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

[adambr2]

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.

 

It's still almost always a both sides issue, just like it was in '94 when the players striked.

[sveumrules]

I highly reccomend this summation MLBTR did of each side's current positions on key issues...

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/latest-collective-bargaining-positions-for-mlb-players-association.html

 

Of course in any dispute between two parties both share in the blame, but that doesn't mean its a 50/50 split.

 

Between the owners initiating the lockout & their refusal to make any real effort to get younger players more money earlier in their careers (15 million to be split among 30 pre-Arby's employees is a joke), plus their seeming disinterest in doing anything to increase competitive balance, equals (for me at least) the owners shouldering a larger share of blame than the players in this particular labor dispute.

[TURBO]

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.

 

 

If they didn't lock them out, the players would have went on strike.

 

The stoppage was going to happen one way or the other.

[torts]

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.

 

 

If they didn't lock them out, the players would have went on strike.

 

The stoppage was going to happen one way or the other.

 

We'd at least have had some games before the players went on strike. They have no leverage going on strike in the off-season

[wallus]

I think both sides are at fault here as per usual.

 

I am sure the owners have done studies and have found that they will make more money by being hard negotiators versus whatever revenue they lose from fans that leave.

 

One thing I will point out about fan support. There was a lot of chatter about fans leaving the NFL when the players were kneeling. I had a number of friends on social media say they would never watch another NFL game. They have ALL come back..... quietly. Whether baseball has that kind of pull? Who knows.

[Jopal78]

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.

 

Not true. ‘95 was a down year across baseball. In 1997 the Brewers paid attendance eclipsed what it was in ‘93. They weren’t even competitive, the Yankees were down in ‘95 and better than ever onward.

 

People may have grumbled and said they were through with baseball but didn’t really back up their words with deeds for very long.

[Joseph Zarr]

I miss baseball. I miss Brewers baseball. And, that is all I have to say.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They just assume the fans will come back.

 

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

 

I am seriously probably out if this drags on for 1/3 of the season. I've already decided I am done as a SSH. I'm just sick of doing this every 3 years, and I'm already dreading whatever stupid plan the Brewers execute for refunds for missed games. I just want my money back for the whole season, today. I'm out.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Whether baseball has that kind of pull? Who knows.

 

It does not. I don't think baseball will evaporate, but it is not the same animal that football is. The NFL is in this country's DNA.

[Jopal78]

Whether baseball has that kind of pull? Who knows.

 

It does not. I don't think baseball will evaporate, but it is not the same animal that football is. The NFL is in this country's DNA.

 

I wouldn’t underestimate baseball like that. The difference is gambling and marketing. It’s easy to gamble on football, and there are seemingly hundreds of ways to bet on a single game, down to individual players and stats.

 

MLB is terrible at marketing it’s product. I bet almost anyone off the street could name you five NFL players. Baseball has lost its way in marketing its biggest stars beyond people who consumer their product anyways.

 

Then baseball’s own commissioner has acknowledged the product is boring and made it his quest to speed up the game to correct that. It’s unbelievable. People love nostalgia and baseball wants to flush the heritage of their game and the fact the rules are mostly unchanged in the last 100 years. (A footballer from the 1920’s would hardly recognize todays pro-game).

[OldSchoolSnapper]

A large number of people will always watch MLB but the discrepancy between the two is enormous and I don't believe it's as simple as just saying "gambling." It just far more popular in America as a spectator sport. A random October TNF game drew 3x the TV viewers of a LAD/SF playoff game. SNF draws more viewers than a World Series game.

 

Football is violent, we love violence. For every person that loves baseball, there are 10 who think watching it is absolutely brutal. It is just a lot easier for a casual viewer to sit down and watch the Saints vs. Cowboys than a random 1/162 baseball game. People build their Sundays around the NFL. It's just more engrained in today's America than our past time.

[Dean Machine]

14 play-off teams feels like a deal breaker to me. The excitement would be gone from the regular season much like Bucks regular season means nothing this year and I cannot pretend to be excited.

[brewerfan82]

14 play-off teams feels like a deal breaker to me. The excitement would be gone from the regular season much like Bucks regular season means nothing this year and I cannot pretend to be excited.

