Poll: Lockout and potential viewing habit changes

[wsnydes]

Now that the lockout is official, what sort of impact, if any, will it have on your baseball viewing habits if games are impacted?  What are some factors that play into that decision?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

For reference

[old nurse]

Nobody wins in the end when games are impacted. Habits change. 

[wsnydes]

10 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Nobody wins in the end when games are impacted. Habits change. 

Definitely.  But how do you think your habits will change?

[theBOMisthebomb]

Losing fans in this type of scenario is a reality. My brother left baseball fandom in 1994 and I've rarely heard him mention the game since.

[luckylager]

I don't understand the question. If the lockout extends into the season how could one watch more games?

[wsnydes]

5 minutes ago, luckylager said:

I don't understand the question. If the lockout extends into the season how could one watch more games?

If you already watch every game played by every team, I can see where this would be a problem! 

[Vanimal46]

Depends how long it extends into the regular season. As much as I’d like to see 0 games missed, there is a lot that needs to change for the betterment of the sport. 

I’m sure Manfred will delay and distract as long as possible to keep status quo. I’d rather lose the season if it resulted in much needed changes like re-allocating money to players earlier, improve pace of play, salary cap/floor, and other things I’m forgetting at the moment. 

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Depends how long it extends into the regular season. As much as I’d like to see 0 games missed, there is a lot that needs to change for the betterment of the sport. 

I’m sure Manfred will delay and distract as long as possible to keep status quo. I’d rather lose the season if it resulted in much needed changes like re-allocating money to players earlier, improve pace of play, salary cap/floor, and other things I’m forgetting at the moment. 

I agree and that's what I'm afraid of too.  Negotiations to this point didn't really seem all that productive, so I don't see this ending anytime soon.  

My other fear is that whatever does come out of it, won't necessarily help the betterment of the sport as much as it needs too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If games are lost, that means this lockout would last at least 2.5 months. (And maybe 3+ months to impact regular season games?)

I don't know if I'd be any less of a fan in the long run, but that would be a disappointing outcome.

[nicksaviking]

Probably depends on the results of the lock out more than the timing. If the players somehow loose ground, I'll not be happy. If the small market teams acquiesce to the large market teams again, I'll be even more unhappy.

This flat out lie from Manfred has me most worried:

 “came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise” and “never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.”

There is no way those things were specifically asked for by the players except for the length of time players are controlled. Manfred is already setting the table for all the concessions to the players to be to the detriment of the non-large market clubs. He didn't mention the players wanting to increase the luxury cap tax, nor a salary floor. 

[IndianaTwin]

Channeling (see what I did there?) my inner Yogi, if there aren't any games, I won't watch 'em. 

[Squirrel]

I will probably watch way less because I don't think i will get an MLB subscription next year (I'm out of market), nor go to many (if any) games live. I just can't continue to support the MLB and the owners with my hard-earned money while they do their best to ruin the product on the field. But ... that still depends on what results come of this. Lockouts are pettiness of those in power. They are very different from strikes. Very.

[DJL44]

I already can't watch MLB on my TV at home except for the random game on Hulu. No change for me.

[Squirrel]

59 minutes ago, Dman said:

This pretty much sums it up for me.  If they had any kind of prolonged strike it will hurt the players in the end.  It took me quite  a while to come back to baseball after the last prolonged strike so I know if they go that route again it will likely impact me again.  

But to your larger point once baseball isn't available you fill that time with other interests.  As you say once those interests form habits then maybe you never really do come all the way back.  Baseball isn't one of the few pastimes available anymore there are lot's of things that compete for our time and attention.  IMO a work stoppage would damage the sport in a meaningful way.

From what I read though I don't think the players are planning on a strike and if no agreement comes might play under this years rules and try again next year.  A little hard ball isn't necessarily a bad thing but if they lose the season I don't think that will fly.

