When Does The Lockout End? Answer: March 10th, 2022

[owbc]

Since when is $2 or $3 million life changing money? There are hundreds of thousands of families in this country who bring in $2 million in less than a decade. 10% of households in this country bring in over $200K/year. Not to mention passive income. It's even worse if you make the money in a couple of years since you will pay even more taxes. And for the average family who makes that kind of money, they have a career where they can count on that income until they retire. Coaching baseball isn't exactly lucrative.

 

I would say $10 million is a reasonable threshold for life-changing money -- a threshold that you could support a family from age 35 onward without having to work again...IF you invested it properly. So maybe $15 million in career earnings if you account for taxes. What percentage of MLB and MiLB players end up with $15 million in career earnings?

[gebc1997]

I agree a few million isn't life changing retirement money, but it sure is life starting money. The bit of notoriety they will have back home as local boy makes good, will open many doors for them to where they will be comfortable and secure with their employment and success

[folly412]

Edit - And I also want to say that Rob Manfred is the worst commissioner of baseball in my lifetime (50 years). If the owners had any sense (they don't) they would fire Manfred immediately and replace him with someone who has some intelligence and common sense.

 

That commissioners have more job security than kings despite being despised by players and fans alike tells us just how well the owners are doing.

[TURBO]

Since when is $2 or $3 million life changing money? There are hundreds of thousands of families in this country who bring in $2 million in less than a decade. 10% of households in this country bring in over $200K/year. Not to mention passive income. It's even worse if you make the money in a couple of years since you will pay even more taxes. And for the average family who makes that kind of money, they have a career where they can count on that income until they retire. Coaching baseball isn't exactly lucrative.

 

I would say $10 million is a reasonable threshold for life-changing money -- a threshold that you could support a family from age 35 onward without having to work again...IF you invested it properly. So maybe $15 million in career earnings if you account for taxes. What percentage of MLB and MiLB players end up with $15 million in career earnings?

 

2 or 3 million in a short span of time is in fact, life changing.

 

If I make 2 - 3 million in a 30 - 35 year career, that's different. If I make 2 - 3 million in less than 5 years, and have the rest of my life to still earn, you better believe, 2-3 million is life changing...

[TURBO]

Edit - And I also want to say that Rob Manfred is the worst commissioner of baseball in my lifetime (50 years). If the owners had any sense (they don't) they would fire Manfred immediately and replace him with someone who has some intelligence and common sense.

 

That commissioners have more job security than kings despite being despised by players and fans alike tells us just how well the owners are doing.

 

I'm not sure why the owners would fire Manfred if they think he is doing a good job. If he is still under their employment, they must like what he is doing, or not doing.

[xisxisxis]

The point is, the players who got little to no bonus and toiled away for years making it to the major leagues aren't the majority here. Its players who are starting from go, with their pockets stuffed with dollars.

Well maybe they should put the money into the bank/investments instead of stuffing their pants!

 

I did a quick check of 4 other teams. I used 2021 stats with hitters more than 70 PA (where pitchers start to sneak in) and 30 IP. Counted the players in the top 45 for their draft year (so some competitive and first round + that likely had more bonus than a 1 year minimum wage). Here are the results:

 

Cardinals = 5

Astros = 8

Giants = 5

Rays = 4

 

That's 22 across 4 good/v good teams not named the Dodgers or Brewers. So on average 5.5 per team. I don't recall the exact number of players I checked. but it was the low to mid 20's for each team. Not only is that not a majority. It's closer to 25% of a 26 man roster. So that's a rough estimate of the players that come into the majors with a wad of cash (some pretty small and some pretty big (top 15ish each draft).

 

Now looking at it another way I checked the top 50 players from the 2007 draft. Of those 50, 22 made a million or more in salary on top of their signing bonus with 16 more than league minimum *3 years and 6 around $1M-$1.2M. What was shocking was the number of players who spent 6-10 years in the minors and never had single game in the majors (about 10). That's a long time working at minor league conditions.

