What Happens if the MLB Season Gets Delayed?

[roger]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

Great comment, all very fair. I didn't mean to imply that one side is totally at fault overall, although obviously I'm much more sympathetic to the players.

My point was this: owners initiated the lockout. Owners waited 6 weeks to engage in any kind of negotiations. Owners claimed they were going to submit a new proposal and didn't, then said they want to bring in a mediator. It's all just terrible optics for the billionaire class charged with overseeing this great game. 

As far as the fundamentally unfair ground rules, this graphic sorta says it all to me: 

There could be a few problems using average, Nick.  A few teams that have seen their local tv revenues go thru the roof will skewer this graph.  Could be a few or even lots of teams that have a curve more similar to the blue and gold lines.  Got a feeling the Twins, and most of the Central Division, would be among them.

[Riverbrian]

Typical behavior from big boys sitting across from each other at the big boy table, fighting over what us little guys provide them. Ultimately... both teams are using us little guys as leverage, fighting over what we provide them (Money).

The little guys who provide the revenue will care if the season doesn't start on time so you better cave with whatever proposal before it's too late. Whatever proposal they agree with, will not improve our experience... just simply provide the same experience we had before.

The threat of our not having an experience at all are the bullets they are both using in their guns. 

Personally, I'd appreciate it if they would stop using me as a gun against each other and I think it would be wonderful if the whole bunch of us little guys simply stopped falling prey to the court of public opinion marketing and just stopped picking sides like it matters, stopped joining a team like we are in the room privy to the detail, but... we all know there is no chance of that happening. They suck us in and we willing allow ourselves to be sucked in.

Is Pawndom a word? It should be... we are willing pawns in the kingdom every time we raise our pom poms for one side or the other. 

Passionately picking sides in this sort of thing is like passionately choosing a broken left leg or a broken right leg. 

[Brandon]

I consider not starting the season on time a big FU to the fans.  So, I will give them and FU back.  I will not spend money in anyway shape or form for at least a season maybe more.  (only exception is a Twins World Series Appearance) 

[Major League Ready]

The most interesting part of this to me is that I don’t see how any of the demands would change what have much impact on how much the players make over their career if the owners are anywhere near as greedy as fans think.  If teams are paying players $3M more over the first 3 years or $7M more over the first 5, they could easily adjust what they are spend on free agents.   If everyone is convinced it’s pure greed on their part, why would they not just make this adjustment and go on paying out the exact same amount in salary and making exactly the same amount of profit?  

There were 116 players that made $10M or more and there cumulative income was $2.2B.  The top 200 made 2.8B.  Obviously, not all of them were on free agent contracts but even at the 37% raised proposed by player’s amounts to about $60M.  Add the 100M bonus pool and you have $160M.  It would be extremely easy to adjust spending on free agents to nullify that expenditure.  Still think the owners are fighting it because of the financial impact?  You think the owners with MBAs from Harvard have not figured this out?
 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

I consider not starting the season on time a big FU to the fans.

It is more of a giant FU to the sports networks that agreed to pay MLB billions of dollars. ESPN and Bally can't sell ads to games that don't exist. Inevitably I think that is what will settle this. 

I saw today that the Rays are proposing a new stadium that only seats 27,000 fans. That's 15,000 fans fewer than Tropicana and more than 7000 fewer fans than the smallest MLB park (Cleveland). With the next wave of stadiums we're going to see what happens when there aren't any cheap seats.

[LewFordLives]

In reference to the graph above.....One of the problems with all this is that there is not one single owner of MLB, but 30 individual owners, each with their own financial situation. Some owners are doing really well, and others maybe not so much, especially in the last couple years with all the COVID restrictions. Keeping everyone happy is going to take a David Copperfield-level magic trick.