I like the additional playoff spots. We've had some teams in the past 30 years that having those extra spots would have made the season a lot more exciting and may have given them incentive to add at the deadline when they didn't.

 

Two additional teams getting in per league doesn't seem like it's enough to make the regular season meaningless to too many extra teams. Maybe the Dodgers? But with their organization and resources they're pretty close to that regardless. But on the flipside, the two extra spots could keep a lot of other teams in it longer and for those cities it will definitely generate some excitement.

 

Just make sure the division winners and the teams with the best records in the leagues have advantages built into the playoffs to keep things interesting and fair for the upper echelon teams as well.

[nate82]

Spring training games postponed until March 5th.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-postpones-spring-training-games-until-march-5-with-more-lockout-talks-scheduled-for-monday/

[AZBrewCrew]

College season just started. Anyway what fans fail to realize is that this ha absolutely nothing to do with the fans. This is strictly a business negotiation between employer (MLB) and the union (MLBPA). As much as fans are emotionally attached to a deal getting hammered out,I can assure you it’s low on the consideration list during negotiations.

[torts]

100% welcome more playoff teams. Playoff baseball is the best

[OldSchoolSnapper]

College season just started. Anyway what fans fail to realize is that this ha absolutely nothing to do with the fans. This is strictly a business negotiation between employer (MLB) and the union (MLBPA). As much as fans are emotionally attached to a deal getting hammered out,I can assure you it’s low on the consideration list during negotiations.

 

I think pretty much everyone realizes this?

[jjgott]

 

 

If they didn't lock them out, the players would have went on strike.

 

The stoppage was going to happen one way or the other.

 

I mean, that's probably true but it's still the fact it's the owners that locked the players out. If the owners were smart, they would've offered the players to continue operating under the old CBA for this season while they continued to negotiate and dared the players to strike but instead locked the players out.

 

It's unclear what the owner's end game is unless they really thought they could break the union. They say they want to increase parity however do you really think they are going to bring the hammer down on cheapskate owners?

 

I was going to write out a longer response but then realized Lathund already said I was going to say earlier in the thread.

 

Call the player's greedy all you want, but the owners are the ones that are preventing baseball from starting and frankly should not have any sort of sympathy when it comes to these negotiations going nowhere.

Edited February 19, 2022 by jjgott

[TURBO]

Both sides assume guilt here...

 

You can argue for one side or the other, but the greed on both sides is sickening.

 

Soto turns down 350 million, think about that, 350 million.

 

Talk about selfishness. The more they pay one guy, the less they can pay the rest of his teammates, making it hard to win as a team. I'm just using him for n example here, but if he wants to win, does he not realize this?

[sveumrules]

When the Nationals won the WS in 2019 they "paid" Strasburg 38.3 million, Scherzer 37.4 million & still had another 120 million left to fill out their roster.

 

13/350 is about 27 million a year.

 

Lerner's net worth is estimated over 5 billion dollars, he can still afford whatever he wants whether he pays Soto 350 million or 500 million.

 

Both sides assume guilt here...

 

Which elements of the owners current proposals do you find more reasonable than the player's most recent proposals?

[MVP2110]

 

 

If they didn't lock them out, the players would have went on strike.

 

The stoppage was going to happen one way or the other.

 

I mean, that's probably true but it's still the fact it's the owners that locked the players out. If the owners were smart, they would've offered the players to continue operating under the old CBA for this season while they continued to negotiate and dared the players to strike but instead locked the players out.

 

It's unclear what the owner's end game is unless they really thought they could break the union. They say they want to increase parity however do you really think they are going to bring the hammer down on cheapskate owners?

 

I was going to write out a longer response but then realized Lathund already said I was going to say earlier in the thread.

 

Call the player's greedy all you want, but the owners are the ones that are preventing baseball from starting and frankly should not have any sort of sympathy when it comes to these negotiations going nowhere.

 

This isn't actually true. The owners locking the players out now probably will save us a majority of the regular season. If the owners didn't lock out the players then the players almost assuredly strike in the middle of a pennant race similar to what they did in 94 and then we'd lose an entire set of playoffs. I think it's quite clear the players are the ones unhappy with the current CBA, the owners just locked them out now so the players couldn't strike with maximum leverage(the middle of a pennant race)

Edited February 19, 2022 by MVP2110

[Pugger]

Both sides assume guilt here...