 

Personally I think the draft is such a crap shoot it's better to reign the bonus pools back in, get real money into the minors and increase the first years salary or at least make a real bonus pool for pre-arby players. $25M is less than $1M per team. That's just chump change. I am with MLBPA that it needs to be closer to $100M or $3M per team and it could easily be done with a cut to the bonus draft bonus pool. MLBPA would likely not even blink if the owners suggested that.

 

Edit: The Top50 players in 2007 had a combined signing bonus amount of $78.25M. The players that never made it to the majors or played so little they made less than $1M accounts for 41.4% of that bonus amount. That's a lot of money payed to players who couldn't make any impact at the ML level.

[logan82]

If the players were really trying to stand up for the little guy they should be trying to get more money and amenities for minor league players. Of course minor leaguers are not part of the union so they don't give a crap. Baffling since almost every single one of them had to go through the minors.

[Baldkin]

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule (the 30th round draft pick who makes it, or the 17 year old from the DR who signed for $20,000 and became an everyday player) and maybe those are the folks they should try to help more. But even the non-descript players like Dan Vogelbach are multi-millionaires despite a short career floating around from organization to organization.

 

As a Brewers fan, I know they're in arguably the worst market and won't ever have the resources of New York and Los Angeles. Therefore, I guess I'm on the owner's side in this one, because its better for the team I follow. If I was a Dodgers fan I'd probably feel differently.

 

The fact that you can quote exact player salaries and hold that against the players while not being able to say one truthful word about how much the owners make is by design. If the owners wanted to end this, they'd open their books and show the players how big a share of revenue they are already getting and leave it at that.

 

They won't however, because - I wonder why someone wouldn't be transparent in a negotiation? Any ideas?

 

Is there a rule or law that says that the company has to reveal their finances to a union in cba negotiations. I assume not since baseball doesn't seem to. Why do some feel it's necessary for the league and clubs to have to reveal their financials.

 

It's called negotiating in good faith, which the owners have very obviously not been doing.

[umphrey]

My opinion is strongly drifting into “screw this sport”. 2020 still fresh in my mind.

[Jopal78]

The point is, the players who got little to no bonus and toiled away for years making it to the major leagues aren't the majority here. Its players who are starting from go, with their pockets stuffed with dollars.

Well maybe they should put the money into the bank/investments instead of stuffing their pants!

 

I did a quick check of 4 other teams. I used 2021 stats with hitters more than 70 PA (where pitchers start to sneak in) and 30 IP. Counted the players in the top 45 for their draft year (so some competitive and first round + that likely had more bonus than a 1 year minimum wage). Here are the results:

 

Cardinals = 5

Astros = 8

Giants = 5

Rays = 4

 

That's 22 across 4 good/v good teams not named the Dodgers or Brewers. So on average 5.5 per team. I don't recall the exact number of players I checked. but it was the low to mid 20's for each team. Not only is that not a majority. It's closer to 25% of a 26 man roster. So that's a rough estimate of the players that come into the majors with a wad of cash (some pretty small and some pretty big (top 15ish each draft).

 

Now looking at it another way I checked the top 50 players from the 2007 draft. Of those 50, 22 made a million or more in salary on top of their signing bonus with 16 more than league minimum *3 years and 6 around $1M-$1.2M. What was shocking was the number of players who spent 6-10 years in the minors and never had single game in the majors (about 10). That's a long time working at minor league conditions.

 

Personally I think the draft is such a crap shoot it's better to reign the bonus pools back in, get real money into the minors and increase the first years salary or at least make a real bonus pool for pre-arby players. $25M is less than $1M per team. That's just chump change. I am with MLBPA that it needs to be closer to $100M or $3M per team and it could easily be done with a cut to the bonus draft bonus pool. MLBPA would likely not even blink if the owners suggested that.

 

Edit: The Top50 players in 2007 had a combined signing bonus amount of $78.25M. The players that never made it to the majors or played so little they made less than $1M accounts for 41.4% of that bonus amount. That's a lot of money payed to players who couldn't make any impact at the ML level.

