As the ongoing MLB lockout continues at a snail’s pace, the sport’s owners are convening at their quarterly meetings from Tuesday to Thursday. MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweets the expectation among players is that a counterproposal will be among the topics discussed, and that a new offer from the league should be forthcoming in the days ahead (perhaps not until the owners’ meetings conclude, however).
It’s been nearly a week since the MLBPA made its latest proposal to the league — an offer that was met with the promise of a counter but instead resulted in MLB’s request for a federal mediator to intervene. The union outright rejected the notion of mediation, instead repeating a desire to head back to the negotiating table with MLB.
That was the widely expected route, as the mediation request always smacked as more of a public relations move than an earnest request. To that end, veteran left-hander Andrew Miller, one of the eight players on the MLBPA executive subcommittee, spoke with ESPN’s Jesse Rogers about the decision to reject mediation.
“…[W]e don’t think it speeds up the process at all,” Miller told Rogers when asked about the union’s rationale. “History tells us in our sport it hasn’t been favorable to reaching a deal and our staff and outside council guide us on things like this. That is what they are for. Our position is that it is quite the opposite from negotiating and being ready to negotiate. We are there and our proposals and desire to meet at the table show that. The league is refusing to counter, the league is the side that has stalled and not been willing or ready to meet.”
Miller’s point about history is likely a nod to federal mediator Bill Usery, who was brought in for just such a purpose in the 1994 labor stoppage. Usery provided very little utility in negotiations as he was not sufficiently up to speed on the intricacies and complexities of the issues at hand, and his presence ultimately did not result in an agreement being reached.
Further, as Giants lefty Alex Wood points out (Twitter link), it would likely take weeks to bring a federal mediator into the fold, and the basis for a new deal would be largely rooted in the existing CBA, from which the players are trying to create some distance. Wood’s usage of quotation marks when describing an “’impartial’ mediator” and his characterization of the current CBA as an “already broken system” underscore both the MLBPA’s distrust of any measures put forth by the league and of the union’s current dissatisfaction with the status quo.
That said, it’s still worth noting that United States labor secretary Marty Walsh has expressed a willingness to get involved in the lockout, as first reported by Politico’s Jonathan Lemire (Twitter link). Walsh later removed any doubt on the matter, issuing the following statement to Lemire:
“I have spoken to both the MLBPA and MLB about the ongoing contract negotiations and encourage both sides to continue engagement. Like any contract negotiation in any industry, I stand ready to help facilitate productive conversations that result in the best outcome for workers and employers.”
While the league may continue to hold out hope for outside mediation, it’s clear the players have no desire to traverse that path. A large number of Major Leaguers have taken to social media in recent days to express their frustration and their desire to negotiate a new deal. Twins catcher Mitch Garver, for instance, tweeted that key members of the union “want to meet every day until a deal is done,” contesting that “the other side does not.”
Former Tigers lefty Matthew Boyd, a union representative who’s currently a free agent, struck a similar chord to Miller in telling Evan Petzold of the Detroit Free Press that the union feels resorting to mediation would only further prolong matters. The clearest path to resolving matters, Boyd added, is to continue meaningful negotiations with the league.
Banding together to voice a unified set of goals has been a clear tactic for the MLBPA over the past week. Miller and fellow executive subcommittee member Max Scherzer have been vocal, as have the likes of Wood, Garver, Whit Merrifield, Jameson Taillon and many others. The talking points remain largely the same, as hammered home by Miller and Scherzer. Various players have reiterated that the MLBPA wants to eliminate the incentives for teams to tank (i.e. access to better draft picks, larger draft and international bonus pools), bring about better compensation for young/inexperienced players, put an end to service-time manipulation and, to use Scherzer’s exact terminology, create “a system where threshold and penalties don’t function as caps” (in reference to the current luxury/competitive balance tax).
It should be noted that not every player has spoken so strongly. Cardinals ace Adam Wainwright clearly shares the frustration of his union-mates, but he also at least rhetorically suggested that if the league were to propose “the exact same deal that we have right now, we would probably go play baseball” (link via Jeff Jones of the Belleville News-Democrat). Those comments were made off the cuff at a charity fundraiser, but they’re still a notable departure from other recent, public statements from the union.
That said, Wainwright agreed with his peers that a “good and fair deal” doesn’t appear likely as things presently stand. “That’s not even close to happening, honestly,” he added. “It’s pretty one-sided. And [MLB] are not really willing to talk right now. That makes it tough.” Wainwright further told Jones that MLB’s most recent offer “is far from a place we could even start negotiations.”
Whether a third party is ultimately brought on board or not, the ball is in MLB’s court as the union continues to wait for a counter to last Tuesday’s latest offer. It remains to be seen exactly when the league will make its next move.
Please, Hammer. Don't hurt 'em.
I don’t think the union wants a mediator involved for a different reason. The mediator is likely to heavily consider precedent. The players are asking for a lot of unprecedented things. Pre-arb bonus pool money would be out the window because no one has ever paid that before. The service time structure would probably stay the same. A mediator would grant the union a raise in minimum salary and luxury tax lines. That would probably be it. They don’t want a mediator because a mediator isn’t going to agree to all the unprecedented changes when the other side doesn’t want it. If the two sides don’t agree on something the mediator is likely to piss one of them off. If they are going to piss someone off it might as well be the side that’s asking for unprecedented concessions.
BlueSkies_LA
Not close to reality. Mediators don’t make findings and they cannot agree with anything or grant anything. All they are able to do is facilitate discussion. Now if the parties submitted to binding arbitration, that would be another matter, but neither side is asking for it or is remotely likely to call for it.
Been saying for a long time now that both sides should submit to binding arbitration if they can’t reach an agreement by a date certain. That would focus their minds on the problem. Not that this is going to happen either.
HalosHeavenJJ
I’ll piggyback off this and say the next CBA should have a set date after which binding arbitration is followed. Say one year out from expiration of the new CBA.
That would facilitate talks between the two sides earlier on in the process and ensure no work stoppage in the future.
Not that it would help our current situation.
BlueSkies_LA
A good thought. Months out it was pretty clear that brinksmanship was going to come to this place. They should have started this conversation a year ago, and they might have if allowing the CBA to expire without new terms in place would result in automatic binding arbitration. I have little hope of any lessons learned, though. This sport has seemingly always been badly managed. No longer holding out any hope of this changing.
Randy Red Sox
Baseball has become a dying sport in recent years. If the season doesn’t start on time the death will be even quicker
PKCasimir
Obviously you’ve never owned anything of value. If someone owns a billion-dollar MLB team the last thing he is going to do is to turn over the future of that billion-dollar asset to someone he doesn’t and can’t control.
Please, Hammer. Don't hurt 'em.
Obviously nothing a mediator does is binding. From a legal perspective, nothing the mediator says or does matters. It can matter in regards to optics though. Mediators are certainly entitled to and often do make suggestions. When two sides disagree on something very strongly, mediators frequently consider precedent very heavily before making a suggestion. That doesn’t bode well for any side asking for something unprecedented. What the players are afraid of is the owners sticking to precedent and the mediator agreeing with them. Then, when the players decide to ignore the mediator’s suggestions, the league can go to the media and say “See. Even a third party thinks what they are asking for is unreasonable. They refuse to listen to us. They refuse to listen to a neutral third party. They refuse to listen to reason.” That would not be a good look for the union. It might not legally hurt them but it could hurt their public image when a neutral third party disagrees with them and they still don’t budge. It would allow the owners to push the narrative that players are the ones causing the lockout by being unreasonable even based on neutral third party standards.
BlueSkies_LA
Sorry, you’re still not representing this correctly. The mediator has none of the powers you suggest, which is why calling one in is totally useless in this situation. Maybe you believe a solution can be found somewhere in optics and media spin. To me that so obviously not the case I wonder why anyone would suggest it might be. In reality the issues come down to very large amounts of money and aren’t moved by what anyone outside of the process thinks, not a mediator and certainly not the media. The only purpose in calling for a toothless mediator now is manufacturing more delay. Please don’t try to paper over ownership’s clear strategy here. From day one it has been delay, and you don’t have to take anyone’s side to see it.
gbs42
Unprecedented and unreasonable are not necessarily the same thing.
Here’s something with precedent: arbitration after two years. How about going back to that?
Pete'sView
BlueSkies _ I tend to agree. Good mediators have joined the profession to mediate; that is to help both parties reach an agreement. Usually, that means that BOTH parties will be unhappy with the outcome (from their perspective). But BOTH parties will also be happy with the outcome.
May peace reign.
Play ball!
Pete'sView
All this said, the MLPA should really focus on their two or three most important provisions. Then go for it.
Pads Fans
Read the article.
“the MLBPA wants to eliminate the incentives for teams to tank (i.e. access to better draft picks, larger draft and international bonus pools), bring about better compensation for young/inexperienced players, put an end to service-time manipulation and, to use Scherzer’s exact terminology, create “a system where threshold and penalties don’t function as caps” (in reference to the current luxury/competitive balance tax).”
The 3-4 points the union has consistently said they were looking for.
kingken67
That can basically be summed up in one sentence. The union wants more money going to player salaries at all levels in their careers. That’s it. But they are offering nothing in return and none of their proposals do anything for improving competition for low market teams and most of them will hurt those teams. Until they get more serious about that they’re not going to get very far.
Patrick OKennedy
The players have offered expanded playoffs, patches on uniforms and they’re talking about an international draft.
With the way that revenues from baseball are soaring, they are entitled to a fair share of the proceeds.
They are being very short sighted by not insisting that revenue sharing dollars are spent on salaries, IMO.
JoeBrady
Pads Fans53 mins ago
“the MLBPA wants to eliminate the incentives for teams to tank
=================================
The union couldn’t care less if a team tanks. This is a backdoor approach to a minimum team cap.
If the players had any interest in a competitive landscape, they would demand that the big market teams could only spend $200M. That would certainly make it more competitive, right?
Patrick OKennedy
Forcing cheap teams to spend on player salaries would do a lot more to improve competitive balance than squeezing more at the top of the scale. Either a salary floor/ tax on lower payrolls or required spending of revenue sharing on player salaries would do more for competition than anything.
outinleftfield
Apparently they did ask for language in the CBA that would require revenue sharing to be spent on player salaries and the owners have shot down any changes to revenue sharing whatsoever.
Pete'sView
Pads Fan — And that’s probably two more than they should start with, unless they think they can spread the provisions everywhere to achieve maximum impact. But so far that doesn’t seem to be working.
Let’s see the owners not respond with something substantive.—when confronted with two laser-clear provisions (with numbers) from the MLPA. How quickly do you think public sentiment will shift? I’d guess pretty fast
outinleftfield
Its pretty obvious you are not even bothering to read the actual articles on the subject. The players are not concerned with a “competitive landscape”, they are concerned with teams like the Pirates taking $70+ million in revenue sharing from larger market teams and then not even spending that much on player salaries. Especially given the fact that every team had at least $250 million in revenue in 2021 and with revenue of close to $300 million the Pirates could easily have a MLB payroll of $140 million and still turn a profit. The players are rightfully concerned with player salaries going down the past 5 years while MLB revenues have gone up substantially.
stymeedone
@padsfan
Unfortunately, none of what the Union is trying to do is going to stop tanking. It does not make sense to pay for FA when rebuilding. If forced to spend the revenue sharing entirely on players salary, a rebuilding team would be forced to sign FAs, instead of giving young players the opportunity to show what they can do. It would force a team like Baltimore, or KC to keep young players in the minors, because they have to sign the Rosarios of the world. Or they would be taking Hosmer off the Padres hands and releasing him/benching him just to acquire salary and a prospect. This doesn’t help the rebuilding team, and the Yankees aren’t going to be happy seeing the Revenue Sharing being wasted on bad contracts. It also detrimental to young players opportunities. Everything they are asking for is to raise players salaries, period. And mostly those of the top FAs. Other than a lottery of the draft pick order, which is minor, none of their proposals helps make for a more equal playing field for teams.
Deleted Userr
Lol @ Pads Fans accusing others of being “trolls.” Has Alex Anthopoulos been forced to resign yet?
all in the suit that you wear
Stymee: I agree that it looks like the players don’t care about competitive balance. The commissioner and owners do. This leads to the two sides being very far from an agreement.
slider32
The ball is in the owners court right now, they need to make close to their best offer if they want this settled. If they don’t increase the minimum salary to at least 650, player pool from 10 million to 30 million, and a cap of 220 then they don’t want to settle this thing!
Patrick OKennedy
If owners cared about competitive balance, they would require teams to spend revenue sharing dollars on player salaries.
all in the suit that you wear
Patrick: Why can’t revenue sharing dollars go into things such as better scouts and a better analytics department? Why limit it to only players salaries?
Patrick OKennedy
that’s what they have presently. But every team has plenty of revenue for those things before any revenue sharing and several of them have payrolls that are shamefully low with no real excuse for it. If they spend revenue sharing $$ on player development, then they just pocket what they were spending in that department. Some teams get more revenue sharing money than their entire payroll, and that’s just wrong.
RodBecksBurnerAccount
“none of their proposals do anything for improving competition for low market teams and most of them will hurt those teams.”
hahaha…hahahahah…hahahaha what pure propaganda for the owners. Small market teams can figure out how to be competitive without screwing with player’s service time and tanking for years.
Bud Selig Fan
@Beck
Typical words of the self-centered large market team fan.
kingken67
Explain how forcing low payroll teams to spend more will improve their competitiveness? The Angels outspent both the Mariners and A’s by a lot last year, and finished well behind both of them in the standings. Spending doesn’t guarantee anything really. And the bottom line is if a team can get similar production out of a 2nd or 3rd year arbitration player who will likely be awarded a $5-8M contract as they can out of a rookie making the league minimum they’re going to go with the latter every time. Forcing a team to have to sign that arb player for the same production just to meet some minimum salary level isn’t making any team more competitive.
tigerdoc616
No, it is a mediator, not an arbitrator. While a mediator will likely use the current CBA as a template, he can’t “grant” anything nor does it matter whether he “agrees” with anything the players want.
