Today marks Day 26 of the MLB lockout, as we trudge toward the end of the quietest December this website has ever seen. The new year begins Saturday, and there’s an expectation MLB and the players’ union will resume negotiating core economic issues sometime in January.
The collective bargaining agreement expired on December 1st and MLB instituted a lockout, and the time since has been a waste: no notable movement on a new CBA, and of course a freeze on free agent signings and trades. The only dates that seem likely to motivate either side are related to Spring Training. Normally we’d see pitchers and catchers reporting to Spring Training the week of February 14. And the Spring Training game schedule has been in place for months, with games set to kick off February 26. So February 26 is the next real pressure point, as canceling Spring Training games will result in tangible revenue loss for teams. It’s entirely possible we won’t see any real CBA movement until February.
Seeing as how we’re mired in the first work stoppage of MLBTR’s 16-year history, I’d like to see where our readers stand on several key issues. Check out our eight-question survey below. You can click here for a direct link to it, and click here to view the results.
Not enough options on most questions.
No going back at this point, but which questions would you have wanted more options for?
#3 most specifically. I think the players and owners are over compensated. Player salaries have ballooned grossly over the years. And unless the tax is tied to salaries there is no answer.
Another option could be to make a game affordable to attend. Reduce ticket prices and/ or concessions.
Agreed pd. And without a limit to salary cap growth and ticket price it won’t happen. coming out of covid times I have the feeling all pro sports teams are gonna feel a financial burden.
I guess that’s kind of like saying, “I wish there was less revenue coming into MLB overall..”
Not less revenue, but limiting how much they can demand from the fans. I understand they want to make as much as possible, but if they continue to gouge the small markets and not limit what the big markets can spend it creates an unfair market. The big dogs continue to get bigger and the small markets dry up. What is the point of being a Minnesota or KC or Tampa fan if they will continue to be a minor league team for the LA’s and NY’s. There has to be some limit to create competetive balance. For which a floor and a ceiling need to be achieved IMO.
Too much imbalance and the Yankees and Dodgers own all the all-stars on non entry contracts and the others just feed them.
Jeez Tim. Easy man. You’re a little defensive today dude. Somebody drop coal into your hot cocoa 😉
@Tim, would it be wrong to wish that? The cost of a ticket would drop to entice more fans in parks. The cost of television packages would drop to entice viewership. Merchandise costs would drop. Ect. Making it all more affordable for all at the cost of the top players making 25M a year instead of 30M and the owners taking home 100M instead of 200M.
@wreckage- the hard truth is some markets just aren’t as viable as others, and it just is what it is. I’m sure New Mexico would love to have a sports team -any sports team- but it’s not viable. So the question becomes why should major markets have to pay to carry smaller markets to their level. I’m not against small markets, but you have to work with what you have then. If they can’t, either relocate or contract.
Agree 100%
@Outlaw
I think that may not really be the case anymore. Sure, when most revenue was generated at the gate it held true. But with all the tv/istreaming money now, there could be an arguement made for even more reginal teams
@App_O, that’s the problem. It will continue until the league has only 8 teams on this trajectory. Keep contracting/relocating teams… only lasts so long. the twins move to Vegas, then Vegas moves to Portland, then Portland moves to ???Then they contract. same with Colorado, Arizona, Cleveland, Seattle, Washington, ect. Then we are left with NY and LA and Chicago and 2 randomly roaming teams who just feed the others.
There needs to be some limits. Stabilization of teams. no more fears of losing teams. A cap and a floor.
@Wreckage- I disagree. Salary caps do not create competitive balance, they only suppress player salaries. The NFL is a prime example because over the past 25 years it’s been largely 6 teams that have won more than half those championships. Caps also do nothing for fans. It’s 2x more expensive to see a football game than a baseball game. The only benefit is your team might sneak in the playoffs and get bounced in the first round, if you want to call that a “benefit”?
There are also way more than 8 viable teams. If you can bankroll a 120m payroll, you’re viable. If you can’t, maybe baseball is better served with 24-26 teams?
I think most MLB fans wish that, given the current prices to attend a game. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s realistic, any real drop in ticket prices.
@Tim, and I think it is something that might cost the teams in the long run. we all have access to the games free online. may not be legal, but they are there. And it is going to cost the teams dearly in the long run. mlb.tv wants how much a year? why when I can just “find” a stream. And the players need to take that into consideration too. salaries should be tied revenues. Mookie doesn’t get 33.5M a year for example, be gets 13% of his teams cap.
@wreckage- you and I have extremely different views on this; but MLBtv is only about $1 per game roughly. I don’t really understand what you’re wanting here? Are you saying everything should be lower because it’s possible to “find” a less than legal stream?
You want salaries tied to revenue but then you want to reduce revenue too? I mean neither side is going to buy into that.
I wish more teams would at least take the approach that the Atlanta Falcons ownership has taken by at least being conscious of how expensive it is for a family to go to a game and taking some measures to limit the cost — in the Falcons case by making the cost of concessions reasonable.
Tax teams with low attendance. Will force teams to lower prices, or put a more competitive team on the field. In addition it will help build a future fan base if it makes going to games affordable to families.
@AO, I want the game to be fairly priced for all. Ticket and TV packages. Salaries should be tied to what a team can generate. And if a team/the league over values it’s product the salaries should once again be tied. When they generate more revenue, the players should be paid better, if the games suck… it should once again fall on the players and coaching to make it better and generate more revenue for those paying their bills. The games sell better, those players get paid better. But why should a team make more because they field a AAAA team and soak up sharing? I am not going to watch the yankees or dodgers vs the pirates.
Tie salaries to percentages, not a number value.
I support the players having a bigger slice of pie, but I think the player’s slice should be divvied up amongst players better. Risk diversification as it pertains to player salaries is a big issue; giving a person a half a billion dollars is a risky enterprise. Overall increasing player salaries while reducing what the top 1% of players make would be a decent compromise, IMO.
In what industry have prices dropped for anything?? I like what you’re suggesting, but its NOT happening, EVER.
@Outlaw
Contracting is exactly what the small market teams are doing. MLB competition occurs in the boardroom more than on the field. The LA and NY markets with their outsized RSN fees and full stadiums can buy all of the best players This harms the game by taking fans away from the small market teams. Why should a fan invest time, money and emotion in a team that has little chance of competing for the big prize?
@wreckage. Which team owners are taking home $100M? Maybe the Dodgers and Yankees?
If anything, a question should have been asked that specifically focused on ownership and the amount they receive. It’s pretty absurd that we highlight what players are making when, frankly, they are the primary producers of the product. They should be getting most of the pot because they are the ones doing the essential labor. This framing always questions whether people who do the work deserve to get paid. It’s highly problematic.
@wreckage. You have come up with the perfect plan to make the competitive situation far worse. Think for a moment if under your scheme any free agent would sign with a small market team with low attendance revenue and media revenues corresponding with the size of their market? Consider also whether drafted players if they were selected by one of these teams would be disincentivized to sign with them (of course they would). Bottom line, under your revenue sharing scheme, a player could only have any control over what they earn by signing with one of the wealthier teams.
@Appalachian …That’s assuming that there are enough big markets for teams to relocate to. That’s not necessarily the case.
@maximumvelocity. I agree. One of the absurdities of this situation is player salaries are made completely public right down to the dollar, but revenues and profits made by the team owners are completely secret. The framing issue begins with this, and it’s also why we hear fans moaning about how the players are “overpaid.” Strange, since most of us I believe come to watch the players play (for my money more interesting than watching the owners own). If I were negotiating on behalf the players I’d put this on the table. Either player salaries become as confidential as owner profits are now, or both are made public. That would change the framing dynamic in a hurry.
How about 100 tickets a game be provided to inner city youth to encourage diversity. Also ownership sponsor inner city baseball providing coaching. equipment, maintenace of the fields. Players make appearances and ex-players help coach. Many players who don’t make it all the way to MLB could be involved. A requirement for the kids involved is progress reports from their schools and pastors. Scholarships for kids as well. Many college baseball scholarships only are a partial scholarship. The end game is to help make them productive members of society but also tie them to baseball.
I am a conservative but I think this would help to draw black people to the game.
@Tim
I believe MLB makes plenty and it wouldn’t hurt them very bad. MLB, and the owners, make so much money
Split the revenue 50/50 between owners and players. Split the owners revenue evenly amongst all teams. Instead of the hot stove every offseason do a fantasy draft where each team gets 5 keepers. Players union can make their own decisions about who earns what
That’s true, but then again, none of your readers are seeing a dime of that revenue, so why would we care? We are far more concerned about the price of taking a family to a game, than we are with making sure Marcus Semien maxes out his earning potential.
Wreckage: The players specifically refused those terms because they don’t want to take a hit if the market tanks.
You’re surmising an idealistic outcome with caps. The reality is, owners are not going to reduce prices with a cap. They will simply continue making more profit. You’re wrong on this one. If you don’t think so, look at every other sport that has them – it neither creates more parity, nor reduces prices, but it does make owners more $.
On that question about compensation I would have liked an option about there being such a gulf between the highest paid players and more regular players.
I also would have liked a question about better pay earlier in a players career and not holding great prospects longer in the minors to delay starting their service time clock. They were perhaps obliquely addressed in the questions about the minimum salary and structural changes to improve competitiveness.
Maximum Velo: The reason is because the players are the employees. Imagine if every business operated by that methodology? The cashiers would make incredibly high salaries while the owners get minimum wage…. Uh, no.
It’s flawed thinking at its core. Idealistic, utopian, and considerate, but flawed. Owners possess the place of work, and we pay to see the game, which is why it continues even after Mantle-types retire.
I understand your point, and the reasons for your perspective, but it cannot and will not work.
All the other suggestions are pointless because the players will never agree to them. They will never commit to a percentage because they will not risk taking a reduction if MLB takes a hit, especially with Covid concerns still abounding.
Why should MLB revenues be regulated between workers and owners in a way that no other industry is? Why does everyone suddenly have such a problem with the normal workings of capitalism when it comes to baseball?
All of the owners of these teams are billionaires. Its funny that fans do not realize this. All of the owners of all of these teams can easily afford to pay their players well over the luxury tax .But somehow they have conned fans into believing that they cannot. Yes some teams make less profit than owners of the huge market teams . But trust me if they really wanted to, every single 1 of the owners of all of these teams can afford to pay well over the tax every year.
FYI, the Nationals do this with tickets (exactly how many I don’t know) and a local baseball academy.. Certain Nats players also support upgrading local recreation fields.
Nothing against the player personally, but in no economic system should a team feel the need to give Corey Seager $32.5M for 10 years. All the while Vladimir Jr made $650k this year.