[Heiny]

To me, this is utter madness.  When was the last CBA signed?  How long has each side had to figure out what they believe is fair and what is not?  Why at this point, have they not figured out what is fair to both sides.  A new CBA should have been hammered out before the previous one ended.  Why can't these ultra rich SOB's ever learn from the past?  SOLUTION:  Continue with the past CBA until they work out a compromise and if not complete by the end of season, call in a federal arbitrator.  Not mediator.   My prediction?  They do whatever they end up doing with no regard to the fans or what is good for baseball.  MLB will continue in a downward spiral until it someday implodes.  Fans will be pissed for quite a while and then start throwing our money back at them.  Then we can do this all over again when super rich isn't enough again.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, Heiny said:

To me, this is utter madness.  When was the last CBA signed?  How long has each side had to figure out what they believe is fair and what is not?  Why at this point, have they not figured out what is fair to both sides.  A new CBA should have been hammered out before the previous one ended.  Why can't these ultra rich SOB's ever learn from the past?  SOLUTION:  Continue with the past CBA until they work out a compromise and if not complete by the end of season, call in a federal arbitrator.  Not mediator.   My prediction?  They do whatever they end up doing with no regard to the fans or what is good for baseball.  MLB will continue in a downward spiral until it someday implodes.  Fans will be pissed for quite a while and then start throwing our money back at them.  Then we can do this all over again when super rich isn't enough again.

The divide between these 2 groups probably started years ago, but got amplified to the max in 2020 when the players wanted to play and the owners dug their heels in on 60 games only. 

Re: continuing with past CBA. They did that in 1994 which resulted in the player’s strike in August, and finishing out the season with replacement players. 

The fans undoubtedly are getting hosed with the negotiations. Both sides are looking at this in a short term lens. 20-30 years from now it wouldn’t surprise me if baseball is viewed the same way boxing is today. A past time that’s been left in the past. 

 

[Major League Ready]

23 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

The divide between these 2 groups probably started years ago, but got amplified to the max in 2020 when the players wanted to play and the owners dug their heels in on 60 games only. 

Re: continuing with past CBA. They did that in 1994 which resulted in the player’s strike in August, and finishing out the season with replacement players. 

The fans undoubtedly are getting hosed with the negotiations. Both sides are looking at this in a short term lens. 20-30 years from now it wouldn’t surprise me if baseball is viewed the same way boxing is today. A past time that’s been left in the past. 

 

How the players handled 2020 changed things for me too.  They went public complaining the owners had agreed to pay pro-rated salaries and now refuse to live up to the agreement.  I was shocked they agreed to this but was still dismayed they were not living up to their word.  Of course, the leaked memo very clearly showed they agreed to pay prorated salaries IF FANS WERE IN ATTENDANCE.   They flat out lied to us and refused to compromise in any manner. So, to paint the owners as the party that dug their heels in is absurd.  The players said don’t tell me about a national pandemic we are not working for a penny less than 100%.  We could have had another 20-25 games had they been willing to compromise.  than playing 60 games.  It’s not as if the owners were making less they were losing money for every game played.

They went public and in the most intentional manner mislead us.  They also did not do much to foster a working relationship when they agreed to work something out of fans were not present and then literally not move 1% while at the same time misleading the public.

[Vanimal46]

23 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How the players handled 2020 changed things for me too.  They went public complaining the owners had agreed to pay pro-rated salaries and now refuse to live up to the agreement.  I was shocked they agreed to this but was still dismayed they were not living up to their word.  Of course, the leaked memo very clearly showed they agreed to pay prorated salaries IF FANS WERE IN ATTENDANCE.   They flat out lied to us and refused to compromise in any manner. So, to paint the owners as the party that dug their heels in is absurd.  The players said don’t tell me about a national pandemic we are not working for a penny less than 100%.  We could have had another 20-25 games had they been willing to compromise.  than playing 60 games.  It’s not as if the owners were making less they were losing money for every game played.

They went public and in the most intentional manner mislead us.  They also did not do much to foster a working relationship when they agreed to work something out of fans were not present and then literally not move 1% while at the same time misleading the public.