 

You can argue for one side or the other, but the greed on both sides is sickening.

 

Soto turns down 350 million, think about that, 350 million.

 

Talk about selfishness. The more they pay one guy, the less they can pay the rest of his teammates, making it hard to win as a team. I'm just using him for n example here, but if he wants to win, does he not realize this?

 

Yes, but there is no reason to not have ST while the 2 sides fight over the spoils. It was the owners that locked them out, not the players.

[sveumrules]

If the owners hadn't locked out the players, the offseason & eventually the regular season would have proceeded as normal, just without a CBA in place. That's what happened in 1994 anyway.

 

The owners didn't want this for two main reasons. One is the salary cap, errrr I mean the "luxury tax". Had the owners not locked out the players, there would be no mechanism in place to limit spending with the CBA expired.

 

The other is leverage. If the season had continued while negotiations were ongoing the players could choose to strike prior to the postseason, where the owners receive a much larger percentage of revenues compared to the early season games they stand to lose by initiating a lockout instead.

 

I'm still waiting to hear which elements of the owners proposals posters find more reasonable or better suited for the future of the game when compared to those same elements of the players proposals.

[MVP2110]

If the owners hadn't locked out the players, the offseason & eventually the regular season would have proceeded as normal, just without a CBA in place. That's what happened in 1994 anyway.

 

The owners didn't want this for two main reasons. One is the salary cap, errrr I mean the "luxury tax". Had the owners not locked out the players, there would be no mechanism in place to limit spending with the CBA expired.

 

The other is leverage. If the season had continued while negotiations were ongoing the players could choose to strike prior to the postseason, where the owners receive a much larger percentage of revenues compared to the early season games they stand to lose by initiating a lockout instead.

 

I'm still waiting to hear which elements of the owners proposals posters find more reasonable or better suited for the future of the game when compared to those same elements of the players proposals.

 

Exactly, the season would have proceeded as normal until the players decided to strike in the middle of a pennant race.

 

I'm not pro owner or pro player, I want whatever is going to help the Brewers have the best chance at winning. However alot of those things tend to be pro owner(CBT, Expanded Playoffs, International Draft, etc.) I am actually curious, what are the players proposing that would help small markets have a better chance?

[nate82]

If the owners hadn't locked out the players, the offseason & eventually the regular season would have proceeded as normal, just without a CBA in place. That's what happened in 1994 anyway.

 

The owners didn't want this for two main reasons. One is the salary cap, errrr I mean the "luxury tax". Had the owners not locked out the players, there would be no mechanism in place to limit spending with the CBA expired.

 

The other is leverage. If the season had continued while negotiations were ongoing the players could choose to strike prior to the postseason, where the owners receive a much larger percentage of revenues compared to the early season games they stand to lose by initiating a lockout instead.

 

I'm still waiting to hear which elements of the owners proposals posters find more reasonable or better suited for the future of the game when compared to those same elements of the players proposals.

 

Exactly the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and other teams could have spent whatever they wanted this off season if the lockout wouldn't have happened. The gap between the small market teams payroll and the large market teams would have grown. The large market teams basically would have also received a free reset on the tax for this season and if the large market teams wouldn't have spent the union would have been calling it collusion.

 

The only proposal that I have liked from the owners was the $100m salary floor. But the owners never released or mentioned what would happen if a team goes below that floor so that was an auto reject from the players. If the two sides could come together and combine a tax around $220m and a floor around $100m I think that would be a perfect solution it basically creates a salary cap but allows teams to go over it.

 

If a team is below the $100m salary floor they lose their 1st round pick and it is included in the lottery. If a team is a large market team and they are below the $100m salary floor by the end of the season they forfeit their 1st round pick and pay a tax of 40% which will escalate to 120% of the minimum salary which is then split 50-50 between the small market teams and a pool for the players who are pre-arbitration eligible. This solves the pre-arbitration issue and pays those players more potentially and also solves the tanking issue. Small market teams forfeit their 2nd round pick for the first and second year they are under the salary floor and after the second year they forfeit their 1st round pick and competitive balance picks. This will push teams to actually compete and not just give up half way through the season. This would obviously mean that the playoffs would have to expand and I think a total of 14 teams would be fine maybe reduce down to 12 but I think 14 would be ok.