There’s way too wide of a salary gap and the market is artificially inflated because of unrealistic salary rules and timelines.
NOBODY is winning in this scenario except for the rare Cory Seager type player and his agent. “Nobody” is defined as the club owner, personnel, other players, and worse, the fans who have to pay the ticket to see this overpaid player. Sure the first few years will be exciting, then suddenly he looks like Albert Pujols running on glass.
Computers have gotten a lot less expensive even as what you got went up. . My first computer cost 1495 in 1985 (512 bytes of ram, floppy drive). Adjusted for inflation, that would be about 3861.82 today. Bought my son a new laptop for less than a thousand and it is so much more computer.
@foreverseahawk …All fans know that owners are billionaires. What you don’t get is that NO business owner in any industry is expected to take money from their pocket to prop up their business. They INVEST and expect a return through revenues. You’re expecting owners to just throw cash at a business without concern for return. We know owners are billionaires, it is your lack of understanding of how business works that is naive. I’m sorry if this comes off a bit rude here but it’s just ridiculous that fans somehow think that baseball owners are supposed to behave radically differently from all other business owners. You don’t pay your workers out of your own pocket, you use the limited funds generated by the business.
@maximumvelocity, it’s actually the owners through their front offices who are doing most of the work, creating the rules, operating the stadiums, hiring the talent throughout the organization, operating the minor leagues, drafting the players, taking on the legal responsibilities, marketing the game, advertising, ticket sales, etc., etc., etc. The players could go on strike, or attempt to go form their own league, but they will fail, unless they recreate everything owners do to create long-term operations. If it was easy to do that and get a bigger share of the pie, then players would do that. They don’t, because that’s actually the most difficult. Playing the game is easy. Most players appear for a few games, a few years, and they’re gone. The teams and the ownership remain, allowing future players to make millions of dollars. If all the current MLB players went away, MLB would simply replace them with minor leaguers, and then replace those minor leaguers with other semi-pro players. Here’s the disturbing part. Fans wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference in the quality of play!
A system where owners and players share a 50/50 split is more than equitable. The owners and their front office though are what keeps the teams operating, not the players on the field. They’re actually the easiest to replace.
And the “limited funds” generated by this business are BILLIONS. So… there’s that.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense of the average cost of a game ticket and food/beverages but that is such a small piece of the pie overall. The owners are making so much money from sponsorships, apparel and TV deals. Ownership wouldn’t hardly notice a difference from their pockets if they were to reduce overall admission, concession and parking across the board by lets say, 20%. No one likes ‘losing’ money but if costs were to drop for the common baseball fan who’s to say that more ballparks wouldn’t have more attendance, more concession sales and parking spaces paid for? To reduce overall game day fan costs could effectively keep their park revenue steady.
To speak on ownership revenue vs player salary, player salary is horrible on both ends of the spectrum. Minimum salary is too low and the guys on the other end are making way too much. Don’t laugh but I’m a lifelong Mets fan and to sign an amazing but aging pitcher at 40mil a year for 3 years is insane. If MLB owners continue throwing money at players in that manner then the upper echelons of the salary range will continue to inflate but yet the minimum has stayed stagnant. The owners deserve the majority of the revenue and players deserve to be compensated well based on performance but come on, not to the tune of 40mil a year…. I wonder if scherzer jerseys will reach 10-20mil in sales for 2022 or the wins he notches will bring in an additional 10-20mil in ticket sales, etc. Maybe, but that’s just breaking even for ownership. This country was founded on capitalism and no one wants to walk away at the end of the day barely breaking even.
Owners vs players monetarily speaking can be argued a million different ways but there has to be even ground somewhere. Just my 2 cents
Cosmo2 – MLB owners do not follow “the normal workings of capitalism.”
– They have an antitrust exemption to restrict competition
– The Rule 4 (amateur) draft restricts where workers can work, and draft bonus allocations limit how much they can earn
– The minor leagues also limit salaries and constrain freedom of movement
– Pre-arbitration players have their salaries set by owners
– Arbitration limits salaries to well below free-market levels
Owners do not have, and almost certainly don’t want, “the normal workings of capitalism.”
@skeptical
That’s great. If only Scherzers could be produced and adjusted for inflation accordingly.
@Tim,
I heard Ken Rosenthal on a podcast about a week ago talking about ticket and concession prices. He felt that players’ salaries do not affect gate/concession prices whatsoever. He said,
gate/concessions are subjected to the same ole “supply & demand” construct that most durable goods and services are across all of capitalism. Thus, if no one buys $15 beers and pays high gate fees, maybe the price drops. But if the stadiums/owners have a demand for their product, as they do, prices will remain high. Salary caps won’t bring prices down. Fan spending patterns might though.
Because the workers in baseball have significantly more value than unskilled laborers. You can’t just find anyone who can throw or hit a 102 mph fastball at the upper part of the strike zone.
Supply and demand dictate that workers deserve a bigger part of the pie, especially from an ownership class that, quite frankly, does nothing but sit back and get paid. Baseball owners also bring extremely little to the table in terms of the success of the sport, unlike CEOs and owners of other businesses.
@RobM
Please. On no planet does anyone actually believe the owners are a more valuable commodity than the players.
Elite baseball players are a rare resource. And as such, they deserve a higher share of revenues.
On the other hand, modern baseball owners don’t do anything except set budgets and cut checks. You could replace just about any of them with a novice executive and probably get the same results.
Well I don’t know, I look forward to the day when the owners trot out onto the field in their $2,000 suits and we can watch them make phone calls and meet with their investment managers. Who wouldn’t pay to see that?
Wreckage, so in a nutshell, you’re upset you have to pay money to be entertained and think people with a particular unique skill set make too much and business owners make too much? How very socialist of you.
I guess that’s kind of like saying, “I wish there was less revenue coming into MLB overall..”
Have you ever run a business, Tim? You don’t necessarily lose revenue with cost reduction. The concept is to create affordability for your product and make up the difference in volume.
Simplified- in a 45K seat stadium that draws 12 K fans with an average ticket of $50, if you can drop your average gate 30% and draw 24K you will actually INCREASE revenue generated 30% (ish). That works across the board with tickets, concessions, and hardline (gift shop swag,ect.)
Many MLB teams can’t draw flies because they have priced themselves out of their respective markets.
It’s as simple as looking at the most expensive seats in the stadiums. If they are constantly at 33% capacity or less, you’ve out priced yourself.
Of course, Manfred and his meddling hand has made the game nearly unrecognizable to his demographic, but that’s a wholly different conversation.
@willy
“Have you ever run a business, Tim?” He’s been running this website for, what, 15 years? I’m sure he’s quite familiar with the concept you’re describing. And I’m certain MLB owners are, too. Their wildly successful businesspeople, so it’s not like they’ve never considered what you’re proposing.
If he’s so familiar with the concept then explain HIS comment to which I was replying…..
willy – I assume you mean this one:
“I think most MLB fans wish that, given the current prices to attend a game. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s realistic, any real drop in ticket prices.”
Again, MLB teams certainly have evaluated the various pricing models and have come up with something close to the optimal setup. If lower prices would bring in more total revenue, they would do it. It’s highly unlikely any of us have a better grasp of this than owners do.
No. I mean the one I DIRECTLY quoted in the VERY first line of my comment. Since you didn’t actually READ all of my comment, I’ll copy it AGAIN………In response to another poster mentioning reduced costs Tim says…….
“I guess that’s kind of like saying, “I wish there was less revenue coming into MLB overall..”
To which I responded with my comment.
BTW- I expect a little more than “well, gee I guess they know best.” Just because someone owns a business doesn’t mean they are running it competently. Businesses go out ALL THE TIME. MLB teams do not simply because they are propped up by their parent entity.
I did actually READ all of your comment, but since you didn’t put his comment in QUOTES so I assumed that was just something YOU were saying.
If someone wants ticket and concession prices to drop, that’s great. What fan wouldn’t’ want that? But MLB has little reason to reduce its revenues.
BTW – I expect a little more than “I know how to make money better than billionaires.” It’s difficult to get achieve that level of financial success while being incompetent. I’m not saying they’re perfectly run, but this isn’t like someone opening a small business with something like a 50% chance of not making it. This is a $10B+ per year industry that continues to refine its practices to optimize revenues.
The reason to reduce is CLEARLY stated in my original comment. (You say you read it, then keep commenting like you didn’t…)
And the best answer you have is “they have more money than me so I guess they know best.”
Ok dude. You have added nothing. Have a nice day.
I read your comment. It’s not an original idea. You have added nothing, dude. I’m off to have a good day.
What’s the cost of a person accessing this website? $0. Tim makes money from marketing and the fact people enjoy baseball/baseball rumors compiled in one simplistic location. The more traffic this site gets the more marketers will pay. Running a website is nothing like running a business that is Brick and Mortar. There is overhead if you have a staff being paid but it’s not like a website owner is wondering how to keep the lights on for next month if the site traffic slows down… maybe they worry about how to keep their personal assets secure and paid for but that’s about it.
But a great article nonetheless. May help the league and PA if they see how the fans are reacting to this whole thing. If they notice the happenings at MLBTR that is.
Agree with this 100%!
I know I am a little surprised by some answers. 50% think players are properly compensated? Just wow. I had NO idea that was the majority view.
And I really thought more people would be in favor of more play-off teams (i favor 12)
Question #3: Kinda hard for a survey question, because the problem is multi=tiered. 1. players should get a bigger piece of the pie, 2. but the problem with that, is the disparity of pay between the star and role players.. Both needs to be addressed.
I couldn’t answer Q3 because (1) I think players in free agency are fairly compensated — they can negotiate their salaries in a competitive marketplace that does have some anti-free market factors (i.e., luxury tax, availability of younger salary-constrained players, MLB’s overall monopoly on the sport) but results in massive salaries and (2) I think players who have not yet reached free agency are not fairly compensated either in the min salary pre-arb years or through the arbitration system which weirdly doesn’t even try to approximate fair market value for the contract year to which it’s terms will apply.
I guess overall I could say that players get a fair share of the overall pie, because I think the total amount that is spent on players’ salaries is ultimately driven by the competitive free agent market, where the public pressure and individual owners’ desire to win counterbalance the anti-competitive factors. But I still don’t think the available options reflect my opinion on player salaries.
I’d like no DH, but I’d like to see the both leagues with the same rule, with or without.
I don’t care who takes the money home, both the players and owners are doing fine, as long as the fans don’t have to pay more!
