10:05 pm: Drellich reports that MLB remained displeased with the reduced proposed cuts to revenue sharing in the union’s latest offer, writing “there’s no indication” MLB is willing to make any alterations to the revenue sharing system.
4:45 pm: In addition to holding firm on their push for two-year arbitration, the MLBPA remained steadfast on a few more of their top goals. Jeff Passan of ESPN reports that the union proposal included a bump in the league minimum salary to $775K, the institution of an eight-team draft lottery and a $245MM base luxury tax threshold. All three issues had been known goals of the MLBPA in past proposals, and the setting of the CBT threshold is expected to be of particular import. In recent offers, MLB has pushed for tax thresholds in the $214MM – $220MM range, leaving a fairly significant gap between the parties.
3:51 pm: As part of this afternoon’s collective bargaining proposal, the MLB Players Association dropped its push for an earlier path to major league free agency, reports Evan Drellich of the Athletic. It now seems likely the next CBA will require players to accrue six years of MLB service time in order to reach the open market — as had been the case under prior agreements.
The game’s service time structure is one of the most contentious issues during ongoing negotiations. The MLBPA, desiring to get players to free agency earlier, had previously been pursuing a modified service/age threshold that would’ve allowed players to test the market after six years of MLB service or after five years of service if the player had reached a certain age (initially 30.5 years, later 29.5).
Major League Baseball had steadfastly refused to entertain that possibility, either pushing for a continuation of the six-year status quo or an age threshold (29.5, in MLB’s previous offers) that was independent of service time. It seems the league will get its wish to preserve the path to free agency as is, marking a significant development.
In an additional alteration, Drellich reports that the MLBPA agreed to alter its push for reduced revenue sharing from large-market organizations to small-market franchises. Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post adds more specifics, reporting (on Twitter) that the union’s latest offer included a revenue sharing cut in the $30MM range relative to the 2016-21 CBA.
Earlier in the winter, the union had been pushing to cut revenue sharing by around $100MM. The past CBA required recipients to use those funds “to improve (their) performance on the field,” but there was no provision that required teams to invest the money into player salaries (as opposed to such things as scouting, analytics or player development, all of which indirectly attempt to improve team performance). The MLBPA has expressed its belief that smaller-market clubs have been too content to pocket that money, filing grievances to that effect against the A’s, Marlins, Rays and Pirates in recent years.
As with an expedited path to free agency, the league has opposed modifications to the revenue sharing system. It remains to be seen whether that pushback is categorical or one of degree. The MLBPA’s proposal still included a revenue sharing cut, of course, but it’s significantly smaller than the union’s previous pushes in that regard.
While the MLBPA made a pair of notable steps towards MLB’s vision, one thing that hasn’t changed is the union’s desire for earlier arbitration eligibility. Drellich reports that the union’s proposal this afternoon would allow players to qualify for arbitration after reaching two years of MLB service, as have all of the PA’s past offers. (The previous CBA required three years for arbitration eligibility for most players). MLB has thus far refused to discuss earlier paths to arbitration, either. Whether the league will be more amenable to that possibility now that the union has made some changes in other key areas is unclear.
Janes tweets that this afternoon’s meeting lasted around two hours and fifteen minutes. Encouragingly, the parties are set to meet again tomorrow, according to a report from Hannah Keyser of Yahoo! Sports (Twitter link). At that sit-down, MLB plans to put forth some form of counter-offer, tweets Drellich, although the league won’t make a comprehensive proposal that hits on every topic of discussion. It seems possible today’s proposal will kick-start negotiations, which have moved at a glacial pace in the nearly two months since the start of the lockout.
That’s not to say agreement on a new deal is imminent. According to Drellich, the MLBPA “rejected most, if not all” of the terms the league put forth in its most recent offer, a bit more than two weeks ago. Jeff Passan of ESPN tweets that today’s meeting was “contentious;” Drellich categorized it as “heated.”
It also bears reiterating that the full specifics of the MLBPA’s proposal aren’t known. In addition to ongoing potential holdups regarding arbitration eligibility and revenue sharing, such issues as the competitive balance tax, league minimum salary and playoff expansion will need to be sorted out. With a bit more than a month before the scheduled start of the first Spring Training games, the parties have to make rapid progress in a number of areas if a disruption to the exhibition schedule is to be avoided.
Fred Park
Hurry up!
I’m 85+ and my clock is ticking. As much as I have loved baseball, I deserve some consideration.
And like Joe Jackson said in Field of Dreams, “There are others.”
prov356
God Bless you Fred. Who’s your team?
Fred Park
Dodgers from 1946-77, and Mariners from then on solely due to close proximiity to Portland.
I see I have to look up some verses here. Oh wait, I know verses 5 and 6. Whatsamattawime?
Thank you, prov356.
prov356
Proverbs 3:5-6 is a go to as is Philippians 4:4-7.
prov356
I was at Dodgers Stadium this past season for a game. Such an iconic spot. The broadcasts aren’t the same without Vin at the mic.
kodiak920
It isn’t, but, Charlie isn’t bad. You can tell he loves baseball.
prov356
For sure.
Fred Park
Yes, I know, prov356.
I miss Joe Garagiola too.
And I want to thank all of you guys here today for your generous spirit and kind words.
Hoping we get some baseball in on schedule.
Steve Nebraska
Why do some commenters keep saying that “players aren’t against revenue sharing?” This article is proof.
frontdeskmike
Psalm 137:9
nukeg
I think we need Fred Park in that room.
Astros Hot Takes
Amen to both – those are both in my top 3
Balk
My Grandfather left me Prov. 3 5-6 in a note to me before he passed. I have it still after 20 years. Glad to see others enjoy it as much as I do. It’s a part of my armor daily
Pete'sView
Fred Park – Given your fandom for the Dodgers 1946-77, I’m surprised you don’t like Ebbets Field more than the rather pasty Chavez Ravine—not that it’s bad, but it just doesn’t have the color Ebbets had.
As a young kid, my first game ever was at Ebbets, and I can name that entire roster, right down to Walt Moryn and Erv Palica.
HalosHeavenJJ
Charlie was great at calling boxing. One of my all time favorites and I’m a massive boxing fan. I’m not a huge fan of him at baseball, but he does love the game.
In that vein, Chick Hearn was brilliant at calling boxing. Justifiably gets overlooked due to his greatness with the Lakers, but he’s easily top 2-3 of my lifetime.
prov356
That’s awesome Balk.
Fred Park
@Pete’sView, Oh, Ebbets Field is sacred for sure, but I never got to see it.
All I could do earlier, in Idaho, was watch the newspapers and catch them on radio once in a while.
For some reason, maybe tropospheric scatter of radio waves, us kids could catch the Brooklyn Dodgers on radio.
I was in the Navy stationed at Long Beach when the Dodgers left Brooklyn.
you’re no spring chicken yourself, I see.
Wonderful memories, no doubt about it.
not alkaline
I dont understand why the players are against revenue sharing. It seems at least theoretically that it would help make things more competitive. I guess I am missing something.
acell10
Players aren’t against revenue sharing just how it’s being used. If the smaller market teams are going to pocket that money instead of using to improve their rosters then players would rather it stay with the big market clubs who will actually sign free agents and pay their players.
Fred Park
@frontdeskmike, thank you.
All of you guys are blessing my life mightily today.
Thank you and it is good to find friends hereabouts.
BeansforJesus
The “players” and players’ union” are two separate things. The players union won’t fight hard for minimum salaries since those dues will come in regardless, the names of players paying the dues doesn’t matter. They care more about free agency and free agent salaries because raising those will increase revenue.
Just let the next set of union reps worry about the people on the bottom, at least they can say they kind of tried for a little bit.
balloonknots
On the field payroll budget vs total gross revenue as % spent – will shock you as to who are the owners pocketing the money. It’s more big markets abusing system by saying well i have to stay under the cap than the competitive small markets teams.
