MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[CATS44]

Asking for a mediator - interesting development

When I heard the last meeting was contentious (a yelling match as some reporters characterized it), sounded to me like progress. You only start yelling when you get serious and so yelling usually means they are actually getting down to business. But now a mediator .... didn't see that one coming

I never thought of contentious negotiations like this before, but it makes sense.

 

[Gson]

Asking for a mediator - interesting development

When I heard the last meeting was contentious (a yelling match as some reporters characterized it), sounded to me like progress. You only start yelling when you get serious and so yelling usually means they are actually getting down to business. But now a mediator .... didn't see that one coming

The differences between the parties are a matter of a few "..shekels.." clearly not earth shattering differences.. but the contentiousness and lack of progress only says it's not about the game.. it's not about the fans.. it's about who's winning..

Sadly.. the pot-o-gold isn't all that much... If anything, the league minimum salary being raised by 50 % in year one.. and rising well above that in years two and three.. The addition of a pool of money for pre-arbitration performance, expanded playoffs and the universal DH are all steps in the right direction in so many ways.. build on it for the 2027 CBA...

In short.. risking the start of the season.. results in a reduction in payroll for the games lost that isn't worth the negative pall cast upon the sport.. If a decision can't be arrived at.. I would suggest the owners and players invest into solar power systems for lighting golf courses because no one is going to the games.. especially, immediately after there is an end to the stupidity...

 

[LL3]

A break from our Winter angst....let's end the strife with a celebrity proxy softball game?

 

[Kevalier]

At this point, short of a miracle, I don't see how the season starts on time considering the current state of negotiations. Both sides have dug their heels in and are hellbent on coming away with the upper hand, regardless of the collateral damage to the sport that the lockout causes.

 

[sportscoach]

At this point, short of a miracle, I don't see how the season starts on time considering the current state of negotiations. Both sides have dug their heels in and are hellbent on coming away with the upper hand, regardless of the collateral damage to the sport that the lockout causes.

That doesn't do anything for them to do that though. Hopefully this outside person gets the middle ground and compromises done...

 

[CATS44]

The more I study this, the more I'm beginning to think that revenue sharing is driving much of the problem, and that the players are on the right side.

Lets try to put it into a simple example that is readily understandable.

Eight Chicago White Sox were banned from baseball for life, because they supposedly threw enough games to lose the 1919 World Series. In other words, they allegedly pocketed money for not trying to win. In fact they tried to lose.

A owner of a smaller market team...and there are several of them...receives among the biggest chunks of revenue sharing every year. Under the current plan, 48% of all local revenue is put in a pot and distributed unequally between all 30 teams, with the expectation that that money will be used to improve the on the field performance of smaller market teams. But, instead, in multiple cases the money is used to ensure profitability for teams with consistently lousy results. They pocket the money.

In other words, there are owners who do not try to win baseball games, which is the same as trying to lose...and makes them just as guilty as the Black Sox.

Under the present system there is no need for an organization to go into a five year rebuild, because every year each smaller market team receives enough free money to compete for better players, either in free agency or by extending their own younger players with fair market contracts.

Each year Pittsburgh and Baltimore (and Tampa and Cleveland and Oakland) receive enough money to pay for better players, but don't. The three in parentheses get away with it by having built a better mousetrap. But even then, significant payroll increases would make those three even better.

In 2003 the percentage of local revenues that went into the pot increased dramatically, which was the moment when players share of total revenues began to plummet.

Revenue sharing is driving much of the problem. If teams were spending their portions on extending their pre arb players...paying them closer to market volume...things like minimum wage and length of control wouldn't matter nearly as much.

On top of that there is a payroll tax for those handful of teams that exceed the maximum allowed...and that money isn't being used, either.

There are two solutions, both readily available to the owners.

1) Eliminate much of the revenue sharing, which would mean that profitability would be tied to on the field results. Owners would have to try to win, just like the players. If a player doesn't try, he doesn't last long...and doesn't get paid.

2) Owners can enforce the requirement that monies from revenue sharing be used for nothing, except on the field improvements. No more blathering about locker room improvements being tied to winning. A percentage must be used on payroll...a big percentage, with big monetary penalties for losing. Take the profit out of losing.

Every other point of contention is merely details.

Universal DH? Minor detail.
Drug testing procedures? Minor detail.
Service time procedures? Minor detail.
Expanded playoffs? Tie the extra revenue to the players share. Minor detail.

