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

[NYChez]

Before losing too much of spring training, I hope both sides consider the roller coaster that pitchers have already ridden since the shortened 2020 season. They need to return to a normal pattern. Otherwise I’m concerned there will be collateral damage like when the Brewers lost a future ace (Cal Eldred) due to a shortened season plus shortened spring training in 1994-95.

[sveumrules]

I think workload might have been more to blame for Eldred's injuries than the strike throwing things off schedule in 94/95.

 

160 IP at age 22, 201 IP at age 23, 241 IP at age 24, 258 IP at age 25. That's over 850 IP from age 22 to 25. For comparison Woodruff threw about 500 IP & Burnes threw around 400 IP over the same ages. Sheets also came in over 800 IP from age 22 to 25 & subsequently started breaking down.

 

Some of Eldred's 1993/94 game logs are pretty nuts by contemporary standards. 143 pitches in 8 IP, 140 pitches in 6.2 IP, 134 pitches in 9 IP, 122 pitches in 4.2 IP, 122 pitches in 7 IP, 135 pitches in 9 IP, 144 pitches in 8 IP, 149 pitches in 10 IP, 130 pitches in 7.2 IP, 154 pitches in 9 IP, 126 pitches in 5.1 IP, 127 pitches in 6 IP, 135 pitches in 8 IP, etc.

[clancyphile]

Bill Schroeder wrote about a time Frank DiPino threw 189 pitches in a minor-league game.

 

The manager was canned two days later.

[Baldkin]

I think workload might have been more to blame for Eldred's injuries than the strike throwing things off schedule in 94/95.

 

160 IP at age 22, 201 IP at age 23, 241 IP at age 24, 258 IP at age 25. That's over 850 IP from age 22 to 25. For comparison Woodruff threw about 500 IP & Burnes threw around 400 IP over the same ages. Sheets also came in over 800 IP from age 22 to 25 & subsequently started breaking down.

 

Some of Eldred's 1993/94 game logs are pretty nuts by contemporary standards. 143 pitches in 8 IP, 140 pitches in 6.2 IP, 134 pitches in 9 IP, 122 pitches in 4.2 IP, 122 pitches in 7 IP, 135 pitches in 9 IP, 144 pitches in 8 IP, 149 pitches in 10 IP, 130 pitches in 7.2 IP, 154 pitches in 9 IP, 126 pitches in 5.1 IP, 127 pitches in 6 IP, 135 pitches in 8 IP, etc.

 

Over a 10 outing stretch in August and September in 1993 he averaged 127 pitches per start.

[monty57]

Would you rather watch a league full of the current players, with different or no owners and different team names or would you rather watch a league with the current owners and team names but with replacement players?

 

That's probably too black and white. If a new league was formed, you would potentially have some players who would run for the "greener pastures" of a new league, but many/most players would stay with the current league. Think of the original USFL, where guys like Reggie White & Jim Kelly headlined the stars of the new league, but most players stayed with the NFL. Even with some star power and a lot of financial backing, that league didn't last long.

 

It would be a bad move for the union to do this, as really it's not what unions do. They don't own and run things, they represent the players/workers against those who own and run things. In this "new league" scenario, the union would become the owner. That would make it a conflict of interest for them to continue to represent players in the MLB, and if the players really feel that they need representation in the current league, they would probably find new representation in the "new league." The MLBPA does very well financially in their current role, so why would they risk it to do something that would probably crash and burn?

 

The alternative to union ownership would be that the players do some type of Employee Stock Ownership Program, where they become the owners of the league. In this scenario:

 

(A) There would be no role for the MLBPA, so why would they condone doing this? Are they going to represent the players against themselves?

 

(B) Who would run it? Are the players going to play the game during the day and run the business in their spare time? Are they going to hire people who would essentially be their bosses and would have the ability to do things like cutting and trading them? This isn't a lifetime job, the average career of a pro athlete is pretty short.

