CBA Musings (2/18): What’s Happening and What’s Next

[Ted Schwerzler]

Last week’s CBA update was largely contingent on what happened the day after it was published. Major League Baseball made an offer on Saturday, February 12, that Rob Manfred called “good.” Unfortunately, it wasn’t.

The owners proposal at the end of last week was largely unchanged from where they’ve been thus far. Minimal movement was proposed on both the minimum salary front and the competitive balance tax.
 
Regarding the minimum salary, players are looking for a $775k minimum. Owners moved just $15k to $615k in their most recent offer. They also proposed a $630k minimum that would remain flat for players pre-arbitration. Teams can still pay more if they choose, but this is an odd inclusion as many players never reach a second year.

On the competitive balance tax front, the owners moved less than $4 million in any given season. This is a highly contentious issue for the players because owners use the luxury tax as a soft salary cap. Very few teams spend over it and even more spend right up next to it. The luxury tax has not kept up with the revenue increase, and players continue to see less return on their production to the owners bottom line.

That led us to Thursday when the union made their next counter-proposal. It was just five days after the league’s latest offer and substantially quicker than the 42 days and 30 days the owners took between proposals.
 
In the latest proposal from the union, they dropped the amount of super-2 players getting arbitration from 100% to 80%. In doing so, however, they asked for that pool of funds to be increased. While having fewer players to pay, the stance is that it makes sense for there to be more money to go around.

A couple of developments have circulated since yesterday’s 19-minute meeting. First, an unfair labor practice charge was filed against MLB by someone. The union or any player did not file it, likely a fan. It won’t go anywhere.

The league also presented a calendar, or timeline, as to when the CBA needs to be agreed to for the season to start on time. It’s unclear whether the union agrees with the timeline, but February 28 is the day to remember here.

The players are beginning to use some of their leverage and have told the league not to expect expanded playoffs this season if the year doesn’t start on time. Players are unpaid for Spring Training and the Postseason, while owners make the most money after the regular season concludes.

Both sides are expected to meet in New York near-daily next week. Owners and players are flying in with the goal of hammering out an agreement. We’ll see what the substance of the talks looks like as the days go by.

MLB did release a statement announcing the postponement of Spring Training. It was always inevitable but is now official.

Quote

 

MLB statement:

“We regret that, without a collective bargaining agreement in place, we must postpone the start of Spring Training games until no earlier than Saturday, March 5th.  All 30 Clubs are unified in their strong desire to bring players back to the field and fans back to the stands.  The Clubs have adopted a uniform policy that provides an option for full refunds for fans who have purchased tickets from the Clubs to any Spring Training games that are not taking place. We are committed to reaching an agreement that is fair to each side. On Monday, members of the owners’ bargaining committee will join an in-person meeting with the Players Association and remain every day next week to negotiate and work hard towards starting the season on time.”

 

With the postponement of Spring Training, the Minnesota Gophers announced the cancellation of their exhibition against the Twins on February 25.

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
— Latest Twins coverage from our writers
— Recent Twins discussion in our forums
— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email 

View full article

[tarheeltwinsfan]

I've got tickets for Twins v. Yankees on Sunday March 6th, the Phillies  and the Twins and the Red Sox and Twins that week. While there is life, there is hope that these games will be played. If not, I'll watch some minor leaguers practices and enjoy the Florida sun, visit Ding Darling Wildlife Refuge, visit an army buddy who lives in Florida, visit Thomas Edison's homeplace,  eat some seafood, sit on the beach and enjoy spending time with my wife. There I've said it and now I feel better.  *#%$&*#*^&%#$@#%#.

[Major League Ready]

How many players would typically qualify for the pre arb bonus pool as currently proposed?  Seems like it would be about a dozen players.  Am I interpreting this wrong?

[4twinsJA]

Hopefully one of the sides steps up to be the adult in the room and ends this childish stare off. 

