xisxisxis

If anyone wonders how it got this far, look no further than the voting. Both the Owners and MLBPA "executive" committees voted against the proposal, while the vast majority of owners and the rank-and-file players voted yes. Maybe both sides should take a look at who's on their main negotiating team before the just approved CBA expires.

And Aaron Rodgers is vaccinated... Right?

Can you provide a link where the MLBPA refused a revenue sharing plan from the owners? You seem to think that the owners were offering a grand gesture by offering a floor. From here (https://www.royalsreview.com/2021/8/19/22631822/mlb-owners-reportedly-propose-a-salary-floor-but-theres-a-big-catch) the owners offered this initially (and was rejected by the MLBPA, duh, because they aren't stoopid) and how much it would affect salary: Floor at $100M (increase salary by $146M) Cap at $180M (reduce salary by $259M) That's exactly why the MLBPA will not discuss a floor, because when the owners discuss it their motivation is not equity/clarity, but to REDUCE salaries (when there revenues are going up each year to new records). For an example from the NFL and NBA: NFL (2021): Cap=$182.5M Floor= $180M NBA (CBA): Floor = 90% of CAP The owners floor offer was roughly 45% lower. A non-starter from the beginning. And your assertion about the big earners is completely refuted by the NBA and NFL as their top earners exceed MLB top earners by a ton. Also, the MLBPA caved on the biggest issue that impacts small market teams (years of pre-Arby/Arby). The MLBPA wanted reductions and gave them up for increased minimums. If they stood firm on reducing years of control the Brewers and other small markets would have been screwed.

But that wording is not inconsistent with what I posted. Yes, that is true that "the Packers" have not lined up any trades, it is Rodgers who is out exploring options for his salary and possible trade parameters. Heck, the reason the Packers haven't talked to Adams could be that Rodgers also wants Davante to be part of the package.

Floors and caps only work with a defined share of revenues. Based on the initial offer from the owners there was no clear idea where the players share of Revenue would be based on an artificially low floor that allowed the current revenue sharing among owners to continue. The NBA and NFL use those methods (cap/floor) to make sure they are allocating the correct amount from Revenues to players salaries. If baseball owners wanted long-term labor peace they would come up with a way to guarantee a revenue split with the MLBPA. Unfortunately, the owners want to squeeze every dime from the players. I've said this for months, but there will continue to be long-term labor fights/shutdowns/strikes as long as the owners don't want to commit to a split of revenues with the players. Every agreement is a battle between the two sides to tweak the variables to try and get a little more for them and the fans sit and wait for the pigs to feed at the trough. But I guess that's why I'll never be a billionaire as I don't treat every negotiation as how can I win and the other side loses, because it appears win-win is just not in their DNA.

Well don't rule out the fact that if Rodgers decision is to come back to the Packers, then from that point forward then the media will move on to other things. Aaron is an attention whore so this could drag out awhile. So far the Packers have done what they have to do, no matter what Rodgers decides, to get under the cap. If they trade Rodgers and let Adams go/tag&trade then they are close to being under the cap. All reports I have seen are that the Packers have had no discussions with Adams since the season ended. So read those tea leaves...

Florio can pound sand: From Demovsky: "Packers GM Brian Gutekunst said this week at the combine that he hasn't gotten a single call about trading Rodgers and, per a source, this remains true: The Packers have NOT engaged in trade talks with any teams about Rodgers." Maybe they got over a hundred calls. That's not "A Single" call and the Packers can parse words like Rodgers does. Doesn't mean that they didn't give Rodgers the go ahead to reach out and discuss contract with teams and compensation for the Packers. Doesn't mean the Packers have to agree to the compensation, but that it's a starting point. The Packers don't have to start negotiating until Rodgers makes his decision.

