Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association met for the second consecutive day this afternoon. After MLB made its latest core economics proposal yesterday, the union made a counteroffer on a couple key issues today.
As was the case with the league’s last proposal, the union offered relatively minor tweaks relative to its past wishes (as first reported by Evan Drellich of the Athletic). The union proposal called for 75% of players with between two and three years of MLB service time to be eligible for arbitration. That’s down five percentage points from the union’s previous offer, which had called for 80% of players in the 2-3 year service bucket to qualify for Super Two. (MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes explored the possible ramifications of 80% of players in that class qualifying for arbitration yesterday).
That’s a move toward a midpoint on one of the biggest topics of contention, but there remains a huge gap on that matter. The league has steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility of expanding arbitration at all. Under the previous collective bargaining agreement, 22% of players in the 2-3 year service bucket qualified as Super Two. MLB has thus far been committed to keeping that number as is. Broader arbitration eligibility has been a key goal for the players throughout negotiations, as they started with a request for all players with two-plus years of service reaching that process before reducing that ask over their past couple offers.
The union paired their reduced ask on arbitration with a more player-friendly league minimum salary arrangement than they’ve sought in past offers. The MLBPA had previously been pursuing a flat league minimum salary of $775K throughout the term of the next CBA. Jeff Passan of ESPN reported (on Twitter) that the union continued to seek a $775K minimum next season but proposed increases in future years. Bob Nightengale of USA Today tweets the proposal would call for jumps in the league minimum by $30K each season over the course of a five-year CBA, as follows:
2022: $775K
2023: $805K
2024: $835K
2025: $865K
2026: $895K
MLB, predictably, has offered a lower league minimum to date. The league’s proposals have called for a flat $630K minimum or a staggered minimum between $615K and $725K, depending on the amount of a player’s service time. As Travis Sawchik of the Score pointed out last month, the minimum would need to be set at $650K just to keep pace with that of the 2016-21 CBA after accounting for inflation. The union, as part of its broader efforts to get more money to players earlier in their careers, has sought an increase beyond that mark throughout negotiations.
Finally, the union made a minor tweak to its proposal for the draft lottery (as Drellich first reported). While the MLBPA had previously sought for the first eight picks of the draft to be determined by lottery (as a moderate disincentive to rebuilding), the union modified that down to seven selections. The league’s latest offer would’ve had the top four picks determined by lottery.
Perhaps of most note, Drellich reports that the union did not address the competitive balance tax in today’s proposal. The CBT (informally known as the luxury tax) is shaping up as arguably the most contentious issue in talks. The union has sought to raise the base tax threshold from $210MM to $245MM next season, with the threshold eventually reaching $273MM by the end of the CBA. The league has proposed a far more modest increase — to $214MM in 2022, $222MM by the end of the CBA — and has pushed for heightened penalties for teams that exceed the thresholds.
MLB didn’t modify its CBT ask in its proposal yesterday. Jesse Rogers of ESPN tweeted at the time that the league viewed it as the union’s turn to make a move on the luxury tax, since the MLBPA’s previous proposal didn’t contain any changes to their prior goals regarding the CBT. It’s not clear whether the union agrees it should make the next move on the luxury tax, but there’s been no progression towards an agreement on that issue this week.
According to various reporters (including Michael Silverman of the Boston Globe), the league was disappointed with the offer — particularly with the union’s push for greater minimum salaries down the line. The parties will reconvene tomorrow, Drellich tweets. Rogers reports (via Twitter) that the league made a renewed suggestion for federal mediation but was rebuffed by the union. That’s no surprise, as the MLBPA quickly declined the league’s first push for mediation three weeks ago. Various players and MLBPA leadership pointed to the failures of mediation efforts in past CBA negotiations and the time it’d take for a third party to get up to speed on the relevant issues as justifications for doing so.
Presumably, MLB will respond to the union’s latest proposal (at least on issues regarding Super Two and the league minimum) tomorrow. That the sides are meeting daily after much of the lockout has dragged on without meaningful movement is no doubt of relief to some fans, but neither side’s proposal over the past two days appears to set the stage for any sort of imminent resolution. There are six days until MLB’s reported imposed deadline for a deal to be in place if the regular season is to begin on time. Jon Heyman of the MLB Network reports (on Twitter) that the parties are expected to meet daily through the end of February.
Dropping 5% of players being eligible while increasing the minimum salary demands isn’t actually compromising any, its just renaming the money
Considering the owners are going to have to give up $2 billion to get a deal done and have actually decreased the players share of revenue with their proposals, I would say renaming money is progress.
There is zero chance the owners are giving up $2B in these negotiations nor has that ever been true.
Yeah. I don’t see why anyone thinks “the owners have to make up/ give up $2 billion.” That’s not true and it’s never happening. The owners don’t have to do that and they won’t. Does anyone else see a problem with this minimum salary structure? It doesn’t sound too much in this CBA but they are going to claim a $30k annual increase is the standard next CBA and want it again. Then want it again. Then want it again. Can anyone imagine the MLBPA not doing that? Can anyone actually imagine the MLBPA ever saying, “This minimum salary is enough?” They won’t. In 20 years even the worst MLB players would be making millions of dollars a year and the arbitration numbers for the players who are actually good would be huge. Even if they were just halfway decent the numbers would get huge.
The increases are 3.4 to 3.8 percent per year.
MLB gets more bang for their bucks in the minimum salary area than anywhere else. It directly impacts a clear majority of union members, and the cost is much less than a big increase in arbitration eligibility, or a CBT threshold.
In twenty years, with inflation and other economic developments, entry level MLB players should be making well over $1 million a year.
From 1978 to 1998, the California minimum wage went from $2.65 to $5.75.
From 1996 to 2016, the California minimum wage went from $4.75 to $10.00.
Due to the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 3, the California minimum wage will increase to $15.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2022, for employers with 26 or more employees, and to $14.00 per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees. Some California cities have minimum wages of $16 and $17.
But from 2012 to 2021, the minimum salary for baseball players only went up from $480,000 to $570,000.
My proposal is to give the players in 2022 to 2025:
0-1 years $4,500 per game on roster ($729,000 per year)
1-2 years $5,000 per game on roster ($810,000 per year)
2-3 years $5,500 per game on roster ($891,000 per year)
And in 2026:
0-1 years $5,000 per game on roster ($810,000 per year)
1-2 years $5,500 per game on roster ($891,000 per year)
2-3 years $6,000 per game on roster ($972,000 per year)
Luxury tax base:
2022 $224 million
2023 $228 million
2024 $232 million
2025 $236 million
2026 $240 million
@Manny: California has never been accused of running their government in an economically responsible way. Quite the opposite. If you want to realistically judge economics go by a state whose most well known city isn’t referred to as “La-La Land.” There are plenty of states who still have minimum wage less than $8 and hour. California is not the standard. Far from it. If you want to impose those rules specifically to teams in California talk to them about it. Don’t try to tell teams in Georgia, Missouri and Texas that they have to pay their players based on how the state of California decides to handle minimum wage. If you want to go by minimum wage then go by a state which has the lowest minimum wage in the nation. That way no one can poke holes in your argument. Those states have only had minimum wage go up a couple dollars since Clinton was president. So.. maybe 20% every 20+ years. Or an average of less than 1% each year.
$10 an hour is “La-La-Land”. “Less than $8 and hour” is just fine for those peasants, right?
