MLB Talks ... latest news

[Vanimal46]

2 hours ago, umterp23 said:

Interesting article on SI.com about what is at stake for baseball long term.  Long read but worth the time.  

https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/02/22/baseballs-greatest-threat

 

I agree with the premise of the article but have some disagreements about it. I don’t think improving pace of play from the current 3 hours 11 minutes is going to bring in a new wave of fans.

There’s nothing baseball can do to change the fundamental nature of the game. A player will always throw a ball to another player holding a bat, with the batter attempting to put the ball in play. You either like the game or you don’t. 2019 with the super juiced baseball and loads of home runs didn’t do much to change that. Why would people be suddenly interested in where players are lined up on the field, or how quickly a pitcher gets ready in between pitches, if they didn’t like the sport before? I have no interest in boxing, never will. They’re not going to hook me in by having fewer rounds in a fight; or time in between rounds. 

Where baseball really misses the ball is accessibility. They’ve made it really easy to be out of sight, out of mind. It’s been what, 2 years since they stopped negotiating with streaming services YouTube TV, Hulu, and Sling? If cord cutters aren’t baseball fans, they’re not going to go out of their way to get cable again. Or even stream it illegally. 

Baseball relies heavily on outdated revenue streams… Cable TV deals, tickets/merchandise, and some streaming options. They rely heavily on regional interest, and barely scrape the surface for National exposure. That’s holding them back from modernizing the sport… Not where players are lined up on the field, or a pitch clock. Those are just aesthetics for existing fans. 

[Vanimal46]

20 minutes ago, Prince William said:

The money is made in arbitration. Perhaps you might  want to read up on that process. What will the union drop, shorter length of time for arbitration.  Prove your 50% claim.  On the Twins 55% of the IP were not pre arb. 61% of the PA were not pre arb players.  From my perspective, considering the weakness of the Twins with injuries and ineffectiveness, it is unlikely your statistic would match the reality

“The minimum salary is of course a big deal to a very large swath of the union, as players on the minimum accounted for about 47% of all service time in 2021, though they took home just 7.5% of the total pay.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/even-with-face-to-face-meetings-a-new-cba-isnt-getting-much-closer/

[Mike Sixel]

28 minutes ago, Prince William said:

The money is made in arbitration. Perhaps you might  want to read up on that process. What will the union drop, shorter length of time for arbitration.  Prove your 50% claim.  On the Twins 55% of the IP were not pre arb. 61% of the PA were not pre arb players.  From my perspective, considering the weakness of the Twins with injuries and ineffectiveness, it is unlikely your statistic would match the reality

I suggest you follow this person: He has the data and facts, and reports what the union is asking for.

 

[Prince William]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

I suggest you follow this person: He has the data and facts, and reports what the union is asking for.

 

Twitter as a source? I suppose it is a step up from wiki 

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, Prince William said:

Twitter as a source? I suppose it is a step up from wiki 

He's a legit writer. Where can you prove it is wrong? 

Or, go to Fangraphs, where they say last year was over 45%......

[Prince William]

15 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

“The minimum salary is of course a big deal to a very large swath of the union, as players on the minimum accounted for about 47% of all service time in 2021, though they took home just 7.5% of the total pay.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/even-with-face-to-face-meetings-a-new-cba-isnt-getting-much-closer/

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the minimum is important to a large swath. It still doesn't mean in the end, that is where the union will give up the most concessions 

[Prince William]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

He's a legit writer. Where can you prove it is wrong? 

Or, go to Fangraphs, where they say last year was over 45%......

I am not the one making any claims on the numbers, you initiated  it. Show the work

[Vanimal46]

I’m sure we all knew this but the point is emphasized today. 

Doesn’t sound promising. 

[Prince William]

8 hours ago, Squirrel said:

The players didn't have any leverage in the off-season, imo. Teams not being able to complete their transactions was equally problematic for both sides. Besides, the owners locked them out. The lockout was a lose-lose, imo, and has been nothing more than a strong-arm tactic by ownership meant to 'scare' the players into negotiating the way the owners wanted. It didn't work. And the owners more than the players are dragging their feet in this. Again, imo.

I'm not sure when the paychecks start coming ... maybe someone could tell me? ... in ST? Or when the regular season starts? But from what I've heard, the players and the union have quite a 'war chest' built up, so we'll see. I don't think either side really has any leverage at this point. We'll see come Apr. 1 (if they don't have it done by then). Although I think the owners care less than the players and are willing to hold out longer because they can. It's just hard to know.

Checks start when the season starts. I read somewhere recently that the union has be pooling the licensing money for a few years for a strike fund. 110 million was the number in their fund as I might faultily recall.  110 million is a very large number .It is tiny when split 1200 ways compared to say 4.5 billion split 1200 ways

[Brock Beauchamp]

The thing is, he’s not wrong. The players are not blameless here but his timeline is accurate. Owners very intentionally ignored the situation for as long as possible, then set a hard deadline, and now are threatening to shorten the season… all while making very few concessions and negotiating half-heartedly, at best.

Remember, the players are willing to play right now. The owners locked them out.