[strumdatjag]

My wife and I used to split a season ticket to see the Minnesota Orchestra.   Then the Orchestra went on strike.   We found other things to do.   When the Orchestra resolved its dispute, we decided that we were not going to buy season tickets anymore.  
I’m a bigger Twins fan.  I have split Twins season tickets since 1986.   Still, after a few pandemic years and this CBA year, I’ve learned that there are more ways to occupy my time during Minnesota’s warmest months.  At this time, I’m coming back.  But my mind could change in the future as my time away from baseball gets longer.    

[Gustafson53]

29 minutes ago, strumdatjag said:

My wife and I used to split a season ticket to see the Minnesota Orchestra.   Then the Orchestra went on strike.   We found other things to do.   When the Orchestra resolved its dispute, we decided that we were not going to buy season tickets anymore.  
I’m a bigger Twins fan.  I have split Twins season tickets since 1986.   Still, after a few pandemic years and this CBA year, I’ve learned that there are more ways to occupy my time during Minnesota’s warmest months.  At this time, I’m coming back.  But my mind could change in the future as my time away from baseball gets longer.    

I'm a retired factory worker. I can't afford to go to games, I can't justify switching to a higher priced streaming service just to watch Bally Sports. So after decades of being a loyal Twins baseball fan, my interest has waned. Now the millionaires and billionaires are fighting over amounts of money I can barely comprehend. I don't support either side, and no matter which side "wins", rest assured that baseball as a whole loses. 

I do enjoy checking out Twins Daily from time to time to keep up a little bit.

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, strumdatjag said:

Then the Orchestra went on strike.

If this was the dispute from 9-10 yrs ago, they weren't on strike, they were locked out. Big difference. But if you don't renew your season tickets to the Twins, maybe you should go back to the orchestra  

[glunn]

It seems to me that it might make sense for both sides to look at what has been working in other professional sports, like the NFL and the NBA.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, glunn said:

It seems to me that it might make sense for both sides to look at what has been working in other professional sports, like the NFL and the NBA.

Do you think the players would accept non-guaranteed contracts or 5 year maximum length or a cap or a set contract max amount?  Don't see the players accepting these terms.  Getting paid beyond their production in the final years of their contracts is a huge priority.  They also seem very focused on the top 5-10% of players.  If MLB asked for these terms, we would never get back to playing IMO.  How about opt-outs.  Does the NBA or NFL have opt-outs?.   I just don't see NBA/NFL terms as something the MLBPA would accept.

[Blyleven2011]

Today nobody takes responsibility  for anything  ,,,

Manfred is a lawyer  and before baseball he worked in a law firm as a labor and employment law lawyer  ,,,,

Like most failed lawyers that can't make money in their profession because they are incompetent they move into politics to make their money and screw things up ... 

Manfred moved into baseball and is now showing his true colors  ,,, he lies just like a politician  in his letters to the fans ...

The letters are  insincere  and we need  commissioner's and owners that love the game of baseball  ,, 

Love of the game folks not love of Money  ....

this also is the players fault for their love of Money  and not the love of the game  ...

Believe what you want to believe folks , it almost seems likely that neither side cares about the fans and the game ,,,

42 days to get to the bargaining table for economics is a crock and was a sure way to delay spring training for 40 man rosters

[strumdatjag]

14 hours ago, Squirrel said:

If this was the dispute from 9-10 yrs ago, they weren't on strike, they were locked out. Big difference. But if you don't renew your season tickets to the Twins, maybe you should go back to the orchestra  

I’m more likely to just BBQ at home more.  It’s cheaper, even after factoring in inflation.   The point is that MLB, the orchestra and others in entertainment and Sports take a risk when they give their fans a hiatus from going to games, concerts etc.  Many of the fans will find other things that they prefer to do and others will determine that their lives didn’t need the Sports or Entertainment activity and the expense and commitment.  

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, strumdatjag said:

I’m more likely to just BBQ at home more.  It’s cheaper, even after factoring in inflation.   The point is that MLB, the orchestra and others in entertainment and Sports take a risk when they give their fans a hiatus from going to games, concerts etc.  Many of the fans will find other things that they prefer to do and others will determine that their lives didn’t need the Sports or Entertainment activity and the expense and commitment.  

I don’t disagree that people will find other things to occupy their time, but these two situations are not comparable other than in both situations the players were/are locked out. If you refuse to support the orchestra after the nefarious activities of the board, that tells me a lot about you in how much you didn’t understand the situation or didn’t care. In this case with the MLB, eh, both sides here need to get over themselves. I will happily continue to support the orchestra and did during their lockout because that was completely about an awful entity causing harm, it was a one-sided wrong doing. This situation is on both, it’s a two-sided affair causing harm to their product and harm to their fan base.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

18 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I don’t disagree that people will find other things to occupy their time, but these two situations are not comparable other than in both situations the players were/are locked out. If you refuse to support the orchestra after the nefarious activities of the board, that tells me a lot about you in how much you didn’t understand the situation or didn’t care. In this case with the MLB, eh, both sides here need to get over themselves. I will happily continue to support the orchestra and did during their lockout because that was completely about an awful entity causing harm, it was a one-sided wrong doing. This situation is on both, it’s a two-sided affair causing harm to their product and harm to their fan base.

I don't think that is strumdatjag's point. He is simply saying, no matter who's fault this lockout may be, some fans will leave baseball. I get it. On a related topic, and this is just my opinion, but probably professional violinists and percussionists have more financial need to unionize, than do major league baseball players. I may be wrong, but I am assuming there are more financially struggling violinists, than financially struggling major league baseball players. However, as strumdatjag has pointed out, one does not have to understand labor relations law in order to say, "To hell with this mess. I've better things I can do in beautiful Minnesota (or North Carolina) during late spring, summer and early fall".

[Squirrel]

9 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

I don't think that is strumdatjag's point. He is simply saying, no matter who's fault this lockout may be, some fans will leave baseball. I get it. On a related topic, and this is just my opinion, but probably professional violinists and percussionists have more financial need to unionize, than do major league baseball players. I may be wrong, but I am assuming there are more financially struggling violinists, than financially struggling major league baseball players. However, as strumdatjag has pointed out, one does not have to understand labor relations law in order to say, "To hell with this mess. I've better things I can do in beautiful Minnesota (or North Carolina) during late spring, summer and early fall".

I guess I didn't make my point very clear, either ... I guess when there is a situation where one side is truly in the wrong, causing harm to the other side and to the whole of the product, I'm willing and do continue to support the aggrieved party, I am still willing to spend my time and money because there is a clear side to support and to believe in. In the MLB situation, both sides, as I said, need to get over themselves. That's why I don't find it a comparable situation, for me. In one situation, not easy for me to just abandon them, in the other, eh, I will spend no time and money on it if the two sides can't find a way to get over themselves. If the MLB situation was truly a one-sided affair, wouldn't you find it easier to support one over the other, and care about the outcome, and still want to do what you could to support that side? That's me. I cared about the players and the outcome in one situation, I care far less about the outcome in the other.

[Nine of twelve]

18 hours ago, strumdatjag said:

My wife and I used to split a season ticket to see the Minnesota Orchestra.   Then the Orchestra went on strike.   We found other things to do.   When the Orchestra resolved its dispute, we decided that we were not going to buy season tickets anymore.  
I’m a bigger Twins fan.  I have split Twins season tickets since 1986.   Still, after a few pandemic years and this CBA year, I’ve learned that there are more ways to occupy my time during Minnesota’s warmest months.  At this time, I’m coming back.  But my mind could change in the future as my time away from baseball gets longer.    

I can certainly understand not having season tickets to either entity. I do not have season tickets to either one myself. But labor disputes are temporary and do not dilute my appreciation of the high level of performance of major league baseball players and of a top-ten orchestra. I will still attend both as schedule, finances, and community virus levels permit.

[glunn]

16 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you think the players would accept non-guaranteed contracts or 5 year maximum length or a cap or a set contract max amount?  Don't see the players accepting these terms.  Getting paid beyond their production in the final years of their contracts is a huge priority.  They also seem very focused on the top 5-10% of players.  If MLB asked for these terms, we would never get back to playing IMO.  How about opt-outs.  Does the NBA or NFL have opt-outs?.   I just don't see NBA/NFL terms as something the MLBPA would accept.

