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

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Maybe we're getting somewhere...

 

Universal DH and draft pick compensation elimination has been agreed to.

 

This is a nice start. Let's see what the owners offer on CBT, minimum salary and 0-6 year players for earlier free agency or arbitration.

 

How does lessening the CBT, increasing minimum salaries and granting earlier free agency help the small- or medium-market teams like the Brewers whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I'm not looking at this situation 100% straight, but the players share at least part of the blame here. They, by and large, want the large market (i.e. rich) teams to become richer, because in the eyes of the players, the large markets are the only teams spending money on player salaries the way they should. They do not want increased revenue sharing or a competitive balance tax because, in their minds, the owners of the smaller markets are simply going to pocket that money, and not reinvest it into player salaries. But they also don't want a cap, because then that means that we're going to see fewer of these huge mega deals.

 

I'm sorry, but as a fan of one of those small/medium-market teams, I am not in favor of anything that is going to hand more money to the large markets that already operate at a competitive advantage. I know the argument is "Well, those smaller markets just need to spend more!" But I don't get the feeling that Mark Attanasio is Scrooge McDuck-diving into piles of cash that he earns annually through his ownership of the Brewers.

[Jopal78]

 

How does lessening the CBT, increasing minimum salaries and granting earlier free agency help the small- or medium-market teams like the Brewers whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I'm not looking at this situation 100% straight, but the players share at least part of the blame here. They, by and large, want the large market (i.e. rich) teams to become richer, because in the eyes of the players, the large markets are the only teams spending money on player salaries the way they should. They do not want increased revenue sharing or a competitive balance tax because, in their minds, the owners of the smaller markets are simply going to pocket that money, and not reinvest it into player salaries. But they also don't want a cap, because then that means that we're going to see fewer of these huge mega deals.

 

I'm sorry, but as a fan of one of those small/medium-market teams, I am not in favor of anything that is going to hand more money to the large markets that already operate at a competitive advantage. I know the argument is "Well, those smaller markets just need to spend more!" But I don't get the feeling that Mark Attanasio is Scrooge McDuck-diving into piles of cash that he earns annually through his ownership of the Brewers.

 

Good question. I don't think the players union particularly cares what teams get richer or which teams get poorer they're trying to deliver more pay for union members.

 

Adding the Universal DH creates more demand for players (which effects wages), shortening service time until arbitration escalates player's salary exponentially, the "anti-tanking" measures the union wants is so teams without enough talent to compete will still spend 90 million instead of 50 million meaning more demand for players (which again effects wages).

 

What raising the competitive balance tax threshold, really is about is giving the players more potential ammunition to argue the owners are colluding to keep payroll down. If they raised it to 500 million, I don't think the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox are going to suddenly go out an add 150 million dollars in payroll. Rather it removes a legitimate reason for teams to not spend money on players.

 

But to your point, I have a feeling the new CBA is going to make an already tight rope teams like the Brewers need to walk in order to compete regularly even more narrow.

[SeaBass]

Maybe we're getting somewhere...

 

Universal DH and draft pick compensation elimination has been agreed to.

 

This is a nice start. Let's see what the owners offer on CBT, minimum salary and 0-6 year players for earlier free agency or arbitration.

 

How does lessening the CBT, increasing minimum salaries and granting earlier free agency help the small- or medium-market teams like the Brewers whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I'm not looking at this situation 100% straight, but the players share at least part of the blame here. They, by and large, want the large market (i.e. rich) teams to become richer, because in the eyes of the players, the large markets are the only teams spending money on player salaries the way they should. They do not want increased revenue sharing or a competitive balance tax because, in their minds, the owners of the smaller markets are simply going to pocket that money, and not reinvest it into player salaries. But they also don't want a cap, because then that means that we're going to see fewer of these huge mega deals.

 

I'm sorry, but as a fan of one of those small/medium-market teams, I am not in favor of anything that is going to hand more money to the large markets that already operate at a competitive advantage. I know the argument is "Well, those smaller markets just need to spend more!" But I don't get the feeling that Mark Attanasio is Scrooge McDuck-diving into piles of cash that he earns annually through his ownership of the Brewers.

I just can't side with what I consider an imbalanced labor situation just because it benefits my favorite team, it just doesn't feel right to me. I understand that it's difficult to find a perfect balance but I feel like MLB could do more to make sure players earn a fair slice of the overall pie.

