20 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

That's a valid concern.  They only need to share it with the league.  Perhaps even that would be problematic, but I would bet they would prefer this to a floor.  IMO a floor is useless in terms of parity.  It literally does nothing to decrease the difference in spending capacity.  The benefit would be really bad teams would have to sign veterans.  So, I ask two questions.  Is that what we would want for our team when rebuilding.  It seems to me many people here were very upset Simmons was getting playing time.  Two, will it really matter if Pittsburgh or whatever team that is losing 100 games spends an extra 35M and loses 96 games.  Will that improve the sport?

Them only sharing it with the league doesn't solve the problem of the players not trusting them and them being able to cry poor when they aren't. That's the entire problem. The players think the teams are making X but the league says they're making Y. A bottom CBT based off Y doesn't solve the problem of the players still wanting it based on X. If the teams won't open their books there's no way to execute your plan that actually changes the teams at the bottom being more competitive. 

And I don't see how your proposal is any different than a floor. If you're going to tax the people at the bottom it would act the exact same as the arbitrary floor. Telling Pittsburgh they have to spend 50% of revenue on the major league payroll still leads them to spending $X more than they normally would've on veterans like Simmons. I fail to see any difference. If you're forcing people to spend more than they want the problem remains the same. Unless, as I said before, you're assuming the low revenue teams are currently spending so little because they are truly making that much less.

So the answer really becomes a floor and cap or you scrap all the CBT or revenue sharing rules and make the teams try to be competitive every year to earn their fan's money. If revenue sharing is going to be a thing you need a floor and cap if you want to force more competition. Just a cap does nothing. As we've seen since it's been implemented. I'd also bet that if you put any sort of floor in and forced Pittsburgh to spend the extra 35M they'd change the strategy for rebuilding. Teams rebuild this way because they can make a ton of money by convincing their fans this is the best way to do it. The reality is they've got a bunch of real smart people who dig through the CBA with a fine tooth comb and find every way to take advantage of every rule. Change the rules and they'll change their strategy. 

Based on the current rules I have no desire for the Twins to trade prospects for major leaguers, but I do want them to spend to their normal levels. Building through the system being the best way to build for a team unable (unwilling?) to spend doesn't mean you can't spend on the major league team, too. Picks aren't why teams refuse to spend on payroll, money is. Nobody hits on enough high first round picks for it to be a great strategy for picks alone. Trading veterans for more prospects is part of tanking, but you have to get good veterans in order to trade them anyways which means you should pay some veterans to get the good ones. Teams don't spend because they don't want/have to. They have no motivation to put a better product on the field because they're guaranteed to make money either way. Take away their safety blanket. Change the rules. And they'll change how they build their teams.

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I understand where you are coming from.  Where we disagree is that I believe the owners interest is much more in alignment with fans.  As I have said, this is not for altruistic reasons.  It's because preserving the sport is in their financial best interest.  This is not a hunch.  I have worked with hundreds of companies and the vast majority are very focused on satisfying their customers.

Players are demanding things that clearly illustrate they don't have parity or the best interest of the game in mind.  It pisses me off they have the audacity to push for a much higher CBT threshold, less revenue sharing, and shorter control while trying to tell us they are worried about competitive integrity.  These things very clearly widen the disparity between top revenue and bottom revenue teams.  The owners tried to improve parity with increased penalties.  Is this good for them financially?  Of course, is it also good for the game?  Of course.  Which position better serves a Minnesota twins fan or the game in general?

I most certainly am not naive.  I spent a decade advising very large companies on similar / parallel issues.  I fully realize their interest is the bottom line.  My experience also leads me to the conclusion that players are focused only on getting a bigger piece of the pie and the owner's interest better align with fans.  

Horse Hockey.  Fans wants winners at any cost. Do you see winning at any cost out of anything beyond the Yankees, Dodgers and the like? No the issue becomes tanking. Would you seriously think that anyone wants their team to tank in spite of not having success for multiple years? In the news recently Jeter quit because he felt like the main owner was more interested in profit than winning Jeter was the true fan and a player.  

A higher CBT was a negotiation ploy. Much to my amazement, that really would have been unchanged. The players want the lower tiers paid. That is greed? Owners charging as much as they can for any service, ticket, parking or item of food they can is not greed? The last baseball team  to go bankrupt was a long long time ago. 

Increased parity is evidenced by the increased tanking  If the owners were truly interested in parity there would be a direct tie in to spending and revenue sharing. That does not exist. Owner greed

15 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

(An array of brilliant things)

I want to create a thousand accounts and like this comment with each of them

21 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The average income for players that made the opening day roster the last couple years is around $5.3M.  How does it change the game or our experience as fans if they made $3M/year on average?  

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.  We agree player income has skyrocketed.  Yet, even with the considerable increases proposed they are not willing to work for what equates to generational wealth in many cases.  Which by the way your dollars pay their salary.  So, while your income you utilize to pay those salaries has gone up 7X over the past 50 years, player's income has gone up 140X.  That makes it pretty hard for an average guy to afford to go to a game.  

What if the owners all decided to provide free streaming and cut the price of attendance in half and adjusted spending on free agents to compensate?  That would cut player compensation considerably.    They could adjust free agent spending to maintain their profit level as well.   Would that be bad for the game?  Why should I care if top free agents get $175m instead of $350M.  How does this change the game for fans?

What would change the game would be to widen the gap in the CBT threshold.  Yet, people seem to cheer for it to be raised.  I fail to comprehend the logic.  What would hopefully change or improve parity is an Internation draft which the players rejected.  What would hopefully improve the game is the rule changes the players rejected.  Now, IDK how effective these rule changes would be, but something has to be done and the union is an impediment.  The only thing that makes sense as to why they are standing in the way is because these are bargaining chips and it irritates the hell out of me those potential improvements are rejected for bargaining position.  The Players are clearly demonstrating a willingness to prioritize compensation over the game.

The flow of wealth I’m America has gone increasingly to the top 1%. That includes every baseball owner. My bet is you don’t begrudge paying them when you purchase products. Oil companies are at all time high for profits, You call the players greedy.

 

Raising the CBT reminds me of trickle down economics. . On the other hand how many years of  profit taking rather than competitive clubs do you have to have? If a century of teams is not enough to float the idea of if this is the way teams are then the money teams might as well spend more. It would be something like a free market economy 

If the players did not ask for everything they would get nothing. 

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

The flow of wealth I’m America has gone increasingly to the top 1%. That includes every baseball owner. My bet is you don’t begrudge paying them when you purchase products. Oil companies are at all time high for profits, You call the players greedy.

 

Raising the CBT reminds me of trickle down economics. . On the other hand how many years of  profit taking rather than competitive clubs do you have to have? If a century of teams is not enough to float the idea of if this is the way teams are then the money teams might as well spend more. It would be something like a free market economy 

If the players did not ask for everything they would get nothing. 

This response has little relevance to the questions I posed.    

How does the average pay going up benefit fans?  Can you go to your boss and demand a huge rage because company profits went up?  Partners who contribute capital share increased profits.  Employees do not. 

How does the CBT going up not widen the gap in parity?  Why would you want this as a Twins fans?  Still have not heard a single proponent of this explain why fans should want it increased.  I presume you will avoid answering too but it sure would be nice to see why fans outside the top markets would support a significant increase in the CBT threshold.  

Where we really differ is I look at the contracts handed out before the lock-out and have an extremely hard time coming to the conclusion free agents are not adequately compensated.  I look at Soto turning down $350 and have a hard time thinking players are disadvantaged.  Pre-arbitration compensation needs to go up.  Is the 40% proposed increase not adequate in your opinion? 

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

This response has little relevance to the questions I posed.    

How does the average pay going up benefit fans?  Can you go to your boss and demand a huge rage because company profits went up?  Partners who contribute capital share increased profits.  Employees do not. 

How does the CBT going up not widen the gap in parity?  Why would you want this as a Twins fans?  Still have not heard a single proponent of this explain why fans should want it increased.  I presume you will avoid answering too but it sure would be nice to see why fans outside the top markets would support a significant increase in the CBT threshold.  

