said that it would be dangerous for both sides if they agreed with your statement that revenues were guaranteed to go up every year. Because to me, that is dismissing the possibility that a prolonged labor shortage could hurt both parties by decreasing total revenues. I neither stated nor implied anything about how that should impact the division of revenues between players and owners.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
No - I didn't express an opinion on that. I simply said that it would be dangerous for both sides if they agreed with your statement that revenues were guaranteed to go up every year. Because to me, that is dismissing the possibility that a prolonged labor shortage could hurt both parties by decreasing total revenues. I neither stated nor implied anything about how that should impact the division of revenues between players and owners.
Click to expand...

That is the unfortunate reality of the MLB's decision to lock out the players,

The mistake of MLB's decision should not affect the players position of seeking a deal commensurate with the revenue growth of the recent past, to say nothing of new rights deals being announced such as the agreement with Apple.


The players are under no obligation to take less due to the decisions of ownership.

As Tony Soprano might say, its comin' out of their end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top