 

© Since there is a lot of turnover in baseball, how would ownership be structured? Would a player be an owner until he's cut, and then the replacement would gain ownership? Would only the current players be the owners, and as they age out of baseball, it will be owned and run by a bunch of former players?

 

(C.1) If the current players become the owners, are the shares transferrable? If so, how long will it take before "some rich guy" buys up majority interest and we get back to where we currently stand?

 

 

It may be a fun theoretical concept for a school classroom or online fan site, but whoever said there is "absolutely zero chance of this happening" was spot on. When the "real life" aspects kick in, it's not going to happen.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Tomorrow will tell us a lot about where we are. Does the players' offer move the needle at all?

 

I am weirdly optimistic about things getting done before too much of a delay to ST. I just think these sides aren't materially that far apart, despite the enmity between them. Of course, that lack of trust may matter more than the material facts, so we'll see.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I hope that it ends fairly quickly, strictly for the state of the local sports fanbase. With the Packers' disappointing end, a little hot stove action would be nice to break up the rest of the winter monotony.

[torts]

I hope that it ends fairly quickly, strictly for the state of the local sports fanbase. With the Packers' disappointing end, a little hot stove action would be nice to break up the rest of the winter monotony.

 

i'd for sure like to fill the empty void of Packers and Bills superbowl matchup with some Brewers action!!!

[Underachiever]

Tomorrow will tell us a lot about where we are. Does the players' offer move the needle at all?

 

I am weirdly optimistic about things getting done before too much of a delay to ST. I just think these sides aren't materially that far apart, despite the enmity between them. Of course, that lack of trust may matter more than the material facts, so we'll see.

I am not optimistic, for this reason. The players will want the owners to open the books, and that alone is probably a bigger issue than any single item on the table.

[Patrick425]

Apparently they are meeting again tomorrow (after meeting today). So, perhaps a little progress was made?

 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nbcsports/mlb-lockout-league-union-to-meet-again-tuesday-as-talks-pick-up/2736627/

[nate82]

Apparently they are meeting again tomorrow (after meeting today). So, perhaps a little progress was made?

 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nbcsports/mlb-lockout-league-union-to-meet-again-tuesday-as-talks-pick-up/2736627/

 

A lot of progress was made today. According to the Athletic: MLBPA drops age-based free-agency proposal as negotiations on new labor deal continue. Unknown what the owners gave up will have to wait until tomorrow I believe.

[folly412]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145517/mlb-open-pre-arbitration-bonus-pool-eligible-players-labor-talks-continue-sources-say

 

Notes here re: pre-arbitration bonus pool, starting/pre-arbitration salaries. Notes revenue-sharing and competitive balance tax as the biggest hurdles. Tone at least sounds positive to me. At least the items they note don't sound like anything that should cause a major hold-up to getting a deal done.

[monty57]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145517/mlb-open-pre-arbitration-bonus-pool-eligible-players-labor-talks-continue-sources-say

 

Notes here re: pre-arbitration bonus pool, starting/pre-arbitration salaries. Notes revenue-sharing and competitive balance tax as the biggest hurdles. Tone at least sounds positive to me. At least the items they note don't sound like anything that should cause a major hold-up to getting a deal done.

 

 

The issue (or perceived issue) is that the larger market teams would spend the money on payroll, but they have to give it to the small market teams who pocket the cash and don't raise payroll. Therefore, money that would have gone to the players (with the union getting their cut) instead goes into the owners' pockets. Meanwhile, small market or rebuilding teams would argue that spending a few million extra on payroll won't necessarily make the team any better, and it may keep them from giving playing time to a young player trying to prove himself, and hurt them long-term.

 

Obviously, adding payroll doesn't always make a team better, so maybe they could come up with something like: if the team receiving the revenue-sharing funds doesn't spend it improving their team in some fashion, then they have to put it back into the pool. The money wouldn't necessarily have to add to payroll, but maybe they upgrade the locker room, or get a new scoreboard... something that isn't just "pocketing the money."