“If you want to go by minimum wage then go by a state which has the lowest minimum wage in the nation.”
Certain people will NEVER EVER EVER begrudge the owners greed, but $10 an hour is “economically (ir)responsible” and La La Land.
How dare people who work full time think they should be able to afford food AND shelter.
Patrick OKennedy3 hours ago
The increases are 3.4 to 3.8 percent per year.
================================================
Not sure where you are getting 3.4 to 3.8%.
On the minimum salary, it looks like an increase of 55.7% (895/575), or roughly 11% per year.
On the salary cap, it looks like 30% (273/210), or 6% per year.
California had a budget surplus pre covid. You are so wrong on so many levels and ignorance is coming right through your fingers. You can tell you’re from a fly over state with your ignorance.
Raising the CBT threshold doesn’t cost anything. No one is forced to spend up to it or over it, very few do now, and additional fan pressure to spend is about the only guaranteed draw back. Theoretically, in fact, it would save the big markets money. I just don’t understand why it is such a sticking point for the owners, they can make it $300M and still only spend $200M if they choose. The optics wouldn’t be great, but the current optics aren’t so great either.
Tim had a phenomenal suggestion in one of the weekly emails for a potential service time fix: adjust the service time based on Innings and/or at-bats that way all times/each time the player plays, it is counted in a cumulative fashion. I think that is a much more clearly delineated rule by which players, fans, & teams can track service time. I don’t think it will impact manipulation because regardless of how they construct rules for service time, owners/POBO/GMs will find ways to restrict said time if they want to stretch a player out.
Arb can work the same way too. They can do it by at-bats or innings played. It’s just a thought.
JoeBrady- the increase from 2022- 2023 is 3.87%
the increase in the last year of the deal is 3.4%
I’m referring to the marginal annual increases built into the proposal
California has a 21 billion dollar surplus. Whats not economical about that?
Unlike California, MLB does not have the federal government to bail them out. California leads the nation by getting $43.61 billion in federal funding every year. If they do have a $21 billion surplus, that’s actually a $22.61 billion deficit if you remove the federal funding (which MLB will not have). That leaves California as worst in the nation without the federal government bailing them out. I’m not making a political statement about federal funding. I’m just saying you have to do the math with the knowledge that MLB won’t receive any. California would be an economic disaster state losing over $20 billion a year without the federal funding.
Hammer – That money is most likely not even the full amount of taxes paid by Californians. The rest of their taxes go to pay the budgets of most of those flyover states, who would be bankrupt without the help from the states on the coasts. California would most likely have a larger surplus if they didn’t have to bail those states out.
Hammer:
You must be really proud of Nike using non-union foreign adolescents for sweatshop labor!
Patrick OKennedy
=======================================
Sure, if you ignore the good years, then the math works.
In the first year of the payroll cap, the players want 17% increase. In the first year of the minimum wage, the players want a 36% raise.
Just imho, but if the players wanted a little more up front, say 10% in year 1, and made the entire package an average of 5%, I think you have a framework that you can work around. But it will be the total over 5 years that will rule.
Pads Fans5 hours ago
Considering the owners are going to have to give up $2 billion
==================================
ROTFLMAO!
You think the players are getting a 50% raise? I’ll be glad to back that as soon as I get a 50% raise.
The owners have had more than a 50% increase in ownership equity and television revenues. What happened to that trickle down?
MannyBeingMVP
The owners have had more than a 50% increase in ownership equity and television revenues. What happened to that trickle down?
====================================
Nope, trickle down is reserved for owners and quasi-owners. You don’t get the upside of revenue increases unless you accept the downside of revenue decreases.
This is what the other three majors do. If revenue doubles for the NBA in the next ten years, then the players’ collective salaries double. If the revenue stays flat, then the salaries stay flat.
No one in the world gets that option. Again, back to the Matt Damon analogy. he can accept a salary for the move of $10M, or he can take $1M and a percentage of the box office. But no one will guarantee him a top salary AND a percentage.
Past that, i am guessing that, if the players wanted a flat 50% of revenue, the strike would be over tomorrow. But the owners cannot make the players accept it, even if it is in their best interests.
@JoeBrady: You’re exactly right. The owners would happily give the players a fluid 50/50 split of the pie every year based on revenue. The players say “it’s too much like a salary cap.” They openly don’t want to be paid based on revenue which makes the revenue none of their business. By their own decision it does not and should not effect their salaries. All the other sports do it. It’s tied to the salary cap, too. Sometimes the salary cap goes up. Sometimes it goes down. It all depends on the revenue. The MLBPA doesn’t want that. They want the safety net of getting a guaranteed amount every year during the down years. They never want that number to go down. No matter what. Then on the good years they want to talk about revenue even though it is irrelevant because they refuse to be paid based on revenue. I get that they are just looking out for their personal best interests but that doesn’t mean I have to pretend it makes sense or that it’s in the best interest of the game as a whole. It’s not. The best interest of the game would be payroll based of revenue every single year. That way everyone would be trying to make the entire sport as healthy as possible. The players refuse that. Take a risk, players. Then you get to reap the rewards. If you don’t take the risk, you don’t get the rewards. That’s where the phrase “No risk, no reward” comes from. There is no risk in demanding a guaranteed set salary regardless of what revenue is.
It seems to me that increasing minimum salary demands beyond what was already demanded and declared acceptable, in writing, may necessitate that an attorney explain the concept of negotiating to the MLBPA. The demands are supposed to come together – not grow apart.
Same thing with the pre-arb bonus pool. MLB raises their offer. MLBPA just raises their ask. That’s the opposite of negotiating.
The MLBPA was clear in its statement that the CBT needed to contain lower penalties and a higher threshold that was in line with the 30% increase in revenue the owners saw during the previous CBA.
2017 CBT threshold was $195 million + 30% increase = $253.50 million. Initially the MLBPA proposed $255 million and have lowered that to $245 million after the owners proposed $214 with stiffer penalties including loss of draft picks.
The owners have not countered. There is no reason to come back with a different offer.
The players aren’t paid based on a % of revenue, so the argument that the owners need to increase payments by that amount is just weak.
Exactly. Players are employees. Not partners. Unless they switch to a revenue based player salary the revenue is irrelevant. Outside of one publicly owned team no one knows the revenue so trying to come up with figures players should make based on a number unknown is ridiculous anyway. There’s no reason for MLB to share their revenue numbers if the players aren’t paid based off of it. No privately owned business does. If you aren’t a partner taking the financial risk of actually posting a negative income every year then you are an employee making a salary that isn’t based off revenue.
Yes – especially if the players refuse to even consider a 50/50 revenue split – along the lines of the other majors.
Hey players, you want the owners to open their books, do you? Try proposing that! Then we’ll see who’s being stubborn and unreasonable – and who isn’t.
Still don’t get why anyone thinks the players are negotiating anymore than the owners are. Both sides are dug in and the moves made are minimal at best in both sides.
Neither side wants to make the first big concession. At this rate of back and forth there won’t be a 2023 season either.
I think it has already been said, but the players have made a number of huge concessions including agreeing to leave free agency at 6 years and arbitration at 3 years. Those are huge!!!
arbitration at 3 for 25% of players*
No. Arbitration already was at 3 years. Super Two was at top 22% of service time so in 2021 it was once they reached 2 years, 116 days of service time.
