MLB Players are furious over economic system! Can you believe this?

[treego14]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/mlb/whatimhearing/2019/07/11/mlb-players-furious-willing-strike-over-economic-system/1708461001/

 

They are whining over lack of competitive balance--not enough teams trying to win! Why is there a lack of competitive balance? Perhaps, because large market teams have lots more money than small-market teams! I wonder why that is ... maybe because there is no salary cap or revenue sharing like the NFL has. But, I don't think the players union wants either one of those things ... wah! wah! wah! If you don't want to fix the root cause, you will have this lack of competitive balance that you're complaining about, players!

[JimH5]

Their livelihood is dependent on a game with strong fan interest, and in several markets, attendance is down. Teams have opted to go younger and cheaper, and as a result, the middle class has dried up.

 

Players should be angry about that.

[Oxy]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/mlb/whatimhearing/2019/07/11/mlb-players-furious-willing-strike-over-economic-system/1708461001/

 

They are whining over lack of competitive balance--not enough teams trying to win! Why is there a lack of competitive balance? Perhaps, because large market teams have lots more money than small-market teams! I wonder why that is ... maybe because there is no salary cap or revenue sharing like the NFL has. But, I don't think the players union wants either one of those things ... wah! wah! wah! If you don't want to fix the root cause, you will have this lack of competitive balance that you're complaining about, players!

 

The root cause is the demographic lack of balance between location of home stadium, the surrounding population of that stadium and the attention that the media gives those teams.

 

Build an MLB stadium in Central Park NY and broadcast them "locally" (is that actually a significant media term anymore?!?) and a lot of things MIGHT change...

[MrTPlush]

I support the players. If teams don’t want to pay guys in their 30+ years fine. However, then they need to get to FA sooner or need to get paid more while in team control.

[Oxy]

I'm also waiting for a League to pop up that doesn't test their players for PEDs (and doesn't allow players younger than 28 years old to join). The New World Series between the MLB champion and the champion of the new PED positive! league would be a truly fascinating event...

[brooks_quichenick]

I support the players. If teams don’t want to pay guys in their 30+ years fine. However, then they need to get to FA sooner or need to get paid more while in team control.

 

Bingo

[Oxy]

I support the players. If teams don’t want to pay guys in their 30+ years fine. However, then they need to get to FA sooner or need to get paid more while in team control.

 

Bingo

 

OR a new league needs to pop up...

[treego14]

Better revenue sharing is needed! https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing

[owbc]

Completely support the players--the current economic system is outdated and from a pre-analytics era.

 

The lack of rule changes in baseball is infuriating...the game is virtually unrecognizable from 10 years ago and nothing has been done to compensate for it. Happy to see they are trying things in the Atlantic league at least. Unfortunately fans seem to be opposed to rule changes for some reason despite what I think is a clear and obvious need for major changes.

 

And yes, competitive balance. A huge problem in all American sports leagues. Owners of bad teams need to be hit in the pocketbook--something they will never agree to without a strike. The players are absolutely right--tanking (or even cheap mediocrity) needs to be punished!

[SeaBass]

Yes. I can believe it. You know what else? They're 100% right.

[Jopal78]

Siding with the players? First of all, any sort of collusion or owners keeping the players down is MLBPA propaganda. The facts are 25 of the 30 teams had opening day payrolls of over 100 million dollars. In 2011 less than half the teams had 100 million in payroll commitments so the total money being spent on player salaries has only gone up. The players gripe apparently is that they should be getting a bigger piece of the total revenue.

 

I think baseball has reached a great point where teams have wised up and realized giving long term guaranteed contracts to men as they age into their mid and late 30s is usually a decision they’ll come to regret. And it’s a silly notion that teams should for out a 20 million dollar per season multi year contract because they can.

 

Further many teams are now owned by wealth management billionaires; they’re the last group of people who are going to hand out 50 million dollars for non-contending club to win 75 games instead of 70.

