MLB Lockout 2022

[rickh150]

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/a-letter-to-baseball-fans

[djoctagone]

let's show some optimism with the thread title.

[djoctagone]

[NievesNoNO]

I think Manfred could've done without the negative tone towards the PA. He could've just stated items they've pushed for instead of making the PA sound like they are the complete reason for the lockout. I'm not saying the are or are not but if I was drafting a letter to fans, I would try very hard not to make the other side out to be the bad guy. It's been widely accepted this would happen so I think there has to be some level of responsibility by both parties to not have a deal done.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I can see both sides of this coin. But it should be noted that MLB is the only major North American professional league without any sort of salary cap. MLB contracts are, for the most part, guaranteed. That is unheard of in other pro sports. No other pro sports see players signing $300+ million deals. While the players do have some legitimate gripes, the MLBPA has long been the strongest and most effective professional sports players' union. I think the players are going to more than likely have to bend more than the owners to get this solved.

[Baldkin]

I can see both sides of this coin. But it should be noted that MLB is the only major North American professional league without any sort of salary cap. MLB contracts are, for the most part, guaranteed. That is unheard of in other pro sports. No other pro sports see players signing $300+ million deals. While the players do have some legitimate gripes, the MLBPA has long been the strongest and most effective professional sports players' union. I think the players are going to more than likely have to bend more than the owners to get this solved.

 

The NBA and the NHL both have guaranteed contracts. The NFL is the only exception.

 

The players share of revenue has gone down drastically over the past 20 years, with the richest owners using the luxury tax as an excuse to pocket more money. The players want their money back.

 

The biggest question is will the MLBPA be forward thinking and try to undo some of the arbitration process which artificially diminishes salaries of players compared to what they would get on the open market. The problem is, players vote for their own money, and getting rid of that means (for most MLBers) a smaller share of the revenue pie.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I can see both sides of this coin. But it should be noted that MLB is the only major North American professional league without any sort of salary cap. MLB contracts are, for the most part, guaranteed. That is unheard of in other pro sports. No other pro sports see players signing $300+ million deals. While the players do have some legitimate gripes, the MLBPA has long been the strongest and most effective professional sports players' union. I think the players are going to more than likely have to bend more than the owners to get this solved.

 

The NBA and the NHL both have guaranteed contracts. The NFL is the only exception.

 

The players share of revenue has gone down drastically over the past 20 years, with the richest owners using the luxury tax as an excuse to pocket more money. The players want their money back.

 

The biggest question is will the MLBPA be forward thinking and try to undo some of the arbitration process which artificially diminishes salaries of players compared to what they would get on the open market. The problem is, players vote for their own money, and getting rid of that means (for most MLBers) a smaller share of the revenue pie.

 

Therein lies the crux of the argument. Also why this will probably drag out longer than anyone wants it to this winter. Are players entitled to that increased revenue? I guess if you are being fair, yes. But that's not really how a lot of corporate America operates. Yes, the players are the "talent". But they are also still technically employees. Employees that are all members of a very strong union that historically has managed to become stronger than their counterpart unions in other pro sports.

[torts]

I think Manfred could've done without the negative tone towards the PA. He could've just stated items they've pushed for instead of making the PA sound like they are the complete reason for the lockout. I'm not saying the are or are not but if I was drafting a letter to fans, I would try very hard not to make the other side out to be the bad guy. It's been widely accepted this would happen so I think there has to be some level of responsibility by both parties to not have a deal done.

 

I mean, it's a standard management response/tactic in labor negotiations when strikes/lockouts happen.. to blame someone else. The players are not the ones going on strike here, owners and management are the ones stopping everything, to put pressure on the players and union to cave to their demands.

 

Mlbpa can gain sympathy by saying what they want, but, they've so far kept everything close to the chest outside of the developments of the last 2 days. Unless I'm missing something, I haven't seen what changes the players want, has anyone?

[NievesNoNO]

Yup, I agree with the guaranteed contracts and salary cap being largely in the players favor over other sports, so if it was me I'd also come down harder on the players to make some concessions.

 

I don't know what's on the table for discussion or what details they're working on but one of things that has me concerned is the initial years of player control. I don't like when teams' manipulate the system so I think there needs to be some adjustment there but I would hate to see service time of team control dropped by too much. It's really the only way, in the current financial structure with no cap, that the lesser revenue teams are able to complete in a system that allows infinite spending.

 

If the players want to reach FA sooner then I think you have to consider a hard cap and floor. I know it's not a level playing field financially, but there's a part of me that likes it that way because I think it just makes the roster management part of the game so interesting. Despite my interest in that part of the game it's probably better off for the game if they'd even up some of those resources more.

