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

[JackNicholson1974]

The players are the product

 

Ultimately, the games are the product. Great players enhance the product and make it more marketable, but at the end of the day TV contracts are tied to broadcasting games, not reality shows revolving around players.

 

This lockout/work stoppage is hurting the product, for both the players that play the games and the owners who own the organizations across MLB that put on the games and manage everything else that goes into it.

 

 

If the game is the product then why dont they broadcast Indy league baseball nationwide with a huge TV contract? It's because the players are third-rate, that's why.

 

The product is the best PLAYERS in the world, playing the game. If these 1200 players played in a different league in the United States, with 30 teams, all different team names and a few different cities, different mascots and different uniforms, then that is the league that would get the TV contracts. It would be disingenuous to ignore that reality.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The players are the product

 

Ultimately, the games are the product. Great players enhance the product and make it more marketable, but at the end of the day TV contracts are tied to broadcasting games, not reality shows revolving around players.

 

This lockout/work stoppage is hurting the product, for both the players that play the games and the owners who own the organizations across MLB that put on the games and manage everything else that goes into it.

 

 

If the game is the product then why dont they broadcast Indy league baseball nationwide with a huge TV contract? It's because the players are third-rate, that's why.

 

The product is the best PLAYERS in the world, playing the game. If these 1200 players played in a different league in the United States, with 30 teams, all different team names and a few different cities, different mascots and different uniforms, then that is the league that would get the TV contracts. It would be disingenuous to ignore that reality.

 

Because those Indy league players aren't on MLB teams, and MLB has the nationwide broadcasts....sure it's the best players in the world right this second - and they are being paid as such. Honestly if organizations simply just completely locked out all MLBPA members and opted to run a regular season with a mix of their non-40 man roster top 15 prospects and international free agents/AAAA journeyman those TV contracts would still be there. By the time those TV contracts came up for renewal, all those prospects and young players would be in their primes, so neither their value or fan interest of following their teams would decline.

 

Ultimately this is going to get figured out - players and owners need each other much more than they'll ever realize or admit, because they have to remain in harmony in order to maximize the money they take from us poor saps.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The players are the product

 

Ultimately, the games are the product. Great players enhance the product and make it more marketable, but at the end of the day TV contracts are tied to broadcasting games, not reality shows revolving around players.

 

This lockout/work stoppage is hurting the product, for both the players that play the games and the owners who own the organizations across MLB that put on the games and manage everything else that goes into it.

 

 

If the game is the product then why dont they broadcast Indy league baseball nationwide with a huge TV contract? It's because the players are third-rate, that's why.

 

The product is the best PLAYERS in the world, playing the game. If these 1200 players played in a different league in the United States, with 30 teams, all different team names and a few different cities, different mascots and different uniforms, then that is the league that would get the TV contracts. It would be disingenuous to ignore that reality.

 

I think you are very much underestimating the number of fans who are cheering for the name on the front of the jersey first and foremost, rather than the name on the back.

[JackNicholson1974]

The players are the product

 

Ultimately, the games are the product. Great players enhance the product and make it more marketable, but at the end of the day TV contracts are tied to broadcasting games, not reality shows revolving around players.

 

This lockout/work stoppage is hurting the product, for both the players that play the games and the owners who own the organizations across MLB that put on the games and manage everything else that goes into it.

 

 

If the game is the product then why dont they broadcast Indy league baseball nationwide with a huge TV contract? It's because the players are third-rate, that's why.

 

The product is the best PLAYERS in the world, playing the game. If these 1200 players played in a different league in the United States, with 30 teams, all different team names and a few different cities, different mascots and different uniforms, then that is the league that would get the TV contracts. It would be disingenuous to ignore that reality.

 

I think you are very much underestimating the number of fans who are cheering for the name on the front of the jersey first and foremost, rather than the name on the back.

 

 

Fair enough. I respect your opinion immensely. I simply feel that if all of the players on the Brewers started playing in a new "league" called something like the National Association of United States Baseball - and all of the others players from all of the other teams joined this league, that I would be clamoring to watch that league, and not the Milwaukee Brewers full what I can only presume would be AAAA players and guys from current indy leagues. If that would be your jam - and the jam of majority of baseball fans - then yes, the owners should absolutely hold fast as the players on their own are "worthless". I happen to think its the other way around, and we can all agree to disagree.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Fair enough. I respect your opinion immensely. I simply feel that if all of the players on the Brewers started playing in a new "league" called something like the National Association of United States Baseball - and all of the others players from all of the other teams joined this league, that I would be clamoring to watch that league, and not the Milwaukee Brewers full what I can only presume would be AAAA players and guys from current indy leagues. If that would be your jam - and the jam of majority of baseball fans - then yes, the owners should absolutely hold fast as the players on their own are "worthless". I happen to think its the other way around, and we can all agree to disagree.