Yadi Dadi
At least you kept this wrong opinion under 5,000 words. That’s progress
dsett75
They mentioned that. Or Miller maybe. That the mediator would just sway towards the current expired deal because they wouldn’t be up to speed on all the intricacies, etc. And a mediator would take about 3 weeks to even get involved.
Deadguy
Hate is a strong word, but I hate this. I hate seeing this again for a second time in my lifetime. The two sides are so far off
tiger9
Get it done gents….cannot see the spring without baseball. At least not again.
padresfan111323
Can you guys just agree on something please? What’s it to you if lose a few million dollars over some tiny thing the PA wants. You’re infuriating an entire country and it’s also bad for the sport
yankees500
The union “wants to meet every day until a deal is done”. What are they talking about? They just propose the same offer every time and then complain about the owners doing the same.
BlueSkies_LA
Not true of course, but it would be a perfectly reasonable response to counteroffers that aren’t actually counteroffers and counteroffers that aren’t even made.
houkenflouken
Steinbrenner burner account right here
Pads Fans
Apparently you are not paying attention Yankees. Go back and at least read the article you are commenting on.
BlueSkies_LA
The next move by the owners could very well be to reduce the previously unacceptable offers.
Pads Fans
Seems like something they would do. They have not made a reasonable offer yet.
Pete'sView
BlueSkies — I think if Ownership does that, the public that NOW has some balanced emotions, will certainly slide to the MLBPA big time.
The Owners need to grow some balls and offer the players something substantial.
BlueSkies_LA
I wish, but I keep coming back to my overall feeling that baseball has historically been the worst managed of all the pro sports, muddling along from disaster to disaster, never seeming to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It’s so difficult to see good sense prevailing now when it really never has before.
Joe Sweetnich
Cap and floor and let the game die until then. Got to get competitive balance. The game cannot continue to live as it is now going.
HalosHeavenJJ
Floor should be easy. Use the revenue sharing money for payroll or lose it. The money is already there, just need about half a dozen bad owners to stop pocketing it every year.
VonPurpleHayes
Halos nailed it.
Best Screenname Ever
‘Bad owners’ like the Rays who have perennially winning teams. But MLBPA is going to tell them how to spend their money.
LOL!!
Dustyslambchops23
Rays were a basement team for 10 years to get to this point.
Pete'sView
Yeah, I don’t think revenue sharing = player salaries. There are other costs—and they are different with every franchise. But a percentage of it to players, definitely.
HalosHeavenJJ
The Rays do receive more money from revenue sharing than they spend on payroll to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. It is nice they are a good team, but MLBPA cares more about money than wins.
Meanwhile, the Pirates, Orioles, Marlins, Royals, Reds, A’s, they also spend less on payroll than they receive most years. Then you add in a couple of rebuilding teams each year.
Add it all up and there’s about $250 million in revenue sharing money that doesn’t get spent on payroll each year. That’s huge if I’m the MLBPA.
Or if I’m a fellow owner. Why should Nutting get to pocket $40 million of other teams money each year then show up to my stadium with a team nobody wants to watch?
outinleftfield
The most any team receives in revenue sharing from the larger revenue clubs is about $73 million. The Rays spent $89 million on their 40 man roster and benefits. legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al… Their total revenue was about $250 million and among the lowest 3 in baseball. They could probably afford to spend around $120 million and still turn a profit.
Bud Selig Fan
Wrong AGAIN outinleftfield.
SM teams received $118MM in revenue-sharing in 2019. 0 in 2020. 0 in 2021.
outinleftfield
Wrong Buddy. They received about $70 million in revenue sharing that was contributed by large market teams like the Yankees and Dodgers. TOTAL revenue sharing including that from NATIONAL TV CONTRACTS, sponsorships, and licensing and was much more than $118 million. In 2021 revenue sharing was given out as a loan with half distributed in 2021 and half in 2022.
“In the 2021 calendar year, only half the money that would normally be paid is going to be available to teams, people with knowledge of the plan said. The other half is slated to be paid out next year. Notably, the 50 percent slice that is available this year will not come out of the clubs’ pockets — not for now, at least. The league office is using a line of credit to front the money, on the expectation that the big-market teams that would normally be on the hook will eventually repay the league office.”
That is MUCH more than ZERO that you tried to claim. At least try to get the facts right and not depend on a blog for your information.
outinleftfield
“The amount of money moved amongst the top payors and payees is not something to sneeze at. From 2017-19, the Marlins, Rays and Brewers were the top three recipients of revenue-sharing dollars. In 2019, the Marlins received about $70 million, while the Rays are usually in the $50-$60 million range, sources said. The Indians, Pirates and Reds typically move in and out of the top five for payees, depending on the year.”
Bud Selig Fan
I stand corrected with the revenue-sharing of ‘21. The rest I stand by. Including’19 revenue-sharing of $118MM.
HalosHeavenJJ
I think we’re saying the same thing in different ways.
Each team puts 48% of their local revenues into a pot and take an equal 3.3% out. That total take out was $118 million in 2019 and pretty close the two years prior. Per bb-ref.
I think I’m staying the total take and left field is quoting the gain of the small market teams ($118m – their contribution).
Either way, we know each team netted $118 million from that pot.
phenomenalajs
The floor part should be simple. My previous idea was that by the end of the new ten-year CBA the floor would be $100M after rising at a rate of 2% compounded annually. That would put the initial floor at $82M. That should be a reasonable starting point for small market teams. If you follow a similar plan with a cap, a reasonable endpoint of $350M would result in a $287M cap now.
Pads Fans
Can’t have either until you have 100% revenue sharing like all other major sports have. Do you think that the high revenue teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Giants, and Red Sox are going to agree to that?
Pete'sView
Pads Fan —You may be right, but it will never happen. Not in this edition of the USA.
Pads Fans
Then there will never be a cap and floor. Its really that simple.
gbs42
MLB without a floor or cap has more competitive balance than NFL, NBA, or NHL with these things.
Motown is My Town
Right now no one has any leverage which is why these negotiations are stalled. IMO, the owners believe once spring training starts, players will realize they won’t be getting paid anytime soon and that’s when the leverage swings to them so they’re just holding off until then. Once the expected dates of spring training has arrived, the owners will offer up some poor excuse of a proposal hoping the players will be desperate to accept anything. Unfortunately for us fans, players are way smarter than they were in the 1930’s and will tell the owners to pound sand and we’re still where we are now. Appears we’re in for a long goat rodeo between two parties who refuse to seek compromise hoping to out leverage one another. What a S#*% show.
Pads Fans
Players don’t get paid in spring training. Their first paycheck is mid-April.