How is it a concession to keep things as is? Right now, the players have gained from the last CBA. I don’t get the narrative about the players giving up stuff. Everything they asked for are increases and why does it matter what the revenue increased if the players aren’t interested in basing a system off of revenues.
MLB revenue increased 30%. Player median salaries went DOWN more than 20%. There is a HUGE gap in where the revenue in the sport goes that has to be closed so changes HAVE to be made. The players proposed that those changes be made to FA and arbitration and then made a concession on both of those points. If you can’t understand the simple, then understanding something as complex as a CBA is beyond what you should be discussing. The OWNERS refuse to open their books. Would YOU accept a deal based on a percentage of revenue if you were not allowed to see what the actual revenue is???
If I ask my employer for a million dollar raise, and then back off, that’s not a concession.
Also, this idea of the owners opening the books is never, ever, ever going to happen. Just like all the other private companies who aren’t obligated to open their books to their employees. So that is just a rhetorical talking point.
I support the players too, but those two points you raise are just not legitimate parts of the argument for the players.
They absolutely do need to keep seeking their slice of the revenue, which has increased substantially. But they aren’t getting a look at the books, and what you’re calling a concession is not a concession at all. This is not my parlance, this is the verbiage of big contract negotiations.
Agreeing to keep things as they are (6 yrs of control) is not a concession. It’s only a compromise with regard to what they demanded, which could be anything.
If your boss made $2 million off your work, you come and ask for $1 million raise, and then you back off, yes, that is a concession.
I guess you could say its a reduction in their demands, but agreeing to status quo is not giving up anything, which is what a concession would be. Let me know when the players union agrees to reduce anything that they already have. That would be a concession. An example would be giving up Super Two arbitration in exchange for higher salaries for the first three years. (Not that I’m suggesting this). That would be a concession. If you ask for a 10% raise, but your company only gives 5%, You didn’t concede anything. You got a raise.
As several people have already said, there is a $2 plus BILLION gap to be made up in how the revenue the players create is divied up. The players have made reasonable proposals that are in line with the increases in income MLB has seen over the past 5 years. Now its the owners turn. Put up or shut up.
People involved in the process have stated “$2 Billion” or several fans have come up with $2 Billion ?
Drellich and Rosenthal. They have quoted several involved in the process.
The $2B number is entirely fictitious. Nearly half it comes from multiplying the difference in the CBT levels ($31M) by all 30 teams.
Wrong. The $2 billion number is taken from dividing the revenue of the sport and subtracting the earnings including benefits of the players. That has been covered multiple times in articles referenced on this site. The CBT threshold is an ENTIRELY different subject. The revenue of the sport according to Manfred went up 30% during the last CBA. The CBT threshold was $195 million at the start of the last CBA. Look it up. Now do the math. What is a 30% increase over $195 million? The players are asking for the CBT threshold to be increased to $245 million. How does that compare to the increase you calculated?
Ok. Thanks.
Player performance has been basically stable for nearly 100 years. At what point did people begin to think that players are entitled to the equity in the business? Do Gates or Musk share their equity with their assemblers and code writers? What business does that?
EVERY major sport has equality in player compensation EXCEPT MLB. 48.8% in NFL, 50% in NHL, and 49-51% in NBA. Look it up. Players are in the entertainment business. Player performance is measured by the amount fans spend on the game and that has not been stable, it has grown as the 30% increase in revenue points out. Tesla had $53 billion in revenue. Musk made $6 billion. The rest went into salaries of workers and producing the product. The company had a net profit margin of 10.25%. We are not talking about the net worth of the owners or the value of the franchises, we are talking about the revenue created by selling the product and that product IS the players. My business is a service and I pay the people that perform that service and sell that service about 65% of the gross revenue. That is typical of nearly all service businesses. In media, the actors make about 2/3 of the revenue of any TV show or movie.
There are many businesses around the world that do it, just not many American ones.
If you think players haven’t added anything to the sport, does that mean you think the owners have?
The David Glass family took in over $1 billion from the Kansas City Royals. Do you think that family added $1 billion worth of “performance” compared to the players?
Are those figures for the other majors gross revenues or net revenues?
There are different kinds of owners and the 30 of them don’t all have the same capacity.
Revenue has gone up during a pandemic, you claim. As the books aren’t open, no-one outside MLB actually knows. What has happened to costs during that same time period? Doubt you know, or have even attempted to find the info. If you think any money that doesn’t go to the players is the owners profits, you’re gonna flunk your intro to business class.
I don’t understand why people don’t see this. They act as if player pay is the one and only cost when operating a team.
Either side changing their position in any direction except towards the other sides position, is disingenuous to the negotiating process.
Feels like the players are asking for huge jumps in $ all over the board.
Give me, more, more…
It feels like, because it is like. How much is the question – and how would it effect the already huge competitive differences in team payrolls?
It appears the CBT is the primary anchor for the players in this negotiation and they’re not going to waver from the $245M in 2022 anytime soon. Their other anchor appears to be the arbitration pool. They’re likely to give a little on several other negotiating items the owners want like the 4 team lottery for the draft, expanded playoff & DH so the owners have a few “gets”, but they’ll need significant movement from the owners on their 2 anchors if this lockout is ever going to end. What a cluster of a goat rodeo!
The players have already given large concessions. No movement on free agency at 6 years and not asking for arbitration to start at 2 years.
There is a $2 billion gap in share of the total revenue to be made up here. The owners are going to have to give and give big at this point.
At this point the only ones that have given concessions that move the needle on money spent are the players.
Players: competitive balance is a big issue.
Also players: we need the luxury tax to go up so the Dodgers and YankSux can spend at will.
I get it, they players want money and know who spends it. But they spent the first part of the dispute screaming “competitive balance” when a higher CBT is anything but.
Players never said that competitive balance was a big thing. They said teams need to be prevented from tanking. That the revenue sharing system disincentivizes too many small market teams from trying to compete. YOU said competitive balance is a big thing. MLB revenue went up 30% in the past 5 years. It went up so far that the small market Padres exceeded the CBT threshold. The CBT needs to go up a similar percentage to what revenue went up. Is that really too difficult to understand?
A higher CBT that allows the Yankees, Dodgers, and other higher-revenue clubs to spend more will almost certainly lead to lower-revenue teams spending more. Maybe not at the same levels but certainly higher they are spending now. If you truly believe that teams like the Rays, Pirates, and A’s absolutely cannot spend any more than they do on payroll…well, I’d be embarrassed by that thought. We’ve never seen their books (rightfully so, as private companies) but we generally know how much they generate from national revenues on just the regular season. There is no reason an MLB team cannot spend $120M annually on payroll without batting an eye.
I Agree. I side with the players, but it seems counterintuitive to ask for a higher team payroll for the few teams spending that kind of money while also trying to prevent tanking with half-measures like a draft lottery.
I truly believe, to fix this thing. There has to be a salary cap (say, $185m) and a salary floor (say, $85m) to prevent tanking. Everything else is Bandaids on Bandaids on Bandaids.
But the things I mentioned above that could save the sport and make it a more fun for younger fans (who are moving away from the sport in droves) don’t seem like possible at all. And that’s a shame because this is the greatest game ever devised and even though revenue is up, without young fans, this sport is dead and it doesn’t even know it.
I agree with your assessment regarding the bandaids. They should have a hard cap that’s based something like this: the average salary of all players who have graduated beyond arbitration, multiplied by 26 (number of roster spots). I don’t have that number, so it could be way off, but I’m not arguing the specific calculation so much as there should be a calculation something like that.