Tim : ask a question about the salary floor. Teams that just pocket the revenue sharing money are in the wrong. When you receive money from another team, 100% of that money needs to go back into salaries…
Re players salaries. The minimum should be raised AND the maximum should be capped. However, when compared to actors salaries all professional sports athletes are underpaid. Check it out, you’ll probably be shocked, surprised &/or enraged.
The other thing to consider about less revenue overall could be that the revenue just comes out of the cost of concessions. I’d like to buy a beer that costs less than $10. Lowering the prices actually might even raise revenue. If beers were reasonably priced I wouldn’t feel the need to sneak alcohol/food into the park. If they just had normal prices I would spend a lot more money there. As it stands now I eat on the way and stop by the package store to buy a $10 flask of liquor to share with all my friends so they don’t have to pay either. Beats paying $10 for one beer for myself and another $20 to eat. The margins might not go up but total sales will skyrocket and it’s possible they profit more overall that way. I can get a beer at a bar for $2 and at the store for less than $1. If I’m spending $10 per drink I’m buying it outside so I can sneak it in and share with my friends before I spend that much on one measly drink and just sip it in front of them.
@Hammer- Not directing this towards you specifically, but the issue is some people can’t handle their alcohol. They ideally want to sell less beer at huge margins, I would think. More beer means drunker fans, more security needs, more vendors… That starts to erode those profits while creating multiple potential problems.
I’d like an option for salaries being set according to the market instead of being artificially depressed during a player’s most productive years. These owners are all captains of industry who despise “socialism” and other forms of market interference. Yet they cling tenaciously to this system; an artificial wealth transfer that doesn’t appear to be being used to improve the game or build their own stadiums or hold down the price of my hot dogs. Use the analytics that they now use to underpay people who’ve finally aged into free agency and pay them what they’re worth when they’re worth it. /fin
The choice of players get more money or owners get more money… let’s see… do I support 30 billionaires or hundreds of millionaires? Tough choice.
Why not lower the price of tickets and parking so a family can attend more than 1 game a year? Players and owners are getting a ton if money through cable networks… why not make it so fans can watch the games from home instead of blackouts?
The blackouts are the dumbest possible thing… but all in all the idea is “we need to speed up the game and add playoff teams so we can get younger fans”, well… why not make the games affordable and accessible for younger fans?
@elmedius- I agree. I think the blackouts hurt the game more than anything in terms of growing the game. I have never known a single person to say, “Well the game’s not on tv, I’ll just go to the park.” People work weekdays, it’s not always easy… Kids have school. People just don’t watch. That’s eyes they’re missing out on.
Soccer games never caught my attention growing up, because of the lack of scoring, and that’s still true. Yet that sport is growing and MLB is not. Yes, you don’t want the games to continue the trend of getting longer, but MLB wants to act like that is the only problem. I’m guessing if you suggest something like lowering prices for tickets, you’re looking for a job, as that’s not something the owners don’t want to hear. I’d be interested in the level of movement in sales per dollar change. Higher attendance, even though at a lower price, would increase concession revenue, and possibly lead to a future sale to another game. This could offset any loss in revenue, while building the fan base.
While an admirable goal, here’s why that won’t work. If a team generates the same revenue at higher prices/50% capacity (just using that percentage as an example) as opposed to lower prices/full capacity, there’s no incentive to change. At the lower prices, there’s no room for more money as they are already at capacity. I agree it would be great if they lowered prices but the market is working fine for them. Until that changes…
Now the blackout rules, as currently constructed, are the dumbest thing ever.
@joe
But I turn on the game of the week and see two random teams playing to more than half empty stadiums. Worry about being at or near capacity, WHEN IT HAPPENS. Until then, if you draw 20,000 in a 45,000 seat stadium, those empty seats are costing the team money when they could be generating revenue. Owners want extended playoffs because that’s really the only time they have to worry about that problem. They raise the price for those games, so they could lower the price when not coming close to selling out.
Because ticket prices for baseball games are set the way prices are set for every product. They cost what people are willing to pay for them. Even more so in the case of sports teams since the franchises own a monopoly over that sport in their market and seats at the venues are a limited quantity.
@blueskies
That’s not the way prices are set for every product. Baseball is more like how OPEC sets prices. If the prices were set based on demand, we would see full stadiums. That the average game only sells less than half the seats. That indicates the price is set above what people are willing to pay.
I’m not sure you followed my entire post, but anyway… you are apparently assuming that the number of fans in these smaller markets would be sufficient to fill those half-empty stadiums if the ticket prices were set low enough. That’s doubtful. The numbers of seats is fixed but fans can’t be manufactured to fill them.
As a longtime season ticket holder I can well remember half-empty stadiums in LA during the McCourt years. The Dodgers ran all kinds of ticket promotions and even lowered the price of our season tickets. It probably helped some, but the stadiums were still half-empty most days, because the Dodgers were fielding a lousy product. On days when I didn’t want to go I found could not give away my tickets. Zero was not a low enough price.
Since then our season ticket prices have more than doubled, the stadium is packed for almost every game, and if I put my tickets on the resale market I can often get twice my cost for them. Turns out fans will pay more to watch a good team than a bad one. Who knew?
Then why are not all stadiums full? If tickets were at the correct price point according to supply and demand, then most games would be near sell outs. If ticket prices followed supply and demand logic, teams out of contention late in the season would drastically drop ticket prices to attract fans while teams in contention would increase prices because demand might increase.
You can save us both a lot of time and just read what I already wrote.
BTW it would also help for you to spend some time with StubHub, where tickets are being priced in real time based on supply and demand. The teams are using sophisticated algorithms to maximize their ticket revenues. Years ago they began tiered face value pricing based on the predicted popularity of the games. Now this is no longer necessary because they can price on the fly based on demand, same way as Amazon.
LOL
Both players and owners want more fans… that’s something they both agree on because they both benefit from it. Putting a quality product on the field is one solution… making it affordable should be considered also.
I remember when I was a little league coach… I would buy 15 tickets to bring my team down to see a game. I bought them hot dogs and a soda. I gave them a small souvenir, usually one of those tony bats that I had to tell them to stop hitting each other with.
Those days are gone. There is no way I could do that today. Heck, we probably cant even sit in the living room and watch a game because it could be blacked out.
If you want more fans, think of your fans. Instead, each party wants to get richer.
It’s been years since I went to a regular season game. I went to a spring training game a couple years,ago and was hoping to go to another this year. Might not be able to because a bunch of rich people are fighting over my $100.
I’m really close to just focus on my garden and say FU to baseball.
LOL
There is no baseball games without the players.The players definitely should get the HOLE PIE
I will ask that fans that say the game should speed up please give your age.Just to show the demographics.
The game should speed up. I’m 41. Your turn.
I’m 63 and the games should speed up, or take less time to play 9 innings, however you want to put it. A pitch clock and enforcing hitters staying in the batter’s box would help.
I’m 39. Speed of the game is fine. Feel free to trim down the commercial breaks though.
I think the speed of the game is fine. If they speed up the game and I am going to miss half an inning when I go to the bathroom, I doubt I am going to games anymore.
Players aren’t playing anything without owners. Likewise, no stadiums, no league, no money to pay players. So your solution is to take from those who own and give to those who work? That’s the exact definition of Socialism. If that’s your position, that’s okay, I just disagree. I don’t know if you realize you just defined classic socialism, which has never, ever worked, except in theory, where it always sounds fantastic, until it’s attempted.
This is the exact definition of nonsense.
Tell me more about hole pie
Some questions in your survey don’t have all the possible answers or have incorrect context. For instance, in players salaries question there is no option for “top players have too much, but middle class and all the others have too little”. Also there is no question about the need of salary cap system (the hard one) with floor and advanced revenue sharing or anything about ridiculous economical imbalance between clubs, that is impossible in every other league. And this is the key of most of current madness in baseball.
I’d then ask how you feel the players are faring on average, and choose an answer that matches with that.
Ok, then I would say that on average they are not compensated enough.
The MLB minimum salary is way more than I make….to play baseball. I would gladly trade places with someone making MLB minimum. So, unless you are very very rich, I don’t see how you could conclude MLB players are underpaid. I guess you could calculate the percent of total revenue that goes to players and there could be a debate about what percent the players deserve….but compared to other jobs, MLB players are paid very well. On the other hand, minor league players are not paid well. I would like to see minor league players get a pay raise. Maybe the minor league minimum salary could be one-third of the major league minimum salary. Does the CBA effect minor league salaries? Looks like it doesn’t since the minor leagues are not locked out. So, I am not sure how to get the minor leagues a raise, but I would give them one.
I really hate the response of “that’s more than i make to play a game”. Just horrible.
It’s not “just playing a game”, it’s a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. Do you also feel actors should be paid less? How about musicians?
Also, anyone that works at the top of their respective field makes much more than the average worker. The COO/CEO makes a ton more than than the entry level worker.
It’s called capitalism…
@Tim
There are 1200 major leaguers and approximately 3600 minor leaguers. The minor leaguers with a few exceptions make $400 – 700 per week for the season. They are not represented by the MLBPA because they would take money away from the free agents. Salaries, pension benefits and healthcare would flow to the MiLB players. They would demand better facilities and working conditions. About 200 free agents get the lions share of the MLB payroll. These are the guys that represent the union at the negotiating table. When the Players Union agrees to include the minor leaguers only then will I have sympathy for their side.
The 30 owners generally made their bones in some other business. They are entitled to a Return on their Investment (ROI) because they do not have to invest in MLB. There is competition for their investment funds from every other investment class. If they cannot make a 10% ROI the money should go elsewhere. Only a few will treat it like a rich man’s hobby.
@all in the suit: “So, unless you are very very rich, I don’t see how you could conclude MLB players are underpaid.”
You answer this conundrum in your next sentence. “you could calculate the percent of total revenue that goes to players and there could be a debate about what percent the players deserve”. In relation to revenue, most MLB players are underpaid. And I say this despite not being “very very rich”.
If you play 3 years at MLB minimum, you have made almost $2 million dollars. That is more than most people make in 20 years of working. I don’t think the players are underpaid. Yes, they are playing a game. They are not running into burning buildings. They are not teaching our kids. Capitalism will work this out. I never said capitalism was bad, but I find it hard to feel bad for MLB players or the owners. We basically have millionaires fighting with billionaires here. I do want minor league players paid more.
@rpoabr
Some people will disagree with your opinion. The vast majority of CEOs make way more than the workers, but in baseball, those are called the POBO or the GM and in their industry, they make less than the workers. That is an indication of how much the scale is all ready tilted more towards the workers in sports. Most owners make their money from their other businesses. Their earnings from the sport is from the values of the franchises, not from the actual revenue of the team. Mostly, owning a team is a status symbol.
rct: I agree the players are probably underpaid when you look at the percentage of MLB’s revenue they get. You have a point. I guess I can’t really pick a side when both sides will make way more than most people that provide the revenue.