 

I don’t know why you would choose 2007, when MLB went to slotted draft picks in 2012 and bonuses skyrocketed. There wasn’t a player in the Top 43 picks in 2012 who didn’t sign for at least a million and only one player in the first 60 picks signed for less than 700,000. In ‘12 the first 7 picks signed for a approximately 28.8 million dollars. In ‘13 the top 7 picks signed for a combined 32+ million dollars, and none of the 39 first round selections that year signed for less than 1.4 million dollars

 

The Brewers have spent over 32 million dollars on just first round bonuses since 2012, and with two exceptions have paid out million dollar bonuses to all of their second round picks the last 11 years. Further the trend in Milwaukee for the last half decade has their 3rd round picks all got bonuses of $550,000 or more.

 

In fact you have to go down to about the 7th round before the bonuses are regularly less than $250,000. It’s a distortion there are scores of minor league players chasing a dream without a penny to their name. A lump sum payment of even a quarter million dollars would be a life changing amount for most people.

 

More importantly, context of the labor agreement, it’s only players on the 40 man roster who are in the Union; and neither the owners or players are proposing to do anything significant for those organizational soldiers who dedicate their youth to the game and never make it.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Jopal78!

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I think the union has some misplaced priorities. I think the union made a bad deal last time and is undoubtedly bitter about it. I think the union hates Rob Manfred a whole lot and doesn't want to do anything that looks like a win for him. Fine.

 

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially, and we have data on every contract every player's ever signed. When one side has to disclose exactly how much they're making and the other can blatantly lie about how "owning a baseball team brings no more profit than average stock market gains" (as Manfred did), you've got a bad, bad system that's totally lopsided and unfair. Playing the public against the highest earners in an industry (why should these cushy college professors make 125k? why do those GM workers leave the floor the second it hits 5 and make 40 dollars/hour? etc etc etc) is a tried-and-true management tactic that's designed to distract from how much CEOs and university presidents are pulling (mostly to play golf and "delegate," honestly) and happens to work especially well when labor's making millions.

 

If the owners open up the books and show me why their plan's legit, then okay. But, until then, I'm pretty contemptuous of them. It's a fundamentally dishonest game they're playing.

[gebc1997]

I think the union has some misplaced priorities. I think the union made a bad deal last time and is undoubtedly bitter about it. I think the union hates Rob Manfred a whole lot and doesn't want to do anything that looks like a win for him. Fine.

 

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially, and we have data on every contract every player's ever signed. When one side has to disclose exactly how much they're making and the other can blatantly lie about how "owning a baseball team brings no more profit than average stock market gains" (as Manfred did), you've got a bad, bad system that's totally lopsided and unfair. Playing the public against the highest earners in an industry (why should these cushy college professors make 125k? why do those GM workers leave the floor the second it hits 5 and make 40 dollars/hour? etc etc etc) is a tried-and-true management tactic that's designed to distract from how much CEOs and university presidents are pulling (mostly to play golf and "delegate," honestly) and happens to work especially well when labor's making millions.

 

If the owners open up the books and show me why their plan's legit, then okay. But, until then, I'm pretty contemptuous of them. It's a fundamentally dishonest game they're playing.

 

I guess I will just never understand why anybody thinks it their business what the clubs bottom line is. I would be totally fine with not knowing what each players salary is as well. Honestly, we don’t need to know that at all. I, personally, only look at the players salaries and team payroll to come up with ideas on trade ideas and free agent possibilities. I will never ever begrudge anybody for the money they earn through a salary or through business profits. The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved.

[xisxisxis]

I don’t know why you would choose 2007, when MLB went to slotted draft picks in 2012 and bonuses skyrocketed. There wasn’t a player in the Top 43 picks in 2012 who didn’t sign for at least a million and only one player in the first 60 picks signed for less than 700,000. In ‘12 the first 7 picks signed for a approximately 28.8 million dollars. In ‘13 the top 7 picks signed for a combined 32+ million dollars, and none of the 39 first round selections that year signed for less than 1.4 million dollars

 

First 7 (2012) = $28.8M

First 7 (2007) = $25.4M

 

First 31 picks (2012, 4 picks didn't sign) = $65.2M

First 27 picks (2007, same # of players as 2012) = $57.8M

 

Year over year those are 2% raises.