If baseball fandom wants a full season and the lockout to end, baseball fandom needs to be raking the owners over the coals, not defending them. 

[wsnydes]

10 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The thing is, he’s not wrong. The players are not blameless here but his timeline is accurate. Owners very intentionally ignored the situation for as long as possible, then set a hard deadline, and now are threatening to shorten the season… all while making very few concessions and negotiating half-heartedly, at best.

Remember, the players are willing to play right now. The owners locked them out.

If baseball fandom wants a full season and the lockout to end, baseball fandom needs to be raking the owners over the coals, not defending them. 

Agreed, he's not wrong.  This goes back to the importance of leverage early on.  Locking the players out gave the owners the upper hand from the start.

This was very likely the intent the whole time.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The thing is, he’s not wrong. The players are not blameless here but his timeline is accurate. Owners very intentionally ignored the situation for as long as possible, then set a hard deadline, and now are threatening to shorten the season… all while making very few concessions and negotiating half-heartedly, at best.

Remember, the players are willing to play right now. The owners locked them out.

If baseball fandom wants a full season and the lockout to end, baseball fandom needs to be raking the owners over the coals, not defending them. 

It’s the owners’ attempt at winning in PR/media. Funny how they gave a hard deadline in 10 days knowing full well there was a ton of work to do. Next up is blaming MLBPA for every missed game, then saying 60 games take it or leave it. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

26 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

It’s the owners’ attempt at winning in PR/media. Funny how they gave a hard deadline in 10 days knowing full well there was a ton of work to do. Next up is blaming MLBPA for every missed game, then saying 60 games take it or leave it. 

Exactly. Many of us have been complaining about these circumstances and ploys for a couple of months, don’t fall for what owners are selling right now. This is very intentional to squeeze the players and make them look bad when it’s actually the owners that are steering the ship in this situation; they instituted the lockout, they didn’t negotiate for 45 days, they’re the ones making incremental offers at the eleventh hour while simultaneously setting hard deadlines.

If the season is delayed, be sure to allocate blame in the right direction and that is at MLB ownership. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

And here’s something else to keep in mind for everyone reading: Rob Manfred is not the commissioner of baseball because he’s an avid fan or an advocate of the sport. He’s the commissioner of baseball because he made a career out of being a vehemently anti-labor attorney who could put the screws to the players.

If you’re cheering on the owners right now, you’re cheering on the black hats. There may be no white hats in this fight but there are definitely black hats. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

@yeahyabetcha gave me an “incorrect” reaction to my post.

Well, okay, tell me how I’m incorrect. You have the floor.

[yeahyabetcha]

9 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

@yeahyabetcha gave me an “incorrect” reaction to my post.

Well, okay, tell me how I’m incorrect. You have the floor.

You state the players should share the blame, but then place 99.9 of it on the owner’s.  You have anti owner bias, own it.

The tactic of locking out the players is just that.  The owners did not want to see a strike later this summer and without an agreement, the players likely would have gone on strike mid season.

Every topic of the labor discussions have been a gain for the players.  No paycut has ever been discussed.  It has always started with the players are getting a raise, the disagreement has been how much of a raise are they getting.  The players are giving up nothing.  So any statement that the owners are not negotiating in good faith seems misguided and unproductive.

[Brock Beauchamp]

57 minutes ago, yeahyabetcha said:

You state the players should share the blame, but then place 99.9 of it on the owner’s.  You have anti owner bias, own it.

The tactic of locking out the players is just that.  The owners did not want to see a strike later this summer and without an agreement, the players likely would have gone on strike mid season.

Every topic of the labor discussions have been a gain for the players.  No paycut has ever been discussed.  It has always started with the players are getting a raise, the disagreement has been how much of a raise are they getting.  The players are giving up nothing.  So any statement that the owners are not negotiating in good faith seems misguided and unproductive.

First, I've been quite open about how much I dislike the MLBPA's abuse of minor leaguers and how much I dislike their push for fighting against the cap instead of pushing for a salary floor.

But I'm not spending a lot of time complaining about the lesser of two evils when one side is so obviously manipulating the game for their own benefit while we all sit here without baseball. If someone is punching me in the face, I'm not going to spend a lot of time complaining about the guy standing behind him, hurling insults.

And you're wrong that the owners haven't proposed pay cuts. Their CBT threshold proposals were often below inflation. That's a pay cut. They proposed linking the loss of a draft pick to the CBT. That's a pay cut. I'm sure there were others, I'm just not remembering them off the top of my head.

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

It’s the owners’ attempt at winning in PR/media.

They own quite a bit of that media so they're pretty sure their spin will make the papers.

[yeahyabetcha]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

First, I've been quite open about how much I dislike the MLBPA's abuse of minor leaguers and how much I dislike their push for fighting against the cap instead of pushing for a salary floor.

But I'm not spending a lot of time complaining about the lesser of two evils when one side is so obviously manipulating the game for their own benefit while we all sit here without baseball. If someone is punching me in the face, I'm not going to spend a lot of time complaining about the guy standing behind him, hurling insults.