Then you need a floor. Call it, I don’t know, 40% of the cap or something like that.
Let the players hit arbitration at 2 years. Put the bottom three teams in a lottery for the top three draft picks. And award teams who put rookies on the field early by granting supplemental draft picks if those players finish the season with RoY or MVP votes, that kind of thing.
There will never be and cannot a hard cap in MLB until 2 things happen. The owners open their books. The owners agree to share revenue 100% with other teams like they do in every other major sport in the country. Do you see the owners agreeing to either f those things?
Seems about right, Blue. All of these machinations to try to work within a broken system just seem kind of futile.
There’s a way for this to work well in the long term and for everybody to get paid, but it just kind of feels like everybody is losing sight of the big picture…have great games, have parity in the league and BUILD a sport that people will love for years to come.
The league and the MLPA seem like they’re losing sight of that and it’s hurting the game to an extent that it feels like we’re getting close to a breaking point.
Out, I think you’re pretty much right. Both sides have to operate in good faith and in the interest of making the game healthy.
If both sides do that, they can create something great and profitable, but as we all know, there hasn’t been a lot of history of shared good faith between the two parties and it’s going to be what kills the game…that and the fact that kids don’t want to watch three hour baseball games the way they once did.
@outinleftfield
Do you see the players asking them to?
The clock is ticking, MLB. Another week of this ridiculousness will cost you untold numbers of fans who will NEVER return to watching baseball. Heed the warning, the ice is getting thinner and thinner. Nobody likes selfish billionaires (owners) and millionaires (players) who only care about their own interests and not the fans who ultimately pay their salaries and profits.
No team believes the fans won’t come back. And they’re probably right to an extent.
But they also dismiss the downward trend in attendance, and refuse to acknowledge that baseball has nowhere near the cultural influence it once had. I think the owners know this, and don’t care. They’re gonna bleed the beast regardless.
Because they are making more money on television deals than ever before. MLB just signed a TV deal with TBS that is a 65% increase than its previous contract for the playoffs.
6 teams average less than 10k fans per game..half the league less than 20k. There is definitely an attendance problem.
I think most of people that threaten to “leave” baseball are most full of hot air. Think of all the people that swore off the NFL for kneeling and all that stuff, but the viewership numbers continue to rise from recent years. Nearly a third of the country watched the Super Bowl live.
NOW, that being said. I 100% believe fewer fans will be willing to shell out for tickets, concessions, tune into games on TV, get MLB pass, etc etc. Overall interest will go down and the sport will be extremely harmed if we’re not playing games by early summer. But are “untold numbers…. NEVER returning” to watch if they don’t get this done in a week…? No, I don’t think so.
As long as they continue to work towards getting the season back on track, hopefully they can be done in a few weeks. There is a huge amount of daylight between the two sides right now though, and $5 million increments here and there do not inspire much confidence.
Remember that flurry of baseball activity right before the lockout? That was fun.
Baseball has completely sucked since then. In every way. Every day passed is a lost day of baseball excitement for fans with no signings or trades or any transactions period.
Every day passed is one less Spring Training game.
Every day passed is closer to getting less than a 162 schedule.
In 2020, the sport had a chance to be the first sport to come back during the pandemic and have the nation’s only eyeballs on it, a great opportunity to grow interest in the game. They bungled it.
After finally getting fans back in 2021, they’re making fans sour with these protracted “negotiations” where neither side appears at all serious.
This sport hates itself.
After fans could come back without COVID restrictions starting in July 2021, MLB actually drew more fans per game than in 2019. They are killing the goose that lays the $12 billion a year and growing egg.
I think they know they’re killing the goose, and just don’t care.
Gotta make that paper.
They are both so short sighted
Attendance has declined every year since 2012. Fully get you are a champion of the players in this ordeal (and so am I). However looking at the summer months attendance and extrapolating it out over a full season isn’t a fair comparison. Outside of opening day and the first home series, attendance is typically lighter until school gets out. One of the dangers of spinning data is that it can be manipulated to paint whatever narrative fits an agenda. Like I said, I’m with you on being on the players side, however there is no disputing the significant drop in attendance over the past 9 years.
Its not? COVID restrictions are what kept stands from being full early in the season. Interest was high. Streaming sales were already at historic highs. April has a higher average attendance per game than May, June or September. Probably because opening series is the highest attended games of the season for all teams.
The only way the owners can end the lockout is if the players agree to a federal mediator and that mediator declares an impasse. For that reason the players will never agree to a mediator. This labor stoppage is 100% on the owners and the players are not willing to allow the owners to try to change the narrative.
Yet the players will eventually cave. The longer it goes, the less MLB owners will be motivated to give anything. Start canceling games and players lose money…this will motivate the players.
The players have never caved in a labor stoppage before. What makes you think they will now? Once they started letting players, even minor league players in min-camps, into the spring training facilities the owners started spending money. TV games were scheduled to start February 26th and the money lost from national broadcasts is not small. Once the regular season starts the owners will be losing 100% of their revenue, while still having to spend money. The players have put together a nearly $1 billion fund made up of 100% of licensing and merchandise sales and a percentage of union dues over the past 4 years in preparation for a situation like this. There is nothing that indicates the players will cave.
Looks like at this pace should have a deal in 2 weeks that both sides could have come up with months ago. Negotiators on both sides need to check their large egos at the door.
Honestly, at this point, wake me when there’s a resolution. Reading about all of these negotiations without any real negotiating just gives me a headache. What a bunch of tone deaf, full of themselves blowhards. Both sides.
I don’t like the argument of Billionaires vs millionaires. There are plenty if players who are AAAA types who might be in the MLB for 2-3 years and never reach arbitration. They fought through playing for nothing in the minor leagues and get league minimum for a few years. Yes, they’ll make more money than me but they are not millionaires. Most players who reach the MLB will make a few million dollars (again, that is a lot) but like RBs in the NFL, they know they have a shelf life and it isn’t long.
Right on. The players negotiating are indeed millionaires but they are pushing for a settlement that gives the players who never become millionaires their just rewards. I would like to see the players lower their CBT demands but stick to their minimum salary wishes. If they do so, we might see some movement with the owners. With respect to a mediator, wouldn’t it be nice for the commissioner to act as such with his major concern the fans. Won’t happen.
Need both to even come close to bridging the $2 billion gap between where the players are now in terms of percentage of revenue paid to them and 50% of revenue earned.
No leadership on either side. Read the room, boys.
blah blah blah
It’s one of two things:
Either neither side is serious. In which case this doesn’t get settled until May with a 1/2 season salvage.
or…………..
They are but not yet. I bet they both think they have time before the 162 game season is gone.
I’m guessing there is going to be round the clock, 24 hr. marathon sessions starting somewhere around March 1. A deal in 3 days. ST starts March 5 and season starts on time..
According to several major league players and coaches quoted during this lock out, pitchers need 6 weeks of pitching at game speed to build up arm strength to throw 90-100 pitches. Starting spring training on March 5th wont accomplish that by what was supposed to be opening day. That doesn’t mean they can’t alter the schedule slightly and still get in 162 games, but they wont start on March 31st.
