New CBA Agreement Talks

[Mr Southpaw]

18 hours ago, mudbutt said:

Because they see what happened to other leagues with that arrangement. Owners play games with what is actually defined as revenue, so it’s not actually a 50/50 split. Which is already happening now with the MLB negotiations as the proposed floor and cap include more than just salaries. And then what happens in every CBA afterwards, the revenue definition is fought over, along with the percentages, to slowly whittle down the players each CBA expiration.

I don't get the revenue argument.  When a dude goes to work at the factory does he care about a paycheck or revenue? The owners are willing to put up an additions 3/4 billion dollars in salaries.  Who cares about revenue?

[Frisbee Slider]

8 minutes ago, Mr Southpaw said:

I don't get the revenue argument.  When a dude goes to work at the factory does he care about a paycheck or revenue? The owners are willing to put up an additions 3/4 billion dollars in salaries.  Who cares about revenue?

I understand what you’re saying.

At the same time, MLB players are not factory workers. MLB players are more like the top sales people in a company. If a sales person literally generates billions of dollars in revenue for the owner, they have a legitimate interest in their ‘commission percentage.’

No sales person, no sales.

[Mr Southpaw]

23 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I understand what you’re saying.

At the same time, MLB players are not factory workers. MLB players are more like the top sales people in a company. If a sales person literally generates billions of dollars in revenue for the owner, they have a legitimate interest in their ‘commission percentage.’

No sales person, no sales.

I agree that they are not factory workers.  Maybe the owners should offer them commission contracts like high end sales people? 1 million dollar salary for position players and $100,000 per home run and lose $10,000 per strike out..  Pitchers get the base 1 million and $10,000 per strike out, but lose $100,000 for every home run they give up! Add in any other incentives you would like.

I would watch that all day long.

[Thurston Fluff]

22 hours ago, mudbutt said:

Because they see what happened to other leagues with that arrangement. Owners play games with what is actually defined as revenue, so it’s not actually a 50/50 split. Which is already happening now with the MLB negotiations as the proposed floor and cap include more than just salaries. And then what happens in every CBA afterwards, the revenue definition is fought over, along with the percentages, to slowly whittle down the players each CBA expiration.

Sure they'll argue over it every CBA and the owners will try to slowly whittle down the players share every time. But what makes you think that isn't happening now? There's always going to be something they fight over. 

[mudbutt]

4 hours ago, Mr Southpaw said:

I don't get the revenue argument.  When a dude goes to work at the factory does he care about a paycheck or revenue? The owners are willing to put up an additions 3/4 billion dollars in salaries.  Who cares about revenue?

Salary caps are based on revenue thus impacting what is available for paychecks. And saying the owners are willing to put 3/4 billion dollars in additional salaries is the problem, that's actually not true. They are putting expenses outside of salaries like pensions and other benefits into their proposed salary cap. The owners want a CBA that will earn them more money, anything else like competitive balance talk is just a narrative tool to try to get leverage in getting more money.

And to your comment Thurston, yes there are always things to battle over. But right now in the current state there is no cap and it is much easier to have leverage and whittle down something that already exists versus something that does not.

[Mr Southpaw]

3 hours ago, mudbutt said:

Salary caps are based on revenue thus impacting what is available for paychecks. And saying the owners are willing to put 3/4 billion dollars in additional salaries is the problem, that's actually not true. They are putting expenses outside of salaries like pensions and other benefits into their proposed salary cap. The owners want a CBA that will earn them more money, anything else like competitive balance talk is just a narrative tool to try to get leverage in getting more money.

And to your comment Thurston, yes there are always things to battle over. But right now in the current state there is no cap and it is much easier to have leverage and whittle down something that already exists versus something that does not.

How much is put into pensions and other benefits per team?

[Fear The Chorizo]

31 minutes ago, Mr Southpaw said:

How much is putting into pensions and other benefits per team?

The main problem I have with the Players Union's stance on "no salary cap ever in bazillion years, the owners are sitting on mountains of $$$ they should share more!!!!" is because they don't factor in all the operating expenses MLB organizations/owners have to use revenues for as true debits of the pie they'll always want more of than what owners would be able to give.  That and the fact everything the union is so strongly for benefits the top 5% of the players when the remaining 95% will never reap those same benefits.  A salary cap with floor as a whole actually benefits players who are good enough to make the major leagues but won't ever cash in on a generational wealth-building free agent contract.

I don't care what both sides are saying publicly right now, because I think both the owners and players know things need to change.  From a financial perspective, I think two things changing would prioritize the longterm best interest of the game....1 - all broadcast revenue needs to be shared across the league equally to eliminate the market advantages funding payrolls for a select few ballclubs when anyone form anywhere can subscribe to watch games remotely that always do include teams from different markets.  2 - no more deferred $ in contracts.  I think if those two things were implemented, there wouldn't be a need for a salary cap/floor or anything else to change from the current financial system.

[Lucas O.]