Zerbs63
Steiner is an awful radio play-by-play announcer. He is such a homer and gets overly excited over nothing. The exact opposite of Vin Scully. Scully would allow the moment and the roar of the crowd make it exciting. Steiner tries to make the routine exciting, by changing the inflection of his voice, changing his tone or speeding up his delivery. He tries to announce things as they are happening and guess what will happen, rather than wait for it to happen and tell us what happened. With his approach Steiner stumbles over his words and makes it confusing to understand what is actually taking place. He often gets players confused. I’ve found that when I can’t watch a game on tv
I just use the digital game service rather than listen to Steiner.
Fire Krall
agree
ldoggnation
Steiner is a cheap reject from back East and is horrible.
No one can replace Scully, just like Bob Miller of the Kings. But the Kings went out and got a young sensational guy who calls a great game.
bucketbrew35
RemovePitcherWinsFromTheRecordBooks as if you mentioning this in EVERY article comment will suddenly make it happen for you. Grow up.
Deleted_User
@bucketbrew35 What are you, another one of his alts or something? Take a seat.
Fred Park
@prov356, I didn’t really make myself clear.
I am a Mariners fan, yes, but I still bleed Dodger blue. I just go back so far with that team. Even before Jackie Robinson.
I hope everyone has a good day today with better MLB news tomorrow.
And I preach Philippians 4:4-7 to family and friends, too.
You gotta have that to give you strength, especially in these times.
prov356
For sure Fred. BTW, God forgives you for being a Mariners fan!
Fred Park
Whew!
MLB Top 100 Commenter
I hope that you get many more seasons!
bucsfan0004
Earlier path to FA is stupid, especially for fans of small market clubs. Just stop the service time manipulation and let’s go – spring training is in a month.
Yadi Dadi
Earlier path is not stupid when the owners refuse to stop the service time manipulation, so unless that is regulated as a part of the final deal, this was a bad move. Small market teams have plenty of chance to compete in the modern era if they smart and make a legit effort instead of pocketing their revenue sharing and d***ing over their fans.
WhoNoze
Literally anything can be manipulated. If you belong to a fantasy league, do you ever look for an edge? That’s a form of manipulation; you interpret the rules according to your benefit. and act accordingly. If you don’t, you’ll finish last in your league and last in life.
iverbure
Service time manipulation is way overblown by fans. For every Kris Bryant who came up and performed excellent there’s 5-10 kelenic’s or vlad jrs who struggled so much it made fans and media alike suggesting service time manipulation look like complete buffoons.
Owners don’t compete for championships as that’s not as important as money. Mlbpa should be focused on a English premier league system where teams couple for tiers of money the more they win. That way teams will have to decide if keeping their 19-20 year old in the minors is worth potentially losing out on millions this year. Make each tier worth something that way In September the two last place teams in their division have something to play for and fans won’t see a triple a roster vs double a roster.
seamaholic 2
English Premeir League isn’t that much different than MLB. The bigger market teams sell more tickets and have more money. Period.
marcfrombrooklyn
The problem with service time manipulation is that most every service time threshold, whether for arbitration eligibility or free agency, will be subject to manipulation. My only thought would be to set arbitration at two seasons plus two months and free agency at five years and two months. Those would put the call up date as around August 10, where it would not make any practical sense to hold a prospect in the minors. But, those would require concessions by the owners for earlier free agency, which seems like an non-starter. Perhaps a trade of free agency at six years, two months but arbitration at two years, two months? The players and owners surely have calculated the values of all kinds of changes in arbitration and free agency eligibility, so they may be able to find dates that work for both. The only other method I can think of, putting “good faith” language in the CBA with respect to call ups, would lead to grievances left and right, making it impractical.
Patrick OKennedy
The language should be put into the CBA. I don’t think it would lead to many grievances.
First, there aren’t that many cases of blatant service time manipulation
Second, part of the grievance would be to prove the club’s motive for not calling a player up
Third, those players who are kept down for an extra couple of weeks wind up getting a fourth season of arbitration. Rarely does a team keep them down so long that they miss out on the 56 days that it would take to deny them arbitration for another season.
The way to solve the grievance issue is to make the penalties for manipulation severe, such as loss of draft picks as well as money.
Pete'sView
Not that I’m a fan of the Owners, but I can understand their resistance to lowering the time for free agency, since it is they that have spent the money (theoretically) on developing the player.
Of course, it is way past time to pay minor leaguers a decent salary (which the MLBPA apparently wants no part of). Anyway, free agency—according to yesterday’s proposal form the players union—is now off the table. This is a smart move by the MLBPA, and let’s hope the Owners now offer something in return. Like earlier arbitration.
bucsfan0004
Its not so much the Kris Bryant case (although what the Cubs did with him was egregious), but the volume of players who get held back until June. Just think of the players on the teams you follow – Cole, Mccutchen, Polanco, Marte…. they all made the league minimum for 3 years because they were held back in the minors until June…
This is service time manipulation.
I really could care less if the league minimum is 575k or 700k. These AAA players make 60 grand, so whether the MLB minimum is 10x or 11x their previous salary makes no real difference. But when these players are still making that amount 3 years later after fans are wearing their t-shirts, collecting their bobbleheads, attending more games to see them, etc, the players have become a huge asset to the organization… but because of service time manipulation years back, they are not making what they should be.
ButchAdams
Screw small market teams. If ur city can’t support a team with a payroll high enough to compete, then move or contract.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Adams;
It is not the city it is the owner. There are plenty of wealthier prospective owners. Owners of clubs like Pittsburgh are siphoning off profits for themselves. If it was a non-monopoly, I would say fine that is free enterprise. But the monopoly gives teams a financial incentive to lose and have a low payroll and make money that way. If MLB let cities have teams with IPOs, they would shine the light on the system increase interest in the game and have an influx of more money.
MarlinsFanBase
@MannyBeingMVP
Good points, I can add more as a Marlins fan that so many people forget about the ‘Good Ole Boys Club’ that runs MLB.
Back around 2001, when John Henry was the Marlins owner, Jefferey Loria was ruining baseball in Montreal, and the Red Sox were looking to sell, Bud Selig and the rest of the ownership club figured to use a strategy that kept Loria and Henry (who was claiming poverty in Miami) in ownership. Selig, with the support of the rest of the ownership, made that underhanded deal that blocked Mark Cuban from bidding on any MLB team that was or became available, and prevented Gustavo Cisneros from purchasing the Marlins from Henry. We all know that Cuban spends to win. And Cisneros planned to build his own stadium and make the Marlins his feature sports team of his Latin American TV empire. Instead of allowing Cuban to make bids on the Expos and Red Sox or letting Cisneros purchase the Marlins, they all moved Loria to Miami, Henry to Boston, and put the Expos up for sale with a move to DC.
Loria proceeded to mess with baseball fandom in Miami after it was already hurt by Huizenga, with Henry following up with a waste of everyone’s time…interestingly after the NHL rejected him for giving them the impression of being a BS artist when it comes to finances. Henry amazingly finds money in his pocket to purchase the Red Sox for more than it cost to own the Marlins and fund his own stadium. MLB refuses to let Cuban bid on the Expos/Nats after the smoke cleared on the Red Sox and Marlins shady deal.
When you look at this particular case, you see what happens with MLB behind the ownership scenes.
For Love of the Game
5.5 years to free agency. You won’t be able to call up Adley Ruschman in April or early May; you’d have to wait until the season is half over. But this still allows late-season callups to not accelerate their timetable.
slider32
Call ups don’t effect enough players to worry about, not worth the effort!
SheaGoodbye
Then the higher-end players need to get paid more via arbitration. An elite/very good player should not have to wait several years to get compensated anywhere near their actual worth. It simply is not fair.
nukeg
Bucs fan and other fans of small market teams: out of curiosity, do you think the current revenue sharing and FA timing is working?
implant
@nukeg. Aside from the luxury tax revenue small market teams get each team receives 200 million a year in local (revenue shared) and national tv money. Can’t use that money for salaries?
bucsfan0004
Why yes i do. Nutting has his ‘Scrooge McDuck room’ half-filled with gold from revenue sharing proceeds. In another 10 years it will be full. Its not the system, its the owners.
