Is a strike looming, or is this fake news?

[Eye Black]

Not a great look for MLB...

 

From The Athletic: ‘Ready to strike tomorrow’: How one $20 trinket captures the strife within a $10 billion industry

 

The article is behind a paywall, but here are a couple of short passages:

 

The​ Belt changes hands​ shortly after​ season’s end, in a crowded​ conference​ room at​ a luxury resort,​ where delegates​ from​ every MLB team have​​ been summoned for a symposium on arbitration. For three hours, they will work together at the direction of the league to set recommendations, which teams will use in negotiations with their players. It’s a thankless job. So before the meeting adjourns, they’ll celebrate an unsung hero in this battle over dollars. The ceremony ends with the presentation of a replica championship belt, awarded by the league to the team that did most to “achieve the goals set by the industry.” In other words: The team that did the most to keep salaries down in arbitration.

 

For the last few years, The Belt has been an urban legend of sorts, known mostly by player agents and the small circle of mid-level team officials tasked with the tedious process of arbitration. But its existence, confirmed to The Athletic by multiple sources, has emerged as a tangible example of the animosity that could plunge the sport into a bruising labor conflict.

 

........

 

In a statement, Major League Baseball acknowledged The Belt as “an informal recognition of those club’s salary arbitration departments that did the best.”

 

........

 

All of it has contributed to a sense among players of an uneven playing field. Some have even debated the merits of upending a quarter century of labor peace.

 

Said one veteran: “I’d be ready to strike tomorrow.”

 

To be fair, there is much, much more to the article, and the arbitration process is acknowledged as a slightly lesser issue when ranked among the current points of contention between the Players Association and League.

 

It does go on to say the league holds State of the Union style debriefings for all teams at Spring Training (two such meetings in both Arizona and Florida). They are given a booklet that includes data of each team's ability to align with the league's recommendations. Part of the presentation outlines the exact requirements to win "The Belt". If you are wondering, the Brewers weren't among the teams listed as qualifying as finalists for "The Belt".

[jerichoholicninja]

Teams collude to keep salaries low and the players/agents have openly stated they collude to keep them going up. I really don't care anymore about either side. Just figure something so baseball doesn't go away.

[Ennder]

 

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.

 

Teams have already shed more than that by not paying for mediocre old players, it is a fair compromise.

[Ennder]

Teams collude to keep salaries low and the players/agents have openly stated they collude to keep them going up. I really don't care anymore about either side. Just figure something so baseball doesn't go away.

 

Collude isn't really a proper term. Teams have changed how they value players because data has suggested they should. Just because they all use the same data does not mean they colluded. Players have to change expectations at this point in certain situations. If they fail to it is completely on the players, not the owners.

[jerichoholicninja]

Teams collude to keep salaries low and the players/agents have openly stated they collude to keep them going up. I really don't care anymore about either side. Just figure something so baseball doesn't go away.

 

Collude isn't really a proper term. Teams have changed how they value players because data has suggested they should. Just because they all use the same data does not mean they colluded. Players have to change expectations at this point in certain situations. If they fail to it is completely on the players, not the owners.

 

I totally agree. I was going to put the first collude in quotes but I didn't.

[homer]

Teams collude to keep salaries low and the players/agents have openly stated they collude to keep them going up. I really don't care anymore about either side. Just figure something so baseball doesn't go away.

 

Collude isn't really a proper term. Teams have changed how they value players because data has suggested they should. Just because they all use the same data does not mean they colluded. Players have to change expectations at this point in certain situations. If they fail to it is completely on the players, not the owners.

 

I agree but that also means the owners are keeping a larger share of the revenue pie. Players will probably ask for less service time to free agency or service time starts after you reach the majors or three years in the minors to keep MLB teams from starting guys like Vlad in the minors.

[Ennder]

Teams collude to keep salaries low and the players/agents have openly stated they collude to keep them going up. I really don't care anymore about either side. Just figure something so baseball doesn't go away.

 

Collude isn't really a proper term. Teams have changed how they value players because data has suggested they should. Just because they all use the same data does not mean they colluded. Players have to change expectations at this point in certain situations. If they fail to it is completely on the players, not the owners.

 

I agree but that also means the owners are keeping a larger share of the revenue pie. Players will probably ask for less service time to free agency or service time starts after you reach the majors or three years in the minors to keep MLB teams from starting guys like Vlad in the minors.

 

And that is completely fair. The aging curves have changed and the value of young players is at an all time high. They probably need to do something about properly paying players earlier in their career.

[Baldkin]

At some point the union is going to have to look to the future, and realize that the players who aren't in the union yet are important to their financial future.

 

Until 36 year old players stop saying, "I want mine, now" that won't happen.

[JimH5]

At some point the union is going to have to look to the future, and realize that the players who aren't in the union yet are important to their financial future.

 

Until 36 year old players stop saying, "I want mine, now" that won't happen.