Stymeedone: Fantastic points, and very well articulated, re: GM salaries v. players.
It’s a very interesting exercise and I think all the questions regarding the topic illustrates part of the complexity.
Players are sufficiently compensated, except owners are choosing players at cost-effective contracts instead of paying the value for the top talent, in order to avoid paying more.
So, it’s a complex dynamic. Players don’t need to be paid a billion dollars. But teams, like the Yankees who can afford it, aren’t paying for the top talent like they should, especially with their revenue increases. Their budget should not be the same as 15 years ago. But player salaries have gone up over the past 15 years as a whole.
On the average, you and Jeff Bezos are incredibly rich. That is as meaningless as lumping superstar free agents and rookies.
I do agree with this. I did what Tim suggested and answered based on the average player, but my actual in-depth thought is that players as a whole probably need to get a larger slice of the pie but that the amount of that slice that is concentrated in the top few percent of players is becoming increasingly absurd. It’s also why I voted for a $1,000,000 minimum salary; I think dramatically increasing the bottom-end salaries will work to pull some money down from the top.
@jb226, I paused at that question for that very reason. Owners and players make a lot of money. What I really want is a greater distribution of that money among all players. I also voted for the $1M minimum because of that.
Regardless of the CBT, many teams will make their payroll at what makes sense for their revenue stream. Even if every team goes to the max, if they pay more dollars to the players with 6 years or less, you will see the top players get less. Business 101, payroll is a percentage of revenue. The amount won’t change but the distribution will. It will make it harder for the smaller markets to pay the very best.
I’d like to see salary floor and amount as one of the questions. I guess that ties into the incentivizing winning/ negating tanking – but I’m curious what fans in support of a floor feel an appropriate floor dollar amount is.
I also feel a floor is required. That q to me about imbalance satisfies this territory.
I would say 180 cap, 140 floor. Or 170/130. And let the league decide, how big revenue sharing do they need for that.
If you need to establish a hard cap and hard floor, there should be pretty much zero revenue sharing beyond the equal distribution of national TV contracts, or similar national revenue. Even at that, the major markets are doing all the heavy lifting. There’s a reason why the Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees are generally the teams on Sunday Night Baseball. They pay the bills. Their players, owners and fans have no interest in playing those late games on getaway days.
Look at what the Guardians (ugh) are doing. Cutting payroll to such low levels that they’re supported heavily by revenue sharing, telling their fans to “enjoy a player now” because there’s zero chance they’ll attempt to sign them. The Dolan’s have created fan apathy in what had been a good baseball market, which normally would force ownership to change their ways or sell. MLB is now allowing teams like Cleveland and Tampa to not grow the game in market. That’s bad since baseball is a regional sport.
That is counter logical. If there is a small floor/cap difference, some revenue sharing is needed so small market teams don’t lose their backsides.
@ekrog, sure, and I did acknowledge that noting that national TV contracts should have an even distribution, even though they exist because of the major markets. There are no doubt other revenue streams now, and probably in the future, that fit in that bucket. My issue is that many who want a hard salary cap and floor also want the major markets to share a high percentage, or even an even distribution of their local revenue. That would be counter productive and would lead to a reduction in revenue. My point is once you put a cap in place, it greatly minimizes the need for revenue sharing while increasing the incentive to build winning teams.
The Guardians did attempt to get Lindor to sign a contract with them. He very publicly turned down a $100m contract before he had even reached arbitration that I believe would have only gotten them two extra years of control. He rightly figured that he could earn more closer to free agency or in free agency. At that point, you would just be insulting him to call a meeting just to say “we’re interested in paying you $20m per year” when you know he is worth more.
It simply doesn’t make sense for Cleveland to commit $30-40mm to a single player with the way their finances are. They make $40mm from their cable contract. A few other teams are north of $200m, and some even above $300m.
If you want to fix competitive balance, you have to fix the revenue sharing so all teams have an equal ability to sign players.
The competitive balance in MLB remains quite strong, actually stronger than in leagues with hard salary caps. A hard salary cap with greater revenue sharing simply means the owner of a small market team will have his pocket lined by the owner of a wealthy team. How does that solve anything? Are you a Guardians fan? Do you really think the Dolan’s will spend that money? They’re playing the system, but they don’t really care about growing the market as they’ll eventually sell at a huge amount of money.
I believe five out of the 30 teams all had payrolls in the $200M range, and 25 of 30 teams were over $100M. Pretty much all teams could run payrolls in the 150-200M range. They opt not to, and the ones who don’t are rebuilding or waiting for new parks, or frankly they’re playing the system and pocketing the money.
This has been one of my points too. MLB demonizes teams who are pushing to win, while trying to find ways to reward teams that lose. Increased revenue sharing will continue this backwards approach. Reward winning.
Chestbride: Teams have an equal opportunity to sign all players? You realize that’s a self-defeating idea? If all teams can afford the same pay for the same players then you have bidding wars until someone cannot afford it. Also, why should the Yankees be punished for selling more gear, winning more, & having more success overall? So Colorado can sign Correa (which they won’t do anyway)?
You cannot legislate equal opportunity for FA. It’ll never work. If you do, then what happens with higher tax states? What about states where houses cost more? What about fluctuations in those areas and markets?
Sorry, but you’re essentially suggesting a cap, which doesn’t work (look at NBA/NFL). Or you’re saying “I want MLB to make my team win” which is immature.
@Yankee Clipper, there’s an element of fans who want the big markets to do all the work, make the bulk of the money, and then share it equally while they contribute little beyond a ballpark to play in. I’m fine with revenue sharing on the national deals, but the teams should control all their local revenue. That the incentive to increase your market and be competitive.
Both players and owners are over compensated. Both should take a pay cut and reduce ticket prices.
Sure, but we know that will never happen.
I could with public pressure. Especially when you consider the money spent by cities to by help build/support stadiums.
How about a question like, “Should both the players and owners stop being greedy fart bags so you don’t need to take out a mortgage to attend a game or need a second mortgage to buy a hotdog”
“I could with public pressure.”
This is true. Owners charge as much as they think people will pay, just like everywhere else. People could slow this by not going out to the ballpark.
Everytime I see someone complain about ticket prices I wonder:
Do MLB teams even need local attendance at all? Can they close the gates and still make profit? There’s so much money coming in from TV, streaming and licensing, at what point do they no longer need attendance?
Funny how there was no question about a minimum a team should spend each season. I love this site and find it pretty trust worthy and balanced. But even sites like these have to be careful about not angering the MLB ownerships lest they lose access.
What is more funny, is that owners are in fact in favor of salary floor. And why wouldn’t the Pirates or Royals or Reds be happy about that, if it would be Yankees and Dodgers money? And why wouldn’t Dodgers and Yankees be happy about that if they only become richer because of that?
Uh, no I don’t. I don’t rely on access to MLB teams, and I don’t have an issue discussing caps and floors. I see a floor as a long shot and a cap as impossible, so I decided to leave that out of the survey.
I didn’t not say “rely”.. But surely some of the ‘guests’ and writers on the site DO rely on?
But very well, sir. I was attempting to point out the power of the MLB owners.
Perhaps Perhaps in coming polls you could state that to prevent mistakes like mine from occurring.
Can each end not be taxed so its not a hard cap?
I’m respectfully disagree with you about cap being impossible now. All that owners actually need is too come together and together decide that they as an employer will implement hard cap, then just confront the players with the fact that it is going to be a cap. Period. Did NHL actually asked NHLPA about cap back in 2003-04? No, they forced players to agree. So do the same. If you need to sacrifice a season, even 2 seasons – fine. In long term everyone will benefit from cap, except of small group of players and their agents.
Then NHL hard cap was given with some concessions. The owners wanted it at like 40% if I remember correctly. It was a stance the league chose to die on. The PA wanted other things, like concessions on merchandise, a bigger cut from the TV deals, open accounting books, service time requirements, ect. I believe the NHL minimum was also 350k at that time too. And it took a lost season to get things on ice again.
*these are what I recall and not 100% accurate. Just how I recall them from those years ago
Oh, sure. The loss of two seasons will make the league much stronger. See you all in 2024! BTW What’s the morning drug you’re in?
You can’t just impose a cap. Labor negotiations do not work that way. The NHL did not just forcibly say to their players they were putting in a cap. If things were that way there’d never be lockouts.
The owners could try to hold out and outlast the players but let’s not forget they’d be tanking fan interest and losing money right alongside the players. I know I’d be done with baseball if we lost 2 seasons for a cap I don’t want in the first place.
They tried to do that in 1994, the players went on strike, and they still didn’t get the cap. I doubt there’s an appetite for ownership to try again.
You know there would be teams who have already thought about the workaround for a salary floor. I could see the Pirates and Orioles of the world becoming a place where albatross contracts go to die. This would also incentivize other teams to throw money around with even more reckless abandon knowing they can dump the bad contracts on the tanking teams.
“Competitive integrity” question needed a
cap/floor choice.
Most important change to the game would be more revenue sharing among teams, local TV & revenue from around the stadiums need shared to reverse the revenue disparity between the large and small-market teams that has grown to proportions not seen before in the history of the game.
Teams local TV money received is contingent upon games being played among all 30 teams. If the Dodgers don’t like it, start your own 10 team league among large-market teams only, see how long that lasts.
Tie in safeguards that make sure revenue-sharing monies are spent on payroll. This will allow for real competitive balance among teams and give more real hope to 12-15 teams annually that they can win the WS.
There are always well-run teams and poorly run teams. The latter hide behind creating villains of the more successful teams hoping their fans don’t notice their local teams are often poorly run. And, let’s be honest, big market teams are often poorly run (Mets) cans small market teams are well run (Rays). All you’re suggesting is that the high-revenue teams do all the work, put money into their brands, take on debt and build out RSN’s, and have their fans pay way higher prices to then distribute the money to the lower-revenue teams who contribute exactly what beyond a ballpark?
And, yes, the major markets could create their own league and all the money will follow them. The small market owners actually benefit greatly from the existence of the major markets. The small-market owners have billion dollar franchises because of what the major markets bring. That’s why the owner of the Rays has no interest in selling. He gets revenue sharing to fund a big chunk of his payroll, he knows how to work the system, and the value of his franchise has skyrocketed by being in a league with big-market, high-revenue teams.
