MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

BimboColesHair

"Insider"
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
18,462
Reaction score
35,521
Points
148
Players Association proposal coming in the next few weeks.

Also, nothing of note is going to happen until mid-February at the earliest. So please don't take that and get your hopes up.

This is all posturing. Proposal today and proposal in a few weeks is nothing but ceremony. Neither side feels pressure right now. They will when Spring Training is right around the corner.
 

PPark

Towel Waver
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
143
Points
43
Is the opinion that “spring training is too long” prevalent within the MLBPA?
 

Gson

Sixth Man
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
4,131
Reaction score
1,909
Points
113
Is the opinion that “spring training is too long” prevalent within the MLBPA?
In order for pitchers to ramp up to 100 pitches/5+ innings.. 32 - 40 days, minimum are needed.. Hitters, o.t.h... 40 - 50 AB's in game situations and they're good to go..

..it could be shorter..but not by much..
 
  • Like
Reactions: LL3

Gson

Sixth Man
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
4,131
Reaction score
1,909
Points
113
..interesting leaks coming out of the CBA proposal from the Owners..

Anti-Tanking/competitiveness..

-Top pick in the draft.. will be decided from a lottery of the worst three teams.. The players have said they want the lottery but, more teams.. The owners don't want a team to get more than three lottery appearances in a row..

Service time manipulation/idea..

-while not addressing the arbitration.. or free agency qualification.. or the current beef MLBPA has with how clubs treat young stars.. the Owners are offering an incentive laden approach for the teams.. IF a team has a top prospect that makes it to the major leagues.. and gets votes into the top 5 for any of the major awards (ROY, Cy, MVP), that team gets a bonus pick in the following year's draft.. It incentivises teams to bring the young kids up earlier as they'd have more of a chance to win the award and the club to get the extra draft pick..

There were some others.. Both of these should be pretty good.. but, like so many "deals".. the devil is in the detail..

Thoughts?...
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
21,436
Reaction score
20,124
Points
135
..interesting leaks coming out of the CBA proposal from the Owners..

Anti-Tanking/competitiveness..

-Top pick in the draft.. will be decided from a lottery of the worst three teams.. The players have said they want the lottery but, more teams.. The owners don't want a team to get more than three lottery appearances in a row..

Service time manipulation/idea..

-while not addressing the arbitration.. or free agency qualification.. or the current beef MLBPA has with how clubs treat young stars.. the Owners are offering an incentive laden approach for the teams.. IF a team has a top prospect that makes it to the major leagues.. and gets votes into the top 5 for any of the major awards (ROY, Cy, MVP), that team gets a bonus pick in the following year's draft.. It incentivises teams to bring the young kids up earlier as they'd have more of a chance to win the award and the club to get the extra draft pick..

There were some others.. Both of these should be pretty good.. but, like so many "deals".. the devil is in the detail..

Thoughts?...
Ill be honest i didnt think tanking was such a big deal in MLB. The other sports where 1 guy can step up and completely turn your franchise around the next year, yeah a lottery makes sense. But returns in baseball take 2-4 years for the really good prospects, and a ton of them wash out. Im not against it, just not sure if its really needed.

I really like that second idea, i assume you left out some detail about there being a length of time that prospect would qualify for to earn those draft picks? Such as pre-arbitration players? I agree with the players that there should be incentives to those young guys especially if they do well really early. However I would be extremely hesitant from a small market stand point to give up any years of control.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
30,855
Reaction score
53,869
Points
148
..interesting leaks coming out of the CBA proposal from the Owners..

Anti-Tanking/competitiveness..

-Top pick in the draft.. will be decided from a lottery of the worst three teams.. The players have said they want the lottery but, more teams.. The owners don't want a team to get more than three lottery appearances in a row..

Service time manipulation/idea..

-while not addressing the arbitration.. or free agency qualification.. or the current beef MLBPA has with how clubs treat young stars.. the Owners are offering an incentive laden approach for the teams.. IF a team has a top prospect that makes it to the major leagues.. and gets votes into the top 5 for any of the major awards (ROY, Cy, MVP), that team gets a bonus pick in the following year's draft.. It incentivises teams to bring the young kids up earlier as they'd have more of a chance to win the award and the club to get the extra draft pick..

There were some others.. Both of these should be pretty good.. but, like so many "deals".. the devil is in the detail..

Thoughts?...
Management/Labor relations in MLB seem to be at the point where one side will oppose a proposal they actually like simply to try to extract a concession.
 

CATS44

All-Star
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
7,344
Reaction score
5,375
Points
113
On one hand we hear that both sides are interested a resolution that won't hinder the well being of the game.

