Official CBA Negotiation Thread

Hulavol said:
I swear - I hate unions.
I’m almost at the point of the owners saying **** you, and if anybody wants to play a child’s game for more money than most fans make- by far- then they can come sign up. If not, go do something else. Would the product on the field look like high school baseball for a few years ? Yep. Would fans still come to the battery and cheer for the Braves ? Yep. This crap would never happen again. Fans would understand ....
Or am I crazy ?
Click to expand...

You are crazy.

And unions are vital.
 
CyYoung31 said:
Lol. Nobody would come out to watch that garbage product.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say Hulavol is crazy, but before the St. Paul Saints became the Twins' AAA team, they were an independent league team in the American Association. Fun night at the ballpark. Cheap tickets. Reasonably-priced food with some interesting menu choices. Great between innings entertainment (who would expect less from a Veeck). But the on-field product was almost unwatchable if you were a remotely serious fan who followed the major leagues at all. For the most part, the players were sound fundamentally, but there was a very noticeable step-down in terms of athleticism. It was like watching a team of Keith Lockhart's less-talented younger brothers.
 
MadduxFanII said:
The owners, near as I can tell, are basically in a defensive/maintenance posture and don't particularly want to change anything. No reason they should -- they've cleaned the players' clocks in the last couple CBA negotiations, as Enscheff said, and they've got a pretty good thing going right now. They want to expand the playoffs because that's more revenue for them that the players don't have much of a claim to, and the players aren't particularly enthusiastic about expanding the playoffs, because they believe if you make it easier to reach the postseason then teams will be less motivated to spend money -- if you can make the playoffs as an 85-win team, and the postseason is a crapshoot, why spend serious money to improve yourself to a 90-win team?

But that's a relatively minor change, and the controlling dynamic here is the players trying to push for major changes while the owners try to hold things where they stand. That's not a great position for the players to be in, but it's their fault for handling the last couple negotiations in such a short-sighted manner.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear about something - nobody on EITHER side is particularly worried about whether or not it becomes easier or harder to make the playoffs. Labor disputes have and always will be about one thing - money.

The expanded playoffs, universal DH, service-time, and other discussions are simply window dressing. At the end of the day, this is about the players wanting a bigger piece of the pie - and passing on a salary floor and expanded playoffs would be in direct conflict with their goal. While the players' slice of the pie wouldn't be as big as they'd like, adding 4 playoff teams would mean 104 more of the 780 players would make more money than what they're contractually obligated to be paid. There's simply no way to dispute that. The whining is that the owners' share of a bigger pie if they were expanded would be too big - NOT that the players wouldn't be compensated. Well boo-hoo. You honestly want the players being paid the least to make more money? Try this on for size...

"The 2019 MLB minimum contract was worth $550,000, or $3,425.93 per game over a full 162-game season. That makes the Wild Card Game about four times more valuable for a player at the minimum than a regular season game."

Again, this is another case of the highest-paid players looking out for themselves and not actually being concerned about the "little guy" because...

"Nationals hurler Stephen Strasburg, who made $38.33 million in 2019, or $236,625.51 per game. The Nationals won the World Series and Strasburg’s postseason share amounted to just a little more than one game’s worth of extra pay."

(https://boardroom.tv/al-nl-wild-card-games-2021)


The same thing goes for the salary floor discussion. Owners will continue to pay higher and higher salaries for the best players available as free-agents just as they always have because they realize that will continue to generate higher revenues for their personal franchises. They've said they're willing to institute a floor, don't be stupid and pass that up. Make their concession be that that floor remains intact AT ALL TIMES - not averaged over several years so they can dive below it while rebuilding. If teams were required to maintain a $100 million payroll, 12 of the 30 teams would have been required to raise their payrolls last season, and that would have meant those 12 teams would have had to have paid over $290 million more to fill out their rosters (using Spotrac's figures). Who gives a *amn whether that money came from profit sharing teams or not? The players on those teams would have $290 million more in their pockets. If the playoffs would have been expanded 52 more players would have received a playoff share - Milwaukee and Tampa Bay were the only playoff teams that had payrolls below $100 million.
 
Last edited:
CyYoung31 said:
Lol. Nobody would come out to watch that garbage product.
Click to expand...

As long as the relative level of competition stayed the same, most of the fans would still watch.

It wouldn't be high school quality...it would basically be everyone in the minors jumping up a level, minus some of the guys on the 40 man and a few who refused to be scabs.