Heck, fix revenue sharing, and Jup, gson, sportscoach, Bimbo, Tondo, CDAV45, and I could solve the rest in a few days...if the Human Q-tip would act as mediator (with a big stick).

I'd buy the beer.

 

[petes999]

The more I study this, the more I'm beginning to think that revenue sharing is driving much of the problem, and that the players are on the right side.

Lets try to put it into a simple example that is readily understandable.

Eight Chicago White Sox were banned from baseball for life, because they supposedly threw enough games to lose the 1919 World Series. In other words, they allegedly pocketed money for not trying to win. In fact they tried to lose.

A owner of a smaller market team...and there are several of them...receives among the biggest chunks of revenue sharing every year. Under the current plan, 48% of all local revenue is put in a pot and distributed unequally between all 30 teams, with the expectation that that money will be used to improve the on the field performance of smaller market teams. But, instead, in multiple cases the money is used to ensure profitability for teams with consistently lousy results. They pocket the money.

In other words, there are owners who do not try to win baseball games, which is the same as trying to lose...and makes them just as guilty as the Black Sox.

Under the present system there is no need for an organization to go into a five year rebuild, because every year each smaller market team receives enough free money to compete for better players, either in free agency or by extending their own younger players with fair market contracts.

Each year Pittsburgh and Baltimore (and Tampa and Cleveland and Oakland) receive enough money to pay for better players, but don't. The three in parentheses get away with it by having built a better mousetrap. But even then, significant payroll increases would make those three even better.

In 2003 the percentage of local revenues that went into the pot increased dramatically, which was the moment when players share of total revenues began to plummet.

Revenue sharing is driving much of the problem. If teams were spending their portions on extending their pre arb players...paying them closer to market volume...things like minimum wage and length of control wouldn't matter nearly as much.

On top of that there is a payroll tax for those handful of teams that exceed the maximum allowed...and that money isn't being used, either.

There are two solutions, both readily available to the owners.

1) Eliminate much of the revenue sharing, which would mean that profitability would be tied to on the field results. Owners would have to try to win, just like the players. If a player doesn't try, he doesn't last long...and doesn't get paid.

2) Owners can enforce the requirement that monies from revenue sharing be used for nothing, except on the field improvements. No more blathering about locker room improvements being tied to winning. A percentage must be used on payroll...a big percentage, with big monetary penalties for losing. Take the profit out of losing.

Every other point of contention is merely details.

Universal DH? Minor detail.
Drug testing procedures? Minor detail.
Service time procedures? Minor detail.
Expanded playoffs? Tie the extra revenue to the players share. Minor detail.

Heck, fix revenue sharing, and Jup, gson, sportscoach, Bimbo, Tondo, CDAV45, and I could solve the rest in a few days...if the Human Q-tip would act as mediator (with a big stick).

I'd buy the beer.

CATS, I am starting to think there are bigger issues than the minor details that are being discussed. Heck, GSon and I tried to estimate some of them and we are talking about $5 million per team if they met in the middle .... not that big of a deal to call off all negotiations this early. Heck, even MLBPA proposal to reduce $30 million in revenue sharing is only a couple mill to lower level teams which will be offset a bit due to pooling the pre-arbitration bonus pool (as their players would be entitled to a larger share there) - helps them out.

Yet, for MLB owners just giving in to the first swipe of revenue sharing will mean more later. I also pointed out that players are still wanting arbitration at 2 years. From MLB.com
"Per sources, the MLBPA remains stuck on a pair of key issues: Super Two eligibility -- the union wants all players with two years of service time to be eligible for arbitration, not just the 22 percent with the most service time, as it currently stands -- and a reduction in revenue sharing. MLB has been steadfast from the beginning of negotiations that these two issues are non-starters for the league’s owners."

