Official CBA Negotiation Thread

Hudson2 said:
It’s a sport and as players get older they decline. Why should the owners have to pay an older guy just because? Makes no sense. Sharing profits on top of paying say Scherzer 40+ million a year to is crazy to me. If you get paid a salary that both sides agree on then you shouldn’t get any extra. The player salary floor I agree should be raised so in case of injury you still get paid but I have to agree that if you’re making millions why should you get profits also?
Click to expand...

Everyone acknowledges that.

The current model is based on the idea that players get their initial salary and control of team choice held down for later rewards. That is not the case.

The players are not asking for stupid contracts. They are saying if you aren't going to pay old guys for past performance, then pay young guys for performance. Owners want it BOTH ways. They players are raising the minimum barely, and then proposing a pool of money to go to young guys that earned it. Those players are not making millions, nor did they AGREE to that contract. They are under some form of team control. So both sides did not agree unless you are calling the sides the CBA. The individual player had no say.

The owners of large amounts of capital in this country have socialized the losses and privatized the gains for a LONG time. It is stupid and it is wrong. Owners are an example of this. If you want to take in all of the profits b/c you have the risk, then buck up when the pandemic eats into your plans. If you want to socialize the losses then you should share the gains too.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I do find it funny that everyone is wanting to raise the luxury threshold when in reality most teams don’t even get to that point. So is it really the owners who are cheap or GM who learned that paying huge contracts to superstars or aging players is not wise. Now the players are mad because they want to force teams to pay more.

Seems like if MLB raised the threshold, nothing would change. Teams will still set budgets based on revenue and GMs will still negotiate deals to build the best teams to fit that budget. Then the super markets will just be able to buy more players with less penalties.

Maybe baseball should build a system where a hard ceiling is set for guaranteed salaries. But allow teams to negotiate salaries above guarantees. So FF can get a contract of 5/180 but only 120 is guaranteed. If FF gets hurt or pulls an Upton he can be released and only guaranteed portion is owed. Now players can make more and teams can be somewhat protected.
Click to expand...

Even the Yankees have cut back spending. The stat driven era has wised a lot of teams up to not giving big money to guys in their decline years.
 
How about adding a clause that when a player gets paid and then they suck that you can void the contract?

Then greatly increase compensation to young players.

The NFL facilitates high compensation for young players.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I do find it funny that everyone is wanting to raise the luxury threshold when in reality most teams don’t even get to that point. So is it really the owners who are cheap or GM who learned that paying huge contracts to superstars or aging players is not wise. Now the players are mad because they want to force teams to pay more.

Seems like if MLB raised the threshold, nothing would change. Teams will still set budgets based on revenue and GMs will still negotiate deals to build the best teams to fit that budget. Then the super markets will just be able to buy more players with less penalties.

Maybe baseball should build a system where a hard ceiling is set for guaranteed salaries. But allow teams to negotiate salaries above guarantees. So FF can get a contract of 5/180 but only 120 is guaranteed. If FF gets hurt or pulls an Upton he can be released and only guaranteed portion is owed. Now players can make more and teams can be somewhat protected.
Click to expand...

Nfl model
 
Russ2dollas said:
Everyone acknowledges that.

The current model is based on the idea that players get their initial salary and control of team choice held down for later rewards. That is not the case.

The players are not asking for stupid contracts. They are saying if you aren't going to pay old guys for past performance, then pay young guys for performance. Owners want it BOTH ways. They players are raising the minimum barely, and then proposing a pool of money to go to young guys that earned it. Those players are not making millions, nor did they AGREE to that contract. They are under some form of team control. So both sides did not agree unless you are calling the sides the CBA. The individual player had no say.

The owners of large amounts of capital in this country have socialized the losses and privatized the gains for a LONG time. It is stupid and it is wrong. Owners are an example of this. If you want to take in all of the profits b/c you have the risk, then buck up when the pandemic eats into your plans. If you want to socialize the losses then you should share the gains too.
Click to expand...

No young guys didn’t choose their contract when coming up but that’s just how it is in the beginning. You don’t know how a young guy will perform when going from the minors to the majors. A lot of big time prospects have fallen flat on their face. Let them prove they can play first before paying them their big contract.
 
thethe said:
How about adding a clause that when a player gets paid and then they suck that you can void the contract?

Then greatly increase compensation to young players.

The NFL facilitates high compensation for young players.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. If the players are so gun ho then let there be a clause where if you suck the team gets some of the money back. 1 side carries all of the risk right now after a contract is signed.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I do find it funny that everyone is wanting to raise the luxury threshold when in reality most teams don’t even get to that point. So is it really the owners who are cheap or GM who learned that paying huge contracts to superstars or aging players is not wise. Now the players are mad because they want to force teams to pay more.