 

That idea isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. It happened in the 1980s with the NFL and the USFL. The USFL coaxed some young stars and rookies to come play in that league, claiming it was going to upstage the NFL. But mismanagement and poor ratings doomed the USFL, and many of the young studs who played in the league in its first year jumped to the NFL before the start of Year 2. Of course, the rest went to the NFL after the USFL folded after Year 2.

 

The NBA and the NFL are very much player-driven. MLB, being so regional, is not so much in my opinion. I have no doubt that had MLB stuck with the replacement players they hired in 1995, while they would have taken a hit, it would have eventually worked. That's why the union eventually caved and ended their strike.

[JackNicholson1974]

I cant imagine it would have worked all that well if the players union started a new league, but what do I know!!! I dont watch the XFL because it is shoddy players, but if Aaron Rodgers and Davante Adams were playing against Russell Wilson and DK Metcalf I would!

[owbc]

Maybe this has already been addressed but every time I hear more about a pitch clock, I think to myself, half the problem is the batter walking around after each pitch and adjusting their batting gloves. Has that been addressed in the whole pitch clock thing? Should almost let the pitcher throw their next pitch when ever they are ready and the batter needs to adjust to them. Would be wild watching Suter in that type of scenario.

I guess I assume that the pitch clock goes both ways. It's actually a "ready for play" clock that both the batter and pitcher need to abide by. At least it's that way in my head. Back in the seventies, Mike Hargrove was called the Human Rain Delay for his routine. He would be speedy compared to the Ryan Brauns of the world. Daniel Vogelbach steps out and has an entire conversation with himself between pitches.

 

The reason Suter can go faster is because he doesn't throw as hard. If you are throwing 100 mph you need to recover after each pitch. It is very much to your advantage to slow the game down. In Suter's case, it is to his advantage to throw batters off of their routine.

 

It has been hypothesized that a pitch clock will increase offense and reduce strikeouts for this reason.

[jerichoholicninja]

Maybe this has already been addressed but every time I hear more about a pitch clock, I think to myself, half the problem is the batter walking around after each pitch and adjusting their batting gloves. Has that been addressed in the whole pitch clock thing? Should almost let the pitcher throw their next pitch when ever they are ready and the batter needs to adjust to them. Would be wild watching Suter in that type of scenario.

I guess I assume that the pitch clock goes both ways. It's actually a "ready for play" clock that both the batter and pitcher need to abide by. At least it's that way in my head. Back in the seventies, Mike Hargrove was called the Human Rain Delay for his routine. He would be speedy compared to the Ryan Brauns of the world. Daniel Vogelbach steps out and has an entire conversation with himself between pitches.

 

The reason Suter can go faster is because he doesn't throw as hard. If you are throwing 100 mph you need to recover after each pitch. It is very much to your advantage to slow the game down. In Suter's case, it is to his advantage to throw batters off of their routine.

 

It has been hypothesized that a pitch clock will increase offense and reduce strikeouts for this reason.

 

Fine with me. Guys throwing unhittable speed and breaking pitches was fun for a couple years but it's just boring now. Batters barely swing because they know they can't hit it anyway.

[monty57]

Fair enough. I respect your opinion immensely. I simply feel that if all of the players on the Brewers started playing in a new "league" called something like the National Association of United States Baseball - and all of the others players from all of the other teams joined this league, that I would be clamoring to watch that league, and not the Milwaukee Brewers full what I can only presume would be AAAA players and guys from current indy leagues. If that would be your jam - and the jam of majority of baseball fans - then yes, the owners should absolutely hold fast as the players on their own are "worthless". I happen to think its the other way around, and we can all agree to disagree.

 

For there to be a business, there has to be owners. So, who would own the teams in this league? The union? The players? If it's the players, is it only the current players? When a player retires, would they cede ownership to the player taking his place, or would we just end up with a couple hundred former players sharing ownership down the road? Who would make all of the management decisions? For instance, who would tell the player/owner who isn't that good that he was getting cut so that a better player (who is not yet an owner) could take his place, and probably take over his share of the ownership? Are the units of ownership transferrable? If so, could owners sell their share? If that happens, it wouldn't be long before some of those evil billionaires buy out majority ownership in all the franchises. If the union takes ownership, then they cease to represent the players, and are now just replacing the current owners.

