MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

BimboColesHair

"Insider"
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
20,086
Reaction score
44,557
Points
148
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?

Simple majority.
 

DJTJ

3 ball... got it!
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
15,658
Reaction score
13,094
Points
123
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.

Can you explain the benefit of four years of arb vs three for the players?

Would figure that would be backwards. Is it to gain an extra year from the renewable?
 

BimboColesHair

"Insider"
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
20,086
Reaction score
44,557
Points
148
Can you explain the benefit of four years of arb vs three for the players?

Would figure that would be backwards. Is it to gain an extra year from the renewable?

Yeah. Big thing the MLBPA wants this go round of CBA negotiations is to get guys paid more earlier in their careers. It's also how arbitration used to be in the 70s and 80s when it was first introduced. Why they want pre-arb bonus money for guys too and a complete overhaul of the player valuation system for arbitration cases.

They figure if guys get paid more quicker it will limit the amount of teams, like Cleveland currently, who are more than willing to sit back and operate over lengths of time with a ton of league minimum contracts for high level production.

This is a sticky point for owners though because some organizations, like Cleveland, have a consistent history of drafting or developing players to kick off their contention and spending windows and punishing a team for drafting/developing well seems stupid.

Both sides are going to have to thread a needle on a lot of these issues, as a lot of the best case scenarios are combos of what both sides want, save for a few areas.
 

bs80

Sixth Man
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
2,354
Points
113
Yeah. Big thing the MLBPA wants this go round of CBA negotiations is to get guys paid more earlier in their careers. It's also how arbitration used to be in the 70s and 80s when it was first introduced. Why they want pre-arb bonus money for guys too and a complete overhaul of the player valuation system for arbitration cases.

They figure if guys get paid more quicker it will limit the amount of teams, like Cleveland currently, who are more than willing to sit back and operate over lengths of time with a ton of league minimum contracts for high level production.

This is a sticky point for owners though because some organizations, like Cleveland, have a consistent history of drafting or developing players to kick off their contention and spending windows and punishing a team for drafting/developing well seems stupid.

Both sides are going to have to thread a needle on a lot of these issues, as a lot of the best case scenarios are combos of what both sides want, save for a few areas.
How united are the owners on this? While all of the players would be supporting the points that the MLBPA are seeking, wouldn't the owners of large market owners also be ok with the same points? Wouldn't this basically boil down to the MLBPA + large market owners vs small market owners?

ETA: I was referring more to how revenue is shared, the luxury thresholds, salary floor, etc rather than just the number of arbitration years.
 

BimboColesHair

"Insider"
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
20,086
Reaction score
44,557
Points
148
How united are the owners on this? While all of the players would be supporting the points that the MLBPA are seeking, wouldn't the owners of large market owners also be ok with the same points? Wouldn't this basically boil down to the MLBPA + large market owners vs small market owners?

ETA: I was referring more to how revenue is shared, the luxury thresholds, salary floor, etc rather than just the number of arbitration years.

No. The only thing that will fracture ownership is if there is a proposal with no salary floor funded by a tax, on top of a raised tax threshold into the $200m range like the players want, on top of 4 years of arbitration, on top of the 5 years of service or 29.5 free agent rule the MLBPA wants, on top of the elimination of $100m in revenue sharing, with that last one being the big one.

Then you’ll have small market owners really pissed at the larger markets.

Small market owners won’t mind the added year of arb or potential of a guy becoming a FA a year earlier if they’re a later in their career call up if they’re able to be rewarded for spending more, on top of the additional shared revenue from an expanded playoff and new marketing initiatives (ads on jerseys are coming people).

The removal of revenue sharing funds is the only item in these negotiations that can begin to fracture ownership groups.
 

daddywags

All-Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
6,304
Reaction score
8,602
Points
113
So give the players a 4th year of arbitration, give the owners expanded playoffs, make the DH universal, and call it a deal. Everything else is just details or too draconian to get done.

Much too simple, I know.
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
22,135
Reaction score
21,360
Points
135
So give the players a 4th year of arbitration, give the owners expanded playoffs, make the DH universal, and call it a deal. Everything else is just details or too draconian to get done.

Much too simple, I know.
Yes much too simple as you are effectively ignoring the biggest sticking point. Money.
 

BimboColesHair

"Insider"
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
20,086
Reaction score
44,557
Points
148
Yeah, this isn't simple because the primary point of contention is payroll/tax thresholds/tax rates & penalties/revenue sharing amongst the franchises and not the typical MLBPA and ownership split of revenues. It's no longer about how much of the cut they get for the MLBPA, they want more consistent spending and competitiveness league wide and for guys to be better taken care of earlier on in their careers at the MLB level.

Add on top of that service time manipulation and gameplay improvements, which ownership is using as a bargaining chip for players and have already pulled off the table, and it's going to take a good bit of time.

MLBPA spent the last decade stocking their coffers for this set of negotiations specifically. They're loaded up enough to take this thing into the season and well beyond and keep guys paid/secure and happy to stay united.

Both sides are going to have to be very open and very willing to negotiate, otherwise this is going to ruin the game when it starts costing parts of the season.

These are going to be the most contentious CBA negotiations in MLB history...maybe even the most contentious in American professional sports history. The 2 groups are so far a part right now and neither have been willing to move off of their primary outlooks on the previously mentioned issues for over a year now.
 

CDAV45

I'm awesome!
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
3,751
Points
113
I have some opinions, but I think I'll keep them to myself right now. I also have a couple of questions.
1. Who is opposed to raising the payroll floor? If they are against it is it because there is no cap?
2. Has there been any talk pertaining the underperformance during these mega contracts?
3. What exactly has the MLBPA offered to sacrifice to gain these things?
4. Has the possibility of a soft cap been discussed?
5. With the contract expired there is no agreement any longer. Could it be said that if the owner's don't grow a pair and curb the ridiculousness(on both sides) then it will remain the worst professional sports league in the world? I wouldn't give a shit if I didn't love baseball.
 

daddywags

All-Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
6,304
Reaction score
8,602
Points
113
Yeah, this isn't simple because the primary point of contention is payroll/tax thresholds/tax rates & penalties/revenue sharing amongst the franchises and not the typical MLBPA and ownership split of revenues. It's no longer about how much of the cut they get for the MLBPA, they want more consistent spending and competitiveness league wide and for guys to be better taken care of earlier on in their careers at the MLB level.

Add on top of that service time manipulation and gameplay improvements, which ownership is using as a bargaining chip for players and have already pulled off the table, and it's going to take a good bit of time.

MLBPA spent the last decade stocking their coffers for this set of negotiations specifically. They're loaded up enough to take this thing into the season and well beyond and keep guys paid/secure and happy to stay united.

Both sides are going to have to be very open and very willing to negotiate, otherwise this is going to ruin the game when it starts costing parts of the season.

These are going to be the most contentious CBA negotiations in MLB history...maybe even the most contentious in American professional sports history. The 2 groups are so far a part right now and neither have been willing to move off of their primary outlooks on the previously mentioned issues for over a year now.

The only reason MLBPA cares about how owners share their part of the pie is to increase the players' share of the pie. Same with service time manipulation - it's about money, not competitiveness, to both sides.

Edit to say the above is just my opinion, but it seems rather obvious to me.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast

Episode 2:5 "Love Lost"

RCF Podcast Network: Simply Vanished

Episode 1:8 The Disappearance of Josh Guimond "20 Years"
Top