I'm sort of confused by some of this. Over all, I agree ... a work stoppage isn't going to help anyone. But the players aren't striking, nor will they strike, because they have been locked out. These are two separate things, a lockout vs a strike, not at all the same or for the same reasons. In 1994 it was the players who struck which resulted in a work stoppage. This time, it's the owners who have ... well ... 'struck' ... by instituting a lockout. In this instance, it's the owners saying 'Do it our way or no way, so we're done here' and ended negotiations. And the statement they released was pretty dishonest, imo. I hope, though, that it doesn't come to an actual stoppage of baseball in a few months from now, but it could. It's up to the owners to end the lockout and come back to the bargaining table. It sounds like there may be some communication happening? I could tell for sure. But mostly, this is the owners' attempt at grandstanding. If they do end the lockout, could the players still strike? I suppose? But basically it's the owners who have done so this time.

Depending on the resolution ... will the owners be allowed to continue to ruin the sport or not? ... I'm probably done spending any money on the team. I'll watch what I can from out of market, which isn't much, but I won't buy a subscription to watch MLB games, I won't be spending money on going to games or at games, I won't be buying their products online. I'm done supporting owners amassing wealth at everyone's expense.

 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, Squirrel said:

I'm sort of confused by some of this. Over all, I agree ... a work stoppage isn't going to help anyone. But the players aren't striking, nor will they strike, because they have been locked out. These are two separate things, a lockout vs a strike, not at all the same or for the same reasons. In 1994 it was the players who struck which resulted in a work stoppage. This time, it's the owners who have ... well ... 'struck' ... by instituting a lockout. In this instance, it's the owners saying 'Do it our way or no way, so we're done here' and ended negotiations. And the statement they released was pretty dishonest, imo. I hope, though, that it doesn't come to an actual stoppage of baseball in a few months from now, but it could. It's up to the owners to end the lockout and come back to the bargaining table. It sounds like there may be some communication happening? I could tell for sure. But mostly, this is the owners' attempt at grandstanding. If they do end the lockout, could the players still strike? I suppose? But basically it's the owners who have done so this time.

Depending on the resolution ... will the owners be allowed to continue to ruin the sport or not? ... I'm probably done spending any money on the team. I'll watch what I can from out of market, which isn't much, but I won't buy a subscription to watch MLB games, I won't be spending money on going to games or at games, I won't be buying their products online. I'm done supporting owners amassing wealth at everyone's expense.

 

I guess I am misunderstanding.  Sorry.  I guess I thought a lockout only lasted so long but it really is a matter of who goes first. Players or Owners.  So yes what I had to say is confusing.  I mainly meant that any stoppage over a full season would make it tough to come back that was the gist of my rant. 

[Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, Dman said:

I guess I am misunderstanding.  Sorry.  I guess I thought a lockout only lasted so long but it really is a matter of who goes first. Players or Owners.  So yes what I had to say is confusing.  I mainly meant that any stoppage over a full season would make it tough to come back that was the gist of my rant. 

Yeah ... that's basically what I thought and was in agreement with ... a stoppage will hurt, no matter who stopped it.

But, a lockout is ownership's/management's version of a strike. And it can last however long they want it to. It's up to them to end it, and only them. And put it this way ... and maybe this is my 'jaded' viewpoint ... they have less reason to really care. They have their money, they've shown they don't really care about the sport except for what they can make from it, so ... they have no incentive to end it. They hold the cards, so to speak, and they will hold them until they bleed. So they can reap more rewards because they know the players will want to play. They will keep the lockout in tact until the players acquiesce. I'm not even sure what a compromise would look like in this instance, but, in any negotiation (if a true negotiation resumes), for it to be a true compromise, neither side will completely like it or hate it, but they will be happy to be back to work. (In my experience as a union person who has been through several contract negotiations in my lifetime.)

[Vanimal46]

The owners did a fine job setting up the players to be the villain. MLBPA leaders Max Scherzer and Corey Seager both got massive contracts, so the owners will say see? We’re doing our part. Let’s keep things as is. 

[Squirrel]

9 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

The owners did a fine job setting up the players to be the villain. MLBPA leaders Max Scherzer and Corey Seager both got massive contracts, so the owners will say see? We’re doing our part. Let’s keep things as is. 

Yep ... there was premeditation in all of this. There always is in a lockout. And perhaps the teams who made the biggest splashes are the ones leading the charge? I do wonder. I mean, could it be baseball's moment of 'insider trading'? Although, we have known that a lockout was going to happen for some time, but you don't really know for sure until it's for sure.