Yadi Dadi
I like when my favorite team can keep control over players we drafted and developed…but this seems like Clark is steering head on into another huge defeat.
With the way that 30+ yr old free agents get lowballed post-“steroid era” this makes little sense to me. Maybe I missed something but unless they got something huge in return they have basically thrown their most important issue out the window
stymeedone
@yadi
Clark is not the one negotiating this time.
48-team MLB
Hopefully this means that Braves/White Sox is on schedule.
In nurse follars
Make everyone play on one year contracts. Free agency for all will light up the hot stove and let the market decide values. How great will that game of musical chairs be?
48-team MLB
That’s a bit extreme but I do agree that anything more than five years guaranteed is excessive.
prov356
Couldn’t disagree more. I love the “career one team player” of the old days. Trout, for example, will be an Angel for his career. Loyalty matters.
Billy Baroo
Players can choose to stay if they want no matter how short they make the waiting period for free agency.
In no field outside MLB do people expect employees to give up their right to choose an employer for so long. Would anyone think it fair that a contractor could hire Joe the Electrician and that Joe could not ply his trade for anyone else for the next 10+ years if the contractor didn’t want him to? Don’t forget, Joe’s not just any electrician, he’s in the top 1% of all electricians in the country.
Get drafted at 18, a team can, without strain, keep control of you until you’re 31. The average age of a free agent is anywhere from 29-31, depending on which season you look at. The tail end of a player’s athletic peak, aside from true genetic freaks, and an age when teams are leery of long-term commitments.
Yeah, major league players get paid a lot relative to the average worker. Yeah, great players usually force teams to call them up sooner — not every great player, right, Edgar Martinez? Principles don’t change just because there are a lot of zeroes involved.
smuzqwpdmx
There are lots of ways to get more one team players without using it as a way to rip off the players. Give teams a free draft pick for *keeping* a player, instead of a free draft pick for letting him sign elsewhere. Make it so a team re-signing their own star doesn’t count as much (or maybe at all) against their luxury tax. Require a portion of revenue sharing money to be used on re-signing home grown players. Etc. Unfortunately MLB has no interest in such things, if it’s not a tool to reduce salaries then it doesn’t matter to them. It would be good for the game though, I agree.
Sid Bream Speed Demon
An interesting parallel to Bird rights from the NBA. I don’t see it as doing anything but help Yankees and Dodgers, as the Pirates and Rays are never close to the luxury tax. Not only don’t I think it would help, but I think it would hurt the game.
iverbure
That’s a terrible suggestion because the mlbpa wouldn’t allow it.
kodiak920
Charles Finley proposed that decades ago.
Dorothy_Mantooth
With the amount of money it costs teams to draft players (especially in the first 3 rounds) plus the cost of development, the drafting team certainly deserves to keep control of a player for a certain number of years. Once they reach free agency, both the players and the teams like the stability of long term deals to remain with the team. Players can buy houses and put down roots in the market vs. worrying where they’ll need to move to next season. I’d be in favor of ‘term limits’ on contracts (max 7 year deals) but there’s no way the players would agree to that. If they can get a 10+ year guarantee, they’ll want to keep those rights. One thing’s for sure, there is no way either side would agree to one year deals every season.
Billy Baroo
Teams get a huge bargain from drafting players rather than signing them in anything like an open market. We saw it way back in 1996, when four drafted players were declared free agents and signed for 150% to 500% more than the largest previous bonus ever.
The only thing that keeps a competent lawyer from blowing the draft system apart is that the money is high enough to keep people from rocking the boat. In what other field would people go along with the idea that the right to decide who you’ll work for and for much can be determined by someone who doesn’t represent you and whose interests are directly antithetical to yours?
Leave the amount of money and “they get paid to play a game” aside.
You come out of a good college, top grades, data science diploma in your hand, and the Data Scientists Union, to which you DO NOT belong, says “Congrats! You’ve been offered a job with Mediocre Data Analysis Incorporated in Outer Nowhere, Nebraska! Don’t want to work for them? Fine, we can’t make you go, but you can’t work as a Data Scientist for any decent data company in the country.”
RedsArmy
Any sport has a responsibility to ensure competitive balance, which is what a draft does. Otherwise the best players would all flock to the biggest markets, which is very often what you see in free agency.
As a fan of a smaller market team, the interests of large markets to buy up the player market runs directly antithetical to my interests. Fairness always relies on balancing individual interests with the common good, and there’s plenty of legal basis for sticking up for the common good. Individual players have a stake in the long-term health of their sport, too.
pt57
Why should it be up to players to ensure profitability of small market teams? Shouldn’t that be up to the owners first (more comprehensive revenue sharing)?
Billy Baroo
The baseball draft contributes marginally to competitive balance, because the prospect failure rate is so high.
Players want to play. If you’re a free agent second basemen and the top X big market teams already have that spot filled, neither you nor they will pursue a contract. I don’t mean to minimize your concern, but solid revenue sharing and a requirement to devote shared dollars to payroll takes the nasty edge off the “all the big clubs will horde the best players.”
I’m not against the draft per se. I’d like to see two big changes. First, eliminate (or fix, somehow) the slotting / pool system so the amateurs get closer to their free market value. Second, reduce the amount of team control, so getting drafted doesn’t commit a player to so many years without a say in who they work for.
Not sure what that would look like, exactly. There are lots of possibilities. Cut down the time needed to reach both major and minor league free agency. Count X% of time spent in the minors while on the 40 man as major league service time. Set a free agent age trigger == if you’re 28/29, or you’ve been in pro ball at any level for 9 years, and you haven’t signed an extension, you’re a FA,
implant
Marvin Miller was dead set against this. Salaries for most would drop. Don’t want to flood the market
Platypus
REVERSE THE DRAFT ORDER. Best record not in the playoffs gets first pick and so on. It wont happen but it would change tanking. Plus the “middle class” of 30-34 year old free agents would be signing deals.
and give teams extra picks somewhere in the draft if they eclipse a certain amount of wins.
seamaholic 2
What a horrible idea. This is brought up by libertarian-minded fanboys in every sport that has a draft (which is to say, every sport) whenever there’s a negotiation, and is summarily rejected by both sides instantly. The reason is it just substitutes another — and worse — tanking situation for the one we have. Imagine being in the running for the last playoff spot — a one game play-in on the road — with the “consolation” prize being the first overall draft pick. Whatcha gonna do? You will have teams deciding they’d rather have the pick. Lots of them.
Tanking is not a competitive phenomenon, it’s an economic one. Tanking is economically rational because winning is not connected very well to revenue. That’s what you need to fix.
WhoNoze
You’re correct that it’s a horrible idea, but it’s certainly not “libertarian”.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
Exactly.
A horrible libertarian idea would be trying to build their own country off the coast of Panama by setting up sea pods and old cruise ships as a way to avoid regulation only to learn the hard way that international waters are some of the most regulated places on Earth and then losing a fortune before giving up.
Which happened.
WhoNoze
One of the few “horrible” Libertarian ideas, I remember it well and was a student of the UN LOSC at the time and aware of all the regulatory encumbrances inherent with that project. There’s virtually no place to hide from the long tenticles of government, but we can dream…
Cubneck
Not so sure. At that point it becomes a choice of earlier draft pick Or the extra playoff revenue. I think most of us agree that almost any owner would choose extra millions over an earlier draft pick.
smuzqwpdmx
I’m not fond of that draft proposal, but no MLB team would rather have the draft pick than the playoff spot. Not with the huge revenues playoffs can bring (not just directly but season ticket sales for the next year), the fact that everyone in it has almost as good a chance at winning the world series, and the fact that draft picks usually don’t pan out.
Dorothy_Mantooth
You don’t need to reverse it, but they can go to an evenly-weighted lottery for the bottom 8 teams to see which team gets the #1 pick. That would prevent intentional tanking at the end of the season for sure.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Agree, evenly-weighted lottery for bottom eight teams sounds good.
