CBA Musings (2/4): What’s Happening and What’s Next

For fans in the know I think the Owners\MLB look pretty bad right now.  I love baseball but I don't know that I can support such strongarm tactics and inability to compromise.  We all know the current system was broken that certain things needed to be cleaned up.  I haven't seen MLB propose anything that fixes how fans feel that players get taken advantage of especially in compensation for the years of control and service time manipulation.

I know most of this is just posturing and will need to be waited out but right now I am not feeling good about the owners. Maybe it is time for the fans to get involved and write to Manfred\MLB and let them know how we feel.

Where is that extra league that can challenge these entrenched owners?  I want baseball games not board room games. 

51 minutes ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

If you recalled from the update last week, it’s the Union that has made significant concessions. They also bent more this week after dropping their free agency timeline and revenue sharing requests. The discussions surrounding service time manipulation were shelved, and the pre-arbitration bonus pool also saw a $5 million decrease.

Baseball Prospectus Editor in Chief Craig Goldstein brought up a relevant point on Tuesday. With new TV money being shelled out to organizations, there’s no team in the sport that won’t come into 2022 handsomely. Despite economic impacts from the Covid shortened 2020 season, the reality has always been that revenues were decreased, but no one went in the red. Owners are making money at a rate higher than anything the stock market can produce, and the players are looking to simply be in line with the inflation rate.

The cumulative rate rate of inflation over the past 50 years is a little less than 7X.  Average household income in the US over the past 50 years is almost identical to the rate of inflation.  In 1970, ave household income was $9.870 and in 2020 it was 67,521 or just a touch under 7X what it was in 1970.

Average baseball salaries were $29,303.  Had they grown at the rate of inflation or the same rate as US income, the average player would be earning a little under $200K.  Had US household income grown at the same rate as players, the average household income would be $1,350,000.   Do you really want to take the position that players have not grown adequately when measured against the adjusted rate of inflation?  Is there a group of employees anywhere in the world that have seen a greater rate of income growth than MLB and NFL players?  

31 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Where is that extra league that can challenge these entrenched owners?  I want baseball games not board room games. 

Where are the players who don't think $100M and $200M and $300M contracts are not adequate compensation for playing a game?  I want baseball too but I do not want the league accepting terms that further erodes the current unacceptable lack of parity.  

37 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

If the reports are correct... Adjustments to structure such as service time, tanking, etc are no longer part of the discussion leaving compensation as almost the entire focus of the current disagreement.  

I'm shocked, shocked that all this drama is simply boiling down to money. 

 

We will have to see if any reliable account of the facts are made public.  I seriously doubt that is this is purely about money.  If the owners were only concerned about the bottom line what would stop them from simply reducing their player payroll?  Literally none of the proposed terms would prevent owners from reducing payroll if that was their ultimate goal.  These are very accomplished people.  I believe they understand the level of parity is dangerously out of whack and they are unwilling to accept anything that promotes the further erosion of parity.   The way teams were spending before the lock-out certainly does not indicate an unwillingness to spend. 

12 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

We will have to see if any reliable account of the facts are made public.  I seriously doubt that is this is purely about money.  If the owners were only concerned about the bottom line what would stop them from simply reducing their player payroll?  Literally none of the proposed terms would prevent owners from reducing payroll if that was their ultimate goal.  These are very accomplished people.  I believe they understand the level of parity is dangerously out of whack and they are unwilling to accept anything that promotes the further erosion of parity.   The way teams were spending before the lock-out certainly does not indicate an unwillingness to spend. 

Fair point.  Can't say I disagree with this thought either.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The cumulative rate rate of inflation over the past 50 years is a little less than 7X.  Average household income in the US over the past 50 years is almost identical to the rate of inflation.  In 1970, ave household income was $9.870 and in 2020 it was 67,521 or just a touch under 7X what it was in 1970.

