Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?

[homer]

There is literally no way people are going to fill stadiums to watch AAAA players play. When an owner sells a team, another rich person steps in and buys it. When Max Scherzer retires, he's not getting replaced by some schmo in Scranton.

[adambr2]

There is literally no way people are going to fill stadiums to watch AAAA players play. When an owner sells a team, another rich person steps in and buys it. When Max Scherzer retires, he's not getting replaced by some schmo in Scranton.

 

I absolutely would pay to watch Dwight Schrute pitch.

[TURBO]

But the players are the product, and they are irreplaceable.

 

I disagree.

 

Players are 100% replaceable, but how many people can afford to own a team?

 

If a player opts to not play baseball because their salaries are not what they think they are worth, there will be 1000 guys willing to play for that embarrassing salary.

 

And fans rejected replacement players when the owners brought them in in 1995. As a group, they're not as good. Players in Independent leagues, the minor leagues, college, etc...nobody's paying $50 a seat to watch them.

 

I am not suggesting replacing the entire league with new players. I'm saying if a player is not happy with his salary (no matter who the player is, it can be Manny Machado or Hernan Perez) and he won't play for X amount of dollars, the next guy in line will play for his rejected salary. I am not talking about a wholesale replacement of every player in the league. Obviously, that will not work...

[TURBO]

There is literally no way people are going to fill stadiums to watch AAAA players play. When an owner sells a team, another rich person steps in and buys it. When Max Scherzer retires, he's not getting replaced by some schmo in Scranton.

 

Right, but when Scherzer retires, their next best option will take his place. Could be a guy in their system, or a free agent. The league will not fold because one player retires or leaves.

[homer]

There is literally no way people are going to fill stadiums to watch AAAA players play. When an owner sells a team, another rich person steps in and buys it. When Max Scherzer retires, he's not getting replaced by some schmo in Scranton.

 

Right, but when Scherzer retires, their next best option will take his place. Could be a guy in their system, or a free agent. The league will not fold because one player retires or leaves.

 

The point is that Scherzer is a generational talent whose performance cannot simply be replaced by some random pitcher. The Nationals will lose more games when he retires and as such less people will show up to watch them. A league filled with random dudes is not going to be as good, exciting, fun as a league with guys like Scherzer, Betts, Yelich, Sale, etc. etc.

[Baldkin]

But the players are the product, and they are irreplaceable.

 

I disagree.

 

Players are 100% replaceable, but how many people can afford to own a team?

 

If a player opts to not play baseball because their salaries are not what they think they are worth, there will be 1000 guys willing to play for that embarrassing salary.

 

And there are 2200 billionaires worldwide who would all happily buy into a baseball team.

 

What's your point?

 

The owners are not some all knowing perfect beings who "allow" baseball to exist and graciously donate some of their wealth to the players.

 

They are the super-rich who run teams and try to maximize the money they pocket (with the lone exception in MLB of Mike Ilitch).

[NievesNoNO]

Players are not replaceable for MLB. The owners might be. BUT, MLB as entertainment IS replaceable to the general population. So, it's in the best interest of both sides to make nice and figure out the differences with their Monopoly money. The players stand to lose more. Again, when you have individuals being paid $30 million complain about how unfair things are that doesn't sit well with the general public. I mean, we're seeing guaranteed investments in individual players going north of a QUARTER BILLION dollars.

[BillScottCanRake]

I think the pool of people who are able to play baseball at a high level and the number of people who have the wealth AND interest necessary to own a Major League baseball team are both small. Both sides are trying to maximize their return on their investment, and given all of the circumstances unique to sports that will create a relationship which is somewhat more adversarial than a more typical employer/employee relationship. Add to that the fan aspect and you have "business" environment unlike most others.

 

The players, for all their natural ability, still work incredibly hard to do what they do, and they rightly want to be paid for it. Players have a pretty short window to make money, and an even smaller window to earn their maximum salary. Once that window closes, it won't ever re-open, so it is hard to begrudge them from making as much as the possibly can.

 

The owners, no matter how they made their money, are trying to both make lots of money and win on the field. Unlike a lot of other businesses, making lots of money does not necessarily mean winning or vice versa. As much as fans want owners to spend, profits be danged, they aren't playing with Monopoly money and they won't spend themselves out of a reasonable profit; these people didn't get wealthy (or stay wealthy) by spending beyond their means.