Thesecondjamie
Orrrr, the team that gets closest to the playoffs but misses gets #1 the second best record not in the playoff gets #2 and so on
That way draft order in terms of 1 is the best record and 30 is the worst11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The problem I see with my own proposal is that a #1 pick might be more valuable than a measly wild card spot and fringe teams might tank out of the playoffs
kellin
Looks like the 8 team lottery is something the MLBPA wants per recent update on this article
Patrick OKennedy
The players’ proposal is to have all teams that don’t make the playoffs participate in a lottery for the top 8 picks.
Owners want 3 teams in a lottery for the top 3 picks.
I wrote about this issue in more detail here.
blessyouboys.com/2021/12/13/22830846/mlb-lockout-c…
There is a decent difference between the first and second pick overall, and the second and third pick, but after that, it’s a total crap shoot. And even the top picks have only a 50% chance of every achieving 5.0 career WAR.
Couple that with the fact that all TV revenue comes on long term deals, most of that from national TV which all teams get, and local revenues have to be shared 48% to the pool, and there’s just no incentive left to win. How many players does a team need to sign to make up 1 million in attendance, with nets them maybe $50 million at the gate, half of which is shared with other teams?
The way to incentivize spending is to require that those dollars are spent on player salaries.
Pads Fans
I commented on one of your other posts and mistakenly thought you were saying 50% chance of a 5.0 WAR season. Now I see you are saying 5.0 WAR in their entire career. That is on the money.
Cubneck
But what about those teams that decide before a season starts that they want to lose to get the highest pick possible. They will still try to be bottom 8 instead of sign a few players and finish 10th to 15th
Patrick OKennedy
Teams generally tank for money, not for draft picks.
To prevent tanking (not spending),either a salary floor, or a tax on lower payrolls, or requiring teams to spend their revenue sharing dollars is needed.
It might help if ticket sales were kept by the home team (particularly in small markets) instead of 48% going to revenue sharing, since that is the one revenue stream that is immediately impacted by winning or losing.
RobM
My concern is they’ll institute an international draft and that will further incent teams to tank with not one, but now two options where pushing to lose means the best draft pick. Now picks.
JoeBrady
No it won’t. By depriving bad teams of good picks, it only encourages them to spend less. When bad teams get better, via top picks, like Detroit, it makes economic sense for them to sign guys to compete.
If teams like Baltimore & Pittsburgh never get above 60 wins, because they have weak drafting positions, it won’t make sense for them to spend another $40M to get to 70 wins. if they can get to 80, it will motivate them to get to 90.
Dad
Baltimore has no scouts in Latin American ! Year around all they do there is play baseball . That’s why Baltimore stinks every year
bklynny67
Yea what a great idea. Let’s give an already potentially 85-90 win team the first overall pick. LOL… No
Dustyslambchops23
Why not?
Rewards a team for trying and having a good year, it’s incentive to not be in the basement.
48-team MLB
@Dustylambchops
That’s a terrible idea. You can’t build a contender through free agency from scratch. The teams at the bottom would never improve even if they tried.
JoeBrady
I’m a little disappointed that we didn’t hear, or the union didn’t announce, the cap tax or the minimum wage.
That said, I applaud the union conceding the 6 years. That is a step forward that puts the onus back on the owners to counter. I don’t think they would be far apart on the minimum salary. The owners will have to acknowledge the 7% inflation, and the union can’t ask for 20%. The cap could be an issue, but if the owners concede on the draft pick forfeiture, then the union can reduce their demands for 20% cap increase.
If I were the union, I’d settle these issues on reasonable terms, and then save the expanded playoffs for last. Once they settle, they go back to being the ‘good guys’, and have no problems just skipping the expanded playoffs. That’s a pretty big cudgel.
Pads Fans
The MLBPA mentioned both. $245 million CBT with much smaller penalties and no draft pick or IFA pool losses for going over. $775K MLB minimum going up to $875k in final season of CBA. No movement from the MLBPA on those points.
The union did make two huge concessions, FA and amount revenue sharing to be cut back by, and asked for a major change in language on revenue sharing. The simple language change may be the largest thing they have asked for to cut tanking. Simply put, they asked for language that says that the revenue sharing must be spent on major league player salaries.
Patrick OKennedy
“and asked for a major change in language on revenue sharing. The simple language change may be the largest thing they have asked for to cut tanking. Simply put, they asked for language that says that the revenue sharing must be spent on major league player salaries.”
That makes perfect sense. Where did you read that?
Simply asking for a reduction in revenue sharing makes no sense.
Pads Fans
Heard it on MLB Network radio early this afternoon pacific.
gwell55
how will that work on revenue sharing… if they get 30000 rev. share can’t they just spend 30K from rev. share and then 22 K of there money then the next year claim 40K if they receive that much more and 15k of their own money thus getting around that?
Patrick OKennedy
That depends on how they write up the rules.
I would put all revenue sharing dollars into a trust and only let teams withdraw the funds to pay player salaries in excess of $1 million per season.
Don’t spend it, you don’t get it. THAT would help competitive balance.
Pads Fans
All of the teams that get revenue sharing receive over $70 million. I believe a few get even more.
Right now the union is asking for the language about how that money is spent by the receiving team to be changed to that it has to be spent on player salaries.
Since the large market teams are the ones paying out that money, they will probably be happy to see teams like the Pirates and Orioles be forced to spend that money instead of it ending up in the small market owners pockets.
With the Pirates projected at $52 million and the Orioles at $56 million, that change in language would mean $32 million more going to players of those 2 teams in 2022. In 2021 five teams had 40 man payrolls of $60 million or less.
stansfield123
If they also drop the arbitration demand, this union should just be dissolved. There’s no point in having them around.
Young stars HAVE to make more than the league minimum. It’s insane that a 40 year old has-been can make 20 times more money than some of the best players in baseball, and the people who are supposed to represent players’ interests aren’t doing anything about it.
iverbure
Shoulda accepted the league’s proposal based on war or however they were going to decide it. Ei paying the best players who perform more. The union hates that idea because players have up actually perform though.
Pads Fans
WAR is not accurate enough by a long shot. Over a 450 game sample it averages out, but basing arbitration on a stat that requires 450 games to be accurate is a no go.
Then you have the problem of it being completely useless for catchers, 1B and relief pitchers.
Arbitration today is based on performance already.
Tomahawk Takeover
WAR is not accurate at all because it’s a stat that can’t be proven. There are far too many ifs and buts that make it irrelevant.
Pads Fans
WAR can be proven. People that simply cannot understand the math always make claims like yours.
It takes a certain amount of data to make it work and that amount of data is too much to be of use to arbitration eligible players.
Sid Bream Speed Demon
No different than most labor unions.
Fever Pitch Guy
stansfield – Yes you’re right, if only there was a way for young stars to make more than the minimum. Guys like ….
Fernando Tatis Jr – $365M at Age 21 after just 84 games
Wander Franco – $182M at Age 20 after just 104 days in MLB
Bumgarner – $35M at Age 20 after just 1 year 127 days in MLB
Simmons – $58M at Age 24 after just 1 year 125 days in MLB
Albies – $35M at Age 22 after just 1 year 77 days in MLB
Yelich – $49.5M at Age 23 after just 1 year 69 days in MLB
Goldschmidt – $32M at Age 25 after just 1 year 59 days in MLB
Rizzo – $41M at Age 23 after just 1 year 40 days in MLB
Tulowitzki – $134M at Age 23 after just 1 year 33 days in MLB
Braun – $45M at Age 24 after just 1 year 8 days in MLB
Acuna – $100M at Age 21 after just 165 days in MLB
Archer – $25.5M at Age 25 after just 156 days in MLB
DeJong – $26M at Age 24 after just 124 days in MLB.
Tim Anderson – $25M at Age 24 after just 115 days in MLB
Brandon Lowe – $24M at Age 24 after just 58 days in MLB
Salvador Perea – $7M at Age 21 after just 50 days in MLB
Evan Longoria – $17.5M at Age 22 after just 24 days in MLB
Matt Moore – $14M at Age 22 after just 17 days in MLB
And all these players got massive contracts without playing even one MLB game:
Jon Singleton – $10M at Age 22
Scott Kingery – $24M at Age 23
Eloy Jimenez – $43M at Age 22
Evan White – $24M at Age 23
Luis Robert – $50M at Age 22
Yes, let’s all cry for the young stars of baseball … they are so mistreated, so underpaid, we should all be glad we are not in their shoes.
all in the suit that you wear
Fever: Great post. I don’t feel bad for them. It does sound like minor leaguers could be paid more. Rounding the MLB minimum to $600K, it takes most people 5-10 years or more to make that.