Average baseball salaries were $29,303.  Had they grown at the rate of inflation or the same rate as US income, the average player would be earning a little under $200K.  Had US household income grown at the same rate as players, the average household income would be $1,350,000.   Do you really want to take the position that players have not grown adequately when measured against the adjusted rate of inflation?  Is there a group of employees anywhere in the world that have seen a greater rate of income growth than MLB and NFL players?  

 

Twins sold for 44 mil in 1984 and are now worth 1.325 billion    If players salaries had risen at the same rate as the value of the franchise the average players salary would be  9,814,035.    I know I am being silly but I guess its my way of saying I'm not feeling sorry for either of those two groups.    Average ticket price in 1970 was $2.74

I actually would favor mediation as a way to jump start serious negotiations given the short time frame.  I am not certain that MLB suggested mediation only for PR purposes.  Sometimes if a negotiator believes his own group as well as the other side are being stubborn, he or she will ask for mediation to move BOTH sides along.  In this case, MLB has not been very responsive which may indicate that there are members on the negotiating team that are being inflexible.  In addition, when the new PA negotiator was hired he bragged he was going to shake things up which is not the way to start negotiations, it is a bit of a shot across the bow.  Let's hope both sides get more flexible and this gets done soon.  I do think mediation would help that along.

2 hours ago, Dantes929 said:

Twins sold for 44 mil in 1984 and are now worth 1.325 billion    If players salaries had risen at the same rate as the value of the franchise the average players salary would be  9,814,035.    I know I am being silly but I guess its my way of saying I'm not feeling sorry for either of those two groups.    Average ticket price in 1970 was $2.74

You may want to check your math.  The Twins value of 1.325B is roughly 30 times larger than the $44M the Poland’s paid (wasn’t it 80 some million?).  30 times the annual salary of $29k would be roughly $900k, not $9.8M.   I suspect the average salary today is much higher than $900k, thus your logic would suggest that players have done better than the owners.

i am not arguing in support of the owners, merely pointing out the mistaken math.  Personally, I am disgusted with both sides.  Unfortunately, neither side appears interested in solving the games real problems, minimal comp to the minor league  players, more of the pie going to younger players and better revenue sharing to improve competition among all teams.

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The cumulative rate rate of inflation over the past 50 years is a little less than 7X.  Average household income in the US over the past 50 years is almost identical to the rate of inflation.  In 1970, ave household income was $9.870 and in 2020 it was 67,521 or just a touch under 7X what it was in 1970.

Average baseball salaries were $29,303.  Had they grown at the rate of inflation or the same rate as US income, the average player would be earning a little under $200K.  Had US household income grown at the same rate as players, the average household income would be $1,350,000.   Do you really want to take the position that players have not grown adequately when measured against the adjusted rate of inflation?  Is there a group of employees anywhere in the world that have seen a greater rate of income growth than MLB and NFL players?  

 

Good points. Both sides are to blame in my opinion. I have spent over $400 for spring training game tickets in March 2022 at Ft. Myers, plus I have rented an AirBnB for a week. I am not a happy camper.

It's all very sad, not only in the fact that the season will be interrupted, but the spectacle of such a small # of people haggling over the distribution of enormous sums of money to such small #'s of people. Most of us posting on this site will never have to worry about whether our profit margins are counted hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, nor whether our annual salaries are too low at $600k +.  MLBCorporate, which in the offseason in my mind includes the MLPBA as well as the owners exists in an alternative reality.  Owners hoard money. Our economic system rewards such behavior. It is what it is. Personally, I would love to see a culture of profit-sharing model take hold throughout corporate America. CBA's are one tool in the profit sharing chest, but CBA's are only as good as the laws that allow and regulate them and the lawyers that write them. It is an adversarial system that relies on conflict and economic and legal leverage to determine winners and losers. And this is just sad. It would seem there is a lot there to go around, at least so I have read here and elsewhere. I dont know how much actually is " a lot". I assume "a lot" means enough for everyone? If that is true,  I wonder then why the players have never tried to organize the many thousands of office and staff employees, so as to represent their interests as well as their own, in these CBA's. Why shouldn't these revenues also be distributed in some organized fashion to the people who make a fraction of the lowest paid MLB level rookie? And to the MiLB players.