 

They're in a tough spot. Younger players far outnumber the 36 year olds, but younger players often look to the veterans for leadership.

 

The union is supposed to represent all the players, but the salaries of those players are so disparate. This isn't like teachers or Teamsters or auto workers. Players are stratified, and the majority of the union members are never going to get paid in the upper strata. As much as the union has issues with team owners, there are union members who could/should have issues with other union members.

[jjgott]

At some point the union is going to have to look to the future, and realize that the players who aren't in the union yet are important to their financial future.

 

Until 36 year old players stop saying, "I want mine, now" that won't happen.

 

They're in a tough spot. Younger players far outnumber the 36 year olds, but younger players often look to the veterans for leadership.

 

The union is supposed to represent all the players, but the salaries of those players are so disparate. This isn't like teachers or Teamsters or auto workers. Players are stratified, and the majority of the union members are never going to get paid in the upper strata. As much as the union has issues with team owners, there are union members who could/should have issues with other union members.

 

What's weird is there is almost a fraternity pledging aspect for some of these guys [disclosure - I was in a fraternity in college so I'm not trying to disparage all fraternities here]. I've seen tweets where some current and former players say something to the effect that going through the slog of the minor leagues shows "who really wants it." It's almost a point of pride for some players that they endured the grind of the minor leagues and they feel like all players should have to do in order to make the jump to the majors.

 

Just because a process is crappy and exploitative doesn't mean that it should always remain so.

[Roderick]

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.

 

If you figure that a team has a dozen players that are prearby, that would be a lot. Then if the min wage went to $1.1M, that would be a an additional $6,540,000 of salary to that team.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think replacing one year of arbitration with a restricted free agency year makes alot of sense - provided the luxury tax system that has actually deterred huge market teams from spending like crazy remains in tact. I think that setup would give alot of the good/not great players a chance at a solid payday if a different team has a roster hole they ideally fit, without them having to wait until FA and be in the 2nd/3rd tier at their position and have to wait out the superstars to get their contracts before teams make them serious offers. Having it be restricted allows for the parent club to match an offer to keep a guy for one more year - to prevent shenanigans with guaranteed deals and retain organizational flexibility, there would need to be limits on # years and structuring of any restricted FA contract offers, but I'm sure they could sort it out.

 

This strategy would also incentivize getting homegrown superstars extended past their restricted FA period, paying them much more, much earlier in their careers.

[JosephC]

Not a great look for MLB...

 

From The Athletic: ‘Ready to strike tomorrow’: How one $20 trinket captures the strife within a $10 billion industry

 

The article is behind a paywall, but here are a couple of short passages:

 

The​ Belt changes hands​ shortly after​ season’s end, in a crowded​ conference​ room at​ a luxury resort,​ where delegates​ from​ every MLB team have​​ been summoned for a symposium on arbitration. For three hours, they will work together at the direction of the league to set recommendations, which teams will use in negotiations with their players. It’s a thankless job. So before the meeting adjourns, they’ll celebrate an unsung hero in this battle over dollars. The ceremony ends with the presentation of a replica championship belt, awarded by the league to the team that did most to “achieve the goals set by the industry.” In other words: The team that did the most to keep salaries down in arbitration.

 

 

 

Well, not really. "Keep salaries down in arbitration." That really doesn't make much sense, because if a player or group of players is getting low-balled, then they just see the arbitration process to completion and the arbitrator will award them the figure they've requested.

 

After the 300+ million dollar contracts earned by Harper and Machado, in addition to a bunch of notable large extensions, I would have figured the sports media would have laid off of this by now. But more of the tired billionaire versus millionaire class struggle that "journalists" will take up with one side just because they see that side as "labor," although the groundkeepers and hot dog vendors are as just as much a part of labor as the millionaires. If the sports media really wants to go here, why not talk about the Bucks 45 million dollar parking ramp, payed for by Milwaukee taxpayer dollars, and then look at the 140 positions that were cut by Milwaukee schools last year because of a 38 million dollar deficit.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Minor leaguers need union protection. Unless they are a "bonus baby", they aren't making a living wage.

 

 

For me, ultimately everything comes back to finding an equitable solution to revenue sharing and the issue with local TV contracts and the inequity they create. But you start with symptom of that issue first - the enormous wage gap issue. Pre-free agency players make peanuts in comparison to their actual worth in varying degrees (whether they are a role player or a major star), and then you have a class of aging stars making way more than they are worth. It's cliche... but there isn't really a middle class. So, the first obvious comment on that is there should be something done to raise the floor/minimum while placing an overall cap to suppress player salaries at the top (not suppressing player salaries in total - that should stay constant - you just wouldn't have as many players signed to these mega-deals as payroll is reallocated to younger players). But if you put in place a salary cap (which you could argue the Luxury tax already functions in place of this) while simultaneously mandating that salary minimums need to rise substantially, that now creates an extremely troublesome situation for teams who cannot support large payrolls. Their entire competitive model is based on acquiring young (i.e. "cheap") controllable talent, and then trade those assets for more controllable talent before they become too expensive. So now you have several teams who cannot afford to be competitive. So how do you maintain competitive balance? You have to have revenue shared equally between all teams. This is easily accomplished in the NFL because their TV contracts are handled at the national level by the league. In the MLB where you have regional sports networks, where the subscribers are paying to see only their regional team, well I don't see an obvious solution which is where my rampant incoherent paragraph ends!