Here’s a timeline of the 2020 negotiations. What you’re saying in bold wasn’t the case, nor was it the final resolution to get the season started. They came to the same agreement they had in March 2020- full pro-rated salaries based on games played. They just didn’t want to play more than 50-60 games. Some owners didn’t want a season at all. If owners want to cry poor that they’re losing tons of money, I’d love to see them open up their books. They won’t. 

In regards to the current negotiation, some of the things MLBPA is asking for doesn’t jive with their ultimate goal of improving “competitive balance”. We’ve discussed this in the past and we’re not far off.

- I want to adjust the allocation of available funds so players get paid earlier in their careers.

- I want a salary floor implemented so teams don’t shed their payrolls to $40 million, and eliminate paying jobs for mid-tier veterans (We disagree, that’s okay). 

- I want to see a max contract structure similar to NBA for free agents. 10 year pacts where players are paid $35 million in their age 39 season does no one any good. This is where the hypocrisy of players comes in, because the 0.01% of players who do get those contracts will never give that up. 

[RpR]

During this lock-out can teams send, covertly, people to talk to possible players about joining when it ends?

[TheLeviathan]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:35 AM, Nick Nelson said:

Great comment, all very fair. I didn't mean to imply that one side is totally at fault overall, although obviously I'm much more sympathetic to the players.

My point was this: owners initiated the lockout. Owners waited 6 weeks to engage in any kind of negotiations. Owners claimed they were going to submit a new proposal and didn't, then said they want to bring in a mediator. It's all just terrible optics for the billionaire class charged with overseeing this great game. 

As far as the fundamentally unfair ground rules, this graphic sorta says it all to me: 

This graph is lacking a fourth line: fan apathy.  It might actually give that corporate profiteering line a run for it's money.

I've always been willing to criticize the union (I have no love lost for unions) but this one is mostly on the owners.  The game is broken by them both and I'm just so over it.

Go Wild.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Here’s a timeline of the 2020 negotiations. What you’re saying in bold wasn’t the case, nor was it the final resolution to get the season started. They came to the same agreement they had in March 2020- full pro-rated salaries based on games played. They just didn’t want to play more than 50-60 games. Some owners didn’t want a season at all. If owners want to cry poor that they’re losing tons of money, I’d love to see them open up their books. They won’t. 

In regards to the current negotiation, some of the things MLBPA is asking for doesn’t jive with their ultimate goal of improving “competitive balance”. We’ve discussed this in the past and we’re not far off.

- I want to adjust the allocation of available funds so players get paid earlier in their careers.

- I want a salary floor implemented so teams don’t shed their payrolls to $40 million, and eliminate paying jobs for mid-tier veterans (We disagree, that’s okay). 

- I want to see a max contract structure similar to NBA for free agents. 10 year pacts where players are paid $35 million in their age 39 season does no one any good. This is where the hypocrisy of players comes in, because the 0.01% of players who do get those contracts will never give that up. 

The 10 year pacts can produce situations that are unfair to players who are producing who could be getting that money.  However, these 6+ year deals that go bad nullify some of the spending advantage of big teams.  In other words, they actually help parity so I have no problem with these deals.  The question is would a 5 year max help average revenue teams sign some of these top players.  I am guessing not.  The big revenue teams would offer an AAV that modest revenue teams could not afford.

A floor does absolutely nothing / zero to help low revenue teams put a contender on the field.  It's only benefit is to get really bad teams to hire veterans.  Really great for the players but would anyone here be satisfied if our 61 win team in 2019 would have had 65 wins.  Also , by definition the goal would be to take playing time away from prospects which is not what any of us would want.   As I have said, there is a MUCH better way to use revenue sharing to help low revenue teams.

Players care much more about how much they make over their career than what they earn the first couple years.  They want more pay early only because they believe it will result in them making more in total.  They are working towards hopefully generational wealth but even a bench player is going to make enough to retire at 35 and live very comfortably without ever working another day.  That's there focus.   The reality is the owners could very easily manage their payrolls via how they pay free agents to pay out the exact same amount regardless of what they pay in the first 3 or 4 years.  I would like to see a significant raise in years 1-3 but really ... why do we care if they get paid more early.  What is the benefit to fans?  I particularly dislike the $100M pool because it will pay 3-4% (guess) of players more than all of then other prearb players will make combined even if they get a 35% raise.  Those are the same players that will likely get huge contracts at some point.  Once again it wreaks of Boras.

