gebc1997

I suppose this is the owners fault too

No doubt about it, Revenue sharing is a must to get true competitive balance. I am assuming that the only it works though is if it’s paired with salary floor and cap scenarios, to ensure the sharing of funds is put right back into the salaries of the players. And the only way to ensure that is to have a salary floor, which then must be paired with a salary cap. And as far as I know, the players will never agree to that, which I suppose may lead the owners, among other more selfish reasons I’m sure, to decide why bother sharing revenue because the players will never agree to the cap/floor part that has to go along with it for it to truly work. Also, I am the king of Runon sentences.

Should and Could the owners just lift the lockout, with the understanding there is a deadlock, and just proceed with the season under the terms of the expired CBA and then just hope the players don't strike later in the season. Maybe kill them with kindness and sign a bunch of them to nicer than average contract to, lol.

What about this idea… 1. Offer 800k minimum salary 2. Offer 45-50 million for the bonus pool 3. 14 team playoff 4. All the other odds and ends previously discussed Then the new idea. Off 224 -228 for the first two years of the cba, with the caveat being that if after 2 years, the total combined payroll of mlb players doesn’t reach a certain level (to be determined by someone smarter than me), then years 3 4 5 go way up to like 240 246 252 or even more. And if the total payroll numbers reach the agreed upon level, the. The cbt goes up smaller, like 232-235-240 or so. Also with the understanding that if after year 3 , there is a drop in payroll total, then year 4 is 255 and year 5 270

What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M? So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal. The problem with that line of thinking is you are both acknowledging that there have been fundamental changes that involve salary while still arguing that the baseline should be a CBA agreed to under a previous set of assumptions. I can understand the owners not wanting to make fundamental changes to the current system given it would be tough for them to reach consensus among themselves let alone with the players, but you can look at not getting the kind of structural changes that would account for the new status quo as what the players are giving up. Which us why the changes to the proposed new CBA address getting more money to the 0-3 year players. we can certainly differ as to how much needs to go to them, but the effort has been made to get those younger players more money early. I don't think there's anything that can be done to get those average veterans the type of contracts they used to get, that ship has likely sailed. Also, regarding the new bonus pool, it does make sense the clubs would want the starting point to be as low as reasonable, because once they agree on that number for the bonus pool, that number will only go up in future years and cbas, it will never go down.

How is changing the way of evaluating player worth to a way that pays players less not being cheap? I suppose I should say it's a way of not spending money's unnecessarily for a veteran player who will bring nothing special to the table beyond a rookie level player.

When they offer to move 35% from their position and the owners move 5% then they are "giving up" more than the owners. What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M? So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal. I truly feel a lot of that 430million in reduced salaries has a lot more to do the the new way of evaluating player worth in free agency, than in just general cheapness of the powners

When they offer to move 35% from their position and the owners move 5% then they are "giving up" more than the owners. What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M? So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal. You are referring to things in the potential CBA that the players want more of, and that they are coming down on from their high ask, doesn't count as giving something up

Exactly, so you agree, the players aren't giving up anything in this new cba

Why should the players be giving up anything if revenues are going up and salaries are stagnating? I don't think they should be giving up anything, but people are implying and stating that they are. I was simply looking for the thing they are giving up.

What, compared to the previous CBA, are the players giving up this year

Their salaries have been dropping while revenue has been increasing. The MLB proposal would further increase the gap between revenue and salaries. MLB could accept everything in the players’ proposal and have extra money left over given the TV revenue increases that are locked in. If the players’ piece of the pie is smaller, that hurts them. I do agree that the last few years, players overall salaries have stagnated, and it would be a good thing to improve that. However, I think for the most part the reason they have stagnated some is because of new way GMs are evaluating player worth on the free agent market. Josh Reddick 15 years ago would have got a 3/30 offer in a heartbeat , but now teams see him and similar players as extremely replaceable and will not offer those kind of salaries for that type anymore. But, this CBA offer would have added I heard around 100 million to player salaries compared to last years base, So it’s still an improvement and an overall benefit to the players and the ability to maximize their salary potential.