You may be correct, but my sense is that these other sports seem to run smoother and have greater parity. 

Also, it seems to me that focusing on the top 5% to 10% of players is illogical, and that the owners might gain leverage by making an offer that is more appealing to the vast majority of players.  

Please take a look at this link -- https://sports.yahoo.com/baseball-salary-growth-trails-nfl-050116056.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKicKoxhzH4gIpHEUiRli8iTPlIiIJsPgOzUm0eauPjMcyJW1vJzKOdXLnWY-az7menGIS3cYlZlJBb47eY28LnSdhspCSC0gmiZk4iEDzaadaW2Q0NRdrOPOrx67-u54kW9aCDxeN6baQa2J9Aj9JZhoIPjjubbMmI0jYppPhaf

I would be interested in your thoughts.

[glunn]

here is a link to an article about sharing overall revenues with players -- http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/part-2-in-series-of-comparing-cbas-show.html

[MN_ExPat]

Well, the current status of the CBA dispute is disconcerting, but at least I have my son's HS season to distract me .  He just pitched a two hit shutout tonight (7K) and they have outscored their opponents in their first four games 38-3 (4-0).

Woohoo... take that MLB!  

P.S., yes I know no one really cares, but I'm still pretty psyched  

[rv78]

I guess it is time for the fans to go on-strike against the owners and the players. Even if we have baseball this year quit attending games. Fans need to stand outside the stadium and demand that parking, game tickets, and consession prices be cut by 50% or we won't come back. If the owners and players aren't happy with the amount of money they are already making then we should not continue to support them. Any increase either of them get by these negotiations will be passed onto the customer. I'm getting real tired of giving people that are already over-paid my hard-earned 50 hour a week money just to support their play ball as a profession lifestyle or own a team money bag. Seriously, the fans are being taken for granted and it's time to remind them who is really paying their salaries and filling their wallets.

[Platoon]

13 hours ago, MN_ExPat said:

Well, the current status of the CBA dispute is disconcerting, but at least I have my son's HS season to distract me .  He just pitched a two hit shutout tonight (7K) and they have outscored their opponents in their first four games 38-3 (4-0).

Woohoo... take that MLB!  

P.S., yes I know no one really cares, but I'm still pretty psyched  

Good point! There is so much interesting high school, legion, and even town ball to watch that I doubt I will miss any 4 hour MLB games. Are these games played at MLB levels? Nope! But you do get to see balls put in play, steals, the antiquated bunt, and even a SS playing between second and third. While it may be analytically bereft, it has an ingredient MLB currently lacks. Action! 
 

Last summer I saw some excellent Legion games at the district and state playoff level. And, if you are in MN and have the opportunity go see some of the good class B amateur teams. You will be surprised and pleased by the talent level, and intensity. 

[strumdatjag]

21 hours ago, glunn said:

You may be correct, but my sense is that these other sports seem to run smoother and have greater parity. 

Also, it seems to me that focusing on the top 5% to 10% of players is illogical, and that the owners might gain leverage by making an offer that is more appealing to the vast majority of players.  

Please take a look at this link -- https://sports.yahoo.com/baseball-salary-growth-trails-nfl-050116056.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKicKoxhzH4gIpHEUiRli8iTPlIiIJsPgOzUm0eauPjMcyJW1vJzKOdXLnWY-az7menGIS3cYlZlJBb47eY28LnSdhspCSC0gmiZk4iEDzaadaW2Q0NRdrOPOrx67-u54kW9aCDxeN6baQa2J9Aj9JZhoIPjjubbMmI0jYppPhaf

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Tying salaries to revenue makes some sense.  Still, MLB doesn’t have the popularity of the NFL and NBA, and therefore the comparisons are misplaced    Nevertheless, it’s not a niche sport like the NHL or MMA either.  It’s somewhere in between. 

[Major League Ready]

On 2/19/2022 at 2:56 PM, glunn said:

You may be correct, but my sense is that these other sports seem to run smoother and have greater parity. 