 

[TheLeviathan]

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The 10 year pacts can produce situations that are unfair to players who are producing who could be getting that money.  However, these 6+ year deals that go bad nullify some of the spending advantage of big teams.  In other words, they actually help parity so I have no problem with these deals.  The question is would a 5 year max help average revenue teams sign some of these top players.  I am guessing not.  The big revenue teams would offer an AAV that modest revenue teams could not afford.

A floor does absolutely nothing / zero to help low revenue teams put a contender on the field.  It's only benefit is to get really bad teams to hire veterans.  Really great for the players but would anyone here be satisfied if our 61 win team in 2019 would have had 65 wins.  Also , by definition the goal would be to take playing time away from prospects which is not what any of us would want.   As I have said, there is a MUCH better way to use revenue sharing to help low revenue teams.

Players care much more about how much they make over their career than what they earn the first couple years.  They want more pay early only because they believe it will result in them making more in total.  They are working towards hopefully generational wealth but even a bench player is going to make enough to retire at 35 and live very comfortably without ever working another day.  That's there focus.   The reality is the owners could very easily manage their payrolls via how they pay free agents to pay out the exact same amount regardless of what they pay in the first 3 or 4 years.  I would like to see a significant raise in years 1-3 but really ... why do we care if they get paid more early.  What is the benefit to fans?  I particularly dislike the $100M pool because it will pay 3-4% (guess) of players more than all of then other prearb players will make combined even if they get a 35% raise.  Those are the same players that will likely get huge contracts at some point.  Once again it wreaks of Boras.

 

I missed the part where you acknowledged you were wrong about the 2020 negotiations.

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I missed the part where you acknowledged you were wrong about the 2020 negotiations.

Because I have learned that it is pointless to argue the facts with many people here because some of you will ignore whatever facts you don't want to acknowledge.  For example, when I kept asking the people who insisted this was all about owner greed if certain specific demands were bad for the game, they flat out refused to acknowledge the facts.  They got downright combative about me asking for an answer.  

In this case, the attached memo clearly showed there was an understanding that MLB and the MLBPA had acknowledge the need for an alternative agreement if fans were not present.  The MLBPA proceeded as if this was not the case and then intentionally mislead the fans. Even the national baseball media acknowledged the MLBPA claims that MLB had agreed to prorated salaries without fans present was fiction.  The prorated salaries was the core premise and starting point. When it became clear fans would not be presented they literally ignored the basis of that agreement was that fans be present.  They proceeded as if that discussion never took place and flat out misrepresented the understanding to fans.  They literally went to the media telling them those terrible owners agreed and are not reneging on their agreement when they knew there initial agreement was based on fans being present.  It's rather impossible to negotiate when one party is proceeding as if that understanding did not exist.  Of course, the fact that they would not budge from 100% is well-documented.

This timeline failed to mention the MLBPA agreed to negotiate different terms if fans were not present and it fails to mention the part where they mislead the public.  I especially like the May 29th headline "MLBPA waiting for evidence of 'dubious' financial claims".  It's widely acknowledged that roughly 40% of revenue comes from fans in attendance.  Yet, the MLBPA concluded this was not problematic.  That is so absurd it defies words.  Of course, we know teams lost a pile of money so this assertion was so void of any financial acumen it's stunning.  Also, anyone who has ever done economic analysis on this scale knows that it would be impossible to pull together that much data, consolidate it in a form that could validated and then validate it in a manner that would satisfy players.  I have 8-9 figure contracts for nearly 30 years, and I have never in my entire career run across a more absurd statement or position.  When one party thinks losing 40 of revenue does not create a need for adjustment you have an impossible position.