MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[BimboColesHair]

Big sticking points are:

MLB wants a $100m salary floor funded by a 25% tax on payrolls over $180m that gradually increases year to year ending at $220m.

MLBPA wants the tax threshold raised to $245m and no non-tax penalties.

MLBPA wants to eliminate $100m of revenue sharing in an effort to stop smaller markets from just pocketing profits and not reinvesting them into their teams.

MLB wants nothing to do with that.

MLBPA wants to close service time manipulation loop holes.

MLB wants nothing to do with any of their proposals.

Those are the big ones that will take time. Some other lesser items:

MLB wants to keep current FA structure of 6 years or have a universal age 29.5 FA line.

MLBPA wants 6 years of service or 5 years of service and 29.5 age, which ever comes first.

MLB wants to keep 3 years of arb.

MLBPA wants 4.

Both MLB and MLBPA want an expanded playoff to at least 12 teams. Both are in favor of a draft lotto, just not how to go about doing it yet. MLB proposed eliminating the QO and teams losing draft picks to sign guys who reject it, which the MLBPA is all for. Both are in favor of the universal DH. Both have tentatively agreed on further marketing initiatives. Both are in favor of finding additional compensation for pre-arb players through revenue sharing from expanded playoffs or tax on payrolls.

Then there are the on field issues they'll have to hammer out when all of that is figured out.

 

[CATS44]

There are two very concerning things to me about suggestions that the players have made in re how they would impact the Indians.

1) Elimination of the present three division set up, and presumably the imbalanced schedule.

The players have suggested a two division set up with seven teams in one and eight in the other....with six teams in both leagues advancing to the playoffs.

2) Shortening the amount of years of player control.

Why are these concerning for the Guardians?

The present divisional set up and imbalanced schedule act as playing field levelers for Midwest teams, most of which have far less resources than teams on both coasts.

For the Guardians, this means that to win a divisional title we are not competing against big moneyed teams like NY, Boston, and Toronto. We are also playing half our games within the division against teams with close to the same resources.

The lifeblood of this org is the ability to acquire and then develop young players that can produce at the MLB level or trade for those who can. A lot of money is spent on development...money that is not usually discussed by fans, who merely look at money as payroll. Lowering the length of time that the Guardians can see a return on investment would be worse than about any other change that could reasonably be proposed.

A continuing of the present set up on both counts is something to devoutly hoped for.

*************

The MLBPA desires to see younger players get to MLB sooner and get paid a lot more from the get go, but they also don't want to see a limit on what the elite veterans can make. Sherzer cries about what the younger players make, but isn't about to divvy up his $40+ mil among his younger pre arb teammates.

The MLBPA does have a point. Many, certainly not all, younger pro players should be paid more. Consider that even the lowest rookie ball player has developed a skill set that only a miniscule percentage of the population has...and should get paid accordingly.

Minor league pay should go up significantly, based upon the level of play. A minor league player that spends five years developing to the point that he can play in the Bigs should arrive with a significant nest egg. The career minor leaguer...and they are a necessity to fill rosters...should end his pro career a relatively wealthy man.

How to address the young MLBer who hits the ground running and produces at an elite level is something I have no answer for. Should he get paid for his production? Maybe. But should a player...any player, young or old...be forced to rescind his pay if he doesn't produce? Maybe. But to be fair, the answer to both questions should be the same.

The MLBPA wants to be paid by two methods....by the standard union way, thru seniority...and by a piece work (production) rate. But they want to still be paid even when they don't produce.

None of this means that I side with the owners. I was, after all, a union organizer at one time.

Many of the MLBPA suggestions would actually work, if it wasn't for the owners refusal to make a few common sense changes.

First, a pooling of all revenues, national and local. If every franchise had the same resources, then everybody plays at the same level. Second, all teams are limited to spending only from their baseball revenue streams. XYZ Mega Corporation can't feed non baseball revenue into its baseball franchise. Under this structure, a cap, even a luxury tax, is not needed. If the Yankees want to spend on elite free agents, fine. If the Guardians want to spend player development, fine. Third, owners should set a certain percentage of shared revenue that must be put into each baseball team....and enforce it strongly. If the Yankees are forced to pay the Guardians (this is only a very simplified example) $75 mil a year, the Guardians had better be spending it on improving its baseball team. Fourth, the MLBPA should get a guaranteed percentage of all revenues, which would be the only real negotiating point. How that percentage, beyond salaries, gets divided up is up to the union. It sets the playoff pay structure, taking all of that out of the owners hands.