 

Then there are contracts. I would guess that the current players' contracts disallow them from playing baseball for anyone other than the team with whom they signed the contract. So, the only players who could leave would be current free agents and others who don't have any sort of contracts. Of course there would be plenty of players who would just stick with the league that has proven to have the ability to pay multi-million dollar salaries rather than taking the risk of joining a start-up league. Plus, there would be a definite conflict of interest if the union had any ownership in the new league that was directly competing with the MLB, so they probably wouldn't be able to represent the MLB players any longer. With the MLBPA out of the way, teams would be able to negotiate directly with players and their agents, and I would guess that the top free agent players would be getting huge offers to stay in the MLB rather than testing the markets in the new league.

 

If a new league were to start, it wouldn't be started by the players or the union. One of those groups is good at playing baseball, and one is good at labor law. Neither would have a clue as to what it would take to run a billion dollar business. The league would be started by some other business people, just like the current owners. This dream of the players starting their own league really isn't based in reality, and even if it somehow came into being and succeeded, it wouldn't take long before the same old owner/labor battles were brewing.

 

That's some things I came up with in a few minutes. I'm sure the high-priced attorneys would find a lot more problems with some players deciding to form their own league. It may be fun to pontificate, but it's not going to happen.

[ewitkows]

Fair enough. I respect your opinion immensely. I simply feel that if all of the players on the Brewers started playing in a new "league" called something like the National Association of United States Baseball - and all of the others players from all of the other teams joined this league, that I would be clamoring to watch that league, and not the Milwaukee Brewers full what I can only presume would be AAAA players and guys from current indy leagues. If that would be your jam - and the jam of majority of baseball fans - then yes, the owners should absolutely hold fast as the players on their own are "worthless". I happen to think its the other way around, and we can all agree to disagree.

 

For there to be a business, there has to be owners. So, who would own the teams in this league? The union? The players? If it's the players, is it only the current players? When a player retires, would they cede ownership to the player taking his place, or would we just end up with a couple hundred former players sharing ownership down the road? Who would make all of the management decisions? For instance, who would tell the player/owner who isn't that good that he was getting cut so that a better player (who is not yet an owner) could take his place, and probably take over his share of the ownership? Are the units of ownership transferrable? If so, could owners sell their share? If that happens, it wouldn't be long before some of those evil billionaires buy out majority ownership in all the franchises. If the union takes ownership, then they cease to represent the players, and are now just replacing the current owners.

 

Then there are contracts. I would guess that the current players' contracts disallow them from playing baseball for anyone other than the team with whom they signed the contract. So, the only players who could leave would be current free agents and others who don't have any sort of contracts. Of course there would be plenty of players who would just stick with the league that has proven to have the ability to pay multi-million dollar salaries rather than taking the risk of joining a start-up league. Plus, there would be a definite conflict of interest if the union had any ownership in the new league that was directly competing with the MLB, so they probably wouldn't be able to represent the MLB players any longer. With the MLBPA out of the way, teams would be able to negotiate directly with players and their agents, and I would guess that the top free agent players would be getting huge offers to stay in the MLB rather than testing the markets in the new league.

 

If a new league were to start, it wouldn't be started by the players or the union. One of those groups is good at playing baseball, and one is good at labor law. Neither would have a clue as to what it would take to run a billion dollar business. The league would be started by some other business people, just like the current owners. This dream of the players starting their own league really isn't based in reality, and even if it somehow came into being and succeeded, it wouldn't take long before the same old owner/labor battles were brewing.

 

That's some things I came up with in a few minutes. I'm sure the high-priced attorneys would find a lot more problems with some players deciding to form their own league. It may be fun to pontificate, but it's not going to happen.

 

What about the fans? Soccer does it , why can't baseball?

[Jopal78]

 

Fair enough. I respect your opinion immensely. I simply feel that if all of the players on the Brewers started playing in a new "league" called something like the National Association of United States Baseball - and all of the others players from all of the other teams joined this league, that I would be clamoring to watch that league, and not the Milwaukee Brewers full what I can only presume would be AAAA players and guys from current indy leagues. If that would be your jam - and the jam of majority of baseball fans - then yes, the owners should absolutely hold fast as the players on their own are "worthless". I happen to think its the other way around, and we can all agree to disagree.