Fever Pitch Guy
Thanks suit.
I’m cool with raising the MLB minimum to $600K.
Pete'sView
And when you add to that that certain players (Archer, DeJong, Moore, Singleton, Kingery and White) never become worth those early contracts, you can see that losses are built into the system.
Nevertheless, if the average Major League player makes $4.8M annually, I’m less concerned for them than I am for minor leaguers and first year Major League players. What’s more, I’m hoping the Owners now offer earlier arbitration and force teams to spend on salaries rather than pocketing all the profits.
phantomofdb
Cutting revenue sharing seems pretty counterintuitive. I can’t wrap my head around why the players even want that
Yadi Dadi
To stop the small market teams from hoarding the money and force them to put a competitive product on the field to make a profit
phantomofdb
But how does cutting the money that goes to the small markets force them to put a competitive product on the field?
I’d understand if it was some kind of a floor, like “all revenue sharing must be spent on free agents” or something like that, but what am I missing that cutting a source of revenue would make small market teams spend more?
seamaholic 2
I don’t get it either. Only 26 roster spots on the Dodgers and Yankees. Not everyone can get one.
all in the suit that you wear
Phantom: I also don’t see how taking money away from small market teams will motivate them to spend more. I think it will have the opposite effect. Who spends more after their income is cut?
smuzqwpdmx
The MLBPA thinks it’s more likely that the Dodgers would spend the extra $30M on a big player contract or two despite the tax than that the Rays or A’s will spend the money being shoveled at them on free agents. They probably think, with some justification, that taking $30M away from the Rays and A’s won’t cause their payrolls to go down at all — because they’ve just been pocketing the extra money.
JoeBrady
Yadi Dadi
To stop the small market teams from hoarding the money
================================
I don’t see how that works. Your assumption is that, if you give PT and BA less money, that they will spend more money?
Maybe next time I buy a car, I’ll try that. The salesman will offer me a Civic for $20k. So I will offer him $10k in the hopes that he will offer me an Accord.
Indiansjoe
They believe if you don’t take money from the dodgers and give it to a small market team that won’t spend it, then the dodgers keep the money and will spend it. Big market teams are more likely to use the money on players, small market teams take that money and pocket it. I would prefer a salary floor.
phantomofdb
If that’s the case, the players are absolute idiots. Simultaneously to enforce measures to force teams to be competitive while putting in rules that will make sure the league gets top heavy
all in the suit that you wear
Indiansjoe: This is a good idea if the goal is to play players more. I don’t have all the answers, but it seems like a bad idea from a competitive balance standpoint. A salary floor and salary cap may be the best way to create competitive balance.
all in the suit that you wear
pay players more
Pads Fans
Its exceedingly obvious. More money the large market teams can spend.
all in the suit that you wear
It is obvious, but is it good for the overall health of baseball? I guess the larger question is: How can they create competitive balance?
Pads Fans
Yes. Having teams that are consistently successful is good for the sport. It drives more revenue. Especially when those teams are in the top TV markets. That is proven.
Does it help competitive balance? Probably not. Is it good for the revenue of the sport as a whole. Definitely.
Unlimited Power
Makes no sense if the players believe what they say that the owners already make money hand over fist. According to the players themselves, the teams have more than enough money to spend on free agency, and not having to share as much won’t make a bit of a difference.
skullbreathe
If the MLBPA is going to allow the owners to get away with “we won’t negotiate this provision” b.s then do one of two things 1). just sign the old CBA and move on 2). tell the owners to pound sand and you’ll get back to them around April Fools Day… The owners are the first ones to lose revenue from Spring Training which is big money; especially for the small market teams..
Scott Kliesen
According to Steve Phillips, Spring Training is a financial loser for MLB teams. He probably knows since he was GM of the Mets.
Pads Fans
MLB doesn’t pay any players to be at spring training and they make money from fans that come to the facilities, to the games, and from TV. Its far from a money loser.
stgpd
This seems a big concession by the players. Now owners should give on second year arbitration and the rest should be something that can be settled with a week of work
bigjonliljon
Only if arbitration raises are based on performance. No more raises while performing poorly or not even performing at all.
prov356
MLBPA first to blink. My speculation is that this will be over by the end of the week.
seamaholic 2
Not really. Years of control is pretty far down the MLBPA’s list, far below overall percentage of the revenue pie going to the players, lux tax, minimum salaries, draft pick compensation, and a host of other issues. They have realized for a while that the small market teams will never accept shortening years of control, just like MLB has realized the MLBPA will never accept a lowered lux tax threshold. Neither will be points of final contention.
bigjonliljon
Exactly. MLBPA gave in on something they had no intention of pushing for only for the appearance that they are making concessions. Negotiations 101 ploy
miltpappas
Go back to $15,000 a year salaries, no free agency and players having to work winter jobs. Just kidding. Just making sure you’re all still awake.
iverbure
Not a bad idea for one year. Once these bums realize they’re easily replaceable they’ll sign whatever agreement the owners want. These bums are too stupid to even know what to negotiate just look what they got last time chefs and better hotels.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
The owners and the players are BOTH replaceable. It is a monopoly. Instead of having taxpayers subsidize the owners, we can have taxpayers take over the monopoly. the threat should be enough to get short-sighted owners and tone-deaf players back to the table.
WhoNoze
Not really a monopoly in the sense that baseball is an essential product or service; it’s simply one of numerous entertainment options, none of which should be subsidized by taxpayers. The threat of taxpayer (government) owned and operated sports teams should scare the hell out of everyone; there’s plenty of incompetence in the league office as it is.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
Ok, we pass a statute that says if baseball starts more than 30 days late it will be illegal for municipal government to subsidize baseball/sports stadiums or issue bonds for them.
coolhandneil
Horrible take. You want replacement players? Fans want to watch the best players in the world. They’re not replaceable.
RobM
His takes are always the worst.
The Saber-toothed Superfife
BS.
I am ok with scabs.
I am NOT OK with $7 hotdogs. $1000 trips to the ballpark.
I don’t really care to watch condescending arrogant people pretend to be role models for the kids.
Kids. should be taught $550K in AMERICAN DOLLARS IS A.HECK.OF A LOT OF.MONEY. ENOUGH TO.INVEST IN YOURSELF AND BE GOOD.FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
NOT A WEEKEND PARTY AT J-Los’
Pads Fans
They are not replaceable. You won’t pay MLB prices to see lower minor league players on the field. You won’t turn on your TV to watch them play. You have floated the idea of contraction in the past because of a lack of enough talent.
Pete'sView
To be fair, some of the players in MLB really are minor league quality. And when a player hits .229 and makes $8M, I get a bit irritated having to watch him. I’d love to see contracts that build in devaluation clauses for poor performance AND more escalation clauses—especially for younger players—for good performance.
TalkingBaseball
Too soon to start getting our hopes up for an end to the lockout?
CalcetinesBlancos
Hopes up? I was hoping to be a scab player, so I hope it goes on forever!
TalkingBaseball
Keep the dream alive brother! it might be exactly what’s needed for my Mariners to end a 20 year playoff drought!
DarkSide830
now I feel there might be some headway done.
slider32
This was a good first step by the players, owners should give some ground. The owners should give a good counter tomorrow if they want to settle soon. Increase the starting salary to 700 thousand, 14 team playoff, universal DH, second year arbitration, injured players don’t count again’st the cap, 220 million cap, cut revenue sharing, and Bird rule of some sort.
48-team MLB
14 teams in the postseason is absurd. 12 is the absolute most I would go to…but honestly I would just leave it at 10 and make the Wild Card Round a best-of-three.
slider32
I like 14 because it really doesn’t hurt anyone, more games more money for owners and players, and the fans also win because their are more teams in the playoffs.. You have a better chance of your team winning! If the season goes into Nov, so be it. Make the World Series into a neutral site, warm weather/ dome. Most people will watch it on TV anyway.