Obviously, the players don’t get it. There isn’t going to be any increase in player payroll. The sport’s economics do not allow for any raise. Stadiums must now be paid for by the owners. Minor leaguers need to be paid. We are cutting the size of the minor league system. Ticket revenues are falling. The competitive balance between teams no longer exists. There are several hundred non-player employees associated with every team that also have to be paid. You cannot do this with the declining revenues and increasing player payroll. The owners are in business. This is not a hobby for billionaires. The players are behaving like an expensive girlfriend to a rich, old man.
Exactly, the people with less hair should always be the ones to take the hair cut.
Oh my! You mean to tell us that those poor owners must actually foot the bill for those palaces that generate hundreds of millions in revenues? What a shame. MLB revenues have increased dramatically in the last 5 years. Yes, the owners can afford to increase player pay. If they don’t, then we should all get refunds on our ticket prices, concessions, and cable/TV bills (which is never going to happen, so the players may as well get the money).
I’m not sure where you’re coming from here, but you could at least try to get a fact or 2 straight.
“Stadiums must now be paid for by the owners” In what case is this the case?. There are 2 active discussions moving slowly about new stadiums, and both suggest significant public financing for them will be part of the package. As has almost every other new stadium project in the last decades, if not directly on the stadium, then on other infrastructure supporting projects. And stadium development costs can be subtracted from local revenues before figuring revenue sharing pool contributions.
Ticket revenues have fallen, largely due to Covid. But TV revenues are still rising. The pace of revenue growth may well have slowed of late (the numbers are private), but payrolls in 2021 were at a lower level than in 2017 in absolute dollars, with an added active player to pay.
I could go on, but in this case its not the players who don’t get it. I don’t think they are going to get anything near their current asks, perhaps nor should they, but we have to face that the owners have basically moved not at all.
The owners are pushing hard on the CBT issue because they feel there is a significant group in the public that agree with them on that. But keeping a very tight CBT won’t hurt the big money players, it will just continue to squeeze the players in the middle where all the pressure on salary levels has always fallen.
The owners are likely holding firm on the CBT because only 6 teams have exceeded the tax level and 24 have not. The 24 does not want the 6 to have an even bigger advantage. The lower likelyhood of making playoff money could possibly have an effect on ticket sales, and also franchise value. Keeping the playing field somewhat level keeps the sport popular everywhere, not just the on the coasts.
Revenues are sky rocketing, not going down.
Bob, I’m sorry, but you’ve made statements without any supporting evidence. In fact, the Rays new stadium plans discussion revolves precisely around the topic of whether they can receive taxpayer funding for a new stadium & Oakland is in the same boat.
Moreover, you cite revenues are….down? I mean, every single season, except no-fan, 1/2 season, Covid-pandemic-shaken 2020, has been an increase in revenue. And, not just any increase, a substantial increase.
So, since there’s simply conjecture, I wanted to provide statistical data (at least what’s available) to support my point. This link shows the exponential increase in revenue stream for the NYY for the past 20 years. It’s… substantial – all except ONE year, guess which one?
statista.com/statistics/196673/revenue-of-the-new-…
And, so one cannot claim, “Well that’s just NY,” I’ve objectively attached the lowly Pirates which reflect marked increases nearly every single year for the last 20 as well. Here’s the link:
statista.com/statistics/196679/revenue-of-the-pitt…
Rays?
statista.com/statistics/196686/revenue-of-the-tamp…
So, two very opposite ends of the spectrum. Marked increases in revenue even for the “No-fan” Rays?! And remember, this is without the substantial revenue sharing the Pirates & Rays also get, but don’t spend, every single year now. Every single team has made significant revenue increases and to postulate otherwise is to be disingenuous, imho. Also remember, this is what is accessible, with teams refusing to open their books (which is their right), but I submit to you that the revenues are much higher than this.
This is the make or break week, IMO. Right now the full season is in play and nobody has missed any real money.
Give that a week or so and revenues will be lost. At that point more anger and frustration are added and each side will really want to win rather than make a fair deal.
Just my gut feeling.
Saturday the owners start losing money.
Short term losses for long term gains…owners in the driver seat.
In every season in which the owners started losing money from the loss of regular season games, they caved to player demands. What makes you think this season is different?
The NHL has a minimum salary that will reach $900,000 by the end of the current CBA.
In a sport with half the revenue.
MLB has no excuse.
NHL teams employ all of 50 players total throught their systems, that’s a big part of why.
If baseball didn’t pay the minor leaguers $12 a week plus a PBJ a day, that might make the difference. AHL players start at $65,000 a year.
23 on the the big league rosters vs. 25 or 26, is pretty apples to apples.
MLB owners take pride in underpaying their players. It’s their sport.
Minor leaguers get paid like $10k/year. Sometimes even less. Those 100 players cost roughly a mil
NHL players are guaranteed 50% of the revenue of the sport in their CBA and the teams books are open.
Has the MLBPA asked for that kind of a deal? If not … why haven’t they?
I see a lot of folks comparing the current CBA negotiations with other sports’ players’ compensation. Revenue and roster sizes are not the same in baseball.
Do they have guaranteed contracts?
As long as you keep in mind “ the sport’s economics” is equal to what they can get the fan to shell out. Cable tickets etc etc
It sounds like nothing really happened.
Ask Scherzer to spread some his millions around, the owners are taking all the risk,they are the owners ,this is America , you are suppose to earn your keep , rookies should be paid more,maybe starting @ 700 k but the millionaires want more, owners don’t want Mets Dodgers& Yankees running salaries up like 43m per yr.
The great risk of owning a baseball team?
When was the last time an MLB owner lost money?
Oh, right…. never.
Stop licking boots.
When was the last time any major sport team owner lost money? Do you think they should? Are you hoping for teams to go into debt or file for bankruptcy? Its not one of their goals. Bill Maher sold his share of the Mets because the team came asking the owners group for capital after the Madoff scam. The Dodgers were caught in a divorce and MLB got involved. If the players union thought everything would only go up, why do they refuse to accept a percentage of revenue for salary? (Because they don’t want the risk of something like a pandemic causing revenue to go down). Cincinnati which has the owner with the lowest total worth, could not have had a fun time when the big market teams decided to pull revenue sharing the one year that small market teams really needed it. Now they can add additional loans to their balance sheet to keep the business running with a shorter season and no fans in the stands. Yes, several teams lost money 2020. All teams lost revenue that year.
Sure seems like every time the players make a new proposal, the owners just say”that’s a non-starter”.
It took until February 21st for both sides to feel enough urgency to meet every day. February. 21st.
Player performance has been basically stable for nearly 100 years. At what point did people begin to think that players are entitled to the equity in the business? Do Gates or Musk share their equity with their assemblers and code writers? What business does that?
You posted the same EXACT thing twice and you were wrong twice. Where did you cut and past that fallacy from? Did Manfred send it to you personally?
You’ll have to show me where I posted the same exact thing chief.
The Natural4 hours ago
Player performance has been basically stable for nearly 100 years. At what point did people begin to think that players are entitled to the equity in the business? Do Gates or Musk share their equity with their assemblers and code writers? What business does that?
If you don’t even know what you are posting, maybe you need to either put own the bottle or pay attention.
Oh and btw, the equity conversation is indeed my opinion and I have posted it in various forums, but cut and paste? Manfred? Tsk..tsk, your moniker fits exquisitely.
You OBVIOUSLY cut and pasted that. Its exactly the same word for word. BTW, the answer to your question is YES, Gates and Musk DO share equity with their employees.
Gates and Musk DO share equity with their employees.
