Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?

[paul253]

Revenues are going up, so players salaries should also go up. Pretty simple.

 

Why? In what other area of life other than sports do we expect the employees pay to go up every time revenue goes up? And I’m sure these players who demand more pay if profit goes up will gladly take lower salaries if the owner loses money right?

 

Players need to understand one thing. They are worth what the owners decide to pay them. For years and years and years players were getting absolutely absurd amounts of money in contracts that were terrible for the teams. Owners finally wised up and said “screw that” and stopped paying huge amounts for average to below average output. But let’s face it, they are still getting huge amounts of money (on top of all the other perks pro athletes get). The minimum salary.....the absolute lowest amount of money you can be paid, is over $550k. It takes me 6-7 years to make that. And that’s just for the bad players. If you are even halfways decent you’re a millionaire. And if you’re smart with your money you can retire in your mid thirties.

 

I’m sorry but I will NEVER side with players on money issues. Safety issues? Sure. Money? Never. Owners are businessmen whose goal is to make money. Are they greedy? Sure. But what business owner isn’t? I’m sitting here paying $15 to park a car within walking distance of Miller Park and $4.50 or whatever it is for a friggen hot dog and I’m supposed to feel sorry for pro athletes who want more money to play baseball for a living? Sorry.

[ebmackenzie]

This is a naive take on MLB Improvement but hear me out-->

Part A) Travel roster set at 30/game day roster at 17-20 to speed up game & add the Universal DH.

 

These two moves keep older players in MLB longer and is guaranteed to start MiLB players' clocks faster.

 

Part B) WAR could be the basis for all contracts therefore some shift rule may be needed.

AAA and MLB get 500K per year minimum (but I could see lower salaries for AAA if AA and A were boosted and travel/accommodations improved).

 

In MLB, base of 500K$ for year one, then 1mil$ in year 2 and 3, and 2mil$ in years 4+.

 

Additional incentives:

+100K$ per .1WAR till 1.0WAR (1 WAR =1.5mil$ for a rookie);

+1mil$ per .3WAR till 5.0WAR (5 WAR = 11.5mil$ for a rookie);

+1mil$ per .25WAR w/o cap.

 

James Paxton at $9.5mil in 2018 and Mookie Betts over $36 million.

BUT Angels and Orioles not burdened by 1B contracts and no need for collusion or strike.

Free agency in place after 5 years of service time. No holding players back due to arbitration service time either.

 

Thoughts???

[JimH5]

I think a strike will happen.

 

Players think they are getting screwed by the new labor market, and a strike is the only way they'll get back what they have lost.

 

What have they lost? They haven't had anything taken away.

 

Many have lost the guaranteed high dollar contracts in their 30s that players of the Suppan/Garza/Lohse era enjoyed.

 

The model is based on accepting lower salaries at the beginning for bigger free agency deals at the end. If those bigger deals go away (and perhaps they should), then there is no reason to continue to accept the lower salaries at the beginning of their careers.

[wntrtxn21]

Here's my attempt at a peaceful resolution between players and owners:

 

1) All revenue is split 50/50 between players and owners, bringing this in line with other professional sports. While an exact 50% split isn't always practical, the owners shall agree that the 50% shall be the minimum split for players. When the split falls below 50% of share for the players, the balance shall go to the MLBPA to be distributed at their leisure to bring the split up to 50/50.

 

2) So let's start from the bottom, with the disgraceful pay at the low levels of the minors. It's a disgrace because the vast majority of those trying to achieve the dream of playing Major League Baseball never make it and instead toil in poverty, and after they finally have to give up on their dream they often have no good job prospects or education because they've spent their entire young adulthood trying to play baseball. MLB could easily afford to at least pay their players a living wage, they simply don't want to because they don't have to. Enough is enough, and both sides are to blame. It doesn't change because neither side cares. MLB doesn't care because no one forces them to care. The MLBPA doesn't care because they don't represent these guys. Well, it's time for both sides to care and do the right thing rather than simply fighting over the enormous pieces of the pie. So the basic solution is this:

 

Far higher annual salaries, which are prorated based on time spent on an MiLB roster or disabled list when added during the season via draft or free agency, a full MiLB season equaling one year of annual salary. Players can elect to be paid during the season only or have their salary spread throughout the season. Players who begin the season on a roster and are released during the season will be entitled to a payout of their remaining annual salary and retain benefits for the rest of the calendar year.

 

A ball and below - $40,000 annual salary with benefits

 

A+ ball - $50,000 annual salary

 

AA ball - $65,000 annual salary

 

AAA ball - $80,000 annual salary if not on 40 man roster, $100,000 salary if on 40 man roster or MLB veteran with at least 1 day MLB service time.

 

Players promoted to a higher level during a season shall have begin receiving new salary at that time based on new annual wage, players demoted to a lower level will retain their previous pay grade for the remainder of the year.

 

3) MLB minimum salaries increase to $1M. Players will automatically be paid at minimum salary for 2 season, then be arbitration eligible for 4 seasons.

 

4) The minimum salary offer by a team in arbitration is $1.5M for the first 2 seasons of eligibility, then $2.5M for the last two seasons. Arbitration eligible players can negotiate higher salaries with their respective teams, but old arbitration panels will be abandoned. Arbitration panels will make rulings based on more modern statistical measures. Arbitration panels will have the authority to assign a salary that is between the team offer and player request, without necessarily having to choose one or the other.

 

5) A team can either offer or decline to offer arbitration to an arbitration eligible player. If the team declines, the player becomes a free agent. A team that declines to offer arbitration to an arbitration eligible player must pay the player a severance of $250,000.

 

6) Service time manipulation is ended. A player earns a full service year for any year they are on an MLB roster with the following exception:

- A player may serve ONE callup at the MLB level for no more than 15 calendar days without accruing a service year during the months of March thru August AND

 

- A player may be called up on September 1st or later and spend as many days on the roster as the team deems necessary for the remainder of the season in ONE season without accruing a service year.

 

If a team wishes to use both of these exceptions, they must both be used in the same season. A player who serves under either or both of these exceptions in one season will earn a full service year upon any future callup. Players will be paid at the prorated minimum MLB salary of $1M during these callups.

 

7) Players will be eligible for free agency upon accumulating 6 service years.

 

Just my two cents. I think that a 50/50 revenue split is the best for both sides, or close to it, but the way they divided up may need to be what needs to change. Owners need to accept higher wages for younger contributing players, which should result in a better balance in offers to both veterans and arbitration eligible players. Players need to accept that their 50% split distribution needs to be changed as well, and that in doing so, the Jason Heyward and Barry Zito contracts may become a thing of the past.

 

All of whose revenue gets split 50-50? The biggest problem in baseball is the huge disparity in revenue. The Dodgers, cubs, Yankees, etc... have far more revenue than the Brewers. Do Yankee players get more than Brewers, Pirates, Royals? Are you suggesting total revenue sharing like football? That would bring on a salary cap and floor. Players would kill baseball before agreeing to a salary cap. After 2 years you have teams with zero control over what they pay players. You have arbitration panels deciding everything. Players have no incentive to signing a contract before some outside panel decides their contract. You have the owners giving up everything and getting nothing in return.

[JimH5]

For years and years and years players were getting absolutely absurd amounts of money in contracts that were terrible for the teams.

 

If that were true, we would have seen franchise values go down. But we haven't. Forbes estimates the value of the Brewers franchise at $1.03B last April, for a team that Attanasio's investment group bought for $223M 14 years earlier, and despite the "terrible" Lohse, Garza, Braun, Suppan, Gagne, etc deals.

 

Sports teams aren't valued only by the business skills of their owners. They also enjoy the attraction of rarity and popularity. Like the escalating prices of the finest art, vintage wine, watches (none of which generate any revenue whatsoever), their value goes up because they are limited in number and there is no shortage of wealthy people who want to own them.