Patrick OKennedy
14 is probably inevitable because it’s the owners’ fondest wish in these talks- by far, so the players will give it to them once they get what they need to make the deal.
I’d prefer to make it 12 teams and go to 14 only when MLB expands to 32 teams. Thats 52 more mlb jobs for players.
Pads Fans
14 makes the regular season a joke and extends the playoffs into November. Snow games are no fun. The TEAMS will never go for a permanent neutral site because then the participating teams lose revenue. May as well cut the season to 120 games and start a playoff at the beginning of September.
12 is bad enough, but the MLBPA seems to be OK with that number as long as they receive 30% of the TV revenue. .
Pads Fans
Owners fondest wish was already granted. No change to free agency.
bigjonliljon
No way on 700K minimum That’s a 200 K change.
Hell no on 2nd year arbitration. Unless, again I bring up, that arbitration raises are based purely on performance.
The other items you mentioned are possibilities
MLB Top 100 Commenter
BigJon you have faulty numbers or math!
The 2021 minimum salary was set at $570,500 dollars a year.
$700,000 would be $129,500 more, $200K as you claim..
When you look at inflation and other factors, it is going to go up at least 20%, which would be to $685,000. $700,000 is a good ask since owners will win on many other issues.
slider32
200 k is drop in the bucket for Billionare owners, let’s not be cheap here! What are you talking about in total cost 15 players?
Patrick OKennedy
MLB could raise the minimum salary to $1 million and it would only cost a team with 15 players earning minimum salary a total of $6.44 million. Phase it in over 5 years and it can be completely absorbed without blinking. Patches on uniforms could pay the entire cost of the raise.
It would also dramatically improve the pay of over half of the union membership and cost less than opening the doors at the top of the pay scale to add more high paying jobs, which would jump salaries in the tens of millions- each.
Pads Fans
The MLBPA is asking for less than that. They are starting at $775k and going up to $875k over the 5 year CBA.
Patrick OKennedy
I know that. I’m just saying that this item is a totally affordable change that teams can afford to give.
Where did you read that players requested a change in the language regarding spending revenue sharing dollars? That would make sense.
slider32
I like you idea of patches on unis, an when they add 2 new teams the owners will be rollin in it!
Pads Fans
We will see tomorrow.
Pads Fans
How about $775k minimum, 12 team playoff with players getting paid out of TV money not just the gate, universal DH, 2nd year arbitration, $230 million CBT with no draft pick or IFA penalties, cut revenue sharing by $30 million and institute rule that all revenue sharing money must be spent on player payroll, and 8 team lottery for draft.
Cubneck
That would be too much like a fair deal.
Pete'sView
slider32 — Agree on all but the 14 team playoffs. Why water down the 162 game grind, just to give it away to some last-minute team that gets hot? (Like we saw last year with a team barely over .500.)
48-team MLB
@Pete’sView
15 games over .500 is not “barely over .500.” Besides, the Braves won their division. They were not a Wild Card so that’s completely irrelevant to expanded playoffs. Also, the Mets and Phillies spent a ridiculous amount of money and the Braves still finished ahead of them despite tons of injuries. They played .667 baseball over the last two months. Also, the Braves have won their division four years in a row. It’s not as if they came out of nowhere. Are you going to say this same thing about the 2006 Cardinals (83 wins), 1987 Twins (85 wins), 2000 Yankees (87 wins) or 2014 Giants (88 wins)? Or are you just hating because you don’t like Atlanta?
48-team MLB
Also, the 2011 Cardinals were only 90-72. That’s really not much better than Atlanta’s 88-73 record in 2021. I’m sure you won’t say a word about that though because of the “Cardinals history” even though EIGHT of their 11 titles were BEFORE the Divisional Era.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
If there was a pool, I would pick that the season will start on April 29 or 30.
dlw0906
It is really is stupid that the owners would rather pay for past performance. They will continue to get burned with bloated contracts eating away at payroll year after year. A half century later and they still can’t get past that reserve clause mentality. The players offered the owners a gift and the owners refused it. Oh well, players will still get paid and the owners played. But whatever, its their own fault.
gbs42
When have thee owners ever been forced to give out free agent contracts?
CalcetinesBlancos
I give the players credit for being realistic. I think there’s a deal to be made here.
astros_fan_84
It’s sad that they are the only one negotiating.
tedtheodorelogan
At least a little bit of progress was made and they are meeting again tomorrow. Step in the right direction.
foppert
“Heated” made me laugh…….but yeah, way more positive a summary than I expected.
DarkSide830
the CBT thing is so stupid. LAD is the only team that goes close to $245 and they’d go over the new tax anyways.
allphilly
Don’t forget the Mets. Much as we might like to forget them.
DarkSide830
the jury’s still out as to how long they will maintain this payroll, imo.
MLB Top 100 Commenter
DarkSide:
You said “CBT thing is so stupid.”
That a Freudian slip on your part? (And no, I am not referencing cognitive behavioral therapy.) Not many posters call the CBA salary cap tax by the initials CBT.
gbs42
CBT = Competitive Balance Tax
It’s used often.
slider32
What are the owners affraid of, Cohen? No the cheap owners at the bottom just are a bunch of tight you no whats!
billy09
That’s not true. It seems every year there are big market teams that approach the threshold but purposely do not exceed it in order to “reset”. Raise the threshold and those same teams will still look to toe the line
Pads Fans
The MLBPA is holding firm on all 3 of their major points. They have not budged an inch.
Its interesting that while the MLBPA is cutting from $100 million to $30 million the amount they are asking to be cut from revenue sharing paid by large market teams, they also asked for a change in the wording of how that money can be used from “improve the team on the field” to “to be spent on major league player salaries”. That is huge. I am sure there will be some push back from MLB, but it would mean no more pocketing all the revenue sharing money like the Pirates and Orioles have done the past few years. Team owners pocketing that money has been a thorn in the side of large market team owners, so there is a possibility they push this through.
Meyers said in interviews that the proposal on changes to revenue sharing was much more complex than a simple number like $100 million or $30 million, so I am sure that the MLBPA is asking for other changes we are not seeing.
The MLBPA is still calling for reduced penalties for teams going over the CBT. Not sure how the owners feel about that, but hopefully they feel keeping FA at 6 years is a huge win for them and they capitulate on other points.
On arbitration the MLBPA is steadfast in asking for it to start at 2 years of service time with no other changes to how arbitration compensation is calculated. No WAR or other measures of performance. They also nixed the owners ask for salaries to be able to drop in arbitration.
That they are meeting again in person tomorrow is encouraging.
Deleted_User
@Pads Fans are you ever going to use your Koamalu account again? Just wondering…
hoof hearted
Min salary from $570k to $775k. That’s a big step. Once they do that, can’t negotiate it down.
For those that say the min should be $1m to start; ya, that’s good for the Sotos or Acunas. What about the guys like kelnic(his 1st year is not $1m worthy.
Lug tax: big step to $245m. Why not offer small step upward each year.
Revenue sharing: let’s say that a team would have to use 1/3 or half specific to increasing payroll. Don’t use it, don’t get it. Ex: let’s say Pit gets $30m, they would need to increase payroll from 45M to $55M.