[treego14]

Siding with the players? First of all, any sort of collusion or owners keeping the players down is MLBPA propaganda. The facts are 25 of the 30 teams had opening day payrolls of over 100 million dollars. In 2011 less than half the teams had 100 million in payroll commitments so the total money being spent on player salaries has only gone up. The players gripe apparently is that they should be getting a bigger piece of the total revenue.

 

I think baseball has reached a great point where teams have wised up and realized giving long term guaranteed contracts to men as they age into their mid and late 30s is usually a decision they’ll come to regret. And it’s a silly notion that teams should for out a 20 million dollar per season multi year contract because they can.

 

Further many teams are now owned by wealth management billionaires; they’re the last group of people who are going to hand out 50 million dollars for non-contending club to win 75 games instead of 70.

 

So true ... especially when an owner's revenue stream is far less than other teams' revenue streams!

[JimH5]

Siding with the players? First of all, any sort of collusion or owners keeping the players down is MLBPA propaganda. The facts are 25 of the 30 teams had opening day payrolls of over 100 million dollars. In 2011 less than half the teams had 100 million in payroll commitments so the total money being spent on player salaries has only gone up. The players gripe apparently is that they should be getting a bigger piece of the total revenue.

 

I think baseball has reached a great point where teams have wised up and realized giving long term guaranteed contracts to men as they age into their mid and late 30s is usually a decision they’ll come to regret. And it’s a silly notion that teams should for out a 20 million dollar per season multi year contract because they can.

 

Further many teams are now owned by wealth management billionaires; they’re the last group of people who are going to hand out 50 million dollars for non-contending club to win 75 games instead of 70.

 

Average MLB payroll is $135 million, down from $139 million in 2018 and $140 million in 2017.

 

As an employee, if you saw your employer cutting payroll, you might find that objectionable.

[homer]

Siding with the players? First of all, any sort of collusion or owners keeping the players down is MLBPA propaganda. The facts are 25 of the 30 teams had opening day payrolls of over 100 million dollars. In 2011 less than half the teams had 100 million in payroll commitments so the total money being spent on player salaries has only gone up. The players gripe apparently is that they should be getting a bigger piece of the total revenue.

 

Yes...and?

[rickh150]

The players are full of it..... they are coming off as huge entitled pricks in a more and more tough to watch sport (more K's, longer games, more dead time, less strategy with bunts and steals) that is driving folks away already. Throw in a strike? Brutal damage to the game.

 

If they truly want more money up front to players in their first three years AND 30+ year old FA, get more revenue sharing and a salary cap/floor. Don't be so staunch against that if the players truly want meaningful change.

 

If they want all teams to compete each year to win through FA, you can't have as wide gaps between what MLB teams rake in financially each year. Like Bob Costas said in his book many years ago, a better and more simple way of revenue sharing would be to split up all money (tv, gate, online, etc.) associated with EACH game to the two teams playing. The big markets would still get a majority of the money because of big tv deals, larger gates, etc., but the gap wouldn't nearly be as wide as now.

[SomewhereInTime]

Completely support the players--the current economic system is outdated and from a pre-analytics era.

 

The lack of rule changes in baseball is infuriating...the game is virtually unrecognizable from 10 years ago and nothing has been done to compensate for it. Happy to see they are trying things in the Atlantic league at least. Unfortunately fans seem to be opposed to rule changes for some reason despite what I think is a clear and obvious need for major changes.

 

And yes, competitive balance. A huge problem in all American sports leagues. Owners of bad teams need to be hit in the pocketbook--something they will never agree to without a strike. The players are absolutely right--tanking (or even cheap mediocrity) needs to be punished!

 

The game is "unrecognizable from 10 years ago" yet you want major rule changes because that would somehow not change the game more?

 

One reason I like Major League Baseball is the relative lack of idiotic rule changes year after year that you get in other leagues (NFL and Nascar are great examples).

 

Let strategy dictate the changes in a game, not a rules committee.

[SomewhereInTime]

The players are full of it..... they are coming off as huge entitled pricks in a more and more tough to watch sport (more K's, longer games, more dead time, less strategy with bunts and steals) that is driving folks away already. Throw in a strike? Brutal damage to the game.