 

Pro athletes are unique in that they aren't just incidental labor required to make a product. They are the entirety of the product. There are no robots or other tech solutions that can replace them. We watch baseball because of them, and we turn it off when we are presented lesser versions of them.

 

So we can grouse and complain that they are "playing a kids game", and "pampered", etc. But they have earned everything they have gotten, and baseball owners have made money in spite of Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols and every other contract that wasn't deemed "team friendly".

[wntrtxn21]

Only real way to fix spending problem in FA & tank rebuilds is for ML is to install a salary floor based on revenues with maybe a luxury tax penalty where teams will be forces to cover difference if under (us it or pay dead money)

 

I don’t know if owners would be willing to do it but if I’m player association, that’s what I’d push for. It’s good for competitiveness of baseball.

 

Also for owners to give incentive to be more competitive think a bigger playoff overhaul is needed. The second wild card has helped but the more teams competing in September raises revenue. More people attend games in September. There is more money in playoff baseball. I hate 8 teams because like the east in basketball, crappy below .500 teams can sneak in. 6 teams would be nice but hard to do because 2 teams would get byes & that is too long of a lay off unless you have 2 play in games or 2 3 game series to shorten lay off. Baseball season would prob have to cut down to 154 to 156 games.

 

So Overall

force teams to pay x amount in salary or they eat money

Expanded playoffs increases revenue & competitiveness of teams (leading to spending increase)

 

Not fully on topic but I was thinking about it today & here seemed fitting

 

Why would there be a salary floor without there being a hard cap? When you say based on revenues, whose revenue are you referring to? There is a huge discrepancy in revenues throughout MLB. A salary floor would hit small market teams a lot harder than mega market teams and further erode the game.

[adambr2]

Hey, guys are just throwing around ideas, obviously there is a long ways to go, but I think raises at the MiLB level is a starting point at least. Since you are quite adept at roasting everyone else's suggestions, why not propose some of your own?

[paul253]

If that were true, we would have seen franchise values go down. But we haven't. Forbes estimates the value of the Brewers franchise at $1.03B last April, for a team that Attanasio's investment group bought for $223M 14 years earlier, and despite the "terrible" Lohse, Garza, Braun, Suppan, Gagne, etc deals.

 

I’m not sure I follow your argument. Regardless of whether or not franchise values are increasing, average to below average players were still having ridiculous amounts of money thrown at them. Kyle Lohse, whose career numbers scream “blah”, made over $89 million for 16 years of work. He retired at about the same age I am now. I’m sorry but nothing is going to convince me that these guys are somehow being treated unfairly because owners have finally realized how stupid it was to pay that kind of money for the results they were getting. Heck I’m glad they are starting to do it.

 

Sports teams aren't valued only by the business skills of their owners. They also enjoy the attraction of rarity and popularity. Like the escalating prices of the finest art, vintage wine, watches (none of which generate any revenue whatsoever), their value goes up because they are limited in number and there is no shortage of wealthy people who want to own them

 

Well apparently there is a shortage of wealthy people who want to own them, or at least own them at the price the player wants. Isn’t that what the players are grumbling about? Five years ago a player like Keuchel probably would have been signed to a 5 or 6 year deal worth $20 million a year by now. But owners are realizing that that was stupid and aren’t willing to do it anymore. So like your wine bottle comparison, if all of a sudden people aren’t willing to pay the same price that they were five years ago then the value drops. That’s how it works in every aspect of life. So why should baseball or other sports be any different?

 

So we can grouse and complain that they are "playing a kids game", and "pampered", etc. But they have earned everything they have gotten, and baseball owners have made money in spite of Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols and every other contract that wasn't deemed "team friendly

 

I’m not disagreeing with that. They made as much as as owners were willing to pay them which is absolutely what they should have been doing. But now it’s time to accept that perhaps owners aren’t willing to give you as much anymore which is exactly what the owners should be doing.....paying as little as possible to acquire your services. So if there is a strike because players don’t think they are being paid what they are worth then someone needs to explain to them how values are determined.