I get the fact that MLB players are elite, very elite, athletes. 3 million kids aged 6-12 participate in baseball each year, if most Google statistics are accurate. About 1200 will be drafted in the MLB draft each year, about .0004%.  Of that group, 120 give or take will ever play a game in MLB. Of that group, a select few will make ridiculous amounts of money playing a kids game for a good chunk of their young adult lives. Good for them. Only 32 owners will make even more ridiculous sums managing franchises. Good for them. But they should not forget from where they came.  They'd all do better by themselves and the fan base if they werent so self-focused.

I agree with RJA, a mediator may help get things moving, but with or without one, eventually, someone will blink, something will get done, lost games will be made up, and by this November, its all a distant memory. But there will be a winner and loser, so whatever comes of this now only lays the groundwork for the next strike or lockout. If they could set aside ego long to acknowledge that they need each other to be successful, and they need a thriving MiLB system, and their staff employees, and the fans, and the kids and parents who keep a robust LIttle League pipeline moving (although with declining numbers-an area that should be of concern to everyone associated with promoting baseball), then they might begin to broaden their perspectives and find a better, less adversarial way forward. Until then, it is just wash, rinse, repeat.

Sorry all for the venting folks. I know we are all frustrated, and we all have varying opinions on causality. I describe it in the way Cpt Benjamin Willard did in describing Vietnam in Apocalypse Now: " Charging someone with murder here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500." This situation is as much an ethical and moral problem as it is a legal or economic one.

In the fantastical landscape of millionaires vs billionaires we all have to "suspend belief" in these kinds of activities the way we are forced to do in a Michael Bay film. Pretty hard to feel sorry for either side really. We just want baseball, and we want the game to be good, healthy, and on as equally level playing field as possible. But neither side is asking me, or any of us, for an outside and practical view.

Personally, I thought some of the initial BPA asks were pretty outrageous and not good for the game. And while I didn't say it, I found myself wondering if that wasn't a very deliberate tactic they knew would ever fly and would then allow them to back off from those demands and give the appearance of acquiescence in the negotiations. I think that theory has been born out by recent changes. And look, I have no problem with any athlete looking to earn more money. I think we can all appreciate that sentiment. My only, personal, issue with any athlete has been the argument of "only having a few years to make my money before I retire", as if they couldn't do anything else the rest of their lives from mid 30's on or struggle in their retirement financially. And if that sounds petty, please understand I don't mean it to sound that way. It's just a rub of mine as a fan who wants the best for my favorite teams/sports and the growth and health of such teams/sports. Even in this rather absurd sports society of $20 parking, and $12 beers, I am wholly supportive of any player making as much money as they can. 

But in baseball, particularly in this regard, I remain more concerned about the milb players, and the young players getting a "fair" salary. I am much more in favor of ANY new design where the 1-6yr players receive greater salaries than I am a 30yo receiving $300M in a bidding war amongst a handful of teams vs them making more earlier in their careers and then having to "settle" for a $200M deal amongst a greater number of bidding teams. I'm not talking some "social spending" in baseball. I'm simply talking about a greater spreading of wealth amongst all players, as well as all teams. 

And where I see the biggest problem is actually amongst the owners at this point, though the players definitely share part of the blame. If the owners actually give a damn about baseball in general, it's appeal and growth, then they should earnestly care about greater competitive balance. That would only create better competition and greater public/fan interest, which would only increase further value/revenue generated! But they can't even get their own house in order. Revenue sharing should be greater and broader. But there is nothing in place to prevent a smaller market team from keeping salaries and spending low and pocketing said revenue dollars. This is why I believe the owners need to allow for greater revenue sharing with some sort of floor, or floating floor. Unlike the NFL, MLB has guaranteed contracts, which is why high and firm resolutes aren't going to work. But a general, semi-even, equitable playing field means you have to  run a smart organization and not just write checks, or feel OK eating millions of dollars here and there because you can "afford to do so".