 

The reason I picked 2007 is that it looked similar to 2012 and the players career arcs are final for 2007 while there are a few from 2012 that could still reach arbitration. The only reason I looked at draft numbers at all is that I wanted an idea of what a typical year looked like for "success" in the draft where the outcomes of player careers are final (with bonus information). Only 16 of the 50 top players in 2007 ever made it to arbitration while the vast majority had their signing bonus and not much else to show for all the years of work. Also, both owners and MLBPA (since they don't represent draftees) are better off reducing the waste of money paying high bonuses to draftees and using that money to boost pay for younger players (pre-arbitration).

[xisxisxis]

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers).

 

 

The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved.

You've been a very vocal supporter of the owners, yet that statement is why the players are dug in. The teams have profited more from the last CBA (Revenues are up while the biggest cost - major league payroll has dropped.)

 

The fans aren't better off with lower ticket prices - they go up almost every year.

The players aren't better off with more salary (their salaries have gone down since 2017)

 

So who is the "everyone involved", If not the vast majority of the employees or the customers?

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I think the union has some misplaced priorities. I think the union made a bad deal last time and is undoubtedly bitter about it. I think the union hates Rob Manfred a whole lot and doesn't want to do anything that looks like a win for him. Fine.

 

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially, and we have data on every contract every player's ever signed. When one side has to disclose exactly how much they're making and the other can blatantly lie about how "owning a baseball team brings no more profit than average stock market gains" (as Manfred did), you've got a bad, bad system that's totally lopsided and unfair. Playing the public against the highest earners in an industry (why should these cushy college professors make 125k? why do those GM workers leave the floor the second it hits 5 and make 40 dollars/hour? etc etc etc) is a tried-and-true management tactic that's designed to distract from how much CEOs and university presidents are pulling (mostly to play golf and "delegate," honestly) and happens to work especially well when labor's making millions.

 

If the owners open up the books and show me why their plan's legit, then okay. But, until then, I'm pretty contemptuous of them. It's a fundamentally dishonest game they're playing.

 

I guess I will just never understand why anybody thinks it their business what the clubs bottom line is. I would be totally fine with not knowing what each players salary is as well. Honestly, we don’t need to know that at all. I, personally, only look at the players salaries and team payroll to come up with ideas on trade ideas and free agent possibilities. I will never ever begrudge anybody for the money they earn through a salary or through business profits. The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved.

 

When the owners are saying "the players are asking too much; we can't afford it," the burden is on them. It's not that I feel entitled to know their profits. It's that they get to throw all the shade they want at player salaries with no expectation that they provide evidence and no worries about any competition. They could open up the books tomorrow if they wanted. They won't because, this way, they get all the benefit.

 

The owners have literally made it our business by arguing they can't afford what the players are asking and then not even making the barest effort to show anyone it's true.

 

You can't have it both ways. You want to keep income private, fine. But then don't cry poor.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers).

 

I saw that. And that's good. It's also 1/30 teams.

 

And what about the league office?

 

I think the point stand in terms of ownership hypocrisy. We see 100 percent of the players' financials and about 3% of the owners.

[gebc1997]

I think the union has some misplaced priorities. I think the union made a bad deal last time and is undoubtedly bitter about it. I think the union hates Rob Manfred a whole lot and doesn't want to do anything that looks like a win for him. Fine.

 

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially, and we have data on every contract every player's ever signed. When one side has to disclose exactly how much they're making and the other can blatantly lie about how "owning a baseball team brings no more profit than average stock market gains" (as Manfred did), you've got a bad, bad system that's totally lopsided and unfair. Playing the public against the highest earners in an industry (why should these cushy college professors make 125k? why do those GM workers leave the floor the second it hits 5 and make 40 dollars/hour? etc etc etc) is a tried-and-true management tactic that's designed to distract from how much CEOs and university presidents are pulling (mostly to play golf and "delegate," honestly) and happens to work especially well when labor's making millions.