The next year they get $30m; payroll goes from $55 to $65
Don’t see the owners budging ever on less than 6 years to FA.
ohyeadam
Give an extra year of arbitration but as compensation the owners get a franchise tag or restricted free agent system
Inside Out
MLBPA made smart move coming off change to free agency since owners were never going to agree. Moving up minimum salary is key
larry48
Revenue sharing if team spend less than 50 million get 5 million or(10%) if 50 million to 100 million get 10 million(or 10%). from 100 150 15 million(or 15% )150 240 million 20 %. . Owner and player union negotiate exact percentage..
trog
I suppose I should be happy about players making concessions, as it shows they have interest in making a deal. Will the owners reasonably counter or are they out for blood? Remains to be seen. As far as anti-tanking measures, I don’t see an 8 team lottery making an impact. If you’re the Pirates or Orioles, is picking #6 or #7 in round 1 going to detract from tanking? I highly doubt it. They typically split their draft pool around several prospects anyway instead of drafting the best available player. I feel the MLBPA missed the boat by not demanding a salary floor (like the NBA) to where you have to meet the floor or pay the difference split evenly among the players. Getting to FA earlier seemed to also be a top priority for the MLBPA, which they have dropped. Strange. So what are they expecting for concessions from the owners in return? Seems like they are bargaining against themselves and ignoring key issues. I’m all for playing baseball, but seems like Tony Clark and the other reps are really botching their side of the negotiations.
Pads Fans
The MLBPA asked for language that says that teams have to spend revenue sharing money received on player salaries. That is huge. Sounds tiny, but its a monumental shift.
HalosHeavenJJ
I’m a big fan of raising minimum wage and getting to arbitration earlier. Front offices obviously value young players more today than in years past, let the CBA reflect that.
The high tax threshold seems like a way to make a compromise that isn’t really there. Like, give us the first two and we’ll work on the second one.
Really the players will get more from a floor that impacts 10 teams per year than a threshold that affects 2 or 3, I think.
Pads Fans
The players not only are holding firm on $245 million CBT threshold, they also are holding firm on lower penalties and no draft pick or IFA pool penalties.
The owners have come up from their initial offer of a $180 million CBT threshold with stricter penalties and no increases over the 5 year CBA to $214 million with the same penalties as in the last CBA.
Meeting in the middle is $230 million which I think the players would accept with the same monetary penalties but no draft pick or IFA penalties. That is a good compromise.
jeffmaz
Wasn’t this the big holdup for a new agreement? Hell, just split everything else down the middle and let’s play ball.
Edp007
Y’all think some of the recent contracts are large , just wait till the gambling revenues start pouring in. Pete Rose “ am I missing something here “ shaking his head
RobM
You seem to be missing a lot.
Halo11Fan
A 245 million luxury tax threshold and claiming the union is worried about competitive balance doesn’t jive.
Two year arbitration is fine. A minimum salary of 3/4 of a million dollars is fair as well.
Pads Fans
Can’t get to where the MLBPA feels is fair in terms of revenue split by only changing arbitration and minimum. That would amount to about $8-9 million per team increase. Not nearly enough.
When teams like the Padres are financially able to spend $200 million, a CBT threshold of $210-214 million is a joke.
The biggest change the MLBPA is asking for is actually a tiny change in verbiage on the revenue sharing. They are asking for a change to all money received via revenue sharing has to be spent on player salaries. That one thing will prevent tanking.
citizen
Heard from gordon whit. the luxury tax threshold is really holding up the line.
Both sides are at loggerheads over the issue and it may hold up spring training.
Patrick OKennedy
The CBT threshold has become a defacto salary cap.
When the last CBA was signed for the 2017 season, there were six teams above the threshold. Every one of them, including the Dodgers and Yankees, got below the threshold within two years to reset their tax rate and avoid the most severe penalties.
Seven teams were under the threshold in 2021, but within $4 million of it. It’s acting like a cap, and preventing spending, which is exactly what the owners want it to do.
Still, it might not be the most contentious issue. After all, it’s just numbers
Owners propose $214 to $220 million with a 50% tax
Players propose $245 million with a 20% tax. We don’t know what their higher brackets are.
Current is $210 million with a 20% tax, scaling up to 50% tax above $250 M, plus surtaxes and draft pick penalties.
It’s interesting that owners scrapped extra penalties for repeat “offenders” and eliminated draft penalties.
The gap in numbers is widest on this issue, but they’re still numbers.
With $100 million in extra revenue from ESPN for expanded playoffs, and $ 6 M to 8 M per team for uniform patches, and a $500 million grievance to be settled, there is enough of a pie for everyone to get their share. Not to mention all the increased revenue that has been coming in while salaries have declined over the past 5 seasons.
How revenue sharing dollars are being spent and the cutoff for arbitration eligibility could be bigger issues by the time this gets solved
HalosHeavenJJ
Revenue sharing dollars looks like such an easy win for 99% of the people at the table. I’m shocked it wasn’t the platform plank of a new deal.
Big markets are shelling out the money. Nutting and a few others are pocketing it. Make them spend it on payroll.
I wrote about it. In the three years prior to the pandemic that would’ve added about $250 million per year in payroll while only affecting a handful of (bad) owners.
Pads Fans
The owners didn’t scrap extra penalties for repeat offenders or draft pick penalties. In fact, they raised their offer from $180 million to $214 million with the same penalties that were in the last CBA.
The MLBPA rejected that and countered with what they have been asking for all along, $245 with 20%, no escalating penalties for repeatedly going over, and no draft pick or IFA pool penalties.
The thing to remember is that the owners started with a proposal of $180 million with 50% penalties from the start that scaled up both in a single season and for repeat offenders.
Expanding playoffs to 14 teams would bring in an additional $450-500 million in TV revenue, not $100 million. The players are willing to agree to a 12 team playoff if they receive 30% of the TV revenue in addition to the 30% of the gate they already receive. 12 team playoffs with the WC being 3 games instead of 1 game would increase the TV revenue by $300-350 million.
RobM
Seven weeks after the owners locked out the players, at least they’re talking.
The increase in the luxury tax threshold shouldn’t represent a significant roadblock since it doesn’t cost owners anything unless they opt to spend. It’s designed to try and protect owners from themselves. Hold firm on the 245. Owners will cave. Likely, though, the players will cave and agree to some number between the owners proposal and the player proposal.
The minimum salary should be indexed and go up yearly.
They need to figure out a way to end service time manipulation.
CHS O'sFan
I’m an O’s fan but even I’d love to see a “loss cap” in negotiations. Set it at 100 losses this season and if a team loses 110 again they get treated like a 90 loss team for draft purposes and the team that loses closest to 100 gets the 1st overall pick. That doesn’t stop rebuilding but straight tanking would be counterproductive. Then walk the cap closer to 90 wins by the end of the CBA. If a rebuilding team has to try to win 72 games a season to get the #1 pick they may be willing to sign a few decent free agents to get there.
Patrick OKennedy
I think that tweaking the draft is highly overrated.
Teams don’t spend because the owner wants to keep the money, not because they want a higher draft pick.
It has to be addressed by going directly at the spending.
Say there was a 50% tax on payrolls over $225M,
100% above 250 M
50% below `125M
100% below 100 M
And if they adjust the tax on the upper end, then adjust it on the lower end as well
And if teams are penalized on the upper end for going over, do the same on the cheap end
Under the floor- no lottery picks, no compensation picks for losing a free agent, no competitive balance picks. And if they want revenue sharing dollars, they gotta spend it on salaries.
CHS O'sFan
The problem I see with that is it punishes small market teams like Tampa. They won 100 games this year and finished 28th in attendance behind Baltimore and Toronto who played over half their home games this season in Florida and Buffalo. Oakland is in the same boat. Both consistently produce winners on a regular basis so a salary floor kills these clubs that compete regardless.
I think tanking is just as much about the draft pick as it is the money. Why sign a guy to a 1yr, 5M dollar deal when his solid performance may prevent you from getting the biggest bonus pool and prestige talent in the upcoming draft? If losing too many games doesn’t result in the best pick, I can see teams signing a few bottom tier FA’s to ensure they don’t lose too many games.
Patrick OKennedy
I wrote about this issue in more detail here.
blessyouboys.com/2021/12/13/22830846/mlb-lockout-c…
There is a decent difference between the first and second pick overall, and the second and third pick, but after that, it’s a total crap shoot. And even the top picks have only a 50% chance of every achieving 5.0 career WAR.
Couple that with the fact that all TV revenue comes on long term deals, most of that from national TV which all teams get, and local revenues have to be shared 48% to the pool, and there’s just no incentive left to win. How many players does a team need to sign to make up 1 million in attendance, with nets them maybe $50 million at the gate, half of which is shared with other teams?