 

I'm not even saying it has to be split 50/50. I have no idea where the split is now but from everything I've heard the league's profits have steadily been on the rise but the same hasn't held true to player salaries. Maybe a solution entails a pool of money outside of payroll that awards supplements to pre-arbitration or players in arbitration that have earned it year to year. Maybe part of that pool goes to providing health care or other benefits for retired players or players whose careers were cut short by injury. I just think there has to be a way to make sure that when the league is increasingly profitable the players' share of that goes up similarly.

 

In some ways I'm not sure why the players are so afraid of a salary cap. It seems to work well enough for the NBA and NFL and the star players still make ridiculous sums of money. Even in the NFL where contracts aren't guaranteed and roster sizes are 53 players and for the most part there's parity and good competition.

[Soupbone]

I'm not sure I see where having a DH would lead to this "Adding the Universal DH creates more demand for players". Unless the roster size increases.

[wntrtxn21]

I'm not sure I see where having a DH would lead to this "Adding the Universal DH creates more demand for players". Unless the roster size increases.

 

I think a better way of saying it is: "adding the universal DH creates more demand for players (usually older guys) who can hit but are terrible with the glove, to be paid bigger salaries". It hurts the utility type guys making league minimum, but helps aging veterans who aren't good anymore (or never were good) with the glove. For the union it's all about money, not more opportunity.

[SeaBass]

I'm not sure I see where having a DH would lead to this "Adding the Universal DH creates more demand for players". Unless the roster size increases.

I really don't think it does. It might shift the type of player getting a roster spot but the new rule only changes things for 15 teams, the other half of the league has already been using it for decades.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I just can't side with what I consider an imbalanced labor situation just because it benefits my favorite team, it just doesn't feel right to me. I understand that it's difficult to find a perfect balance but I feel like MLB could do more to make sure players earn a fair slice of the overall pie.

 

I'm not even saying it has to be split 50/50. I have no idea where the split is now but from everything I've heard the league's profits have steadily been on the rise but the same hasn't held true to player salaries. Maybe a solution entails a pool of money outside of payroll that awards supplements to pre-arbitration or players in arbitration that have earned it year to year. Maybe part of that pool goes to providing health care or other benefits for retired players or players whose careers were cut short by injury. I just think there has to be a way to make sure that when the league is increasingly profitable the players' share of that goes up similarly.

 

In some ways I'm not sure why the players are so afraid of a salary cap. It seems to work well enough for the NBA and NFL and the star players still make ridiculous sums of money. Even in the NFL where contracts aren't guaranteed and roster sizes are 53 players and for the most part there's parity and good competition.

 

I'm a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers WAY before I'm a fan of Major League Baseball. Therefore I want Major League Baseball to make changes to continue levelling the playing field, which in theory gives the Brewers a better shot at remaining competitive long-term. It simply isn't equitable that teams like the Brewers operate as farm clubs to turn young players into superstars, only to go see them sign with the Yankees and the Dodgers of the world, or get traded off to a big market because the Brewers know they have no chance of signing them long term. Granted that idea has gotten better over the last decade or so, but it feels like the MLBPA wants to backtrack and remove the steps that MLB has implemented to level the playing field. No, the field is still not even close to level, but at least now it finally feels like the Brewers are playing in the same league as the Dodgers.

[Jopal78]

 

I'm a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers WAY before I'm a fan of Major League Baseball. Therefore I want Major League Baseball to make changes to continue levelling the playing field, which in theory gives the Brewers a better shot at remaining competitive long-term. It simply isn't equitable that teams like the Brewers operate as farm clubs to turn young players into superstars, only to go see them sign with the Yankees and the Dodgers of the world, or get traded off to a big market because the Brewers know they have no chance of signing them long term. Granted that idea has gotten better over the last decade or so, but it feels like the MLBPA wants to backtrack and remove the steps that MLB has implemented to level the playing field. No, the field is still not even close to level, but at least now it finally feels like the Brewers are playing in the same league as the Dodgers.

 

Me too. The union obviously doesn’t care about competitive balance, their sole aim is to put a higher percentage of revenue into the player’s pockets.

 

The large market clubs could level the playing field on their own by sharing all local broadcast revenue, but I don’t think the Dodgers and Yankees necessarily want to empower teams like the Rays and Brewers to be even stronger competitors.

 

The player’s union is going to get a better deal than they had before which necessarily means there will be some concessions from the owners but I don’t think there will ever be any seismic changes. The success cycle of the smaller clubs will get shorter, and the difference making front office talent working for those teams will wonder even more if the grass is greener in NY, California, Chicago, Texas etc.

[brewers888]

Maybe we're getting somewhere...

 

Universal DH and draft pick compensation elimination has been agreed to.