That's not me saying to hell with the players or siding with the owners. More so than any of the previous labor stoppages in my lifetime, I lean towards the players' side on this one. The owners have wised up with respect to overpaying aging free agents to the point where the current system is unfair to the labor side. But it's reality that most people are fans of the name on the front of the jersey more than they are the name on the back. Otherwise half this board would be moving over to DodgersCountry.com once Freeman signs with them. Honestly, if all 1200 players on 40-man rosters suddenly got raptured or just mysteriously vanished, would you stop watching the game? If you would I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.
 
clvclv said:
Let's be clear about something - nobody on EITHER side is particularly worried about whether or not it becomes easier or harder to make the playoffs. Labor disputes have and always will be about one thing - money.

The expanded playoffs, universal DH, service-time, and other discussions are simply window dressing. At the end of the day, this is about the players wanting a bigger piece of the pie - and passing on a salary floor and expanded playoffs would be in direct conflict with their goal. While the players' slice of the pie wouldn't be as big as they'd like, adding 4 playoff teams would mean 104 more of the 780 players would make more money than what they're contractually obligated to be paid. There's simply no way to dispute that. The whining is that the owners' share of a bigger pie if they were expanded would be too big - NOT that the players wouldn't be compensated. Well boo-hoo. You honestly want the players being paid the least to make more money? Try this on for size...

"The 2019 MLB minimum contract was worth $550,000, or $3,425.93 per game over a full 162-game season. That makes the Wild Card Game about four times more valuable for a player at the minimum than a regular season game."

Again, this is another case of the highest-paid players looking out for themselves and not actually being concerned about the "little guy" because...

"Nationals hurler Stephen Strasburg, who made $38.33 million in 2019, or $236,625.51 per game. The Nationals won the World Series and Strasburg’s postseason share amounted to just a little more than one game’s worth of extra pay."

(https://boardroom.tv/al-nl-wild-card-games-2021)


The same thing goes for the salary floor discussion. Owners will continue to pay higher and higher salaries for the best players available as free-agents just as they always have because they realize that will continue to generate higher revenues for their personal franchises. They've said they're willing to institute a floor, don't be stupid and pass that up. Make their concession be that that floor remains in tact AT ALL TIMES - not averaged over several years so they can dive below it while rebuilding. If teams were required to maintain a $100 million payroll, 12 of the 30 teams would have been required to raise their payrolls last season, and that would have meant those 12 teams would have had to have paid over $290 million more to fill out their rosters (using Spotrac's figures). Who gives a *amn whether that money came from profit sharing teams or not? The players on those teams would have $290 million more in their pockets. If the playoffs would have been expanded 56 more players would have received a playoff share - Milwaukee and Tampa Bay were the only playoff teams that had payrolls below $100 million.
Click to expand...

A floor that large would also up the prices for free agents across the board. More teams having to hit a minimum payroll would equal more competition for the players on the market. It seems like a no-brainer for MLBPA to accept this.

The only issue where I truly side with the owners is protection for bad guaranteed contracts. That's not an economic thought...if they're dumb enough to give a 30 year old a 12 year contract they deserve the negative impact...but merely a selfish concern as a fan of a mid-market team. I would like to see the opportunity for clubs to buy their way out of truly egregious contracts in very limited circumstances. For instance, if a player finishes in the bottom 5% of fWAR (or bWAR, any objective measure will do) in consecutive years give the team the option of buying the player out at fifty cents on the dollar, with the full amount due payable upon termination of the agreement. Also maybe consider allowing teams to only use this option once in a rolling three year period or something. This would actually increase the value of free agent contracts given out, as management would be able to limit the downside risk in the event of the absolute worst deals. Making it all payable in a lump sum would help the players due to time value of money, and would also prevent teams from using that dead money to help them meet a salary floor in upcoming years.
 
DirkPiggler said:
As long as the relative level of competition stayed the same, most of the fans would still watch.

It wouldn't be high school quality...it would basically be everyone in the minors jumping up a level, minus some of the guys on the 40 man and a few who refused to be scabs.

That's not me saying to hell with the players or siding with the owners. More so than any of the previous labor stoppages in my lifetime, I lean towards the players' side on this one. The owners have wised up with respect to overpaying aging free agents to the point where the current system is unfair to the labor side. But it's reality that most people are fans of the name on the front of the jersey more than they are the name on the back. Otherwise half this board would be moving over to DodgersCountry.com once Freeman signs with them. Honestly, if all 1200 players on 40-man rosters suddenly got raptured or just mysteriously vanished, would you stop watching the game? If you would I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.
Click to expand...



