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

[Thurston Fluff]

Given the salary floor is out of the question maybe something like a minimum wins threshold teams must reach or they have to pay a players tax or some such thing. That would help reduce tanking and get more teams to participate to some level in free agency. It would also help fans in the sense that they'd get to watch more competitive games during the season. Even if your team is good it still sucks to watch them play a AAAA team.

 

I can hear the discussion in the clubhouse now. "Since we won't make the playoffs this year, lets not win too many games so we get our cash bonus." Now suddenly you will have about 12 teams not passing that threshold every season.

 

Not if it goes to the players over the entire league instead of just that team. It doesn't even have to go to the players. As long as the team itself has an incentive to win more games even if they can't be competitive for post season play it reduces the bad games fans end up watching, give networks paying millions a better product and adds incentives to partake in free agency. Even if it's not for the high end guys.

[gebc1997]

What about this idea…

 

1. Offer 800k minimum salary

 

2. Offer 45-50 million for the bonus pool

 

3. 14 team playoff

 

4. All the other odds and ends previously discussed

 

Then the new idea.

 

Off 224 -228 for the first two years of the cba, with the caveat being that if after 2 years, the total combined payroll of mlb players doesn’t reach a certain level (to be determined by someone smarter than me), then years 3 4 5 go way up to like 240 246 252 or even more. And if the total payroll numbers reach the agreed upon level, the. The cbt goes up smaller, like 232-235-240 or so.

 

Also with the understanding that if after year 3 , there is a drop in payroll total, then year 4 is 255 and year 5 270

[wntrtxn21]

What about this idea…

 

1. Offer 800k minimum salary

 

2. Offer 45-50 million for the bonus pool

 

3. 14 team playoff

 

4. All the other odds and ends previously discussed

 

Then the new idea.

 

 

Off 224 -228 for the first two years of the cba, with the caveat being that if after 2 years, the total combined payroll of mlb players doesn’t reach a certain level (to be determined by someone smarter than me), then years 3 4 5 go way up to like 240 246 252 or even more. And if the total payroll numbers reach the agreed upon level, the. The cbt goes up smaller, like 232-235-240 or so.

 

Also with the understanding that if after year 3 , there is a drop in payroll total, then year 4 is 255 and year 5 270

 

Why would a small market owner want to pay more just to reduce their chances of winning? Raising the minimum salary almost 50% and the huge raise in the cba just further widens the monstrous gap between the big markets and the small markets ability to aquire talent. Making the playoffs almost becomes meaningless because now the super spenders have an even bigger advantage.

[nate82]

Floors and caps only work with a defined share of revenues. Based on the initial offer from the owners there was no clear idea where the players share of Revenue would be based on an artificially low floor that allowed the current revenue sharing among owners to continue. The NBA and NFL use those methods (cap/floor) to make sure they are allocating the correct amount from Revenues to players salaries. If baseball owners wanted long-term labor peace they would come up with a way to guarantee a revenue split with the MLBPA. Unfortunately, the owners want to squeeze every dime from the players. I've said this for months, but there will continue to be long-term labor fights/shutdowns/strikes as long as the owners don't want to commit to a split of revenues with the players. Every agreement is a battle between the two sides to tweak the variables to try and get a little more for them and the fans sit and wait for the pigs to feed at the trough. But I guess that's why I'll never be a billionaire as I don't treat every negotiation as how can I win and the other side loses, because it appears win-win is just not in their DNA.

 

Except MLBPA has not put forward a proposal for a floor. The only thing they really care about is increasing how much the cap is at. MLBPA is not interested in a salary cap at all and they don't see a revenue split as something that is beneficial to them. If the MLBPA could get the CBT removed from MLB that would be there perfect end game scenario. I repeat the MLBPA is not interested in shared revenues with the owners as it would cut into the salary figures of the top tier free agents. The MLBPA doesn't care about the players who are on the fringes of a teams roster as they don't matter as there are others in the minors that will take their place. The only thing the MLBPA cares about is the top tier free agents and those free agents getting the biggest contracts in free agency. Again if the MLBPA could get rid of the CBT that would be a huge win for them and they wouldn't care what it did to the league at all. If it means the large market teams only handing out big free agent deals as long as they keep on increasing the MLBPA doesn't care.