Also, it seems to me that focusing on the top 5% to 10% of players is illogical, and that the owners might gain leverage by making an offer that is more appealing to the vast majority of players.  

Please take a look at this link -- https://sports.yahoo.com/baseball-salary-growth-trails-nfl-050116056.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKicKoxhzH4gIpHEUiRli8iTPlIiIJsPgOzUm0eauPjMcyJW1vJzKOdXLnWY-az7menGIS3cYlZlJBb47eY28LnSdhspCSC0gmiZk4iEDzaadaW2Q0NRdrOPOrx67-u54kW9aCDxeN6baQa2J9Aj9JZhoIPjjubbMmI0jYppPhaf

I would be interested in your thoughts.

There are firms or teams within consulting firms that specialize in economic analysis of business models.   This is a deep well that would require several pages to outline and explain all of the problems associated with comparing compensation between the leagues in the context of revenue split.  Nobody wants to read 10 pages so here is what is believe it or not a brief summary.
1)    The percentage that goes to players is not the same as player salaries which is the number often used to calculate the percentage going to players.  MLB pays out roughly 9% of revenue for player benefits and signing bonuses.  How does that compare to other leagues?  The NBA has virtually no signing bonuses.
2)     There are a myriad of differences in Operating Costs.  
a.    Facilities costs – How much do MLB teams spend on construction costs compared to NBA and NFL teams.
b.    Facilities maintenance – I would assume it costs a lot more to maintain target field for 82 games as compared to 41 games for the Wolves or 8 games for the Vikings.
c.    Milb costs – The Vikings have a practice squad and the Wolves have a G-league team.  MLB teams have substantially more cost in their Milb operations?
d.    Travel and Hotel – 82 games on the road vs 41 for NBA and 8 for NFL
e.    Non-plater employees – how do #of employees compare between leagues.

The bottom line is that the normal practice in any business relationship is to find a metric that adjusts compensation fairly as variables change.  Revenue is a terrible starting point because the amount available to pay players is not determined solely determined by revenue.  It’s determined by Revenue less Operating Expense.  If for example average operating costs for MLB is 38% and the NBA is 33% and the NFL is 30%, a 50% revenue split is much more favorable to the other league.   Now, I don’t know what those percentages are and neither does the person who wrote this article.  As a matter of fact, it does not appear the author understands these principals at all.

A set percentage of revenue was a smart play for NBA and NFL teams when they made those deals.  If you believe revenue will continue to make significant gains and operation costs will be relatively stable, operating expense as a percentage of revenue will decrease over time.  Of course, that means net income as a percentage of revenue will increase.  Right now I would not bet on MLB revenue increasing.  We also are facing significant inflation.  If Russia invades the Ukraine we could have 10% inflation.  Hat combination would be very bad for owners.  Quite a few of those owners have degrees from Wharton and MBAs from Harvard.  Believe me when I say this has not escaped them.

Another thing that is much maligned is that the percentage has gone down the last few years.  There is a factor that seems to be completely ignored by those who write about this trend.  That would be that teams have taken a small part of the available budget (Revenue – Operating Cost) and invested in Analytics Teams / Equipment / Specialized Coaches / etc.  This is very common in every industry.  

Good companies find better ways to perform.  They add certain skill sets and pay for them by reducing others.  They invest in equipment that displaces others.  MLB teams don’t reduce the number of people.  They change where they are investing.  It’s become well understood that these investments in baseball are yielding great results in identifying and developing people,  Assuming you accept the industries conclusion these investments will yield better results than continuing to invest 100% of their available budget on players, would you prefer they take 3-5% of the available funds and invest in other areas or would you prefer they continue to invest 100% in player salary and not hire these other staff of buy the specialized equipment?