This is my thoughts as well.. as long as the competitive level is relatively even, then the step down in talent would become muted over time. So I agree fans would continue to watch and go to games. The first year would be brutal, but they would return. My problem is the owners would not lower ticket prices enough to match the decreased talent level. prices are relative to demand and that wouldn't really change over time. So owners would continue to rake in the money and we would eventually be right back at this place again.
 
DirkPiggler said:
As long as the relative level of competition stayed the same, most of the fans would still watch.

It wouldn't be high school quality...it would basically be everyone in the minors jumping up a level, minus some of the guys on the 40 man and a few who refused to be scabs.

That's not me saying to hell with the players or siding with the owners. More so than any of the previous labor stoppages in my lifetime, I lean towards the players' side on this one. The owners have wised up with respect to overpaying aging free agents to the point where the current system is unfair to the labor side. But it's reality that most people are fans of the name on the front of the jersey more than they are the name on the back. Otherwise half this board would be moving over to DodgersCountry.com once Freeman signs with them. Honestly, if all 1200 players on 40-man rosters suddenly got raptured or just mysteriously vanished, would you stop watching the game? If you would I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.
Click to expand...

This would make thethe happy. More small ball and speed guys in the majors. Back to the 80's we go.
 
DirkPiggler said:
As long as the relative level of competition stayed the same, most of the fans would still watch.

It wouldn't be high school quality...it would basically be everyone in the minors jumping up a level, minus some of the guys on the 40 man and a few who refused to be scabs.

That's not me saying to hell with the players or siding with the owners. More so than any of the previous labor stoppages in my lifetime, I lean towards the players' side on this one. The owners have wised up with respect to overpaying aging free agents to the point where the current system is unfair to the labor side. But it's reality that most people are fans of the name on the front of the jersey more than they are the name on the back. Otherwise half this board would be moving over to DodgersCountry.com once Freeman signs with them. Honestly, if all 1200 players on 40-man rosters suddenly got raptured or just mysteriously vanished, would you stop watching the game? If you would I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.
Click to expand...

First off, I don't know if I want to be a promising minor leaguer that would cross the picket lines.

As for the quality of the game itself, it would be entirely dependent on what would happen with current minor leaguers. If the product looks like independent league baseball, it's glorified townball. It's probably somewhat ironic, but if that were to happen, the serious fan would likely fall away, but there would be little effect for the casual fan. The big difference lies in the physical attributes of the players. They are a lot slower (the most noticeable thing both on the basepaths and in the field) and not as strong. It wouldn't be going back to the 1980s; it would be more like going back to the 1950s (sans consistent power hitters).
 
The core issue would be addressed if owners and players agreed to a revenue split (50/50, 55/45, etc.) that would be implemented via a salary hard cap/floor system.

It will never be accepted by players (and I can’t imagine owners would accept the degree to which the salary floor would need to be raised). But it’s the most direct way to address the “fair share” question.
 
It always amazes me how people tend to side with the business owners over the workers. It only happens in the US, and is why the wealth gap has widened so dramatically the last few decades.

Whoever has brainwashed the masses into advocating against their own best interests are the true genius puppet masters.
 
Southcack77 said:
I'm a little more than a casual, though not much more for non-Atlanta matters, and I don't really know what folks have against Manfred and probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

I don't care about the All Star game and the rule changes to me are perfectly reasonable things to explore and experiment with.
Click to expand...

It's way more than the All Star game. Just google him and peruse for a bit and you'll see why he needs to go. He was the guy who gave the pitiful response to the Astros cheating their way to a World Series. There's the infamous letter he sent to the Yankees that the Yankees are trying to keep sealed (most likely involving some wrong doing MLB has hushed up). There's the fact that the Red Sox, a golden cow team, gets a slap on the wrist for amateur violations and a slap on the wrist for sign stealing while the Braves get crippled for amateur violations.

When asked if he was going to strip the Astros of their title he said no because the World Series trophy is "just a piece of metal." Really? The head of the sport calling the sport's ultimate prize "a piece of metal?"

And I could go on about other problems with Manfred. The dude needs to go.
 
I think one thing that gets lost in this whole mess, is that injured players cannot work out at team facilities or work with team physicians....

