MLB Collective Bargaining Discussion

[bob2the2nd]

Now say it with a little passion, Bob.

im hangry.......


i havent eaten today, i am about to solve that

 

[Derek]

I understand that rationale, but one game playoff (not a tie breaker) just does not feel right to me. So it goes...

How would you feel if they made the three WC team (in a 12 team set up) play for a single spot in the Division Series?

Seed them 1-3, 2 plays 3 and the winner plays 1? Would that be an improvement in your mind?

Not only do I like emphasizing the importance of winning your division, but I hate giving those division winners too much time off.

 

[jup]

I

That's a complete red herring. If the players had countered with "fine, but the playoff money should go only to the teams that play", the owners would have said "sure". Why the fuck would the owners care - all they care about is the amount coming out of their pockets? And the players also could have countered with "make it $75M for expanded playoffs this year." Again...they didn't even try to get a better deal for playoff money. That's what's weird about this.

Further, players normally decide who gets shares and who doesn't, and it certainly doesn't have to be all 60 players. They could just as easily limit it the exact same way it is normally limited.

But forgetting the whole issue of distribution, the MLBPA is supposed to represent all of its players, and should be concerned primarily with how much money their members earn in total, not which members get the money. Favoring some members over others is a breach of the duty of fair representation. And the reality is that the players overall would be getting double what they'd otherwise be getting, and for playing far fewer than double the number of games.



Actually, a 3.5% raise is considered pretty decent in the real world. Also....if my job was baseball, I'd probably not turn down that raise just because I didn't want to play a few more games. And it really wasn't going to be that many more games. You'd have the same number of rounds...just more teams participating in that first round.

Look, I understand that you know some players, so you're hearing their perspective. That's fine. I'm just saying that their perspective is not the same as the perspective of most fans who don't know players (or owners) personally. It's just kind of a surprise to us.

I didn't make the offers Q - the owners did. And there is a reason they structured them the way they did.

They wanted to spread the risk to the players so the regular season was discounted and then they add these post season kickers to try to make it look like the regular season wasn't really that discounted. But to get all the players on board, they had to spread that money around or at least half the teams if not two thirds would have been looking at reduced salaries and that is it. Good luck getting a YES vote when you have excluded over 50% of the players.

So saying it is a red herring is just not true. There was a reason they structured it that way and I wasn't the one writing the proposals.

And on the whole - the union could have said and the owners would have said - glad to know you have your thumb on the pulse of what the owners/MLB execs would think or would do. To me that is highly speculative a best.

 

[LL3]

How would you feel if they made the three WC team (in a 12 team set up) play for a single spot in the Division Series?

Seed them 1-3, 2 plays 3 and the winner plays 1? Would that be an improvement in your mind?

Not only do I like emphasizing the importance of winning your division, but I hate giving those division winners too much time off.

I would prefer your scenario -- yes. It is better and it benefits top wild card a bit.
I understand rewarding the division winners, and agree. Just hate the scenario where a wild card has clearly out performed a division winner ( or even two) and is still subject to a one and done. Everybody agrees to the rules and plays, but I'd make a change in the 10 team format -- WC best of three.

 

[jup]

Yeah as someone that is absolutely thrilled with a maybe 3k bonus at the end of the year, i cant even fathom the thought that 20k-40k isnt worth possibly playing an extra month of a sport.

All relative

Just because they make big bucks doesn't change the fact that percentage wise it sure isn't what $50 million sounds like. And that was the point. $50 million (which was is actually almost double what they proposed but I used it to `deter all that debate) was great PR, but very unsubstantive when you really work through the numbers.

 

[LL3]

I

....thumb on the pulse

Do not use your thumb to take a pulse of owners or players or anyone....finger pads, please! If you are manning a scale, that is a different story.

 

[jup]

I see Manfred is busy trying to walk it back already. Has to be about the dumbest thing he could have said. Where was that boys head.

Manfred Attempts To Clarify Comments On Length Of Season

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred attempted to walk back Wednesday's controversial comments on the 60-game schedule. Read more at MLB Trade Rumors.

www.mlbtraderumors.com

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

so as i broke down this is off. The owners were willing to pay ALL of the players (including those not in the playoffs) for an extra 3-5 games of baseball for half the teams, and it was equal to the amount of money the median player makes per game.

This was baseball asking half the teams to give up 1 extra week for pay for everyone.

I have no idea if this was the straw the broke the camels back (and i cant imagine it was), but the fact that the players werent willing to do this is just sickening. They play a fucking sport for a living, if they cant play 1 extra week for the same pay they are already making, then i dont know what to tell you. Especially after they screamed they wanted more games played

You're wrong because the status quo you're arguing from is that of the final deal.

$25 million is not the amount players get paid for the playoffs. In 2018, the amount was $88,188,633.49 (link)

The owners offered $50 million (56% of the 2018 amount) for roughly twice the games. That's agreeing to work for 28% of your established value, just in order to make your boss a bunch more money. Yes, I understand that if the first round is 5 games, it might be less than half. Let's round that 28% up to 33%.

It's still detrimental to labor to agree to slash your established value by that much. If ownership wants to make more money off your labor, they should be willing to pay MORE than the established rate--not less.

In this scenario, it's not even your boss because typically your boss works alongside you. It's just the principal shareholder of your company.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not worried about the players losing focus. I'm worried about it actually not mattering. That makes it tough to get invested. Even when NBA teams play hard during the season, it's tough for me to care because I know you don't even have to be good to make the playoffs.