Owners do get paid in spring training both from TV broadcasts and from ticket sales at spring training games.
houkenflouken
At this point I just want the players to win and if it takes canceling a month of games in order for the future of the game to be fixed for the better then so be it. Obviously I want 0 games to be cancelled but damn the game needs to be more compatible and younger players need to be paid more
houkenflouken
Competitive**
Pete'sView
Yes, the younger players (especially in the minors.) First and second-year players need to be paid more, not that much more than the current minimum. Currently is $570, 500. How bout $600,000?
Ya know, I could live on that. Comfortably.
Pads Fans
Minor league players are not part of the union unless they are on the 40 man roster. The MLBPA cannot negotiate anything for them.
$600k is lower than what the owners offered and does not keep up with inflation especially since the owners are asking that whatever its set at that it be locked at that amount for the 5 years of the new CBA.
How about halfway between the players ask and owners offer. How about $725k with annual COL increases tied to inflation.
gbs42
“I could live on that” is irrelevant. The owners *could* live with a couple of million a year in profits, the players on $250k per year all around, and they *could* slash prices in everything. But there’s no incentive to do so in an $11B industry, which is driven by supply and demand. Given that, the players want their salaries to grow not stagnate or decrease, so here we are.
tigerdoc616
So Boyd, and the rest of the players, want meaningful negotiations. Hard to do when one side has no interest in negotiations and it is clear that the owners are that side. All they want to do is stall hoping the players will knuckle under to their demands. IMO, they are underestimating the player’s resolve. While I do not agree with all of what the players are asking for, I am firmly on their side. The owners have proven they are not to be trusted and do not have the best interests of the game in mind.
HalosHeavenJJ
The “all or nothing” by both sides is ridiculous. You can negotiate every day and still ask for a mediator.
Get as much done as you possibly can but get help on the way in the event there isn’t a deal in a couple of weeks.
Pads Fans
@halo It hasn’t been all of nothing. The players have already made a major concession, allowing FA to stay at 6 years. The owners have not reciprocated.
In fact, the owners are stalling and refusing to even come to the table. It took the owners took 43 days after locking out the players to even make a counter proposal to the players and now its been a week since the players last proposal and maybe the owners will get off their thumbs and actually make an offer 4 days from now.
If both parties agree to mediation, once you ask for a federal mediator, until one is agreed upon all negotiations must stop. The players union rejected that PR move by the owners and now its up to the owners to come to the table and stop stalling.
stymeedone
@padsfan
Agreeing to status quo is hardly a concession. Its not like the owners were asking them to change to 7 years. This is just arguing about how much of a raise. Owners aren’t asking this well paid union for any concessions. The players are reducing their demands in some areas, but don’t confuse that with conceding something.
Patrick OKennedy
SOME of the most offensive proposals have been withdrawn:
– Players seeking changes to the six year arbitration
– Owners abandoning the elimination of arbitration completely
– Owners withdrew assault on super two status
– Owners proposing $180M CBT threshold
They knew very well these things were all non starters. And the owners still propose a 50% tax at the first CBT threshold. It’s not going to happen. Ever.
Patrick OKennedy
How to get it done:
Both sides remove the most offensive demands.
Players give up on reducing revenue sharing
Owners get rid of draconian proposals to increase CBT penalties and agree to increase tax thresholds at least to keep up with inflation
Players make some movement on two years arbitration eligibility
Owners rubbish making minimum salary a fixed salary
Then, they can work on the numbers
between minimum salary of 615K and 775K
And players should seize on the three tier proposal
between 220M and 245M tax threshold at the lowest level, just keeping tax rates the same
Arb eligibility between 2.0 years and this year’s super two cutoff which is 2.116
Those are the big ones. The other stuff will fall in line.
The real pity is there is nothing proposed from either side to prevent tanking (don’t say a draft lottery) or service time manipulation (don’t say a bonus draft pick). They need to require teams to spend revenue sharing money on player salaries.
Pads Fans
The players already conceded on FA beginning at 6 years. That was an enormous concession.
Patrick OKennedy
Yes, it was a huge concession, but one that they knew was a complete non starter, and they still have some lingering proposals for players to earn a year of service time, which in effect makes them free agents sooner than six years.
JAMES JACOBSEN
Do you think they know that if the season is delayed that they will probably lose a lot of viewers permanently?
HalosHeavenJJ
I wonder how many will really leave.
Hard core fans will come back. We always do.
Casual fans pretty much just watch the stretch run, playoffs, and an occasional game. They don’t care enough to stay away.
As long as Joe Six Pack gets his playoffs and World Series in October with reassurances that baseball is guaranteed for the foreseeable future I don’t think it will matter much.
Dustyslambchops23
Any one who says they are leaving because of this is lying. No true fans just stops being a fan because of no games. I also said I would stop watching hockey after the leafs blew a 3-1 series lead, but you heal and you open your heart for more hurt again next year
Where I think they will take a hit is young kids, maybe there’s a couple thousand kids who would have went to their first baseball game this year and become a life time fan. Instead they watch a soccer game or get a Nintendo switch and baseball never enters their lives.
jimmyz
Generally agree with your sentiment Dusty but also realize you can’t make a blanket statement like that for all fans. Older fans might just stop caring altogether and personally I’m in my mid- thirtees and have no intention of spending money on MLB in the foreseeable future (next 2-5) years because of this ordeal. I’m sure the league or owner of my favorite team won’t miss the 3 or 4 hundred a year I spend going to games but I’ll appreciate keeping it. Ultimately I can love the game without going or spending money to support the professional level of the sport. There’s a few college and Indy ball teams close enough for me to enjoy who would be better served with my financial commitment to enjoying baseball and my love and interest in the sport will still be satisfied.
Dustyslambchops23
Fair enough Jimmy. I guess it depends how this shakes out but I get the difference of opinion here. Hopefully you keep visiting the site tho!
jimmyz
For sure, this site is great and I will have no issues supporting or frequenting outlets that cover pro baseball. Furthermore I genuinely enjoy talking baseball with random internet strangers even if I have to scroll past a lot of general juvenile internet pettiness.
Pete'sView
HalosHeavenJJ — Yeah, I agree, I’ll probably never leave baseball. But there’s a stink beginning to rise out of the MLB : the cost (of everything), the sucky non-action that the game has become, the game experience with commercials everywhere and all the time. SCREAMING at you.
The focus is not on the game, but on $$$$$.
And the audience is watching. That will have an affect.
Best Screenname Ever
“A counter offer to last week’s proposal” as if the MLBPA made any effort last week to close the difference.
I think a middle finger might be the appropriate “counter offer to last week’s “proposal’.
Redwolves3
If the players really want to meet daily (as quoted above) to reach an agreement they need to go in a room with MLB and not come out until there’s an agreement.
MLBPA / MLB / Commissioner need to get serious and get the deal done. Fans want baseball not bickering back and forth.