 

If the owners open up the books and show me why their plan's legit, then okay. But, until then, I'm pretty contemptuous of them. It's a fundamentally dishonest game they're playing.

 

I guess I will just never understand why anybody thinks it their business what the clubs bottom line is. I would be totally fine with not knowing what each players salary is as well. Honestly, we don’t need to know that at all. I, personally, only look at the players salaries and team payroll to come up with ideas on trade ideas and free agent possibilities. I will never ever begrudge anybody for the money they earn through a salary or through business profits. The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved.

 

When the owners are saying "the players are asking too much; we can't afford it," the burden is on them. It's not that I feel entitled to know their profits. It's that they get to throw all the shade they want at player salaries with no expectation that they provide evidence and no worries about any competition. They could open up the books tomorrow if they wanted. They won't because, this way, they get all the benefit.

 

The owners have literally made it our business by arguing they can't afford what the players are asking and then not even making the barest effort to show anyone it's true.

 

You can't have it both ways. You want to keep income private, fine. But then don't cry poor.

 

Are the owners saying they can’t afford it ? I may have missed that, but I saw it as their reasoning is that going too high on the cbt threshold was concern that it could harm competitive balance.

[xisxisxis]

But let's please not forget that nobody knows how the owners are doing financially

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers).

 

I saw that. And that's good. It's also 1/30 teams.

 

And what about the league office?

 

I think the point stand in terms of ownership hypocrisy. We see 100 percent of the players' financials and about 3% of the owners.

I think your point that the burden is on the owners is correct. I was just pointing out that there is some data and it's nothing like "we can't afford it" or "we don't have the money". If those numbers are close to an accurate average then as an industry they are making over $1B in profit, but they argue that they can't afford more than $25M for a bonus pool for pre-arby players, while the MLBPA, *gasp* wants $100M. I really believe that if the players payroll over the last CBA hadn't dropped they would have gladly gone along with continuing the terms from the last agreement. The fact they are losing ground has emboldened them, especially with the owners stonewalling attempts to address the issue.

[Axman59]

Are the owners saying they can’t afford it ? I may have missed that, but I saw it as their reasoning is that going too high on the cbt threshold was concern that it could harm competitive balance.

 

You are correct. It's the mid and small market teams that don't want the CBT increased to the level the MLBPA wants because they believe it will price them out of contention for the playoffs/world series due to big market spending.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Are the owners saying they can’t afford it ? I may have missed that, but I saw it as their reasoning is that going too high on the cbt threshold was concern that it could harm competitive balance.

 

You are correct. It's the mid and small market teams that don't want the CBT increased to the level the MLBPA wants because they believe it will price them out of contention for the playoffs/world series due to big market spending.

 

Exactly. MLBPA is under the assumption that the small and mid-market teams are not spending their shared revenue on player salaries, and instead pocketing it as profit. They believe that by increasing the CBT thresholds, the big markets who are already spending will spend even more. MLBPA doesn't care about competitive balance. Their sole goal is to make sure their members get paid as early as possible as much as possible. That's it.

[TURBO]

Since when is $2 or $3 million life changing money? There are hundreds of thousands of families in this country who bring in $2 million in less than a decade. 10% of households in this country bring in over $200K/year. Not to mention passive income. It's even worse if you make the money in a couple of years since you will pay even more taxes. And for the average family who makes that kind of money, they have a career where they can count on that income until they retire. Coaching baseball isn't exactly lucrative.

 

I would say $10 million is a reasonable threshold for life-changing money -- a threshold that you could support a family from age 35 onward without having to work again...IF you invested it properly. So maybe $15 million in career earnings if you account for taxes. What percentage of MLB and MiLB players end up with $15 million in career earnings?

 

2 or 3 million in a short span of time is in fact, life changing.

