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

[gebc1997]

I want somebody , without saying that manfred is an idiot or that the owners don’t open the books, what about the latest proposal was not good for the players.

 

Show me one thing that outwardly hurts the players.

 

Their salaries have been dropping while revenue has been increasing. The MLB proposal would further increase the gap between revenue and salaries. MLB could accept everything in the players’ proposal and have extra money left over given the TV revenue increases that are locked in.

 

If the players’ piece of the pie is smaller, that hurts them.

 

I do agree that the last few years, players overall salaries have stagnated, and it would be a good thing to improve that. However, I think for the most part the reason they have stagnated some is because of new way GMs are evaluating player worth on the free agent market. Josh Reddick 15 years ago would have got a 3/30 offer in a heartbeat , but now teams see him and similar players as extremely replaceable and will not offer those kind of salaries for that type anymore.

 

But, this CBA offer would have added I heard around 100 million to player salaries compared to last years base, So it’s still an improvement and an overall benefit to the players and the ability to maximize their salary potential.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

[monty57]

But, this CBA offer would have added I heard around 100 million to player salaries compared to last years base.

 

If this is true, and if xis' # of $130MM from the extra playoff games is true, then it sounds like there would be around $130M of new revenue stemming from the new deal, and $100M of that would be going to the players. The union seems to realize that they screwed up so badly in the past few negotiations that they feel that they need to make up for past mistakes this time around.

 

Selig may not have been able to "keep up with the Joneses" as an owner, but he sure kicked the snot out of the union in labor negotiations. The arbitration/pre-arby system is horrible for the players, but rather than being mad at the owners for taking advantage of that system, the current players should be furious at the MLBPA for ever agreeing to it in the first place.

[monty57]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

 

Funny thing about that is, the Angels, Diamondbacks and Tigers are all bigger markets. You'd think teams like the Royals, Rays, A's and Brewers would be the ones who opposed it.

 

Looks like the guys who don't want to see extra spending are teams that are poorly managed.

[jjgott]

Personally I think the players should get a greater share of the pie, but I don’t see how a compromise can’t be that ALL baseball-related revenue be split down the middle 50/50 and call it a day.

 

The owners can make more money with all the “ballpark village” real estate etc., but $ coming from TV, game day, apparel, video games etc should be split down the middle. Not sure why the owners are so opposed to that.

Edited March 4, 2022 by jjgott

[homer]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

 

I'm sure they have some good reason to - as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos and that'll be a home run. And so that'll make it a 4-0 ballgame.

[Underachiever]

But, this CBA offer would have added I heard around 100 million to player salaries compared to last years base.

 

If this is true, and if xis' # of $130MM from the extra playoff games is true, then it sounds like there would be around $130M of new revenue stemming from the new deal, and $100M of that would be going to the players. The union seems to realize that they screwed up so badly in the past few negotiations that they feel that they need to make up for past mistakes this time around.

 

Selig may not have been able to "keep up with the Joneses" as an owner, but he sure kicked the snot out of the union in labor negotiations. The arbitration/pre-arby system is horrible for the players, but rather than being mad at the owners for taking advantage of that system, the current players should be furious at the MLBPA for ever agreeing to it in the first place.

If that 130 million was the extent of the increased revenues, you could have a point. But it's not the extent of it.

[xisxisxis]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want.

 

What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees?

 

We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

[monty57]

But, this CBA offer would have added I heard around 100 million to player salaries compared to last years base.

 

If this is true, and if xis' # of $130MM from the extra playoff games is true, then it sounds like there would be around $130M of new revenue stemming from the new deal, and $100M of that would be going to the players. The union seems to realize that they screwed up so badly in the past few negotiations that they feel that they need to make up for past mistakes this time around.

 

Selig may not have been able to "keep up with the Joneses" as an owner, but he sure kicked the snot out of the union in labor negotiations. The arbitration/pre-arby system is horrible for the players, but rather than being mad at the owners for taking advantage of that system, the current players should be furious at the MLBPA for ever agreeing to it in the first place.

If that 130 million was the extent of the increased revenues, you could have a point. But it's not the extent of it.

 

Please expand on that. What else is there? They'll get something for ads on uniforms, but just pertaining to the CBA, what other revenues are the owners getting that makes up for what the union is asking for?