Hey, but maybe you do have a point. Let the ten or 15 largest teams go move to their own league. Or more likely, those teams will be what remains of MLB. You won’t have to worry about the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, etc. anymore, as your team will move to a new relegation league. MLB then immediately expands into five or ten additional markets, such as Las Vegas, Sacramento, Charlotte, etc. New teams and cities with money. All the national TV contracts will follow them. The best players will of course want to remain in the MLB-A league. The remaining teams can continue on in a new relegation league. MLB-B. Two 20-team leagues. The worst in MLB get relegated every year. The best teams in the relegation league get promoted. Solves all your problems, right?!!
Of course, I’m just joking.
Most of the largest TV markets are filled with teams currently, and it takes time to build fan bases as well.
Good luck with your 10 team league.
My league won’t be just a ten-ten league. It’ll be the top 15 teams in MLB, plus they’ll expand to five new markets. A 20-team league. There are easily five cities with lots of money who would welcome entry into MLB and who deserve a MLB team based on shifting demographics. The other half of what was formerly MLB can go form their own league without worrying about competing against the likes of Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc.
As I said, I wasn’t all that serious, although the creation of a relegation league could lead to greater competition. Or are you admitting that your small market teams actually need the big market teams more than they need your small market teams?
The point is everyone needs everyone. All 30 teams need each other. The Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs local TV deals pay for 162 games including many vs small-market teams like the Rays/Rockies/Brewers who if not for, wouldn’t have their massive TV deals.
A small-market team like the Brewers, who’s fans spend more per fan than any team in the game, and draw near 3 million fans a year, still max out their revenue at less than half of the Yankees. Same with the Reds, baseball’s oldest franchise. Ditto the Royals and Guardians and Rockies. These are well run franchises that spend to win, but with TV contracts $150-$200MM less per year than the aforementioned trio of behemoths.
That’s led to the widest revenue gap between the large and small-markets in the history of the game. Much wider than when revenue-sharing was instituted nearly 30 years ago.
It might be worthwhile to run another poll in the future digging into various options related to competitive integrity. I guess I first wanted to see how many people see this as a problem currently.
It’d be hard to separate what’s perceived by some as a competitive integrity issue from what is just a poor ownership issue, I think; but it’d be an interesting poll.
If you do that could you add a what team are you a fan of question?
Interesting idea…there have always been perennially poor teams even in more modern times–look at the Indians from 1969 to 1994–but a lot of those teams had bad luck–farm systems dried up, bad trades, injuries or performance disappointments from individual players. Few teams were deliberately bad. This does impact the integrity of the game beyond dollars and cents…the tanking teams can effect the W-L results of teams vying for playoff spots–and this is particularly true after the trade deadlines when some teams decide to sell off, and make themselves weaker at a time when every game counts.
Exactly. That is the crux of issues with competitive integrity. Make a cap/floor that are no more than 10-20% apart. If small market owners can’t handle it, they need to sell.
@ekrog
So the Rays & the A’s (amongst others) need to double their payroll to have “competitive integrity”? It’s not true is it?
A salary floor of $100m “only” adds S150m league wide in salaries. This might force the Orioles of this world to take a “Hosmer” in order to add prospects. Would this reduce the length of the average tank?
If you randomise the draft order you again dis-encourage tanking….
Or just take away their free revenue sharing from other teams and force them to pay for their own personnel.
i found the questions made you take a stand on one side or the other. there’s no fence sitting.
i’d be surprised if anyone who took the survey voted leaning towards the owners.
i want them to lower ticket / concession prices, raise the base salary, keep the cap the same, and keep a 10 game playoff schedule.
this would keep the owners from continually reaping profits off the backs of middle class fans who’ve loved the game since childhood. even if ticket prices don’t get lowered it would still cap owner profits. this at least hopefully see fans not having to spend more.
might as well hope for a beach house in the bahamas while i’m at it.
For most of these answers, I’m pretty much in the calm of “whatever gets the lockout done the fastest”. The only things I have a real opinion on is the starting a runner at 2B rule in extras and service time manipulation. I hate the former and he ladder I don’t understand why they made it to where teams gain an extra year of control after like 2 weeks into the season. Imo, it should be if you put them on the opening day roster, then you gain the extra year of control. That way, teams are more incentivized to start the year with a more exciting OD roster.
@mlb1225 re service time manipulation….
“Imo, it should be if you put them on the opening day roster, then you gain the extra year of control. That way, teams are more incentivized to start the year with a more exciting OD roster.”
I think the MLBPA will run a million miles from that one. I’d suggest “rookie limits” and service time started on the same date – OR – both clocks start when the player is on the 26 man roster for 50% of the initial season. The 7th year shouldn’t be a virtually free of charge team option…..
Arbitration needs to start earlier. Players without guaranteed deals should be paid for performance.
Agree. Why not require a major league salary and major league service time for every player on each team’s 40-man roster? Rather than just the players on the 26-man.
Get rid of the minor league option system. Teams would assign players on the 40-man to the major or minor league roster, with a minimum stay when assigned to the minors.
Young players would reach arbitration much faster. Teams would have much more roster flexibility so they’d be more likely to sign veteran free agents, since they wouldn’t necessarily need to stay on the active roster all season.
$1M minimum. $250M for initial competitive balance tax.
Should also be a floor, which will require some additional revenue sharing distribution.
Didn’t see a question on an amateur draft lottery. That would be a yes.
Surprised how the DH in the NL conversation has shifted so rapidly toward a yes.
Overall, I liked the survey. It’s always interesting to see what others think even if you disagree with the majority in some cases.
Ii think there is going to be an impact on the regular season due to some issues like service time.
@terry g, yes. I found it more interesting to see how the overall base of fans vote. For example, I’m quite surprised that 13% of fans support the owners. I have no issue with the players or the owners. They’re both fighting for their side, but that said, I would find it difficult to say the players should be making less money and the owners more. It’s not like ticket prices will go down. The owners will simply pocket more money.
If you’re not a fan of an NL team, your opinion on the DH in the NL shouldn’t count. Some of like baseball because of the strategy. If you keep taking away things that makes strategic moves moot, there is no game, only home run derby. Leave my league alone.
How about if I’m the fan of both an AL and an NL team?
If they played each other in the World Series, who would you root for?
I’ll let you know if that ever happens.
@jdt8312
Which (as a fan of an AL team) is like saying I can’t have opinions on abortion because I’ve got a penis…..
There is still just as much strategy with the DH as without.
For the record, I’m a Tigers fan. And I enjoy them having the DH. But I want the NL to stay away from the DH. I like the different strategies, how teams are built.
I was a bit disappointed to see salary-related questions focused only on total amounts. IMHO, the #1 problem with the competitive landscape is the arbitration and pre-arb system resulting in massively disproportionate compensation for players based on age/tenure instead of production.
We can debate specific changes for ages, but so long as you can pay an MVP a few million bucks because you drafted him while a near-replacement-level free agent relief costs just as much, teams with limited financial resources are going to do what it takes to secure the younger talent..
I’m stunned that people think the minimum salary should be increased by 5%. I wish my salary would increase by 5% each year. I know its not exactly the same thing but Jeez. $570k minimum salary is not enough?
Unless you are a professional athlete or entertainer, your salary isn’t comparable or relevant here. These players are entertainers, and generate billions in revenue and profits. They are due a fair share of the pie.
You’re not an athlete and entertainer. Your skillset is much more fungible.
Also, 5% is actually lower than the rate of inflation right now. That’s a problem for all of us.
Crazy water, 50k people don’t come watch you at work every day.
The MLB minimum wage argument (and a base salary floor system) is to try to help the smaller market teams keep their talent happier. If you’ve got a team with one or two $15M players and the rest are making $500k, there’s dissension. If you’ve got a couple $10M players and the rest are making around $1M and some at $850k (just an example), it’s a more harmonious clubhouse. There’s too wide of a gap today.
@nukeg
I think the MLBPA’s biggest bugbear is that average salary (depends on whose figures you believe) has either flat lined or marginally decreased over 5 years.
Therefore in the players eyes – the MLBPA has done a very poor job – or at least – the previous agreement wasn’t fit for the players purpose. Both stances might apply to the players themselves, the latter applies to the union.
Much was made by Man Fred (Slave & Prophet to the Gluttons) about the S1.5bn committed to players in the late November madness. Point is that 2/3rds of that was committed to seven players. Utterly irrelevant to the rank and file.
Question 2 vote results surprise me. They are counter to the the media narrative. I wonder if the players and owners realize that they won’t lose the fan base if the lock out continues (or the players strike)?
And what happens when the do?
This is a small sample size of diehard fans who read sites like MLBTR in the offseason during a lockout when nothing is happening. It’s not surprising that this group of people will remain fans.
It’s the vast majority of casual or at least less invested fans that the owners/players need to worry about, and I don’t think this survey addresses that group at all.
MLB lost fans and thus revenue with the ‘94 strike. It took years to recover, but I’d suggest they lost fans permanently. I know some former fans who never returned to this day.
If teams have a floor and a ceiling, should the players also?
A=$30 mil
B=$25 mil
C=$20 mil
D=$15 mil
E=$10 mil
F=$1 mil
Each team must have 1 player earning from each category and the remaining players can be from any category.
@BobGibsonFan, a ceiling, or a cap, benefits the owners by increasing their revenue and profits. A cap on a players decreases their earnings. Great for the owners, bad for the players.
@rob m
Having a cap has no effect on revenue stream. Depending on where the cap is set, it could increase or decrease player salaries. It could increase or decrease profit. (payroll is one of the few non constant costs)
@Stymeedone, it doesn’t impact revenue; it impacts profits. There’s a reason why Hal Steinbrenner was in favor of lowering the CBT to $180M. It allows the wealthier teams to pocket more of the money.
If a team has to have a player from each category, that automatically make a floor of $100 mil. The owners can have as many top players as they want or can afford.
This makes each team have some high priced players, hopefully giving them some quality players.
If a team still wants to tank, they have to do it by taking on bad contracts and paying to tank.
The numbers were just pulled out my but, but they could be lowered making a floor lower. Type a could be 20 mil, b 15 c 10 and d 5… that’s starting off with 4 players at 50 mil and then build your roster from there.
LOL
Should have been additional optional answers. I have stopped purchasing MLB.TV package because of black rules. Should have been a question about speed of the game. Will always be a baseball fan. But no where near what I once was. Salaries are based on what owners will pay. It is a supply and demand thing.
MLB is trying to appeal to the traditional non fan. Which the speed of the game is the biggest hurdle. MLB has alienated the core fan by black out rules and costing a small fortune to attend a game with family.
The fans are again dismissed in this battle for billions, all while MLB efficiently prices itself out of small markets and an affordable fan experience. The accessibility gap between MLB & the common fan is growing.