Omarj
I do think a temp deal for 22 season only, would be a good way to save money. Bump salary, DH for both leagues, expand MLB rosters to 27 players, and service time needs to change. Maybe lottery system. I think some concessions have to be addressed by the owners and then take care of more during the season with the help of a mediator. Take care of minimum spend, tax, tanking, etc. Save the season, but most importantly, save the sport. Manfred needs to be evaluated with more scrutiny. Long ago, Mark Cuban wanted to buy the Pirates. Now imagine a guy like Mark Cuban scrutinizing Manfred and helping baseball. MLB needs a voice of reason. It’s a product in serious need of reconstruction.
Yadi Dadi
Good idea but the owners won’t go for it. If they refuse to renegotiate they can just institute the same CBA until or unless the players strike. With their lack of proposals so far, I think that’s what they are going for. But don’t tell Hammer, Worst Screen name Ever and the other Owner Prouds
Pads Fans
The MLBPA and the player reps have been consistent in saying that the previous CBA is untenable and they will not agree to an extension.
Patrick OKennedy
If the lockout were to be lifted, the players would certainly report and play ball. A strike threat would be looming, but there would be no CBT, no expanded playoffs, no patches on uniforms, no international draft
and no minimum salary increase, no change in super two arbys, etc, etc
The owners would then have to bargain.
Pads Fans
No, they wouldn’t. The players will not report until there is a new CBA. Just read the interviews with the 8 player rep members of the executive committee and Meyer, the lead negotiator they hired in 2018.
They have made it crystal clear that playing under the previous CBA is not an option. Its not even on the table in negotiations.
Since the players rejected mediation, the only way the owners can end the lockout is to agree to a new CBA.
Patrick OKennedy
Yes, they absolutely would report. There is no reason for them to forego 4- 5 months salary. Their leverage is the post season.
The owners absolutely can end the lockout at any time. A mediation offer has no impact on that at all.
Bud Selig Fan
Mark Cuban didn’t want to buy his small-market hometown Pirates, he wanted to buy the large-market Cubbies. He said the Pirates don’t make enough revenue.
outinleftfield
The Pirates made nearly $300 million in total revenue 2021 including the $70+ million they get from revenue sharing after making $285 million in 2019. They can afford a major league payroll of $145-150 million.
Bud Selig Fan
Wrong again outinleftfield.
It’s like your pulling numbers out of mid-air in attempting to justify your arguments.
In 2019, the last time teams had full revenue streams, the Pirates had $273MM in revenue, the most in their history. In 2020 they had $116MM in revenue with an operating loss of $21MM. ‘21 revenue figures aren’t out yet, but since governments limited fan attendance for the first half of the season there’s no way they approached their 2019 revenue.
outinleftfield
In 2019 the Pirates had $285 million in revenue according to Forbes. With the $70 million in additional revenue from the new national TV contracts they made around $300 million in 2021. They will make more in 2022. COVID regulations restricted crowd sizes to 7672 in April and then 55% of capacity in Pittsburg until July 5th when all restrictions were lifted. PNC has only 38,362 seats so outside of opening weekend, there was never a time when single game tickets were not for sale at the box office. In 2019 they averaged 18k tickets sold. The level of misinformation coming from you is astounding.
stymeedone
@outinLF
Are you absolutely sure that a payroll of 150MM will allow the Pirates to pay all the business expenses, stadium costs, travel expenses, insurance costs, taxes, benefits, costs of a minor league system and players, scouting and analytics, ticket sales and promotions, wages to stadium workers and any other costs associated with running a franchise? And who do you feel will be willing to sign with a team that is not expected to contend, so they can spend that $150mm in payroll. Keep in mind that every FA they are forced to sign blocks one of their young prospects. I’m asking you because I have no idea of the costs. Forbes doesn’t either as Pittsburgh does not open its books.
Javia135
@outinleftfield
You do know that there is a difference between revenue and profit, right? Revenue is what a team makes BEFORE EXPENSES. How much do you think a stadium lease costs? Upkeep? The thousands of vendors at every game that need to be paid? Team doctors, medical staff, coaches? Cost of travel? Accommodations? There are thousands of other things that need to be paid for. Those things are incredibly expensive, unless you think that teams are actually traveling in planes with taped-up propellers like in Major League?
Profits is what owners end up with at the end of the year. Not revenue.
Bud Selig Fan
According to Forbes the Pirates had an operating income of $66MM in 2019, remember, that figure is BEFORE taxes, depreciation and amortization. In ‘18 it was $39MM. In the 5 years before that anywhere from $10-$30MM. They lost $21MM in 2020, the last year of information from Forbes.
So ONE year of high profit. ONE. Pittsburgh gets crushed for no reason. I’m not even a Pirates fan, but I’m just tired of reading this narrative. Blame Nutting for the Neal Huntington hiring or for keeping him too long, but stop with the piling on of this franchise.
Patrick OKennedy
Operating income is gross profit, after paying player salaries, owners’ salaries, and all expenses. They get over $50 million as a share of national TV revenue and $91 to $ 118 million in revenue sharing, plus ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, local TV revenue and licensing.
They can afford to field a better team.
Bud Selig Fan
Based on their history, the Pirates will spend more on payroll — WHEN THEY ARE COMPETITIVE. You’re ignoring the fact when they were competitive they only had operating incomes of $10-$15MM.
“They can afford to field a better team”
And they will — when they are competitive.
BlueSkies_LA
Obvious question: when was the last time the Pirates were competitive?
Another pretty obvious question: why should they field a total crapola team for years on end when they could easily afford to provide a much better entertainment value for their fans?
The answer to the second question should not be at all in dispute. It’s because the current system rewards failure. The league needs to stop doing that. Create different incentives, get different results.
MLB won’t do it for financial reasons. Why some fans support this puzzles me.
gwell55
With a Profit margin estimated between 2% and 12% by Forbes for all MLB teams. I would say annual profits show they are on budgets close to what they can spend. Including the pirates In years they have a 12% profit for a few would make them feasibly able to spend to try and compete which surely costs more but necessary to hold a fan base. After all the 2018 Red sox lost money in 18 to recoup it the next few years with a higher % profit margin from that WS winning season.
BlueSkies_LA
The Forbes numbers are of little to no value in understanding the finances of baseball. They report revenue for teams that is lower than the known value of their media contracts alone. The only way to really know how much teams are capable of spending is for them to disclose their P&L statements, which they are never going to do, not even to the union. These finances are a deep dark secret for a reason, and part of that reason is team owners are being rewarded for failure under the current system and this is how the large market team owners keep the small market owners happy. We have to know it’s a broken system when some teams spend less on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing alone.
Patrick OKennedy
The notion that these teams keep payroll absurdly low year after year in order to win later is a huge farce. They don’t spend on payroll because they want to keep the money. Simple as that.
It doesn’t help matters that it simply does not pay to win in baseball from a financial standpoint. Every major revenue stream except gate receipts are coming from multi year contracts and most of those are coming from MLB. What is left is local revenue, with TV deals on long term contracts and ticket sales which may fluctuate with winning.