I am though wondering if there is something hidden in the MLBPA proposal of the higher luxury tax (214 vs 245 in first year doesn't seem that much as only a few teams hit it) and even the language that MLBPA wants non-tax penalties eliminated doesn't seem that much. Losing 10 spots in a draft doesn't seem like an issue to bring out an arbitrator after 2 rounds of proposals. But, the devil is always in the details. I am just wondering when MLBPA says elimination of non-tax penalties it also means the surtax (as it is technically not the original "Tax" rate in legal terms) which is 1/2 of the monetary penalties. It is in the way things are written (non-tax versus non-monetary or just draft pick penalties...). Just a thought as in my prior career I had to make sure I knew exactly how each term as written was defined (tax vs surtax are different here). As with the CAVS, some owners will go all out to win if there really isn't a cap (even if they got to pay 20/30% for that year or two before dropping back down as those are minor inconvenience like revenue sharing ... its different when you have to add that 42.5% if they go over 40 million as it applies to each $ over the luxury limit even the first $40 mill). Makes that $30 million reduction just the tip of the iceberg.


Per WIki..
Tax Rates for MLB Teams Surpassing CBT Threshold

Number of Seasons Over CBT Threshold	Tax Rate
1 season	20%
2 consecutive seasons	30%
3 or more consecutive seasons	50%

The luxury tax increases based on the number of consecutive seasons above the CBT threshold. If a club "dips below the luxury tax threshold for a season, the penalty level is reset."[1] In addition to the luxury tax, "clubs that exceed the threshold by $20 million to $40 million are also subject to a 12 percent surtax. Meanwhile, those who exceed it by more than $40 million are taxed at a 42.5 percent rate the first time and a 45 percent rate if they exceed it by more than $40 million again the following year(s)."

 

[Gson]

Federal Mediation has been rejected by the MLBPA.. imho.. this gives the appearance that the MBLPA doesn't want a deal..

 

[BimboColesHair]

It was always getting rejected. Should have never suggested anything to you, this was done straight up to piss off the MLBPA playing the PR game.

 

[Criznit]

Expect MLB to announce Spring Training will be "delayed" by next Thursday the 10th unless things get moving all of the sudden.

 

[Gson]

to: Information hungry Guardians fans:

HERE!! BUY MY CONTENT..

Nothing written in this article is anything more than anyone who reads/posts on this site can write.. A nothingburger designed to solicit paying customers to Hoynes' zero content..

• Players on a 40-man roster are considered locked out even if they haven’t reached the majors yet, thus leaving a young team like the Guardians in a tight spot if Spring Training is delayed or shortened, Paul Hoynes of The Cleveland Plain Dealer writes. Fourteen players on the Guardians’ 40-man have yet to make their big league debuts, and several others have less than a season of big league playing time under their belts. As Hoynes puts it, “a four-week flyby” of an abbreviated Spring Training “isn’t going to be much help” for either the players or the Guardians as a whole, since many of these youngsters are expected to fill some key spots on the Cleveland roster.

From MLBTr: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/quick-hits-minors-camp-guardians-hall.html#comments (and the first of what will be many articles from the Plain DULL that can be written from the basement of one of several authors' houses without ever having been in the vicinity of spring training for the Guardians MiLB's system and others on or off the Guardians 40 man roster..

pretty much their usual content..

 

[Gson]

CATS, I am starting to think there are bigger issues than the minor details that are being discussed. Heck, GSon and I tried to estimate some of them and we are talking about $5 million per team if they met in the middle .... not that big of a deal to call off all negotiations this early. Heck, even MLBPA proposal to reduce $30 million in revenue sharing is only a couple mill to lower level teams which will be offset a bit due to pooling the pre-arbitration bonus pool (as their players would be entitled to a larger share there) - helps them out.

Yet, for MLB owners just giving in to the first swipe of revenue sharing will mean more later. I also pointed out that players are still wanting arbitration at 2 years. From MLB.com
"Per sources, the MLBPA remains stuck on a pair of key issues: Super Two eligibility -- the union wants all players with two years of service time to be eligible for arbitration, not just the 22 percent with the most service time, as it currently stands -- and a reduction in revenue sharing. MLB has been steadfast from the beginning of negotiations that these two issues are non-starters for the league’s owners."

I am though wondering if there is something hidden in the MLBPA proposal of the higher luxury tax (214 vs 245 in first year doesn't seem that much as only a few teams hit it) and even the language that MLBPA wants non-tax penalties eliminated doesn't seem that much. Losing 10 spots in a draft doesn't seem like an issue to bring out an arbitrator after 2 rounds of proposals. But, the devil is always in the details. I am just wondering when MLBPA says elimination of non-tax penalties it also means the surtax (as it is technically not the original "Tax" rate in legal terms) which is 1/2 of the monetary penalties. It is in the way things are written (non-tax versus non-monetary or just draft pick penalties...). Just a thought as in my prior career I had to make sure I knew exactly how each term as written was defined (tax vs surtax are different here). As with the CAVS, some owners will go all out to win if there really isn't a cap (even if they got to pay 20/30% for that year or two before dropping back down as those are minor inconvenience like revenue sharing ... its different when you have to add that 42.5% if they go over 40 million as it applies to each $ over the luxury limit even the first $40 mill). Makes that $30 million reduction just the tip of the iceberg.