Under these changes, minor league players could be paid a lot more. Younger players could be paid a lot more. Older players could get paid whatever the market says.

Just as in anything, there has to be a reward for winning, and a penalty for losing....and thats the owners problem. But with MLBPA approval, the owners have to come up with a financial reward for playoff teams that perhaps come out of the pockets of consistent bottom feeders.

Of course, none of this will come to pass, because both sides are greedy beyond the point of caring about the game of baseball....no matter what either side claims.

But greed has always been the American way.

 

[mopete12]

Big sticking points are:

MLB wants a $100m salary floor funded by a 25% tax on payrolls over $180m that gradually increases year to year ending at $220m.

MLBPA wants the tax threshold raised to $245m and no non-tax penalties.

MLBPA wants to eliminate $100m of revenue sharing in an effort to stop smaller markets from just pocketing profits and not reinvesting them into their teams.

MLB wants nothing to do with that.

MLBPA wants to close service time manipulation loop holes.

MLB wants nothing to do with any of their proposals.

Those are the big ones that will take time. Some other lesser items:

MLB wants to keep current FA structure of 6 years or have a universal age 29.5 FA line.

MLBPA wants 6 years of service or 5 years of service and 29.5 age, which ever comes first.

MLB wants to keep 3 years of arb.

MLBPA wants 4.

Both MLB and MLBPA want an expanded playoff to at least 12 teams. Both are in favor of a draft lotto, just not how to go about doing it yet. MLB proposed eliminating the QO and teams losing draft picks to sign guys who reject it, which the MLBPA is all for. Both are in favor of the universal DH. Both have tentatively agreed on further marketing initiatives. Both are in favor of finding additional compensation for pre-arb players through revenue sharing from expanded playoffs or tax on payrolls.

Then there are the on field issues they'll have to hammer out when all of that is figured out.

The fact that they both want expanded playoffs is disappointing (although I’m glad they have agreements on some things lol). Baseball is pretty much a crapshoot in a 5 or 7 game series, and I think the goal should be to have the best team win the World Series; adding more playoff teams just makes it more of a crapshoot. At least it may push more teams to compete/spend money if they feel like they have a better shot to make the playoffs.

 

[mopete12]

Part of the CBA agreement is allowing the MLB to legally use players image and likeness.

Why are we surprised or angry, with no CBA agreement, that players images and likeness are now gone from the MLBs platforms?

Thanks, I should know better than to look at something a sports radio guy posts. I see an article on the Guardians homepage now explaining it. I wasn’t angry, just thought it was MLB being petty like Manfred’s note to fans that was obviously one sided. I’m sure the MLBPA will do something similar, but I hate how they try to get fans to pick a side by releasing one sided shit to the media.

 

[CATS44]

What might be a good idea is have both sides give a joint release when they have reached an agreement on any particular segment of the negotiations.

That way fans would be able to see at least a modicum of progress...and might be a PR win for both sides.

 

[daddywags]

My proposal would be to eliminate inter-league games and shorten the season by not replacing them with intra-league games.

 

[CATS44]

If you look at two of the sticking points listed by Bimbo...

Revenue sharing being reduced by $100 million to prevent owners from pocketing profits as proposed by the players.

The players must not understand human nature of ownership. In nearly every business organization, profits come first. Profits will be skimmed first on anything.
If a team is presently getting $50 mil in revenue sharing and is skimming $20 mil, and the revenue sharing drops to $40 mil, it will still skim $20 mil.

A better solution would be for ownership to penalize non performing teams severely. If an org constantly gets its $50 mil, but the team doesn't perform, fine it the $20 mil its been skimming.

The owners viewing this as non negotiable just shows that owners have no problem with skimming profits...and identifies a problem that fans should understand.

The players want to eliminate roster manipulation, which means that in some ways the MLBPA has final say on when a kid is ready to play. Employees do not get the final say on their hiring or on their promotions, unless thru a negotiated seniority plan. Obviously seniority cannot define when a prospect is ready.

This is already partially addressed thru R5 and the three option limit. Owners certainly do manipulate service time, but in the end is up to them to make the call. If holding a prospect back puts a negative effect on wins and losses, that owner can be penalized for putting a lousy team on the field thru the earlier mentioned financial penalty. In the end it would cost an owner more to lose than it would cost to win by bringing ready prospects up.