I want somebody , without saying that manfred is an idiot or that the owners don’t open the books, what about the latest proposal was not good for the players. Show me one thing that outwardly hurts the players.

What a waste of time. I didn't make it past 5 minutes of clearly a pro-owners take on every bargaining issue. I especially love how when discussing the expanded playoffs and how those evil players turned it down because they thought teams wouldn't spend as much yet there was no mention of the ALREADY negotiated $130M deal with ESPN to televise the extra round of playoffs and NO plan to share any of the additional revenue with the actual players. Don't know what the link to Boras was and don't care. It's all just PR BS. Well, at least you had an open mind.

I had a feeling

I guess I will just never understand why anybody thinks it their business what the clubs bottom line is. I would be totally fine with not knowing what each players salary is as well. Honestly, we don’t need to know that at all. I, personally, only look at the players salaries and team payroll to come up with ideas on trade ideas and free agent possibilities. I will never ever begrudge anybody for the money they earn through a salary or through business profits. The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved. When the owners are saying "the players are asking too much; we can't afford it," the burden is on them. It's not that I feel entitled to know their profits. It's that they get to throw all the shade they want at player salaries with no expectation that they provide evidence and no worries about any competition. They could open up the books tomorrow if they wanted. They won't because, this way, they get all the benefit. The owners have literally made it our business by arguing they can't afford what the players are asking and then not even making the barest effort to show anyone it's true. You can't have it both ways. You want to keep income private, fine. But then don't cry poor. Are the owners saying they can’t afford it ? I may have missed that, but I saw it as their reasoning is that going too high on the cbt threshold was concern that it could harm competitive balance.

I guess I will just never understand why anybody thinks it their business what the clubs bottom line is. I would be totally fine with not knowing what each players salary is as well. Honestly, we don’t need to know that at all. I, personally, only look at the players salaries and team payroll to come up with ideas on trade ideas and free agent possibilities. I will never ever begrudge anybody for the money they earn through a salary or through business profits. The more the clubs profit, the better for everyone involved.

I agree a few million isn't life changing retirement money, but it sure is life starting money. The bit of notoriety they will have back home as local boy makes good, will open many doors for them to where they will be comfortable and secure with their employment and success

Sports is just different, the sport as a whole is the business, and to ensure competitiveness and some semblance of fairness to teams, the players have to be locked into their original team for some period of time. As far as I interstate, Union head Marvin Miller suggested 6 years before free agency so all players weren't just flooding the market every year searching for the next new one year contract.

True, however, they will have made 1-3 million in most cases over that time which they should be able to parlay into comfort. They will also be at most 30yo, so they can use their connections and name locally to start small businesses or get hired as coaches or start their own baseball training clinics.

The fact that you can quote exact player salaries and hold that against the players while not being able to say one truthful word about how much the owners make is by design. If the owners wanted to end this, they'd open their books and show the players how big a share of revenue they are already getting and leave it at that. They won't however, because - I wonder why someone wouldn't be transparent in a negotiation? Any ideas? Is there a rule or law that says that the company has to reveal their finances to a union in cba negotiations. I assume not since baseball doesn't seem to. Why do some feel it's necessary for the league and clubs to have to reveal their financials.

Did the players go on strike? This is all about the owners forcing the players to fix the mistakes the owners keep making. The players would have absolutely gone on strike at some point this year without them getting what they want.

Well said

The reason the clubs did the lockout was to prevent the players from striking towards the end of the season like they did in 94, when to playoffs and best part of the season were at stake. The clubs could have just said we are moving on to the new season with the old agreement, and we will negotiate during the season, and then bang a strike in august and it’s all gone. I will certainly agree that the clubs should’ve pressed more for meetings and negotiations over the last three months

If the owners want the players on board with their latest proposalthey should open up their books and demonstrate these financial hardships. Where in my post did I suggest the owners are having financial hardships