Seems like if MLB raised the threshold, nothing would change. Teams will still set budgets based on revenue and GMs will still negotiate deals to build the best teams to fit that budget. Then the super markets will just be able to buy more players with less penalties.

Maybe baseball should build a system where a hard ceiling is set for guaranteed salaries. But allow teams to negotiate salaries above guarantees. So FF can get a contract of 5/180 but only 120 is guaranteed. If FF gets hurt or pulls an Upton he can be released and only guaranteed portion is owed. Now players can make more and teams can be somewhat protected.
Click to expand...

players are mad b/c the CBT is being used as a hard cap for the most part. To their credit, they didn't take some crazy line and try to get rid of it. They just want it raised and raised over time as revenues and inflation increase.

It's not the players fault that the teams make stupid decisions, do not trust each other and have widely varying goals for team performance.

The cheap owners just want more money from tax teams.

They want to ruin the regular season to expand the playoffs for 100 million. 3 million bucks a year and that's what they are lusting over.

I get that these franchise values are paper tigers. You don't get that money unless you sell. Some of these margins are closer than people like. Some of these owners are not as rich as people think. But if that is the case either run your business better or sell. If you are not rich enough to own the team, take your hundreds of millions and do something else.
 
Hudson2 said:
No young guys didn’t choose their contract when coming up but that’s just how it is in the beginning. You don’t know how a young guy will perform when going from the minors to the majors. A lot of big time prospects have fallen flat on their face. Let them prove they can play first before paying them their big contract.
Click to expand...

you are just holding water for the team.

You are mad that Free agents can underperform contracts and still get paid. But you are ok with the young guys over performing their contracts and getting under paid.

The main thing the players are fighting for is a fund to pay the young guys more, IF they are good. Only IF they are good. In a sport where you could only have your good fastball for 22-25, this is a good thing.

It is not reasonable to hold down salaries on both ends of a career. It is not reasonable to put all of the risk on the players. The players are the product. The players are the most vulnerable to their earning potential.
 
Hudson2 said:
I actually agree with this. If the players are so gun ho then let there be a clause where if you suck the team gets some of the money back. 1 side carries all of the risk right now after a contract is signed.
Click to expand...

Yup - Owners ALWAYS assume 100% of the risk.

People of a certain economic ideological spectrum never understand this....
 
thethe said:
Yup - This is the way. You get paid sooner for performance at a younger age and once you suck your future earnings go in the tank.
Click to expand...

I wish they'd go with salary cap and salary minimum. Make the teams more equal like the nfl
 
msstate7 said:
I wish they'd go with salary cap and salary minimum. Make the teams more equal like the nfl
Click to expand...

Would be a fantastic change but in reality the players at the top of the league don't care about those on the bottom.

They'll never take less to ensure the remaining player pool is fairly compensated.
 
thethe said:
Would be a fantastic change but in reality the players at the top of the league don't care about those on the bottom.

They'll never take less to ensure the remaining player pool is fairly compensated.
Click to expand...

That seems to be exactly what the players are trying to do now. This is the first time they've ever fought for players at the bottom of the pay scale. The owners figured out how to game the current system, and the players are losing their relative share of revenue as a result.

My only question for the players' side in this negotiation is this: what are they offering to give up in exchange for the changes they desire? From what I've read, which is admittedly fairly limited, they are making concessions off of their initial proposals, but aren't giving up any benefits that they currently have. I think it's pretty obvious they are getting the short end of the deal, and that the owners should be the ones to move more. But in any negotiation you have to give up something you value to get something else you want.

Some sort of limited relief for extreme non-performance on long-term contracts seems like a reasonable ask, but I haven't seen this mentioned as something the owners have proposed. If I were an owner I would be far more willing to give out a six-year big deal to Freeman, for example, if I knew that if he turned into BJ Upton or Chris Davis three years in I would have some recourse to recoup at least some of that dead money. It seems like it would inflate salaries for the bulk of the players, and for the league as a whole, if there was a mechanism for limiting the owners' downside risk.
 
Russ2dollas said:
you are just holding water for the team.

You are mad that Free agents can underperform contracts and still get paid. But you are ok with the young guys over performing their contracts and getting under paid.

The main thing the players are fighting for is a fund to pay the young guys more, IF they are good. Only IF they are good. In a sport where you could only have your good fastball for 22-25, this is a good thing.

It is not reasonable to hold down salaries on both ends of a career. It is not reasonable to put all of the risk on the players. The players are the product. The players are the most vulnerable to their earning potential.
Click to expand...