Finally, we would have to assume players would accept some combination of NBA / NFL / NBA contract terms.  I just don’t believe that is remotely true.  IMO they have the best terms.  No maximum length of contract is huge.  The negotiations in free agency often come down to number of years.  The players goal is to get paid as much as possible for as long as possible after they are no longer producing at a level equal to their compensation.  Just think about what percentage of the big free agent deals are underwater the last couple years or even several years.  Those other leagues have some terms the MLBPA would never go for.  They have much more restriction in terms of years or even maximum amounts.  MLB players would also never give up contracts being 100% guaranteed.  I just don’t believe the combination of terms that exist is these other leagues would be accepted by the MLBPA.

The one fact in this article that is the most telling is that team values are higher for NFL and NBA teams.  The most influential determinant of company value is profitability.  Perceived risk and the forecasted revenue growth also play a role in evaluation.   However, it’s a pretty fair assumption that the revenue split in these other leagues is more favorable to ownership which might explain their willingness to make such an agreement.  
 

[Trov]

I know the writer is anti owners and pro players in the lockout, but if you are writing what should be an informative article it should be accurate.  "On the competitive balance tax front, the owners moved less than $4 million in any given season. This is a highly contentious issue for the players because owners use the luxury tax as a soft salary cap. Very few teams spend over it and even more spend right up next to it. The luxury tax has not kept up with the revenue increase, and players continue to see less return on their production to the owners bottom line." That quote from the article is just not accurate. 

It implies that many teams are right near the tax line and the players have a huge gripe to have it expanded a ton because many teams are using it to claim they cannot spend more money on players.  That is just plain wrong.  If you look at the last 5 years, can even skip 2020 as it was an odd season.  Yes, on any given year only 1 or 2 team will pass the number.  However, very few teams get even close to it.  

In 2017, no team passed the number, and only 5 teams were even within 20 mil of the number, 2 was 19 mil.  It starts to really drop off from there.  At 20 mil space, each team, had they wanted to could have signed 1 pretty expensive FA without hitting the "soft cap"  

2018, 2 teams pasted it, the Red Sox blew it out of the water.  3 where within 20 mil, So again, most teams could have spent big and not pass the line.

2019, 3 teams were over, then 1 other team was within 20 mil.  

2021, 1 team was over, 3 within 20 mil. 

If you look, it is not always the same top few teams over that time in the top.  Meaning, these teams can spend more if they wanted to, but choose not to, and it is not the "soft cap" stopping them on any given year.  I get the players think that if you increase the number it will entice some teams to get into the bidding on some players, but I do not see how it will increase the overall spending.

I know the thought is, well one big spender was over, or has a lot of big contracts on books and will not look to get in the bidding on a player, so lets raise the tax level so they will get in the bidding.  However, lets say that team wins the bidding, that does not mean the other teams will say, well we were willing to spend 30 mil a year on Correa, since we missed out, lets spend 30 mil on Story, because we budgeted for 30 mil. 

That is similar to how the teams acted years ago, was top FA would get record deal, then next level guy would get a slightly worse deal.  However, teams started looking at the player output compared across the board, not just to FA.  They started looking beyond that off-season, which led to weak FA classes getting much worse offers than they expected.  

My issue is the belief that if you raise the tax level, more teams will spend more because of it.  Most teams already could spend much more, and rarely within 20 mil of the line.  The padres in 2017 had the lowest payroll.  Even in 2019, they were 7th lowest.  Then they decided to spend money and raise payroll 80 mil 2 years later. That increase in spending was all about their willingness to spend it.

Now you can point out to the fact that they must have had the ability to do it, but chose not too, and that is the players issue.  However, by being a full free open market, like the players wanted, there is no requirement the owners spend.  But, it again points out the tax line was not keeping the Padres from spending.  In a 5 year span they raised payroll 145 mil.  

Clearly there is an issue of having teams spend when they can, but how you fix that issue is create a floor, which I know the players want, but to be fair for low market teams, there needs to be a cap then to actually have a chance at some talent.  Else you will end up with top market teams signing all the top FA outbidding the smaller market teams most of the time, then making them spend more on lower level talent.  Yes, the players get what they want, but the fans still see all the top FA going to large market teams.  Maybe, a small market team will get lucky and get a guy because they will spend, but the player will be surrounded then by low price talent and have less of a chance of winning.  