Where we really differ is I look at the contracts handed out before the lock-out and have an extremely hard time coming to the conclusion free agents are not adequately compensated.  I look at Soto turning down $350 and have a hard time thinking players are disadvantaged.  Pre-arbitration compensation needs to go up.  Is the 40% proposed increase not adequate in your opinion? 

I've given you an explanation a number of times. You are working on the assumption that low payroll teams are spending to their limits, and not just to make profits while spending far less than they could. I, and clearly the MLBPA, reject that assumption. I think the low payroll teams could spend significantly more if they chose to, or were forced to. Raising the CBT would allow the big boys to have an even wider advantage at first, yes. But those low spending teams would adjust how they run their teams. 

Where people truly differ from you is the idea that the gap in parity is one of need and not one of profit driven greed by a subset of owners who are happy to deposit their revenue sharing checks directly into their bank accounts and not into the product on the field. I'm a proponent of a hard cap and floor as that forces teams to spend. Players aren't because it caps the top of the market salaries. Owners aren't because it forces them to open their books. But beyond that the best way to get the tanking teams to quit tanking is to make it less profitable to tank. Or preferably to make it not at all profitable to tank.

As a Twins fan I don't want the rules changed to pander to the Pohlads and their pocket book padding. While the rules are in place I want them to use the best strategy possible within those rules to try to build a sustainable winner. But when it comes to the CBA I want it to force the Pohlads (and every owner) to be competitive and try to win. I realize that won't happen because they're mostly business people trying to make a profit, but it doesn't mean I think we should kill the competitive spirit of the owners who actually care about winning. So I say make it a bad business move to not try to win by letting the big boys go balls to the wall on trying to win. See how quickly the Pohlads are able to spend a little more when they can't be profitable without winning.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

This response has little relevance to the questions I posed.    

How does the average pay going up benefit fans?  Can you go to your boss and demand a huge rage because company profits went up?  Partners who contribute capital share increased profits.  Employees do not. 

How does the CBT going up not widen the gap in parity?  Why would you want this as a Twins fans?  Still have not heard a single proponent of this explain why fans should want it increased.  I presume you will avoid answering too but it sure would be nice to see why fans outside the top markets would support a significant increase in the CBT threshold.  

Where we really differ is I look at the contracts handed out before the lock-out and have an extremely hard time coming to the conclusion free agents are not adequately compensated.  I look at Soto turning down $350 and have a hard time thinking players are disadvantaged.  Pre-arbitration compensation needs to go up.  Is the 40% proposed increase not adequate in your opinion? 

It's not really a comparable situation, though. It's really hard to compare the labor-management conflict between the owners and the players to a regular corporate setting: these things don't just scale evenly, the financial model for the teams isn't about profit/loss the same way it is for most companies, etc. Corporations will have what they call "key employees" that need to stay as part of a sale, get non-compete clauses, etc. In this case, we'd be talking about hundreds of "key employees" not a handful, you know?

You bring up why only fans in a big market would support a significant increase in the CBT; in reality, why should they care about it there either? There's nothing that stops teams from breaking the thresholds, so why shouldn't the fans there just be demanding that ownership pay it to increase payroll and keep signing the best players?

From a player perspective, there's not a lot of concern that the best free agents aren't being properly compensated; they are actually paying attention to the fact that the "middle class" of players is shrinking, and getting less and less job security, because front offices are smarter now about assessing the markets and the perceived value of players. Why pay a guy $8M in arbitration if you can sign functionally the same player to a 1 year deal in FA for $5M? They're depressing salaries in that group. teams that are on a 3-year rebuild don't even sign those guys any longer in their mind, dropping salaries further.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

a subset of owners who are happy to deposit their revenue sharing checks directly into their bank accounts

I think the large market teams are quite happy with this arrangement. "We'll pay your team expenses as long as you don't try to win and ruin our playoff revenue."

It sucks for the players when you don't have 30 teams trying to win. It sucks for free agents because their market is smaller. It sucks for the players drafted by those teams knowing they'll never win unless they manage to reach free agency and get signed by a team who is actually trying.