 

Just for the sake of argument, there couldn't be a competing league even even if MLB owners decided to move forward permanently with replacement players.

 

1. Any player who is under team control or has a multi-year contract, cannot simply go out on strike, "quit" MLB and go play in a different league. The Uniform Player Contract doesn't allow them to play for anyone else except off-season leagues in accordance with MLB's rules. Any player under contract with an MLB club plays for MLB or not at all.

 

2. Infrastructure: a new league would have no "major league" caliber stadiums to play in. Many of the MLB teams own their stadiums or have long term leases. To play in other available stadiums would mean playing in multi-purpose stadiums (think Oakland) not designed for baseball, and/or the amenities at those facilities (training facilities, club house, media/broadcast areas) would all be substandard compared to MLB.

 

3. Capital: Starting a new league to directly compete with MLB would require hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in start up money.

 

There are a lot of fans who follow specific players, but the majority of baseball fans follow teams, and it's weird loyalty. Most people start following a team at a younger age and that is their team as players come and go as the team's fortunes rise and fall. If MLB went with replacement players, sure there would be an uproar at first but in 5 years nobody would know the difference between the replacement home run king and Vladimir Guerrero Jr.

[JackNicholson1974]

I think we can move along on this as it appears that through the 27 pages of comments, that my point was lost. I once upon a time prefaced all of this by saying “set the logistics of new league aside” to try and illustrate my point that players provide value not the owners. I am a fan of a league which has the best players in the world playing here in the USA. If there were a team called the Milwaukee Sturgeon playing with all of these players vs a team called the Chicago Bandits with all of the Cubs players, etc etc, that is the league I am watching.

 

If you feel you would not watch those teams and instead would pay $50 a ticket, $18 for parking and $12 for a beer to watch whoever donned a brewer jersey then you are more committed to the Brewer name than me!

[logan82]

There are a lot of fans who follow specific players, but the majority of baseball fans follow teams, and it's weird loyalty.

Not really. Fans generally follow a team in any sport by where they live. Players change teams but teams do not change cities. You could probably get rid of all the MLB players and never have them play again and in a few years they wouldn't be missed much other than a footnote in MLB history. 10 years from now how many of the current Brewers will still be on the team?

[KeithStone53151]

Based on details being reported by evan drellich, I think the deal might actually happen this time. The sides are so darn close now

[JackNicholson1974]

There are a lot of fans who follow specific players, but the majority of baseball fans follow teams, and it's weird loyalty.

Not really. Fans generally follow a team in any sport by where they live. Players change teams but teams do not change cities. You could probably get rid of all the MLB players and never have them play again and in a few years they wouldn't be missed much other than a footnote in MLB history. 10 years from now how many of the current Brewers will still be on the team?

 

 

I 100% agree that if these 1200 players quit and never played again that the Brewers and baseball would move on without them and be just fine. However if they quit and started playing on the other side of town as a different team, in a different league, I would be hard pressed to not follow that team instead - along with that entire league of those 1200 players.

[CheeseheadInQC]

Most of these assumptions are based on just the players currently in the union going away and all the top prospects being just fine with the union being broken. That's not happening. Excluding a couple of long past their prime veterans looking for a way back into the league, the replacement players during the last strike were hardly the creme de la creme of baseball prospectdom. Guys like Kevin Millar and Damien Miller were about as good as it got for their future careers.

 

I enjoy watching minor league baseball games at the ballpark, but I've been to games where a pitcher threw four or five straight in the dirt to a catcher so immobile that he had to just lunge backward to smother the ball after it bounced off the backstop and rolled back to him. Let's not pretend the product wouldn't suffer a great deal to the point where attendance and viewership would be significantly affected. It's not about it being THESE players, it's about the overall caliber of play.

[Austin Tatious]

I have been curious for awhile how the MLB’s proposed international draft would be set up. I found an article linked below that explains it. It is not based on record of the teams. That was precisely my main concern. It would have been overkill for the team with the worst record to have the top pick in the regular draft and the international draft. Imagine the stars aligning and one team drafting Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis the same year.

 

I also like the proposals on the draft lottery for the regular (rule

4?) draft.

 

Here is the article. Scroll down and it explains the set up.