 

This stance is obvious as the MLBPA has not come forward with a proposal for a floor. They have not and they will not make a proposal for a salary floor as that means there will be a hard salary cap and the top tier free agents do not want this. The top tier free agents see this as a cap on their potential earnings and they really do not care about anyone else.

[xisxisxis]

MLBPA is not interested in a salary cap at all and they don't see a revenue split as something that is beneficial to them.

Can you provide a link where the MLBPA refused a revenue sharing plan from the owners?

 

This stance is obvious as the MLBPA has not come forward with a proposal for a floor. They have not and they will not make a proposal for a salary floor as that means there will be a hard salary cap and the top tier free agents do not want this. The top tier free agents see this as a cap on their potential earnings and they really do not care about anyone else.

You seem to think that the owners were offering a grand gesture by offering a floor. From here (https://www.royalsreview.com/2021/8/19/22631822/mlb-owners-reportedly-propose-a-salary-floor-but-theres-a-big-catch) the owners offered this initially (and was rejected by the MLBPA, duh, because they aren't stoopid) and how much it would affect salary:

 

Floor at $100M (increase salary by $146M)

Cap at $180M (reduce salary by $259M)

 

That's exactly why the MLBPA will not discuss a floor, because when the owners discuss it their motivation is not equity/clarity, but to REDUCE salaries (when there revenues are going up each year to new records). For an example from the NFL and NBA:

 

NFL (2021):

Cap=$182.5M

Floor= $180M

 

NBA (CBA):

Floor = 90% of CAP

 

The owners floor offer was roughly 45% lower. A non-starter from the beginning.

 

And your assertion about the big earners is completely refuted by the NBA and NFL as their top earners exceed MLB top earners by a ton.

 

Also, the MLBPA caved on the biggest issue that impacts small market teams (years of pre-Arby/Arby). The MLBPA wanted reductions and gave them up for increased minimums. If they stood firm on reducing years of control the Brewers and other small markets would have been screwed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As usual, Effectively Wild had a great podcast about the lockout today, bringing in Even Drellich (probably the best reporter through this process) to talk in-depth about where the sides are and where we might be going.

 

In general, I just highly recommend the EW podcast for general basebally-ness.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-1818-smile-youre-on-manfred-camera/

 

Seconded. Two good pods from them this week.

 

The more I reflect, the more I am convinced that this is about owners trying to squeeze every dollar they can. And the reality is it's probably small-market owners being the most ruthless, and, even as a Brewer fan, I think that's bad.

 

I get that we're all prone to buying arguments about "competitive balance." Baseball is economically unfair. That sucks. The reality, though, is it's going to stay fundamentally unfair, and that's because of TV money. Other than straight-up NFL-style revenue sharing, the system is going to be 98% tilted to New York, LA, and, to an extent Chicago. And haggling over the CBT (and moving almost zero on it) is just a way to say "we're fine with 98% unfair but 98.1%? NO!"

 

I think that's especially troubling because Mark A, for example, did not buy the Brewers to maximize year over year profit. If he did, he's not nearly as smart as we give him credit for. I like Mark A, mind you. He's the right owner for this team. But (and I'm not singling him out) this lockout, at this point, is about small-market owners trying to hit that nearly impossible window of perennial contention and profitability when every smart owner in a city like Pittsburgh knows that getting both is a top 5% outcome at best.

 

These guys know analytics well enough to know this stuff isn't moving the needle for them. They know they buy these teams for occasional yearly dividends but mostly for prestige, fun, adrenaline, and the massive asset appreciation. And yet here they are, haggling over literal pennies on the dollar. The argument that these teams are a business defeats itself. Anyone who buys the Reds expecting to be both competitive and year-to-year rich bought into the wrong industry. It's like the equivalent of buying a Sun Belt football team. You signed the deal knowing the system was tilted toward big money teams. Deal with it or change it, but at this point you're just being greedy.