 

This is a nice start. Let's see what the owners offer on CBT, minimum salary and 0-6 year players for earlier free agency or arbitration.

 

How does lessening the CBT, increasing minimum salaries and granting earlier free agency help the small- or medium-market teams like the Brewers whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I'm not looking at this situation 100% straight, but the players share at least part of the blame here. They, by and large, want the large market (i.e. rich) teams to become richer, because in the eyes of the players, the large markets are the only teams spending money on player salaries the way they should. They do not want increased revenue sharing or a competitive balance tax because, in their minds, the owners of the smaller markets are simply going to pocket that money, and not reinvest it into player salaries. But they also don't want a cap, because then that means that we're going to see fewer of these huge mega deals.

 

I'm sorry, but as a fan of one of those small/medium-market teams, I am not in favor of anything that is going to hand more money to the large markets that already operate at a competitive advantage. I know the argument is "Well, those smaller markets just need to spend more!" But I don't get the feeling that Mark Attanasio is Scrooge McDuck-diving into piles of cash that he earns annually through his ownership of the Brewers.

 

Can I co sign this because I agree completely. I will even go a step further and say I am willing to miss games in order to get a better deal for small market teams.

[jerichoholicninja]

The players want to make sure middle of the road 30+ year old free agents continue to get 8 figure multi year deals, not throw a couple extra hundred thousand dollars at guys with a couple years of service time who easily outperform them. None of this is about competitive balance or even playing field or whatever you want to call it from either side.

[MoreTrife]

 

This is a nice start. Let's see what the owners offer on CBT, minimum salary and 0-6 year players for earlier free agency or arbitration.

 

How does lessening the CBT, increasing minimum salaries and granting earlier free agency help the small- or medium-market teams like the Brewers whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I'm not looking at this situation 100% straight, but the players share at least part of the blame here. They, by and large, want the large market (i.e. rich) teams to become richer, because in the eyes of the players, the large markets are the only teams spending money on player salaries the way they should. They do not want increased revenue sharing or a competitive balance tax because, in their minds, the owners of the smaller markets are simply going to pocket that money, and not reinvest it into player salaries. But they also don't want a cap, because then that means that we're going to see fewer of these huge mega deals.

 

I'm sorry, but as a fan of one of those small/medium-market teams, I am not in favor of anything that is going to hand more money to the large markets that already operate at a competitive advantage. I know the argument is "Well, those smaller markets just need to spend more!" But I don't get the feeling that Mark Attanasio is Scrooge McDuck-diving into piles of cash that he earns annually through his ownership of the Brewers.

 

Can I co sign this because I agree completely. I will even go a step further and say I am willing to miss games in order to get a better deal for small market teams.

 

+1

[owbc]

The fact of the matter is that many small market owners are pocketing the revenue sharing, and have been for some time. So the players have a strong case there.

 

I find it interesting that this forum is much more pro-owners than other MLB fan sites that I follow. I think it's because we benefit the most from revenue sharing as the smallest market, plus we have an owner who is clearly investing the money in the team.

 

I like the idea of revamping revenue sharing to make it more difficult to pocket the money. It would be nice for teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore to start losing money and paying a financial price for years of tanking and mismanagement. As it currently stands, they are incentivized to continue keeping their payroll low, regardless of how many games they lose.

[logan82]

Fans are generally fans of teams. Players change teams. Owners generally do not.

[brewers888]

As long as the system has the Brewers competing with half the payroll of the big market teams we will continue to be at a huge disadvantage. Nothing short of a salary cap is good enough. The NFL has the popularity that it does because the Packers are are at a level playing field with the Cowboys.

[logan82]

As long as the system has the Brewers competing with half the payroll of the big market teams we will continue to be at a huge disadvantage. Nothing short of a salary cap is good enough. The NFL has the popularity that it does because the Packers are are at a level playing field with the Cowboys.

There is also a lot more revenue sharing. The NFL shifted when free agency made things more even, not a salary cap. A few MLB owners are buttheads and keep much of the shared money so the really rich teams use it as an excuse not to share any more than they absolutely have to.

[logan82]

The best way forward for small market teams is to make sure all online revenue is shared and make it easier for in market people to watch games online. Get rid of blackout rules. Plan for the future to make all nonstadium based revenue shared equally. Things are slowly shifting away from cable and I believe getting rid of blackout rules would help move that along. I honestly have not watched games for quite a while now because it is just too much of a pain to get them online. I do miss baseball but it is not worth the hassle. Get rid of the blackout rules and I buy a MLB subscription tomorrow. Edited February 14, 2022 by logan82

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Totally agree. I would pay $14.99/mo just for the Brewers.