On the other hand, we've now seen the first proposal in six weeks...one sure to be declined...with a counter proposal about two weeks away...which is sure to be declined. Plus an assurance that neither side is interested in any serious talks until mid February, which is the day that pitchers and catchers are due to report, plus Covid considerations that will slow things down.

The two hands aren't in agreement.
 

CDAV45

I'm good as gone!
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,501
Points
113
What about the terrible contracts like Lindor's that the MLBPA loves to see? They don't seem to care that a team invests that much money in a player and loses their ass on the return or that a team like Cleveland taking on that type of money prohibits them from fielding a competitive team. The MLBPA isn't trying to resolve any issues, they're simply trying to get as much as they can and corner the teams into paying more regardless of the return. They want to talk about all the money that MLB teams aren't spending and never mention all the money that they are and the poor returns from those deals. If I were the owners there would be a cap because there needs to be a cap. If that saves MLB money as a whole then they should pass it on to the fans, but what are the chances that would happen?

A tier system that pays a player according to his performance regardless of age or experience would be optimal and fair, but that will never happen. Open every teams' books to a panel that includes members from both sides because I don't trust the owners either. I love the game, but I just might fucking hate MLB. If they don't start the season on time then college baseball should look to take advantage of that. If I could watch the Buckeyes baseball team like I can the football team then I might ditch MLB just like I did the NFL. Thing is, the NFL is run a helluva lot better.
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
21,436
Reaction score
20,124
Points
135
What about the terrible contracts like Lindor's that the MLBPA loves to see? They don't seem to care that a team invests that much money in a player and loses their ass on the return or that a team like Cleveland taking on that type of money prohibits them from fielding a competitive team. The MLBPA isn't trying to resolve any issues, they're simply trying to get as much as they can and corner the teams into paying more regardless of the return. They want to talk about all the money that MLB teams aren't spending and never mention all the money that they are and the poor returns from those deals. If I were the owners there would be a cap because there needs to be a cap. If that saves MLB money as a whole then they should pass it on to the fans, but what are the chances that would happen?

A tier system that pays a player according to his performance regardless of age or experience would be optimal and fair, but that will never happen. Open every teams' books to a panel that includes members from both sides because I don't trust the owners either. I love the game, but I just might fucking hate MLB. If they don't start the season on time then college baseball should look to take advantage of that. If I could watch the Buckeyes baseball team like I can the football team then I might ditch MLB just like I did the NFL. Thing is, the NFL is run a helluva lot better.
So i agree completely. However its also behooves the owners to pay the players as little as possible. Its why these negotiations are such a pain in the ass. The two sides care more about fucking each other over versus trying to negotiate for the good of the league. Its just natural to have a salary floor and cap, its just natural to compensate young players that are doing well. Instead we are going to spend 6 months fighting to come to an agreement and risk the start of the season.
 

shoes22

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
24,037
Reaction score
28,491
Points
135
Why is the MLBPA so anti-small market? That’s always bothered me. Their proposed changes in aggregate could cause a few teams (including the Guardians) to no longer be financially or competitively viable, ultimately leading to contraction and less revenue for the players.

Doesn’t seem like a smart long-term move.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
30,855
Reaction score
53,869
Points
148
Why is the MLBPA so anti-small market? That’s always bothered me. Their proposed changes in aggregate could cause a few teams (including the Guardians) to no longer be financially or competitively viable, ultimately leading to contraction and less revenue for the players.

Doesn’t seem like a smart long-term move.

I think it's that they look on the marginal additional revenue big markets will spend as outweighing other considerations.

They also probably think that it isn't their problem if a small market team or two can't make it. Either the rest of the league should support that via revenue sharing, or the franchise should move to a larger, wealthier area.
 

shoes22

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
24,037
Reaction score
28,491
Points
135
Either the rest of the league should support that via revenue sharing
Except the MLBPA hates revenue sharing and wants to drastically reduce it. Their solution isn't to enforce that revenue sharing must be spent on player salaries, their solution is to cut revenue sharing altogether.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
30,855
Reaction score
53,869
Points
148
Except the MLBPA hates revenue sharing and wants to drastically reduce it. Their solution isn't to enforce that revenue sharing must be spent on player salaries, their solution is to cut revenue sharing altogether.

They seem to think that some of the small market teams are essentially sandbagging, and not spending revenue sharing dollars on player salaries. So that's how they're trying to change the rules regarding revenue sharing. I didn't see eliminating revenue sharing anywhere in the proposal that was leaked.

But I think the bottom line is that MLBPA doesn't think the survival of small market teams is their concern/responsibility.
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast

Episode 1:11 "From the Mind of Koby Altman"
Top