 

Let me be clear. I wish baseball was more economically fair. But none of these proposals make a dent in that. It's like, yeah we'd all be technically safer by a tiny bit if we were still wiping down groceries, but it just isn't worth the effort, anxiety, and knock-on effects because the benefit is trivial. I'd rather watch a more equitable product in terms of owners/players because a more market-balanced league ain't happening.

The thing I keep coming back to is that the inherent competitive imbalance can only be solved by the owners. Anything else we're squawking about dances around the huge problem that the Dodgers make $250m from TV and the Brewers make about $50m.

 

If the owners were truly interested in fixing the sport, they'd start sharing a lot more revenue. And if they did that, I suspect the MLBPA would relax their anti-cap stance in trade for a $120m floor. But a floor cannot be set high enough under baseball's current economic situation to appease the players in trade for a hard cap.

 

So ultimately, while we may be angry at the players for any number of reasons, the real fix - the only fix, really - is 100% dependent on the owners. The players can't force the owners to balance the game financially, the owners need to do it themselves.

[nate82]

 

You seem to think that the owners were offering a grand gesture by offering a floor. From here (https://www.royalsreview.com/2021/8/19/22631822/mlb-owners-reportedly-propose-a-salary-floor-but-theres-a-big-catch) the owners offered this initially (and was rejected by the MLBPA, duh, because they aren't stoopid) and how much it would affect salary:

 

Floor at $100M (increase salary by $146M)

Cap at $180M (reduce salary by $259M)

 

That's exactly why the MLBPA will not discuss a floor, because when the owners discuss it their motivation is not equity/clarity, but to REDUCE salaries (when there revenues are going up each year to new records). For an example from the NFL and NBA:

 

NFL (2021):

Cap=$182.5M

Floor= $180M

 

NBA (CBA):

Floor = 90% of CAP

 

The owners floor offer was roughly 45% lower. A non-starter from the beginning.

 

And your assertion about the big earners is completely refuted by the NBA and NFL as their top earners exceed MLB top earners by a ton.

 

Also, the MLBPA caved on the biggest issue that impacts small market teams (years of pre-Arby/Arby). The MLBPA wanted reductions and gave them up for increased minimums. If they stood firm on reducing years of control the Brewers and other small markets would have been screwed.

 

I never said it was anything in this post. In previous posts I have stated that the floor offer was nothing from the owners it had nothing in it that would help the players or what would happen if a team were below the minimum. It was a dumb offer by the owners and they knew it was a dumb offer. The players never countered with it and they won't bring a floor proposal to the owners either. Please reread what I wrote the players union is ran by the top tier free agents and they don't want to see a floor or a ceiling for spending. They want everything to be uncapped as they see it as a better opportunity to gain more. If the players were interested in more revenue sharing they would make an offer where we see this. They haven't made this offer so I don't believe revenue sharing with the players is even on their minds.

 

The MLBPA looks to be more interested in getting the CBT as high as they can to help out the top tier free agents more so than helping out the fringe and career minor league players. If the MLBPA really wanted to help all of their members and not just the top tier free agents they would be negotiating for a floor but they are not. They just want the CBT to increase so the top tier free agents can get more. That is all they want.

[wibadgers23]

So when do we get more canceled games? We have to be getting close. Doesn’t sound like they made much progress today.

[gebc1997]

Should and Could the owners just lift the lockout, with the understanding there is a deadlock, and just proceed with the season under the terms of the expired CBA and then just hope the players don't strike later in the season. Maybe kill them with kindness and sign a bunch of them to nicer than average contract to, lol.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Should and Could the owners just lift the lockout, with the understanding there is a deadlock, and just proceed with the season under the terms of the expired CBA and then just hope the players don't strike later in the season. Maybe kill them with kindness and sign a bunch of them to nicer than average contract to, lol.