 

The union is looking to get rid of things designed to somewhat level the playing field between the big markets vs. small markets, so I'd hate for these things to go away. I'd like to eliminate the uneven playing field, not make it worse.

[wntrtxn21]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145517/mlb-open-pre-arbitration-bonus-pool-eligible-players-labor-talks-continue-sources-say

 

Notes here re: pre-arbitration bonus pool, starting/pre-arbitration salaries. Notes revenue-sharing and competitive balance tax as the biggest hurdles. Tone at least sounds positive to me. At least the items they note don't sound like anything that should cause a major hold-up to getting a deal done.

 

 

The issue (or perceived issue) is that the larger market teams would spend the money on payroll, but they have to give it to the small market teams who pocket the cash and don't raise payroll. Therefore, money that would have gone to the players (with the union getting their cut) instead goes into the owners' pockets. Meanwhile, small market or rebuilding teams would argue that spending a few million extra on payroll won't necessarily make the team any better, and it may keep them from giving playing time to a young player trying to prove himself, and hurt them long-term.

 

Obviously, adding payroll doesn't always make a team better, so maybe they could come up with something like: if the team receiving the revenue-sharing funds doesn't spend it improving their team in some fashion, then they have to put it back into the pool. The money wouldn't necessarily have to add to payroll, but maybe they upgrade the locker room, or get a new scoreboard... something that isn't just "pocketing the money."

 

The union is looking to get rid of things designed to somewhat level the playing field between the big markets vs. small markets, so I'd hate for these things to go away. I'd like to eliminate the uneven playing field, not make it worse.

 

The now expired CBA had in it's language pretty much what you said about improving the club. Players said small market owners were pocketing the money. Neither side can come up with a concise way how the money should be spent or how to prove where the money goes.

[Roderick]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145517/mlb-open-pre-arbitration-bonus-pool-eligible-players-labor-talks-continue-sources-say

 

Notes here re: pre-arbitration bonus pool, starting/pre-arbitration salaries. Notes revenue-sharing and competitive balance tax as the biggest hurdles. Tone at least sounds positive to me. At least the items they note don't sound like anything that should cause a major hold-up to getting a deal done.

 

 

The issue (or perceived issue) is that the larger market teams would spend the money on payroll, but they have to give it to the small market teams who pocket the cash and don't raise payroll. Therefore, money that would have gone to the players (with the union getting their cut) instead goes into the owners' pockets. Meanwhile, small market or rebuilding teams would argue that spending a few million extra on payroll won't necessarily make the team any better, and it may keep them from giving playing time to a young player trying to prove himself, and hurt them long-term.

 

Obviously, adding payroll doesn't always make a team better, so maybe they could come up with something like: if the team receiving the revenue-sharing funds doesn't spend it improving their team in some fashion, then they have to put it back into the pool. The money wouldn't necessarily have to add to payroll, but maybe they upgrade the locker room, or get a new scoreboard... something that isn't just "pocketing the money."

 

The union is looking to get rid of things designed to somewhat level the playing field between the big markets vs. small markets, so I'd hate for these things to go away. I'd like to eliminate the uneven playing field, not make it worse.

 

The now expired CBA had in it's language pretty much what you said about improving the club. Players said small market owners were pocketing the money. Neither side can come up with a concise way how the money should be spent or how to prove where the money goes.

 

Some type of min. floor on payroll for teams receiving revenue-sharing. But not by year, but maybe over a three year average.

[JohnBriggs12]

Bruce Levine on The Score in Chicago was quite encouraging yesterday. The big progress started this week when the players dropped their demand for FA after 5 years. He said the key is getting more money for younger players, and that includes a pool of money to be used as bonuses for young players who perform at a high level according to WAR. He used Corbin Burnes as an example. Burnes earned just over $600K last year as a pre-arby player. Under what is being discussed, he would have earned something like $2.5 million with the extra coming from bonus pool.