 

I'm admittedly uninformed on this stuff, but to my knowledge the owners asked for more playoff games (xis' $130M number) and ads on uniforms. Were they getting anything other than that from the the recently nixed CBA? Meanwhile, the players were asking for what seems to be far more than a 50/50 split of the new revenue streams.

 

That's why I think the union is trying to make up for past failures. They're trying to get far more out of this CBA than the owners would receive, so they're not just trying to win this negotiation, they are trying for such a landslide victory that they will make up for decades of losses.

[monty57]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want.

 

What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees?

 

We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

 

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that you feel the owners are bad for noting that they have an expense in providing free food, but the players aren't bad for accepting that free food willingly?

 

I think people are grasping at straws as to why they should be mad at one side or the other. Or, the PR machines of the owners and the union are doing there job at getting people fired up over something that really doesn't effect them.

 

If Yelich will play better because he gets an extra cherry on top of his free sundae, then give him the cherry. I'll still hope that Yelich plays better regardless of how the team CPA accounts for meal money.

[GreatNWwi]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want.

 

What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees?

 

We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

 

How do you get that rant out of the part you bolded? It's not even remotely the same.

[Jopal78]

 

Funny thing about that is, the Angels, Diamondbacks and Tigers are all bigger markets. You'd think teams like the Royals, Rays, A's and Brewers would be the ones who opposed it.

 

Looks like the guys who don't want to see extra spending are teams that are poorly managed.

 

At least from the Angels and D'Backs perspective it is probably has to do more with the Astros and Dodgers teams in their respective divisions who already have a significant advantage over their rival in terms of talent, and being able to spend even more money would even further that advantage.

[xisxisxis]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want.

 

What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees?

 

We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

 

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that you feel the owners are bad for noting that they have an expense in providing free food, but the players aren't bad for accepting that free food willingly?

I'm pretty sure the players pay a nominal fee for the food that is prepared at the stadium. Their "meal money" is when traveling their other meals need to be covered (IIRC). Sure, owners don't have to provide food after the game, but at some point federal and state laws apply for how long someone can be "working" before getting a meal break. They don't just clock in then walk out to introductions. The players are at the stadium hours before games start and games are 3.5 hours long or more plus post-game. I'm sure the owners want the players around after the game in a good mood (even when they lose) to interact with the media, not rushing to get out and not telling the media to get lost because they are in a hurry to get a meal.

 

And really what is the total cost for the "meal money"? Maybe 0.02% of the $220M luxury tax. Is it really a bargaining position to discuss something that small or is it just a dig to piss off the other side. I haven't been through a divorce, but from my experience from friends/associates some very petty issues come up that are closer to 1% of the total issues/dollars that will be fought over because one side or the other digs in and just wants to piss off the other side. Damn an agreement, I want to win that battle...

 

Part of the problem with taking sides in this disagreement are the arguments that Apples equal Oranges or the owners moving 2% is equal to the players giving 20%, or vice, versa.

[gebc1997]

What, compared to the previous CBA, are the players giving up this year

[Jopal78]

 

 

I'm pretty sure the players pay a nominal fee for the food that is prepared at the stadium. Their "meal money" is when traveling their other meals need to be covered (IIRC). Sure, owners don't have to provide food after the game, but at some point federal and state laws apply for how long someone can be "working" before getting a meal break. They don't just clock in then walk out to introductions. The players are at the stadium hours before games start and games are 3.5 hours long or more plus post-game. I'm sure the owners want the players around after the game in a good mood (even when they lose) to interact with the media, not rushing to get out and not telling the media to get lost because they are in a hurry to get a meal.

 

Baseball players are independent contractors. They typical work place rules for "breaks" as well as "overtime" don't apply to independent contractors. The rest here is conjecture because unlike the NFL, MLB players are not required to talk to the media, bellies full or not.

 

 

And really what is the total cost for the "meal money"? Maybe 0.02% of the $220M luxury tax. Is it really a bargaining position to discuss something that small or is it just a dig to piss off the other side. I haven't been through a divorce, but from my experience from friends/associates some very petty issues come up that are closer to 1% of the total issues/dollars that will be fought over because one side or the other digs in and just wants to piss off the other side. Damn an agreement, I want to win that battle...