 

So what you are left with is a group of incredibly driven, elite athletes trying to maximize their earnings during the smallest of windows from a group of wealthy business people, who while trying to win, are also trying to make as much money as they can. Players need the owners because they are the only ones who can give them pay commiserate with their talent, and the owners need the players to bring in the revenue that make them money. The players know the owners need them, and the owners know the players need them, but occasionally they forget they need each other. And when that happens we have labor strife, at which time the players and owners realize the other side isn't really so bad after all, they hug it out and get back to playing baseball.

 

I suspect we are now in the "We don't need the other side" phase, which means we are really close to both sides figuring out they do, and a few years of peace in our lifetime is just a moment or two away.

[nate82]

I think the major areas that will change and this will avoid a strike are removing the super 2 status, removing the attached draft picks to players, salary floor and adding of the DH to the NL.

 

Removing the super 2 status will be a bone thrown at the younger players by the veterans. This seriously needs to go away and I think the owners will agree on this. There shouldn't be any delaying a player being put on the major league roster if that player is truly ready to be on the major league roster. I think this will be one of the bigger issues for the players union to satisfy its younger stars.

 

For the veterans the biggest issue for them is removing the compensation that is attached to free agents. MLB needs to get rid of this system and just replace it with either the franchise tag like in the NFL or just use a RFA and UFA. RFA would be the last year of arbitration for a player a team can either match an offer that comes in through free agency or let the player walk and receive a compensation pick after the 1st round of the draft.

 

For the salary floor the only way the small market teams will agree to this is if they receive more revenue sharing which I think can be done by setting up rules for the revenue sharing. Teams must be at or above the salary floor and for small market teams depending on how far above the salary floor will receive a higher percentage of the revenue sharing. For example if the Brewers are above 10% of the salary floor they will receive %5 more of the allocated shared revenue if you are only at the salary floor you will only receive your base revenue sharing and if you are below the salary floor and are a revenue sharing team you receive no revenue sharing.

 

The addition of the DH is obvious and helps the veteran players extend their career a little bit longer thus allowing them to increase their career salary.

 

I don't see a strike happening it may go all the way down to the last minute but I don't see a strike happening. The owners and the players will lose more than what they did during the last strike.

[Lathund]

Regarding Super 2, I'm not so sure removing it is throwing them a bone. There are real issues with how teams manage service time related to it that needs to change, but removing it entirely means that the 22% of players with 2 years of service time who currently get 4 years of arbitration will now instead get three; and that 4th year arbitration can mean a lot of money. So it'll overall mean less money to players in their team control years. But yeah, overall the service time manipulation is something that needs to definitely be adressed. Hard to see any system that can't be abused in any way though, short of removing it which would require the entire system to be revamped.

[wntrtxn21]

I think the major areas that will change and this will avoid a strike are removing the super 2 status, removing the attached draft picks to players, salary floor and adding of the DH to the NL.

 

Removing the super 2 status will be a bone thrown at the younger players by the veterans. This seriously needs to go away and I think the owners will agree on this. There shouldn't be any delaying a player being put on the major league roster if that player is truly ready to be on the major league roster. I think this will be one of the bigger issues for the players union to satisfy its younger stars.

 

For the veterans the biggest issue for them is removing the compensation that is attached to free agents. MLB needs to get rid of this system and just replace it with either the franchise tag like in the NFL or just use a RFA and UFA. RFA would be the last year of arbitration for a player a team can either match an offer that comes in through free agency or let the player walk and receive a compensation pick after the 1st round of the draft.

 

For the salary floor the only way the small market teams will agree to this is if they receive more revenue sharing which I think can be done by setting up rules for the revenue sharing. Teams must be at or above the salary floor and for small market teams depending on how far above the salary floor will receive a higher percentage of the revenue sharing. For example if the Brewers are above 10% of the salary floor they will receive %5 more of the allocated shared revenue if you are only at the salary floor you will only receive your base revenue sharing and if you are below the salary floor and are a revenue sharing team you receive no revenue sharing.

 

The addition of the DH is obvious and helps the veteran players extend their career a little bit longer thus allowing them to increase their career salary.