Then, they take 48 percent of that revenue and put it into the revenue sharing pool. So it’s very, very difficult for teams to spend money on players to get them enough wins to increase attendance to pay those increased salaries on 52% of gate receipts.
And the Pirates are one of several teams that actually gets more money from revenue sharing than their entire major league payroll, which is just absurd. THAT is the problem that owners and players need to address, and that I do not see being addressed with current proposals like a draft lottery.
jimmyz
I may be wrong but MLB owners have to vote and approve the sale to a potential new owner. No way they’d let Cuban in that club. More certain of the fact that I saw a quote from Cuban a few years back that generally said he still gets asked all the time by various people if he still plans or wants to buy the Pirates and his response was that Nutting’s ask for the team was so astronomical that it wouldn’t be a good investment and as much as he (Cuban) would want to own the Pirates he’s too principled as a businessesman to meet the asking price.
Tacoshells
This just makes the owners look so bad. Go negoatiate! You’re just hurting yourself.
BlueSkies_LA
Ownership is doing a pretty tidy job of making themselves look bad.
Yadi Dadi
So apparently steroids testing has ended as of today. That should make for an interesting comment section
BigFred
This really needs to be resolved… on the date I picked in the contest.
foppert
Pretty obvious the owners don’t want significant change to the current arrangement, but will entertain smaller, incremental type change. Might be greed, might be some smaller market organisations have dismal looking P&L’s, might be caution due to a fear of the future in terms of pandemics, economic conditions etc. Who knows. Whatever it is, I see it as the owners being the ones doing the giving and will therefore ultimately decide.
Wainwright is quite the pragmatist. I think the situation needs more Wainwright and less Stroman.
Pads Fans
Wainwright is old. This will be his last season in the majors. That is the only reasoning behind his statement.
The union and the player reps have already said that returning under the previous CBA for the 2022 season is not an option. It is completely off the table in negotiations.
foppert
Wainwright is level headed. He appreciates that the gap is too wide for negotiation.
No changes is different to smaller incremental changes. If that is off the table then I think there is no baseball. Athletes aren’t the only humans with backbones.
outinleftfield
You got that 100% correct. After the union said that under no circumstances would they return under the old CBA, its was pretty clear that MLB would either have to come to the table and negotiate or lose a season.
Pete'sView
And the owners should listen and address the players’ top two or three items. And compromise. Aint gonna work for the owners if there are no players. Players gonna hurt too, especially the young guys. So what are the older players gonna do?
Dustyslambchops23
These are posts of news more suited for December when the lock out began.
It’s embarrassing how this is attempting to be resolved. Get a mediator in and at least give it your best shot to compromise and save the season
lucas0622
“They didn’t buy into our PR stunt, so what else do you want to do to make us look like the good guys while we rob them blind?”
mike156
Mediation would not be binding, and it will take some time for the mediator to get up to speed on the proposals and economics. The players are right on this one…the best way to bargain is to bargain. A mediator at an earlier point could have made some sense, if that person was steeped in the nuances. But now, could just as cause more damage.
PitcherMeRolling
Here comes a statement saying how badly the owners want to make sure games happen and how disappointed they are that the MLBPA turned down their ploy. Then they’ll gauge public perception and decide what else they’re willing to do instead of negotiating in good faith.
Best Screenname Ever
MLB has negotiated in good faith from the beginning. They’ve made it crystal clear, clear as a bell, that they are not going to to agree to earlier free agency, shortened time to arbitration, or reduced revenue sharing. They could not have been clearer. Yet MLBPA still has the last two on the table.
MLB has also made creative proposals on anti-tanking,agreed to end draft penalties for signing free agents, and agreed to increase CBT and minimum salary. They have more room to move on those two proposals but that won’t happen while MLBPA continues to hold onto its non-starters.
Rob Manfred has negotiated deals continuously for almost 30 years with no work stoppages. That’s the clearest sign there is of good faith bargaining. The new union lawyer Meyer, is 1 for 1 in work stoppages.
PitcherMeRolling
“MLB has negotiated in good faith from the beginning”? You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to the truth.
Thanks for stopping by.
jimmyz
Manfred was elected commissioner in 2014 and officially took his office in January 2015 but sure 7 years is equal to 30
PitcherMeRolling
Also there was a work stoppage in baseball less than 30 years ago. It’s amazing what people think other adults will believe simply because they say it.
Pete'sView
“United States labor secretary Marty Walsh has expressed a willingness to get involved in the lockout,”
I thought I’d read somewhere that the Labor Secretary said he “was [knowledgeable] about the issues.”
Anyone else heard that?
If it’s true, mediation could begin almost immediately.
scottaz
The MLBPA’s biggest problem is that several of their proposals are none of their d@m_ business. They are trying to dictate to owners how to run the owners’ businesses. A mediator and an arbitrator would both steer negotiations away from the MLBPA’s issues, which is why the MLBPA flatly refused to use a Federal Mediator. At the end of the day, the MLBPA is advocating radical change, but the owners have absolutely no obligation to entertain any proposal that dictates how to run their businesses. Everyone seems to be blaming the owners, but if you owned a business would you allow your employees to tell you how to run your business AND demand huge new salary increases? I wouldn’t. So, I blame the players for making and then insisting on multiple, radical change issues at the start of negotiations, and then being dismayed that the owners would balk at such impudence!
foppert
I would have called the season off at “man clown”.
Best Screenname Ever
You’d think people would figure out that when they’re on the same side as Marcus Stroman’s jerkdom they’re on the wrong side.
outinleftfield
Wow! That may be the most delusional post on this thread and that is saying something considering Hammer’s delusional rants.
Astros Hot Takes
“Everyone seems to be blaming the owners, but if you owned a business would you allow your employees to tell you how to run your business AND demand huge new salary increases? ”
No, and no. I would pay them well to begin with, but if they did that, I’d fire them all, hire people that WANTED to work for me, and pay them well to do so.
BlueSkies_LA
Stop us before we pay again! Bring back the Reserve Clause!
enricopallazzo
Could care less about which side is more “right” than the other, just get it f-ing done. Actually meeting would be ideal and not posturing and trying to sway the public to their direction. Every MLB labor negotiation follows this pattern.
dsett75
I get that there’s urgency so they should just play under the current deal while working this out. I mean geez, both sides will still have wonderful, envious lives afterwards. There’s no sense in having all the players behind or out of sync because of a delay, imho.