 

$102 dollars per person, times 26 players on roster, times 81 games on the road (although I'm sure travel days, and off-days on road trips count as well)= $215,000. I wouldn't take a player rep's leak to the media as gospel, because it's beyond petty, its illogical, given what they've offered the players as a minimum salary to dig in over 215K. Even $300,000 isn't likely going to make a bit of difference to any team.

 

Part of the problem with taking sides in this disagreement are the arguments that Apples equal Oranges or the owners moving 2% is equal to the players giving 20%, or vice, versa.

 

But it's really not. It's a labor dispute like any other in America where each side makes the same tried and true plays in the media "The laborers want the moon from ownership/management" and "Owners/management are making a financial killing and we only want our fair share". The only difference is instead of nameless faceless workers making up the Union, it's highly recognizable sports stars.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jopal78!

[monty57]

I'm pretty sure the players pay a nominal fee for the food that is prepared at the stadium. Their "meal money" is when traveling their other meals need to be covered (IIRC). Sure, owners don't have to provide food after the game, but at some point federal and state laws apply for how long someone can be "working" before getting a meal break. They don't just clock in then walk out to introductions. The players are at the stadium hours before games start and games are 3.5 hours long or more plus post-game. I'm sure the owners want the players around after the game in a good mood (even when they lose) to interact with the media, not rushing to get out and not telling the media to get lost because they are in a hurry to get a meal.

 

And really what is the total cost for the "meal money"? Maybe 0.02% of the $220M luxury tax. Is it really a bargaining position to discuss something that small or is it just a dig to piss off the other side. I haven't been through a divorce, but from my experience from friends/associates some very petty issues come up that are closer to 1% of the total issues/dollars that will be fought over because one side or the other digs in and just wants to piss off the other side. Damn an agreement, I want to win that battle...

 

Part of the problem with taking sides in this disagreement are the arguments that Apples equal Oranges or the owners moving 2% is equal to the players giving 20%, or vice, versa.

 

I don't disagree with you. I just think that making this public knowledge is a PR spin to get people on "their side" mad. Both sides do this, so I'm not pointing fingers. I don't really care one way or the other, so I don't understand getting upset over these things.

 

If a Brewer player makes an error that costs them the playoffs, get upset. If management decides to trade away your favorite player to save some money, get upset over it. If the cost of a player's beef burrito is put into a different column in the team's Quickbooks ledger, who cares?

[Thurston Fluff]

What, compared to the previous CBA, are the players giving up this year

 

Why should the players be giving up anything if revenues are going up and salaries are stagnating?

[gebc1997]

What, compared to the previous CBA, are the players giving up this year

 

Why should the players be giving up anything if revenues are going up and salaries are stagnating?

 

I don't think they should be giving up anything, but people are implying and stating that they are. I was simply looking for the thing they are giving up.

[xisxisxis]

What, compared to the previous CBA, are the players giving up this year

You already posted earlier. If the revenues are going up, then everybody gains. Why would a workforce give up anything when each year revenues hit a new record? Because the owners want even more profit. No reputable union would give away member benefits in the face of RECORD REVENUE, especially when a vast majority of operating expenses are those member salaries (i.e. other forces leading to increased expenses are minimal).

 

 

Baseball players are independent contractors. They typical work place rules for "breaks" as well as "overtime" don't apply to independent contractors. The rest here is conjecture because unlike the NFL, MLB players are not required to talk to the media, bellies full or not.

"federal law does not permit independent contractors to unionize,” said a statement from the Fisher Phillips law firm.

[gebc1997]

Exactly, so you agree, the players aren't giving up anything in this new cba

[CheeseheadInQC]

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

· 7h

Sources: Angels, Diamondbacks, Reds and Tigers owners opposed MLB luxury tax increase to $220 million. MLB also proposed including player meal money in calculation of luxury tax, which irked players.

 

The Reds continue to be an absolute dumpster fire of a franchise.

 

Funny thing about that is, the Angels, Diamondbacks and Tigers are all bigger markets. You'd think teams like the Royals, Rays, A's and Brewers would be the ones who opposed it.

 

Looks like the guys who don't want to see extra spending are teams that are poorly managed.