The crazy part is some of those rich teams are so bad at knowing how to win (ex: Angels) that they can't do it even with a huge payroll advantage.

35 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I think the large market teams are quite happy with this arrangement. "We'll pay your team expenses as long as you don't try to win and ruin our playoff revenue."

It sucks for the players when you don't have 30 teams trying to win. It sucks for free agents because their market is smaller. It sucks for the players drafted by those teams knowing they'll never win unless they manage to reach free agency and get signed by a team who is actually trying.

The crazy part is some of those rich teams are so bad at knowing how to win (ex: Angels) that they can't do it even with a huge payroll advantage.

They're all raking in money and more than happy with the status quo. If they weren't they'd be the ones pushing for change. It annoys me to no end when Manfred gets up there and says the owners are fighting for more competitive balance and to attempt to stop tanking. JUST STOP TANKING! They control their teams. If they want to get rid of tanking just quit doing it. But that isn't their goal. Their goal is to make money. Which I get. Takes money to run a team. But quit acting like the players are the ones stopping you from not tanking. Just quit doing it.

On 3/2/2022 at 7:34 AM, Whitey333 said:

While I will find other endeavors while this ridiculous lockout continues I am totally frustrated with MLB and PLayers Association.  Owners claiming "poverty "  over the past 5 years is ludicrous.  If your franchise isn't profitable or lining your greedy pockets enough, sell it.  Players, who in my opinion have the best CBA and working conditions of the 4 major sports,don't like their working conditions and are claiming " poverty " get a different career.  Go out and get a real job.  We have a joke for a commissioner, and a joke of a players union.  The real folly is that both sides seem to think we cannot exist without their sport.  Your fan base has been dwindling for years and tv ratings continue to drop.  The game, with all it's new rules defensive shifting and overdone analytical approach to the game has already made it unwatchable.

What a red herring. Show me a quote by a MLB player claiming poverty.

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

I think the large market teams are quite happy with this arrangement. "We'll pay your team expenses as long as you don't try to win and ruin our playoff revenue."

It sucks for the players when you don't have 30 teams trying to win. It sucks for free agents because their market is smaller. It sucks for the players drafted by those teams knowing they'll never win unless they manage to reach free agency and get signed by a team who is actually trying.

The crazy part is some of those rich teams are so bad at knowing how to win (ex: Angels) that they can't do it even with a huge payroll advantage.

If a team does not spend, you deem them "not trying to win".  The fact is that a win generated through free agency costs over $8M.  It is monumentally incompetent for the FO of these teams to do anything but focus on developing from within.  Now, should they push spending when they are actually in a competitive window.  Sure!  Isn't that what the Royals did after sucking for 20 years?  They had a 2 year window where they were legit contenders.  That window started and was propelled by trading away Greinke.

21 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If a team does not spend, you deem them "not trying to win".  The fact is that a win generated through free agency costs over $8M.  It is monumentally incompetent for the FO of these teams to do anything but focus on developing from within.  Now, should they push spending when they are actually in a competitive window.  Sure!  Isn't that what the Royals did after sucking for 20 years?  They had a 2 year window where they were legit contenders.  That window started and was propelled by trading away Greinke.

But for those 20 years you couldn't describe the Royals as "trying to win". Sure, they'll take a shot if the stars align and they accidentally get lucky once every 20 years. In the meantime they'll go through the motions and cash checks.

Free agency wins may cost $8M each on average, but every team is getting enough revenue sharing money to add 10-12 wins by that metric. If you save up two years worth of revenue sharing money you can buy 20 wins on the open market. Every team is within 20 wins of contention.

39 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

But for those 20 years you couldn't describe the Royals as "trying to win". Sure, they'll take a shot if the stars align and they accidentally get lucky once every 20 years. In the meantime they'll go through the motions and cash checks.

Free agency wins may cost $8M each on average, but every team is getting enough revenue sharing money to add 10-12 wins by that metric. If you save up two years worth of revenue sharing money you can buy 20 wins on the open market. Every team is within 20 wins of contention.