 

Levine, who is pretty well connected, is predicting a mid February agreement, followed by 10 days to 2 weeks for teams to sign and fill rosters, then a slightly shortened spring training. His basic reasoning is sound that if the players manage to get more money to younger players in whatever form it takes, they will view it as a success, and if owners preserve the timeline to FA and arbitration, they too will view it as success.

 

The other key is carving out a system that discourages midseason tanking. To that end a draft lottery seems inevitable.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Bruce Levine on The Score in Chicago was quite encouraging yesterday. The big progress started this week when the players dropped their demand for FA after 5 years. He said the key is getting more money for younger players, and that includes a pool of money to be used as bonuses for young players who perform at a high level according to WAR. He used Corbin Burnes as an example. Burnes earned just over $600K last year as a pre-arby player. Under what is being discussed, he would have earned something like $2.5 million with the extra coming from bonus pool.

 

Levine, who is pretty well connected, is predicting a mid February agreement, followed by 10 days to 2 weeks for teams to sign and fill rosters, then a slightly shortened spring training. His basic reasoning is sound that if the players manage to get more money to younger players in whatever form it takes, they will view it as a success, and if owners preserve the timeline to FA and arbitration, they too will view it as success.

 

The other key is carving out a system that discourages midseason tanking. To that end a draft lottery seems inevitable.

 

I like listening to Levine on the Score. Their Saturday/Sunday baseball coverage tends to be pretty darn good. I'm encouraged to see this.

 

I don't think a shortened spring should matter much at all, though I suppose the irregularities introduced by pandemic scheduling are still a concern in terms of player health.

 

That's really the thing that has me most worried about the Brewers. The offense is bad, okay, it's frustrating, but the team is built around those 6 starters and top-end BP guys. Pitching injuries are the big risk with that strategy.

 

Would certainly look forward to a lot of transactions once a deal is reached.

[Underachiever]

Not beat the negative drum repeatedly, I still think that percentage of revenue is the thing that will draw this out. A friend sent this link to me with the comment, "Since you like to panic, I thought you might like this." I don't like to panic, but it definitely paints a bleaker picture.

 

[JosephC]

 

The other key is carving out a system that discourages midseason tanking. To that end a draft lottery seems inevitable.

 

This is a horrible concept that really doesn't apply to MLB at all.

 

Does anybody really think that teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Milwaukee in a bad year are not going to sell off assets at mid-season because they would be afraid that they might wind up with the #6 overall pick instead of the #2 overall pick? I could care less if I were a GM. If I'm sitting there with a 35-50 record, I'm in sell mode, period.

 

The "dynamics" of the MLB draft is nothing like the NBA draft. In MLB there is usually only one clear, consensus #1 pick that comes around maybe once every 5 years. Really, the only recent ones are Harper and Strausberg. People talk about Houston and their success that has come from tanking, but their sole #1 pick that contributed was Carlos Correa and he was far from a consensus #1 pick (most rankings I remember at the time had Buxton, Appel and Zunino as the top 3 talents, with Correa in the next group that included guys like Kevin Gausman. Note that Appel and Aiken ended up being #1 picks for Houston and neither of them did anything at the MLB level. When the Twins took Royce Lewis #1, he was rated more in the 4-6 area on most rankings lists but ended up being picked #1 because there was no clear #1 guy and Lewis was willing to sign for a full 1 million under slot value. I very much doubt if the Twins really cared if they had the #1 or #5 pick that year. The last full draft we had under normal scouting conditions was in 2020. There was no clear #1 but I seem to remember Austin Martin getting more #1 mentions than anyone else, he went #5. I was thinking about Corey Ray and how Keith Law had him #1, so I went back and looked at that draft and, to my memory, Ray definitely was not the consensus #1, AJ Puk would have been and probably by a really good margin (not as much as someone like Harper though). Ray went #5 in that draft and Puk went #6.