The thing I find most annoying is that there have been no discussions between the parties since before the lockout began, and now we’re told talks will resume some time in January. Doesn’t seem to be much of a sense of urgency here which tells me the finger pointing and name calling won’t resume in earnest until February.
Because there is no sense of urgency yet. That will happen when revenue and pay is on the line and that’s February. These guys could be negotiating daily through December and little will be accomplished. Deadlines create pressure and urgency.
The results seem to portend minor changes (and little need for a lockout) so far as salaries and compensation are concerned.
But the fan base is clear that changes and not just minor ones are necessary to make the clubs in this sport more competitive.
I think it was a decent survey. IMO, most owners pay enough in salary and do attempt to put a competitive team on the field in most years. Being a Tigers fan, it was hard to watch the last 5 years of ball in Detroit with the little amount of talent we fielded day in and day out. But being in a rebuild mode, I didn’t see it as “tanking”. There was no reason to spend serious money when no matter how much you spent you weren’t going to be seriously competitive.
And after years of Dombroski trading away all of our minor league talent for MLB players to supplement the major league roster, we had to have several years of UGH in order to restock the cupboard in Erie and Toledo. Now that we have accomplished that, Avila and Illitch are doing what they said they would and spending at the MLB level. But I couldn’t imagine being a fan of teams like the Pirates, Rockies, D-Backs, etc where all the extra cash you make is put into the owners pocket. That would drive me to root for a different team!
I’m surprised that anyone thinks the minimum salary should stay the same. Many guys have slaved through the minors for years, and should be rewarded for finally making it to the show. I wonder what the average salary for a cardiologist is? I’d guess above the ML minimum.
It would also be nice to see the players lobbying for better treatment and compensation of minor league players. But that is probably wishful thinking. No one represents their interests.
Draft pick lottery is a must! Also bump any picks down a round if a team is waaay below a minimum salary threshold. Tanking would go away quickly.
That is kind of odd. Both the MLB minimum salary and the luxury tax caps should be indexed and automatically increase every year.
What is odd LordD? I agree on indexing the minimums and luxury tax thresholds.
I find it “odd” that there are fans who voted that minimum salary should stay the same. Was agreeing with you.
The poll doesn’t address the biggest issue: length of team control
It’s causing many elite players to miss out on big contracts. Which is extremely unfair. An obviously a flawed system. The PA is right to ask for a reduction in time spent under team control. Right now, that period can go over 10 years. Absurd. Players should hit free agency at a fixed age. For example, before their age 26 season for those who signed out of high school, and before age 28 for those who signed after college.
I almost agree with the team control being too long, but the owners have a legitimate gripe in that they pay many millions each year to players who will never see MLB action.
My opinion is that they draft far too early, just to get players under club control. Since no player goes right from the draft to the Majors, maybe what they need to do is draft players with one or more years of professional experience. And, have it many fewer rounds.
Also, have the A teams draft from college/HS. The AA teams draft/callup from A. And, the AAA teams, in conjunction with their parent teams draft from AA. Now that you’ve reduced the risk and investment on the part of the MLB clubs, I’d be in favor of abolishing arbitration all together. Let them be free agents after they fulfill their first contract.
I’d be a probable Democrat were I live and vote in the US. I am a capitalist. However I am a little more player centric than owner centric.
If you p*ss around with a near perfect market (where individual performance can be fairly easily be evaluated/calculated in terms of productivity (yay pitchers wins!!!!)) but you suppress the wages of those as or more productive as (say) a Pujols in the later years in addition to keeping closed books – your perfect market is all of a sudden “daffy ducked.” (Rhyming slang)
.The MLBPA is negotiating blindfolded with the exception of Atlanta.
In really simple terms – if I’ve worked my butt off and after all taxes and degradations my company has made 10% more than last year, I’m expecting a piece of that 10%. If we’ve stayed still I’m shutting my mouth.
For the player salaries, there should be an option for MLB and milb players. The first group makes more then enough, the second not so much. If minor league players would make a full years worth of minimum wage at a minimum it’d impact their lives much more than a free agent getting 35 instead of 30 million dollars
This is an issue throughout the economy though. The most elite earners (in MLBs case due to talent and tenure) get the big bucks. The less talented and less tenured get the scraps.
A first year call center rep would do a lot more with a 20% raise than a CEO of the same company would do with a $1m bonus. For $1m, you might be able to increase all the lowest worker wages at the company by a significant margin.
While I don’t have the numbers handy, there’s a ratio of highest paid to average paid employee at a company and it has taken off since the 90s. MLB actually has controlled this better than the rest of the (US) economy in terms of worker equity. (Assuming to compare player to player and not owner to player – a big assumption!!)
I get what you are saying, but this survey was about the MLB lockout and the CBA being negotiated, which simply does not include the minor leaguers.
I fear that we will see this thing stretch beyond reporting dates and spring training games. That will be an abject disaster. Injuries will mount faster than ever and baseball will again be an inferior product compared to its potential. This will force MLB to gimmick once again to entice the fans back to the ballpark and the TV. Further compromising the sport is not a good future. They need to spend the entire month of January working this thing out instead the endless posturing in the media.
Fans seem to look at the salaries of established players and think that this is an issue of millionaires vs. billionaires and have little care or sympathy for anyone. That’s far from the reality.
Rather than rant about the road to professional baseball itself, then the path to MLB if a player is actually fortunate enough to get to the professional leagues, let me recommend researching the journey before sounding off.
This is a decent, simple place to start: princetonreview.com/careers/22/baseball-player
I agree that the question on how should get more needed an option that they both made too much. Salaries are way too high in my opinion and owners make a killing on selling team yet still blackmail cities into great statism deals and or incentives to stay.
The equation is a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Simply make the team salary exactly $150M for every team as a franchise fee. You can pay as much player salary as you want our of it, but anything you don’t use you pay to the player’s union retirement fund anyway (prevents tanking).. If you go over the limit it’s an unsportsmanlike breach of competitive balance and you lose a #1 draft pick, with additional picks for each 5% over.
And if you can’t afford the $150M salary the league will buy your franchise at fair market value and solicit new ownership.
I think the start of free agency is one of the bigger issues right now. Nobody is going to argue that players need to be paid more when a guy can make 40 million per year, but the fact that most guys don’t get their shot at big money until they are reaching the end of their prime should be addressed. That should be in the poll.
MLB needs a hard cap…just like every other major sports league in America
Are they more competitive than MLB is with its soft cap? Doesn’t appear that way.
I’ll be canceling my Premium streaming package before spring. First the Indians cave and change their name (and to something really dumb), and secondly because of this lockout garbage. Heck, I’m betting MLB will even raise the prices of their streaming packages.
Really, what needs to happen with the CBA is that the underlying issues need to be fixed: Minimum salaries increased, Some solution to the time it takes for players to become free agents, potentially changes to the draft, including trading picks, a lottery system for the first pick like basketball, no longer having a signing bonus cap/pool, and most importantly, paying a reasonable wage to minor league players.
If the owners focused on that stuff, they could do a lot of good with the players and fans and could gain leverage for some of the other items that they want. The sentiment that goes to the palyers right now is largely based upon the players that don’t get anything. I don’t know many people who care if Scherzer gets $43M or $25M – its monopoly money. But 5 minor leaguers sharing a 2 bedroom apartment and living on PB&J and Ramen is something that needs to be fixed. Players like Juan Soto getting almost nothing for MVP type performances needs to be fixed. I know that Soto will get paid, but what if he gets hurt first. Then what? He gets almost nothing.
Agreed, but also craving some PB&J and Ramen right now.
One more comment on Free Agency. What if we kept the timing of the current system, where teams had control of players for 6 years, however, that started no later than their 23rd birthday. IT would be close to what the owners offered, but wouldn’t hold back the superstars. Pair that with a reward system over the course of the first 3 years where players can earn in excess of the league minimum for outstanding achievement and it didn’t count against the salary cap. For instance, 20+ home runs earnes you $$200K, 25 HRs earns you $350K and over 30 HRs is $500K. You could do similar with other metrics for pitchers and hitters. No life changing money (not multiple millions, unless you are special). Like $1M for a Top 3 in MVP voting or Cy Young and $2M for an MVP. or Cy Young.
Rarely going to happen but if you could reach several of those with the right kind of season, then you make enough to make it more reasonable for your performance. I would only advovcate this for the pre-arbitration years.
I feel MLB players are compensated fairly well. But with MLB “taking over” MiLB, the league and parent teams should have to spend more on minor league players, facilities, travel, etc.
I think a salary cap has its pros and cons, but I would be all for a cap only with a salary floor attached to it. If the cap rises, the floor rises. If the cap drops, the floor drops.
I am also in the “no DH in the NL” camp. I enjoy the different strategies in both leagues and the uniqueness each have.
I would also like to see a 2 team expansion so each league can have 16 teams. And back off the everyday inter-league play. Have 2 weeks a season (May and August) where interleague play happens. Rotate divisions vs divisions each year. Making interleague play more of an unique event will bring more people to the park and have more people watch than it does when it’s an everyday normal thing.
The expansion part of your response is a no-go for me. I’m in favor of contraction. Too few great players, and far too many clubs bidding for their services. In the meantime, about 1/3 of the league is tanking.
At any given moment there is absolutely not 1/3 of the league tanking. There’s a small handful of teams actively trying to compete that haven’t put good clubs on the field and happen to suck (Phillies, Angels, Twins, Padres, Mets), and a small number actively trying to suck (Orioles, Rangers, Royals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Rockies) and after spending all of Scrooge McDuck’s money the Rangers don’t even apply there going forward.
At any given moment there’s really only like 2 or 3 teams actively tanking, and sprinkled in there are a bunch of franchises having bad years or in between windows of contention.
Twenty percent of teams tanking (your figure) is still bad. There’s also a certain amount of teams who don’t do enough to really compete even though they might not be technically tanking.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t see the issue with that. If teams don’t want to field a quality product, on purpose, that’s on them and they get to deal with the repercussions. Mariners fan here…very used to poor product on the field. The organization has suffered because of close to two decades of mismanagement and as a result, the support for the franchise isn’t great. The city is dying for a winning team but good luck finding 46k to pack the park on a Tuesday in May. If teams want to do that in purpose, so be it.
I think there are plenty of quality players in the world. But MLB needs to spend more money/effort in developing players in the minors. The tanking isn’t a quality player problem; it’s a cheap owner problem.