 

As for the owners, yes absolutely they are being greedy. But it’s their money and that’s their right.

[Lathund]

The narrative about teams being "smarter" with their money is both true and false. Of course it's smarter to not pay players $20m+ per year into their 40s. But it's only smarter if that money goes to make the team better in other ways; if the money saved on not signing Harper simply goes into the owners pocket, and doesn't help the team in any way, why would it be considered smart for any other sake than their bank balance? If the consequence of not paying those big contracts simply results in the average payroll lowering by $10m or whatever, why would fans consider that a good thing? Lowering expenses won't result in cheaper season tickets, cheaper hot dogs or any such thing. It just means greater profits.

 

The being smarter part would be to use that money saved in a way that improves the team more than, say, Harper would. But league minimum contracts and arbitration contracts will only ever cost so much, and those amounts haven't increased during these slow offseasons. Hiring more analysts or scouts costs a pittance in comparison to player wages. Improving facilities is a one-time cost. So being smart would have to mean spending money elsewhere in free agency. The problem isn't, and has never really been that Harper and Machado might get $250m instead of $350m, but that that money not spent on the formerly expensive free agents doesn't go to other players but simply to increase owners' profits.

 

The current system is one where minor leaguers and players with 0-3 years service time are being underpaid (The minor leaguers in particular. MLB are actively lobbying to be able to pay them less than minimum wage), and where many arbitration players are too. In exchange for that, the players who manage to stick in the majors end up getting rewarded in free agency, often by being overpaid. Now one might say that's not a very good system, and I'd agree. But it's what's there right now. Except that over the last couple of years only one part of that is really in effect; young players are still being underpaid, but free agents aren't getting paid in the same way. There can be many reasons for that, one or more of players getting to the majors later, owners colluding, the end of the steroid era shortening careers, teams getting better at projecting future performance or something else entirely. Regardless of which, of course the players want the system changed. As they should. From any point of view really it would make sense to shift salary so that the salary is higher in the years where the players are at their best.

 

When it comes to the big C-word, I don't think there's any way that it's the same as what the league has done before, with a specific agreement to not sign free agents from other teams, not signing a certain player or not paying more than X. And whatever is left when you take that out might not be collusion in any legal sense. But take a scenario where you know that other teams won't spend beyond a certain point. Where instead of duking it out with $220m payrolls, you know that the other team(s) won't spend more than $200m (And not because they were in the red at $220m, but because they simply want to spend less). You can then either keep spending $220m to try to have an advantage, or you could go down to $200m to have the same scenario as before, but with more profit. Teams now are basically doing the latter. It may not be illegal, there may be no foul play there, it may be decisions made independently. But it's also not good for anyone but the owners themselves. Fans of the teams who can afford spend more, but won't, should be furious. Money doesn't automatically result in wins, but it helps, there's a clear positive correlation between payroll and wins. And why would fans want to not see their team try to win?

 

The above isn't at all far fetched either, it's what the league does with minor league salaries already. Teams could get advantages by paying their minor leaguers more. Not as big as increasing their major league payroll, but still. International signing pools and draft signing bonus pools are capped, while minor league pay isn't. A higher salary would make up for a lower bonus, and you could sign more and better players with the same bonus pool. Players being able to eat well, to have a decent living situation, to be able to not worry about making ends meet, to not have to have offseason jobs all help. There'd be fewer players who would have to give up on their career due to not being able to afford it. Being more attractive to the best minor league free agents is another benefit. Some of these benefits might be marginal, but there's several of them. And teams could double their minor league salaries for a few million per year. So why don't they? Because if it proves beneficial, other teams will do the same, the advantages will disappear and teams will end up paying more for the same as they're already getting. That might be smart, and might not be actual collusion, but again it's not really a desirable system. I'd rather see those couple of million dollars per team go to paying minor leaguers a decent wage rather than go to Nutting, Ricketts, Steinbrenner et al. And so would hundreds of minor leaguers and thier families.