[DJL44]

Raising the limit on the tax would allow the teams that actually want to spend money to spend money. If the Yankees share less revenue and aren't taxed they will actually spend the money on player salaries. If you force revenue sharing and a tax on the Yankees the small market teams will just pocket the cash and not spend it.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Raising the limit on the tax would allow the teams that actually want to spend money to spend money. If the Yankees share less revenue and aren't taxed they will actually spend the money on player salaries. If you force revenue sharing and a tax on the Yankees the small market teams will just pocket the cash and not spend it.

As a Twins fan or even a fan of the game, why would you advocate furthering the gap in parity.   You seem to suggest that the top markets being able to spend more is somehow good for the fans.  There would be two groups of winners if they significantly raise the CBT threshold.  The top 5-6 teams in terms of revenue could sign an additional top free agent without penalty.  Therefore, those few teams and their fans as would benefit as would a handful of players.  The bottom 20 teams that will never spend at that level and their fans will be further disadvantaged.  Why should we want to be more disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint so that some free agent gets $200M instead of $180M?

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

As a Twins fan or even a fan of the game, why would you advocate furthering the gap in parity.   You seem to suggest that the top markets being able to spend more is somehow good for the fans.  There would be two groups of winners if they significantly raise the CBT threshold.  The top 5-6 teams in terms of revenue could sign an additional top free agent without penalty.  Therefore, those few teams and their fans as would benefit as would a handful of players.  The bottom 20 teams that will never spend at that level and their fans will be further disadvantaged.  Why should we want to be more disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint so that some free agent gets $200M instead of $180M?

It would be good if teams had to win games to draw fans and make a profit. The current model is to have your favorite team suck and cash paychecks from the Dodgers and Yankees. Then expand the playoffs so that everyone with 80 wins makes it anyway.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It would be good if teams had to win games to draw fans and make a profit. The current model is to have your favorite team suck and cash paychecks from the Dodgers and Yankees. Then expand the playoffs so that everyone with 80 wins makes it anyway.

What has that got to do with the adverse effect of raising the CBT threshold?  What do you care more about, preventing teams from making a profit or preventing the further erosion of parity?  It's one or the other in this case.  I would add that I have provided an alternative distribution of revenue sharing that would provide greater opportunity for small market teams that are spending by redistributing those funds based on payroll spending.  Fans of any team outside the top 5-7 teams promoting an increased CBT or taking away revenue sharing from low revenue teams makes absolutely no sense.  

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

What has that got to do with the adverse effect of raising the CBT threshold? 

I'm not convinced there is one, just an adverse effect on owner profits.

[RpR]

This fits what is happening:   Reusse: NFL can’t be ruined by analytics like MLB (msn.com)

The NFL might never have had a more successful season than the one that started on Sept. 9, 2021, and ended last Sunday. The TV ratings were monstrous and the playoffs were so taut that a Super Bowl won on a touchdown with 85 seconds remaining wasn't in the top five for exciting games.

As this was taking place, Major League Baseball was following a 2021 season that ended with its all-time worst ratings for the World Series with a lockout that has no end in sight....

[Major League Ready]

11 minutes ago, RpR said:

This fits what is happening:   Reusse: NFL can’t be ruined by analytics like MLB (msn.com)

The NFL might never have had a more successful season than the one that started on Sept. 9, 2021, and ended last Sunday. The TV ratings were monstrous and the playoffs were so taut that a Super Bowl won on a touchdown with 85 seconds remaining wasn't in the top five for exciting games.

As this was taking place, Major League Baseball was following a 2021 season that ended with its all-time worst ratings for the World Series with a lockout that has no end in sight....

Wouldn't you say the issues that diminished ratings and the issues creating an impasse on a new CBA are mostly different issues?  The universal DH will help a little and expanded playoffs would definitely keep more fans engaged.  However, the changes in the game and the game itself not appealing to younger fans seem to be the problem and they are not part of this impasse.  Of course, one could argue a prolonged work stoppage will drive fans away but history suggests they will return.