The owners are OWNERS of the business that is MLB. The players are employees. That is a fact. And if the owners want to be successful owners, make money, and see their "business" grow, then they need to get their collective heads and backsides together and on the same page and do what is best for their sport/business. 

The players SHOULD care about their milb brethren because they ALL came from that system one  way or another. But even if they continue to ignore that side of their business, as a union, they should be working harder for yearly salaries and yearly raises for ALL players, and not just the elite. (Don't forget the part about initial demands and penalty cap raises and the such). ALL players making more money is a good thing. Isn't that what a union is supposed to do? And they should be pushing for the aforementioned floor or floating floor as much as the owners should be! Again, same but still different, an NFL team can rebuild and turn things around by running their organization well and making smart decisions. Doing so can have a team wining, even in contention, in a couple of years. Right now, based on history, small market teams have to "blow things up" and go through lengthy rebuilds for their next opportunity. Why? They often lack the same finances to sign players or keep their own. Think the Royals. The opposite side? Think the Cubs who have about as much money as anyone and struggled for years before going "all in" and then falling apart. But the choices they made were organizational, and not because they didn't possess the resources. 

So the players SHOULD care about how money is distributed, and floors in place, for the sake of their members. If the sport grows, then so does revenue and salaries. Especially if there is a check and balance system in place.

IF the original proposals by the BPA were indeed absurd ideas presented as a power play to then back down from, fine. Your bluff was called and seemed obvious. But it doesn't mean they don't have real issues and gripes to fight for. If anything, it should have signaled to ownership that NOW we can sit down and have a real discussion how we proceed. Instead, ownership has virtually laughed in their face with condescending counters or no counters and have asked for a federal mediator to be involved. I've heard the BPA rejected that idea. IMPO, that was a mistake. I think a federal mediator, baseball fan or not, would have come in with a clear head and looked at both sides and said  "WTH?" And they probably would have kicked a little ass and just might make the owners look a little silly.

NOT a federal employee much less a professional mediator, but I'd gladly take the job for a day and tell both sides:

OWNERS: Put in a floor or floating floor but share your profits equitably or nobody is going to buy your product in a few years. If an owner has a problem with that,then his franchise needs a different owner. The comments made by the Rockies owner is beyond "sheesh"! It's in the "WTH" category of commets. Then raise the yearly average salary for your employees based on production commensurate with experience and production and stop low balling. You'll be compensated later when you don't pay for over the hill and retires. And your sport will be better when their is more competition, and fan interest and more money comes floating in. 

PLAYERS: You need to worry about being a union and paying the 1-6yr players more so they can make more money in their career. STUD p,ayers will ALWAYS make their money. They might make a little less when  they turn 30yo, but they will make more earlier in their careers. And if you help keep ownership to standards, then as your sport grows, so does payroll and earnings for all of your members. That's what you want, isn't it? BTW, despite some improvements made in the lives of milb players...a place and life you ALL came from, whether it be 1yr or 6yrs...you might want to push for further salary and benefits for those coming up behind you.

CONCLUSION: You ALL have a SILVER EGG that needs some shining! Did I say SILVER EGG? Why yes I did indeed! Why not a "GOLDEN EGG"  Why that's simple. 

Pull you're collective heads out of your butts and just do things fair and right!

OK, so I'm long winded at times. Sorry, not Sorry, that's me. I have a high soapbox to stand on when I care about something. 

Going to step down now. But I believe in what I rambled about. 

15 hours ago, Dantes929 said:

Twins sold for 44 mil in 1984 and are now worth 1.325 billion    If players salaries had risen at the same rate as the value of the franchise the average players salary would be  9,814,035.    I know I am being silly but I guess its my way of saying I'm not feeling sorry for either of those two groups.    Average ticket price in 1970 was $2.74

Both sides have been incredibly fortunate and you are correct that the value of the Minnesota Twins is 30X what it was in 1970.  We should also point out that Player salaries have increased by 136X of 1970 salaries.  In other words, salaries have increased almost 5x compared to team values.  Regardless of the exact numbers both sides are incredibly fortunate but only one side is wildly unsatisfied and demand more.  It's the same side that said we are unwilling to work for a penny less than 100% during a pandemic and refused to bunch an inch.  The owners want expanded playoffs which is good for the game and good for players.  The also want the universal DH which is good for the game and good for players.  They benefit both sides.  