 

To look at the history of the MLB draft and think that a draft lottery is going to fix tanking, anybody who really believes that just hasn't been paying attention the last 10 years or so.

 

This seems like an obvious change so that MLB can put players where they want players to go under the guise of a lottery system. "Jeez, the Cubs sucked this year and have the 7th worst record....let's give them the 1st pick as they are a big market, have a huge following and the increased interest will be "good for the game." "Man, we really want to rob the public of 1 billion dollars this year, this market needs a new stadium so let's give them the #1 pick to try and generate excitement so the dumb-dumbs in that city hand us whole bunch of free money that we don't need." I really have a hard time seeing this concept being implemented for any other purpose...especially the ridiculous idea that it will stop tanking.

 

If the MLB owners and MLB players are concerned about tanking, then the obvious thing to do would be to do what every other major sports league has done....complete revenue sharing, salary cap, salary floor. 30 teams on an equal playing field and that will go further to stop tanking than anything else they will come up with. Under this current system, how can anyone expect not to have somewhere between 3-5 teams just be tanking from day 1 every single season?

[nate82]

 

This seems like an obvious change so that MLB can put players where they want players to go under the guise of a lottery system. "Jeez, the Cubs sucked this year and have the 7th worst record....let's give them the 1st pick as they are a big market, have a huge following and the increased interest will be "good for the game." "Man, we really want to rob the public of 1 billion dollars this year, this market needs a new stadium so let's give them the #1 pick to try and generate excitement so the dumb-dumbs in that city hand us whole bunch of free money that we don't need." I really have a hard time seeing this concept being implemented for any other purpose...especially the ridiculous idea that it will stop tanking.

 

If the MLB owners and MLB players are concerned about tanking, then the obvious thing to do would be to do what every other major sports league has done....complete revenue sharing, salary cap, salary floor. 30 teams on an equal playing field and that will go further to stop tanking than anything else they will come up with. Under this current system, how can anyone expect not to have somewhere between 3-5 teams just be tanking from day 1 every single season?

 

Actually what the players union has put together would hurt the large market teams more if they go into tank mode. The smaller market teams won't be impacted by it as much and when they are actually winning may benefit from this in getting a higher pick than what their record is. For example if the Brewers finish 80-82 miss the playoffs but the Cubs go in full on tank mode and go 60-102 the Brewers could actually get a better pick than the Cubs in the draft. The Cubs would get knocked down in the ping pong ball lottery while the Brewers get more ping pong balls. The owners have rejected this and I don't see it being accepted here. The union basically wants the large markets to keep on spending and not go on these 3-5 year tanking seasons as these teams normally then don't spend on FA until they have the younger players close or on their roster.

 

The owners have also proposed a minimum salary but that is all they gave the union. Nothing in the way of what happens if you are below the salary floor so the union rejected it. Haven't seen anything since Nov-Dec about this so I think it is dead at least during this CBA at least.

[igor67]

I would assume the Union as nate alluded to understands that the issue isn't the midseason sell-off its the fill out the roster with minimum wage players for a few seasons in row tank jobs. Oddly enough a salary minimum and keeping the current system might be better for vets. You create a rather off market for overpaying washed up players to help you tank then.

[wntrtxn21]

 

This seems like an obvious change so that MLB can put players where they want players to go under the guise of a lottery system. "Jeez, the Cubs sucked this year and have the 7th worst record....let's give them the 1st pick as they are a big market, have a huge following and the increased interest will be "good for the game." "Man, we really want to rob the public of 1 billion dollars this year, this market needs a new stadium so let's give them the #1 pick to try and generate excitement so the dumb-dumbs in that city hand us whole bunch of free money that we don't need." I really have a hard time seeing this concept being implemented for any other purpose...especially the ridiculous idea that it will stop tanking.