Lol ok. I’m not mad either way. Neither side makes me any money. But I own 3 large companies and know how to run a business very well. I agree younger guys get paid but not 10 million a year right out of the gate. After a year where they’ve proven themselves they should get a substantial raise. Simple.
 
msstate7 said:
I wish they'd go with salary cap and salary minimum. Make the teams more equal like the nfl
Click to expand...

I don't get the equal thing. Seems like MLB has a really competitive playoff system. There is a lot of variety in who wins and variety who gets in the playoffs.

I'm not a big salary cap person. Again, do you want capitalism or do you want socialism? I'm ok with either but I'm not ok with socialism for losses and capitalism for gains.

The advantage to a cap system is that they are typically tied to revenues. So there is a level of partnership created b/c both sides benefit from growing the pot. Right now if the pot grows, it only benefits the owners unless the owners choose to spend more. Problem with Baseball is that they hide some much of their revenues from baseball related income. MLB PA is very proud of not agreeing to a cap and I doubt that changes.
 
Hudson2 said:
Lol ok. I’m not mad either way. Neither side makes me any money. But I own 3 large companies and know how to run a business very well. I agree younger guys get paid but not 10 million a year right out of the gate. After a year where they’ve proven themselves they should get a substantial raise. Simple.
Click to expand...

What the owners are doing is a good way to run a business. Doesn't mean it's right.

I'm on same page. I'm ok with the young guys being under control and having a lower rate. I just think there has to be a way to shift the money that was being spent on Mo Vaughn in the past to Juan Soto. But the owners are not negotiating in good faith there.

To say the owners have all of the risk, that is not correct. They lost money in COVID and took the money out of the players end. There are young players in the current system that spend their entire productive careers underpaid from a WAR perspective and then get nothing on the back end.

My job has hundreds of reports to me and millions in gross revenue. It's not the same as baseball. And it's not hard. It's especially not hard if your labor is the product and you hold down the labor costs.
 
DirkPiggler said:
That seems to be exactly what the players are trying to do now. This is the first time they've ever fought for players at the bottom of the pay scale. The owners figured out how to game the current system, and the players are losing their relative share of revenue as a result.

My only question for the players' side in this negotiation is this: what are they offering to give up in exchange for the changes they desire? From what I've read, which is admittedly fairly limited, they are making concessions off of their initial proposals, but aren't giving up any benefits that they currently have. I think it's pretty obvious they are getting the short end of the deal, and that the owners should be the ones to move more. But in any negotiation you have to give up something you value to get something else you want.

Some sort of limited relief for extreme non-performance on long-term contracts seems like a reasonable ask, but I haven't seen this mentioned as something the owners have proposed. If I were an owner I would be far more willing to give out a six-year big deal to Freeman, for example, if I knew that if he turned into BJ Upton or Chris Davis three years in I would have some recourse to recoup at least some of that dead money. It seems like it would inflate salaries for the bulk of the players, and for the league as a whole, if there was a mechanism for limiting the owners' downside risk.
Click to expand...

I think if you gave the owners some sort of hedge against a bad contract then they would be willing to move on a lot of things.
 
I used to support a cap for baseball, but the older and hopefully wiser I become the more I see the error in that thinking.

The NFL and NBA systems don't incentivize being smarter than the other teams. You all have basically the same amount of money, the same level of players, etc. The teams with the best players usually win...there isn't much reward for original thinking or creativity.

There are so many different approaches that can bring success in baseball. You can load up on high priced free agents, you can build a great farm system and churn players before they hit free agency for more prospects, you can put tons of resources into the international draft, etc. It's a big part of what makes the game fun...definitely more of a thinking person's game than the other sports.
 
thethe said:
Would be a fantastic change but in reality the players at the top of the league don't care about those on the bottom.

They'll never take less to ensure the remaining player pool is fairly compensated.
Click to expand...

Also untrue.

The whole negotiation right now is about getting the lower guys more money. Max has said, he's going to get his money. He's not trying to get more money. They are trying to get more money to the younger guys.

Part of that is to put players in a better situation if they have short careers. Part of it is to make it less attractive for young players to take these team friendly extensions.

Both sides are doing a criminal disservice to the minor leagues IMO.

Your posts suggests there is a finite pool of money available to players. That is not true. That is not capitalism. If there is a finite pool that is defined by ownership.

I think the big problem both sides are missing is they have no mechanism for the middle class. Right now the system and analytics is going to move everyone to using cost controlled players and spend big on impact players. That is the best asset allocation. That squeezed out all of the middle people. I skews your game younger. I think it's better for more players and better for the game to have guys making money between 3 million and 10 million. Let those guys make money to sustain them from 30-35 years to end of life. Let more guys qualify for a pension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top