The owners have not asked for "more" in the form of non-guaranteed contracts like football or max contract lengths like the NBA.  They have not asked to eliminate opt outs.  The demand for more and the subsequent threat to the MLB season is a product of players who don't feel the incredible compensation they get for playing a game is adequate and are demanding more.

13 hours ago, roger said:

i am not arguing in support of the owners, merely pointing out the mistaken math.  Personally, I am disgusted with both sides.  Unfortunately, neither side appears interested in solving the games real problems, minimal comp to the minor league  players, more of the pie going to younger players and better revenue sharing to improve competition among all teams.

MLBPA wants to increase the minimum salary to $775k and create a $100M bonus pool for pre-arb players. I'd say they're looking out for the younger players.

Increased revenue sharing is not going to improve competition. For one, baseball is already one of the more competitive sports with 24 of 30 teams qualifying for the playoffs in the last 6 seasons. The teams with the longest playoff droughts are the Mariners, Phillies, Tigers and Angels. None of those teams are small market, in fact the Phillies and Angels would lose resources if there was more revenue sharing.

The game's real problem is actually the lack of game action and increasing length of games. It is the most boring version of MLB I have ever experienced. The audience is shrinking because of it. MLB doesn't seem interested in expanding their fanbase. They would rather be a boutique sport for rich people and compulsive gamblers.

DISGUSTED with the game. Baseball has been a big part of my life from playing it as a youth to watching my grandchildren play. I have attended too many Twin's game to count. Monday I am calling the Twins to see if I can cancel my season ticket package. I urge everyone in this country to do the same thing with their team. I have no doubt I can find a better way to spend that money than to give it to 2 groups who can't decide how to divide up an amount of money I can not even fathom.

I would like to understand where this myth came from that baseball lacks competitive balance and that revenue sharing is the way to solve that problem. Baseball has competitive balance - 24/30 teams made the playoffs in the last 6 seasons.  It has never been easier to make the playoffs. The Royals, Indians and Rays have been in the World Series recently. Teams also have PLENTY of shared revenue. The estimates are that the Twins start with $250M in the bank before they start counting the local revenue. The shared revenue is HIGHER than the luxury tax threshold. The idea that either one of these is a problem that needs to be fixed seems detached from reality.

I really wish both sides would stop releasing media statements, in some effort to get fans on their side.  Fans really do not care how the money gets split up.  We want to watch baseball, and in small and mid market games we want to see our teams keep their home grown talent not the continued revolving door of trading them away or manipulating service time.  We want to see the best players play and good games.  

The bickering on how OUR money gets split up between billionaires and millionaires really does not help fans care.  The more I read and see coverage of each side releasing statements for the fans, it just makes me angry.  Do either side understand that if we the fans just stop watching then there will be no money to fight over? Maybe, the fans should call on a lockout/boycott of games for like 1 month after the game returns.  No watching, to attending games, all season ticket holders cancel their tickets. I think the two sides should take the fans input into these since they keep wanting to tell the fans how great and reasonable their proposals are.  

I propose, all tickets to attend games get cut 50%, all players and manager contracts get cut 25% or they are required to donate 25% of contracts to charities in the community.  All food at stadium is sold at 10% above cost.  If the two sides really care what I think that is my input, until they want to hear my input, leave the talks behind closed doors. 

49 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I would like to understand where this myth came from that baseball lacks competitive balance and that revenue sharing is the way to solve that problem. Baseball has competitive balance - 24/30 teams made the playoffs in the last 5 seasons.  It has never been easier to make the playoffs. The Royals, Indians and Rays have been in the World Series recently. Teams also have PLENTY of shared revenue. The estimates are that the Twins start with $250M in the bank before they start counting the local revenue. The shared revenue is HIGHER than the luxury tax threshold. The idea that either one of these is a problem that needs to be fixed seems detached from reality.