[JohnBriggs12]

I don't know if players are on the wrong side of public perception. The general public is much more aware of things than in the 80's & 90's. Why shouldn't players get a bigger portion of revenue? Without the players MLB would be nothing...

 

False. Baseball as a game is bigger than any individual player. Players come and go all the time. Just look at the minors where players for the most part are anonymous to most of the fans that attend games. There's always going to be players skilled enough to interest fans who will willingly fill major league rosters. The players don't have a viable alternative. MLB is entrenched with stadium deals etc. Where are those players going to go? Players have always been disposable. I'm sure they'll reach an agreement that allows players, particularly those that reach the big leagues in their mid 20's and later will get a slightly faster route to FA. All the furor is fake news.

[JimH5]

I’m not sure I follow your argument. Regardless of whether or not franchise values are increasing, average to below average players were still having ridiculous amounts of money thrown at them. Kyle Lohse, whose career numbers scream “blah”, made over $89 million for 16 years of work. He retired at about the same age I am now. I’m sorry but nothing is going to convince me that these guys are somehow being treated unfairly because owners have finally realized how stupid it was to pay that kind of money for the results they were getting. Heck I’m glad they are starting to do it.

 

I think you're too quick to take the side of ownership when you use terms like "ridiculous" to describe the value of what Lohse provided. Every one of those contracts was signed fair and square by a team executive who was trying to get the best value he could for his employer. You may think of it as ridiculous money, but players and teams thought of it as fair money.

 

And now, when teams decide they only want guys for the cheap years, players are right to wonder when they're going to get paid. If there is no big balloon at the end, players are right to expect that teams should pay them more at the beginning of their careers.

[JimH5]

Baseball as a game is bigger than any individual player.

 

But we're not talking about any individual player. We're talking about the group of the best players. Those are the ones who we watch. One or two or five guys can hold out and it doesn't matter. It matters if they all hold out.

 

Attendance, viewership and interest in college baseball and minor league baseball are much less than MLB because fans don't want to watch a lesser product when we know something better exists.

[Ennder]

If there is a strike it is going to happen in 2022, it isn't looming this season. A lot can happen in that time frame.

[sveumrules]

Players would kill baseball before agreeing to a salary cap.

 

The players have already agreed to a salary cap, it's just called the Luxury Tax...

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/only-red-sox-nationals-owe-luxury-tax-in-2018-as-mlb-teams-combine-for-smallest-bill-in-15-years/

[Jenkins5]

 

And really I don’t think money is the biggest issue but players wanting long term deals with guaranteed money. Many of these free agents probably have had nice short term deals with nice price tags but they want the years. Moose & Grandal both settled for the short term deals but many haven’t been willing to. Hard to believe Kuechel hasn’t been offered at least a 1-2 year deal at around 14-15 million. But I’m sure he wants a 3-4 year deal at same price. Due to the Garzas, Lohse, Suppans before him, most teams know a pitch in their 30s statistically drop off before end of that deal.

 

How do you know Kuechel hasn't been offered a 1-2 year deal at 14-15 million? You're saying that, just like how the media was reporting the best offers to Machado were for $175-200 million. The media and MLB players has kept complaining about how the market is broken, citing examples of Machado and Harper being unsigned. Yet Machado just got a massive contract. It is likely Kuechel has several offers of varying lengths and dollar amounts.

 

I guess I can see how what said could be misunderstood. I was saying I think it is extremely improbable that he hasn’t received a short term deal at a nice & high salary. Players want years. Money is there for them to make & I don’t think that is the issue. The issue to me is the players want the length. Basically saying exact say thing as you.

[TURBO]

Revenues are going up, so players salaries should also go up. Pretty simple.

 

Why? In what other area of life other than sports do we expect the employees pay to go up every time revenue goes up? And I’m sure these players who demand more pay if profit goes up will gladly take lower salaries if the owner loses money right?