Best Screenname Ever
Or, the MLBPA could just drop its non-starter proposals to reduce revenue sharing and the time to arbitration, bargain better improvements to minimum salary and a bit more on the CBT, and play baseball. But the MLBPA is now playing to the internet, and has to have ‘transformative’ changes. MLB is made up of 30 discrete businesses, each with different levels of revenue and stability, governed by a single deal. The clubs aren’t going to agree to re-do their business models to help the MLBPA play to the internet.
kreckert
30 Neros fiddle while a great sport burns.
They’re successfully proving why this sport’s in the shape it’s in and that it cannot be saved. Let it die.
kenphelps44
I chuckle when I read where posters say, “I don’t feel sorry for players because of what the average non-baseball player makes a year.” How many “non-baseball players” do you want to see closing the 7th game of the World Series for your team? Hey, I’m a non-player making an average salary, do you want me to close for your team? Ok, how many rich team owners do you want to see go out and close the 7th game of the World Series for your team? How many fans want to see your team trade for a top dollar, so-to-be free agent at the trade deadline if he’ll help your team get into the post season and potentially win the WS no matter how much money he’s making? And how many fans want your team to pony up the big bucks for Freddie Freeman once this lockout ends because he’s better than what you have now?
JR12
You’re completely missing the point. What is Freddie Freeman’s salary if there’s no MLB? What are the owners investing in instead, and how much are they making?
Most players without MLB have little earning power, and certainly not nearly what top FA’s get. The owners without these 780 players could hire the next 780 and the competition would be almost exactly the same within a few years. Or they could just leave baseball and print money elsewhere. The players can yell and scream all they want, but these are the real power dynamics at play. The owners can do nothing and players will play.
kenphelps44
Apparently, you never watched replacement players during the 1994-1995 strike. And no, the competition would not be “almost exactly the same within a few years.” But you know what? If that happened you would see MLB players sign with Japanese, South Korean, Taiwan and Mexican League teams.
jimmyz
To add on to your point JR, most owners wouldn’t even need to leave baseball to make their money as most already have 2 or more income streams greater than MLB that made them rich enough in the first place to buy a team. Biggest reason why owners have no incentive to budge from their stance is that they don’t really need the money in the first place, they just want it.
stymeedone
@kenphelps
Your right in that I want to see baseball players play baseball. But would it be so bad to have a player or two acknowledge that they are already well compensated. Your just being silly when saying the owner should play. Just as silly as asking that MLB player to pitch w/o an owner paying their lucrative salary. And I have seen enough teams handcuffed by an albatross contract that I can honestly say that Freeman is welcome to play at that amount for some other team than my favorite one. What I would like to see is an affordable game I can take my family to.
kenphelps44
May I ask, who gave out the albatross contracts to begin with? No one forced an owner to sign a player to that kind of money. You missed the point about an owner playing. I didn’t say the owner should play; I’m just asking you if you would want to see someone who clearly isn’t a Major Leaguer play rather than a real player. The players are compensated for doing something the rest of us can’t do. They are also getting what the market will bear. The fact is, unless you are Derek Jeter, and then I’m not sure what he has left in the tank, owners can’t play and fans aren’t there to see the owners anyway. I can’t remember seeing jerseys sold on the concourse with owners names on the back. Let’s not forget the debacle they had when they tried to run out replacement players during 94-95 strike.
PitcherMeRolling
@kenphelps it’s amazing to me how people can at the same time hold billionaires as examples of our best and brightest while also arguing that they need rules in place to stop them from spending their money unwisely. It informs us of the type of mindset we’re dealing with.
Even Jeter is in his role 99% because of his playing career. Nobody wants to see a billionaire do anything but pay their taxes.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Right, their incredibly ‘valuable’ ability of throwing and hitting a ball and running around in circles (and many of them can’t even run well).
PitcherMeRolling
Then why are you here? Do you check the site for news about owners?
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Am somewhat a fan of baseball and some of the specific players but I just don’t care about their complaints. 3X the salary of the average doctor, just at the entry level, for throwing and hitting a ball and running around in circles 7-8 months per year, and lifetime benefits after 6 weeks on a MLB roster- and many of them get paid major bonuses before playing a single professional game. Play hardball and just trash the entire thing for a year or 2 at this point. There’s still minor league baseball, college baseball, adult rec softball to play, adult rec baseball to play, etc. Just don’t care and there won’t be even remotely close to the level of anger from the public as there was in 1995 if the season is ‘lost’. Not even remotely close.
PitcherMeRolling
You can denigrate what they do all you want, but the fact that you’re a baseball fan tells everyone how you really feel. You can’t be honest about it, so there’s no reason to talk to you about it.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Could always just watch highlights from past years on youtube- pretty much only watch highlights anyway- watching a full game is boring, not enough action whatsoever. Really don’t need any new content just to see new and extremely slightly different variations of people throwing a ball, hitting a ball, catching a ball, and running in circles.
PitcherMeRolling
“I don’t like baseball so I’m here to complain about baseball”
PitcherMeRolling
“I don’t like baseball so I go on baseball sites to complain about baseball”
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Not complaining- pointing out that I couldn’t care less about the players’ complaints and while it would be slightly better to have a “major league” baseball season this year, take it or leave it at this point.
PitcherMeRolling
Yeah, you’re just saying that you don’t care about baseball, so you came to a baseball site to tell baseball fans that you don’t care about baseball.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Am a fan- fan of watching highlights sometimes, fan of going to a game on rare occasion, and especially a fan of playing adult rec softball/baseball (softball more, especially since it’s coed).
PitcherMeRolling
Why do you like rec baseball? It’s just throwing a ball and running in circles.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Because it’s 10X more fun to play than it is to watch.
PitcherMeRolling
Watching rec baseball is nowhere near 1/10 as enjoyable as playing. It’s just throwing a ball and running in a circle after all.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
Playing rec softball/baseball is 10X more fun than watching baseball.
PitcherMeRolling
I read this when you wrote it the first time. I said it’s actually more than 10x, but you think I said something different.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
The season could be “lost” and the public wouldn’t be remotely close to as angry as 1995 and you know it. That’s the main thing. Too many other entertainment options, and people learned to be without it during the public health situation on top of that, and it’s much more in the backburner in general compared to 1995 for other reasons on top of the greater number of options and the covid experience. Few would really be angry about it, the large majority would be more or less indifferent at this point.
PitcherMeRolling
What does this have to do with anything? Is your point that baseball sucks? We get it, you only like baseball enough to play it, talk about it and watch it cause it sucks so bad.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
It’s boring to watch full games- it’s entertaining to watch highlights.
PitcherMeRolling
I get it, you keep saying that. I didn’t ask what you said, I asked how it’s related to anything.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
I SUPPORT THE OWNERS!
PitcherMeRolling
Do you think that was somehow unclear?
scottaz
Kenphelps. Wow! Talk about drinking the cool aid! Talk about a false sense of entitlement? According to your thinking baseball players have a God-given right to make millions! It’s divinely ordained!
Actually, it’s our screwed up society that thinks people who play a game deserve to make more money than people who provide the food we need to sustain life, more than the people parents entrust to teach our children, etc. it’s our screwed up society that after creating monstrous, nonsensical multi-millionaire sports idols, then points to their outlandish salaries and says “These are our hero’s!” “These people are smarter and wiser than anyone else because they can throw a baseball accurately at one hundred miles an hour and hit a baseball thrown that fast clean out of the stadium!” Seriously?