===============================
The owners always, always offer the players a % of revenue. The players always refuse. They cannot force the players to accept quasi-ownership, even when it is in the players’ best interest.
Well shiver my timbers, that comment is here twice. BUT–i don’t think I’ve ever cut and pasted on this site in all these years..possibly a link. I did hit publish later in the day though–so perhaps it had posted and then i hit publish again later. But whatever, our viewpoints will never coincide,
You ever heard of stock options or stock awards? Gates and Musk did and made many of their employees very very wealthy. That’s how the phrase “Microsoft Millionaire” came into play as even secretary’s entered that club
And the difference between a Microsoft millionaire and a ball playing millionaire is?
Nothing. The 432 people that earned a million or more a year working for Microsoft in 2021 are in the top 1000 or so at what they do in the world. Nobody is complaining about those people at Microsoft earning a million a year. Why are you complaining about the players doing the same.
I’m not complaining about the 432 at MS or the probable similar number of MLB players who make over a million. I’m a capitalist. I truly believe the minimum salary should be raised and that players should be eligible for higher pay while they’re younger. Teams have control for too long. I also think the minor league players should be paid a much more reasonable amount.
My whole point is people saying that the game has so much more incoming revenue due to today’s players. It’s not the case. Look at all time WAR leaders (i used baseball reference) and the list spreads out quite evenly for about 100 years. In the top 20 of all time only four had significant playing time past the 50’s.
It was a huge deal back in the late 60’s early 70’s when a player signed for $100k. Today we have a 37 year old signing a 3 year for $130 mill. I’ve seen the charts that show player salary not entirely keeping pace over the last few years, but still, these guys are NOT getting screwed. As Bill Veeck said..”you don’t mind paying up for the stars, it’s the price of mediocrity that kills you.” Both side have plenty of guilt here.
The players are the reason mlb even exists. Without them it’s nothing. Millions of people could do the owners job. Gates and Musk are are the main parts of their companies just as players are the main parts of the mlb.
It’s getting harder to be Team Player IMO. I’m sure many of us work for companies/corporations that are worth billions of dollars, and do a ton of hard work, much of which is not easily replaceable. And yet most of us are more than happy with a 5 or low 6 figure income. What does how much our bosses make really have to do with anything?They are the ones putting their money on the line and/or paying for things without which we wouldn’t have jobs in the first place.
WTH does what you make doing something hundreds of thousands of other people can do have to do with developing a skill over a lifetime that only 780 people on the planet can do? Do you work for a monopoly? No?
If you and your coworkers don’t care how much the owner makes, that’s on YOU. That’s not on other workers at other companies.
If your ownership is making $2 billion of YOUR work, then yes, you are entitled to a big chunk of that. Because if there were no workers, that money wouldn’t exist.
Stop being brainwashed by the aristocrats.
That $2 Billion is revenue. Not what they are making. The average Grocery store works towards a 3-5% profit. Many grocery stores chains have higher total revenue than MLB. Quit ignoring the costs of operating a business.
Stymeed, I don’t know about all grocery chains, but I own stock in Kroger. They made a 23.5% gross profit margin and had a 2.03% operating profit margin in 2021. Do you know what the profit margin is in baseball? We know what the profit margins are for just two teams, because they are publicly held companies. Both of those ballclubs averaged over 35% net profit margin the past 5 seasons. That is the AVERAGE including 2020 and is the NET, not the gross. We also know from those two teams public books that if they had been spending 50% of the gross revenue on MLB player payroll they would still have been profitable. The Braves had revenue of $476 million in 2019 and that will be over $500 million in 2022 with the new national TV deals and no fan Covid restrictions all season. They could have spent $238 million in 2019 and can spend $250 million in 2022 and beyond and still make a profit. What did the Braves spend in 2019? $160,048,438. THAT is why changes need to be made. Owners are taking ridiculous profits instead of sharing the increases in revenue with the people that make it possible. Stop ignoring the reality of the situation.
I don’t know why the CBT is so contentious an issue. It’s irrelevant for 27 or 28 teams year after year at its current level. The players need to chill and not make that a sticking point.
In 2021, 14 teams made the revenue needed to surpass the CBT without sacrificing earning a net profit. Its not just 2-3 teams anymore. The PADRES went over the CBT threshold its so low. Revenue in MLB went up 30% during the previous CBA and the players are asking the CBT threshold to go up less than 30% from what it was at the beginning of the previous CBA. ITs more than reasonable.
It doesn’t matter what teams make. What matters is what owners are willing to spend. For example, the Angels’ owner can afford to go over but has had a personal salary cap of about 170m over the last 10 years or so. Last year was a record at 182m. On average, only 2 or 3 teams a year come close to or surpass the current threshold. So players making it a sticking point is ridiculous because it will have no bearing on what owners are willing to spend.
Prov356: This is a great point on both sides. It makes me wonder why the owners would also want to create this as a point of contention. It really is their subjective marker, after all. If Hal Steinbrenner says, “I’m not spending over $200M” Cashman isn’t spending over that threshold.
It is a curious point on both sides given the absolute control the owners already have over their own budget.
I literally show your basic premise is false and you come back with that? Try again. Angelos has said that he was committed to staying under the CBT threshold. Two articles in the LA Times about that and one in the OC Register in the past 5 years. The harsh PENALTIES are what kept owners from going over, which is why so many teams that had revenue over S500 million did all they could to duck back under after a year or two over, not their ability to spend the money. Sometimes. BTW, the Angels spent $198,984,916 in CBT payroll. legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al…
As of TODAY, 6 teams are projected to be over or within $4 million of the 2021 CBT threshold for 2022 and several others are expected to be over $200 million. 2 or 3 is flat out incorrect. EVERYTHING you said is incorrect.
I’ve been wondering the same exact thing on the owner’s side. No one is forcing them to spend up to the CBT.
outinleftfield4 hours ago
In 2021, 14 teams made the revenue needed to surpass the CBT without sacrificing earning a net profit. Its not just 2-3 teams anymore. The PADRES went over the CBT threshold its so low. Revenue in MLB went up 30% during the previous CBA and the players are asking the CBT threshold to go up less than 30% from what it was at the beginning of the previous CBA.
=================================
It doesn’t matter how much each individual team made. Tp Prov356’s point, it only matters how many teams were impacted by the cap. I think you need to look at the $200M payrolls to determine. that.
The only teams within striking distance of the cap, but not going over, were the NYY, RS, Astros, maybe the Angels, the Mets and Phillies. Everyone else either exceeded it, or weren’t close to it.
The impact of the cap only affected 5-6 teams.
Seems like once again, when all is said and done, the minor leaguers will still get nothing but the players will stand on their soapbox and talk about how they are all “family”. Load of BS as always. Just the way it’s always been, cheap labor.
That’s my biggest issue. I know the minors aren’t covered by the CBA but it’s a crime how little they get paid.
Minor leaguers got a guarantee that more of them will not lose their jobs during the coming 5 years after 1200 of them were already fired this offseason when MLB cut 43 teams from the minor leagues. The MLBPA does not represent the vast majority of minor leaguers and they still insisted on that point. Pay attention to the ball.
There are literally laws that say union members cannot negotiate for non-union members.
And MLB has an agreement that says minor leaguers cannot join the MLBPA.
The way MLBPA can argue for them is by doing what they can, minimum wage increase, arbitration, etc. the moment they get the chance to join the MLBPA (you know, like they’re doing now.)