 

I do think they need to reduce the incentive to tank seasons. Look, there's going to be bad teams but you can't be soo bad that you're not really even a competitive team, player-wise. If you are basically fielding a 3/4 A team, that's kind of the opposite of calling yourself a professional team, isn't it?

[nate82]

One of the more interesting things to come from the CBA talks is a possible realignment with two divisions with one having 7 and one having 8 teams in both the NL and AL.

 

I think competitively that would hurt the small market teams and thus the proposals for 12 and 14 team playoffs.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I'm not sure I buy MLBPA as a strong union. That was maybe the case a while back, but the last labor deal was terrible for them. Their players are being vastly underpaid for their early years of production to the point that guys like Albies are signing bargain deals for security. I suppose we can argue about whether that's the "smart" call (I think it probably is given the economic climate), but the Dodgers, Cubs, and Yankees are not baseball teams. They are massive media conglomerates that don't even have to report to shareholders.

 

For me, it seems like the commissioner's office and big-market owners care very little about actual baseball. Their teams are assets they expect to exponentially increase in value. Maybe it's like that in all sports, but it's bad for fans.

 

Service time manipulation is not good. Reduced share of revenue is not good. The analytics revolution has (despite a lot of cool things) instantiated a system where the whole, explicit goal is to pay as little as possible for the most production. The goal is to exploit your employees. Now, they aren't being sent into coal mines, and they're still getting lots of money, but it's way less than what teams are turning in profit. And, we know every player's salary. We have no idea what these teams' books look like. No one will show us. It's hard for me to see how MLB cares about its players or the game.

[markedman5]

"The analytics revolution has (despite a lot of cool things) instantiated a system where the whole, explicit goal is to pay as little as possible for the most production."

 

Every business wants to pay as little as possible for the most production.......or in the case of a consumer the lowest price for the best product.

 

There is nothing wrong with that......Look at the money that Scherzer just got.....and Stroman.....and Baez......the market will still be the market....some players will cash in huge others will struggle to find good options.

 

It's funny....when players become Owners......they think and act like owners......Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter...etc.

 

Both sides were involved in the last collective bargaining agreement.........and now will call each other names, fight and eventually hammer out another agreement......I understand both sides of it.

 

It's just business.

[MVP2110]

I'll be honest I don't really care who "wins" the CBA negotiations, all I care about is giving small markets more of a chance. I know there is more parity in MLB than in other sports but World Series titles are still largely dominated by large markets and I'd like to see small markets have more of a chance at them.

[markedman5]

I'll be honest I don't really care who "wins" the CBA negotiations, all I care about is giving small markets more of a chance. I know there is more parity in MLB than in other sports but World Series titles are still largely dominated by large markets and I'd like to see small markets have more of a chance at them.

 

Totally agree........unfortunately without a cap or even more widespread revenue sharing don't see it happening.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I'll be honest I don't really care who "wins" the CBA negotiations, all I care about is giving small markets more of a chance. I know there is more parity in MLB than in other sports but World Series titles are still largely dominated by large markets and I'd like to see small markets have more of a chance at them.

 

Totally agree........unfortunately without a cap or even more widespread revenue sharing don't see it happening.

 

Unfortunately it is the smaller market teams who are considered "cheap". MLBPA actually wants to reduce revenue sharing, as they feel that those smaller market clubs who benefit from the current revenue sharing program are simply pocketing that money, and not reinvesting it in player salaries. They likely aren't wrong, either, when it comes to many teams. The MLBPA wants that money to stay with the large markets, because those teams have proven that they aren't afraid to invest it in players. This leads me to believe that if the MLBPA had its way, there would be even more of a difference between the "haves" and "have nots" in MLB. If MLBPA requires a salary floor, it stands to reason that owners would then require a cap ... which MLBPA will likely never agree to.

[jerichoholicninja]

I'll be honest I don't really care who "wins" the CBA negotiations, all I care about is giving small markets more of a chance. I know there is more parity in MLB than in other sports but World Series titles are still largely dominated by large markets and I'd like to see small markets have more of a chance at them.

 

Totally agree........unfortunately without a cap or even more widespread revenue sharing don't see it happening.

 

Unfortunately it is the smaller market teams who are considered "cheap". MLBPA actually wants to reduce revenue sharing, as they feel that those smaller market clubs who benefit from the current revenue sharing program are simply pocketing that money, and not reinvesting it in player salaries. They likely aren't wrong, either, when it comes to many teams. The MLBPA wants that money to stay with the large markets, because those teams have proven that they aren't afraid to invest it in players. This leads me to believe that if the MLBPA had its way, there would be even more of a difference between the "haves" and "have nots" in MLB. If MLBPA requires a salary floor, it stands to reason that owners would then require a cap ... which MLBPA will likely never agree to.