Why Not? Isn't the company motto: Free Free Free Free Free Free Most owners would say: "You had me at Free"

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 already posted earlier. If the revenues are going up, then everybody gains. Why would a workforce give up anything when each year revenues hit a new record? Because the owners want even more profit. No reputable union would give away member benefits in the face of RECORD REVENUE, especially when a vast majority of operating expenses are those member salaries (i.e. other forces leading to increased expenses are minimal). "federal law does not permit independent contractors to unionize,” said a statement from the Fisher Phillips law firm.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want. What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees? We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes... I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that you feel the owners are bad for noting that they have an expense in providing free food, but the players aren't bad for accepting that free food willingly? I'm pretty sure the players pay a nominal fee for the food that is prepared at the stadium. Their "meal money" is when traveling their other meals need to be covered (IIRC). Sure, owners don't have to provide food after the game, but at some point federal and state laws apply for how long someone can be "working" before getting a meal break. They don't just clock in then walk out to introductions. The players are at the stadium hours before games start and games are 3.5 hours long or more plus post-game. I'm sure the owners want the players around after the game in a good mood (even when they lose) to interact with the media, not rushing to get out and not telling the media to get lost because they are in a hurry to get a meal. And really what is the total cost for the "meal money"? Maybe 0.02% of the $220M luxury tax. Is it really a bargaining position to discuss something that small or is it just a dig to piss off the other side. I haven't been through a divorce, but from my experience from friends/associates some very petty issues come up that are closer to 1% of the total issues/dollars that will be fought over because one side or the other digs in and just wants to piss off the other side. Damn an agreement, I want to win that battle... Part of the problem with taking sides in this disagreement are the arguments that Apples equal Oranges or the owners moving 2% is equal to the players giving 20%, or vice, versa.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want. What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees? We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

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.

And the owners do? The only outrageous local TV deal is the Dodgers deal. The Yankees, Angels, Red Sox deals are at the top, but they aren't in the same ballpark. In total their are 6 teams with large enough local TV revenue to financially argue against complete sharing of local TV revenue. Based on that MLB could vote tomorrow for complete revenue sharing. Why don't they? Because sharing would likely require a salary floor and I would bet a years salary that more than half the small market teams WOULD HATE TO LOSE THEIR CURRENT MASSIVE PROFITS. It isn't the big markets that are stopping revenue sharing, it's them plus enough of the small/mid-market owners that are stuffing their pants, shirts, wives, childrens, mistresses blouses, panties, bras with all of the massive cash they are making each year. Yeah, the owners really care about competitive balance right up until it reduces their incomes by $0.01.

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers). I saw that. And that's good. It's also 1/30 teams. And what about the league office? I think the point stand in terms of ownership hypocrisy. We see 100 percent of the players' financials and about 3% of the owners. I think your point that the burden is on the owners is correct. I was just pointing out that there is some data and it's nothing like "we can't afford it" or "we don't have the money". If those numbers are close to an accurate average then as an industry they are making over $1B in profit, but they argue that they can't afford more than $25M for a bonus pool for pre-arby players, while the MLBPA, *gasp* wants $100M. I really believe that if the players payroll over the last CBA hadn't dropped they would have gladly gone along with continuing the terms from the last agreement. The fact they are losing ground has emboldened them, especially with the owners stonewalling attempts to address the issue.

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers). You've been a very vocal supporter of the owners, yet that statement is why the players are dug in. The teams have profited more from the last CBA (Revenues are up while the biggest cost - major league payroll has dropped.) The fans aren't better off with lower ticket prices - they go up almost every year. The players aren't better off with more salary (their salaries have gone down since 2017) So who is the "everyone involved", If not the vast majority of the employees or the customers?

First 7 (2012) = $28.8M First 7 (2007) = $25.4M First 31 picks (2012, 4 picks didn't sign) = $65.2M First 27 picks (2007, same # of players as 2012) = $57.8M Year over year those are 2% raises. The reason I picked 2007 is that it looked similar to 2012 and the players career arcs are final for 2007 while there are a few from 2012 that could still reach arbitration. The only reason I looked at draft numbers at all is that I wanted an idea of what a typical year looked like for "success" in the draft where the outcomes of player careers are final (with bonus information). Only 16 of the 50 top players in 2007 ever made it to arbitration while the vast majority had their signing bonus and not much else to show for all the years of work. Also, both owners and MLBPA (since they don't represent draftees) are better off reducing the waste of money paying high bonuses to draftees and using that money to boost pay for younger players (pre-arbitration).