MLB tried to include having the ability to reduce the number of minor league players in the future in one of their proposals for this CBA. The MLBPA said no. Its important to read everything that is written about the subject matter.
Inching toward and agreement, but at this rate it will occur in May…….2026
Looks like the general consensus is moving away from Boras, thank God!
Boras is neither a member of the union nor one of the MLB owners. He is not involved in either side of this negotiations. But thanks for sharing your delusions. In the midst of what is trying times for all fans we needed a good laugh.
The amazing thing about this fight is they are arguing over maybe 4% of league revenues. 4! I mean the owners could pay every rookie 1 million and it doesn’t matter.
The real issue seems to be the owners are tethered to the cheapest owners. If the Rays want to be cheap, let them be. Most teams can’t do that and succeed.
Just waiting for a Steve Cohen and a couple of the more outspoken owners to have enough. I’ll always side w/ labor but the whole negotiation itself is pretty silly. They are arguing over a sliver of the pot.
Maybe grow the game by 10% and everyone makes more money.
They are arguing over $2 billion. That is about 16.6% of MLB revenue. MLB revenue grew 30% over the past 5 years while player salaries dropped over 20%. The growth has happened. Its time to pay the players for their part in that growth.
I’m for the players but you are incorrect on the math. If the owners caved and gave the players everything they wanted, it would be 4% of league revenue. If we are arguing about how we share 1 million and I want 50k more, we are arguing about 50k not one million
………………………
Joe Sheehan in a free peek at his newsletter called on MLB to lift the lockout: “The two sides have a basic agreement on what baseball should look like in 2022: pretty much like it did in 2021. They’re just carving up marginal dollars right now; the differences between the two sides max out at about 4% of the league’s projected revenue in 2022, and lower percentages than that as the deal wears on and league revenues rise. There are no structural changes on the table: Free agency and arbitration will remain the same, and the minimum salary will still be low enough to make tankbuilding profitable.”
Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The difference between 50% of the revenue of baseball and what the players earned in 2021 is over $2 billion. THAT is what the negotiations are about. Try figuring out the basics by reading Drellich and Rosenthal then get back to us.
1-How much did the players earn in 2021?
2-Divide $2B into the answer you get from #1, and that will tell you how much of a raise it is.
Just let me know the answer to #1 and I will do the math for you.
Employees telling employees what they should be paid. Dictating the business. Lmao. I say the owners walk away from the table and allow the players to get real jobs for a while and then see how they feel about they’re current employment. The owners need to put these employees in there place
Employees telling employers that is
Either way your point was ludicrous. You obviously are either a paid troll or just don’t understand how a CBA works. Try figuring that out first.
Mlb baseball players are in the top 800 of their profession in the entire world. Not many people with “real jobs” can say that
the minimum would need to be set at $650K just to keep pace with that of the 2016-21 CBA after accounting for inflation……
Sorry, but at that level, inflation is much less a factor than for Joe Sixpack who’s making due on five figures a year..
They union supporters don’t understand how inflation works. Inflation only negatively impacts what you spend. Gas going up 33% is huge for someone making $50k a year and driving 12,000 miles. For a guy making $2M a year, the increase is probably less than the amount of cash he carries in his pocket. Same thing with food. A player might make 40x what the $50k guy makes, but his food bill might only be double.
Is either side being reasonable?
Who defines what’s reasonable? It’s all relative depending on where you sit. I think the money entertainers are paid is ridiculous across the board from Hollywood to sports stars.
Most young players are fodder, they don’t deserve arbitration. The ones that do, should be paid. The players are being unreasonable.
The luxury tax threshold is fine, the penalties are too severe. Maybe five teams will challenge that threshold. Tax enough that the Yankees and Dodgers see it as a speed bump. Not as a barrier. The owners are being unreasonable.
If a third of the young players are getting arbitration after 2 years, why should the bonus pool be so high? The players are being more unreasonable than the owners.
Another thing, with 12 teams in the playoffs, why would any team spend so much money? The difference between the first team in and last team in isn’t going to be severe.
Prov356: Right, as usual, my friend. Unfortunately, we (at least me) seem to be the dummies that keep them in business. Although, not Hollywood anymore as I can’t stomach a large majority of their…..art (?).
I’ve also completely stopped watching NFL, hockey, & basketball. So many important things in my life have taken over, as we’ve briefly discussed, and eventually moving to your beautiful state will afford me the opportunity to better use my limited time enjoying even more constructive outdoor activities.
On that note, I saw TN baseball won their first tournament… pretty strong showing too.
Halo11Fan4 hours ago
Is either side being reasonable?
===================================
No.
The union demands are almost laughable on their scale. But the owners have put very little on the table. The players aren’t getting their 5-10% demands, but the owners are going to come off of their 1-2% offers.
Agreed with both you and Halo, Joe. I think when diving into all the issues, most people do. It’s the misinformation in the process that’s creating much of the back-and-forth…
Instead of committing to meeting daily through the end of the month, how about committing to meeting daily until an agreement is reached? The last thing that needs to happen is either side to get to March 1 and walk away, saying that the other side is unwilling to compromise, Both sides have already displayed that in abundance.
I think the reason is for that defining marker is because once games are lost, the players already committed to refusing expanded playoffs. The owners will obviously respond in kind by just shutting down more of the season, or the benefits contained within the draft contract to make up for the lost revenue, which is substantial.
Essentially, they’re saying if it’s not done by then, they’re committed to removing the most important goal for each side.
Clipper: Makes sense.
I find it idiotic that anyone who stands by the owners doesn’t realize that Owners don’t care about you, the fans in general…
They have no problem, threatening the state and city that if they don’t get new stadium, paid by the tax payers that they will move the team as happen before..
They increase Ticket prices each season to not make it affordable for families to go to game when Tickerts, Parking, Food, Merch all adds up that lot $$..
So supporting the owners because you think they have your best interest in the game is lolol, all the changes that Rob Manfred implementing came from the Owners..
The players don’t care about us. At least the owners care enough to understand if the ruin the sport, it hurts their business. The players couldn’t care less about the business.
Right.
I thought I went to the games to support the players, who would not have jobs if no one watched.
It’s unrealistic to think either side cares about the fans more than they care about their own best interests.
I was a fan of the San Diego Chargers, and not one player refused to play the next season for the Los Angeles Chargers after they moved, because they were no longer in San Diego. To my knowledge no professional athlete has ever done that when a team moved. If the Tampa Bay Rays or Oakland Athletics move, no one on their respective rosters will demand a trade or stop playing for them in solidarity with the fans.
So the owners don’t care about moving the teams, and the players don’t care about them moving either. At least, not enough to stop playing for them and drawing a paycheck.
This is two sides jockeying to get their slices of the pies. No more no less. Neither side has saints nor devils.
Tampa and Oakland fans don’t care. about the ir team or their fans 3/4 k per game. Does anyone care about the fans?
We’ll played, MLBPA.
I hope the owners and the players union will finally agree to a new CBA and end the lockout for good. Let’s keep our fingers crossed and find out what happens.
Drip, drip, drip…
Lol…Like watching snails race, right? Or like the movie with the sloths at the DMV?
Hold the line, owners!!!
Screw them all….if they cancel any of the season I’m done this time. I know I can do it because when the Astros moved from the NL to the AL years ago I have literally been to 4 games all against the Mets, I’m a Mets fan, but I’ve seen this before and in these economic times I’m disgusted at their behavior. When the economy crashes because of the Fed BS and inflation this will cause the average fan to skip the games and buy necessities like food and they can watch on TV but the odds will be that will dwindle too as when your home your always pulled away doing something else.