 

If I make 2 million in a 30 - 35 year career, that's different. If I make 2 - 3 million in less than 5 years, and have the rest of my life to still earn, you better believe, 2-3 million is life changing...

 

Also, how can anyone say 2 - 3 million isn't life changing unless they have experienced having that kind of money. I can say for 100% sure that 2 - 3 million would change my life now, and would have changed my life 30 years ago, and every year in between.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

My opinion is strongly drifting into “screw this sport”. 2020 still fresh in my mind.

 

I'm pretty much there. I like baseball, but a few months into 2020 I was doing just fine, and I never took that season seriously at all, barely watching a game. So just go ahead and do it again. I have other things to do.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Since when is $2 or $3 million life changing money? There are hundreds of thousands of families in this country who bring in $2 million in less than a decade. 10% of households in this country bring in over $200K/year. Not to mention passive income. It's even worse if you make the money in a couple of years since you will pay even more taxes. And for the average family who makes that kind of money, they have a career where they can count on that income until they retire. Coaching baseball isn't exactly lucrative.

 

I would say $10 million is a reasonable threshold for life-changing money -- a threshold that you could support a family from age 35 onward without having to work again...IF you invested it properly. So maybe $15 million in career earnings if you account for taxes. What percentage of MLB and MiLB players end up with $15 million in career earnings?

 

2 or 3 million in a short span of time is in fact, life changing.

 

If I make 2 million in a 30 - 35 year career, that's different. If I make 2 - 3 million in less than 5 years, and have the rest of my life to still earn, you better believe, 2-3 million is life changing...

 

Also, how can anyone say 2 - 3 million isn't life changing unless they have experienced having that kind of money. I can say for 100% sure that 2 - 3 million would change my life now, and would have changed my life 30 years ago, and every year in between.

 

Yes the original post here is extremely silly. 10% of households making $200k != $3 million in earnings before you turn 26.

 

$10 million is also a highly questionable threshold for your definition of life-changing. $3 million is career earnings for someone making $60k. When you get it before you turn 28 and invest, it is absolutely 100% enough to live off forever depending on your choices, and at the very least to only do work you actually want to do.

 

It is a life-changing sum for like 97% of the richest country on earth.

Edited March 3, 2022 by OldSchoolSnapper

[Jopal78]

MLBPA doesn't care about competitive balance. Their sole goal is to make sure their members get paid as early as possible as much as possible. That's it.

 

Bingo.

 

Further whether owners make profit or not is irrelevant. Principal owners owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, if the teams weren’t profitable there would be infighting with nearly every club. Also don’t forget the teams do frequently reinvest that money into the franchise in other ways, like revamping the spring training facility, the pitching lab, purchasing the A-ball affiliate in Carolina.

 

It’s always been the players asking for more and their union is a PR juggernaut and has multitudes of friendly media barkers to influence the narrative, to suggest the owners don’t need or deserve the money they’ve made off the game. We fans as bystanders have a binary choice if the blame for the work stoppage primarily lays with the unconscionably rich owners or the extremely wealthy players.

[homer]

MLBPA doesn't care about competitive balance. Their sole goal is to make sure their members get paid as early as possible as much as possible. That's it.

 

Bingo.

 

Further whether owners make profit or not is irrelevant. Principal owners owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, if the teams weren’t profitable there would be infighting with nearly every club. Also don’t forget the teams do frequently reinvest that money into the franchise in other ways, like revamping the spring training facility, the pitching lab, purchasing the A-ball affiliate in Carolina.

 

It’s always been the players asking for more and their union is a PR juggernaut and has multitudes of friendly media barkers to influence the narrative, to suggest the owners don’t need or deserve the money they’ve made off the game. We fans as bystanders have a binary choice if the blame for the work stoppage primarily lays with the unconscionably rich owners or the extremely wealthy players.

 

Owners largely don't care about year to year profitability because the value of the team still goes up whether they make money each year or not. Attanasio and Co bought the Brewers for $225 million in 2005. The team is estimated to be valued at $1.3 billion 17 years later.