Fans on this board are quoting Max Scherzer as if his words are Holy Writ, as if he is the ultimate authority on every subject in life! And anyone who questions his holy wisdom must be delusional! WOW! And then kenphelps lauds how superior baseball players are to any of us, including himself! I don’t drink that cool aid. I hope no one else does either.
kenphelps44
So, if it is false sense of entitlement then why do the owners willingly shell out the money to sign players to big contracts? Could it be that they know they can’t find anyone else who can do the job a specific player can? When you start throwing a baseball like Max Scherzer I am sure owners will line up to give you his kind of money too. The false sense of entitlement would be the owners greed who think they can buy a championship to stoke their ego. You bet I believe baseball players are superior to me when it comes to their career and if you read anything I posted you would see that I clearly make that point.
PitcherMeRolling
@scottaz nobody thinks that way and nobody has said that. You don’t have a real argument, so you’re making stuff up.
The_Voice_Of_REASON
I SUPPORT THE OWNERS!
BlueSkies_LA
Rob Manfred’s mom is here!
PitcherMeRolling
I kinda doubt she’s this delusional. She probably knows her kid sucks.
lucasju
I think what is needed in these negotiations is a fan representative to bring both sides back
to reality . The players and the owners have both become so wealthy that they have
forgotten where their wealth has come from . their first step should be to agree to a 25%
reduction across the board on all ticket prices like the NHL did some years ago . Secondly,
it is time for the ownership to put their cards on the table and open their financial books to
the players and to negotiate a fair percentage of the gross earnings to the players as the other major sports have done . Both sides are on the brink of killing the golden goose
with their out and out greed . They both need a reality check which may be headed in their
direction very soon if this isn’t settled quickly and ticket prices are not held in check in some manner . both sides should take this as a clear warning . Fans are getting pretty fed
up with them and will have no trouble finding other interests to occupy them .
PitcherMeRolling
Except fans don’t understand the situation. Look at most of the comments here.
goob
“It’s pretty one-sided. And [MLB] are not really willing to talk right now. That makes it tough.” Wainwright further told Jones that MLB’s most recent offer “is far from a place we could even start negotiations.”
Did you catch that?
That was his 2nd, I-wish-I-could-take-it-back, moment of (I would say) accidental honesty. (The 1st one was when he said, “the exact same deal that we have right now, we would probably go play baseball”, a tacit admission, IMO, that the prior CBA was a reasonably good one – on the whole.) They just want more – and that’s fine, even understandable.
Anyway, the 2nd one is where he says that MLB won’t talk right now – then immediately follows that up by saying that MLB’s latest offer isn’t even a place to “start negotiations”.
See the disconnect?
Look, both sides are TOTALLY out for number one – THEMSELVES. As such, both sides are mostly full of it. That’s just the way it is – that’s just the reality of their impasse.
But sure, let’s pick sides, my fellow baseball fans. We’re all clear-eyed arbiters of Truth, Justice, and The American Way – aren’t we?
kenphelps44
So, if it is false sense of entitlement then why do the owners willingly shell out the money to sign players to big contracts? Could it be that they know they can’t find anyone else who can do the job a specific player can? When you start throwing a baseball like Max Scherzer I am sure owners will line up to give you his kind of money too. The false sense of entitlement would be the owners greed who think they can buy a championship to stoke their ego. You bet I believe baseball players are superior to me when it comes to their career and if you read anything I posted you would see that I clearly make that point.
Brewers4747
Listen to what Wainwright said if same CBA was proposed we would probably be playing Players will end up with another bad deal.
hyraxwithaflamethrower
“What should we offer them?”
“I was thinking a 2% concession in this one area, but we pull back by 5% over here.”
“Sounds great. There’s no way they’ll turn *that* down!”
fljay73
Owners immediately set a lockout date.
Owners decided on a federal mediator instead of another counter offer.
Looks like the owners need to just find common ground with the players.
kwolf68
I just wish they would meet every day until something is done. How hard is it just to stay in town, rent some hotel rooms, get a conference room and do NOT come out until a deal is done.
Otis26
Always love reading comments from people who know EXACTLY what to do with other peoples’ money. Usually that means give it to someone else.
PitcherMeRolling
You’re right. There are a ton of dudes on here who make a fraction of what the players make (and even less of what the owners make) telling them to settle for less.
Scott Kliesen
Players want Owners to pay premium prices for diminishing production like they used to do. Unfortunately for players, analytics have shown Owners it makes more sense to error on the side of young, cheap labor. Until the players address this issue in a realistic fashion, a deal won’t be consummated.
PitcherMeRolling
The players are trying to get compensated earlier, when they are productive. The owners don’t want to make any significant changes in that area. How is that somehow the player’s fault?
BlueSkies_LA
Owners want to continue to restrain themselves from spending what they would otherwise spend on players if the labor market was even remotely free. What’s wrong with this picture, except everything?
PitcherMeRolling
When owners make billions of dollars or are born rich: free market = good
When it comes to paying employees: free market = bad
foppert
If that was universal, why do they need league wide regulations to restrain themselves ? They can’t just restrain themselves ? I don’t get that part of your take. Don’t the presence of regulations indicate that it’s just some owners who want other owners restrained ? Like perhaps, small market owners.
Look at the A’s and Reds. Pretty competitive seasons in open divisions and they are rumoured to be selling off assets and cutting payroll. Just suddenly decided to tank, or are they acting like any business that’s taken a hit on the P&L ?
BlueSkies_LA
They are behaving like businesses that are rewarded for being unsuccessful.
The restraints are on the big-spending teams. Clearly they’d spend even more if it wasn’t for CBT. The dollars collected under the CBT go to teams that often as not are not very interested in being competitive. Share more of the game’s revenue and then reward success instead of failure and a lot of the game’s problems go away. That won’t happen because all the team owners like the system where the large market teams pay the small market teams to be mostly irrelevant.
Patrick OKennedy
Players want salaries to increase just as profits are increasing. That’s a very reasonable expectation.
The players are addressing the issue in a couple of ways, but they really should be going at it more directly. Increasing the minimum salary and shrinking the pool of minimum salaried players by making them eligible for arbitration earlier are two things that certainly help.
But they also have a knee jerk reaction to a salary floor- fearing that it’s just the flip side of a salary cap ( and the owners did present it as such)., while in reality they’ve already bargained away a de facto salary cap without the benefit of a floor.
They also should be demanding that revenue sharing, which is intended to “level the playing field” is spent on player salaries.
And let’s be real here. The players aren’t interested in competitive balance, they just want more money. Same with the owners. The CBT has a primary purpose of restricting spending on player salaries. Follow the money and ye shall find the truth!
Mick M
Disgusted with greedy owners who won’t share the wealth with players and are tanking their teams rather than pay a fair share to players. Baseball is already in trouble with drawing new fans to sport and ticket prices getting higher…. Owners are shooting themselves financially in the foot…. Let’s stop stalling negotiations with players and allow fans to enjoy the game again…. The longer you hold out the more fans you will lose!!!