 

Exactly what I said in another thread. There is zero financial benefit to the players or the vast majority of owners to "even the field" so it won't happen.

[sveumrules]

MLB already has a salary cap, it's just called the luxury tax threshold instead.

 

MLBTR had a pretty good today article about the evolution of the luxury tax & it looks like the 2012 CBA, which only included a raise in one of the five seasons covered, is where things started to go awry...

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/12/how-the-mlb-luxury-tax-thresholds-have-changed-by-year.html

[clancyphile]

I'm not sure I buy MLBPA as a strong union. That was maybe the case a while back, but the last labor deal was terrible for them. Their players are being vastly underpaid for their early years of production to the point that guys like Albies are signing bargain deals for security. I suppose we can argue about whether that's the "smart" call (I think it probably is given the economic climate), but the Dodgers, Cubs, and Yankees are not baseball teams. They are massive media conglomerates that don't even have to report to shareholders.

 

For me, it seems like the commissioner's office and big-market owners care very little about actual baseball. Their teams are assets they expect to exponentially increase in value. Maybe it's like that in all sports, but it's bad for fans.

 

Service time manipulation is not good. Reduced share of revenue is not good. The analytics revolution has (despite a lot of cool things) instantiated a system where the whole, explicit goal is to pay as little as possible for the most production. The goal is to exploit your employees. Now, they aren't being sent into coal mines, and they're still getting lots of money, but it's way less than what teams are turning in profit. And, we know every player's salary. We have no idea what these teams' books look like. No one will show us. It's hard for me to see how MLB cares about its players or the game.

 

I think it is correct to say that some teams have become media conglomerates that can spend their way to consistent post-season appearances. Others have to scrape their way to a competitive 40-man roster. I worry I am watching the ONLY time in Brewers history they will put together 3+ consecutive post-season appearances. Not to mention, MLBPA has let the minor-league players - future members of that union - deal with some awful conditions. That, to me, is a huge failure.

 

How to fix it? Part of me feels one answer is expansion: Two more teams - one in Las Vegas (AL), the other in New Orleans (NL). Each league with four four-team divisions - AL East (Toronto, Boston, New York, Baltimore), AL West (Angels, Mariners, A's, Vegas), AL North (Minnesota, White Sox, Guardians, Tigers), AL South (Astros, Rangers, Rays, Royals), NL East (Mets, Phillies, Reds, Nationals), NL West (Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Diamondbacks), NL South (Marlins, Braves, New Orleans, Cardinals), NL North (Brewers, Cubs, Pirates, Rockies). 16-team format - 3-game first round (all three games at top seed's home stadium), 5-game LDS (2-2-1), 7-game LCS (2-2-2-1), World Series (2-2-2-1).

 

Larger major-league rosters - 30-man until September (then it expands to 40), a five-man "taxi squad" (paid MLB minimum, must have at least three years MLB service time), and a 50-man roster overall. Teams can sign players from other teams' taxi squad to the 30-man roster for at least twice the MLB minimum. Go with a salary cap, but that alone won't help small-market teams keep players. In some ways, I think we need to make it reasonably feasable/possible for smaller market teams to get that "value" deal.

 

Service time: Each team gets four years of player control (to discourage service time manipulation, a "full year" is considered if a player is called up three times prior to August 1), then for the next four years, a form of restricted free agency (to wit, they can match offers from other teams) that involves massive compensation in the form of draft picks and additional international bonus money ($1,000,000 per RFA signed away), after that, unrestricted free agency (but with "sandwich pick" compensation) and a smaller international bonus comp ($500,000).

 

Draft pick compensation: If the Dodgers were to sign a restricted free agent from the Brewers, the Brewers would get a compensation "pick" before the Dodgers' pick in the first round. If the Dodgers signed multiple RFAs, then they would use tiebreakers (starting with market size) to determine who goes first. The teams also would also get "sandwich" picks between the CB-A and 2nd rounds and between the CB-B and 3rd rounds. For unrestricted free agents, it would be the sandwich picks only, and only after the picks for teams who lose RFAs. In addition, teams cannot try to "unbalance" a deal to deter a team from matching (no massive amount up front or back-loaded).

 

DH: There will be a universal DH, but only for the starting pitcher. If the pitcher is lifted, the DH must be pinch-hit for. Teams will be allowed to "double switch" the DH into the field in that case.

 

Draft: It goes back up to 40 rounds. The competitive balance round picks would go to the teams in the 12 smallest markets (CB-A) and those with the 12 lowest attendance totals (CB-B). Some trading of draft picks will be allowed, but no team will be without a pick in the first three rounds (barring punishment for misconduct).