 

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/international-draft-cba-negotiations.html

[Jopal78]

I have been curious for awhile how the MLB’s proposed international draft would be set up. I found an article linked below that explains it. It is not based on record of the teams. That was precisely my main concern. It would have been overkill for the team with the worst record to have the top pick in the regular draft and the international draft. Imagine the stars aligning and one team drafting Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis the same year.

 

I also like the proposals on the draft lottery for the regular (rule

4?) draft.

 

Here is the article. Scroll down and it explains the set up.

 

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/international-draft-cba-negotiations.html

 

By International Draft I assume they mean the Caribbean islands, and not the entire world. It’s hard to picture any MLB club having a complex scouting system in Japan, and directly competing with the Japanese League for players.

[homer]

I have been curious for awhile how the MLB’s proposed international draft would be set up. I found an article linked below that explains it. It is not based on record of the teams. That was precisely my main concern. It would have been overkill for the team with the worst record to have the top pick in the regular draft and the international draft. Imagine the stars aligning and one team drafting Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis the same year.

 

I also like the proposals on the draft lottery for the regular (rule

4?) draft.

 

Here is the article. Scroll down and it explains the set up.

 

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/international-draft-cba-negotiations.html

 

By International Draft I assume they mean the Caribbean islands, and not the entire world. It’s hard to picture any MLB club having a complex scouting system in Japan, and directly competing with the Japanese League for players.

 

I assume so. It's an amateur draft and the Japanese guys are professionals. Not sure how it would work for other parts of the world.

[Jopal78]

I have been curious for awhile how the MLB’s proposed international draft would be set up. I found an article linked below that explains it. It is not based on record of the teams. That was precisely my main concern. It would have been overkill for the team with the worst record to have the top pick in the regular draft and the international draft. Imagine the stars aligning and one team drafting Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis the same year.

 

I also like the proposals on the draft lottery for the regular (rule

4?) draft.

 

Here is the article. Scroll down and it explains the set up.

 

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/international-draft-cba-negotiations.html

 

By International Draft I assume they mean the Caribbean islands, and not the entire world. It’s hard to picture any MLB club having a complex scouting system in Japan, and directly competing with the Japanese League for players.

 

I assume so. It's an amateur draft and the Japanese guys are professionals. Not sure how it would work for other parts of the world.

 

What I meant with Japanese players is: not even Ohtani came out of the womb as a fully formed middle of the order hitter. At some point he was an amateur player in Japan.

 

I understand why a lot of owners would like an International Draft, equal access to the players there without the need for a huge scouting/baseball academy. However, an International Draft seems so fraught with obvious loopholes that it wouldn't really achieve anything.

 

In America, if a high school player is drafted by a club that doesn't have a good reputation for developing amateur talent, or the slot money isn't enticing, the player can simply go to College, but once their College eligibility is exhausted if they want to play baseball for a living the player is stuck with whomever drafts them.

 

It seems an International Draft, if a player wasn't enamored with the organization or the slot money, they could simply play professionally in Japan or Korea, then come to America as a free agent.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It seems an International Draft, if a player wasn't enamored with the organization or the slot money, they could simply play professionally in Japan or Korea, then come to America as a free agent.

 

If we are going to get technical, a ex-college player who exhausted his eligibility could theoretically go this route as well. I'm not sure how long a MLB team holds the rights on a player they drafted (I imagine several years), but I would imagine the same safeguards would apply in an international draft.

[homer]

Nightengale says, so take with grain of salt, that international draft is last sticking point to get past.

[JosephC]

It seems an International Draft, if a player wasn't enamored with the organization or the slot money, they could simply play professionally in Japan or Korea, then come to America as a free agent.

 

If we are going to get technical, a ex-college player who exhausted his eligibility could theoretically go this route as well. I'm not sure how long a MLB team holds the rights on a player they drafted (I imagine several years), but I would imagine the same safeguards would apply in an international draft.

 

Just one year. That's why they have the rule with early picks that if a player is offered a contract at least 40% of the slot value, and that player does not sign, the team gets a compensatory pick in the following draft. The player is also eligible for the following draft but the team that drafted him and did not sign him cannot draft him again.

[wibadgers23]

Knock on wood, but it really feels like a deal gets done today and then buckle up for a frenzied free agency.

[KeithStone53151]

 

"MLB basically treats deadlines like you're telling a five-year-old you're going to count to three until they'll be in trouble.

 

One...two...two and a half....two and three quarter.....two and seven eighths...two and"

 

I've always found this guy pretty funny...