And you're wrong that the owners haven't proposed pay cuts. Their CBT threshold proposals were often below inflation. That's a pay cut. They proposed linking the loss of a draft pick to the CBT. That's a pay cut. I'm sure there were others, I'm just not remembering them off the top of my head.

Do you propose MLB just cave on all of the unions proposals and accept their offer as is?

[TwinsDr2021]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

First, I've been quite open about how much I dislike the MLBPA's abuse of minor leaguers and how much I dislike their push for fighting against the cap instead of pushing for a salary floor.

But I'm not spending a lot of time complaining about the lesser of two evils when one side is so obviously manipulating the game for their own benefit while we all sit here without baseball. If someone is punching me in the face, I'm not going to spend a lot of time complaining about the guy standing behind him, hurling insults.

And you're wrong that the owners haven't proposed pay cuts. Their CBT threshold proposals were often below inflation. That's a pay cut. They proposed linking the loss of a draft pick to the CBT. That's a pay cut. I'm sure there were others, I'm just not remembering them off the top of my head.

Sadly this is how labor disputes work, the side paying has to offer less or maybe the same and the side getting paid as to ask for more, And hopefully both sides give and take a little.  If the side paying starts by offering more it wouldn't take to many negotiations in the future to end paying more than they take in, because the side getting paid will never stop asking for more.

This isn't much different than teachers union in MPLS and St. Paul now. If the taxes payers cave to all the union demands, do you think the union won't continue to ask for more each and every time the contract comes due from the tax payers? (FYI I am not saying this to get off topic or take a side, just using it as a example of both sides in a labor dispute have to work)

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, yeahyabetcha said:

Do you propose MLB just cave on all of the unions proposals and accept their offer as is?

Where have I said anything of the sort? The post you reacted to was specifically about how the owners stalled and dragged their feet and are now threatening to shorten the season. Had the owners not locked the players out and then gone radio silent for 45 days, maybe the two sides would be close enough that a deal could be reached and we’d be watching baseball.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

This isn't much different than teachers union in MPLS and St. Paul now. If the taxes payers cave to all the union demands, do you think the union won't continue to ask for more each and every time the contract comes due from the tax payers? (FYI I am not saying this to get off topic or take a side, just using it as a example of both sides in a labor dispute have to work)

Well, if that happens for 20 consecutive years maybe their compensation might approach "fair".  So....sure!

The owners are not entitled to cave to every demand, but they've set the stage for intractable negotiations.  The fact, then, that the negotiations have had zero traction is on them.  

[Unwinder]

I assume they must be waiting for the lockout to end before announcing anything about the in-market streaming service they promised last year? Seems like a bad time to sell subscriptions if paying customers could be losing games.

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

I assume they must be waiting for the lockout to end before announcing anything about the in-market streaming service they promised last year? Seems like a bad time to sell subscriptions if paying customers could be losing games.

I don’t think that service is going to happen. Last I read, Sinclair was running into all sorts of licensing problems and a path forward was going to be difficult.

While I dislike Sinclair enormously, not launching that streaming service is a real blow to consumers. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, so Sinclair has made significant progress. That’s good.

The bad? They’re not launching with the Twins.

FFS.

http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/sinclair/the-rays-are-the-latest-team-to-sign-up-for-sinclairs-direct-streaming-package.html

[Vanimal46]

Sorry, don’t see it getting done by Monday with these updates. 

[yeahyabetcha]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Where have I said anything of the sort? The post you reacted to was specifically about how the owners stalled and dragged their feet and are now threatening to shorten the season. Had the owners not locked the players out and then gone radio silent for 45 days, maybe the two sides would be close enough that a deal could be reached and we’d be watching baseball.

The negotiations could have started a year ago and it may not have helped it to settle any sooner.  It likely won’t end until both sides have to feel some pain.

And again, the tactic to lock out the players was probably a wise move by the owners to take away the possibility of a mid season strike.

Mediation was offered to players and rejected.  Might that not have helped speed up the process 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, yeahyabetcha said:

The negotiations could have started a year ago and it may not have helped it to settle any sooner.  It likely won’t end until both sides have to feel some pain.

And again, the tactic to lock out the players was probably a wise move by the owners to take away the possibility of a mid season strike.

Mediation was offered to players and rejected.  Might that not have helped speed up the process 

Offering mediation that was bound to be rejected is not a serious offer.  It had about as much value as offering them a unicorn.

[yeahyabetcha]

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Offering mediation that was bound to be rejected is not a serious offer.  It had about as much value as offering them a unicorn.

It says a lot when getting the opinion of an independent, impartial third party is not considered a serious offer

[wsnydes]

31 minutes ago, yeahyabetcha said:

It says a lot when getting the opinion of an independent, impartial third party is not considered a serious offer

It also says a lot when said third party is offered before any meaningful negotiations between the two primary parties have been had.  It was offered 2 months after the players were locked out.  No negotiations occurred for 6 weeks.  Then mediation was offered in lieu of a counterproposal that was said to be coming just two days prior.

Given how far apart the two sides were from the start, a person doesn't even have to take sides in this to see that bringing in a mediator two weeks into meaningful negotiations is premature.  They were just getting started.