 

Players need to understand one thing. They are worth what the owners decide to pay them. For years and years and years players were getting absolutely absurd amounts of money in contracts that were terrible for the teams. Owners finally wised up and said “screw that” and stopped paying huge amounts for average to below average output. But let’s face it, they are still getting huge amounts of money (on top of all the other perks pro athletes get). The minimum salary.....the absolute lowest amount of money you can be paid, is over $550k. It takes me 6-7 years to make that. And that’s just for the bad players. If you are even halfways decent you’re a millionaire. And if you’re smart with your money you can retire in your mid thirties.

 

I’m sorry but I will NEVER side with players on money issues. Safety issues? Sure. Money? Never. Owners are businessmen whose goal is to make money. Are they greedy? Sure. But what business owner isn’t? I’m sitting here paying $15 to park a car within walking distance of Miller Park and $4.50 or whatever it is for a friggen hot dog and I’m supposed to feel sorry for pro athletes who want more money to play baseball for a living? Sorry.

 

I wish we had a like, no, LOVE button on this site!

 

Great post Paul!

[jerichoholicninja]

I think the one thing almost every fan agrees on, no matter who they "side" with, is that most players are grossly underpaid during their first few years. Let's say they change the system so that these guys are paid more in line with their production. Do we really think that the guys in their early 30's are going to say, well I was paid fairly when I was younger so I'm just going to take minor league deal peanuts now. No, they will be complaining just as much as they are now. We'd be talking about a major shift in wealth as the money will be moving from the 28-32 crowd to the 28 and under. I can't imagine the older side of the union would be too happy about that. And I'm guessing that group wields the most power in the union. So I can't see the PA agreeing to anything like that.

[DHonks]

I think the one thing almost every fan agrees on, no matter who they "side" with, is that most players are grossly underpaid during their first few years. Let's say they change the system so that these guys are paid more in line with their production. Do we really think that the guys in their early 30's are going to say, well I was paid fairly when I was younger so I'm just going to take minor league deal peanuts now. No, they will be complaining just as much as they are now. We'd be talking about a major shift in wealth as the money will be moving from the 28-32 crowd to the 28 and under. I can't imagine the older side of the union would be too happy about that. And I'm guessing that group wields the most power in the union. So I can't see the PA agreeing to anything like that.

 

I don’t agree that players are “grossly underpaid” in their early years. I feel minor league players are grossly underpaid. Some major leaguers may be underpaid in their first 3 years relative to the value they contribute, but the best of these players are often locking up multi-year extensions worth much more than their peers during those years to buy out arbitration. These players usually have little-to-no track record of success. If you go by minor league numbers or tools, then Brooks Kieschnick, Alex Escobar, Ben Hendrickson, Mat Gamel, JD Martin, etc were all worthy of giant contracts. $550k plus meal money in spring training and on all road trips is is nothing to sneeze at.

[DHonks]

Revenues are going up, so players salaries should also go up. Pretty simple.

 

Why? In what other area of life other than sports do we expect the employees pay to go up every time revenue goes up? And I’m sure these players who demand more pay if profit goes up will gladly take lower salaries if the owner loses money right?

 

There are far more professional baseball players deemed MLB talent than there are MLB jobs. When you have a surplus of talent, wages shouldn’t go up. Adding two more teams, expanding rosters, creating an MLB-owned extra AAA team of MLB free agents, and adding the DH to the NL would provide jobs for over 100 MLB/AAAA players. A full time DH (although not used very often, as most teams rotate DH duties) is paid more than a LOOGY or bench bat.

[homer]

Revenues are going up, so players salaries should also go up. Pretty simple.

 

Why? In what other area of life other than sports do we expect the employees pay to go up every time revenue goes up? And I’m sure these players who demand more pay if profit goes up will gladly take lower salaries if the owner loses money right?