Good luck MLB your about to shoot yourselves in the foot and possibly hit an artery that will put you on life support.
Owners earliest proposal on hard cap at $170M and floor of $100M, which would have saved them hundreds of millions, was designed to anger the MBPLA, and try to redefine the center of where the negotiations should end. They are billionaires, they can afford to hold out, and they will probably beat the players. That being said, I don’t understand fans/commenters who insist the players should be roll over.
In the end, it looks like the players give the owners the 14 game playoff, a 220-230 CBT, and the owners give the players 650- 725 starting salary, DH, Bonus pool of 35 million, Super 2- 50%, and owners get a 5 player lottery!
@slider
You mean the players get a 5 team lottery. The owners didn’t propose that. The expanded playoffs does provide additional revenue to the teams but more teams in the playoff means more players get playoff shares, so that helps the players some also.
How about:
How about a CBA that gives the players in 2022 to 2025:
0-1 years $4,500 per game on roster ($729,000 per year)
1-2 years $5,000 per game on roster ($810,000 per year)
2-3 years $5,500 per game on roster ($891,000 per year)
And in 2026:
0-1 years $5,000 per game on roster ($810,000 per year)
1-2 years $5,500 per game on roster ($891,000 per year)
2-3 years $6,000 per game on roster ($972,000 per year)
Luxury tax base:
2022 $224 million
2023 $228 million
2024 $232 million
2025 $236 million
2026 $240 million
From 1978 to 1998, the California minimum wage went from $2.65 to $5.75.
From 1996 to 2016, the California minimum wage went from $4.75 to $10.00.
Due to the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 3, the California minimum wage will increase to $15.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2022, for employers with 26 or more employees, and to $14.00 per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees. Some California cities have minimum wages of $16 and $17.
But from 2012 to 2021, the minimum salary for baseball players only went up from $480,000 to $570,000.
Because baseball is a monopoly, government should also put a guarantee on a certain number of games being for free on the internet (which MLB does presently but to ensure that they do not take it away).
The huge increase in the minimum salary proposed by the MLBPA is the union’s way of protecting aging veterans. It isn’t designed to help the young guys by increasing their salaries, its purpose is to significantly close the gap between salaries of rookies and salaries of aging veterans, so owners will keep more aging veterans on the roster.
So helping the young guys by increasing the minimum salary isn’t designed to help the young guys who get the increased minimum salary???
Haha, one half well paid veteran = 20+ min wage pre arb players in salary!
One minimum wage baseball player makes as much in 7 months as 18 workers getting paid $15/hour for 52 40-hour weeks. If the worker gets paid for a 2-week vacation.
They both may well have the same amount of education, but one can’t hit a fastball or throw one.
Players: thank whomever you pray to that you received genes from your parents that makes you able to play baseball very well.
Certainly the owners are in this business to make money and they will. And they should. But no one on this forum really has any idea how much it cost to operate an MLB ball club. I would think there is a fairly wide margin between the most profitable team and the least profitable team. I would hope that the MiLB players gain more ground here than anyone else after these negotiations. I just don’t see how anyone can choose sides when everything is not transparent.
Heyman says they will meet daily through the end of February, which would sound a lot better if it weren’t for the fact that February ends on Monday…
RSox: I just want to know if Heyman has referenced a mystery negotiator yet?
John Heyman and the one team interested in a player and the 29 “mystery teams also in the mix”
If you make $50,000 a year, inflation can affect you quite a bit, especially with the hyper inflation now griping our overspending nation.
If you make $570,500 you’ll feel it if you’re buying a house in California or other crazy markets but steak at $20 or $30 doesn’t affect the way you eat. If you buy a new Maserati you would notice but not so much for a high end Toyota hybrid.
Attaching inflation to baseballs minimum wage is posturing.
Maybe add 10% to the first $100K but not to $570K.
The MLBTR is being whipped to insanity because they are told the Owners are making too much money.!
Newsflash, the Owners are taking the risk. Guaranteed multi-million dollar salaries are only at risk if you don’t show up to play.
Facts are Owners are getting richer, yes, but it’s far more due to the value of the Franchise than the annual income/expenses.
Memo to Players: recognize how well off you are, sign your multi-million dollar contracts, and thank the donors of your genes that you can hit or throw a baseball so well.
It’s not about you, it’s about the game.
Owners greed good.
Players greed bad.
Starting to think that the people who worship at the feet of the owners in the hopes of some trickle down really just like pyrite showers.
I was thinking the same about the posters that side with the millionaires. That maybe, because the players are blue-collar union guys, maybe they be hanging out in the same dive bar pounding back boilermakers.
Do they side with millionaires so much as resist siding with (cowing down to like usual to) billionaires ?
One group has been left out of the debate, though…
People who think the real issue is that we should tax the living **** out of both of groups and pay teachers more and have roads and stuff. AKA the stuff that matters.
So, in reality, anyone ACTUALLY taking either side in this debate is so missing the wide angle and big picture.
The grovel, beg and worship the owners/rich/”Job Creators” mindset rears it’s ugly head in all of these places. It’s why teachers have to buy their own school supplies.
@forwhom You are spot on about how ridiculous the money is in the entertainment industry, and how an increase in teachers salaries and other people who serve the public and do way more for the betterment of our population is way overdue. If teachers were better paid, there might be a lot more good ones, and there would be a lot less total idiots in this country. Teachers need to think for themselves and teach kids to think for themselves, not just teach “the curriculum” that teaches what the powers that be want, and the BS narrative that people can trust in their government. But that’s another story.
forwhomjoshbelltolled
Do they side with millionaires so much as resist siding with (cowing down to like usual to) billionaires ?
=====================================
So siding with the groups making a collective ~ $4.5B is noble, and siding with the group making $3-4B is cowing down? There might be some inconsistency in that attitude.
“People who think the real issue is that we should tax the living **** out of both of groups and pay teachers more and have roads and stuff. AKA the stuff that matters.”
I would argue that the stuff that matters is a balanced budget, and not handing our kids a national debt that no one can count anymore. Past that, and i know it is a relative term, but I agree 100% with your tax comment. Both sides are tripping over themselves to see who can cut taxes quicker. We had no need for the Trump tax cuts, and Obama should’ve let the Bush tax cuts sunset like they were supposed to.
I’d add more taxes on everyone from $100k (+1%) to $10M+ (6%). No one will starve.
HURRY UP AND AGREE ON SOMETHING! STOP WASTING OUR TIME!
I’m at the point where I kind of just hope all of the owners get hit by busses. Like not that I support the players either, but in order to give the players what they want, they really wouldn’t be sacrificing much. Like god forbid they can’t buy their 19th yachts.
I’m going to be a pain in the A and try and negotiate better deals at the concession and ticket stands. Then go back later and try again and again and again.
My head hurts.
Maybe 3 teams would go to a 245 payroll. Dumb hill for the players to die on.
The incentive is to have the $200-210M teams, that won’t sacrifice the tax and added punishments, maybe get to the $220-230M range. Maybe the informal rule for the Astros is to simply not exceed the cap, so maybe they spend $205M. If the cap is moved to $225M, maybe the Astros start spending $220M.
I think it is less about hills to die on, but rather the number of places you can make marginal gains.