 

If the MLB owners and MLB players are concerned about tanking, then the obvious thing to do would be to do what every other major sports league has done....complete revenue sharing, salary cap, salary floor. 30 teams on an equal playing field and that will go further to stop tanking than anything else they will come up with. Under this current system, how can anyone expect not to have somewhere between 3-5 teams just be tanking from day 1 every single season?

 

Actually what the players union has put together would hurt the large market teams more if they go into tank mode. The smaller market teams won't be impacted by it as much and when they are actually winning may benefit from this in getting a higher pick than what their record is. For example if the Brewers finish 80-82 miss the playoffs but the Cubs go in full on tank mode and go 60-102 the Brewers could actually get a better pick than the Cubs in the draft. The Cubs would get knocked down in the ping pong ball lottery while the Brewers get more ping pong balls. The owners have rejected this and I don't see it being accepted here. The union basically wants the large markets to keep on spending and not go on these 3-5 year tanking seasons as these teams normally then don't spend on FA until they have the younger players close or on their roster.

 

The owners have also proposed a minimum salary but that is all they gave the union. Nothing in the way of what happens if you are below the salary floor so the union rejected it. Haven't seen anything since Nov-Dec about this so I think it is dead at least during this CBA at least.

 

It still hurts small markets just as much or more. Small markets are much more likely to have worse records. Under the ridiculous lottery smaller markets who are trying to rebuild under financial restrictions would now get worse pics that hamper them even more. Big markets who have injuries and don't look to be playoff bound at the break, can can manipulate the system just enough be at .500 or just below and get a chance at the #1-3 pics. It might stop the cubs and Astros from tanking, but it hurts the small markets who are trying even more.

[nate82]

 

It still hurts small markets just as much or more. Small markets are much more likely to have worse records. Under the ridiculous lottery smaller markets who are trying to rebuild under financial restrictions would now get worse pics that hamper them even more. Big markets who have injuries and don't look to be playoff bound at the break, can can manipulate the system just enough be at .500 or just below and get a chance at the #1-3 pics. It might stop the cubs and Astros from tanking, but it hurts the small markets who are trying even more.

 

The large market teams would have a smaller chance at getting the #1-3 picks under the players proposal for a lottery. Either way if it is the players or the owners proposal there is going to be a lottery it looks like. Small market teams would be better off with the players proposal.

[wntrtxn21]

 

It still hurts small markets just as much or more. Small markets are much more likely to have worse records. Under the ridiculous lottery smaller markets who are trying to rebuild under financial restrictions would now get worse pics that hamper them even more. Big markets who have injuries and don't look to be playoff bound at the break, can can manipulate the system just enough be at .500 or just below and get a chance at the #1-3 pics. It might stop the cubs and Astros from tanking, but it hurts the small markets who are trying even more.

 

The large market teams would have a smaller chance at getting the #1-3 picks under the players proposal for a lottery. Either way if it is the players or the owners proposal there is going to be a lottery it looks like. Small market teams would be better off with the players proposal.

 

Sorry, I didn't do a very good job at making my point. I agree there probably is going to be a lottery because the lottery is really all about money. Not every big market team is going to make the playoffs. Yet they have a much better chance at having a near playoff record and getting a premium pic than the financially strapped teams. That alone defeats the purpose of the draft. The draft was originally set up to help small market teams and keep the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc... from buying up all the younger talent. Yes there will always be teams like the cubs and Astros who tank, but as a whole, it's small market, financially challenged teams that dominate the bottom and need the premium draft pics to get better and compete.

[JackNicholson1974]

When they are not meeting to get to the finish line for over a week or a month at a time, what the heck are they doing to further this thing along. Dont tell me they are internally discussing the next move. It does not take that long and besides, every move and contingency should be known by both sides.

 

I get the sense that neither side wants to appear to get anything done for fear of losing bargaining position. which is the stupidest thing ever as the only ones who suffer are the fans.