36 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

The main problem I have with the Players Union's stance on "no salary cap ever in bazillion years, the owners are sitting on mountains of $$$ they should share more!!!!" is because they don't factor in all the operating expenses MLB organizations/owners have to use revenues for as true debits of the pie they'll always want more of than what owners would be able to give.  That and the fact everything the union is so strongly for benefits the top 5% of the players when the remaining 95% will never reap those same benefits.  A salary cap with floor as a whole actually benefits players who are good enough to make the major leagues but won't ever cash in on a generational wealth-building free agent contract.

I think this is mostly just wrong. The MLBPA puts in a much bigger effort than MLB does to improve the salaries of the arb and pre-arb guys. The MLBPA proposal this offseason came with a much bigger increase to the minimum than MLB's did. Last CBA the MLBPA was fighting for a $105M pre-arb bonus pool and MLB's initial counter offer was $10M.  MLB does a much better job at creating narratives and getting fans on their side than the MLBPA does but that's mostly through being incredibly misleading about their positions and reasons for their positions.

[titanrick]

2 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

A salary cap with floor as a whole actually benefits players who are good enough to make the major leagues but won't ever cash in on a generational wealth-building free agent contract.

I think that is the key to get the PA onboard.  Instead of Shohei getting his $700M, you spread that wealth out and take care of the players who make the bigs, but never get in the running for generational wealth like that.  Increase the minimum salary, expand the pension plan, etc.  Pit them against each other.  Do they really want to cancel a season so they can keep the system where one guy gets almost a BILLION dollars while the majority of them play the same game for a couple hundred thousand?

[Lucas O.]

8 minutes ago, titanrick said:

I think that is the key to get the PA onboard.  Instead of Shohei getting his $700M, you spread that wealth out and take care of the players who make the bigs, but never get in the running for generational wealth like that.  Increase the minimum salary, expand the pension plan, etc.  Pit them against each other.  Do they really want to cancel a season so they can keep the system where one guy gets almost a BILLION dollars while the majority of them play the same game for a couple hundred thousand?

In theory that makes sense but that's not really how it goes down in hard capped leagues. The top players still get paid though less than they would in a non-capped league and the middle class of the league gets squeezed out with teams rather spending their money on the top class of players and then filling around them with cheaper options. This has been abundantly clear in the NBA since they created much stiffer punishments going over the second apron. 

[jw5511986]

16 hours ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I understand what you’re saying.

At the same time, MLB players are not factory workers. MLB players are more like the top sales people in a company. If a sales person literally generates billions of dollars in revenue for the owner, they have a legitimate interest in their ‘commission percentage.’

No sales person, no sales.

I've worked for some companies that would seriously question your last statement...

[Fear The Chorizo]

23 hours ago, Lucas O. said:

I think this is mostly just wrong. The MLBPA puts in a much bigger effort than MLB does to improve the salaries of the arb and pre-arb guys. The MLBPA proposal this offseason came with a much bigger increase to the minimum than MLB's did. Last CBA the MLBPA was fighting for a $105M pre-arb bonus pool and MLB's initial counter offer was $10M.  MLB does a much better job at creating narratives and getting fans on their side than the MLBPA does but that's mostly through being incredibly misleading about their positions and reasons for their positions.

Of course the MLBPA proposal comes with much bigger increases to the MLB minimum - their proposals also come with no cap, meaning they want both higher minimum salaries and uninhibited salary increases to the game's best free agents.  Players will always want more money than the owners are willing to pay them.  If the MLBPA would come out and say they're ok with a salary cap and the two sides can agree within 20% of what that cap should be and how it would be adjusted annually based on specific league revenue streams , they'd get whatever they want for a MLB minimum salary from the owners

[jw5511986]

10 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Of course the MLBPA proposal comes with much bigger increases to the MLB minimum - their proposals also come with no cap, meaning they want both higher minimum salaries and uninhibited salary increases to the game's best free agents.  Players will always want more money than the owners are willing to pay them.  If the MLBPA would come out and say they're ok with a salary cap and the two sides can agree within 20% of what that cap should be and how it would be adjusted annually based on specific league revenue streams , they'd get whatever they want for a MLB minimum salary from the owners

And a smaller slice of the pie in every subsequent negotiation from here on out.

[Mr Southpaw]

It is hard to argue when an unproven rookie makes $850,000/year.  It is easy to argue when Mis and Henderson make $850,000.  That is what extensions are for. Both Mis and Henderson betting on themselves is dangerous for both of them. It is also risky for the Brewers to extend.

[Lucas O.]

4 hours ago, Mr Southpaw said:

It is hard to argue when an unproven rookie makes $850,000/year.  It is easy to argue when Mis and Henderson make $850,000.  That is what extensions are for. Both Mis and Henderson betting on themselves is dangerous for both of them. It is also risky for the Brewers to extend.

Players like Miz and Henderson are why the MLBPA pushed hard for that $105M pre-arb bonus pool. They want these good and great young players getting bonuses to get them more accurately paid for their performance. MLB and MLBPA eventually settled on that bonus pool being $50M so these guys will get performance bonuses.