[Dman]

16 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Yeah ... that's basically what I thought and was in agreement with ... a stoppage will hurt, no matter who stopped it.

But, a lockout is ownership's/management's version of a strike. And it can last however long they want it to. It's up to them to end it, and only them. And put it this way ... and maybe this is my 'jaded' viewpoint ... they have less reason to really care. They have their money, they've shown they don't really care about the sport except for what they can make from it, so ... they have no incentive to end it. They hold the cards, so to speak, and they will hold them until they bleed. So they can reap more rewards because they know the players will want to play. They will keep the lockout in tact until the players acquiesce. I'm not even sure what a compromise would look like in this instance, but, in any negotiation (if a true negotiation resumes), for it to be a true compromise, neither side will completely like it or hate it, but they will be happy to be back to work. (In my experience as a union person who has been through several contract negotiations in my lifetime.)

That is an interesting viewpoint for me having no real life experience on this issue.  I guess I never thought about the fact that owners don't have to start the sport up again.  You are right they are billionaires and will be fine no matter what.  So that is quite a bit of power they hold.  

I think the hard part about this for me is how much are the owners really making?  We have Oakland and Tampa with very low payrolls and no owner wants to supplement another owner so there have to be limits to what the owners are making.  Whether that is too much or too little is hard to say since we don't get to see the books.  However,  all indications are they all are doing well as all teams are in tact and there is no contraction talk.  There is no sport with exception of maybe Soccer where players make more money so baseball players do quite well.  I certainly think the players deserve their fair share and should have more power to market their skills at a younger age but it is hard to know what that should look like.

 

[Squirrel]

8 minutes ago, Dman said:

That is an interesting viewpoint for me having no real life experience on this issue.  I guess I never thought about the fact that owners don't have to start the sport up again.  You are right they are billionaires and will be fine no matter what.  So that is quite a bit of power they hold.  

I think the hard part about this for me is how much are the owners really making?  We have Oakland and Tampa with very low payrolls and no owner wants to supplement another owner so there have to be limits to what the owners are making.  Whether that is too much or too little is hard to say since we don't get to see the books.  However,  all indications are they all are doing well as all teams are in tact and there is no contraction talk.  There is no sport with exception of maybe Soccer where players make more money so baseball players do quite well.  I certainly think the players deserve their fair share and should have more power to market their skills at a younger age but it is hard to know what that should look like.

 

Yeah ... we don't know what they make or don't make. But I found it ... telling ... that when negotiations were happening in 2020 to get a short season going, they refused to truly open the books in trying to work out some options there. If it weren't profitable, they would sell and get out of it. But ... how profitable is it? I would guess some owners aren't as concerned at the profit margins as others, but some will always want to squeeze out every last bit they can, at the detriment to the sport and it's participants and fans. And, to be clear, I don't think all the owners are like this, but I don't really know. I'm only experienced on the labor side of these issues, so I know what gets said, and how you can manipulate the money to show what you want it to, and it's always difficult for me to be completely objective, but I do think, in this case, the owners have been setting this up for a long time. And for the good of no one but themselves.

[chpettit19]

If it goes significantly into the season I'm quite sure my habits will change and I'll stop putting aside any time to watch baseball. If it's on and I'm not doing anything I'll turn it on, but I wouldn't follow it like I do now by any means. 2020 already changed my habits some and I watched fewer games this year than ever. 

If they come out of this with systems in place to better balance the competition in the game and give every team a better chance at sustained success (not just a 3-5 year window if you get a wave of prospects that all succeed) I'd be more likely to come back even with missed games. I've worked in baseball and have had an MLB.tv account for years. But the changes to the game (3 true outcomes, it feeling like a minute between each pitch, etc.) have made it less entertaining, the shortened season provided me a natural chance to get into other hobbies during the summer months, and possible missed games while billionaires argue with millionaires it'd be hard for me to come back on any sort of dedicated regularity.

