MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[Huber.]

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

I would rather they shorten the number of divisional matchups. It does the Tribe no good that a quarter of their home games are against the usually uninteresting KC, CHW, MIN and DET.

 

[MadThinker88]

I realize some might be against this idea but if the post-season gets expanded by a full round (increasing the number of teams to 7 per league), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reduce the length of the regular season from 162 games back to 154 games...

The idea of baseball starting among snow storms in late March & the World Series ending in November does not sit well with me.
April 1 to Oct 31 should be plenty of time to play out a season and multiple rounds of playoffs...

 

[CATS44]

I would rather they shorten the number of divisional matchups. It does the Tribe no good that a quarter of their home games are against the usually uninteresting KC, CHW, MIN and DET.

The divisional set up and unbalanced schedule is a huge advantage for the Guardians, as they act as a leveler of the playing field.

If the schedule is rearranged so that Cleveland plays more games against big market teams, like Boston, NY, and Toronto, the likelihood of getting into the playoff field without winning the division title nearly disappears.

The last thing we want is to play more games against the Yankees and Red Sox.

 

[CATS44]

One thing confuses me.

Bimbo points out that these may be the most contentious negotiations in baseball history....and maybe in all of professional sports.

It would be difficult to be more contentious than the willingness of both sides to cancel a World Series.

On the other hand, Bimbo has stated that both sides understand how dangerous this could be for the future of baseball.

The two statements don't match up. If both sides are willing to go to the mattresses a long time AND they know that doing so could end baseball as a major sport, neither side gives a royal rat's backside about the game.

 

[Huber.]

The divisional set up and unbalanced schedule is a huge advantage for the Guardians, as they act as a leveler of the playing field.

If the schedule is rearranged so that Cleveland plays more games against big market teams, like Boston, NY, and Toronto, the likelihood of getting into the playoff field without winning the division title nearly disappears.

The last thing we want is to play more games against the Yankees and Red Sox.

But the other teams in the division would have the same teams schedule the same amount of time. Or even better they should just take away 15-20 divisional games and shorten the season.

 

[Gson]

I realize some might be against this idea but if the post-season gets expanded by a full round (increasing the number of teams to 7 per league), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reduce the length of the regular season from 162 games back to 154 games...

The idea of baseball starting among snow storms in late March & the World Series ending in November does not sit well with me.
April 1 to Oct 31 should be plenty of time to play out a season and multiple rounds of playoffs...

Groups of 8...

To go from 162 to 154 would suggest losing a single home and a single away game against each division opponent... 154 games also has a 1960 feel about it..

 

[Gson]

So..what are the points of disagreement that defines the contentiousness?..

I'll take up one that is well known to start with... Service Time and Service Time Manipulation

Service Time: From the MLBPA's perspective.. MLB has been the side that is suggesting changing things radically. The MLB has provided a proposal that would take the current ARB I, II, an III (and sometimes IV) and throw it in the trash and replace it with a time period & wage scale that has yet to be fully defined. Gone would be the preparation by the club defining why a player is undeserving of the higher of two numbers and the need for the representative of the player defining why a player should be given the big number. The current system typically keeps players under team control until they are 30.2 years old. The proposal would reduce that number to 29 1/2. In short.. a small number of players would be under team control a little longer than they have the ability to control them now while the majority of players would achieve free agency a little over a half year earlier.

The truth in this proposal is obfuscated by the understanding that there will be a small number of players that will be negatively affected by the proposed change.. Contractual control of salary will be extended and earning potential for this small group will be less.. This is a position the MLBPA will NEVER abandon.. This does NOT preclude a player or a club from negotiating a deal that resolves the potential short fall for this limited and exclusive group of talented players. This does affect late blooming talents significantly more. This hurts the journeyman players that make up nearly 90 % of the players in MLB as the AAV salary trajectory is lowered..

The points of contention...

From the MLBPA: any restriction on earnings is looked at by the MLBPA as a negative affect (not effect) and reasoning for discontinuation of negotiations. The current service time system is mostly effective, however, it breaks down when the parent club refuses to permit a player to be elevated to the major leagues with clear and convincing evidence that the only reason a player has not been promoted is to manipulate his service time clock. While the MLBPA cannot control promotion, they must have some insight/influence that prevents this obvious malfeasance. The dollar values for pre-arbitration players is waaaay too low and needs to be adjusted to reflect the value they bring to the game we all love. Ditto to MiLB players.. but, that doesn't fall under the purview of the MLBPA.. but it could..?

From MLB: The elimination of the Arbitration System is essential due to it's misuse and lack of function. The number of players going through the arbitration process has dwindled to a scant few thereby making the current system out dated, overtly negative and, mostly unfair. A clear and clean service time w/ wage control solves ALL the former MLBPA grievences about the unfairness. The model MLB is borrowing from (with changes) is the rookie scale approach the NFL uses. Coupling this with tax considerations for both a floor and cap, and wage certainty is assured for both the players and ownership. Everyone wins..

What say you?

Next up: Talent acquisition via IFA signings and drafts... draft lottery, etc
Next up after the above: The Commissioner's role w/r Discipline & Rule Changes
Next up after the above: Competitiveness of the League

 

[BimboColesHair]

One thing confuses me.

Bimbo points out that these may be the most contentious negotiations in baseball history....and maybe in all of professional sports.