The owners could probably get the players to agree not to strike and re-negotiate next offseason if they agreed to make real concessions next offseason.

 

The problem is that MLB ownership is wildly fragmented right now and after soundly beating the players two CBAs in a row, they now expect the players to lay down and accept whatever they offer.

 

MLB ownership is in a bad place. They're incredibly insular and try their best to keep the Steve Cohens and Mark Cubans out of the sport because they don't like *legitimate competition* that spends money. They also have little interest in fixing the economic inequities in the sport that perpetuate their internal fragmentation.

 

Hell, they barely made any concessions with their final offer before the deadline and four owners still voted against that meager offer. All it takes is seven owners to torpedo any offer or change to baseball. They were over halfway to that breaking point with an offer that wasn't even trying.

 

The owners are a huge problem right now and I have absolutely no idea how baseball is going to fix it. It's not like they're going to fire themselves and Manfred sure isn't capable of leading them anywhere.

[wntrtxn21]

Should and Could the owners just lift the lockout, with the understanding there is a deadlock, and just proceed with the season under the terms of the expired CBA and then just hope the players don't strike later in the season. Maybe kill them with kindness and sign a bunch of them to nicer than average contract to, lol.

The owners could probably get the players to agree not to strike and re-negotiate next offseason if they agreed to make real concessions next offseason.

 

The problem is that MLB ownership is wildly fragmented right now and after soundly beating the players two CBAs in a row, they now expect the players to lay down and accept whatever they offer.

 

MLB ownership is in a bad place. They're incredibly insular and try their best to keep the Steve Cohens and Mark Cubans out of the sport because they don't like *legitimate competition* that spends money. They also have little interest in fixing the economic inequities in the sport that perpetuate their internal fragmentation.

 

Hell, they barely made any concessions with their final offer before the deadline and four owners still voted against that meager offer. All it takes is seven owners to torpedo any offer or change to baseball. They were over halfway to that breaking point with an offer that wasn't even trying.

 

The owners are a huge problem right now and I have absolutely no idea how baseball is going to fix it. It's not like they're going to fire themselves and Manfred sure isn't capable of leading them anywhere.

 

How do you think the owners could get the players to agree not to strike? The owners aren't stupid enough to believe that if they started the season w/o an agreement, the players wouldn't disrupt the season somewhere down the road. The players went into these negotiations knowing their demands were going to cause the owners to institute a lock-out so the players couldn't re-enact 1994. Why kick the can down the road until next year when the exact same thing happens. Neither side has made any meaningful concessions to date. The players union has no interest in fixing the economic inequities in baseball. Almost the exact opposite. The only "legitiment competition" they want is for owners competing to spend more money on them. Everything they have proposed will make it even harder for the small market teams to compete. Remember the union refused a federal mediator who could offer a different perspective to the negotiations. Both sides are losers the way things stand today.

[Brock Beauchamp]

How do you think the owners could get the players to agree not to strike? The owners aren't stupid enough to believe that if they started the season w/o an agreement, the players wouldn't disrupt the season somewhere down the road. The players went into these negotiations knowing their demands were going to cause the owners to institute a lock-out so the players couldn't re-enact 1994. Why kick the can down the road until next year when the exact same thing happens. Neither side has made any meaningful concessions to date. The players union has no interest in fixing the economic inequities in baseball. Almost the exact opposite. The only "legitiment competition" they want is for owners competing to spend more money on them. Everything they have proposed will make it even harder for the small market teams to compete. Remember the union refused a federal mediator who could offer a different perspective to the negotiations. Both sides are losers the way things stand today.

You can get someone to agree not to strike by making them sign a short-term contract not to strike.