 

I don't see a strike happening it may go all the way down to the last minute but I don't see a strike happening. The owners and the players will lose more than what they did during the last strike.

 

I agree, MLB's compensation for losing a FA is an absolute joke because draft picks mean a heck of a lot less in baseball than in football or basketball. Forget the RFA and keep the last year of arby. Big market teams don't care about the draft pick because they can get a FA to fill any need. No small market team will consent to a salary floor unless it is set low. For every extra dollar in revenue sharing you give to a salary floor type team, a dollar has to get taken away from somebody. If you're going to give the Brewers 10% more, which team do you take the 10% from? What teams receive less even though they played by the rules? Depending on the amount of the salary floor, it could just further the huge discrepancy that already exists in revenue in MLB. You are assuming a DH on a small market team would be a high priced vet. Why wouldn't small market teams use the DH for some younger players? How about putting lesser paid young players in the field for defensive purposes and paying a DH a little more. Net gain, zero? Unless a team is ready to honestly compete there would be little sense to pay a high priced vet to DH.

[Baldkin]

I agree, MLB's compensation for losing a FA is an absolute joke because draft picks mean a heck of a lot less in baseball than in football or basketball. Forget the RFA and keep the last year of arby. Big market teams don't care about the draft pick because they can get a FA to fill any need. No small market team will consent to a salary floor unless it is set low. For every extra dollar in revenue sharing you give to a salary floor type team, a dollar has to get taken away from somebody. If you're going to give the Brewers 10% more, which team do you take the 10% from? What teams receive less even though they played by the rules? Depending on the amount of the salary floor, it could just further the huge discrepancy that already exists in revenue in MLB. You are assuming a DH on a small market team would be a high priced vet. Why wouldn't small market teams use the DH for some younger players? How about putting lesser paid young players in the field for defensive purposes and paying a DH a little more. Net gain, zero? Unless a team is ready to honestly compete there would be little sense to pay a high priced vet to DH.

 

The data is there: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/positional/

 

DH's get paid more. https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/positional/designated-hitter/

[JosephC]

Regarding Super 2, I'm not so sure removing it is throwing them a bone. There are real issues with how teams manage service time related to it that needs to change, but removing it entirely means that the 22% of players with 2 years of service time who currently get 4 years of arbitration will now instead get three; and that 4th year arbitration can mean a lot of money. So it'll overall mean less money to players in their team control years. But yeah, overall the service time manipulation is something that needs to definitely be adressed. Hard to see any system that can't be abused in any way though, short of removing it which would require the entire system to be revamped.

 

Yep, this IMO is the one real gripe the players should have. The service time manipulations have become ridiculous. And the fans lose. If a superstar prospect is ready to play, is it fair to a MLB fan to have to watch a C-level player for 2 months? I don't think Hiura would fall into this group because he hasn't had a single AAA at-bat yet. But if Hiura played at AAA all of last year and ripped it up, how disappointing would it have been to watch a Spangenberg/Perez combo for two months (pre-Moustakas signing), just because the Brewers were trying to screw Hiura out of some money?

 

I've outlined rules to eliminate many of the service time manipulations on page one and I think those are the types of things that the union should focus on. This, in effect, would shorten the window to free agency for many players and could be something the owners would agree to. I just think taking a "free agency after five years" or "four years of arbitration for all players" will just lead to dead ends with owners...and on those issues I would agree with the owners because it just hurts the small market teams too much to make those types of changes.

[reillymcshane]

How about this idea:

 

Players are granted Free Agency:

 

a) At the age of 28 after serving at least four full seasons in the majors (you could tweak the age - 28 is just an idea)

or

b) At the age of 30 - no matter how many years of service

or

c) After six full seasons (so basically how it is now). This allows guys who come up early to become FAs prior to age 28.

 

The team will control most players for at least four full years, and it gets a lot of players to free agency earlier. Also, it gets late bloomers to free agency at a point where they still have chance to score a decent contract.

 

Also, teams will have no incentive to keep a 23 year old player in the minors an extra month or two since he will be a FA in six years anyhow.

 

It doesn't really help the guys like Machado or Harper - who came up at age 19-20 - but that's okay. Those guys will be fine. The most they will have to play under their original team will be 6 years (but less than 7).