The way to incentivize spending is to require that those dollars are spent on player salaries.
Tomahawk Takeover
The floor doesn’t hurt teams like TB and OAK. It forces them to spend money that can help the team even more.
Pads Fans
Tampa had $250 million in revenue for 2021. That was the smallest in baseball and a number shared by 2 other teams. They could have spent $125 million on 40 man roster payroll and still made a profit.
Pittsburgh had $285 million in revenue. They could have spent $140-145 million and still made a profit.
Both teams received more money in revenue sharing from the large market teams than they spent on player payroll.
That is why teams tank year after year like the Pirates do. It has nothing to do with being small market or with the draft. The owners are pocketing tens of millions each year.
Pads Fans
According to Baseball Prospectus, a 1st round pick has a 17% chance of putting up a 2.0 WAR in any one season in their career.
They have a 70% chance of making the majors, but less than 20% of ever being considered even average.
They have less than a 10% chance of ever playing at an All Star level one season in their career, which is what a 4.0 WAR or above is considered.
CHS O'sFan
But my point on Tampa is they have put a World Series contender on the field and still can’t pull in fans. They don’t see the same gate revenue other clubs do. Revenue sharing only accounts for so much for clubs that can’t get fans interested in the team.
CHS O'sFan
So I read your article and I can’t find any sources to back some of your claims. From what I’ve found on BRef, Revenue sharing doesn’t cover all of a team’s revenue streams. (Such as local tv contracts) I also can’t find where the revenue sharing covers gate revenues either. So it looks to me like the Yankees and Dodgers in fact do make even more money that don’t get shared with the other clubs than say the Rays or A’s do.
In addition, we only see the big league payrolls not the team overhead and upkeep costs associated with running a franchise. While ticket sales cover some of the ballpark overhead expenses, they don’t cover front office, scout, analytics, coaching, player development and much more salaries and costs of employees. So just because a team receives $200M in revenue and only has a $100M dollar payroll, that doesn’t mean they pocket that $100M, far from it. I don’t know if any clubs rely on revenue sharing to stay afloat but if they do, then making a floor for those clubs will run them out of town or into the ground financially for the sake of “competitive balance”.
I think the minimum salaries should be 600K for 1st yr players, 800K for players w/ 1+ yrs service time and 1M for players with 2+ before arbitration kicks in. If a player is going to get cut, he can agree to a salary below those tiers or hit FA where the minimum salary is 500K or 600K. That bump alone would raise club salaries several million a year for every club. It may seem like this would lead to a lot of clubs signing players who forfeited the initial pay bump but in reality those players would be counterproductive if a “loss cap” is instituted.
MarlinsFanBase
I hope they get this done already. I don’t care too much how as long as it gives competitive balance in financial spending, which is best for baseball.
Other than that, most fans who don’t act like shills for the owners or players really don’t care since it’s not our money and all we care about is seeing our teams play.
Paul Griggs
It is our money since the deals will impact the cost of going to games (tickets, parking, concessions) or watching games (cable prices). The latest cost saving trend in baseball is cutting the really affordable lower minor league games that develop fan loyalty and youth interest. and help more local communities.
astros_fan_84
I think the players never expected to get changes to service time. However, pre-arb players should get a massive raise. I think 775k is fair, especially since so few players actually make it to arbitration or free agency.
Personally, I’d like to see the base salary be one million.
HankHill
I just hope they don’t expand the playoffs, except to change the Wild Card to best of three. Also, get rid of the runner-on-second rule, as well as the 7-inning doubleheader.
Discuss.
RobM
The Covid rules — runner on second and 7-inning double headers — will die.
I don’t see anyway playoffs don’t expand. It’s something the owners want, and the players will make money from it too.
HankHill
I hope you’re right, but as others have said on this site, MLB and the MLBPA seems receptive to these gimmicky rules.
MarlinsFanBase
How gimmicky are they when they are used in the lower levels as players come up through rec league, travel league, high school ball, college, international ball, MiLB, etc?
HankHill
Still gimmicky. It’s either gimmicky, or not. It doesn’t matter how many leagues use them.
atomicfront
They should just make 1 day in the majors during a season count as one year of service time. That would end the manipulation.
Motown is My Town
The reality is that neither side cares about us THE FAN! This is classic billionaires fighting millionaires with the expectation we’ll foot the bill. If we were smart we’d tell both sides to go F&@“*^% themselves and start following soccer instead
Tomahawk Takeover
Why would be punish ourselves by watching soccer?
Paul Griggs
Soccer is by far the most popular and entertaining sport in the world and can be played with minimal equipment, unlike most other sports.
DarkSide830
wait, they wanted LESS revenue sharing after all that “competitive balance” talk? odd.
goob
@DS830: The MLBPA has been disingenuous about this particular issue from the start. They want more $ (and a higher % of revenues) for all players – at ALL service levels – and if the net effect of that happening, results in even less competitive balance throughout the league, they’re not going to lose any sleep over it. They’ll take it.
It’s not hard to see that a significant number of owners, however, will be disadvantaged by an ongoing and increasing imbalance in payrolls – and its relative effect on their long-term, competitive staying-power – for teams in the lower-half of market sizes.
Overall, I don’t feel much sympathy for either side in these negotiations – there’s boatloads of obfuscation coming from both parties. On this issue though, it’s obvious to me, that while the owners are divided in their interests – and they’re not being completely honest about that – the players are being entirely dishonest about their interests on the matter. It’s plain as day.
LordD99
All negotiating tactics. The owners have only been honest in that they want to keep everything the same since the last two CBA’s tilted more revenue in their favor, while also now wanting
additional revenue from expanded postseason games and an international draft, while so far offering little in return. They locked the players out and then refused to negotiate for six weeks, and have added in the threat of lost games.
That much is as plain as day.
Paul Griggs
I think the lost revenues from the pandemic have also contributed to the owners’ positions. Both sides should agree to binding arbitration and get this resolved.
RutgersESQ
owner and players… millionaires fighting to get richer. Meanwhile all the cost gets absorbed by the fans, and non-fans. Higher ticket prices, higher cost of parking and concessions… and everyone’s cable TV costs go up because of the TV deals. Been a fan for 40 years and tired of it. I have watched my last baseball game.
dsett75
Why do the PA care about the draft lottery?? Seems like that would be something the owners would want, not the players.
Deleted_User
Discourages tanking
dsett75
Right on. Still, seems like it’d be something the owners would be more concerned about than the players. Though, I can see the players interest too. Either way, doesn’t seem like that particular point will be a problem.
Paul Griggs
Lowering the time of service would disproportionately hit the poorer teams that can’t afford expensive free agents, e.g. As, Rays, Pirates, Twins, Royals, Indians, Orioles, Marlins, Brewers, Reds, Rockies, Diamondbacks. I’d rather keep that in place to protect the parity. Unless you’re a fan of the megateams–Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. it’s not much fun knowing your team is playing at a disadvantage.
Kenny Reynolds
All this honestly is just so much bull anymore. I’ve finally reached a point where I can’t take anymore from billionaires arguing with millionaires over a KIDS game. This is just enough anymore. I think what i thought would NEVER happen is now happening…..I don’t care about baseball anymore, at least MLB.
Kenny Reynolds
All this honestly is just so much bull anymore. I’ve finally reached a point where I can’t take anymore from billionaires arguing with millionaires over a KIDS game. This is just enough anymore. I think what i thought would NEVER happen is now happening…..I don’t care about baseball anymore, at least MLB. At this point I can’t envision myself watching MLB, I know I’m not going to any games, I refuse to pay todays ticket prices anymore. I play softball about 4 nights a week, I’ll keep doing that and go catch some semi pro games, college and high school.
48-team MLB
The ONLY way I would go to 14 postseason teams is if they use the idea Bob Costas had, which was to have the four Wild Cards play a single-elimination “tournament” over two days…and that’s coming from someone who hates the one-game playoff. That way it wouldn’t take up too much time and it doesn’t make the division winners play an extra round.
Simple Simon
Interesting thought. How do you seed and what about teams 5 and lower tied with #4?