I think most dinosaurs like me, whose fandom goes back to when we were little kids in the 60’s, are just flabbergasted about the amount of money in the game now. As such, questions about who is making enough—the players or the owners—are just hard to rationalize or fathom. Rather than contemplating them or the idea of how disproportionate professional sports have become relative to profits in comparison to so many segments of society and labor, I prefer to say I just love the game, period. But with all of that said, the fact MLB is unlike other sports and does not have some mechanisms in place to ensure small market teams can always have a shot is just mind numbing. Yes, TB is the model that seems to always be in the picture, but watching Pittsburgh, Baltimore, KC and others go through never ending cycles of build for 5 or 10 years, compete for a WC for a couple, burn it all down and start all over again is hard to swallow
Good survey…i would like to seen who would be in favor of a shorter season along with expanded playoffs…my thoughts are 135ish season with more playoff games would produce more meaning full games…plus incorporating more off days might have less worn down players and maybe a better over all product.
I’d like to see a tournament, where leading up to the All Star Game, 8 regional sites host a weekend tournament. All 8 winners advance to the All Star location where they play another tournament to determine a winner.
I still don’t know why the season had to go from 154 games to 162. Why were 8 more games necessary?
The 154 game season was before expansion. Eight teams per league,each team played every other team in the league 22 times (eleven home, eleven away). Adding two teams per league screwed up the number. By adding eight games, each team played every other team 18 times. With further expansion and inter league play, it is all screwy.
Personally, I miss teams having eighteen games against all other teams in their league. Made better rivalries.
Already over 5,000 responses. We miss baseball.
Regarding minimum salaries, I also think there should be a tiered minimum salary depending on length of service — e.g., a $4,000/game minimum for the first 162 games on the active roster ($648,000 for a full season), $5,000/game for the next 162 games ($810,000), $6,000/game for additional games before reaching arbitration ($972,000), with an arbitration minimum of $1M+.
So I don’t think the absolute minimum needs to be raised that much, but there should be a more equitable system for players who succeed to increase their compensation when they are prevented from negotiating their salaries.
Tim, thank you for the survey and the resultant discussion. I appear to be of the same mind as the majority of respondents.
However, I am amazed at some of the discussion around the sharing of revenue by the players and owners. It is the old discussion of merit v. Parity. The people who are better and deserve more should take less so the folks who are not as good get more. If this was transferred to a normal workplace, these respondents would be up in arms. Anyway, thanks again for the survey.
In a normal workplace, if I was in my third year at the job and doing it better than most of my co-workers but was forced to accept minimum wage and prevented from negotiating better pay for myself while people who did the job at the same or even worse level as I did were making 20-50 times as much as me just because they had been working for a few more years, there would be revolution.
isn’t it time to stand up for the fans? Without fans it’s like asking if a bear -hits in the woods…who cares!
But does the bear pitch?
I don’t particularly blame either side…this is a business with the owners of production wanting to extract the maximum profits and the highly-skilled employees wanting the highest possible compensation. The present CBA creates some problems that ought to be addressed–the tremendously disproportionate allocation of salary between older stars and younger, “controlled” players, and the facilitating of dumping and putting on an inferior product on the field.
Again, this is a business, and we can either support it by buying tickets, beer, etc or not. Neither owners nor players owe us a ‘popularly priced” product. That might not be a popular opinion on here….but if I owned a team, while I’d try to do some community directed things, I’d keep an eye on my bottom line, and if I could pitch like Max, I’d want to be paid a fortune. Why are we asking owners and players to do something we probably wouldn’t do ourselves?
I feel like if you care enough about baseball to take this survey then your opinions will be different than those who are not huge fans of the game but have some interest. I’m guessing that if every fan regardless of their interest level in the game took this survey then we would see very different results.
At the rate players are being paid. In ten years they will be contracts starting at a billion dollars. Players are way over paid. Ten years $250 million. That’s BS. I say a salary cap should be put in place at a maximum of no more than $100 million for what ever many years the owner decided. Maybe the cost at some of these games can be affordable for fans to attend. Hotdogs $5.00 and a beer is $10.00. In some stadiums it’s higher.
I couldn’t answer #3 honestly because I believe players AND owners are overpaid. Someone needs to hit the reset button on the economics of professional baseball.
I’d rather see all teams become publicly owned companies like the Packers, with stakeholders as the owners. Reduce player salaries significantly, no more 9+ figure deals; if the teams are publicly owned then nobody will cry about more money going to ownership because there’s no private individual raking in millions each season. Then take it further and structure the business side of the game like the NFL with a hard salary cap, contracts that are X for overall agreement, and Y for guaranteed money so that teams have options.
As an aside, all games should return to carriage on broadcast networks rather then specialized networks for each team. That’s what’s killed fandom in the past 20-30 years, it’s pulled the sport out of all the homes that can’t afford cable. Not to mention broadcast qualities have diminished because they had 30 RSN’s to build rather than just 3-4 carrying the games.
But I digress.
The CBA has done for baseball what Lebron James did for basketball. The creation of a few super teams with mercenary player kills interest in the sport. It is hard to love a player like ARod who leaves the franchise he grew up in for a large pay day. Until a team can afford to keep their own for their entire career the fans will continue to check out.
All teams can afford to keep their players, they choose not to do it.
As a fan – cost of tickets/food/parking is ridiculous….I get it though we keep paying no matter how much it increases…owners/players just want as much as they can get period…fans and taxpayers take the hit….be great to see fans have a voice and do our own lockout
First of all MLB should appoint a commissioner that tends to baseball business. This commissioner allows his political views,interfere with his job. Not to mention his political actions hurt the small businesses in the Atlanta area. His job now is to get to the business of hashing out a deal on the CBA ASAP. Dont wait to the last minute. Get with the program and get a mutual agreement signed and implemented. There are other issues to discuss as well and need to be worked out. So after January 2nd get with it. Do your job Manfred.
Owners locked out the players but people will still blame the players.
The players gave up too much last negotiation and the competitive balance mechanisms haven’t helped parity at all.
Lower player salaries will never translate to lower ticket prices.
Sports teams charge what fans will pay, not how much it costs to barely make a profit.
Most of these comments are from bitter people who can’t stand others making a lot of money while they don’t.
I didn’t care for the poll choices on this, but I voted with the players for much the same reason. Ownership’s logic in calling the lockout was to “put pressure” on the players. It seems like bad faith negotiation for one side to declare that their plan right out of the gate is to beat the other side into submission.
Manfred seems to like to negotiate very publicly through media which to me is a bad way to negotiate anything. Its the exact same reason Cohen and the Mets looked like fools by constantly putting out who they were interested in for the GM job and having those people publicly reject them in turn.
To the Players Union’s credit they have said very little on whatever their position is on most things. And while we know money is the crux of most issues, a public back-and-forth with both sides trying to shame the other will not resolve anything.
I’m not in favor of a floor because i don’t believe forcing teams to over spend just to reach a certain number really improves anything. A hard cap doesn’t work in Baseball either. The luxury tax threshold is fine where it is. If a universal DH is inevitable as we’ve been hearing just do it already.
And please no to expanded playoffs. There is actually less incentive for teams to try to put the best team on the field when all they have to do is tread water to make it to the playoffs. Look at the NBA. In any given season 5 or 6 teams make the playoffs being barely over .500 or with losing records. And as much as i love Baseball i don’t want to see the World Series end on Thanksgiving
Both sides should agree that if they can’t reach an agreement on the CBA by a date certain that they will submit to binding arbitration. I realize the possibility of this is zero given that ownership in particular has taken the position that they can pressurize the players into taking another lousy deal. But it’s what they should do in their own interests if not those of the fans.
This has been a fantastic subject too which I have my own opinions, which everyone has about this. First, I am not a owner,player or mlb personnel I am a retired trauma nurse that’s over 60. And I am for both the owners and players, but honestly I feel more towards the owners a bit. Why you ask? Let’s start with what someone who is richer than we could understand, call him “owner” and lets walk through what his money does. Each team has 40 players each on their “roster” and what, another 100 in minors, truly do not know exact. But each player has contract with there team. Roughly 150-175 players for each team and their minors? Guess. Now let’s figure out the scouting, the international scouts, college etc. figure out stadiums, concessions etc now each owner has to put out a cool billion or two to “own” a franchise just to run it yearly. Now these same owners have more than “just” a minor league players contract. Now from minor contract, they have 5 years to “get him” to the Show or take a chance at losing to another team. Then once their MLB time starts, the owners have 6.6 I think years before FA ok then the money starts for the players, so let’s go to the player side, the percentage of minors hitting the show before 3 years in minors is extremely low, and the percentage of minors after 5 years to hit the Show is super low. So, even though the owners have to pay around guessing 100 minors, how many get to MLB, and how many average over two years in MLB? So after all the moneys dropped into the minors to get MLB ready players, only a small percentage goes on to help a MLB team compete. So after all the agreements and contacts between players and owners, players have had their chances of helping their younger brethren, did they? No, but now that FA is where the players want it to be as far as getting these generational contracts, they are crying poor to the other players? I cannot feel sorry for that. People saying that the players make the game? Seriously? If you did not have these Uber rich peeps, there would not be a MLB. So sorry, players have to give also. They signed the arbitration and FA time limits, now they are crying cause they cannot get too the riches quicker! I do not feel sorry for them. Now if both sides could get to the real issues, maybe my outlook would change. Streaming games, internet availability true MLB tv not the crap now! And for gods sake! Take away the flippin blackouts! Now these things would make a better product. And please no extra innings with runners on second! And finally this is for ALL SPORTS get politics and social crap out of sports! This is bottom line a entertainment and I sure as hell do not want my sports politicized, I left NFL and NBA cause of this crap, I do not want to leave baseball, but I will if this crap continues. Thanks for letting me rave.
Owners and players in general make too much
The upper tier players should make less
The lower tier players should make more
Wish the mlb would expand roster size to 30
Wish the mlb would have a 4th minor league level for just veterans with 3 or more years of mlb experience so teams can pull from that, plus it adds more jobs (expand protections from 40 man to 50 man). Other teams can sign players to mlb deals off other teams AAAA roster.
NL DH would be fun. Adds more jobs to league.
Should be a spending floor. $100 mill minimum even 90 80 75 mill minimum isnt too much to ask for.
Teams should be able to trade draft picks. Just rounds 1-10 though or 1-5, but only every other year max 5 years in advance.
To me what I find most annoying is they put the major parts of discussion off until January while talking about the minutiae now. Both sides seem happy enough to play chicken while asking the fans to play “which side are you on.”
I wish the survey had more options for players’ salaries. I am more concerned about the minimum salaries than I am about the elite salaries.
itsallbravesnation:
Yeah, I agree. I had a problem with question #3. My feeling is that young player’s salaries are too low, and older players are paid too much, but there wasn’t an option to express that.