Making the playoffs is not the best measure of competitive balance.  Are Twins fans happy with getting to the playoffs?  The measure should be the relative ability to get to the WS or win the WS.  20 of the 22 National League teams and 18 of 22 American League teams to reach the WS in the 2000s have been above average revenue teams.  Is that parity?  To suggest the ability to spend an incremental $80or $100M on players is not an advantage defies every form of logic.  Why would the Yankees or Dodgers spend an extra hundred million more than the Rays if it was not advantageous?  I mean really, do we need to debate it's an advantage to be able to sign 3 elite players and have the budget of lower revenue teams left over?

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Making the playoffs is not the best measure of competitive balance.

I disagree. Once teams are in the playoffs they have at least a 40% chance to advance in each round. It's a series of coin flips to get to the World Series.

Also, each team is receiving more revenue sharing dollars than the luxury tax spending limits. No team is cash limited for payroll. If the Twins want to spend like the Yankees they're already able to. Of course spending that money on payroll would limit their ability to use cash flow to finance debt to develop real estate around baseball stadiums which is the true business of major league baseball in the current era.

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I disagree. Once teams are in the playoffs they have at least a 40% chance to advance in each round. It's a series of coin flips to get to the World Series.

Also, each team is receiving more revenue sharing dollars than the luxury tax spending limits. No team is cash limited for payroll. If the Twins want to spend like the Yankees they're already able to.

The results / history is clear that what has resulted is 90 percent of the WS teams have had above average revenue. Just to be clear, are you actually suggesting that any team could spend like the Yankees / Dodgers? 

1 hour ago, Trov said:

Maybe, the fans should call on a lockout/boycott of games for like 1 month after the game returns.  No watching, to attending games, all season ticket holders cancel their tickets.

This is happening all on its own. Baseball is dying and here they are fighting about it. Silly. If this lockout extends for a long period, my guess is that you will see baseball become hockey. 

Instead of trying to engage more fans and make their product more easily accessible on TV, they are fighting about who needs more money. They are cutting their nose off to spite their face.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The results / history is clear that what has resulted is 90 percent of the WS teams have had above average revenue. Just to be clear, are you actually suggesting that any team could spend like the Yankees / Dodgers? 

Why not? Even if they are only spending 50% of their revenue sharing money on salaries they start with a $125M payroll budget. That's before figuring in ANY local revenue. Teams could spend $170-180M without blinking. The luxury tax starts at $210M.

Teams are not spending at those levels because they don't need to spend like that to make the playoffs. If MLB succeeds in the negotiations it will become even easier to make the playoffs by adding 2-4 teams. Once you're in the playoffs the best you can do is increase your odds from 40% to 60% likely to win each round.

14 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I assume you are a big free-markets guy.  So why in the world would you choose 1970 as the starting point?  Curt Flood sat out that season because he didn't wish to play for the Phillies.  The players began to get some semblance of control over their destinies after that.  So of course their salaries have grown faster, the closer they come to a free market for their services (and they are a long way still from that).  That's a good thing!  You should be thrilled.

I have no problem with what has gone on.  I think it would be great if ticket and streaming prices were cut and both players and owners made half of what they are now.  I am simply trying to balance the conversation with an accurate account of the facts or for that matter an acknowledgement of the facts 

This started with the OP who suggested players are just trying to keep up with inflation. Anyone familiar with how these measures are normally used and also familiar with the sustained increases in player salaries sees the subset of the population that has literally outpaced the entire working population by a wide margin. 

The point about franchise value was made by someone else.  While they make a very good point, virtually every fan who makes this point fails to consider that player salaries have grown 5X the rate of franchise value which is why I pointed out both sides are extremely fortunate.   Perhaps the most salient point is that only one side is not satisfied with their bounty and refuses to go on without an increase in compensation.