Well maybe they should put the money into the bank/investments instead of stuffing their pants! I did a quick check of 4 other teams. I used 2021 stats with hitters more than 70 PA (where pitchers start to sneak in) and 30 IP. Counted the players in the top 45 for their draft year (so some competitive and first round + that likely had more bonus than a 1 year minimum wage). Here are the results: Cardinals = 5 Astros = 8 Giants = 5 Rays = 4 That's 22 across 4 good/v good teams not named the Dodgers or Brewers. So on average 5.5 per team. I don't recall the exact number of players I checked. but it was the low to mid 20's for each team. Not only is that not a majority. It's closer to 25% of a 26 man roster. So that's a rough estimate of the players that come into the majors with a wad of cash (some pretty small and some pretty big (top 15ish each draft). Now looking at it another way I checked the top 50 players from the 2007 draft. Of those 50, 22 made a million or more in salary on top of their signing bonus with 16 more than league minimum *3 years and 6 around $1M-$1.2M. What was shocking was the number of players who spent 6-10 years in the minors and never had single game in the majors (about 10). That's a long time working at minor league conditions. Personally I think the draft is such a crap shoot it's better to reign the bonus pools back in, get real money into the minors and increase the first years salary or at least make a real bonus pool for pre-arby players. $25M is less than $1M per team. That's just chump change. I am with MLBPA that it needs to be closer to $100M or $3M per team and it could easily be done with a cut to the bonus draft bonus pool. MLBPA would likely not even blink if the owners suggested that. Edit: The Top50 players in 2007 had a combined signing bonus amount of $78.25M. The players that never made it to the majors or played so little they made less than $1M accounts for 41.4% of that bonus amount. That's a lot of money payed to players who couldn't make any impact at the ML level.

Interns are still LEARNING their profession. I spent 6 years earning crap because I wasn't qualified to hold the job I wanted at the end with the "big pay", but by the end I was qualified. Nothing similar to baseball at all.

I agree you haven't done the research and using single examples to somehow represent the average or typical career isn't actually research. At least discussing an average of the entire major league players is logs better in coming to an actual understanding of what a players lifetime earnings have been. Also, teams only get 1 first round pick and the brewer's have few of their own that actually made it to three years service time so if the Brewers have collected that many they came as free agents or through trade. It would be impossible for every team in MLB to have 20 1st round picks on their 40 man rosters which would literally require players to be in their 15th to 20th year in baseball. There just aren't that many players with more than 10 years of service let alone 15 to 20 to fill as many 40 man roster spots that you hypothesize are 1st round picks.

Other than business that contract prison labor, what other profession requires an employee to remain a servant of the company for a minimum of 6 years at a fixed salary for a minimum of 3 of those years no matter how they perform and limited to raises based on what an arbiter says? Many companies pay their employees competitive wages to retain them based on their level of expertise. Baseball players have a unique expertise that requires unique salaries. While I agree with a lot of what you have posted in this thread, the last study I could find that looked at length of playing career came up with almost 7 years as the average (based on data thru 2003). That is likely higher than today as the steroid driven old -age effect is likely the main reason the number is that high and current numbers are likely lower. 2) 36% of players are out of the league before the end of their third year. That's a significantly shortened career for a third of the players who make it to MLB while ignoring the several thousand that are churned through the minors each year to fill those 780 "jobs, a majority of whom are the true serfs in baseball.