 

And to be clear, the owners are the only people who can fix the economic inequality in baseball. Let's put that to bed right now. If you want the Brewers to be competitive with the Cubs financially, the owners need to agree to share revenue. The players cannot make the owners share their money. Just like in the NFL and NBA, ownership needs to agree that is the right course of action and implement it themselves.

 

And if MLB ownership ever decides to make such a radical change to the game and improve it, then a bunch of squabbling problems between MLB and the MLBPA go away pretty quickly.

[gebc1997]

No doubt about it, Revenue sharing is a must to get true competitive balance. I am assuming that the only it works though is if it’s paired with salary floor and cap scenarios, to ensure the sharing of funds is put right back into the salaries of the players. And the only way to ensure that is to have a salary floor, which then must be paired with a salary cap. And as far as I know, the players will never agree to that, which I suppose may lead the owners, among other more selfish reasons I’m sure, to decide why bother sharing revenue because the players will never agree to the cap/floor part that has to go along with it for it to truly work.

 

Also, I am the king of Runon sentences.

[Brock Beauchamp]

No doubt about it, Revenue sharing is a must to get true competitive balance. I am assuming that the only it works though is if it’s paired with salary floor and cap scenarios, to ensure the sharing of funds is put right back into the salaries of the players. And the only way to ensure that is to have a salary floor, which then must be paired with a salary cap. And as far as I know, the players will never agree to that, which I suppose may lead the owners, among other more selfish reasons I’m sure, to decide why bother sharing revenue because the players will never agree to the cap/floor part that has to go along with it for it to truly work.

 

Also, I am the king of Runon sentences.

If MLB agreed to share revenue, set the cap and floor reasonably, and dedicated a firm number (say 45%) to player salaries, I'm pretty sure the players would agree to that before the owners finished the sentence. The players are currently getting quite a bit less than 45% by my understanding.

 

Players are only against a salary cap if it doesn't help them earn more revenue. If you guarantee them a percentage of revenue, that's no longer an issue and they'd be foolish to reject the offer.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The NFL and NBA players' unions and ownership groups are able to be happy playing under the salary caps (within reason, since both of those leagues have had lockouts/strikes more frequently the MLB since 1994) they've developed primarily because of the following:

 

NFL does not have fully guaranteed contracts, allowing organizations to make cuts as needed to keep their salary cap in check and also bring in new young talent quickly to rosters pushing 75 players when including the practice squad. The NFL also has college football essentially serving as its minor leagues without the league having to support them at all financially.

 

The NBA has fully guaranteed contracts, however teams have rosters roughly 1/3 of the size of MLB. With a very limited draft pool, expiring contracts are often times much more valuable than the play of the declining veterans who carry them for teams who have to position themselves for multiple years at times in effort to win over superstar free agents or hit on a lottery pick that can change their franchise.

 

MLB doesn't have the luxury with its draft to instantly improve their onfield talent on rookie-level contracts - the draft is set up in a way to develop and help MLB teams 4-6 years after most amateur players are drafted. Many of the top draft picks each year get multi-million dollar signing bonuses and go play in bus leagues for 3-4 years before even sniffing the major leagues. Also, fully guaranteed veteran contracts are prohibitive for most MLB organizations to ink players to once they work through salary arbitration and reach free agency at the peak or even downside of their prime onfield years of production. If the MLBPA wants more league revenue given to their 40-man roster players and also wants the arbitration process to be adjusted (both things I'm in favor of to get younger players paid more), then they need to have reasonable luxury tax threshold limits and/or they need to be willing to have non-guaranteed contracts. MLBPA will never relent on guaranteed contracts, so having a more modest luxury tax threshold than their current ask will continue to provide small-mid market clubs with luxury tax dollars that can be used to pay other players. Having super high luxury tax limits that only a handful of big market clubs ever come close to eclipsing will just consolidate superstar talent on those rosters without providing additional funds for other teams to share and use on their own payrolls. I'm not sure if it already is or how it can be required, but I think one option would be to require any luxury tax $$ given to small-mid market organizations be used for player salaries - and those amounts each team receives would have to be reported so we can all see if an organization is hoarding their other revenue and taking advantage of the luxury tax payments to fund their own roster payrolls instead of using it to increase player salaries beyond what they can afford on their own.