[jjgott]

Me to the owners saying they can’t afford to pay market rate salaries

 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

As long as the system has the Brewers competing with half the payroll of the big market teams we will continue to be at a huge disadvantage. Nothing short of a salary cap is good enough. The NFL has the popularity that it does because the Packers are are at a level playing field with the Cowboys.

There is also a lot more revenue sharing. The NFL shifted when free agency made things more even, not a salary cap. A few MLB owners are buttheads and keep much of the shared money so the really rich teams use it as an excuse not to share any more than they absolutely have to.

 

Right here is the key to pretty much every economic issue that is hurting MLB right now. MLB has made attempts to level the playing field and add parity to a sport where the big markets grossly outspend the smaller markets, and instead of reinvesting that shared revenue back into their teams, the owners of teams like the Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Marlins, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Athletics and D-Backs are content to operate on a low budget and pocket their shared revenue earnings. If shared revenue is a thing in MLB, those teams should probably be required to spend it to put a better product on the field. Because the way it is right now, players want to do away with shared revenue, because the bigger markets are the only ones who have shown they are willing to spend big ... so why not but MORE money in their pockets? Such a broken system.

[Jopal78]

 

Right here is the key to pretty much every economic issue that is hurting MLB right now. MLB has made attempts to level the playing field and add parity to a sport where the big markets grossly outspend the smaller markets, and instead of reinvesting that shared revenue back into their teams, the owners of teams like the Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Marlins, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Athletics and D-Backs are content to operate on a low budget and pocket their shared revenue earnings. If shared revenue is a thing in MLB, those teams should probably be required to spend it to put a better product on the field. Because the way it is right now, players want to do away with shared revenue, because the bigger markets are the only ones who have shown they are willing to spend big ... so why not but MORE money in their pockets? Such a broken system.

 

Then again if you’re the New York Yankees, that local media revenue is a competitive advantage. The Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. know they’re likely going to be competitive every year because of their war chest; and winning equals more even revenue in the pocket. I’m pretty sure those clubs want to keep the Rays, Oakland, Milwaukee, etc. with a hand ties behind their back.

 

And over the years the small market revenue sharing recipients have all fielded bargain priced non-competitive clubs, which doesn’t help their argument they need more money to level the playing field.

 

I don’t know if I’d call it a broken system. If we were all Dodger fans I would be okay with letting Milwaukee die on the vine every year instead of helping them financially so they can be a stronger club.

[Baldkin]

Joe Sheehan on twitter. The thread is worth a read.

 

 

@joe_sheehan

It's late and maybe I'll delete this in the morning, but I'm as down about baseball as I have ever been. 1981, 1994, Donnie's last game, the Jeff Weaver game...nothing ever felt like this. The owners control access to baseball and they *do not care* whether we have a 2022 season.

 

It's impossible to even convince people they're the ones at fault even though it's literally a lockout. The largest media voices alternate between Proffering Sober Solutions and blatant water-carrying. Fans think the players are stubborn when they've offered the owners...

 

...their two biggest asks *and* pulled two of their own off the table. The owners are averaging an offer every 25 days or so, all of which make the soft payroll cap harder and none of which meaningfully address the big issues -- competitiveness and paying young players.

 

There's no externality that can change this. If the owners decide they are OK with trading the season to win a labor war, no amount of negotiation short of full capitulation will change that. That's the goal here. Not baseball games, but breaking the union.

 

We may not have baseball for quite awhile. The owners are, once again, being completely disingenuous in their negotiations

[MillerParkSouth]

It is stunning to me that Manfred and the owners do not care one bit about the long term damage they are doing to the game here, all in the interest of not sharing a fair amount of the record revenues with the players. It's frankly disgusting.

[TURBO]

They just assume the fans will come back.

 

They are probably right, but they are playing a risky game for sure.

[adambr2]

The cynical part of me wants to just see both sides crash and burn. Can half the season and I hope to see massive cuts in attendance and television revenue in the future resulting in an enormously shrunken pie for these idiots to divide up.

 

The lack of urgency is astounding. They did not learn anything in 2020 and they haven't learned anything since then. I thought they learned something after '94, but obviously those lessons have been long forgotten.

 

Baseball bled for years after '94 and it took a long time to repair the damage they did. Guess what, people cared a lot more about baseball in '94 than they do now.

[jjgott]

The cynical part of me wants to just see both sides crash and burn.

 

Why is this a both sides issue? The owners locked the players out.