 

If they truly want more money up front to players in their first three years AND 30+ year old FA, get more revenue sharing and a salary cap/floor. Don't be so staunch against that if the players truly want meaningful change.

 

If they want all teams to compete each year to win through FA, you can't have as wide gaps between what MLB teams rake in financially each year. Like Bob Costas said in his book many years ago, a better and more simple way of revenue sharing would be to split up all money (tv, gate, online, etc.) associated with EACH game to the two teams playing. The big markets would still get a majority of the money because of big tv deals, larger gates, etc., but the gap wouldn't nearly be as wide as now.

 

I'll never understand the fascination with strikeouts and bunting. Would you rather see more pop ups and weak groundouts with less homers and less strikeouts? What's more exciting about that? Same goes for more bunting. Is there really anything better about those outcomes, or is it just that's the way things used to be decades ago and people don't like strategy change?

[yfinn6]

The players are full of it..... they are coming off as huge entitled pricks in a more and more tough to watch sport (more K's, longer games, more dead time, less strategy with bunts and steals) that is driving folks away already. Throw in a strike? Brutal damage to the game.

 

 

It's difficult to wrap my head around the idea that more bunts will make the game more exciting and increase fan attendance. I would love to watch the conversation of a potential employee trying to convince a GM that more bunts will let his team score more runs after they had mashed homeruns the previous year and set a club scoring record (not referring to the Brewers here).

 

Fans may not be going to the games for any number of reasons; one of the main reasons likely being cost.

[DuWayne Steurer]

re: Player salaries.. Vet players/players union absolutely have to come to grips with the fact that they have to go to bat for the young guys who are coming up now or haven't even been drafted yet to make significant change in the salary structure. The problem is that there's too many guys who simply want to get theirs, and don't give a hoot if some young John Doe 5 years from now gets paid in pre-arby for what he's doing now. The veteran who is 32 NOW wants to get paid NOW, and wants to make change to the structure of the game NOW because it's hurting him NOW. These guys don't (or refuse to) understand that the best way to change the game in a meaningful way is to lay groundwork for the young guys coming up to get paid sooner, rather than later, so that what we're seeing now doesn't happen again. And they don't want to do that.

 

re: homeruns/bunts. I don't believe that a large portion of fans find bunting and station to station more exciting than homeruns. I do, however, think we're at a saturation point for dingers where the average fan is going to say "ho hum, another homerun", and that's not necessarily good for baseball. Mannfred can say "fans love offense", and that's probably true. You can take an exciting thing, make it very doldrum, and take away how fun and exciting it is by making it very commonplace, and I think homeruns have reached that point. I think there's a point where the aesthetic value of baseball, for some people, maybe a lot of people, isn't what they want it to be, with the 3TO nature of the game. Baseball is, by and large, a lot of standing around, and when you replace a lot of the balls in play with walks and strikeouts and homeruns, then there is by nature, even more standing around, and then for some people, there is a downtick to the aesthetic of the game. I may not agree with that, but I understand it.

[Roderick]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/mlb/whatimhearing/2019/07/11/mlb-players-furious-willing-strike-over-economic-system/1708461001/

 

I wonder why that is ... maybe because there is no salary cap or revenue sharing like the NFL has. But, I don't think the players union wants either one of those things ... wah! wah! wah!

 

Huh? Obviously the players would love revenue sharing by the teams. I'm sure that would mean more money for them in the long run. It just isn't going to happen, and there isn't much the players could force to happen. How are they going to get the Dodgers to give the Brewers part of their local TV contract? They would be picking a fight with the hand that feeds them.

[JimH5]

It's not about bunts. It's about the tedium of watching so many long at bats that end in a walk or strikeout.

 

But I'm not sure that players are upset by that, as much as they are the hollowing out of the middle class, the supression of earnings by manipulation of service time, the length of time to arbitration and free agency, etc.

 

Players are under team control--and their pay is dictated by the teams--for too much of their careers.