 

Just an idea. Pick it apart. Show me the downsides and upsides and sideways!

[MrTPlush]

I find the salary floor talk interesting. Mostly because I don’t think that does anything for the real problem. Which is players not getting money while young or while old.

 

I just doubt that fixes the struggle of FA contracts right now, but that is just me. In theory it gives the players more money , but is it going to get Moose a 3-4 year deal like he can’t get? No, probably not. That is what players are up in arms about these days.

 

I do like the hard cap age where you are automatically a free agent. I don’t know if I mentioned that, but I like it to allow late bloomers chance to get paid.

[Brew crew 92]

1.)DH-national league

2.)1.25 million min salary

 

Gets non super two players extra 2.1 mil

DH will raise ave salary

Gets players % share of revenues closer to previous CBA

Leaving service time as is,along with luxury tax should appease owners

[Tbadder]

I still think the best solution is to find out how much the players are currently receiving overall. For argument’s sake let’s say it’s 50% of total revenues. Give them, say, 10% more. I just don’t get why the salaries should be determined by the teams? Just because that’s the way it is everywhere else? Just let the players determine what each other should make. Let them establish the criteria, that seems more than fair. Let them determine value, they’re intelligent human beings. They have expert advisors. There’s no reason for the animosity between the two sides. This will let both sides know e xactly how much money there is and how much they’ll have for operational expenses, insurances, etc. The sides do not have to keep doing this to each other. Both sides need to man up, stop acting childishly, and start to help one another. Where there’s plenty of money to make sure everyone does well it’s better to cooperate than compete against each other. Let the competition on the field be the thing.

[reillymcshane]

I still think the best solution is to find out how much the players are currently receiving overall. For argument’s sake let’s say it’s 50% of total revenues. Give them, say, 10% more. I just don’t get why the salaries should be determined by the teams? Just because that’s the way it is everywhere else? Just let the players determine what each other should make. Let them establish the criteria, that seems more than fair. Let them determine value, they’re intelligent human beings. They have expert advisors. There’s no reason for the animosity between the two sides. This will let both sides know e xactly how much money there is and how much they’ll have for operational expenses, insurances, etc. The sides do not have to keep doing this to each other. Both sides need to man up, stop acting childishly, and start to help one another. Where there’s plenty of money to make sure everyone does well it’s better to cooperate than compete against each other. Let the competition on the field be the thing.

What the players get is actually available:

 

Baseball revenues were $10.3B last year. Players got 54.2% of this (this includes major league player salaries, benefits such as health care, playoff shares, and minor league salaries). This percentage has dropped in each of the last four years (the players' take was down 4% from 2017).

 

Salaries DID fall last year (by around $115M). That’s $3-4M per team.

 

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/#541e13db39d7

 

I guess the big question for me is what is ‘revenue’? What does that mean? Ticket sales, TV and radio rights, food and beer sales, luxury boxes, parking, baseball cards, etc., etc. I honestly don’t know what it all entails.

 

But one thing it does NOT include was the $2.5+ billion the owners received for the sale of BamTech to Disney (the sale was done in two parts - $1B in 2015, and $1.58B last year). That netted each owner more than $85 million. None of that money was shared with the players. I am not saying it should have been - just stating what has happened.

 

And then there are things like regional sports networks? Aren’t there teams that own parts of these? How much do they make? I don’t really know, but I’ve read it can be a lot.

 

And what about sponsorships — like the new AmFam cash. Who gets that? When a bunch of new billboards go up in the ball park, who makes money from those deals. Are these things shared with the players? I really don’t know — and I'm guessing when people talk about all the money coming into baseball, that is the sort of thing they wonder about.

 

With all of it, I’m sure players are probably wondering what's happening to all the cash coming into the game. The money isn't coming to them - as salaries are down. Perhaps it goes to ball park improvement or whatever, but we just don't know. Players just know that each of the owners got cut a $50M check last year for the second part of BamTech - and salaries still went down.

 

I want to stress that I’m not saying these things need to be shared with the players, but we all see lots of money flowing into the game - money the players may or may not get a share of. (I will point out there is a flip side - as players get endorsement deals and personal appearance fees — I doubt they share that with the owners).

 

As some have noted - really the best way to understand everything is to have the owners open their books. But we know that won't happen. I don't think many people feels like the owners should lose money on owning a team - but what's a fair profit is another question.

 

Personally, I think a lot of the angst on the players part comes down to veterans getting squeezed out on jobs (which comes back to money). This is especially true of the average and fringe players. Teams are finding:

 

a) You can replace veterans (read: expensive) with younger players (read: cheaper) who can do as good - or almost as good - of a job. At least, that's the hope.

b) Teams gunning for the playoffs value veteran experience. With more teams willing to go into tank mode, that means there's less of a need your average and fringe veterans. This takes you back to the previous point. Teams not in contention will give young players a chance and pass on veterans.

 

This makes for less of a demand for veterans. This means these guys have for fewer jobs available, which translates to lower pay - and fewer years - when a player in on the open market. While much of this affects the lower and mid-tier players - it will cascade to the upper levels to some degree. A guy who might have gotten four years as a free agent now might only get three. And perhaps at a few million less than five years ago. This happens as teams fill positions with players who might not be as good - but are substantially cheaper - and void of longer commitments.

 

I realize that there are many other issues. But I think there's a big issue that the players see their friends and colleagues unable to get a gig that fits their skill and experience. This is new to them (and probably scary to many who know that time will come for them as well). And remember, these are their friends and buddies - guys they've been with for years at times.

 

And another important point - the guys getting squeezed out of jobs - the mid and lower tier players - well they make up a much larger segment of the player population than the superstars. The superstars are going to do fine in any system. It's the guys fighting for a job and/or security that makes up a big part of the players' union. These guys will be looking to find a way to protect their future -- so they will likely be more of the ones to agitate for a strike down the road.

 

Just my thoughts.

[brewcrewdue80]

My suggestion versus a salary floor. All teams must have at least two players who's combined salary is twice the previous season's QO rate. so, 18mil is 36mil. A team like Miami must have 2 players that add up to 36mil. Could just be Manny Machado at 30mil and some random who makes over 6mil that season. Maybe that is a rule for teams who get revenue sharing. And the teams that revenue share must put 3 of those players on a roster yearly. You base a QO on avg of top 75 right? So low 15=30players top 15=45 total 75. Make that work either signing FAs or giving high pay to prospects on early extensions paying them up front to reach that arbitrary "36mil" on at least 2 players.

[wntrtxn21]

My suggestion versus a salary floor. All teams must have at least two players who's combined salary is twice the previous season's QO rate. so, 18mil is 36mil. A team like Miami must have 2 players that add up to 36mil. Could just be Manny Machado at 30mil and some random who makes over 6mil that season. Maybe that is a rule for teams who get revenue sharing. And the teams that revenue share must put 3 of those players on a roster yearly. You base a QO on avg of top 75 right? So low 15=30players top 15=45 total 75. Make that work either signing FAs or giving high pay to prospects on early extensions paying them up front to reach that arbitrary "36mil" on at least 2 players.

 

Why would the owners agree to anything like this? There never will be payroll minimums without a set maximum. Players are free to negotiate with any team for any amount they can get once they reach FA or are released. They are free to go to any league in the world who will pay their salary. If they don't believe they are getting what they deserve, they can hold out or move on. Teams should use the revenue to reduce ticket prices to gain more fans and up the pay for minor league players. When the fan base dwindles enough, advertising money will begin to dry up and TV revenue will decrease exponentially.

[Brew crew 92]

1.)DH-national league

2.)1.25 million min salary

 

Gets non super two players extra 2.1 mil

DH will raise ave salary

Gets players % share of revenues closer to previous CBA

Leaving service time as is,along with luxury tax should appease owners

 

Peter Gammons was just on MLB radio and suggested as a possible answer to the potential labor strife > raising min salary first three years to

Somewhere between 1-2 mil. Simple solution. Boy am I smart! Ha

[rickh150]

1.)DH-national league

2.)1.25 million min salary

 

Gets non super two players extra 2.1 mil

DH will raise ave salary

Gets players % share of revenues closer to previous CBA

Leaving service time as is,along with luxury tax should appease owners

 

Peter Gammons was just on MLB radio and suggested as a possible answer to the potential labor strife > raising min salary first three years to

Somewhere between 1-2 mil. Simple solution. Boy am I smart! Ha

 

That would add like 20 million to the payroll... I'm not sure small market teams would be in favor of this. I like the simplified ideas, though. Something similar, sure.