 

This is the same assumption that a number of the MLB radio hosts made when it came out four teams were opposed, assuming that it would be the small markets and going on an extended rant about the Pirates. The problem with this is that I think it overlooks the true purpose of the CBT. It isn't really to reign in the spending of the top-top teams, and it isn't to make things better for the small market teams. It is to give the middle and upper middle revenue teams a built-in excuse not to spend more. It was always going to be the teams in this category that were going to oppose its rise. It is just like Manfred wanting to have the ability to further limit the number of minor league players, which only makes sense (since there is nothing saying they need to have a second complex league team, and many don't) if you look at it through the lens of forcing something to protect the owners from looking cheap.

[xisxisxis]

I don't think they should be giving up anything, but people are implying and stating that they are. I was simply looking for the thing they are giving up.

When they offer to move 35% from their position and the owners move 5% then they are "giving up" more than the owners.

 

What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M?

 

So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal.

[Jopal78]

 

 

Baseball players are independent contractors. They typical work place rules for "breaks" as well as "overtime" don't apply to independent contractors. The rest here is conjecture because unlike the NFL, MLB players are not required to talk to the media, bellies full or not.

"federal law does not permit independent contractors to unionize,” said a statement from the Fisher Phillips law firm.

 

There are two types of employees in America. At will employees (either side can terminate the employment relationship at any time) and contracted for employees. Obviously baseball players are contracted for employees. By their nature, contracted for employees agree to specific work conditions and expectations which takes them outside of the Federal workplace rules you mentioned. So it's may be more nuanced than calling them independent contractors but the point remains the same, the workplace rules like "breaks,""overtime," "leave" etc. have been abrogated by contract.

[Underachiever]

If that 130 million was the extent of the increased revenues, you could have a point. But it's not the extent of it.

 

Please expand on that. What else is there? They'll get something for ads on uniforms, but just pertaining to the CBA, what other revenues are the owners getting that makes up for what the union is asking for?

 

I'm admittedly uninformed on this stuff, but to my knowledge the owners asked for more playoff games (xis' $130M number) and ads on uniforms. Were they getting anything other than that from the the recently nixed CBA? Meanwhile, the players were asking for what seems to be far more than a 50/50 split of the new revenue streams.

 

That's why I think the union is trying to make up for past failures. They're trying to get far more out of this CBA than the owners would receive, so they're not just trying to win this negotiation, they are trying for such a landslide victory that they will make up for decades of losses.

 

Sure. Revenue from streaming services wasn't a thing when the last deal was negotiated. We don't really know what teams are making from that. There is a new TV deal kicking in in 2022 that guarantees teams $100 Million per team. From Forbes.com:

"Should the reported term length of the Turner Sports extension and annual media rights fee prove accurate, the total value of the deal would be approximately $3.29 billion, or an increase of 45% over the current eight-year, $2.6 billion contract, which comes out to $325 million annually."

 

That has nothing to do with the revenue from the new round of playoffs referenced earlier. And remember, the sharing of the playoff money goes like this: Owners and players split the revenue from all series for the minimum number of games (Wild card games, First three of a best of five, first four games of a best of 7). Owners get all the revenue from additional games. That is why the owners want more playoffs, and also why canceling a month or two off the beginning of the year works so well for them.

 

From this article: https://dodgerblue.com/average-mlb-team-payrolls-declined-despite-increasing-revenue/2021/12/29/#:~:text=Revenue%20in%20MLB%20has%20risen,in%202019%2C%20according%20to%20Forbes.

 

"Major League Baseball payrolls dropped 4% in 2021 compared to the league’s last full season, and the $4.05 billion total was the lowest in a fully completed year since 2015. … Payrolls are down 4.6% from their record high of just under $4.25 billion in 2017, the first year of the just-expired CBA, according to information sent to clubs by the commissioner’s office and obtained by The Associated Press on Monday. Spending on big league players has not been this low since a $3.9 billion total in 2015."

 

If the article is correct, that means that payrolls in 2021 were 200 million lower than in 2017.

[gebc1997]

I don't think they should be giving up anything, but people are implying and stating that they are. I was simply looking for the thing they are giving up.

When they offer to move 35% from their position and the owners move 5% then they are "giving up" more than the owners.

 

What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M?

 

So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal.

 

You are referring to things in the potential CBA that the players want more of, and that they are coming down on from their high ask, doesn't count as giving something up