[Jopal78]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/mlb/whatimhearing/2019/07/11/mlb-players-furious-willing-strike-over-economic-system/1708461001/

 

I wonder why that is ... maybe because there is no salary cap or revenue sharing like the NFL has. But, I don't think the players union wants either one of those things ... wah! wah! wah!

 

Huh? Obviously the players would love revenue sharing by the teams. I'm sure that would mean more money for them in the long run. It just isn't going to happen, and there isn't much the players could force to happen. How are they going to get the Dodgers to give the Brewers part of their local TV contract? They would be picking a fight with the hand that feeds them.

 

In 1994 the owners proposed sharing all broadcast revenues equally among the teams, granting free agency after four years of service time, as well as a salary cap and salary floor, and the players walked out on strike over it.

 

If your for the players in that they need to be better compensated; you for driving a knife into the back of teams like the Brewers. It’s hard enough for teams without a huge media market to win, when LA, NY, Houston and Chicago are spending twice what they are. To further widen the disparity between those teams by paying players more earlier in their careers, cutting their service time requirements before free agency, forcing teams to field mediocre clubs for no other reason than ‘tanking’ is frowned on by the MLBPA, means the Brewers will always be irrelevant turning over their roster every couple years as a talent incubator for the big clubs.

 

The George Steinbrenner owner who pours buckets of his own personal money into his team are all gone. Owners like Attanasio, Mark Walter, Bruce Sherman buy these teams because they’re the ultimate investment. Attanasio, for example, paid 223 million for the Brewers 15 years ago. Major League teams are now selling for close to one billion dollars. Meaning if he sold today he’d likely walk away with a 300-400% return on his money in just 15 years. Dumping his own money into the team only takes away from the return on his investment. Sure, a little here and there happens but it’s temporary and infrequent. That’s the way it is with all the wealth management executives buying up the teams, owning teams is an investment now not a rich person’s toy, and the players are just slow to realize it

[JimH5]

None of us have any idea how much the Brewers or any other team can afford in payroll. Your own recognition that the team value has skyrocketed during Attanasio's ownership suggests that they could have afforded more in payroll during that time.

[rickh150]

The players are full of it..... they are coming off as huge entitled pricks in a more and more tough to watch sport (more K's, longer games, more dead time, less strategy with bunts and steals) that is driving folks away already. Throw in a strike? Brutal damage to the game.

 

 

It's difficult to wrap my head around the idea that more bunts will make the game more exciting and increase fan attendance. I would love to watch the conversation of a potential employee trying to convince a GM that more bunts will let his team score more runs after they had mashed homeruns the previous year and set a club scoring record (not referring to the Brewers here).

 

Fans may not be going to the games for any number of reasons; one of the main reasons likely being cost.

 

The game is slow and long. I like baseball and all, but come on.... this is obvious.

More action in the game, more steals and balls put in play, less long counts, more strategy in general rather than waiting for the big HR.... more of this is needed. Too much of the game is between pitcher and catcher.

[JohnBriggs12]

Siding with the players? First of all, any sort of collusion or owners keeping the players down is MLBPA propaganda. The facts are 25 of the 30 teams had opening day payrolls of over 100 million dollars. In 2011 less than half the teams had 100 million in payroll commitments so the total money being spent on player salaries has only gone up. The players gripe apparently is that they should be getting a bigger piece of the total revenue.

 

I think baseball has reached a great point where teams have wised up and realized giving long term guaranteed contracts to men as they age into their mid and late 30s is usually a decision they’ll come to regret. And it’s a silly notion that teams should for out a 20 million dollar per season multi year contract because they can.

 

Further many teams are now owned by wealth management billionaires; they’re the last group of people who are going to hand out 50 million dollars for non-contending club to win 75 games instead of 70.

 

Average MLB payroll is $135 million, down from $139 million in 2018 and $140 million in 2017.

 

As an employee, if you saw your employer cutting payroll, you might find that objectionable.

 

If players didn't gamble and refuse very generous one year qualifying offers almost unanimously, overall payroll would have been up not down. That's on them, not the owners.