[logan82]

It was awhile ago but I thought at one time MLB player salaries were only about half of the operating costs for teams.

[wntrtxn21]

How about this idea:

 

Players are granted Free Agency:

 

a) At the age of 28 after serving at least four full seasons in the majors (you could tweak the age - 28 is just an idea)

or

b) At the age of 30 - no matter how many years of service

or

c) After six full seasons (so basically how it is now). This allows guys who come up early to become FAs prior to age 28.

 

The team will control most players for at least four full years, and it gets a lot of players to free agency earlier. Also, it gets late bloomers to free agency at a point where they still have chance to score a decent contract.

 

Also, teams will have no incentive to keep a 23 year old player in the minors an extra month or two since he will be a FA in six years anyhow.

 

It doesn't really help the guys like Machado or Harper - who came up at age 19-20 - but that's okay. Those guys will be fine. The most they will have to play under their original team will be 6 years (but less than 7).

 

Just an idea. Pick it apart. Show me the downsides and upsides and sideways!

 

Your solution would make it even more difficult for a small market team to compete. They lose their own FAs earlier and don't have the resources that the cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc... have to replace them. With the monstrous discrepancy in money in MLB, smaller market teams are already at a distinct disadvantage. Earlier FA puts them in much more dire straits. Unless there was a hard cap that smaller markets could reach, earlier FA is not the answer.

[Fear The Chorizo]

It was awhile ago but I thought at one time MLB player salaries were only about half of the operating costs for teams.

 

That's a point I've been trying to keep in mind when all the discussion about where a team's payroll could be considering of how much money all of MLB's owners are supposedly printing with exploding league revenues. I always like to look at the Packers - essentially the only team required to show their financial books due to being "publicly owned" for comparison's sake. The Packers have the luxury of playing in a league with a well-established salary cap structure and extensive revenue sharing, huge revenues from TV/advertising contracts, a national following to maximize ticket sales and merchandise revenue, and are located in our backyard small market. They just had a record annual revenues in 2017, but also had a record level of expenses, generating a ~$35 Million dollar profit. The Packers' player payroll hit was much lower than 50% of their total operation expenses, too.

 

For an NFL team like the packers who operate with an established payroll structure to only have the ability of adding ~$35 Million in player salary if the salary cap were to evaporate before they weren't profitable speaks volumes - particularly when comparing them to the Brewers, who are at significant market disadvantages financially with most of their competition, don't operate in a league with established player payroll caps/limits, and still have 40 man roster + ~6 minor league affiliates and associated players/personnel to manage.

 

IMO, it is foolish to think MLB owners/management are colluding with one another when they essentially all play by their own financial sets of rules with player payroll and operating expenses. The advent of statistical data analysis coupled with the attempt to remove PEDs from the game that allowed good players to artificially extend their primes well into their 30s have reset a player's typical prime production years back to their mid 20's/early 30's. That just so happens to set right at the last couple years of salary arbitration plus the first couple years of FA for most players, and GMs have definitely shied away from offering prime level production to players in long term contracts that extend well beyond age 32-33 seasons. That's not collusion, that's just the market making common sense.

 

To fully balance things out, however, I do believe the current salary arbitration system that was essentially fortified during the steroid era's heyday needs to be slightly adjusted. I think removing 1 year of pre-arbitration from the 6 years of team control and replacing it with a restricted FA year would go a long way to shifting the % of dollars paid to players in their prime years instead of paying for past performance - I also think this strategy may help reduce teams from stockpiling MLB-ready prospects in the minors to try and shoot for contending in short windows before rebuilding. If there's a restricted free agent year, teams with a pile of good players under the same length of team control would risk losing a couple right when their window to contend would otherwise be opened the widest due to salary constraints if other organizations make offers they can't match. I think this would lead to more teams getting top prospects to the majors when they are ready instead of searching for excuses to keep them in the minors to try and get that age 28 or 29 MLB season under salary arbitration control.