The royals didn't draft and develop well enough to win.  It's that simple.  They could have spent another $40M a season and added 5 wins.  They still would not have been close to contending the majority of seasons.

That 40M incremental spending would have added next to nothing to their revenue.  Expecting a company to do things that will result in a significant hit to the bottom line is just not logical.  If their customers would have spent an extra $45M as a result of them spending an extra $40M, it would be reasonable to expect they invest but that's not the case.   That would take 800,000 additional fans at $50/each and it probably would not draw an extra 100,000 unless the return was well above the expected 5 wins.  

17 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The royals didn't draft and develop well enough to win.  It's that simple. 

That's because it's nearly impossible to draft and develop well enough to win if you never retain any of your talent when it gets expensive. Plus, none of your talent is going to want to sign as a free agent because they'll be doomed to losing for their whole contract.

Not really a compelling way to attract fans. "Be patient and we might get lucky once every 30 years! We're going to suck in the meantime so you might want to buy an extra beer at concessions for the next decade."

Quote

That 40M incremental spending would have added next to nothing to their revenue.

Right. Revenue sharing means you don't need fans anymore. That's kind of the root of the problem.

58 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The royals didn't draft and develop well enough to win.  It's that simple.  They could have spent another $40M a season and added 5 wins.  They still would not have been close to contending the majority of seasons.

That 40M incremental spending would have added next to nothing to their revenue.  Expecting a company to do things that will result in a significant hit to the bottom line is just not logical.  If their customers would have spent an extra $45M as a result of them spending an extra $40M, it would be reasonable to expect they invest but that's not the case.   That would take 800,000 additional fans at $50/each and it probably would not draw an extra 100,000 unless the return was well above the expected 5 wins.  

You're again assuming they're spending to their limit now. Do you know that 40M wouldn't have just put them up to 45% of revenue being spent on payroll? Do you know they didn't just pocket an extra 40M in extra profit that they could've spent and still pocketed 100M (or whatever you or they find to be an acceptable profit for the year)?

Why should I, as a fan, care if that 40M incremental spending would do a lot or a little for their revenue if they're pocketing 150M in profit each year? That's the argument the players are making. The teams are claiming they can't spend an extra 40M cuz they don't have it. They say they aren't making enough, or any, profit year over year. The players are calling them liars. I tend to agree with the players. If there was no profit in baseball billionaires would quit buying teams and running them like businesses. 

If the Twins stick at 90ish million for their payroll in 2022 I'm going to be pissed. Not because I think the extra 30 or 40M means they're going to win the world series, but because I don't watch the Twins or pay astronomical prices to go to games for the Pohlads to pocket an extra 30 to 40M each year. The Twins can spend in the 120-140 range with ease and the Pohlads still pocket 10s, if not 100s, of millions a year off them. I want an extra 40M spent to add 5 wins even if those 5 wins get the Twins to a 75 win record.

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

This response has little relevance to the questions I posed.    

How does the average pay going up benefit fans?  Can you go to your boss and demand a huge rage because company profits went up?  Partners who contribute capital share increased profits.  Employees do not. 

How does the CBT going up not widen the gap in parity?  Why would you want this as a Twins fans?  Still have not heard a single proponent of this explain why fans should want it increased.  I presume you will avoid answering too but it sure would be nice to see why fans outside the top markets would support a significant increase in the CBT threshold.  

Where we really differ is I look at the contracts handed out before the lock-out and have an extremely hard time coming to the conclusion free agents are not adequately compensated.  I look at Soto turning down $350 and have a hard time thinking players are disadvantaged.  Pre-arbitration compensation needs to go up.  Is the 40% proposed increase not adequate in your opinion? 

Your question was less than a poor one.  Nothing in the CBA benefits the fans. Should my response been asking you how does more money going to the owners benefit the fans? I didn’t ask it because of the hyperbole that would come back.

Parity has no mechanism to happen in baseball. There is no way

A 36% raise for the maybe 300 players at any one time that are pre arb eligible comes out to 2 million a team.

I have did not say one word about free agent compensation. We can’t differ on that