 

Setting a very high luxury tax threshold gets a handful of superstars paid more $, but ultimately reduces the amount of luxury tax dollars funneled directly from big market revenue streams that could be doled out to players across MLB

[homer]

Apparently, they've agreed to ban shifts, implement a pitch clock, and make the bases bigger:

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Apparently, they've agreed to ban shifts, implement a pitch clock, and make the bases bigger:

 

The pitch clock is badly needed, I personally hate the shift but don't think it will make much of a difference either way, and while I don't really understand why they think making the bases bigger is something that needs to be done, I also don't really care.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Apparently, they've agreed to ban shifts, implement a pitch clock, and make the bases bigger:

 

The pitch clock is badly needed, I personally hate the shift but don't think it will make much of a difference either way, and while I don't really understand why they think making the bases bigger is something that needs to be done, I also don't really care.

 

Banning the shift is only going to make the 3TO types all the more empowered to not even try to make themselves complete hitters. Get ready for even more Ks as every one-dimensional pull hitter swings himself out of his shoes in every AB.

[JosephC]

Apparently, they've agreed to ban shifts, implement a pitch clock, and make the bases bigger:

 

 

Good for them, I see millions of young fans turning off the UFC and watching the new, action-packed MLB instead.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Apparently, they've agreed to ban shifts, implement a pitch clock, and make the bases bigger:

 

The pitch clock is badly needed, I personally hate the shift but don't think it will make much of a difference either way, and while I don't really understand why they think making the bases bigger is something that needs to be done, I also don't really care.

 

Pitch clock is a welcome change, IMO

 

I think the base size increase helps for player safety - both at 1B running down the line and in double play situations at 2nd. I'd wish they just set up the orange bag at 1B in foul territory for runners to touch as well.

 

The outlawing shift stuff bugs me, because it's forcing teams to conform how they play the game and build rosters instead of promoting outside the box strategy - both with shifting defensively and offensive roster building to take advantage of shifts to win games.

 

And of course, none of this is really the crux of why we are unlikely to see baseball games as scheduled...

[homer]

I actually think the pitch clock could lead to more injuries. Will Carroll mentioned this the other day.

[homer]

Re shift ban....won't guys just start to move into position as the pitcher starts his delivery?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Banning the shift is only going to make the 3TO types all the more empowered to not even try to make themselves complete hitters. Get ready for even more Ks as every one-dimensional pull hitter swings himself out of his shoes in every AB.

I wish hitters weren't so reliant on the TTO but as we've seen over the past five years, the shift hasn't deterred them from that route in the slightest bit. Removing the shift isn't a perfect solution but it's better than nothing, as hitters have shown they will not adjust their swing to compensate, there's just too much value in the occasional line drive over going oppo every once in awhile.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Re shift ban....won't guys just start to move into position as the pitcher starts his delivery?

I'm also curious about this and interested to see how they implement the rule. Will players be allowed to move during the delivery or do they have to stay in place until contact is made?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Banning the shift is only going to make the 3TO types all the more empowered to not even try to make themselves complete hitters. Get ready for even more Ks as every one-dimensional pull hitter swings himself out of his shoes in every AB.

I wish hitters weren't so reliant on the TTO but as we've seen over the past five years, the shift hasn't deterred them from that route in the slightest bit. Removing the shift isn't a perfect solution but it's better than nothing, as hitters have shown they will not adjust their swing to compensate, there's just too much value in the occasional line drive over going oppo every once in awhile.

 

Where it's helped is making those types of hitters obsolete. Teams will only put up with players hitting .175 while grounding into the shift every time they don't hit a dinger only so much. I don't have much use for the guy who hits 30 HRs but ends up under .200 with a ton of Ks. That type of player is extremely boring to me, and does nothing to advance the game.