Per WIki..
Tax Rates for MLB Teams Surpassing CBT Threshold

Number of Seasons Over CBT Threshold	Tax Rate
1 season	20%
2 consecutive seasons	30%
3 or more consecutive seasons	50%

The luxury tax increases based on the number of consecutive seasons above the CBT threshold. If a club "dips below the luxury tax threshold for a season, the penalty level is reset."[1] In addition to the luxury tax, "clubs that exceed the threshold by $20 million to $40 million are also subject to a 12 percent surtax. Meanwhile, those who exceed it by more than $40 million are taxed at a 42.5 percent rate the first time and a 45 percent rate if they exceed it by more than $40 million again the following year(s)."

The luxury tax threshold has become a "psuedo" salary cap.. The clubs that exceed it.. look at the penalties as "..the cost of doing business.." in the short term.. but.. and it's a BIG but.. it's a means by clubs as a group to control the largest single cost of running a franchise.. player salaries.. It has an effect on the current CBA..but, not THEE affect...

The key to the current CBA is the explosive growth of revenue streams hitting the bottom lines of the Major League Owners ledgers.. These include on line streaming, gambling and others. These revenue streams promise to deliver ten or more times the current local TV money.. and the TV money will continue to ascend at an increasing rate as they benefit from the increasing in revenues from all streams..

Current Revenue Sharing doesn't touch ANY of these new revenues streams as defined by the 2016 CBA.. and the players have noticed.. and have planned appropriately for their inclusion... There will be NO CBA unless these truly remarkable and significant revenue streams are included.. One estimate said that 48 % of revenues would be allotted for player salaries.. this might triple the current going rate for clubs' player payrolls....

The public (including so many of us that follow the Guardians) is being distracted by what is truly "pee pee" stuff.. draft penalties, Universal DH, and CBT.. etc.. but the REAL dragon to be slayed is how the revenue sharing component will be divied up.. a change that will truly transform MLB..This is just one of the reasons franchise values.. continue to grow.. and increase in value... Day to day and season to season operations.. will show profits and losses.. e.g. 2020 was a red ink blood bath for the Guardians..but the franchise value.. increased.. If the new revenue streams are limited or the sharing isn't included, this could be a LONG and painful work stoppage.. So painful, infact, that the spectre of a drastic change in MLB's organizational structure could be change to an employee owned business.. new names... new organizations new every thing.. The curmugeonly structure of MLB could be in jeopardy..

imho...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Can the government find them if they dont get a move on since they have a trust over the game? lol

Nope.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So what exactly are the players offering in negotiations that they currently have? Not getting some of what you're asking for or using what you're asking for and don't actually have is not negotiating IMO. It seems that everything is tied to what the owners will be giving.

Every single union negotiation I ever did required that I make that point at one time or the other.

Funny thing is that the best union negotiators knew that, and didn't mind in the least. They needed the rest of the bargaining committee to hear that from management so that the employees would have reasonable expectations. That way, the union negotiator doesn't have to say that to his guys himself, and so can retain his status of being an advocate for their positions rather than looking like he is knuckling under to management when the real give and take begins.

 

[MirORich]

What the players have is worldwide elite talent that can not just be replaced in a meaningful equal way. Whereas as in many union workspaces, as much as it sucks to say, if necessary, many of those workers could be replaced by someone who could do the job equally from either day one or after 1-12 months of training.

1-12 months of top level skills training isn’t going to turn any of us or low level minor league players who aren’t considered mlb prospects into elite level MLB players .

So even though this is a lockout, not a strike, I would think the main thing they are bargaining with is their unique talent and skill level and the owners recognition that theirs not just a readily available replacement pool.

on the flip side of course, there is no other existing league that the players can go to instead and make even a fraction of the salaries they are now or have the number of jobs that they have now on the MLB level.