The question on who side are you on (players or owners) is probably not worded the best. It basically forces you to take a hard side, when in reality, I think players and owners are all doing well, but the the pie should be distributed differently for the players. So I picked players, but the real answer should be more nuanced.
Fans are left out of the equation. Need lower ticket and concession prices so younger people and kids can go to games. Average age of fans in the 50’s means it is a dying sport.
That means the NFL and the NHL are dying sports too as their average age is in the 50s and also trending up. Pretty much all the major sports have an issue with an aging fanbase, with younger audiences splintering off to other entertainment options, some sports, some not.
BTW Not disagreeing as MLB does have an issue. The very fact they’re all tied to cable packages as cord cutting is increasing prevents them from marketing to wider and younger audiences. I’m about to get rid of my cable provider, knowing I’m basically leaving baseball behind. I’m no longer going to pay the cable fees, especially as all the content is shifting on to streaming platforms. MLB better figure this out fast because it’s reached a tipping point.
There’s nothing wrong with ticket prices. You can attend a game pretty cheap and you’re not forced to eat at the ballpark.
It’s not just about changing the minimum salary. The roster management rules are a big part of the problem for mid-tier players.
Teams are reluctant to sign veterans not just because of their salary but because teams need 14 players with options in order to fill out their 40-man. If MLB were to allow all players to be optioned (with a minimum stay to limit roster manipulation) then signing veterans becomes much more desirable.
Pay everyone on the 40-man a major league salary. And give them major league service time even when they’re not on the active roster. This would shorten the time to arbitration, raise salaries for lower paid players, and make journeyman veterans more marketable.
Nothing more nostalgic and beautiful as watching the old Mets-Orioles World Series games of the 70s—and seeing Jim Palmer and other pitchers bat in the seventh inning of games when the team is LOSING by two runs.
Let’s get a to rule where you can only roster a small number of relief pitchers per game and starting pitchers will naturally be forced to go longer in games.
(allow the overall roster to stay large but limit the number of relief pitchers—with maybe a provision that you can add a pitcher per inning starting at the 11th inning or so)
The removal of specialization and having eight guys available (that all throw 95+) may decrease the three outcome at bats and we can see some real action.
Submit your active roster pregame and add names in case the games go 11, 12+ innings.
Might as well be radical with all the stupid rules we’ve seen recently.
Not sure if this has been addressed but how would a salary floor even be enforced? I get the idea of team must spend 100 million but you know how easy that would be to avoid? I remember the Giants having trouble getting players to come play for them. Year after year they were in on big free agents but batters did not want to come. So they made an effort to spend even more but missed out. Teams like KC and pirates could still miss the salary floor. Agents will also smartly use these sub floor teams as negotiating chips when their client 100 percent want to play for the yankees. I just think you stop giving hand outs(revenue sharing) to these smaller teams because its not being used as it should. Only counter i can think of is if a team doesn’t reach 100mil. Then you proportionally raise the salary of the current roster to get to 100 mil. So the players who actually wanted to come sign and play there would benefit. That might encourage players to go play for a smaller market knowing there is a possibility of a raise if the team is not on track to reach the floor.
It would be difficult to enforce as players have 10/5 rights, and most of the big free agents have no-trade clauses. That means it would be difficult to move a big contract to a low-payroll team. For example, when Pujols was on the Angels, perhaps a team under the floor would want to take on his contract. Pujols would have to agree, but no way would he want to go off to a rebuilding team. The only way a salary floor could be introduced would be the same way as the salary “cap” (luxury tax) has been implemented. Soft floor. Team would pay increasing penalties the lower their team payroll was, and those penalties would increase year, just as they do on the high end. That could work.
What I’m surprised at is the number of fans who believe a salary cap would make their own teams more competitive. It wouldn’t. The NFL, for example, is not more competitive than MLB. Salary cap only helps owners.
I agree about the salary cap. I voted for the highest cap available. Let owners spend as much as they want to.
With the idea of teams paying a penalty, who will that benefit? Where does that money go? I want that penalty to go directly to the players. I was thinking more about the free agent players when it came to owners reaching their minimum. If they only get to 70mil by opening day, well then every 40 man gets a 30percent bonus. So they can pay their players more than they’re worth or spend that money and actually acquire new players. So the players will benefit at first but owners would realize they should acquire new talent with that money.
This could be ideal for guys looking for just a pillow contract. For examaple twins are offering a player 5 mil and so are the pirates. Well pirates have two 40 man spots left and are sitting at 60 mil so thats likely a salary bump. That helps lore some better talent to the bottom 5 teams. Plus you play well and you know they’ll flip you. Fans get to see some better competition and players get paid.
I said 10 teams in the playoffs but I think it depends on format….I don’t love one game play ins as baseball is so random. A 3 or 5 game series would be better but it’s tough to do that if some teams have a bye.
I used to attend 30 to 40 games a year. After the 1994 labor fiasco, I quit going to games and haven’t been to one since. In fact, I don’t watch games on television anymore either. I only follow baseball on the internet, reading boxscores and reviewing the standings. We don’t need baseball,, baseball’s players and owners need us. To continue to disrespect the game through various labor disputes and work stoppages sends a clear message- move on from baseball. There are several other entertainment options.
It’s interesting how many readers are in favor of the NL DH. Maybe a certain percentage of them are already AL fans who don’t have an issue with it. But still, the results imply that all the diehards who rail against the DH in the NL on various comment boards are just a vocal minority..
FWIW, I’m an active NL fan who attends a lot of games and I’m in favor of the DH in the NL. I used to think it was kind of cute that it was different in each league. But I think the arguments about the DH reducing strategy are overblown and not as important as enduring the rally killing spectacle of pitchers batting.
After a while, the novelty of the hitting pitcher wore off for me. To me it’s like watching a linebacker being told to play quarterback. All it does is reduce the quality of play.
I’m an NL fan and I’m anti-DH in the NL. I’d honestly prefer they did away with Interleague play as a means to settle this and left the DH rules as is for each league. The World Series felt more special then. Plus I hate all the specialization in the game now.
I will say one proposal I saw that I could be okay with is linking the DH to the SP. Pull your starter, lose your DH. It’d motivate teams to let their SP go deeper and cut down on some pitching changes.
So weird to “pick a side.”
When you see two people negotiating over a car price, do you start rooting for one of them? Both sides know how to advocate for themselves.
I can guarantee you neither the owners nor the players care about your salary or your employer’s quarterly statement.
We have way too much celebrity worship in our society haha.
All of us here probably would agree that baseball is a game for the fans. So let the fans decide. Fans should be an arbitrary voice if sides to not come to an agreement at a certain deadline. Each side would have to approve or nobody gets paid. Including the owners. Stop pussyfooting dilly dallying around and come to an agreement. Players owners and fans certainly do not want any of this
Make a decision and end this bickering!!!
It really seems like this survey was set up to make us pick a “side”.
& that seems to be something endemic in any current issue. Pandemics, racial problems, economics, & elections all seem to galvanize a sense of two polar opposites with no concessions made either way. This total binary attitude is putting our Country through a lot of strife. Need look no further than Right Here. Threads somehow get shut down over things like a tragic passing of a young player. All due to this attitude of “pick a side, bro.” If you think about it, that’s pretty embarrassing.
Blue collar guys are “supposed” to side with the players, while white collar guys should take the ownership side. Uh?
I spent years as a building tradesman. My experience there was markedly different from professional ballplayers. In fact, it differs so much that to compare the two is of: Absolutely No Worth At All.
I clawed my way up – in some respects – to where I now am an owner of a construction company. To compare my experience with my company to owning an MLB franchise is – again – completely worthless. It is an entirely different world. Financially & socially.
Not one of us can relate to either side. Yet the vast majority of posters will entrench themselves & their arguments to one opposing view. Of which they have absolutely nothing in common with! Just look at question #1, bro. It’s going to be more of this “to hell with ya if you disagree with me.” stuff. & that is a sure money wager.
Tldr; none of us can relate to the players or owners. The End. Picking a “side” is nonsense & will only lead to worthless & constant arguments.
It’s the way of the world now, I’m afraid. The ability to see both sides used to be considered enlightened but is now seen as a weakness.
The primary issue that bothers me and receives very little attention is that these franchises are increasing significantly in value every year, yet the owners aren’t typically willing to reinvest their increased equity into their teams. I’m sure the Pirates, Twins, Royals, Diamondbacks, Marlines, Guardians and A’s are worth significantly more than their purchase prices, yet these owners cry poverty and being a small market. Mike Illitch bought the Tigers in 1992 for $80M and the team in now worth somewhere around $2.5B or more. That’s an increase of 30x.
My point is the owners keep getting richer via the increase in their franchise’s value and are taking more advantage of the players while we as fans suffer. Not sure what the answer is, but would suggest implementing a salary floor and tying a team salary to the value of the franchise.. Of course there would need to be an upper limit since the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers are all likely worth more than $6B.
In the end, the owners keep the value of their franchises increasing, the players receive more pay/benefits and we get our game back. I know this will never happen, but one can only hope.
Would have liked to have seen a “I don’t care either way because TTO is so boring I stopped watching already” but I guess that is a different survey.
The average fan is 58 and the games are long, slow and boring in an era with rapidly shrinking attention spans. Good luck selling it to the TikTok generation.
Having a lockout now is like fighting over who gets to sit in the nice deck chairs on the Titanic and who has to sit in the still nice but not quite as nice deck chairs on the Titanic.
Maybe focus on the bigger picture…
Maybe you should be pointing the blame at those who have the short attention span. People are too selfish and want immediate gratification. If you can’t sit back and enjoy a game, it’s not the game that need to change, it’s the individual.
i say fwtbt said it best, tom
“It’s not my job to be less boring, it’s your job to more attentively suffer through my boredom!”
Good luck with that sales pitch.
Baseball needs fans more than fans need baseball. They forget that at their peril.
Anyone who wants the Dumb Hitter (DH) in the National League are morons & idiots because the Dumb Hitter (DH) DOES NOT BELONG in the Game of Baseball & only wants to destroy the game for the True Baseball fans who prefer the Traditional Game of Baseball Anyone who prefers the Dumb Hitter (DH) should be only fans of the American League & should leave the National League alone.
Easily the dumbest comment I’ve seen on here. By the way, that’s saying a lot.
i’d say you were wrong
It’s been around for 50 years now and even George Ruth himself was in favor of it way back in the 1920’s…
blow the leagues up and start over
If he’s so familiar with the concept then explain HIS comment to which I was replying…..
Poor survey, not enough options. The answers to these questions are more complicated than this survey. Most fans are smart enough nowadays to understand that this is more complicated than choosing sides between owners and players
That’s generally the problem with all surveys and all polls.