I think there's a big difference between the two in terms of the repeatability of success. There is so little scoring in baseball compared to basketball that "flukes" count for a lot more - the cream rises to the top and separates much more easily than in baseball, so the teams that know they are in the "top" can coast. Many times, there is an odds-on favorite to win the title simply because everyone knows they are that good. That never happens in baseball because it is just too unpredictable. Hitters and pitchers can sometimes come out of nowhere to play much better than anticipated, or much worse. Which means baseball teams can't count on being able to "turn it on and off", the way basketball teams can. They know that if they get behind...they may never catch up.

I'm honestly baffled by the bolded.

Long and short, I think a lot of fans have a perhaps unrealistic romanticism about sports and pro athletes. John Fogerty's Centerfield. People don't make those kind songs about Bob and Joe working at the call center.

I just don't think that is a bottomless well. If players convince managed to convince those kind of fans that they really should be looked at as if they were Bob and Joe who only go to work for the money...then I think they're going to end up losing a lot of those fans.

 

[LL3]

I see Manfred is busy trying to walk it back already. Has to be about the dumbest thing he could have said. Where was that boys head.

Manfred Attempts To Clarify Comments On Length Of Season

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred attempted to walk back Wednesday's controversial comments on the 60-game schedule. Read more at MLB Trade Rumors.

www.mlbtraderumors.com

It was clumsy, poorly chosen wording in the scheme of things, but when I read it the first time, I interpreted it differently than you did...much more in line with his clarification.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

They wanted to spread the risk to the players so the regular season was discounted and then they add these post season kickers to try to make it look like the regular season wasn't really that discounted. ....

I'm confused here. Didn't the final offer made by the owners pay full rather than discounted salaries? If so, you don't need to spread the playoff money around to give everyone their full pro-game salary because nobody is being paid at discount anyway.

But to get all the players on board, they had to spread that money around or at least half the teams if not two thirds would have been looking at reduced salaries and that is it. Good luck getting a YES vote when you have excluded over 50% of the players.

I'm kind of confused again. I thought you said before that the players did not like the owners' offer regarding playoff money because it was getting spread around, and was therefore too small to matter. But now, you're saying the player's association wanted to spread that money around to get a yes vote...which they overwhelmingly didn't get anyway. So what did the Player's Association end up wanting? Did they want the extra $25B in playoff money spread around , or not?

I mean...you can't have it both ways. Every player was getting full pro-rata salary for every game played. To the extent some players would make the playoffs and have to play even more games, that money is meant to compensate them. That's how it has always worked -- players not playing in the playoffs don't get playoff shares. $25M spread around 16 teams for one additional series, as @bob2the2nd has pointed out, was more than they usually get per playoff or regular season game.

Now, if the players argument was "yes, but since we decided to spread that extra playoff money around to players whose teams weren't in the playoffs, that made it not worthwhile", then that's completely on them for a dumb decision. Especially given that they voted no anyway. "We are insisting that the playoff money be spread around to players who aren't playing. But because it is being spread around, it's too small to matter so we're voting no anyway."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It was clumsy, poorly chosen wording in the scheme of things, but when I read it the first time, I interpreted it differently than you did...much more in line with his clarification.

Right -- it's the only thing that makes sense given that the owners very clearly did offer more games earlier in the process.

 

[bob2the2nd]

All relative

Just because they make big bucks doesn't change the fact that percentage wise it sure isn't what $50 million sounds like. And that was the point. $50 million (which was is actually almost double what they proposed but I used it to `deter all that debate) was great PR, but very unsubstantive when you really work through the numbers.

sorry, i miss spoke earlier(the post you are quoting). I worked out the numbers earlier in this thread and the players should have been all over a playoff expansion.

They were earning an extra 25-50 million (we clearly dont know), for half the teams in baseball to play an extra 3-5 games (a week's worth). In otherwards it was enough money to pay EVERY SINGLE PLAYER the median baseball salary of those games, despite the fact that only half of the teams were playing.

so to call this insubstantial is incorrect

 

[jup]

"I'm kind of confused again. I thought you said before that the players did not like the owners' offer regarding playoff money because it was getting spread around, and was therefore too small to matter. But now, you're saying the player's association wanted to spread that money around to get a yes vote...which they overwhelmingly didn't get anyway. So what did the Player's Association end up wanting? Did they want the extra $25B in playoff money spread around , or not? "

Come on Q.

Never said the MLBPA liked or didn't like an offer. I clarified something that people were misrepresenting. The money in the proposals went to all the players not just playoff teams.

And my point was that when your spread it around, the large sum advertised (good PR) wasn't quite the bounty it seemed.

The point about the vote seemed obvious to me but then I know what I was thinking, you don't. Hence - THE OWNERS want the union to vote YES on their proposal, so they have to attract more than 50% of the constituency. So THE OWNERS made the proposal to spread the money around so that THE OWNERS could get a yes vote on their proposal because they WOULD NOT be ignoring at least half the league from getting any $$$'s for approving extra playoffs. My post has nothing to do with the PA. Seemed straight forward enough when I typed it, guess not.

 

[jup]

"I'm confused here. Didn't the final offer made by the owners pay full rather than discounted salaries? If so, you don't need to spread the playoff money around to give everyone their full pro-game salary because nobody is being paid at discount anyway. "

And again Q - THE PLAYERS - as in all 1800 (this year at 60 man) - are giving extra playoff rounds to the owners that will generate a bunch more revenue - what are the guys that don't make the playoffs getting for the concession if they only get there regular pay???

You attract more bees with honey, and if you want their vote .......