Historically I am not a big fan of paying people to play a game a large amount of money. I haven't really sided with the players, but there's no sense fighting the battle that there is too much money being dedicated to a game with some level of "entertainment". The last CBA ended up reducing the percentage of money that goes to player salaries and the current proposals do nothing to guarantee the actual talent is going to share equitably moving forward. It's odd that the NBA and NFL players unions are so weak compared to MLBPA, but the owners in those sports are more than willing to share the wealth with the players. It's almost as if those sports understand that it's in their best interest to have fans thinking positively about their stars/players, while MLB seems fine to trash their own product every time a CBA comes up for renewal. The MLB owners have basically not moved on anything to get more money to players sooner and their movement is measured by a micrometer, while the MLBPA has seeded much more. They have done nothing to level the playing field for small market teams. MLB owners wanted expanded playoffs to tap into an additional $130M in TV revenue from ESPN plus game revenues, but the owners made every attempt to not share $1 with the players. It's almost as if the MLB owners think them making truckloads of money is the sport fans want to see. I'm done with them.

I don't think it's entirely meaningless. The Brewers don't have open books and can proclaim anything they want when looking for new lease terms. The county has data that the last series of negotiations did not net the benefit that the prior Brewers ownership claimed. The city/county should be clear with the Brewers that without transparency they won't take the Brewers claims at face value. As I stated in my previous post I think the reasonable approach to recover the counties costs for that extension is to institute a ticket tax. The Brewers will absolutely hate that idea as it makes the ticket prices higher. But that's a reasonable approach to subsidizing the costs for the county instead of another "tax" that is inequitable and as the past agreement clearly shows, the taxpayers lose and lose and lose. I have personally flipped on the issue myself going from JosephC's position of not one more dime, to being fine with a lease extension that keeps MP/AmFam up to date, but coming from those that utilize that facility and not the average taxpayer who derives no benefit from the Brewers. Yes, but it still is an uphill battle to get to tax expense/revenue equity. By 2030+ it will be closer to break even on a yearly basis (dividing the capital cost across the lease years), but we can't ignore the >$200M+ deficit that's accumulated. If an extension comes in at a $ amount that actually drives an excess benefit to the taxpayer then that takes significant sting out of the current deficit, but I doubt we ever get back to parity. I just hope the next extension is fair to the taxpayers and if it means that Mark Attanasio is only taking home $10M a year instead of $20M then I'm fine with that.

The Cap Gymnastics have begun with a reworking of Kenny Clark's contract to save $10.8M in cap space. https://www.nfl.com/news/kenny-clark-packers-restructure-contract-create-10-8m-in-cap-space

Over $600 million in taxes have been collected for the Miller Park/AMFam construction and maintenance for a 30 year lease. That's $20M per year. The tax revenue to equal that amount (or $20M) to make a net zero in cost to the taxpayers (assuming the current 7.6% top rate) is $263M in payroll. Maybe I missed a few FA signings, but the Brewers aren't even close. What are the actual numbers? The Players (the largest part of the teams payroll) count half of their payroll as WI taxable due to playing half their games in another state. If we say the teams player payroll has averaged $70M the past 21 years with another $15M in other payroll (at 100% WI taxable) that's an average of $50M ($70M/2 + $15) with a income tax revenue for the state of $3.8M. The team probably contributes more from paying sales tax. Let's say the average taxable revenue over the last 22 years has been $120M which equates to about $6.6M per year. That's about $10M in tax revenue for $20M in tax subsidies. Who wants to sell their house for 50% of the market price? Anyone want to sell me their $20 bills? I'm offering $10. But the state/counties should be losing 50% of their investment? Economic Impact? It could matter if the tax revenue was close to or equal the tax subsidy. I won't go into all of the studies that show the impact as minor. It just doesn't move the needle. People will spend the money on other entertainment options. Spending $600 million to raise the education standards of WI youth, retraining programs for people who lose jobs, subsidies to high tech industries/jobs would create way more high paying jobs than a few baseball positions in their offices that surprisingly go to out-of-staters. It's not that $200-$300 out of the average persons pocket that's the issue, it's how you spend $600M in tax revenue and paying for a new stadium is pretty much a poor use of that money. If the city/county wants to renegotiate a lease extension they should stipulate that the money to cover the Brewers subsidy will come from a ticket tax. Say $5 per ticket for 2.5M tickets gets you to $12.5M per year. That should cover the operating expenses and let's the people who go to the games pay for the pleasure.