So someone like Acuna coming back from ACL surgery or Soroka coming back from achillies surgery, cannot continue their rehab during the lockout. That is exceptionally dangerous and you'd think MLB would have made that exception
 
Enscheff said:
It always amazes me how people tend to side with the business owners over the workers. It only happens in the US, and is why the wealth gap has widened so dramatically the last few decades.

Whoever has brainwashed the masses into advocating against their own best interests are the true genius puppet masters.
Click to expand...

If you're referring (in part) to my post, I think you misunderstand it a bit. I don't really agree or advocate for either side in this mess. As others continue to point out, it's millionaires fussing with billionaires about how much they get of every dollar pried from fans that typically don't make one-tenth of the major league minimum - they can ALL kiss my *ss when it comes to this type of pettiness. My problem with the players is that they're talking out of both sides of their mouths - it's impossible to argue that expanded playoffs and a salary floor wouldn't drastically improve the finances of the players who aren't pulling down the big salaries. They say this is about getting more money for them, but clearly it's not. Just like in the rest of the world, a small percentage of the total population gets the most wealth - that wouldn't change with expanded playoffs and a salary floor. Bidding wars for the best players would continue as always - they wouldn't be adversely affected at all. I get paid more for my work than quite a few others in my profession because I'm perceived to provide what those clients are looking for at a higher level. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters here in the same situation. The "best" in every field are paid a premium - baseball wouldn't be different from my (or anyone else's) profession in the situation I described. Everyone that does what I do can expect to be paid a certain amount for their work (the "league minimum" as it were), others with better qualifications, work histories, etc. get more. Even so, there are lines my clients (the owners) won't cross regardless of the level of my performance - if they don't feel the fee I charge is worth the amount of work involved (or results they get) they simply say "we're not willing to pay that" and I either agree to do the work for a lower fee or simply don't get paid.
 
Enscheff said:
Another good writeup detailing what the players want with respect to service time and getting players paid at younger ages: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/12/collective-bargaining-issues-service-time-structure.html

Assuming Scherzer is representing the consensus: “unless this CBA completely addresses the competition (issues) and younger players getting paid, that’s the only way I’m going to put my name on it.”

So, get them money sooner, and eliminate teams tanking.

Players want "players to reach free agency after six years of service or after five years of service and 29.5 years of age", which is a fairly meaningless change. Since it's a non-starter for the owners, just drop it.

Instead, get a meaningful increase in the minimum salary, which can be compounded into higher arbitration salaries. Perhaps increase the minimum salary based on service time ($700k for rookie, additional $100k per year of service). That satisfies the goals of players getting paid sooner.

The competition issue is much more tricky. Getting teams to stop cutting payroll while rebuilding is going to be very hard, and the players may be barking up the wrong tree there.
Click to expand...

Raising the minimum is reasonable. Reducing service time for FA is reasonable. I think it's probably unfair for 32 year old guys to still have years of team control remaining and not a whole lot of give as to why that should be so. Minor issue though.

Honestly don't think it's the players business how much rebuilding teams choose to spend but some kind of minimum is theoretically going to increase money out there one way or another.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
I think one thing that gets lost in this whole mess, is that injured players cannot work out at team facilities or work with team physicians....

So someone like Acuna coming back from ACL surgery or Soroka coming back from achillies surgery, cannot continue their rehab during the lockout. That is exceptionally dangerous and you'd think MLB would have made that exception
Click to expand...

This isn’t true. Injured players are allowed to be treated at team facilities.
 
DirkPiggler said:
As long as the relative level of competition stayed the same, most of the fans would still watch.

It wouldn't be high school quality...it would basically be everyone in the minors jumping up a level, minus some of the guys on the 40 man and a few who refused to be scabs.

That's not me saying to hell with the players or siding with the owners. More so than any of the previous labor stoppages in my lifetime, I lean towards the players' side on this one. The owners have wised up with respect to overpaying aging free agents to the point where the current system is unfair to the labor side. But it's reality that most people are fans of the name on the front of the jersey more than they are the name on the back. Otherwise half this board would be moving over to DodgersCountry.com once Freeman signs with them. Honestly, if all 1200 players on 40-man rosters suddenly got raptured or just mysteriously vanished, would you stop watching the game? If you would I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.
Click to expand...

I don’t think ya’ll realize how aesthetically poor sports are without elite athletes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top