[Dman]

12 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Yeah ... we don't know what they make or don't make. But I found it ... telling ... that when negotiations were happening in 2020 to get a short season going, they refused to truly open the books in trying to work out some options there. If it weren't profitable, they would sell and get out of it. But ... how profitable is it? I would guess some owners aren't as concerned at the profit margins as others, but some will always want to squeeze out every last bit they can, at the detriment to the sport and it's participants and fans. And, to be clear, I don't think all the owners are like this, but I don't really know. I'm only experienced on the labor side of these issues, so I know what gets said, and how you can manipulate the money to show what you want it to, and it's always difficult for me to be completely objective, but I do think, in this case, the owners have been setting this up for a long time. And for the good of no one but themselves.

Yeah I hear you on the manipulating money to show what you want part. 

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, wsnydes said:

Definitely.  But how do you think your habits will change?

No

[Vanimal46]

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If it goes significantly into the season I'm quite sure my habits will change and I'll stop putting aside any time to watch baseball. If it's on and I'm not doing anything I'll turn it on, but I wouldn't follow it like I do now by any means. 2020 already changed my habits some and I watched fewer games this year than ever. 

If they come out of this with systems in place to better balance the competition in the game and give every team a better chance at sustained success (not just a 3-5 year window if you get a wave of prospects that all succeed) I'd be more likely to come back even with missed games. I've worked in baseball and have had an MLB.tv account for years. But with the changes to the game (3 true outcomes, it feeling like a minute between each pitch, etc.) have made it less entertaining, the shortened season provided me a natural chance to get into other hobbies during the summer months, and possible missed games while billionaires argue with millionaires it'd be hard for me to come back on any sort of dedicated regularity.

Personally, my viewing habits for the sports I like is heavily dependent on how my favorite team is doing. If the Twins, Vikings, or Wild are good, I’m invested. The Twins were not good last year and traded one of my favorite players in Jose Berrios. So I checked out for a majority of the season. I appreciate the diehards who stick it out good or bad. That’s not me. 

The 2020 negotiations in baseball ticked me off. The players were ready to play, and Manfred pushed the owner’s agenda to only play 60 games. That must be the mark where all owners are still making profit. My fear is they’ll do the same thing this time around. Just to put pressure on the players to cave and stick with status quo. 

[bean5302]

I wonder how the cable networks and their agreement with baseball work in regard to lockouts? In any case, I don't think there will be lost games. Baseball can't afford it. Players or owners.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Personally, my viewing habits for the sports I like is heavily dependent on how my favorite team is doing. If the Twins, Vikings, or Wild are good, I’m invested. The Twins were not good last year and traded one of my favorite players in Jose Berrios. So I checked out for a majority of the season. I appreciate the diehards who stick it out good or bad. That’s not me. 

The 2020 negotiations in baseball ticked me off. The players were ready to play, and Manfred pushed the owner’s agenda to only play 60 games. That must be the mark where all owners are still making profit. My fear is they’ll do the same thing this time around. Just to put pressure on the players to cave and stick with status quo. 

My favorite teams being good certainly helps things! I'm more into the game themselves, and the theories/strategies to team building/management/in game strategy than specific teams so I pay attention more than most. That may just be my trauma response to being a MN sports team, though. Actually, it's 100% a response to being a MN sports fan.

My understanding is the MLBPA has been building a pool of money for years now in preparation for lost games this year to be able to help support players if they weren't getting paychecks. Once the regular season gets into view and the players can threaten a strike of their own they get a little leverage back. I'm guessing we see no real movement until January or February.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

The owners did a fine job setting up the players to be the villain. MLBPA leaders Max Scherzer and Corey Seager both got massive contracts, so the owners will say see? We’re doing our part. Let’s keep things as is. 

The owners would have had a stronger argument of one of the mid or small market teams stepped up to sign one of them though.

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I wonder how the cable networks and their agreement with baseball work in regard to lockouts? In any case, I don't think there will be lost games. Baseball can't afford it. Players or owners.

Are we sure the players and owners truly understand they can't afford missed games?

[bean5302]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

Are we sure the players and owners truly understand they can't afford missed games?

That is the question, indeed. I think owners are pretty disconnected from what happened in 1994 and they've been used to bulldozing players in recent CBAs. The players? Many weren't even born yet in 1994 haha. Even a short strike would be catastrophic as the public will sour on out of touch crybaby millionaires and billionaires who wouldn't play nice to split up their vast wealth between each other. 

Even the loss of spring training will turn a lot of fans against both players and owners.