 

Minor-league teams: Each minor-league team will have 30 roster spots. The R+/Short-Season A leagues will return, and there will be the following minimum salaries: Rookie leagues (including DSL), $30,000; R+, $36,000; Short-Season A, $39,000; Full-Season A, $42,000; A+, $45,000; AA, $48,000; AAA, $60,000. Rule 5 draft is modified so that a player selected in the major-league portion must be on the 50-man roster all year, and spend at least 50% of the time in the majors and cannot be demoted below AAA. The minor-league portion will require that a player selected be kept at the AAA level or AA level (depending on the portion of the draft) or be returned to the team.

 

So, if the Brewers have 2 DSL teams, 2 rookie teams, a R+ team, a Short-season A team, a full-season A, an A+ team, a AA team, and a AAA team, that would come out to a minimum of $11,700,000 for the rosters. That's about 2/3 what they'd pay LoCain this coming season. Honestly, if they did that now, I think they'd get a lot of talent, even those who "slid" down the road.

 

Contracts: Allow contracts to be fully guaranteed at 100% for players under team control an at 50% afterwards. Deferred compensation would be allowed, but no more than 25 percent of a player's salary could be deferred, 50 percent would count against the salary cap, and deferred money is fully guaranteed. For example, Brewers sign Corbin Burnes to an eight-year, $160 million contract, and they defer $40 million over the 20 years after the contract, they have a $1 million charge on the salary cap, and the deferred cash is 100% guaranteed. A player who is released gets the guaranteed money, but only half would be applied to the salary cap. So, say the Brewers sign an unrestricted free agent to a 4-year, $40 million deal, but release him after year 2 - the player gets the guaranteed money of $5 million a year, but the Brewers would only have a $2.5 million charge on the salary cap.

 

That's what I'd do. I don't know if it could prevent teams from "tanking," but it does fix a lot of the issues I see in baseball.

[MVP2110]

I'm not even talking things like a salary cap which i know wont ever happen. I'm talking enhanced Revenue sharing, expanded playoffs, longer team control, an international draft, etc. Unfortunately these all seem to be pro owner discussion points but honestly I just want small markets to have a more even field to play on.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

"The analytics revolution has (despite a lot of cool things) instantiated a system where the whole, explicit goal is to pay as little as possible for the most production."

 

Every business wants to pay as little as possible for the most production.......or in the case of a consumer the lowest price for the best product.

 

There is nothing wrong with that......Look at the money that Scherzer just got.....and Stroman.....and Baez......the market will still be the market....some players will cash in huge others will struggle to find good options.

 

It's funny....when players become Owners......they think and act like owners......Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter...etc.

 

Both sides were involved in the last collective bargaining agreement.........and now will call each other names, fight and eventually hammer out another agreement......I understand both sides of it.

 

It's just business.

 

The problem is that most businesses have safeguards, regulatory frameworks, and public earnings reports.

 

MLB operates as a monopoly, has no public shareholders, and can keep its books entirely secret. At least, when John Deere's in the middle of a labor negotiation, its billions in annual profits are public information. That doesn't happen in baseball. MLB and the owners cannot honestly argue financial necessity without actually showing it and in a transparent way. Again, we know every dime of every contract every player has ever signed. The reason people are able to say "But these guys make millions!" is that no one has any idea about how much revenue teams are bringing in.

[KeithStone53151]

MLB is a unique situation from the other leagues with it being a true 3 way fight. Big market owners vs small market owners vs players. The revenue sharing and lack of salary cap are obviously the primary culprits. I will never understand why a salary cap/floor system tied to total revenue with drastically expanded revenue sharing isn't the answer. Most likely because big market owners are utilizing the luxury cap to justify pocketing probably hundreds of millions of dollars every year while fielding top tier teams for the most part. I could only get on board with shrinking team control if it came with an increase to revenue sharing.

 

I'm expecting the end result to be the big market owners get the best side of the deal, players get the worst side of the deal, small market owners get just enough to have a 2-3 year window once every 2 decades when the development breaks perfectly.

[adambr2]

Labor strife among the super elite rich class is never something that is going to be a great look. I truly wish that both sides would just stop trying to even plead their side to the public because it usually never accomplishes anything besides making them look even more out of touch.

 

I have a more understanding perspective of labor issues than I did when I was young and certainly see far beyond the view of "these greedy players already make so much money to play a game", but at the end of the day billionaires and millionaires having trouble figuring out how to divide up an enormous pie while the 99% divide up crumbs is not something that the general public is going to be very sympathetic to.

[umphrey]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

 

All appearances certainly indicate that, as you have veteran player union heads like Scherzer crying foul about the system being rigged against players, only to turn around and scramble to find the biggest deal he can find, which just so happened to be in the biggest market in the league, funded by the wealthiest owner in the league. Do as I say, not as I do ...

[TURBO]

Do as I say, not as I do ...

 

Not surprising, been working that way for politicians for decades!