 

A lot of employee bonuses are based on company performance. Not to mention if you work for a company with an employee stock purchase plan, you make more money if the stock goes up which it does when the company does well. This is in addition to any performance bonuses an employee has (i.e. meeting sales quota).

[JimH5]

I’m sorry but I will NEVER side with players on money issues. Safety issues? Sure. Money? Never. Owners are businessmen whose goal is to make money. Are they greedy? Sure. But what business owner isn’t? I’m sitting here paying $15 to park a car within walking distance of Miller Park and $4.50 or whatever it is for a friggen hot dog and I’m supposed to feel sorry for pro athletes who want more money to play baseball for a living? Sorry.

 

You're paying those prices because you're willing to do so. And you're paying them to the Brewers ownership group, who has seen their franchise value increase by $780 million over the past 14 years.

 

I love Attanasio and think he's a great owner. I'm just confused why we think players are undeserving of high salaries, when clearly those high salaries haven't caused any owner to lose money, ever.

 

The reason we pay $15 to self park in an open lot and $15 for $2 worth of beer is because the best players in the world are playing in front of us. We don't do that because Mark A is a nice guy.

 

Why should those players sit by idly and watch their career earning potential drop, when revenues are up all across the industry?

[homer]

It's just kinda weird to me that people are against employees taking part in the business doing well. We seem to be just fine with owners/CEO's making a ton of money but really don't feel employees should share in that. Scale probably matters for baseball since the players make plenty of money relative to most folks. But this attitude seems to carry over to every industry. It's really odd to me.

[3and2Fastball]

Strongly agree with JimH5 here. TV revenue is way up and increasing, ticket costs are way up, MLB as a whole is rapidly making more & more money.

 

We pay to see the greatest players on the planet play the game. I'm sure there is a portion of fans who just love tailgating & drinking beer & partying at the ballpark, and would be happy to root root root for the home team no matter who is playing, but a vast majority of us tune in to see the best of the best.

 

I honestly do not care if Mark A ever makes another dollar in his life. Yelich, Cain, Trout, Betts, Scherzer etc etc. They (the players) are the product. I'd pay good money to watch Mike Trout face Max Scherzer on some sandlot somewhere. If there was a prolonged strike and scab teams in MLB uniforms played in Miller Park, no chance I'm paying a dime to watch that...

[rickh150]

Strongly agree with JimH5 here. TV revenue is way up and increasing, ticket costs are way up, MLB as a whole is rapidly making more & more money.

 

We pay to see the greatest players on the planet play the game. I'm sure there is a portion of fans who just love tailgating & drinking beer & partying at the ballpark, and would be happy to root root root for the home team no matter who is playing, but a vast majority of us tune in to see the best of the best.

 

I honestly do not care if Mark A ever makes another dollar in his life. Yelich, Cain, Trout, Betts, Scherzer etc etc. They (the players) are the product. I'd pay good money to watch Mike Trout face Max Scherzer on some sandlot somewhere. If there was a prolonged strike and scab teams in MLB uniforms played in Miller Park, no chance I'm paying a dime to watch that...

 

I think another long strike would be devastating to the game. It would never recover. The young fan will find another summer outlet and the old will be fed up paying $200 plus per game for his/her family. The really old would watch more of the game show channel. It's possibly another boxing tragedy story.

To me, it's about the Milwaukee Brewers winning a World Series, however that would come. Then again, a prolonged strike might even change that when the narrative is all about the players and owners..... not the taken for granted fan.

[Underachiever]

Really, a rigged system. Who cares. The players make ton of money playing a game! Get paid to stay in shape. They act like they take a bus for travel, pay for there own food and sleep in crappie hotels for six months of the year. Players will not ever get any sympathy from me. I would switch spots with them anytime they want.

Other than lacking the talent that makes the switch impossible, I find this such a common but odd take. If you are going be jealous, why wouldn't you switch spots with Mark A? Lot less physical work than the players, and your money would be maximized for a lot longer. Plus you could have bought something that quintupled in value in the last 15 years without you doing anything but writing the checks.