Owners understand only one thing....the money that flows in and out of their personal pockets. Unless they are hit where it hurts due to poor on the field performance, there is little that will really change. Owners now have an excuse for losing that can be presented to their Fandom. Take the excuse away.

 

[DCTribefan]

Manfred, Clark views show large gap to bridge

Commissioner Rob Manfred and union head Tony Clark spent Day 1 of Major League Baseball's lockout of the players ramping up their rhetoric, illustrating the significant gap the parties must bridge before the game returns.

www.espn.com

 

[Sebastian]

Big sticking points are:

MLB wants a $100m salary floor funded by a 25% tax on payrolls over $180m that gradually increases year to year ending at $220m.

MLBPA wants the tax threshold raised to $245m and no non-tax penalties.

MLBPA wants to eliminate $100m of revenue sharing in an effort to stop smaller markets from just pocketing profits and not reinvesting them into their teams.

MLB wants nothing to do with that.

MLBPA wants to close service time manipulation loop holes.

MLB wants nothing to do with any of their proposals.

Those are the big ones that will take time. Some other lesser items:

MLB wants to keep current FA structure of 6 years or have a universal age 29.5 FA line.

MLBPA wants 6 years of service or 5 years of service and 29.5 age, which ever comes first.

MLB wants to keep 3 years of arb.

MLBPA wants 4.

Both MLB and MLBPA want an expanded playoff to at least 12 teams. Both are in favor of a draft lotto, just not how to go about doing it yet. MLB proposed eliminating the QO and teams losing draft picks to sign guys who reject it, which the MLBPA is all for. Both are in favor of the universal DH. Both have tentatively agreed on further marketing initiatives. Both are in favor of finding additional compensation for pre-arb players through revenue sharing from expanded playoffs or tax on payrolls.

Then there are the on field issues they'll have to hammer out when all of that is figured out.

Might be a long lockout.

But maybe both sides need to suffer some.

That lockout in 1994 really hurt the game.

Indians fans did not notice so much as it was the glory years, but in other parts of the country teams were really struggling. And it had a big impact on what sports kids play.

I think the situation is worse now. Societal shifts have made baseball even less popular than it was in the 90s. The NFL and NBA are perhaps more popular than they were in the 90s. MLB is already facing a shrinking market share.

A long lockout could have some major consequences.

 

[Martyinnewyork]

My opinion is that MLB is repeatedly shooting itself in the foot and has no idea how to promote and popularize the game. I believe the lockout will last into the summer at least, as greed on both sides is the overriding theme. “What’s good for the game” is secondary to “what’s good for our bank accounts”!

 

[CDAV45]

Thanks, I should know better than to look at something a sports radio guy posts. I see an article on the Guardians homepage now explaining it. I wasn’t angry, just thought it was MLB being petty like Manfred’s note to fans that was obviously one sided. I’m sure the MLBPA will do something similar, but I hate how they try to get fans to pick a side by releasing one sided shit to the media.

Welcome to America!

 

[BimboColesHair]

Might be a long lockout.

But maybe both sides need to suffer some.

That lockout in 1994 really hurt the game.

Indians fans did not notice so much as it was the glory years, but in other parts of the country teams were really struggling. And it had a big impact on what sports kids play.

I think the situation is worse now. Societal shifts have made baseball even less popular than it was in the 90s. The NFL and NBA are perhaps more popular than they were in the 90s. MLB is already facing a shrinking market share.

A long lockout could have some major consequences.

Believe me, both sides know.

There are a number of people who were around in 94 who believe a lockout into the season is a death knell for baseball as a major sport moving forward.

Lot of leverage on the players side this go round, but I think a deal is reached in the next 2-3 months.

 

[Criznit]

Believe me, both sides know.

There are a number of people who were around in 94 who believe a lockout into the season is a death knell for baseball as a major sport moving forward.

Lot of leverage on the players side this go round, but I think a deal is reached in the next 2-3 months.

I think the window is Valentine's day to March 1st myself (pretty much your prediction), unless enough owners just want to get it over with..

Random question - is it a simple majority that is required on "votes" or does it take a greater percentage for things to pass?

 

[Benway]

Perhaps paying minor league players more generously might convince more athletes to play baseball!

 

[Martyinnewyork]

What I fear will happen is this: they will be forced to pay minor leaguers a higher wage, so they will compensate by contracting the number of minor league teams so that there are fewer players to pay.
My rule of thumb is “when given a choice between a smart move and a dumb move, mlb always goes with the latter”…