It would be difficult to be more contentious than the willingness of both sides to cancel a World Series.

On the other hand, Bimbo has stated that both sides understand how dangerous this could be for the future of baseball.

The two statements don't match up. If both sides are willing to go to the mattresses a long time AND they know that doing so could end baseball as a major sport, neither side gives a royal rat's backside about the game.

Contentious doesn't mean that they are going to take their sweet ass time with this.

There is a wide gap between a number of key points that need negotiated down, and those negotiations will get heated, angry, frustrating, argumentative...whatever other adjective you want to use. That doesn't mean it will take a year to talk about though.

There are going to be tough negotiations ahead that will, yes, get contentious. However, both groups are motivated to meet with each other as much as possible to get this done as quickly as possible. I fail to see how these "don't match up".

It becomes a problem when one or both sides don't feel pressured to meet.

 

[Benway]

MLB sells Games. That's their product. They're not going to make fewer products any time soon, any more than the NFL will.

 

[MadThinker88]

MLB sells Games. That's their product. They're not going to make fewer products any time soon, any more than the NFL will.

Not disagreeing with your premise (yes MLB is selling games to the general public), but your missing a point of consideration.

Think of each game as a car rolling off an assembly line. The line can only produce so many cars/ games in 1 year (spring training, regular season and post-season). The post-season cars/ games are more profitable to the owners and the networks that show them.
The assembly line is maxxed out on the number of cars/ games that can be made.
At the moment the workers/ players get a certain percentage of the money for those regular season games/ cars and less (almost nothing) for the playoff games. IIRC the workers/ players get nothing for the spring training games.

For 8 fewer regular season games/ cars (lower profit for the owners in general), there can be 3 more playoff games/ cars which are worth much more (say 1 playoff game/ car is worth 5 regular season games/ cars) even when that network broadcast money is split between all the clubs.

ANY BUSINESS (Ford/ GM/ MLB/ Eaton/ Moen) is going to look for ways to increase the production/ number of more profitable items being produced, including the scaling back of production for items that are less profitable.

My hope is not to see a 60 game regular season. That is unreasonable & only a result of the COVID pandemic year.
Going back to 154 games (where baseball had the number for many decades) is possible & the owners/ players/ fans could be much better for it.

 

[Benway]

Not disagreeing with your premise (yes MLB is selling games to the general public), but your missing a point of consideration.

Think of each game as a car rolling off an assembly line. The line can only produce so many cars/ games in 1 year (spring training, regular season and post-season). The post-season cars/ games are more profitable to the owners and the networks that show them.
The assembly line is maxxed out on the number of cars/ games that can be made.
At the moment the workers/ players get a certain percentage of the money for those regular season games/ cars and less (almost nothing) for the playoff games. IIRC the workers/ players get nothing for the spring training games.

For 8 fewer regular season games/ cars (lower profit for the owners in general), there can be 3 more playoff games/ cars which are worth much more (say 1 playoff game/ car is worth 5 regular season games/ cars) even when that network broadcast money is split between all the clubs.

ANY BUSINESS (Ford/ GM/ MLB/ Eaton/ Moen) is going to look for ways to increase the production/ number of more profitable items being produced, including the scaling back of production for items that are less profitable.

My hope is not to see a 60 game regular season. That is unreasonable & only a result of the COVID pandemic year.
Going back to 154 games (where baseball had the number for many decades) is possible & the owners/ players/ fans could be much better for it.

8 games for 30 teams. That's 120 broadcasts.
I can't see them giving that up.

 

[MadThinker88]

8 games for 30 teams. That's 120 broadcasts.
I can't see them giving that up.

Neither of us has access to the various financials but if baseball as a whole made more from those additional playoff games (2 more teams and expanded wild card round (from 1 game per league to as many as 6 wild card games from 2 best of 3 series in each league)) than it would be a no-brainer..

Move in a handful of more profitable games for a handful of less profitable games.

 

[petes999]

Neither of us has access to the various financials but if baseball as a whole made more from those additional playoff games (2 more teams and expanded wild card round (from 1 game per league to as many as 6 wild card games from 2 best of 3 series in each league)) than it would be a no-brainer..

Move in a handful of more profitable games for a handful of less profitable games.

I get and agree with what you are saying to a point. The counter argument is the share system already in place for playoffs. Players arent giving up their share which will apply to the additional games. I believe teams also get a share of at least their ticket and merch sales. The question is what's left > 8 games that Balt, Pitt and others gave up to compensate them when not in playoffs. A lot if moving pieces in negotiations. Reason why this will last till Feb/March ... a lot to change and will players drop another of their demands if this change benefits owners? And, will owners want something as 6-8 yr contracts were based on 162 games and current playoff shares vs 154 games at same salary and more playoff shares? Sticky situation. Just like 17 games for nfl but that is with shorter contracts w 1-2 yr lead time to adjust based on expectations of cap jump.

 

[macbdog]

It's nice that the MLBPA is at least feigning they care about players in their first few years of service time, but now they need to put their money where thier mouth is' and propose an actual system that shifts the money from guys who reach years 6 and beyond to earlier in their careers. Both the NBA and the NFL have a system that aids this. Otherwise, they are just paying lip service to a group they don't represent yet (minor leaguers) and it's the usual 'have cake and eat it too' which is at the crux of why baseball has the labor issues it does, where both sides are pigheaded and untrustworthy.

 

[DCTribefan]