 

The issues with MLB are institutional. You have to get the owners of the major-market teams to agree that for the betterment of the sport, they have to be willing to share their TV revenues equally which will place their competition on equal footing. I just don't know how you convince those owners to essentially be willing to not extract the maximum value out of their assets (TV contracts) in order to make their own competition better. Any resolution between MLB and the MLBPA is likely to be a band-aid treating the symptom of the issue with the sport, and not treating the root cause.

[Lathund]

After the 300+ million dollar contracts earned by Harper and Machado, in addition to a bunch of notable large extensions, I would have figured the sports media would have laid off of this by now.

 

Opening day payroll went down for the second year in a row, while revenues increased (Or they did in 2017, we don't know about 2018 yet I don't think). As long as that keeps happening this will go on. The top tier of players were never the issue, Harper and Machado were always going to get paid.

[Fear The Chorizo]

After the 300+ million dollar contracts earned by Harper and Machado, in addition to a bunch of notable large extensions, I would have figured the sports media would have laid off of this by now.

 

Opening day payroll went down for the second year in a row, while revenues increased (Or they did in 2017, we don't know about 2018 yet I don't think). As long as that keeps happening this will go on. The top tier of players were never the issue, Harper and Machado were always going to get paid.

 

If I recall that figure was based largely off signing bonus accounting for a handful of the game's most expensive contracts (Trout, Scherzer, Kershaw, Harper, Machado, and a couple others). That accounting alone decreased average player salaries $82K for 2019, making its payroll decrease compared to 2018 $36K. If not for that accounting, the average MLB salary would have risen almost $50K from 2018-2019.

[Oxy]

Do players have to join the MLBPA? If not, are there any players now in the league that aren't in the MLBPA? I seem to recall Griffey not being a member--but that may only been for a short time. What is the cost of membership? When do they join? As soon as they are placed on the 40 man roster?

 

I tend to doubt the claims of players that THEY are the product. The stadium is the product and the show is the product and winning is the product. Winning only happens with the best players. Owners should want to win by paying the best players in order for people to come to the ballpark.

[nate82]

Do players have to join the MLBPA? If not, are there any players now in the league that aren't in the MLBPA? I seem to recall Griffey not being a member--but that may only been for a short time. What is the cost of membership? When do they join? As soon as they are placed on the 40 man roster?

 

I tend to doubt the claims of players that THEY are the product. The stadium is the product and the show is the product and winning is the product. Winning only happens with the best players. Owners should want to win by paying the best players in order for people to come to the ballpark.

 

Damian Miller is the most recent player I can remember who wasn't part of the MLBPA. Players do not have to join the MLBPA. According to the MLBPA website:

Q: Who is eligible for membership in the Association?

 

A: All players, managers, coaches and trainers who hold a signed contract with a Major League club are eligible for membership in the Association. In collective bargaining, the Association represents around 1,200 players, or the number of players on each club's 40-man roster, in addition to any players on the disabled list.

 

Q: How much are union dues?

 

A: The players' dues are $85 per day during the season.

 

http://www.mlbplayers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=34000&ATCLID=211785603

[Oxy]

So pre-arby guys spend ~$15,000 of their $550,000 salary on union dues? Just checking.

[stalton]

So pre-arby guys spend ~$15,000 of their $550,000 salary on union dues? Just checking.

 

I'm not familiar at all with unions. Is around 3% of your salary anywhere close to "normal" union dues?

[sveumrules]

So pre-arby guys spend ~$15,000 of their $550,000 salary on union dues? Just checking.

 

I'm not familiar at all with unions. Is around 3% of your salary anywhere close to "normal" union dues?

 

Not sure what normal union dues are either, but I'm also not sure of any other union that guarantees a $34,000 annual pension after only 43 days on the job.

[jerichoholicninja]

I believe Barry Bonds wasn't a member or not a full member or something like that. Something to do with licensing his likeness I believe.

[Ennder]

I believe Barry Bonds wasn't a member or not a full member or something like that. Something to do with licensing his likeness I believe.

 

 

Yeah in video games that were allowed to use player names they still had a goofy fill in name for Bonds.

[trwi7]

I believe Barry Bonds wasn't a member or not a full member or something like that. Something to do with licensing his likeness I believe.

 

 

Yeah in video games that were allowed to use player names they still had a goofy fill in name for Bonds.

 

I hit so many dingers with Jon Dowd in MVP Baseball 2005.

[GoToHelfaer]

Was it Damian Miller who wasn’t a member either and wasn’t in Video Games?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk